@eddieclarke
Postdoctoral researcher - Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany. Social/political psychology. Interested in climate change responsibilisation, structural attributions, and status quo challenge. Born at 348 CO2 PPM
🔥 POSTDOC POSITIONS ON CHILDREN'S POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION 🔥
Wanna understand young people's beliefs about political leadership, politics, and power? Then this is your chance! I'm looking for two 2-year postdocs to join my ERC-funded research project @au.dk
international.au.dk/about/profil...
Now hiring at @ucddublin.bsky.social in #psychology
✅ Postdoc: search job ref 019423 here: my.corehr.com/pls/ucdrecru...
✅ 4-year fully funded PhD, details: www.ucd.ie/graduatestud...
Part of @helpingkidslab.bsky.social
Funded by @erc.europa.eu ERC Consolidator Award
www.ucd.ie/research/new...
Abstract: This piece critiques the dominant assumption in social and political psychology, as well as in political science and other disciplines, that polarization is inherently undesirable and should therefore be reduced under all circumstances. We argue that this premise reflects a neutrality bias (or depoliticizing bias) that obscures the asymmetrical nature of contemporary political conflict. We distinguish democratic polarization—agonistic contestation among actors who accept multicultural pluralism, democratic institutions and election outcomes, civil and human rights, and epistemic accountability—from anti-democratic polarization, in which conflict is strategically mobilized to delegitimize opponents, erode institutional constraints, and normalize dehumanization, scapegoating, misinformation, anti-scientific, and conspiratorial narratives as a route to political power. In a global context marked by the growing...
“Not all polarization is equivalent nor undesirable”
New preprint by Felipe Vilanova and @flavioazevedo.bsky.social:
osf.io/preprints/ps...
Glasgow Caledonian University is to cut around 100 jobs as part of £10m savings plan.
"It follows a sharp drop in international student recruitment."
#UKHE
Reflexivity and Positionality Statements in Quantitative Research
"Choices about research questions, data sources, analytical techniques, and interpretation are all influenced by researchers’ epistemological commitments, their lived experiences..."
By @maddipow.bsky.social & @scordoban.bsky.social
Online Studies Psychological Science requires that authors who use samples from online data collection include a statement in the Method section explicitly addressing their approach to preventing and detecting automated or AI-generated responses. Rationale As large language models and other generative AI tools become more accessible, the risk of data contamination by non-human respondents has increased dramatically in research. Psychological science (and the social sciences generally) is particularly susceptible to this issue given its growing reliance on online data collection. Preventing automated responses during data collection and detecting them afterward often involve methodological trade-offs. For instance, technical barriers that aim to prevent LLM use (e.g., blocking copy-pasting functionalities) may eliminate behavioral indicators needed for detection (e.g., pasting rather than typing). This policy aims to enhance transparency and reproducibility of reported results by requiring authors to articulate their approach across both prevention and detection dimensions, enabling readers and reviewers to assess the likelihood of reported data being influenced by automated responses. Scope This policy applies to any submission with at least one study that includes data collected online without direct human supervision (e.g., via crowdsourcing platforms, student participants who complete the study online, online recruitment ads, or remote survey distribution tools). Required Reporting Authors must include in the Methods section either: A statement confirming that procedures were in place to prevent and/or detect and exclude automated or AI-generated responses, including a description of those procedures (e.g., explicit participant instructions against LLM use, disabled copy–paste functionality, CAPTCHA use, IP filtering, consistency checks, attention checks, adversarial prompting) as well as the types of automated responses that these procedures are suitable …
Maybe of interest: The submission guidelines of Psychological Science now demand an explicit statement on measures taken to reduce the risk of AI-generated responses for all online studies!
www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...
A screenshot of prompting chatgpt with "how many new clusters were detected by hunt and reffert". It invents a first author for a paper that doesn't exist and returns a wrong answer (five) instead of ~2300.
I'm starting to find that papers mis-cite my own papers in really, really perplexing ways. It's quite obvious why if you just go to that one hyped up tool and ask it about your own work...
ChatGPT got my supervisor's name right but changed me to be a "William" (lol) and gave the wrong number
Reducing human value to what we can be trained to do is straight up technofascism. Every fascism has its suhumans. To technofascists, humans are the subhumans.
One of our students is conducting interviews with academic staff to learn how we navigate our academic and labour identities - I think about this a lot especially when we navigate strikes. If you work at a Scottish Uni please consider participating and please share widely!
Paper on statistical power necessary for interaction effects
doi.org/10.1177/2515...
How strong is the threat to academic freedom? If you are a publishing psychologist, please help us get a better understanding of the threats due to external pressure and self-censorship in the publication process by taking our 5-10 min anonymous survey: t1p.de/t1qof
Results will be shared here!
"This article looks briefly at exclusive systems of knowledge production. I describe how the Open Science movement that was founded to reform science often recycles the same extractive dynamics of neoliberal capitalism described by dependency theory."
magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol27-2-poli...
Postdoc Position in Social and Organisational Psychology at University of Cologne
Application deadline: 15 February 2026
More info: jobportal.uni-koeln.de/ausschreibun...
#SocialPsyc #PhDSky
0.8 FTE 2-year postdoc in social psychology and communication sciences at the University of Groningen looking at "the conversational dynamics of polarization."
Deadline: 16 February 2026
#SocialPsyc #PhDSky #AcademicSky
When survival becomes politics: Necessity activism
and identity work under precarity
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1...
Kent Psychology is hiring 🎓We have two posts: 1) open area and 2) cog neuro. More details can be found here: jobs.kent.ac.uk/vacancy.aspx... Feel free to reach out with questions!
Do personal climate actions crowd out collective action and policy support? Evidence from a longitudinal study: https://osf.io/udqxn
It must be very hard to publish null results Publication practices in the social sciences act as a filter that favors statistically significant results over null findings. While the problem of selection on significance (SoS) is well-known in theory, it has been difficult to measure its scope empirically, and it has been challenging to determine how selection varies across contexts. In this article, we use large language models to extract granular and validated data on about 100,000 articles published in over 150 political science journals from 2010 to 2024. We show that fewer than 2% of articles that rely on statistical methods report null-only findings in their abstracts, while over 90% of papers highlight significant results. To put these findings in perspective, we develop and calibrate a simple model of publication bias. Across a range of plausible assumptions, we find that statistically significant results are estimated to be one to two orders of magnitude more likely to enter the published record than null results. Leveraging metadata extracted from individual articles, we show that the pattern of strong SoS holds across subfields, journals, methods, and time periods. However, a few factors such as pre-registration and randomized experiments correlate with greater acceptance of null results. We conclude by discussing implications for the field and the potential of our new dataset for investigating other questions about political science.
I have a new paper. We look at ~all stats articles in political science post-2010 & show that 94% have abstracts that claim to reject a null. Only 2% present only null results. This is hard to explain unless the research process has a filter that only lets rejections through.
Centering the problem at the individual level is also a politically safe move for psychology. You don't risk challenging the power structures that are responsible for climate change by advocating for a psychology that works for deeper societal change. In my opinion.
There might be room for a bit of both, but if you take the perspective that humans are just cognitively limited, where do you go from there regarding solutions? It also ignores the structural level, which while limiting us in its own right, can offer an opportunity for a positive approach to change.
I strongly recommend this piece: www.researchgate.net/publication/...
‘Study after study shows that students want to develop these critical thinking skills, are not lazy, and large numbers of them would be in favor of banning ChatGPT and similar tools in universities’, says @olivia.science www.ru.nl/en/research/...
Since I've been seeing a lot of "switch to Ecosia for search they are sustainable and European" hints lately your evaluation might soon change:
Their boss explicitly wants not just to add "AI" to search but go all in on more "AI" tools.
(German article linked)
The partisans of the "center left" (aka the courtiers of Abundance) won't tell you this, or even try to account for it, but:
Taylor Rehmet, who just flipped a district in TX that Trump took by 17 points, ran on "strong unions and worker power" as well as "environmental justice."
1/3
How can elite sport become a climate leader?
Read more about the barriers and how to overcome them in our new study:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Massive news: techno-genius Elon Musk has just invented an amazing new energy technology known as a "rooftop solar panel". Sunlight hits this "panel" and it generates electricity during the day.
It's a huge bet but Musk is getting in early on this little-known technology
Awful lot of older white academics would would rather have a convicted pedophile as a friend than a lefty as a colleague
"[Epstein] was arrested in 2006 & pleaded guilty in 2008"
"Ariely & Epstein met at least 7 times from 2010-2016"
"Ariely is named 636 times in the more than 3 million additional files released"
"Neither Ariely nor Duke responded to ... requests for comment"
www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke...
Psychology Job
🔸 Assistant Professor at Maastricht University
🔸 Focus on group dynamics, in particular teams
#SocialPsyc #PsychJobs #AcademicSky
This paper highlights an ideological neglect in the scientific community’s study of trust in science. While science skepticism (e.g., science denial, anti-scientific conspiracy theories, belief in pseudoscience) has deservedly received vast attention, the opposite extreme - uncritical trust in science (scientism) - is largely overlooked. Scientism idealizes science as all-powerful, capable of establishing absolute truth and solving all problems, while simultaneously exhibiting an unwillingness to accept criticism of its limitations. Despite being notably under-researched, rare findings suggest scientistic beliefs share a similar cognitive footprint with anti-scientific beliefs, being positively related to dogmatism and negatively to cognitive reflection and general cognitive abilities. Outcomes of this uncritical trust include vulnerability to “scientific signaling”, i.e., to meaningless claims using quasi-scientific language or overestimating data value due to irrelevant illustrations or formulae. Furthermore, blind trust can lead to societal polarization, with those who uncritically trust science and scientists being prone to supporting punitive measures against science skeptics. This ideological neglect is potentially driven by scientists’ self-defensive motivations, despite recognizing its contradiction to science’s core principle of organized skepticism. An integral approach to studying trust in science is proposed, with epistemic and political implications. These suggest studying similarities between trust and distrust in science, and urging for critical engagement with science, acknowledging its entanglement with economic and political interests. Practical recommendations include thorough conceptual and empirical exploration of uncritical trust, moving beyond simplistic “trust us” messaging and ensuring scientific authority remains accountable and open to scrutiny. #PhilSci #SocialPsyc #MetaSci #AcademicSky
"There is an asymmetry in the study of trust in science: instead of examining the full spectrum from extreme distrust to extreme trust, it is heavily skewed towards the distrust end."
By Petar Lukić and @iriszez.bsky.social
doi.org/10.1007/s111...