Liam Satchell

Our (Mugford, Satchell, Kontosthenous, Copestake & Shell) new paper promoting mixed methods diaries for understanding how a prison treatment programme is experienced!

Accepted at PCL and out soon, preprint below:

Thank you! It’s been a long process but honestly, pretty proud of our approach. Not a type of research I do anymore really, but the rigour is something I’ve enjoyed doing and now showcasing! Thank you!

(As many of you know I've also moved away from these methods these days, this paper goes into detail why in the discussion)

The biggest thanks to Jess and Alex - and QJEP! - for being on this science adventure with me!

Amazing to be in a position where we don't contribute to the 'file drawer' problem - we tested a reasonable question and found the best answer to it. Just because it was a non-effect does not mean we shouldn't share it.

What did we find in the end? The largest, most robust study, failed to replicate the effect of interest in study one. We found some other things in the study but the more interesting thing was being able to test a reasonable hypotheses and then fail to replicate it in a journal space.

For the RegReport we sent studies One and Two for review and said we will conduct a third (with a large sample size conducted at both UWin and again DMU). Regardless of what the results are, will you publish this robust test? They agreed! (I’m a big RegRep fan!)

We decided to do a tie-breaker study. I was then at the University of Winchester and access to a new sample. With Alex Jones' (Swansea) Bayesianising and analytical lens we pitched a Stage One Registered Report to QJEP.

The findings didn't replicate (see paper for all the ways we tested this). So what do we do? Maybe it's a South/Midlands divide? Maybe demographics of the University? Or maybe it just isn't a robust finding?

A few years later I had the chance to meet Jess Hall (DMU) and began to collaborate. She agreed to run a replication study at DMU in Leicester. Same stimuli, same equipment, but we had the chance to expand our sample and stimulus set. So we went for it!

But this study had a pretty small sample size and limited stimulus people (only female targets). I wasn't confident to publish this yet.

I found what I'd hoped - when people thought someone was more threatening they spent less time looking at a face, but spent time looking at the whole body (I was doing a PhD on the importance of studying walking in social perception so kind of liked this!)

During my PhD, I conducted a study where we tracked eye movements of participants looking at people walking. I was interested in how social perception affected our gaze behaviour - do we look more at faces or bodies if we're more threatened? (A reasonable hypothesis based on literature)

This our new Stage Two Registered Report twice internal failure to replicate...

What does that all mean - for both this study and doing science?

New paper! - I was wrong! We checked and checked again we were definitely wrong.

And I couldn't be happier that we are able to publish these findings at QJEP - Satchell, Hall & Jones 🧵

osf.io/preprints/ps...

As we note at the end - people should trust these findings exactly as much as they should trust ‘social media addiction’ scales ‘validated’ in the same ways 👀 (as in, please don’t 😂)

Yes! Our choices were to follow exactly what others do when designing the same tools to make our point about current approaches (we have the reviews on the appropriateness 😃).

Are you doing research on impression formation, face perception, personality judgment, or related topics?

Then you might be interested in joining our collaborative study!

Follow the link for more information: tilburgss.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...

#socialpsyc #PsychSciSky

Great chance to get some paws on some of Chris’ great writing for free!

How does playing football in a live tournament or online (FIFA) affect our first impressions? New (Smith, Satchell, Randell & Lancaster) paper at Interpersona. Likeability improved after playing against anyone in any context and some performance effects

osf.io/preprints/ps...

How does playing football in a live tournament or online (FIFA) affect our first impressions? New (Smith, Satchell, Randell & Lancaster) paper at Interpersona. Likeability improved after playing against anyone in any context and some performance effects

osf.io/preprints/ps...

Was great to chat to Lucy and Ellie about the things I get up to at the University of Winchester in their podcast!

As always, got to talking about effective measurement and open science practices - and how these things help us understand applied issues.

lnkd.in/eKHniwaC

Excited to receive my copy of the new Corr and Krupić personality textbook - where I contributed to the last two chapters. Focusing on blending the philosophy of why we collect data and the practical implications (and the problematic history of this!)

#StringFigureFacts #1:

The first known literary reference to a string figure comes from Japan, from a haiku in ’Komachi Odori’ (1665):

Kazenoteno
Itodoritonaru
Yanagikana

The haiku evokes an image of a willow tree weaving a string figure (itotori, later "ayatori") in the wind. 🍃

When in Vienna… time to hit the Freud museum & café! Picked up some good books

(and saw some questionable inclusions of other pop psych books on the shelves)

new viewpoint article forthcoming at Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science with
@cassie-boness.bsky.social

Thinking Beyond Substances: Why Behavioral “Addiction” Research must Move past Substance Use Disorder Paradigms

osf.io/preprints/ps...

Don’t sound science enough does it?

There’s a useful insight here though -
We can make sense of a lot of weird measurement decisions and preference for abstract experiments in psych if we note how ‘sounding’ scientific has been seen as important…

(Making a joke post serious, you’re welcome 🫡)

PS that uhh ‘supposed to’ is uhhh doing a lot of heavy lifting…

See our satirical paper validating a nonsense construct of ‘friend addiction’ as a critique of ‘social media addiction’ scales:

link.springer.com/content/pdf/...

100% behavioural tasks get away with a lot.

If you want to develop a questionnaire, you (are by field norms supposed to) have a strict norming and validation process.

But if make a game on a computer and call it ‘aggression’ or ‘subconscious’ behaviour, you don’t need to. 🤷‍♂️.

Lots of new follower activity at the moment! 👋 Hi👋
Trying to be more active on here! Always looking to network with anyone interested in:
📊 measurement & data,
👤 psychological science & theory,
🧠personality & wellbeing,
🚨psych, policing, & law
📚educational psych,
🦮non-human animal work!