@cconrymurray
Associate Director of the Gender Equity Unit, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University; Past president of SIPS. The views and opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of Johns Hopkins University.
Sheffield Hallam’s new plan to save cash:
🔸 All teaching-focused staff to be employed by a subsidiary firm
🔸 All non-REF staff to be moved to a pension scheme with a lower employer contributions
#UKHE
So apparently grammarly stole my fuckin identity
They can't hear you, Lindsey. They're dead.
😱🤯 -- Just looked up the cost to go gold open access at Nature Eco Evo: US$12850! That's $21,600 NZD. That's the same cost as a Royal Society Master's Scholarship!
This has gone too far. Absolutely bonkers.
📃 Call for Papers 📃
“Current and New Directions in Cross-Cultural Gender Research in Psychology”
Abstracts due: 01 May 2026
#SocialPsyc #AcademicSky #PhDSky
I was interviewed by Oakleigh Wilson of @sortee.bsky.social about why our scholarly publishing system is the way it is and how to fix it. Thanks to Oak for doing a LOT of "editing for clarity"! 🤣 sortee.org/blog/2026/03...
An illustration of how authorship ordering methods differ in focus using a hypothetical example of contributions to a research study from a multi-authorship team (a). Integrating the Academic Wheel of Privilege (AWoP) in authorship order decisions into the CRediT framework (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) is more equitable than contributorship focused methods like alphabetisation (b) or randomisation (c). The AWoP considers both contributions of authors and redresses imbalances of academic privilege (d). e) shows what a solely equity-focused authorship order would look like, where authors are positioned with increasing privilege along the author list based on AWoP scores shown in (a).
Authorship in academia often decides who is hired, funded or celebrated. Current authorship order methods like randomised or alphabet author lists are not equitable.
This has been many years in the making. We wanted to do it right—not simply get it done.
Our goal was to contribute, however modestly, to an academia that genuinely strives for inclusivity.
May the AWoP—small as the step may be—help move academia toward greater inclusion. 🤝🫂🌈🍉🏳️⚧️✊⚖️♿🦮🌐
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...
Thompson's is the best black tea 🍵 I've had so far. Any other brands I should try?
The political effects of X's feed algorithm https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2 Received: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 4 January 2026 Published online: 18 February 2026 Open access • Check for updates Germain Gauthier,5, Roland Hodler?5, Philine Widmer35 & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya3,4,5 m Feed algorithms are widely suspected to influence political attitudes. However, previous evidence from switching off the algorithm on Meta platforms found no political effects'. Here we present results from a 2023 field experiment on Elon Musk's platform X shedding light on this puzzle. We assigned active US-based users randomly to either an algorithmic or a chronological feed for 7 weeks, measuring political attitudes and online behaviour. Switching from a chronological to an algorithmic feed increased engagement and shifted political opinion towards more conservative positions, particularly regarding policy priorities, perceptions of criminal investigations into Donald Trump and views on the war in Ukraine. In contrast, switching from the algorithmic to the chronological feed had no comparable effects. Neither switching the algorithm on nor switching it off significantly affected affective polarization or self-reported partisanship. To investigate the mechanism, we analysed users' feed content and behaviour. We found that the algorithm promotes conservative content and demotes posts by traditional media. Exposure to algorithmic content leads users to follow conservative political activist accounts, which they continue to follow even after switching off the algorithm, helping explain the asymmetry in effects. These results suggest that initial exposure to X's algorithm has persistent effects on users' current political attitudes and account-following behaviour, even in the absence of a detectable effect on partisanship.
A new paper shows that less than 2 months of exposure to Twitter’s algorithmic feed significantly shifts people’s political views to the right.
Moving from chronological feed to the algorithmic feed also increases engagement.
This is one of the most concerning papers I’ve read in awhile.
An NPR investigation finds the public database of Epstein files is missing dozens of pages related to sexual abuse accusations against President Trump. n.pr/4qTItsU
Context is that Trump was caught on video inviting the men’s team and then saying “you know, I’m going to have to invite the women’s team too.” A bunch of the male players thought that was hilarious.
A lunch full of my favorite veggies: salsa, tomatoes, avocados and olives over refried beans. These are all veggies, right?
Yes, makes sense! Bad review either way.
The Health Psychology Group @univie.ac.at is hiring! We are looking for a postdoctoral researcher to join our team from 1 May 2026. Full-time position for 3 years and 8 months. Applications close 10 February 2026.
More information: jobs.univie.ac.at/job/Universi...
#HealthPsych #BehSci #SciComm
Maybe they left off the word "no" and also didn't read the limitations section?
Is Thompson's the best tea or just the strongest tea? @drewcm.bsky.social
Tomorrow is a general strike in the U.S. to protest ICE. Try not to buy anything and skip work or school if you can.
Changing Norms Following the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: The Trump Effect on Prejudice Redux Samuel E. Arnold, Jenniffer Wong Chavez, Kelly S. Swanson, and Christian S. Crandall Abstract Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election of Donald Trump, prejudice toward groups targeted during his campaign (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexicans) become more acceptable. By contrast, both Trump and Clinton voters reported less prejudice of their own. We conducted a 2024 conceptual replication, measuring perceived norms of prejudice and own-prejudice toward 128 groups, both before (N = 362) and after (N = 261) the U.S. election. We separately measured the negativity of Trump's campaign rhetoric toward these groups (N = 188). Levels of prejudice and perceived norms of prejudice acceptability were mostly stable pre-/post-election, but Trump's negative rhetoric predicted an increase in perceived acceptability of prejudice among targeted groups (replicating the 2016 results), and a rise in selt-reported prejudice in the same groups post-election (reversing the 2016 results). Despite changes in the sociopolitical context between elections, the election of a leading politician who campaigned on prejudice was again associated with increases in the acceptability of prejudice.
Did Trump’s 2024 re-election make it okay to be openly prejudiced? New work from @chriscrandall.bsky.social suggests it did. The more negatively Trump spoke about a group, the more okay it became to express prejudice (and the more prejudiced people were) towards that group after the election.
Did you miss the Early Bird Registration Deadline for the virtual SIPS@SPSP 2026: “Improving Open Science Resources for Social-Personality Psychology?”
Don't worry, you can still register at the normal rate!
Don't miss the opportunity to join an exciting online meeting!
buff.ly/kCs7HiI
I don’t want to hear anything from an elected official unless it’s a plan to defund the DHS and impeach Noem, Bovino, etc. No texts. No emails. No talk about the economy. Step up or step off.
The NIH has lost its scientific integrity. So we left www.statnews.com/2026/01/10/n... via @statnews.com
I would love to see a lot more of this.
I like this advice. Switching to it in my mentoring and life more generally.
www.library.hbs.edu/working-know...
So sweet! ❤️
