Our data suggest:
💁🏻‍♀️ Less gender bias: more female-led submissions and funded projects
💸 Lower costs compared to preparing and reviewing full proposals for all submissions
✨ Satisfaction among applicants and reviewers comparable to a conventional funding allocation process

And if you're one of the coauthors, here are additional recommendations for what you can do to make the collab a bliss: doi.org/10.1371/jour...

Thanks to @tweissgerber.bsky.social, Natascha Drude, Anita Bandrowski, and Friederike Kohrs for making this project happen 🥳

Chris Hartgerink and Frederik Schulze Spüntrup, thanks for writing this piece with me!

✨ Leaner procedures could lower entry biases and reviewer load.
✨ We need more research on research funding - and evidence-based science policy that preserves academic freedom.

✨ We discuss biases and misperceptions in funding decisions.
✨ We argue that decision makers should heed existing research about reducing bias in decision making processes.

Thanks to Frederik Schulze Spüntrup for doing this project with me and to Hans Sauer Stiftung for supporting us with a grant that made this large-scale data collection possible in the first place.

Effects differed across cultures, but we found no systematic explanation for why they did (yet!).

These preferences also conditioned whether decision makers would look up others' team membership or preferred not to know if they played with an in- or outgroup member. They discriminated more if they wanted to know the other players' team membership.

✨And what about cognition?✨ Individual preferences for helping others (vs. helping oneself) made a difference for how much effort (decision time, fixations) decision makers needed to inform their choices.

✨What about discrimination?✨ We found discrimination in favor of the ingroup in every country studied. How strongly people discriminated differed between countries: Where societal uncertainty is high, people discriminated more.

While they decided, we observed their gaze using webcam-based eye-tracking. Because we collected data online and used webcams, we could reach participants from 20 countries

✨So what's the research, exactly?✨ We divided participants into teams and then asked them to make decisions about sharing money between themselves and either members of their own team (ingroup) or the other team (outgroup).

We show that people decide differently whether they want to help, depending on personal and cultural characteristics. To encourage them to help, this means different strategies could be needed for different decision makers.

✨Why should you care?✨ Many large-scale problems societies face require cooperation across social groups, across teams or across countries. Think: climate change, public health, social inequality.

✨tl;dr✨ People seem to 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 between members of their own team and others when it comes to deciding whether to help them. Both inter-individual and intercultural differences matter.

Danke euch für die super nette Woche 🥰

My take (tl;dr): We need change that goes deeper than establishing new publication outlets -- we need to change what a ➡ good publication ⬅ means.

Check out the webinar here: youtu.be/YiBV2gQGinI?...