Mark Rubin
LightNews LightNews
banner
markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin
@markrubin.bsky.social
20K followers 1.9K following 5.3K 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/ .. more

Videos
Psychology 30%
Sociology 18%
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
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 6h
They don't mention it explicitly, but I'm sure they'd also welcome philosophical takes on those issues. Maybe get in touch with them if in doubt.

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 21h
"Even something as apparently mundane as moving an experiment from one floor of a building to another can cause researchers to struggle to reproduce their own results."
clanicholson.bsky.social Craig Nicholson @clanicholson.bsky.social · 1d
Free to read: Fears about a reproducibility crisis in science are ‘a little bit exaggerated’, suggests European Research Council president

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-worl...

Reposted by Mark Rubin

clanicholson.bsky.social
Craig Nicholson @clanicholson.bsky.social · 1d
Free to read: Fears about a reproducibility crisis in science are ‘a little bit exaggerated’, suggests European Research Council president

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-worl...

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 1d
One in a million chances are happening to us all the time; they're just not ones we care about!

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 1d
Interesting stuff!

"Empirical scientific reports are about characterizing effects, not about describing the abilities of scientists. A bias that influences the former is a serious problem, but a bias that influences the latter is mostly irrelevant."

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 1d
#SocialPsyc #PsycSci #AcademicSky #Methodology
maddipow.bsky.social Dr Madeleine Pownall @maddipow.bsky.social · 2d
New CfP in Qualitative Research in Psychology:

🔮 "The Future of Rigorous Qualitative Research"

We're inviting papers that address the big question: What does the *future* of good, quality, rigorous qual research look like?

📄 Deadline Sept 2026
💬 Happy to answer Qs
docs.google.com/document/d/1...
Call for Papers: The Future of Rigorous Qualitative Research
Call for Papers for Special Issue of Qualitative Research in Psychology The Future of Rigorous Qualitative Research Special Issue Guest Editors: Dr Madeleine Pownall, Dr Nicki Lisa Cole, Dr Annayah ...
docs.google.com

Reposted by Mark Rubin, Kevin McManus

maddipow.bsky.social
Dr Madeleine Pownall @maddipow.bsky.social · 2d
New CfP in Qualitative Research in Psychology:

🔮 "The Future of Rigorous Qualitative Research"

We're inviting papers that address the big question: What does the *future* of good, quality, rigorous qual research look like?

📄 Deadline Sept 2026
💬 Happy to answer Qs
docs.google.com/document/d/1...
Call for Papers: The Future of Rigorous Qualitative Research
Call for Papers for Special Issue of Qualitative Research in Psychology The Future of Rigorous Qualitative Research Special Issue Guest Editors: Dr Madeleine Pownall, Dr Nicki Lisa Cole, Dr Annayah ...
docs.google.com

Reposted by Mark Rubin

Andrew Gelman et al. @statmodeling.bsky.social · 2d
What, a coincidence? What a coincidence!
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/01/21/w...
What, a coincidence? What a coincidence! | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Reposted by Mark Rubin, Eric Hehman

gordonhodsonphd.bsky.social
Gordon Hodson @gordonhodsonphd.bsky.social · 2d
#AcademicSky #PrejudiceResearch

New paper out by Paolini et al. on habit-ruptures in intergroup contact

www.nature.com/articles/s44...

(If you like that, our also team has a related paper in press at American Psychologist, led by Rose Meleady)
psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-...
Towards a habit-rupture model of intergroup contact in everyday settings - Nature Reviews Psychology
The literature assumes that intergroup contact is naturally occurring, positive and consistently associated with positive outcomes, but these premises are inconsistent with everyday intergroup contact...
www.nature.com

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 2d
#SocialPsyc

Reposted by Gordon Hodson

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 2d
EASP Correction

"Our statement indicating that 'the Association could only rely on hearsay and did not have any evidence for the misconduct' was inaccurate. We would like to sincerely apologize for this error and, in particular for our use of the word 'hearsay', which came across as dismissive."

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 2d
See also...
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 13d
Including teaching on critical thinking….

doi.org/10.1016/j.je...
Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation At a time when pseudoscience threatens the survival of communities, understanding this vulnerability, and how to reduce it, is paramount. Four preregistered experiments (N = 532, N = 472, N = 605, N = 382) with online U.S. samples introduced false claims concerning a (fictional) virus created as a bioweapon, mirroring conspiracy theories about COVID-19, and carcinogenic effects of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). We identify two critical determinants of vulnerability to pseudoscience. First, participants who trust science are more likely to believe and disseminate false claims that contain scientific references than false claims that do not. Second, reminding participants of the value of critical evaluation reduces belief in false claims, whereas reminders of the value of trusting science do not. We conclude that trust in science, although desirable in many ways, makes people vulnerable to pseudoscience. These findings have implications for science broadly and the application of psychological science to curbing misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 2d
"There is an asymmetry in the study of trust in science: instead of examining the full spectrum from extreme distrust to extreme trust, it is heavily skewed towards the distrust end."

By Petar Lukić and @iriszez.bsky.social

doi.org/10.1007/s111...
This paper highlights an ideological neglect in the scientific community’s study of trust in science. While science skepticism (e.g., science denial, anti-scientific conspiracy theories, belief in pseudoscience) has deservedly received vast attention, the opposite extreme - uncritical trust in science (scientism) - is largely overlooked. Scientism idealizes science as all-powerful, capable of establishing absolute truth and solving all problems, while simultaneously exhibiting an unwillingness to accept criticism of its limitations. Despite being notably under-researched, rare findings suggest scientistic beliefs share a similar cognitive footprint with anti-scientific beliefs, being positively related to dogmatism and negatively to cognitive reflection and general cognitive abilities. Outcomes of this uncritical trust include vulnerability to “scientific signaling”, i.e., to meaningless claims using quasi-scientific language or overestimating data value due to irrelevant illustrations or formulae. Furthermore, blind trust can lead to societal polarization, with those who uncritically trust science and scientists being prone to supporting punitive measures against science skeptics. This ideological neglect is potentially driven by scientists’ self-defensive motivations, despite recognizing its contradiction to science’s core principle of organized skepticism. An integral approach to studying trust in science is proposed, with epistemic and political implications. These suggest studying similarities between trust and distrust in science, and urging for critical engagement with science, acknowledging its entanglement with economic and political interests. Practical recommendations include thorough conceptual and empirical exploration of uncritical trust, moving beyond simplistic “trust us” messaging and ensuring scientific authority remains accountable and open to scrutiny. #PhilSci #SocialPsyc #MetaSci #AcademicSky

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
Paolini, Dixon, Kotzur, Friehs, Bracegirdle, Lauterbach, Köbrich, Graf, Kauff, Stefaniak, Wright, Barlow, Luebbering, & Harwood (2026). Towards a habit-rupture model of intergroup contact in everyday settings. Nature Reviews Psychology.

#SocialPsyc #AcademicSky 🧪
Towards a habit-rupture model of intergroup contact in everyday settings - Nature Reviews Psychology
The literature assumes that intergroup contact is naturally occurring, positive and consistently associated with positive outcomes, but these premises are inconsistent with everyday intergroup contact...
doi.org

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
Drawing inspiration from Allport’s classic intergroup contact theory, Paolini et al. introduce contact rupture — moments when habits are disrupted.

Lifespan and macro-level ruptures reveal when and how contact can drive change and social cohesion.

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
“Intergroup contact habit” helps to explain why contact often fails to produce positive societal outcomes. Many people live inside “contact bubbles”:

🔹 stable avoidance + persistent prejudice

🔹 or stable engagement + positive attitudes.

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
New work by Stefania Paolini & Patrick Kotzur (@durhampsych.bsky.social) and international team proposes a rupture-habit model to make sense of emerging findings in everyday intergroup contact.

Paywall: doi.org/10.1038/s441...

Free Access Link: trebuchet.public.springernature.app/get_content/...
Abstract According to intergroup contact theory, meaningful interactions between members of different social identity groups can lead to decreases in prejudice. However, the literature on intergroup contact has generally emphasized contact-based interventions that involve positive contact experiences in highly controlled environments like research laboratories or classrooms, or infrequent intimate intergroup contact experiences, like intergroup friendships. In this Perspective, we review the literature on how intergroup contact manifests in everyday settings, which challenges established views that contact is readily available, positive and leads to consistently positive within-person changes. We describe how variations in contact valence and environmental affordances for self-selection influence individual- and macro-level segregation dynamics, which create conditions for stable trajectories of contact and intergroup bias, or contact habits. We then propose a habit–rupture model of contact, according to which changes in intergroup relations through lifespan and macro-level disruptions act as ruptures, leading to the development of new contact habits. Considering contact and its effects through a habit and rupture lens identifies realistic and ecologically valid opportunities to apply intergroup contact in the service of the social good.

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
No worries Rob. Look forward to reading the end product!

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
"Drawing on philosophy of science (e.g., Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Roy Bhaskar, Rom Harré, John Searle) and theoretical alternatives (e.g., critical realism, constructivism, Luhmannian systems theory), we welcome...[work] from psychology, philosophy, systems theory, and related disciplines."
What does the replication crisis imply about the status, structure, and validation of psychological theories? o Do recurring replication failures point primarily to measurement problems, construct problems, theory problems, or specific combinations of these? o How do methodological norms shape the kinds of theories psychology produces and the meanings those theories can (and cannot) express? o What alternative conceptions of mind/psyche (e.g., constructivist, system-theoretical, relational, critical realist) suggest different standards for explanation, evidence, and generalization? o How should psychology rethink the relationship between method and meaning when evaluating theoretical claims? #PsycSci #PhilSci #MetaSci

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
"We invite work that examines how psychological constructs are formed and stabilized, what kinds of explanations are being pursued, what counts as evidence for theoretical claims, and how epistemological, methodological, and ontological commitments jointly shape theory (often implicitly)."

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
🔶️ Call for Papers 🔶️

"(Re-)Theorizing the Psyche: Exploring Foundational Shifts in Psychological Science"

Topic Editor: @drrobarcher.bsky.social
Frontiers | (Re-)Theorizing the Psyche: Exploring Foundational Shifts in Psychological Science
The replication crisis has exposed deep-seated tensions within psychological science. Beyond technical or procedural flaws, it has raised fundamental questio...
www.frontiersin.org

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
Sort of meta-knowledge about how to know our own ignorance!?

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 3d
Absolutely! It's the things you don't know you don't know that are the real problem!
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · Sep 1
Unknown unknowns in science

"We can report our known knowns, and we can be transparent and speculative about our known unknowns, but we can’t say much about our unknown unknowns because we don’t know what they are!"

markrubin.substack.com/p/the-prereg...

#philsci 🧪

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 4d
"Our job is to find the correct choice of specifications, not to see how many changes a result is robust to. A result can be completely correct, and yet not be robust to even small changes; conversely, a result can be robust to many different changes, and yet be wrong."

By @captgouda24.bsky.social
"Robustness" Is Not Replication
We must be clear about what we are doing
open.substack.com

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 4d
"The most commonly reported detrimental effects of activism were burnout and increased depression."

#SocialPsyc #MentalHealth #ClinPsyc 🧪

Reposted by John Drury

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 4d
New Review of Activism and Mental Health

"The most commonly reported beneficial effects of activism were enhanced empowerment, wellbeing, and buffering against the impact of discrimination"

By Guanlan Mao, @profjohndrury.bsky.social, @ox-research.bsky.social et al

Preprint: osf.io/preprints/ps...
Stigmatised groups tend to suffer worse mental health. One problem faced by members of stigmatised groups is self-stigma, the internalisation of negative stereotypes. Research has shown that increased empowerment and a positive group identity can reduce self-stigma and its consequences. Research on the mental health consequences of collective action, or activism, suggests that participation in activism can improve wellbeing by providing empowerment and social identification. No review to date has looked specifically at the wellbeing effects of activism for stigmatised groups. A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted which sought to identify the consequences of participation in activism for the mental health of individuals facing stigma on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, and health status. The literature search identified 36 articles: 24 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and one using mixed methods. A convergent integrated approach was utilised and eight synthesised themes were generated covering direct associations, buffering and exacerbating effects, positive and negative mechanisms, and moderating factors. The most commonly reported beneficial effects of activism were enhanced empowerment, wellbeing, and buffering against the impact of discrimination. The most commonly reported detrimental effects of activism were burnout and increased depression. A number of promising directions for future research are identified.

Reposted by Mary Bosworth, Mark Rubin, Martin Paul Eve , and 11 more

markpendleton.bsky.social
Mark Pendleton @markpendleton.bsky.social · 4d
Well that’s me locked out. No pay for the foreseeable future, all because I refuse to reschedule lost teaching, for which I have already lost pay as part of the strike. Please donate to support @sheffielducu.bsky.social members like me at www.gofundme.com/f/heubvb-sup...
Screenshot of email that reads: “This status will remain in place until the University receives notification that you are no longer participating in that action. During this period, any work undertaken will be regarded as voluntary.”

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 7d
"Our evaluation demonstrates the pervasive entrenchment of P-values, despite heavy debates and major changes in the content of the biomedical literature over time."

#Stats
medrxivpreprint.bsky.social medRxivpreprint @medrxivpreprint.bsky.social · 7d
Evolution of Reporting P-values Across the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2025: an Updated Meta-Research Study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.14.26344149v1

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 7d
"Failure to examine the conceptual structures and frames of reference which are unconsciously implicated in even the seemingly most innocent factual inquiries is the greatest single defect that can be found in any field of inquiry." (Dewey)

#Epistemology #PhilSci

markrubin.bsky.social
Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 7d
"We might be oblivious to the difference between framed and framing enquiry because we are oblivious to the presence of frameworks themselves."