Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶ smile: a n̶o̶n̶obtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis (Strack et al., 1988)

My new favorite first sentence of a psych paper:
"From San Francisco to Santiago, Sydney to Seoul, people want to be cool (Belk et al., 2010; Heath & Potter, 2004; Rahman, 2013)."
- Cool People (Pezzuti et al., 2025).
Just a bit unsettling how close that sounds to "What's the deal with birds?"

For all who use Bayesian hierarchical models, have a look at our new preprint, out now together with @linushof.bsky.social @nunobusch.bsky.social and @thorstenpachur.bsky.social

osf.io/preprints/ps...

For Monday crowd. INSPECT-SR, a tool to help you identify problematic (inc. fraudulent) RCTs, now available.

Hello.

The MEP is hiring an intern (a paid one, not an 'ooh ooh think of the experience' one)

retractionwatch.com/job-opportun...

Feel free to direct this to anyone interested. I think it will fill quickly so pitter patter.

New blog post! Calculating a correlation is easy enough. But let's say you calculated two of them and they happen to differ. What follows from that? Turns out there are too many moving parts for an easy answer.

www.the100.ci/2025/07/28/w...

The first version of the open science blog archive is complete, with 3530 posts from 52 blogs. Browse them in the online Shiny app: shiny.ieis.tue.nl/open_science... All blog posts are ordered chronologically. Have fun exploring part of the open science history in psychology!

I often have trouble finding or connecting to eduroam at my University, but I seem to have made the obvious error of not working on a boat!
Either that, or it's just another example of the Dutch University system being miles ahead of that in Germany.

🇩🇪 3-year universal basic income (UBI) study, in which n=120 received UBI, n=1500 did not. Website is pretty neat, check it out for core findings.

www.pilotprojekt-grundeinkommen.de/en

📚 Ten simple rules for failing successfully in academia journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol...

Südhof: “There's no structural crisis of fraud or reproducibility.”

Also Südhof: “Yes, there are errors, but we adhered to norms in the field. We all need to figure out how to do a t-test, & how to improve journal practices.” 



…and of course it’s all the trainee's and post-doc's errors. Not his.

Because it's hip, because it's fun, and because I do hope that people find it to be useful in understanding and conveying the quirks of rating scales, and how we can be smarter about them: Here's a Shiny App :)

Where was this high horse when we learned that "wine makes you live long", "video-games are heroin" or "we can feel the future"? Who is eroding trust in science, and who are we placing responsibility with? And if primary research is not pointless to begin with: Improving it seems pretty useful.

Some folk imply that scientific critique that could be misused should not be done, or should be done in some unspecified better way.

I don’t interpret it that way. The messenger can express concern about how the message is used by others without asking to be shot.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

A lot of discussions about open science in psychology happened on blogs. I have been archiving them and will make their content available. I remember 37 blogs (with 2827 posts!) but which blogs did I forget, and are not on my list? Please share and reply with any that are missing!

🚨 PhD position (75%, TV-L E13) at LMU Munich!
Join our DFG funded META REP project on heterogeneity & replicability in psychology.
Work on meta analysis, simulations, modeling in R/Python.
📅 Apply by July 15
🔗 shorturl.at/939tP
🔗 shorturl.at/2bRLD
👇🧵

Wake up babe, new badge just dropped.

Different types or errors in academia: fraud, questionable research practices, and honest mistakes. I think we really really need to have more open discussions about & destigmatize honest mistakes, so I'm super happy about this session!