In a study of naturally occurring ostracism experiences: After experiencing ostracism, people initially prioritize withdrawal and prosocial coping responses. Prosocial responses increase overtime. Anti-social responses were relatively rare
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...
PhD position in social psychology / org psychology in the Netherlands 🇳🇱 apply by 19th!
🚨 PhD opportunity!
Join our team in beautiful Maastricht 🇳🇱 for a fully funded 4-year position on the psychological impact of algorithmic management.
Supervisors: Rosin Rutten, Dongning Ren & Philippe Verduyn
🗓️ Apply by June 19
🔗 vacancies.maastrichtuniversity.nl/job/Maastric...
Sounds like another 10 to me!
@maastrichtu.bsky.social
The issue? Selection bias. Winners are a nonrepresentative subset of the applicant pool, and failing to account for this can distort our understanding of inequality. In the paper, we use causal inference tools to illustrate this bias and offer strategies to address it.
While it might seem intuitive to compare the proportion of women vs. men among recipients, this approach can lead to misleading conclusions (e.g., underestimating disparities).
So, what is our paper about? The core idea is simple: When quantifying group-based disparities—such as the gender gap in receiving prestigious grants—we can’t just examine the winners.
A huge thank you as well to our reviewers and editor, Dave Sbarra @dsbarra.bsky.social , for seeing the potential in our work and helping us refine it into something stronger and more accessible.
Before diving into the paper, I want to express my deep gratitude to Cathy Johnson and Karen Hegtvedt—two incredible sociologists whose work inspired us to pursue this project.
My coauthor, Wen Wei Loh, and I had the pleasure to talk with Özge Fischer-Baum about our work in a new episode of #UndertheCortex, the podcast of APS @psychscience.bsky.social
I don’t post here often, but today, I wanted to share a paper I truly enjoyed working on, which was recently published in one of my favorite journals, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
Welcome! 🤗
Had so much fun working on this paper with @chrbuettner.bsky.social & a team of brilliant collaborators!
🔍 Join SPSP's Reviewer & Editor Network! Help shape psychology journals and build pathways to editorial leadership. Add your expertise to our growing scholarly community and make an impact.
Learn more add your profile: ow.ly/NyzB50Upa8a
Thanks for doing this! Could you add me please?
Amazing work. Love it!
As someone who often uses self-reports and has found that they work pretty well for what we want, this is a refreshing perspective pointing out that they work and they work better than the oft-cited alternatives.
Higher education has a strong relationship with wage theft, which has been examined throughout years of research, reports, and government enquiries. This paper examines the practices of wage theft that often surround academic promotions, and specifically, the common requirement that someone must already be working at the level for which they are hoping to be promoted. The work uses Australia’s higher education sector as an example, as Australia’s employment and promotion conditions are similar in many aspects to other higher education sectors. The paper provides an analysis of the promotion expectations to which academics are subjected to understand what tasks academics are expected to complete, and for how long, without being paid, before they can apply for promotion. The paper demonstrates to academics, policymakers, and unions, yet another exploitative practice that must be monitored and removed from the modern university as the sector looks to engage more equitable practices.
New paper on "the practices of wage theft that often surround academic promotions, and specifically, the common requirement that someone must already be working at the level for which they are hoping to be promoted"
BSky author @troyheff.bsky.social
doi.org/10.1080/0729...
#AcademicSky #HigherEd
Remote work can't solve the childcare crisis. Treating it as the solution risks forcing parents (especially moms) to be full-time caregivers while also working for pay full-time. And it risks gaslighting parents (especially moms) if they can't manage that impossible task.
The average Nobel laureate grew up in an 87–90th percentile household.
Access to opportunity doubled from 1901–2023, but remains highly unequal.
Barriers are higher for women, but lower for Americans.
cepr.org/publications...
More evidence that underrepresented groups face considerable bias in P&T decisions/outcomes
Universities, surely we (of all types of organizations) can do better!
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
#AcademicSky #PrejudiceResearch
Hi Bluesky🌍!
I’m newly on the job market and seeking a PhD in social psychology. I’d love to connect with potential supervisors or collaborators!
Feel free to check out my research card below!
#PhDSearch #SocialPsychology #Research
It's OUT! 🥳 My first (shared) first author paper with @kimdoell.bsky.social , @madalina.bsky.social , @jayvanbavel.bsky.social and 254 amazing collaborators is published 🌍
Hope our dataset would be useful to many! Cant way to see the research that will come from it 🤩
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Love it. I feel the same 😶🌫️
I gave a 2-hour workshop on Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis in lavaan for the Psych #rstats Club. the recording is available here: youtu.be/YrxvV8zlNLY?... Supported by @improvingpsych.org!
If you're going to be teaching open science to undergraduates this year, check out our course and free resources on @forrt.bsky.social
forrt.org/educators-co... #openScience
I agree. It selects for the most common approach to asking questions in social psych and assumes the most commonly assumed problems, goals, constraints and affordances.
What’s fascinating is that a field questioning its rigor managed to redefine rigor as science that resembles the same field.