Results from study of mental health in 92 countries (n>53,000): People are not doing well.

- U-shape for age is gone: Young adults lowest health, highest illness
- Education still matters (a lot)
- 45% of older people live alone
- Hybrid work > 100% remote or in-person

Preprint: osf.io/3jyda_v1

Onze narratieve game Digitaal Dapper leert scholieren wat ze kunnen doen om pestslachtoffers te helpen: digitaaldapper.tiltale.com

#weektegenpesten #cyberbullying #middelbareschool #interventie

@sarapabian.bsky.social Jan de Wit @tmerle.bsky.social, Eefje v Moorsel Bianca Sips Marije v Amelsvoort

Today is #WorldEmojiDay 🤩✨📱So we’re spot-lighting our amazing past chair and current careers, industry and outreach rep on our committee Professor Linda Kaye @lindakkaye.bsky.social - the emoji expert 👏 You can find more about Linda’s work on her website: lindakkaye.wixsite.com/dr-linda-kaye 📓😎📑⭐️🎉

Extraversion, narcissism, and histrionic tendencies predict the desire to become an influencer

We’re back to the “hundreds of psychological studies cannot all be wrong, educate yourself”-stage of discourse.

I recommend that onlookers to this discourse pick some of the cited studies & see how compelling they find them, wrt causal identification & strength of statistical evidence.>

Also, *please* don’t compare this to the climate change (denial) discourse. I’m strongly opposed against such rhetorical moves that try to cash in on the hard-earned trust that *other* scientific fields have built up.

Highly recommend this thread. Not only because of its analysis of the current study, but it got me thinking about how rigor and consensus building play(ed) out in the smartphone vs. the climate change debate. Scientists should consider which side they ultimately want to fall on and why.

It baffles me that when we see these aggregated trainwrecks everyone goes "this looks unbelievable...", yet for individual manuscripts every second review I see is "the evidence is not consistent enough, probably bad science, reject".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Forscher‘s Letter was the topic of @lakens.bsky.social Podcast a year ago. I would advise against focusing on AI as the main culprit. AI is merely a symptom of the underlying problem.

Well written piece on problems with mediation analysis and how to productively report them in spite of their flaws. Although at this point I fall firmly in the "avoid" camp...

Research shows that inconsistent activity and light exposure patterns may contribute to depression risk. People with more stable daily routines had fewer depressive symptoms.

Interesting piece... One the one hand, I because I am curious myself and because it is often also hard to forsee what will ultimately be useful for society in (psych) science. On the other hand, this quite elitist stance probably contributes/contributed to the current anti-science/funding climate.

Der Parenthesis Blog ist an der #teap2025 mit einem Poster vertreten. Der Blog illustriert anhand individueller Karrierewege, ob und wie eine wissenschaftliche Karriere mit Familie vereinbar sein kann. Erfahrungsberichte können hier nachgelesen werden: parenthesis-blog.de @teap2025.bsky.social

Resonates quite well with my experience reviewing neuroscience papers. That being said, the predictive power of theories in psychology/neuroscience is currently also generally poor, so the role of observationalism should not be underestimated in the current iteration of how we conduct our science.

Eefje van Moorsel and Bianca Sips gave their first ever conference presentation at #etmaal2025 🤩

Our interactive narrative intervention to empower bystanders when they witness cyberbullying can be found here: tiltale.com/cidn/

#cyberbullying #bystanders #interactivenarratives #intervention

📣 Submit a Session Proposal for SIPS 2025 📣
SIPS is celebrating 10 years of improving psychological science with two dynamic events:
📍 Budapest (In-person): June 25–27, 2025
💻 Online: May 21–22, 2025

We invite you to help us shape the program of those events!

Roy Baumeister called ego depletion "one of the most replicable findings in social psychology." As someone who spent 20 years studying it—and ultimately had to admit it wasn't real—I have to respectfully disagree. Here's my perspective of what went so wrong.

Bluesky appears to be the official social media platform for science:

In Jan 2025, a Nature survey of 6,000 scientists found:

▶️ 70% are now on Bluesky

▶️ 53% say they left X

▶️ 13.6% say they use X more than Bluesky

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

Alright, I finally took the plunge and deleted some more problematic social media. I want to give this one a real chance and try to be more active for a while at least. But I still find this place a tad quiet and would appreciate good, active follows for science/psychology-related content.