My second ever publication just came out in @NatureHumBehav. Across 1.2 billion observations, we establish what we call a “gender rating gap in online reviews”. It follows a summarizing thread 🧵. Link to paper in the end. (1/8)

Presenting to a general audience in a theatre in Rotterdam. Nerve-wracking… youtube.com/watch?v=uv9E3snC…

New JMR article available: "The Weekend Effect in Online Reviews" Read it here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs…

Según una curiosa investigación publicada recientemente, las reviews publicadas en #Internet tienden a ser más negativas cuando son hechas durante un fin de semana. EXPRESS: The Weekend Effect in Online Reviews #Tecnoestrés ⁦@SageJournals⁩ journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.…

Online reviews written at the weekend tend to be less favorable. This paper finds that online reviews submitted during the weekend tend to have lower rating scores than reviews submitted during the week. Analyzing 400 million reviews across 33 e-commerce, hospitality, entertainment, and employer platforms, the authors find that weekend reviews have a 3% lower relative share of 5-star ratings and a 6% higher relative share of 1-, 2-, or 3-star ratings compared to weekday reviews. This weekend effect is surprising given that studies usually report higher happiness levels and a better mood on weekends. The pattern emerges even when controlling for quality of reviewed items. [We] present evidence that temporal self-selection of reviewers is a dominant driver of the weekend effect. We find a substantial number of reviewers who only review during the weekend, During the weekend, a different set of users—those more prone to write negative reviews—is more likely to select to leave a review. Additionally, weekend reviewers’ texts (vs. weekday reviewers’ texts show fewer social cues and more words related to sadness. Furthermore, weekend reviewers have fewer social connections. Weekend reviewers have significantly fewer friends than week reviewers. This is in line with lower mentions of social processes in weekend reviewers’ texts.

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐝𝐬: 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐆𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭? Do TV ads truly represent consumers, or just biased stereotypes about them? Our new study of 2.1M U.S. TV ads presents a new method to measure presence and stereotyping in ad content. [w/ Clement Bellet]

Wow! This project looks amazing. In it, three scientists at Columbia, Michigan, and Maryland introduce VRscores: a measure of the partisan leanings of employers in the United States. The dataset is constructed by linking U.S. voter registrations to online worker profiles. The dataset covers the 2012-2022 period. VRscores capture the political affiliations of 21.8 million workers across 2.6 million employers. Wow!

Why April Fool's Day came into existence and what Pope Gregory XIII had to do with it rutgers.edu/news/how-did-apr…

Our March 2025 issue is now live! Check out the table of contents: nature.com/nathumbehav/volum…

Evidently, in at least one context preference falsification is more common among women than men. What about national politics? Campus controversies? Controversies within corporate boards? Unexplored implications for political stability, polling, collective action, etc.

Look at how physicians diagnose more children with ADHD on Halloween (the red line in the middle of the figure). The authors hypothesize that docs are more likely to diagnose kids on this day simply because kids are excited for Halloween. Fascinating!

Two papers. On the left, a non-randomized, non-crossover study showing that a one-off sauna exposure significantly decreased arterial stiffness, with implications on cardiovascular health. On the right, a randomized, crossover (more robust) study, showing no benefits on arterial stiffness or blood flow. Note the colossal difference in Altmetric score and media attention. The media favors sensational but flawed studies over rigorous ones, distorting public understanding. #science #media

"Menstruation Matters" launches today! Our November Focus explores periods from a multidisciplinary lens, addressing myths, period poverty, and supporting menstrual health across diverse populations. [1/14] nature.com/collections/dfeci…

A recent analysis of over a billion online ratings found women give higher public ratings than men, but not in private ones. This suggests women aren’t more positive in their evaluations—they’re just less likely to post negative online reviews publicly: nature.com/articles/s41562-0…

One of the good coverages of our paper so far. psypost.org/researchers-disc… with @docbayerl @Hila_Riemer_Lab and Danny Shapira

A study published in @NatureHumBehav finds that women submit higher online review ratings than men, which is probably due to their greater concern about social consequences when sharing negative feedback. go.nature.com/3UDI8Ns

Presenting to managers at @erasmusuni

We were invited to write a behind-the-paper blog articles for our recent @NatureHumBehav publication. Here it goes: communities.springernature.c… @yanivdover @Hila_Riemer_Lab and Danny Shapira #genderratinggap #onlinereviews

Cool to be in pubmed 🩺pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3937…