Pablo Ezequiel Flores-Kanter

Interpersonal contact is essential for cooperation and care, but it also provides a route for pathogen transmission between individuals. Hence, a key challenge for social organisms involves maintaining beneficial social contact while also limiting exposure to infection risks. Existing proposals suggest that this trade-off is guided by the interpersonal value of specific social targets. In addition, ecological and cultural factors including historical pathogen prevalence, individualism-collectivism, tightness-looseness, and relational mobility might also shape how people avoid pathogens. To test whether and how infection-risky social contact varies with individual-level interpersonal value and these societal-level factors, we collected data from 61 societies (n = 42,756). Participants were randomly assigned to imagine targets who varied in interpersonal value, then rated their comfort with infection-risky contact with that target (e.g., drinking from the same water bottle) and whether they would touch the target when greeting them. In all societies, participants were more comfortable with infection-risky contact and more likely to engage in physical contact during greetings with targets of higher interpersonal value. Such associations varied only modestly across societies. Notably, the associations between infection-risky contact and societal-level factors depended on target interpersonal value and were concentrated among high-value targets – contact was lower where historical pathogen prevalence and tightness were greater, and higher where individualism and relational mobility were greater. These findings suggest that infection-risky contact is primarily guided by the value of social targets, with ecological and cultural factors playing a lesser role.

Interpersonal contact is essential for cooperation and care, but it also provides a route for pathogen transmission between individuals. Hence, a key challenge for social organisms involves maintaining beneficial social contact while also limiting exposure to infection risks. Existing proposals suggest that this trade-off is guided by the interpersonal value of specific social targets. In addition, ecological and cultural factors, including historical pathogen prevalence, individualism-collectivism, tightness–looseness, and relational mobility, might also shape how people avoid pathogens. To test whether and how infection-risky social contact varies with individual-level interpersonal value and these societal-level factors, we collected data from 47,756 participants across 61 societies. Participants were randomly assigned to picture a social target - either a friend, acquaintance, stranger, or enemy. They then rated their comfort with infection-risky contact with that target (e.g., drinking from the same water bottle) and whether they would touch the target when greeting them. In all societies, participants were more comfortable with infection-risky contact and more likely to engage in physical contact during greetings with targets of higher interpersonal value. Such associations varied only modestly across societies. Notably, the associations between infection-risky contact and societal-level factors depended on target interpersonal value and were concentrated among high-value targets—contact was lower where historical pathogen prevalence and tightness were greater and higher where individualism and relational mobility were greater. These findings suggest that infection-risky contact is primarily guided by the value of social targets, with ecological and cultural factors playing a lesser role.

By rewarding speed, volume, and coherent positive narratives, traditional publishing incentivizes questionable scientific practices and analytic flexibility. The latter especially contributes to blurring the distinction between exploration and confirmation, which inflates the apparent strength of confirmatory claims. This systemic issue has gone unchecked for decades, leaving the scientific community with a body of scholarly literature that is unreliable and lacking validity. Registered Reports (RRs) address problematic publishing practices by requiring a priori registration of confirmatory tests, which is peer-reviewed before the research begins (stage 1). The editorial acceptance of a stage 1 plan establishes a commitment to publication regardless of research outcomes. Publication remains, nonetheless, contingent on a second peer review and editorial scrutiny (stage 2) to verify that the approved plan was followed, all deviations were transparently disclosed and justified, confirmatory and exploratory claims are clearly delineated, and the integrity of the design was maintained. Meta-scientific comparisons indicate that RRs reduce outcome-based publication bias and improve methodological rigor without compromising perceived novelty. By making accepted RR protocols and their review history citable research outputs, RRs also strengthen recognition for peer-review work. In this perspective, we argue that RRs should become the primary mode of confirmatory publication moving forward.

El análisis factorial confirmatorio (AFC) representa uno de los principales enfoques para evaluar la estructura interna de escalas psicológicas. Sin embargo, las restricciones que impone el AFC, particularmente la fijación de las cargas cruzadas en cero, pueden resultar problemáticas en algunos casos. Frente a esto, en los últimos años han surgido nuevos enfoques, como los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales exploratorios (ESEM), que permiten evaluar de forma más flexible modelos de medida dentro de una lógica confirmatoria sin las restricciones propias del AFC. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar el enfoque ESEM y ofrecer tanto un tutorial como una guía práctica para su uso. Este artículo: (1) ofrece una visión general de las principales características, ventajas y limitaciones de ESEM; (2) proporciona una guía paso a paso sobre cómo estimar e interpretar ESEM; y (3) presenta un ejemplo ilustrativo junto con las sintaxis en R y Mplus para su implementación.

The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Salzburg Emotional Eating Scale (SEES) scores among young Mexican university students. A total of 561 students participated (Mage = 19.86, SD = 1.85). The dimensional structure of the SEES was confirmed with 17 items (χ²/df [chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio] = 1.68; CFI [Comparative Fit Index] = 0.96; RMSEA [Root Mean Square Error of Approximation] = 0.05; SRMR [Standardized Root Mean Square Residual] = 0.05.), with adequate internal consistency across the four dimensions of the scale (Anxietyω = 0.85; Happiness = 0.80; Angerω = 0.88; Sadnessω = 0.86). We found evidence of convergent validity among dimensions referring to the same emotions of the SEES and the Emotional Eating Scale (EES) (rs = 0.57 to 0.72) and corroborated the invariance by gender. We conclude that the SEES adapted for young Mexican university students demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties for use in this demographic group, however, further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the scale is necessary to generalize the results to other adult populations.

Objective: Mobile mental health applications have emerged as potentially accessible and cost-effective tools for extending the reach of psychological interventions, particularly among populations with limited access to in-person mental health services. This study describes the development and preliminary evaluation of Refocus, an mHealth application designed to train cognitive emotion regulation strategies. Method: The application was developed in accordance with international recommendations on usability, data security, and evidence-based clinical principles and comprised two main modules: relaxation and cognitive restructuring. The final sample for the pilot effectiveness study consisted of 20 participants aged 25 to 63 years (M = 41, SD = 8), 65% of whom were women. A quantitative, nonexperimental, single-group pretest–posttest design was used. Results: Participants showed a statistically significant reduction in negative affect and increased use of several cognitive emotion regulation strategies, including positive reappraisal, putting into perspective, and refocus on planning. Expert and user evaluations also indicated high levels of satisfaction, clarity, and perceived usefulness. Conclusions: The findings provide preliminary support for the acceptability, usability, and perceived usefulness of Refocus. The observed pre–post changes also suggest its potential utility for promoting adaptive cognitive emotion regulation and reducing negative affect RESUMENObjetivo: Las aplicaciones móviles en salud mental han emergido como soluciones viables y costo-efectivas para ampliar la cobertura de las intervenciones psicológicas. Estas tecnologías permiten superar barreras geográficas y económicas, y han demostrado ser particularmente útiles para poblaciones con escaso acceso a servicios presenciales en salud mental. El presente trabajo describe el desarrollo y la evaluación preliminar de Refocus, una mHealth app orientada al entrenamiento de estrategias cognitivas de regulación emocional. Método: La aplicación se diseñó siguiendo las recomendaciones internacionales sobre usabilidad, seguridad de datos y fundamentos clínicos, integrando dos módulos principales: relajación y reestructuración cognitiva. La muestra final para el estudio de efectividad estuvo conformada por 20 participantes que presentaron edades de entre los 25 y los 63 años (M = 41 años, DT = 8 años), identificándose mayormente con el género femenino (65%) Se implementó un diseño cuantitativo, no experimental, con estructura pretest-postest de grupo único. Resultados: Se observó una reducción estadísticamente significativa del afecto negativo y un aumento en el uso de estrategias cognitivas descendentes de regulación emocional, como la reinterpretación positiva, la puesta en perspectiva y la focalización en los planes. Asimismo, las evaluaciones obtenidas por parte de expertos y usuarios revelaron altos niveles de satisfacción, claridad y utilidad percibida. Conclusiones: Estos hallazgos aportan evidencia preliminar y a favor de la aceptabilidad, satisfacción y utilidad percibida de Refocus, así como de su efectividad como herramienta digital de intervención emocional.

The same dataset can be analysed in different justifiable ways to answer the same research question, potentially challenging the robustness of empirical science^1-3. In this crowd initiative, we investigated the degree to which research findings in the social and behavioural sciences are contingent on analysts' choices. We examined a stratified random sample of 100 studies published between 2009 and 2018, in which, for one claim per study, at least five reanalysts independently reanalysed the original data. The statistical appropriateness of the reanalyses was assessed in peer evaluations, and the robustness indicators were inspected along a range of research characteristics and study designs. We found that 34% of the independent reanalyses yielded the same result (within a tolerance region of ±0.05 Cohen's d) as the original report; with a four times broader tolerance region, this indicator increased to 57%. Of the reanalyses conducted, 74% reached the same conclusion as the original investigation, 24% yielded no effects or inconclusive results and 2% reported the opposite effect. This exploratory study indicates that the common single-path analyses in social and behavioural research should not be simply assumed to be robust to alternative analyses⁴. Therefore, we recommend the development and use of practices to explore and communicate this neglected source of uncertainty.

The same dataset can be analysed in different justifiable ways to answer the same research question, potentially challenging the robustness of empirical science1–3. In this crowd initiative, we investigated the degree to which research findings in the social and behavioural sciences are contingent on analysts’ choices. We examined a stratified random sample of 100 studies published between 2009 and 2018, where for one claim per study, at least five re-analysts independently re-analysed the original data. The statistical appropriateness of the re-analyses was assessed in peer evaluations, and the robustness indicators were inspected along a range of research characteristics and study designs. We found that 34% of the independent re-analyses yielded the same result (within a tolerance region of +/- 0.05 Cohen’s d) as the original report; with a four times broader tolerance region, this indicator rose to 57%. Regarding the conclusions drawn, 74% of analyses were reported to arrive at the same conclusion as in the original investigation; 24% to no effects/inconclusive result, and 2% to the opposite effect as in the original investigation. This exploratory study suggests that the common single-path analyses in social and behavioural research should not simply be assumed to be robust to alternative analyses4. Therefore, we recommend the development and use of practices to explore and communicate this neglected source of uncertainty.

Feedback is a critical resource to support the development of researchers and the quality of their work. However, many established feedback mechanisms within research rely upon privilege and gatekeeping and are therefore hard to understand and access, particularly to Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and marginalised communities. Facilitated through the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) community, a global transdisciplinary survey (n=881) was designed to capture the feedback processes adopted by researchers and map accessible feedback opportunities from across the research cycle. Fifty-two distinct feedback mechanisms were identified, with the majority used throughout the research cycle. Fundamentally, the results suggest the feedback landscape remains marked by structural inequalities, over-reliance on informal networks, and underuse of open and institutional mechanisms. Findings underscore the greatest potential for cultural and structural change: normalising feedback-seeking behaviours, investing in collaborative infrastructures, embedding open research practices, and critically reflecting on current use of artificial intelligence (AI). We can build a more equitable and rigorous research environment by investing in, and diversifying feedback avenues, as well as reinforcing inclusive mentorship and institutional support.

El análisis factorial confirmatorio (AFC) representa uno de los principales enfoques para evaluar la estructura interna de escalas psicológicas. Sin embargo, las restricciones que impone el AFC pueden resultar problemáticas en algunos casos, especialmente cuando los ítems no se comportan de manera estrictamente unidimensional (i.e., cargas cruzadas). Frente a esto, en los últimos años han surgido nuevos enfoques, como los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales exploratorios (ESEM), que permiten evaluar de forma más flexible modelos de medida dentro de una lógica confirmatoria, sin las restricciones propias del AFC. No obstante, su aplicación sigue siendo escasa en nuestra región. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar el enfoque ESEM y ofrecer una guía práctica para su uso. Con este propósito, el artículo (1) ofrece una visión general de las principales características, ventajas y limitaciones de ESEM en comparación con los enfoques clásicos; (2) proporciona una guía paso a paso sobre cómo estimar e interpretar ESEM; y (3) presenta un ejemplo ilustrativo junto con las sintaxis en R y Mplus para su implementación. Se espera que este trabajo contribuya a una mayor difusión de ESEM, reconociendo sus fortalezas, así como sus limitaciones.