Stefan Pfattheicher
LightNews LightNews
stepf.bsky.social
Stefan Pfattheicher
@stepf.bsky.social
250 followers 290 following 29 posts
Here to share The Transparent and Open Science Game: https://osf.io/t9ngd/

boredom | empathy | pro- and antisocial behavior and traits | pasta | Aarhus University
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
versteegenluca.bsky.social
The only positive news about this paper is that this development may incentive social scientist to go out and talk to people again
joshmccrain.bsky.social Josh McCrain @joshmccrain.bsky.social · 4d
new paper by Sean Westwood:

With current technology, it is impossible to tell whether survey respondents are real or bots. Among other things, makes it easy for bad actors to manipulate outcomes. No good news here for the future of online-based survey research
November 18, 2025 at 7:54 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
jnfrltackett.bsky.social
Y'all. N>3,800. !!!!!!!

Goodness gracious.
psyarxivbot.bsky.social PsyArXivBot @psyarxivbot.bsky.social · 10d
When do interaction/moderation effects stabilize in linear regression?: https://osf.io/35t84
November 12, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
jdmiller.bsky.social
In our rejoinder, we argue 1) Dark terminology isn't used responsibly as BL et al. claim, 2) the term can be replaced with a more sensible and scientific one, 3) data support our position (Stanton et al., 2025), and 4) popularity ≠ importance. @davidchester.bsky.social @drlynam.bsky.social
psyarxivbot.bsky.social PsyArXivBot @psyarxivbot.bsky.social · 5d
The 'Dark Triad' may be popular, but more importantly, it is irresponsible, moralizing, trivializing, and ultimately, replaceable: A rejoinder to Borraz-Leon, Rantala, and Jonason (2025): https://osf.io/u86th
November 17, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
celbaek.bsky.social
Proud to have signed letter from 600+ economists & inequality experts from 70 countries supporting the call for a new Independent Panel on Inequality- an Inequality IPCC- to tackle the inequality emergency- G20 leaders must support this. #G20SouthAfrica
www.independent.co.uk/news/south-a...
Top economists call on world leaders to set up an international panel on inequality
Hundreds of top economists and other experts including former U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen are calling for the world to set up an independent international panel on income and wealth inequalit...
www.independent.co.uk
November 15, 2025 at 11:40 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
casperalbers.nl
Doing non-causal inference (and being explicit about it), yet using a causal word as second word in the title.

If you pay Nature € 10.690, they will publish this in Nature Ageing.

I can tell you what I think of that for free.

www.nature.com/articles/s43...
screenshot from the paper, stating that no causal claims (like they did in the title) should be made. paper title
November 11, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
hudde.bsky.social
📊 now in English @fesonline.bsky.social:
Gender gap in voting behavior in Germany📊

It's about the “big picture” since 1953 & current trends 2021-2025.

The gender gap keeps growing, especially among the young.

-> Longer trends are continuing & partly accelerating.

library.fes.de/pdf-files/a-...
November 3, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
watershedlab.bsky.social
Who did this?!
A joke scientific paper with the title "Over 90% of children diagnosed with autism consumed breast milk and/or formula mileL a comprehensive cross-sectional analysis of the obvious"
November 1, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
calvinklai.bsky.social
We read the (in)famous Bem Feeling the Future JPSP paper for a "spooky" Halloween lab meeting and it was fabulous!! I couldn't get over the wild methodological issue where they type of psychic power he founded depended on what random number generator Bem used 😂
October 31, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
lcjacobs89.bsky.social
Now out in Party Politics 🎉

Our study (@jbpilet.bsky.social)suggests that when a mainstream right-wing party signals willingness to rule with the radical right, support for the radical right rises — while the mainstream gains nothing.
👉 A legitimisation effect.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
October 24, 2025 at 7:38 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
Gambetta & Origgi on the LL Game, in which agents prefer to deliver and receive (!) low quality.

This paper is absolutely savage but also feels uncomfortably relevant to parts of academia outside of Italy 👀

diegogambetta.org/wp-content/u...
Abstract We investigate a phenomenon which we have experienced as common when dealing with an assortment of Italian public and private institutions: people promise to exchange high-quality goods and services, but then something goes wrong and the quality delivered is lower than had been promised. While this is perceived as ‘cheating’ by outsiders, insiders seem not only to adapt to, but to rely on this outcome. They do not resent low-quality exchanges; in fact, they seem to resent high-quality ones, and are inclined to put pressure on or avoid dealing with agents who deliver high quality. The equilibrium among low-quality producers relies on an unusual preference ranking which differs from that associated with the Prisoners’ Dilemma and similar games, whereby self-interested rational agents prefer to dish out low quality in exchange for high quality. While equally ‘lazy’, agents in our low-quality worlds are oddly ‘pro-social’: for the advantage of maximizing their raw self-interest, they prefer to receive low-quality goods and services, provided that they too can in exchange deliver low quality without embarrassment. They develop a set of oblique social norms to sustain their preferred equilibrium when threatened by the intrusion of high quality. We argue that high-quality collective outcomes are endangered not only by self-interested individual defectors, but by ‘cartels’ of mutually satisfied mediocrities.
October 16, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
aufdroeseler.bsky.social
ReplicationResearch.org is now open for submissions!

Submit replications and reproductions from many different fields, as well as conceptual contributions. With diamond OA, open and citable peer review reports, and reproducibility checks, we push the boundaries of open and fair publishing.
October 10, 2025 at 6:12 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
tsrauf.bsky.social
Life satisfaction mostly declines with age. Previous findings (esp. the famous U-shaped age-SWB trajectory) were artifacts of misspecified models. doi.org/10.1093/esr/...
September 29, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
malte.the100.ci
Meta
September 29, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
wanjawolff.bsky.social
What a cool format! 🎓

I had a great time as the opponent at Thekla Müller-Boysen’s PhD defense @au.dk. It was a strong defense and made for a fun discussion on boredom & its interpersonal consequences.

Huge thanks to @stepf.bsky.social & team for the invite 🙏
September 21, 2025 at 7:51 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
mfratzscher.bsky.social
Mehr #Chancengleichheit —

Die soziale Mobilität im Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich gering und weiter stark gesunken. Das ist ungerecht, bremst die Wirtschaft und gefährdet die Demokratie.

#Generationenvertrag

Meine Kolumne bei Die Zeit:

www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2...
Soziale Mobilität: Mehr Chancengleichheit – das sind wir der jungen Generation schuldig
Wer etwas werden will, hat in Deutschland auffällig schlechte Aussichten. Das ist ungerecht, bremst die Wirtschaft und gefährdet die Demokratie. Das muss sich ändern.
www.zeit.de
September 20, 2025 at 7:48 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
minzlicht.bsky.social
Major new paper by finds implicit measures like the IAT are no better than asking people directly about their biases. After decades of avoiding self-reports, turns out our sophisticated replacement tools work no better than what we abandoned. New post!
The Great Implicit Bias Bamboozle
Where were you when you first learned about implicit bias?
open.substack.com
September 10, 2025 at 12:46 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
conradhackett.bsky.social
Quick, which decade had the best movies, music, TV & fashion?

Americans don't agree on the decade. But they often say it was a decade they experienced as a school aged kid. For example, the best fashion & music happened in their teenage years.
Do you agree?
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
Chart showing that the most common decade people report as the time when various aspects of society peaked was a decade in which they were of school age.
September 7, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
koenfucius.bsky.social
Research by @sergiopirla.bsky.social et al (N=60k across 30 countries) suggests a robust negative association between daily experiences of boredom and income; in lower income individuals, boredom is also more closely linked with sadness, worry and anxiety:

buff.ly/S1ez2xo
September 7, 2025 at 8:18 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
gabrielzucman.bsky.social
An international call for action just got louder:

Today, 7 Nobel Laureates have issued a powerful call for a minimum tax on the ultra-wealthy in Le Monde

Here’s a quick breakdown of the debate—and where things stand globally

🧵

www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/a...
Tax on ultra-rich: 'France has the opportunity to lead the way,' say Nobel Prize-winning economists
OP-ED. As public deficits balloon and extreme wealth explode, creating a minimum tax on the assets of billionaires should be a priority, argue seven Nobel Prize-winning economists in an op-ed for Le M...
www.lemonde.fr
July 7, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
sergiopirla.bsky.social
New paper out in JESP with Thekla Müller-Boysen and @stepf.bsky.social

We used three modified versions of the dictator game to test whether boredom impacts social preferences (N = 3500).

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
On the relation between boredom and social behavior: A registered report
Boredom plays an essential role in everyday life and is a powerful motivator. This registered report investigated the interpersonal consequences of bo…
www.sciencedirect.com
September 1, 2025 at 11:29 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
lakens.bsky.social
An abbreviation (ABB) in a journal article (JA) or Grant Application (GA) is rarely worth the words it saves. Every ABB requires cognitive resources (CR) and at my age by the time I'm halfway through a JA or GA I no longer have the CR to remember what your ABB stood for.
August 15, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
alexh.bsky.social
Support scholar-controlled diamond open access journals. See freejournals.org, DOAJ, the new European Diamond Capacity Hub, & the Open Journals Collective. A lot is happening in this space!
open.lnu.se/index.php/me...
@metaror.bsky.social
en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJou... nbdt.scholasticahq.com
August 11, 2025 at 8:05 AM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
jpube.bsky.social
Just published in @jpube.bsky.social:

"Parenthood and the gender gap in commuting"

By Aline Bütikofer, René Karadakic, & Alexander Willén

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

#econsky #publiceconomics #gendergap
July 24, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Reposted by Stefan Pfattheicher
anatoliab.bsky.social
🧵1/
🚨 New article out!
How robust is the psychology of social class?
Together with Nicolas Sommet and ‪@frederiqueautin.bsky.social‬, we conducted large-scale replications of 35 hypotheses across four countries.
Published in Nature Human Behaviour:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
July 16, 2025 at 1:10 PM