Mark Rubin
LightNews LightNews
banner
markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin
@markrubin.bsky.social
19K followers 1.9K following 5K 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
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
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
“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
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
markrubin.bsky.social
For more on Zanna’s work, see:
www.durham.ac.uk/staff/zanna-...
October 24, 2025 at 3:27 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Excellent presentation by @zannaclay.bsky.social today @durhampsych.bsky.social tracing the origins of our social minds from great apes and young children.

#Psychology #evosky #AcademicSky 🧪
As a highly social primate, humans have evolved a sophisticated set of socio-cognitive, affective and communicative abilities that enable us to navigate our social worlds. Given that such traits do not fossilise, studying our closest living relatives –the great apes – can offer us a unique window through which we can explore their evolutionary origins. In parallel, examining a system in its earlier stages of development, before its components are mature, allows us to reconstruct its foundations, understand how it is organised and how it may have evolved. Throughout my career, I have had the enormous privilege of studying the behaviour and minds of chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest ape relatives, while immersing myself in their social lives. More recently, I have extended this lens to young human children and their caregivers, including across cultures. In this inaugural lecture, I will reflect on my research journey, exploring the evolutionary and developmental origins of language, empathy and culture, and how these threads intertwine to illuminate what it means to be human.
October 24, 2025 at 3:27 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Thoughtful response by Makel et al. to concerns raised about the value of replication in qualitative research

Preprint: doi.org/10.35542/osf...
Abstract In 2022, we argued that replication is relevant to qualitative research. In this manuscript, we update and clarify that idea to make three more specific claims about replication in qualitative research: (1) it is possible, (2) it can be relevant, and (3) it can be useful. We provide practical examples and draw attention to two areas we believe need continued consideration: when to conduct a replication, jingle-jangle problems. We conclude that quantitative tools should not automatically be assumed to apply to qualitative research or forced upon qualitative researchers. However, this should not be conflated with the more extreme position—one we disagree with—that methods from quantitative research should never be applied to qualitative research. Keywords: qualitative research; direct replication, conceptual replication; replication
October 23, 2025 at 8:37 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
I liked that response too.

Also, Giudice and Gangestad's (2021) point that "multiverse-style analyses can generate analytic 'black holes': massive analyses that swallow true effects of interest."

doi.org/10.1177/2515...
By inflating the size of the analysis space, the combi- natorial explosion of unjustified specifications may, ironically, exaggerate the perceived exhaustiveness and authoritativeness of the multiverse while greatly reducing the informative fraction of the multiverse. At the same time, the size of the specification space can make it harder to inspect the results for potentially relevant findings. If unchecked, multiverse-style analyses can generate analytic “black holes”: massive analyses that swallow true effects of interest but, because of their perceived exhaus- tiveness and sheer size, trap whatever information is present in impenetrable displays and summaries.
October 21, 2025 at 4:55 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Statistical presentations should not be interpreted as what the data show but rather as what the analysts would argue the data show based on their preferred approach to the data."

Preprint: arxiv.org/pdf/2508.10168

Paywall: doi.org/10.1007/978-...
The study of associations and their causal explanations is a central research activity whose methodology varies tremendously across fields. Even within specialized subfields, comparisons across textbooks and journals reveals that the basics are subject to considerable variation and controversy. This variation is often obscured by the singular viewpoints presented within textbooks and journal guidelines, which may be deceptively written as if the norms they adopt are unchallenged. Furthermore, human limitations and the vastness within fields imply that no one can have expertise across all subfields and that interpretations will be severely constrained by the limitations of studies of human populations. The present chapter outlines an approach to statistical methods that attempts to recognize these problems from the start, rather than assume they are absent as in the claims of “statistical significance” and “confidence” ordinarily attached to statistical tests and interval estimates. It does so by grounding models and statistics in data description, and treating inferences from them as speculations based on assumptions that cannot be fully validated or checked using the analysis data.
October 17, 2025 at 5:12 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
And for more of Matt’s work, see: www.durham.ac.uk/business/our...

#AcademicSky #SocialPsyc #OrgPsyc #ForensicPsyc
October 17, 2025 at 3:12 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
For Matt’s latest article in this area, see: doi.org/10.1177/1747...
The cylinder model of interpersonal sensemaking predict that cooperation emerges in interactions where speakers are matched on motivational frames and cooperative rather than competitive in orientation (Taylor, 2002). The purpose of the current study was to provide the first evidence of a causal link between motivational frame matching and cooperation and trust in an investigative interviewing context. Over two pre-registered experiments (N = 776), participants took the role of a suspect during an interaction with an interviewer. During the interaction, the interviewer and suspect either matched motivational frames (in an instrumental, relational, or identity motivational frame) or not, in either a cooperative or competitive way. It was found that within a cooperative orientation interaction, motivational frame matching led to significantly higher willingness to cooperate and greater feelings of being understood among the participants. In contrast, within a competitive orientation interaction, motivational frame matching led to significantly less willingness to cooperate and identify with the interviewer.
October 17, 2025 at 3:12 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Interpersonal Sensemaking and Cooperation in Investigative Interviews

Really interesting presentation by Matt Sjoberg today.

Matching frames with others during interactions (e.g., matching instrumental, relational, or identity frames) leads to more positive interaction outcomes.
October 17, 2025 at 3:12 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Our findings suggest that romantic relationships may offer a unique social context for simultaneously fulfilling relatedness and autonomy needs in the moment."

New work by
@elainehoan.bsky.social
@gmacdonalduoft.bsky.social
@jessiesun.bsky.social

Open Access: doi.org/10.1177/0146...
Abstract Social interaction bolsters well-being and relatedness. However, less is known about costs of social interaction, such as loss of autonomy. Here, we test a potential autonomy–relatedness tradeoff. College student participants completed experience sampling method self-reports (N = 352, 10,046 observations) of their social interactions, feelings of social connectedness, autonomy, and positive affect in the past hour. Participants reported lower autonomy when socially interacting compared with being alone. This was especially true for people with higher levels of attachment avoidance. Crucially, interaction partner matters: Compared with being alone, people report lower autonomy when interacting with non close others, similar levels of autonomy when interacting with friends and family, and higher autonomy when interacting with romantic partners. These findings provide ecologically valid evidence for an autonomy–relatedness tradeoff during social interactions with non-close others but show that interactions with romantic partners uniquely fulfill both autonomy and relatedness needs.
October 16, 2025 at 10:00 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
As opposed to...
October 15, 2025 at 8:06 AM
markrubin.bsky.social
Durham, UK, last night
October 14, 2025 at 5:01 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Extremism at the Centre"

"Uncovering political diversity amongst midpoint responders on the left-right self-placement item"

By...
@eddieclarke.bsky.social
@fmsmallfield.bsky.social
@scicomguy.bsky.social
@srhastraea.bsky.social
@lingtax.bsky.social
@mdmarques.com
@matthewmatix.bsky.social
The midpoint of the left-right self-placement item is the most populated of all response options. While genuinely centrist responders opt to self-place there, it is also a convenient response option for those that cannot easily fit their politics to the left-right spectrum. Those with populist attitudes may also see the midpoint as an appropriate self-placement option, due to the thin-centred nature of populist ideology. In support of this, midpoint responders score similarly to the extreme ends of the spectrum on variables related to political system attitudes, including conspiracy beliefs and institutional trust, resulting in W-shaped relationships. Our research investigated the extent to which midpoint bumps exist across common political issues and political system attitudes, and whether subgroups of populist midpoint responders explain them. Using data from the Australian Election Study (N = 2179) and the American National Election Study (N = 8280), we found W- and M-shaped polynomial relationships primarily on attitudes towards the political system and toward immigrants. We then conducted Latent Profile Analyses on midpoint responders, using these items, finding at least one profile in each sample that represented a response pattern indicative of populist belief strands.
October 13, 2025 at 11:29 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Ideologists:

Republicans are more conservative than Democrats

Three Non-Ideologists:

🔹️ "Opposites" - Democratics are more conservative than Republicans

🔹️ "Uniforms" - The two parties are ideologically similar

🔹️ "Ignorants" - Have no opinion

#AcademicSky #SocialPsyc PoliPsy PoliSky PolSciData
We distinguish between ideologists and non-ideologists by comparing the rank order of their placement of two major parties on the ideology scale to the experts’ rank order. Our distinction between the two is based on the examination of the participants’ cognitive consistency (see Ganzach, 2018). The ideologists are those whose rank order corresponds to the “true” (i.e., experts’) rank order (e.g., those who say that Republicans are more conservative than Democrats). The non-ideologists included three sub-groups. The first, which we label the opposites, was described above, (e.g., those who rate the Democratic party in the US as more conservative than the Republican party). The second, which we label the uniforms, include respondents who judge the two parties as being ideologically similar, even though the experts’ judgment is that they are different (e.g., those who say that Republicans and Democrats are equally conservative). The third sub-group, which we label the ignorants, include respondents who do not have an opinion regarding the location of the parties on an ideological dimension (e.g., respondent who answered “don’t know” or “haven’t thought much about this” to the questions regarding the ideological position of the parties).
October 13, 2025 at 10:27 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Many people lack a coherent system of political beliefs (Converse, 1964). Yet, studies in social and political psychology often measure political ideology using a single-item "liberal-conservative" or "left-right" scale that assumes a coherent ideology.

doi.org/10.1007/s112...
Previous research has shown that a large part of the population lacks a coherent system of political beliefs (Converse, 1964). Yet, studies in social and political psychology often examine the relationship between ideology and political attitudes/behavior on the basis of a one-dimensional self-placement liberal-conservative or left-right ideology scale that assumes that all of the participants have a coherent ideology. In the current paper we suggest a simple method by which ‘non-ideologists’ could be identified in studies that are based on a one-dimensional ideology scales, and demonstrate that excluding them from the analysis. improves the validity of our conclusions regarding the role of ideology in political psychology. We conclude with a discussion of the pros and the cons of such exclusion.
October 13, 2025 at 10:27 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Can they all be wrong, among them possibly the brightest minds in their discipline? They are doing the opposite of representatives of a degenerative programme. They carry on. They dedicate themselves to stagnant programmes."

Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/2404.18307

#PhilSci
We propose an extension of the classical dichotomous categorization of research programmes into progress and degeneration according to Lakatos in the form of a neutral third category: the stagnant research programme. First, a critical examination of the primary literature with its often criticized definitional gaps justifies such a category. Through a generic derivation of criteria for stagnant programmes, a clear demarcation from progressive and degenerative ones is achieved. An empirical cross-check is subsequently employed for support: Both a series of examples from fundamental physics and a general analysis of today’s research landscape also suggest on an empirical level the need to go beyond the traditional Lakatosian conception. Attributing stagnation is entirely in line with Lakatos’ original intentions, which aimed not to hastily discard promising research but to exercise patience until the lifting of certain external constraints potentially enables empirical progress once again.
October 10, 2025 at 2:49 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
System justification predicts support for authoritarian governance and the Sisi regime in two samples of Egyptian adult citizens.

Thought-provoking new work by @ernugent.bsky.social

Preprint: osf.io/preprints/so...
What explains the enduring popularity of authoritarianism and authoritarian leaders? In addition to theories rooted in regime performance, propaganda, and punishment, I propose system justification, a well-established socio-cognitive motive favoring established systems and stability, as a novel explanation for authoritarian support. I theorize the relationship between system justification and political behaviors in authoritarian contexts and test this in data from two original surveys of Egyptian citizens. After validating that the system justification scale reflects needs for certainty and structure in an authoritarian political setting, I show it is strongly associated with preferences for authoritarian governance. An embedded experiment shows that security, infrastructure, and identity systemic threats mobilize high system justifiers, further increasing support for authoritarian governance. Finally, additional analyses reveal that system justification predicts attitudinal and behavioral support for a specific authoritarian regime. The findings suggest a central role for individual psychological motivation in authoritarian persistence.
October 5, 2025 at 6:32 AM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Time is experienced on an emotional level as well as a cognitive one"

"Guilt, shame, regret, and nostalgia look back to the past; pride, joy, anger, and sadness are felt in the present; and hope, anxiety, and fear look to the future."
A fourth point is that time is experienced on an emotional level as well as a cognitive one: experiences of the past, present, and future are associated with distinct emotions, and these emotions are associated with trajectories that link the past to the future via the present (e.g. Gautam et al., ; Miloyan et al., ; Thomas et al., ). Guilt, shame, regret, and nostalgia look back to the past; pride, joy, anger, and sadness are felt in the present; and hope, anxiety, and fear look to the future. These emotions matter, shaping the well-being consequences of experiences and the trajectories of actions.
October 2, 2025 at 10:15 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Pleasure! May also be relevant to Perspectival Realism @michelamassimi.bsky.social

#PhilSci

global.oup.com/academic/pro...
October 1, 2025 at 5:35 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
"Re-imagining science and knowledge as pluriversal can expand the prevailing limited theoretical perspectives in social and personality psychology."

Introduction to PSPR Special Issue

@jadler.bsky.social
Since the inception of scientific psychology in the 19th century, the lead in conceptualizing scientific phenomena has been taken by scholars in Western contexts (North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand), who comprise only 11% of the world’s population. Today, the science and practice of psychology continue to be dominated by Western theoretical perspectives. Recognizing the necessity for inclusive excellence in the field and the barriers that Majority World scholars face in joining the global knowledge economy, Personality and Social Psychology Review (PSPR) has taken several steps toward global inclusion. To further realize this goal, this Special Issue brings together nine contributions that reflect personality and social psychological theory rooted in diverse Majority World contexts, specifically stemming from African, Latin American, Middle Eastern, East and South Asian, and Indigenous American scholars. The contributions reflect several cross-cutting themes: the deeply historical contexts in which personality and social psychological phenomena play out in different geographies today; the important particularities of widely studied concepts in specific local contexts; and the dynamic interplay between individual people and the specificity of their social contexts. By curating indigenous concepts and theories, we aim to further catalyze dialogue across cultural distances in the field and to demonstrate how a decolonized editorial process can help promote inclusive science to improve the dominant perspectives in personality and social psychology.
October 1, 2025 at 5:16 PM
markrubin.bsky.social
Great talk today by Ben Jones on scapegoating @durhampsych.bsky.social

Crisis events that threaten an ingroup's identity can lead it to scapegoat a minority outgroup.

For more, see openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/735b70...

#SocialPsyc
September 30, 2025 at 9:36 PM