Robert Böhm

How Parochialism and Altruism Shape Our Conflict Behavior Discover how a novel instrument developed by researchers measures altruism and parochialism, shedding light on intergroup conflict behavior.

Here is a summary report of the paper: csl.mpg.de/892188/how-p... (7/7)

Taken together, we present a new toolkit for measuring individual- and group-level social preferences, show that both are shaped by conflict experiences and perceptions, and demonstrate that they predict conflict engagement across diverse samples and group memberships. (6/7)

In a quasi-experimental Study 5 among US participants, we show that parochialism is elevated in high- relative to low-conflict group pairings, whereas altruism appears comparatively less depended on perceived conflict intensity. (5/7)

Study 4 employed a lab-in-the-field approach with members of the Nyangatom, a small-scale society in Ethiopia engaging in cross-border conflicts. We find that higher conflict experience is related to higher levels of altruism, particularly among participants with higher levels of parochialism. (4/7)

In Study 1, we validate our measurement toolkit, showing that altruism and parochialism are separate social preferences. In Studies 2-3, we find that individual-and group-level preferences independently predict participation in real-world conflict (football derby fans and political camps). (3/7)

Classic “parochial altruism” models assume two distinct preferences drive conflict participation:
𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗺: helping one’s ingroup at a personal cost,
𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺: favoring ingroups over outgroups.
We develop a toolkit for measuring these individual- and group-level social preferences. (2/7)

🚨NEW PUBLICATION🚨 in @cp-iscience.bsky.social l together with @lukeglowacki.bsky.social, @hannesrusch.bsky.social and Isabel Thielmann: “Untangling altruism and parochialism in human intergroup conflict” doi.org/10.1016/j.is... (1/7)

Thank you all for your interest in our research. We hope this week's posts helped to raise some awareness for AMR and what we can do about it using social and behavioral science. #AMR #WorldAMRAwarenessWeek #WAAW2025 Join us in future research efforts: www.a-bc.network

Promoting prosociality toward future generations in antibiotic intake - Ana Paula Santana, Lars Korn, Cornelia Betsch, Robert Böhm, 2023 Understanding individuals’ preferences for antibiotics can help mitigate the acceleration of antibiotic resistance. Similar to the climate crisis, individuals “...

The paper is available here: doi.org/10.1177/1359... (4)

However, when we induced empathy for future generations in the between-generations condition, antibiotic overuse in case of mild infections dropped. This suggests that how we frame the dilemma—and empathy-based interventions—can help promote more responsible antibiotic use. (3)

Santana et al. (2023) ran a preregistered study (N=996) using a behavioral game to test how people use antibiotics when the costs of resistance fall on their own vs. a future generation. Overuse in case of mild infections increased when the consequences were pushed onto future generations. (2)

Antibiotic use is a social and temporal dilemma: the benefits are immediate, but the costs—antibiotic resistance—arrive later. Today’s choices shape the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations, so we have to use them wisely. (1)

I'm closing this week's joint thread of selected work on #AMR with a summary of a study conducted by my former PhD student Ana Santana.

@corneliabetsch.bsky.social @riangross.bsky.social @schneali.bsky.social @elisie.bsky.social @miroslavsirota.bsky.social @athorpe8.bsky.social @mariejuanchich.bsky.social @evakrockow.bsky.social @anicabuckel.bsky.social @cortneyprice.bsky.social @gerrymolloy.bsky.social @luciebd.bsky.social

We investigate how people process information, form expectations, and decide when to use antibiotics. Over the next few days, we’ll post research highlights in the replies. Stay tuned! @abc-network.bsky.social @icarsglobal.bsky.social @theamrnarrative.bsky.social

Tomorrow marks the start of 🌍 World AMR Awareness Week 2025! We’ll be sharing insights from our AMR research as psychologists at @univie.ac.at @ipb.bsky.social @unierfurt.bsky.social and BNITM. Like/share this post for updates throughout the week! #AMR #WorldAMRAwarenessWeek #WAAW2025

A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

The deadline for applications is actually December 10. Sorry!

Join one of Europe’s largest and best psychology departments in one of the world’s most liveable cities. We offer competitive conditions. Further information: jobs.univie.ac.at/job/Tenure-T... (deadline for applications: December 12, 2025)

We're hiring! @univie.ac.at is seeking a TT Assistant Professor in the Psychology of Digitalization. If your work is about automation, AI, or immersive technology (e.g., VR) in the context of work and organizations (broadly defined), we’d love to hear from you. 👇

Foto des Hauptgebäudes der Universität Wien, es fliegt feierliches Konfetti durch das Bild. Rechts unten ist ein Badge zu sehen, auf dem zu lesen ist: TOP 100 Austrian Excellence, International Impact. University of Vienna. THE TOP 100 umranden den Badge.

Meilenstein: Die Universität Wien ist erstmals unter den Top 100 im World University Ranking von @timeshighered.bsky.social - auf Platz 95! 🥳 Das stärkt Sichtbarkeit & internationale Vernetzung exzellenter Forschender und Studierender weltweit. #univie #THERanking 👉 www.univie.ac.at/aktuelles/pr...

Dr. Jane Goodall filmed an interview with Netflix in March 2025 that she understood would only be released after her death.

It was a pleasure to provide a keynote talk at this week‘s #ECTMIH conference in #Hamburg. I learned about great research to improve health and had fun with my friends and colleagues @miroslavsirota.bsky.social and @corneliabetsch.bsky.social & her team.

🌍 Vom 29.9.–2.10. sind IPB-Mitglieder bei der #ECTMIH2025 in Hamburg mit Forschung zu Impfverhalten, AMR & Risikokommunikation 📊
🎙️ Keynote von IPB-Fellow @robertboehm.bsky.social „Transforming Health and Climate Communication Through Digital Innovation“
@unierfurt.bsky.social @escmid.bsky.social

The multi-level social dilemmas of intergroup interactions - Nature Reviews Psychology Nature Reviews Psychology - The multi-level social dilemmas of intergroup interactions

My PhD student @qinyuxiao.bsky.social has written a wonderful tribute to Gary Bornstein’s influential paper on team games (doi.org/10.1207/S153...) — a paper that remains as relevant today as it was over 20 years ago. You can read Qinyu’s short piece here: doi.org/10.1038/s441...

This rigorous and fully transparent meta-analysis on the impact of herd immunity communication on vaccination intentions and behavior is based on @leonhardreiter.bsky.social's master’s thesis. Couldn’t be prouder of him. ❤️

You both rock!

The threat of analytic flexibility in using large language models to simulate human data: A call to attention Social scientists are now using large language models to create "silicon samples" - synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents, aimed at revolutionising human subjects research. How...

Can large language models stand in for human participants?
Many social scientists seem to think so, and are already using "silicon samples" in research.

One problem: depending on the analytic decisions made, you can basically get these samples to show any effect you want.

THREAD 🧵

This is the story of the world's most beloved programming language: Python. What began as a side project in Amsterdam during the 1990s became the software powering artificial intelligence, data science and some of the world’s biggest companies. But Python's future wasn't certain; at one point it almost disappeared. This 90-minute documentary features Guido van Rossum, Travis Oliphant, Barry Warsaw, and many more, and they tell the story of Python’s rise, its community-driven evolution, the conflicts that almost tore it apart, and the language’s impact on... well… everything. Thanks to our sponsors for making this documentary possible: Anaconda: https://www.anaconda.com/ @AnacondaInc. Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/ @Dropbox Meta: https://opensource.fb.com/ @FacebookOpenSource OpenTeams: https://openteams.com/ @openteams PyCharm: https://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/ @PyCharmIDE Quansight: https://quansight.com/ @quansight And to all the amazing people who are featured: Armin Ronacher, Barry Warsaw, Benjamin Peterson, Brett Cannon, Drew Houston, Guido van Rossum, Jessica McKellar, Ken Manheimer, Lambert Meertens, Lisa Guo, Lisa Roach, Mariatta Wijaya, Paul... Python: The Documentary | An origin story

Tomorrow at 5pm UTC Python: The Documentary produced by @cultrepo.bsky.social premieres on YouTube! 🎬🐍

From a side project in Amsterdam to a language shaping the world— discover the story of #Python. Featuring Guido van Rossum & many more!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfH4...

Exciting and innovative project on an important topic with an outstanding supervisor. Consider applying!