Gender disparities in social and personality psychology awards from 1968 to 2021.

Gender disparities persist in academic psychology. The present study extended previous investigations to social and personality psychology award recipients. We collated publicly available data on award winners (N = 2700) from 17 international societies from 1968 to 2021. Features of the award, including year given, type of award, seniority level, whether the award was shared with more than one winner, and gender/sex of the recipient were coded. Overall, men were more likely to be recognized with awards than women, but the proportion of awards won by women has increased over time. Despite this increased share of awards, women were more likely to win awards for service and teaching (which are generally viewed as less prestigious) rather than research contributions. These differences were moderated by year - women were more likely to win service or teaching awards, compared to research awards, after 1999 and 2007, respectively. Women were more likely to win awards at postgraduate/early career levels or open to all levels compared to senior awards. Findings suggest that women's greater representation in academic psychology in recent years has not been accompanied by parity in professional recognition and eminence.

Does Belief in Conspiracy Theories Affect Interpersonal Relationships?

In recent years, researchers have begun to study the social consequences of conspiracy beliefs. However, little research has investigated the impact of conspiracy beliefs on interpersonal relationships. In this review, we draw attention to this issue by summarizing available empirical evidence and proposing potential social-psychological mechanisms to explain whether and why conspiracy theories affect interpersonal relationships. We firstly discuss that the attitude change that often accompanies the internalization of conspiracy beliefs might distance people’s opinions and, consequently, erode their relationships. Furthermore, we argue that the stigmatizing value of conspiracy theories can negatively affect the evaluation of conspiracy believers and discourage others from getting close to them. Finally, we consider that the misperception of social norms associated with the acceptance of certain conspiracy narratives can lead conspiracy believers to engage in non-normative behavior. Others are likely to perceive such behavior negatively, resulting in diminished interpersonal interaction. We highlight the need for further research to address these issues, as well as the potential factors that may prevent relationships being eroded by conspiracy beliefs. (AU)

Does Belief in Conspiracy Theories Affect Interpersonal Relationships?

In recent years, researchers have begun to study the social consequences of conspiracy beliefs. However, little research has investigated the impact of conspiracy beliefs on interpersonal relationships. In this review, we draw attention to this issue by summarizing available empirical evidence and proposing potential social-psychological mechanisms to explain whether and why conspiracy theories affect interpersonal relationships. We firstly discuss that the attitude change that often accompanies the internalization of conspiracy beliefs might distance people's opinions and, consequently, erode their relationships. Furthermore, we argue that the stigmatizing value of conspiracy theories can negatively affect the evaluation of conspiracy believers and discourage others from getting close to them. Finally, we consider that the misperception of social norms associated with the acceptance of certain conspiracy narratives can lead conspiracy believers to engage in non-normative behavior. Others are likely to perceive such behavior negatively, resulting in diminished interpersonal interaction. We highlight the need for further research to address these issues, as well as the potential factors that may prevent relationships being eroded by conspiracy beliefs.

"Proof Under Reasonable Doubt": Ambiguity of the Norm Violation as Boundary Condition of Third-Party Punishment.

In six studies, we consistently observed costly third-party punishment (3PP) to decrease under ambiguity of the norm violation. Our research suggests that, under ambiguity, some people experience concerns about punishing unfairly. Those with higher (vs. lower) other-oriented justice sensitivity (Observer JS) reduced 3PP more pronouncedly (in Studies 1-3 and 4b, but not replicated in Studies 4-5). Moreover, those who decided to resolve the ambiguity (hence, removing the risk of punishing unfairly) exceeded the 3PP observed under no ambiguity (Study 4). However, we did not consistently observe these concerns about punishing unfairly to affect 3PP (Studies 4-5). We further considered whether people could use ambiguity as justification for remaining passive-thus, avoiding the costs of 3PP. We did not find conclusive evidence supporting this notion. Taken together, ambiguity entails a situational boundary of 3PP that sheds light on the prevalence of this behavior and, potentially, on its preceding decision-making.

Ambivalence and Interpersonal Liking: The Expression of Ambivalence as Social Validation of Attitudinal Conflict.

Literature on attitude similarity suggests that sharing similar attitudes enhances interpersonal liking, but it remains unanswered whether this effect also holds for ambivalent attitudes. In the present research, we shed light on the role attitudinal ambivalence plays in interpersonal liking. Specifically, we examine whether people express ambivalence strategically to generate a positive or negative social image, and whether this is dependent on the attitudinal ambivalence of their perceiver. We test two alternative hypotheses. In line with the attitude-similarity effect, people should express ambivalence toward ambivalent others to enhance interpersonal liking, as sharing ambivalence might socially validate the latter's experience of attitudinal conflict. On the other hand, people might express more univalence, as ambivalence may drive ambivalent others toward the resolution of their attitudinal conflict, and univalent stances could help to achieve that goal. In two studies (N = 449, 149), people expressed similar attitudes to those of their perceivers, even when the latter experienced attitudinal conflict (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, they composed an essay, the message of which validated their perceiver's attitudinal conflict (Study 2). In line with these results, we further observe that the more people experienced their ambivalence as conflicting, the more they liked others who similarly experienced attitudinal conflict (Study 1). These findings suggest that the expression of ambivalence can have important interpersonal functions, as it might lead to an enhanced social image when interacting with those coping with attitudinal conflict.

Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society.

Open science (OS) is of paramount importance for the improvement of science worldwide and across research fields. Recent years have witnessed a transition toward open and transparent scientific practices, but there is still a long way to go. Early career researchers (ECRs) are of crucial relevance in the process of steering toward the standardization of OS practices, as they will become the future decision makers of the institutional change that necessarily accompanies this transition. Thus, it is imperative to gain insight into where ECRs stand on OS practices. Under this premise, the Open Science group of the Max Planck PhDnet designed and conducted an online survey to assess the stance toward OS practices of doctoral candidates from the Max Planck Society. As one of the leading scientific institutions for basic research worldwide, the Max Planck Society provides a considerable population of researchers from multiple scientific fields, englobed into three sections: biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics and technology, and human and social sciences. From an approximate total population of 5,100 doctoral candidates affiliated with the Max Planck Society, the survey collected responses from 568 doctoral candidates. The survey assessed self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of different OS practices, namely, open access publications, open data, preregistrations, registered reports, and replication studies. ECRs seemed to hold a generally positive view toward these different practices and to be interested in learning more about them. Furthermore, we found that ECRs' knowledge and positive attitudes predicted the extent to which they implemented these OS practices, although levels of implementation were rather low in the past. We observed differences and similarities between scientific sections. We discuss these differences in terms of need and feasibility to apply these OS practices in specific scientific fields, but additionally in relation to the incentive systems that shape scientific communities. Lastly, we discuss the implications that these results can have for the training and career advancement of ECRs, and ultimately, for the consolidation of OS practices.