Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Attitudes toward public female toplessness appear to be driven more by individual opinions than by context (e.g., beach, park) or structural factors (e.g., region or state-legality)

Objectification and Reactions toward Public Female Toplessness in the United States: Looking Beyond Legal Approval. Colin R. Harbke & Dana F. Lindemann. Sexuality & Culture, Aug 17 2022.

Abstract: Multiple United States federal courts have recently drawn inferences regarding community sentiment as it pertains to public female toplessness. Despite citing common social factors in their rulings, the courts have rendered conflicting decisions to uphold (Ocean City, MD) or to overturn (Fort Collins, CO) female-specific bans. Regional differences in attitudes toward toplessness may in part explain these discrepant legal outcomes. Participants (n = 326) were asked to rate their general impressions of photos depicting topless women in three different public settings. Geographic region was unrelated to reactions toward toplessness, however, participants from states with prohibitive or ambiguous statutes rated the photos differently. Consistent with a body of theoretical and empirical work on cultural objectification of women, female participants, on average, were more critical of the photos of other topless women. Other demographic and attitudinal predictors showed a pattern that suggests moral objections as a likely source of unfavorable reactions. Ascribing morality with the practice of toplessness echoed some of the commentary that surrounded the above legal cases and further substantiates prior objectification research (i.e., Madonna-whore dichotomy). Overall, attitudes toward public female toplessness appear to be driven more by individual opinions than by context (e.g., beach, park) or structural factors (e.g., region or state-legality).

Bored and better: Finding a boring person results in people feeling not only superior to the boring individual, but also to others

Bored and better: Interpersonal boredom results in people feeling not only superior to the boring individual, but also to others. Jonathan Gallegos,Karen GasperORCID Icon &Nathaniel E. C. Schermerhorn. Self and Identity, Aug 16 2022.

Abstract: Four experiments tested the hypothesis that meeting someone new who is boring would result in people feeling superior to the boring individual, which would then result in people viewing themselves as better than others and increased confidence. Respondents reported greater feelings of superiority, meaninglessness, and difficulty paying attention when they wrote about meeting a new, boring individual than a new or manipulative individual. Feeling superior, but not meaninglessness and attention, mediated the effect of interpersonal boredom on viewing oneself as better than others, but not on confidence. These finding did not occur when people wrote about a boring task or a disliked, manipulative individual. The experiments elucidate how interpersonal boredom, albeit a negative experience, can enhance people’s sense of self.

Keywords: Interpersonal boredomsuperiorityself-enhancementmeaninglessness

Less than 50pct of Psychology research were successfully replicated by preregistered studies

Röseler, Lukas, Taisia Gendlina, Josefine Krapp, Noemi Labusch, and Astrid Schütz. 2022. “Successes and Failures of Replications: A Meta-analysis of Independent Replication Studies Based on the OSF Registries.” MetaArXiv. August 16. doi:10.31222/

Abstract: A considerable proportion of psychological research has not been replicable, and estimates range from 9% to 77% for nonreplicable results. The extent to which vast proportions of studies in the field are replicable is still unknown, as researchers lack incentives for publishing individual replication studies. When preregistering replication studies via the Open Science Foundation website (OSF,, researchers can publicly register their results without having to publish them and thus circumvent file-drawer effects. We analyzed data from 139 replication studies for which the results were publicly registered on the OSF and found that out of 62 reports that included the authors’ assessments, 23 were categorized as “informative failures to replicate” by the original authors. 24 studies allowed for comparisons between the original and replication effect sizes, and whereas 75% of the original effects were statistically significant, only 30% of the replication effects were. The replication effects were also significantly smaller than the original effects (approx. 38% the size). Replication closeness did not moderate the difference between the original and the replication effects. Our results provide a glimpse into estimating replicability for studies from a wide range of psychological fields chosen for replication by independent groups of researchers. We invite researchers to browse the Replication Database (ReD) ShinyApp, which we created to check for whether seminal studies from their respective fields have been replicated. Our data and code are available online: