Peer Community in Psychology: A platform for peer review of preprints across psychology: https://osf.io/m456e

Great piece of work! Thought you might find it interesting @florentvaret.bsky.social, @leotoussard.bsky.social, @slvdlv.bsky.social 🧐

@florentvaret.bsky.social @leotoussard.bsky.social Voilà qui est intéressant, chers collègues ! 🧐

What does openness and transparency in qualitative methods mean to you? 🧐 If you're interested in these discussions, join our european open qualitative research community here: forms.gle/EbC2CsjPbw6t... #openresearch #qualitative #metaresearch

List of psychology-related starter packs!
#Psychology #AcademicSky 🧪 🧵

Cross-Cultural Psychology and Quant Anthropology
by @drboothroyd.bsky.social

ça a l'air bien tout ça, je vais t'offrir un nouveau follower en ma personne !

Thank you for your support, Mikey. It was a pleasure to work on this project; it brought out so many reflections on the topic! Looking forward to discussing it further. 😀

Thanks to the journal Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being and the reviewers for their contributions, and to
Canceropôle Nord-Ouest for their support.
🔜 Stay tuned—more findings coming soon!
10/10

A moment to mention:
🔗 Our first publication from this project (doi.org/10.1111/bjhp...).
📬 Issue #36 of the newsletter by @adrienfillon.bsky.social , which features this work (psychopapers.kessel.media/posts/pst_d1...)
9/10

💡 This research highlights the impact of misinformation on health behaviors in oncology.
Next step: testing these effects in a clinical population as part of the COMBREAST project (funded by the Canceropôle Nord-Ouest) with @leotoussard.bsky.social as a postdoc researcher.
8/10

Study 3:
We tested a brief intervention inspired by the toolbox from
@anaskozyreva.bsky.social:
🔸 A combination of warnings and accuracy prompts.
👉 Result: This approach reduced conspiracy beliefs about chemotherapy and affected the intention to use conventional treatments.
7/10

➡️ An interaction was observed between exposure to the material and the perceived credibility of the article.
But what happens when credibility is experimentally manipulated?
6/10

Study 2:
A fictitious scandal, directly linked to chemotherapy this time, successfully:
✔️ Manipulated conspiracy beliefs about these treatments.
✔️ Modulated intentions to use oncological treatments.
5/10

Results from Study 1:
The scandal unrelated to chemotherapy failed to increase mistrust toward these treatments.
❓ Was it due to a lack of coherence between the article and chemotherapy?
❓ Or the article’s lack of credibility?
The next studies provided some answers.
4/10

Studies 1 & 2:
➡️ We attempted to manipulate conspiracy beliefs about chemotherapy using two types of health scandals:
A real scandal, unrelated to cancer.
A fictitious scandal, related to cancer (inspired by
@fabiovelo.bsky.social).
3/10

🔎 We conducted 3 studies to test the effects of conspiracy beliefs fueled by online misinformation on intentions to use both conventional and non-conventional treatments.
2/10

🚨Paper alert🚨
Together with
@florentvaret.bsky.social and @slvdlv.bsky.social, we are excited to announce a new publication exploring the links between conspiracy beliefs and intentions to use alternative and complementary medicine in oncology. tinyurl.com/bdh27pmv 1/ 10