Mark Rubin
LightNews LightNews
banner
markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin
@markrubin.bsky.social
19K followers 1.9K following 5.1K posts
social psychology ▪︎ metascience ▪︎ philosophy of science ▪︎ higher education

Professor at Durham University, UK. He/him.

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/markrubinsocialpsychresearch/

Substack: https://markrubin.substack.com/
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · Aug 22
Just published…

I argue that preregistration does not improve the transparent evaluation of the severity of hypothesis tests (a) in Popper’s approach or (b) in Mayo’s error statistical approach when preregistration is treated as “a plan, not a prison.”

Open Access: doi.org/10.1007/s112...
One justification for preregistering research hypotheses, methods, and analyses is that it improves the transparent evaluation of the severity of hypothesis tests. In this article, I consider two cases in which preregistration does not improve this evaluation. First, I argue that, although preregistration may facilitate the transparent evaluation of severity in Mayo’s error statistical philosophy of science, it does not facilitate this evaluation in Popper’s theory-centric approach. To illustrate, I show that associated concerns about Type I error rate inflation are only relevant in the error statistical approach and not in a theory-centric approach. Second, I argue that a test procedure that is preregistered but that also allows deviations in its implementation (i.e., “a plan, not a prison”) does not provide a more transparent evaluation of Mayoian severity than a non-preregistered procedure. In particular, I argue that sample-based validity-enhancing deviations cause an unknown inflation of the test procedure’s Type I error rate and, consequently, an unknown reduction in its capability to license inferences severely. I conclude that preregistration does not improve the transparent evaluation of severity (a) in Popper’s philosophy of science or (b) in Mayo’s approach when deviations are allowed.
markrubin.bsky.social
-- Bias Bias --

“Ultimately, views about the nature of bias can themselves become a bias in research on biases.”

Gerd Gigerenzer considers “Two Kinds of Bias”

🧵
Two kinds of bias - Mind & Society
I distinguish two meanings of the term bias in the social sciences. In the first, biases are functional: they are necessary, and simultaneously enable and constrain perception and cognition. In the se...
doi.org
November 11, 2025 at 3:23 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Masculinity at the cultural level has consistent negative associations with well-being."

#SocialPsyc #AcademicSky
jacasiegel.bsky.social Jaclyn A. Siegel, PhD @jacasiegel.bsky.social · 1d
Really interesting new study out in SSM: "Precarious Manhood, Precarious Nations: The Contribution of Cultural Beliefs Comprising Masculinity to National Happiness”

More national precarious manhood beliefs = less national happiness, lower national GDP, shorter life expectancy, & less social support
Precarious Manhood, Precarious Nations: The Contribution of Cultural Beliefs Comprising Masculinity to National Happiness - ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
November 10, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
seguimon1.bsky.social
#PsychSciSky #socialpsych #polisky #sociology #AcademicSky

The Handbook of Social Identity Research is arriving - check it out: www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/han...
Handbook of Social Identity Research
‘Much has been written about social identity as an explanatory theoretical framework. This Handbook is indispensable for those interested in the research methods and empirical results used to examine ...
www.e-elgar.com
November 10, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
alelazic.bsky.social
"basic scientists remain concentrated in historically prestigious institutions" 🙂
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
"Basic scientists consistently enhance scientific output quality, yet research and newly joining researchers have shifted toward applied orientations."

Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/2509.01530

#PhilSci #MetaSci #AcademicSky 🧪
Despite broad acclaim for basic research, science is undergoing an applied shift that marginalizes basic scientists. This gap reflects an incomplete understanding of their distinctive roles, which prevents translating philosophical appreciation into effective support. We introduce a scalable metric--the application score--to position research along the basic-applied spectrum and apply it to 62 million publications (1970-2023) to reveal the distinctive contributions of basic scientists. We find a structural asymmetry: involvement of basic scientists substantially increases citation impact, even more so in applied contexts, while applied scientists show no such effect in basic domains. This asymmetric effect arises from their intellectual leadership in conceptualization, writing, and experimental design, amplified in large, multidisciplinary, and intermediate career teams. Yet basic scientists remain concentrated in historically prestigious institutions, while new entrants shift toward applied work, indicating critical undersupply. These findings provide large-scale evidence for the indispensable role of basic scientists, guiding policy and institutional strategy to sustain the foundations of discovery and innovation.
November 8, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
jayvanbavel.bsky.social
I see this same pattern in psychology—there is a huge desire among early career scholars to do applied work

This is very important, but including basic science perspectives still improves the research quality
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
"Basic scientists consistently enhance scientific output quality, yet research and newly joining researchers have shifted toward applied orientations."

Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/2509.01530

#PhilSci #MetaSci #AcademicSky 🧪
Despite broad acclaim for basic research, science is undergoing an applied shift that marginalizes basic scientists. This gap reflects an incomplete understanding of their distinctive roles, which prevents translating philosophical appreciation into effective support. We introduce a scalable metric--the application score--to position research along the basic-applied spectrum and apply it to 62 million publications (1970-2023) to reveal the distinctive contributions of basic scientists. We find a structural asymmetry: involvement of basic scientists substantially increases citation impact, even more so in applied contexts, while applied scientists show no such effect in basic domains. This asymmetric effect arises from their intellectual leadership in conceptualization, writing, and experimental design, amplified in large, multidisciplinary, and intermediate career teams. Yet basic scientists remain concentrated in historically prestigious institutions, while new entrants shift toward applied work, indicating critical undersupply. These findings provide large-scale evidence for the indispensable role of basic scientists, guiding policy and institutional strategy to sustain the foundations of discovery and innovation.
November 8, 2025 at 12:25 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Basic scientists consistently enhance scientific output quality, yet research and newly joining researchers have shifted toward applied orientations."

Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/2509.01530

#PhilSci #MetaSci #AcademicSky 🧪
Despite broad acclaim for basic research, science is undergoing an applied shift that marginalizes basic scientists. This gap reflects an incomplete understanding of their distinctive roles, which prevents translating philosophical appreciation into effective support. We introduce a scalable metric--the application score--to position research along the basic-applied spectrum and apply it to 62 million publications (1970-2023) to reveal the distinctive contributions of basic scientists. We find a structural asymmetry: involvement of basic scientists substantially increases citation impact, even more so in applied contexts, while applied scientists show no such effect in basic domains. This asymmetric effect arises from their intellectual leadership in conceptualization, writing, and experimental design, amplified in large, multidisciplinary, and intermediate career teams. Yet basic scientists remain concentrated in historically prestigious institutions, while new entrants shift toward applied work, indicating critical undersupply. These findings provide large-scale evidence for the indispensable role of basic scientists, guiding policy and institutional strategy to sustain the foundations of discovery and innovation.
November 8, 2025 at 11:37 AM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
vicisshackso.bsky.social
Je reposte mais ce fil est vachement précieux, thread rassemblant des kits qui vous permettent de suivre d'un coup tout un tas de chercheurs dans un champ précis, ici y a en des tas autour de la psycho (sociale, politique, dev, cog, spé autisme, etc) :
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · Sep 15
List of psychology-related starter packs!
#Psychology #AcademicSky 🧪 🧵

Cross-Cultural Psychology and Quant Anthropology
by @drboothroyd.bsky.social
November 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
alylight.bsky.social
Very proud to have been the action editor for this one-- as I was reading it I kept thinking "I can't wait until this is published, I'm going to share this with all of my students!"
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 4d
"While ingroup evaluation may not always be positive, this does not preclude strong ingroup identification."

Open Access: doi.org/10.1080/1529...
Social identities play a crucial role in shaping how individuals interpret their position in society and navigate social interactions to serve both personal and ingroup interests. Existing social identity theorizing and research have offered only limited insights into how social identification operates among stigmatized group members, whose experiences may differ both in content and complexity from non-stigmatized group members. The present research addressed this gap by investigating the multicomponent ingroup identification model across 18 stigmatized groups in the U.S. (N = 3.969). Confirmatory factor analyses showed only an acceptable model fit for the overall sample and substantial variability in model fit and factor structure across subsamples – challenging assumptions of a universal social identification structure. Multilevel analyses revealed that between-group heterogeneity can be explained by group-level factors (socioeconomic status and group entitativity) and individual belief systems (permeability and legitimacy), aligning with core assumptions of Social Identity Theory. Our findings suggest important differences in social identification between stigmatized groups and point to both group- and individual-level determinants of social identification. We discuss the implications for existing measurement models and highlight the need for further theorizing and empirical work on social identification in the context of stigmatized identities.
November 7, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
joshuathorp.bsky.social
Love this. Why do people identify strongly with stigmatized social groups/categories? Identification is more about making sense of the self (meaning) than it is about feeling "good" about the self (esteem)
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 4d
"While ingroup evaluation may not always be positive, this does not preclude strong ingroup identification."

Open Access: doi.org/10.1080/1529...
Social identities play a crucial role in shaping how individuals interpret their position in society and navigate social interactions to serve both personal and ingroup interests. Existing social identity theorizing and research have offered only limited insights into how social identification operates among stigmatized group members, whose experiences may differ both in content and complexity from non-stigmatized group members. The present research addressed this gap by investigating the multicomponent ingroup identification model across 18 stigmatized groups in the U.S. (N = 3.969). Confirmatory factor analyses showed only an acceptable model fit for the overall sample and substantial variability in model fit and factor structure across subsamples – challenging assumptions of a universal social identification structure. Multilevel analyses revealed that between-group heterogeneity can be explained by group-level factors (socioeconomic status and group entitativity) and individual belief systems (permeability and legitimacy), aligning with core assumptions of Social Identity Theory. Our findings suggest important differences in social identification between stigmatized groups and point to both group- and individual-level determinants of social identification. We discuss the implications for existing measurement models and highlight the need for further theorizing and empirical work on social identification in the context of stigmatized identities.
November 7, 2025 at 6:20 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"While ingroup evaluation may not always be positive, this does not preclude strong ingroup identification."

Open Access: doi.org/10.1080/1529...
Social identities play a crucial role in shaping how individuals interpret their position in society and navigate social interactions to serve both personal and ingroup interests. Existing social identity theorizing and research have offered only limited insights into how social identification operates among stigmatized group members, whose experiences may differ both in content and complexity from non-stigmatized group members. The present research addressed this gap by investigating the multicomponent ingroup identification model across 18 stigmatized groups in the U.S. (N = 3.969). Confirmatory factor analyses showed only an acceptable model fit for the overall sample and substantial variability in model fit and factor structure across subsamples – challenging assumptions of a universal social identification structure. Multilevel analyses revealed that between-group heterogeneity can be explained by group-level factors (socioeconomic status and group entitativity) and individual belief systems (permeability and legitimacy), aligning with core assumptions of Social Identity Theory. Our findings suggest important differences in social identification between stigmatized groups and point to both group- and individual-level determinants of social identification. We discuss the implications for existing measurement models and highlight the need for further theorizing and empirical work on social identification in the context of stigmatized identities.
November 7, 2025 at 5:50 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
For Italian speakers...

Interview with Stefania Paolini from @durhampsych.bsky.social on the sense of belonging of multilingual communities in Australia.

#SocialPsyc
Io non mi sento australiano (ma per fortuna o purtroppo...)
Quanto ci sentiamo "a casa" in Australia? Uno studio recente ci ha offerto lo spunto per chiedere alla comunità italoaustraliana qual è il nostro senso di appartenenza alla società che ci ha accolti.
www.sbs.com.au
November 7, 2025 at 11:08 AM
markrubin.bsky.social
-- Call for Papers --

Special issue on "Intersectionality in Social Psychology: Perspectives, Methods, and Applications" in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

Abstract submission deadline: 15 December 2025
<em>British Journal of Social Psychology</em> | Wiley Online Library
<em>British Journal of Social Psychology</em> is an international journal publishing impactful basic and applied social psychological research from all parts of the world.
bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 6, 2025 at 9:03 AM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
xus9.bsky.social
www.nature.com/articles/s44...

"...Psychological interventions that decrease psychological distance or challenge system justification increase motivation to exert effort to mitigate climate change..."
Psychological interventions that decrease psychological distance or challenge system justification increase motivation to exert effort to mitigate climate change - Communications Psychology
Pro-environmental actions often require effort. Participants were less motivated to help the climate than a food charity, but two interventions removed this bias. Computational modelling linked climat...
www.nature.com
November 5, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
jayvanbavel.bsky.social
For each additional moral–emotional word in a social media post, the number of shares increases 13%

Our new meta-analysis finds robust evidence of moral contagion (N=4,821,006)

The moral contagion effect is even stronger in larger, pre-registered studies (17%).
academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/ar...
November 5, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
gordonhodsonphd.bsky.social
#AcademicSky #PsychSciSky #Metascience

Yesterday in class, I talked about HARKING (hypothesizing after results are known).

Next....

I brought a little dollar-store bow and arrow (suction cups), to do a demonstration of this idea 👇
cowboy shoots fence, then after draws bulleyes around it, to give him perfect score (that is, of course, meaningless)
November 5, 2025 at 2:54 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
“Should we aim at the best descriptive account of scientific practice, or should we strive to articulate some further normative claims?”
msuarez.bsky.social Mauricio Suárez @msuarez.bsky.social · 9d
The below link should work, but let me know if you can't get access and I'll DM you the author's copy!

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

Hearty thanks to Oscar Westerblad @oscarw.bsky.social, Chiara Ambrosio and Alexander Bird for their wonderful commentaries!
Inference and Representation by Mauricio Suárez: Reply by the Author.
www.sciencedirect.com
November 3, 2025 at 8:21 AM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Regrettably, and despite the null hypothesis being simple, elegant and often underpinned by evidenced or reasoned convictions, conventional p-value analysis can only argue against the null hypothesis, never in favour of it."
Saying ‘no’ with confidence: statistical approaches to test for the absence of an effect | Biology Letters
Publishing non-significant findings is essential for the progress of science. However, many of us forget that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ and believe that a statistically non-sign...
doi.org
November 2, 2025 at 7:55 AM
markrubin.bsky.social
"I’m actually biased in favor of the intuitive value of preregistration; but things that seem intuitively sensible can turn out to be wrong anyway. Increasingly, I’m wondering if this is one of those things."
Preregistration Isn’t the Chief Executive of Science, It’s a Small Part of the Quality Control Department
And I'm Beginnning to Think It Should Be Fired for Poor Performance
open.substack.com
November 2, 2025 at 7:35 AM
markrubin.bsky.social
“Replication is an ethnography of science, a reflection by the scientists themselves on the scientific process and the challenges of producing results, while being engaged in that very process.”

New ethnographic work by Brenninkmeijer et al.

Open Access: doi.org/10.1177/0306...

🧵
Ethnography and other empirical studies of replication played a significant role in the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) during the 1970s and 1980s. Collins and other proponents of SSK highlighted that exact replication was impossible, knowledge was often tacit and hard to explicate, and that results were always socially negotiated. We revisit these observations and compare them with our ethnography of current replication practices in psychology. We highlight the diversity of negotiations, tacit knowledge, and practices surrounding replication more generally. We also examine how replication encourages and necessitates reflection on the research process—on what should count as the same experiment and the same result, on the role of tacit knowledge (such as skill, experience, judgment, and feeling) in science, and on what replication entails and whether it is worth the effort. Researchers who conduct replications can be seen as ethnographers of their science, reflecting on the scientific process and the challenges of producing results.
November 1, 2025 at 2:01 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Should 'sisters' be doing it by themselves when it comes to gender equality initiatives? Not really, no!

"It [also] matters whether the approach is arguing for a 'we-change' or a 'she-change'.”

Open Access: doi.org/10.1111/pops...

BSky author: @shellkryan.bsky.social
While gender equality initiatives have historically been spearheaded by women, male allies' contribution is increasingly recognized—and challenged. Our article examines the pivotal yet neglected intersection of women's leadership and allyship for gender equality. Across two experiments with community samples (total N = 801), we investigate how message framing (common cause vs. women's issue; Experiment 1), intergroup/male versus intragroup/female allies (Experiments 1–2), and transformative versus tokenistic allyship (Experiment 2) affect female leaders' capacity to mobilize both men and women for gender equality. We demonstrate that common cause (vs. women's issue) messages more readily mobilize men for collective action, whereas women's mobilization remains high irrespective of message framing. We also show that a female leader supported by an intergroup/male rather than an intragroup/female ally is more likely to be seen as “one of us,” have greater influence, and be more effective at mobilizing both men and women for collective action (Experiments 1–2). Critically, men are mobilized by transformative allyship (regardless of ally gender) and disengage from both the leader and the cause in response to tokenistic allyship (Experiment 2). While male allies can be important, our results suggest that transformative allyship is essential for mobilization across gender boundaries.
October 30, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
jexpsocpsych.bsky.social
Some @theguardian.com coverage! Women use exclamation marks 3x more than men—not from extra joy, but to avoid sounding unfriendly 😬 Online, neutrality reads as hostility, so warmth is outsourced to punctuation!! BUT it boosts likability and can hurt credibility
www.theguardian.com/society/2025...
Exclamation marks! Why do women use them three times as much as men?
It’s the punctuation that can make you seem warmer and more agreeable – but also much more compliant and lacking in analytical thinking
www.theguardian.com
October 29, 2025 at 4:37 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Academic freedom supports methodological pluralism and critical debate which are the most important drivers of scientific progress. When dissent is permitted and diverse viewpoints can be openly discussed, the self-correcting mechanisms of science become more effective."

doi.org/10.1016/j.ij...

🧪
Academic freedom is a widely discussed concept recognized as a key element of the academic system. While the intrinsic value of academic freedom is widely recognised, there is limited empirical evidence demonstrating its impact on research productivity and the quality of scientific output. This study examines the relationship between academic freedom and scientific performance using a global panel dataset covering 119 countries from 1996 to 2021. Research quality was measured using two field-normalized indicators: the mean field-normalized citation rate and the proportion of a country’s publications among the top 10% of most cited papers. Linear mixed-effects models reveal that academic freedom at the country level is associated with the citation impact of future papers published by researchers from a country. These effects are robust across multiple time lags (2, 3, 4, and 5 years). The analysis also shows that the positive effect of academic freedom on citation impact is primarily evident in countries where academic freedom is already at moderate or high levels. These results reinforce the idea that academic freedom is not only a normative ideal but also a structural factor that supports high-quality science.
October 29, 2025 at 10:46 PM
Reposted by Mark Rubin
lizstokoe.bsky.social
For anyone interested in #psychology, #research assessment and evaluation, how the expert panel rated research submitted to #REF2021 - and especially the fate of #qualitative research - our article in Cogent Psychology is #OpenAccess (link in next post).

1/2
Screenshot of article title, authors, and Abstract Psychology and research assessment in the United Kingdom Matthew Inglis,Colin Foster,Hugues Lortie-Forgues,Victoria Simms & Elizabeth Stokoe Abstract What can we learn about psychology research in the UK, and its perceived quality, from examining manuscripts submitted to the psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience subpanel of the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF2021)? Using a latent Dirichlet allocation topic modelling approach, we identified 33 topics which collectively summarised the content of the journal articles returned to the subpanel. We found that the composition of submissions to the subpanel, in terms of these topics, explained a large proportion of the variance in the quality assessments they received from the expert peer review subpanel. Our model identified topics which were typically associated with receiving higher and lower unit-level quality assessments. In our discussion we pay particular attention to the fate of qualitative research, and discuss possible accounts for why units who returned a large amount of qualitative work tended to receive lower quality assessments than those who did not.
October 27, 2025 at 12:20 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Building on the conceptual fruitfulness of 'big science,' the strategy of defining a historical phenomenon by parking an adjective in front of 'science' has more recently given us small science, megascience, slow science, fast science, thrifty science, celebrity science, and...groovy science." 🧪
Adjectival science - Metascience
Metascience -
link.springer.com
October 26, 2025 at 7:57 PM