I'll be at SPSSI in Portland this week presenting our latest work on voting behavior.

Come say hi!

Across 9 experiments (+6600 participants), we explored a paradox: How do non-experts judge scientific explanations they can’t fully understand? We found that scientific jargon can increase people’s satisfaction with explanations, even though it makes them less comprehensible.
2/9

A special thanks to @tanialombrozo.bsky.social, my advisor, without whom this wouldn't be possible, for all the guidance and all she taught me!

And shout-out to my lab mates @keremoktar.bsky.social @caseylewry.bsky.social

Read more here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
9/9

🎊 New preprint 🎊 w/ Tania Lombrozo

Why do people engage in collective actions, even when they believe their actions won't make a difference?

Based on evidence from the 2024 election and a hypothetical election, we find that *moral* responsibility, not causal, drives voting

osf.io/preprints/ps...

Thanks for having me and for all the great feedback! Still thinking about the retrospective moral-causal distinction :)

Related work: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Thanks @caseylewry.bsky.social for sharing your work with us on how "Moral responsibility, not causal responsibility, drives voting: Evidence from the 2024 US presidential election".

Casey finds that people who believe that moral progress is caused by human actions were more likely to vote.

Do you want there to be more funding to do research related to climate action? 🌎

I'm working with XPRIZE to make this happen - fill out this survey so we can figure out how to help researchers like you (and enter to win a $50 gift card)

princetonsurvey.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...