ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1304-8615
Current Organisation
University of Amsterdam
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-06-2019
DOI: 10.1136/INJURYPREV-2018-042819
Abstract: Globally, rivers are a common drowning location. In Australia, rivers are the leading location for fatal drowning. Limited information exists on exposure and impact on river drowning risk. Australian unintentional fatal river drowning data (sourced from coronial records) and nationally representative survey data on river visitation were used to estimate river drowning risk based on exposure for adults (18 years and older). Differences in river drowning rates per 100 000 (population and exposed population) were examined by sex, age group, activity prior to drowning, alcohol presence and watercraft usage. Between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016, 151 people drowned in Australian rivers 86% male and 40% aged 18-34 years. Of survey respondents, 73% had visited a river within the last 12 months. After adjusting for exposure: males were 7.6 times more likely to drown at rivers female drowning rate increased by 50% (0.06-0.09 per 100 000) males aged 75+ years and females aged 55-74 years were at highest risk of river drowning and swimming and recreating pose a high risk to both males and females. After adjusting for exposure, males were more likely to drown with alcohol present (RR=8.5 95% CI 2.6 to 27.4) and in a watercraft-related incident (RR=25.5 95% CI 3.5 to 186.9). Calculating exposure for river drowning is challenging due to erse usage, time spent and number of visits. While males were more likely to drown, the differences between males and females narrow after adjusting for exposure. This is an important factor to consider when designing and implementing drowning prevention strategies to effectively target those at risk.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 03-02-2023
Abstract: All over the world, people reason dualistically. We consider it more probable that mental states, such as love, continue after biological death than we think bodily states, such as hunger, will continue. However the extent to which culture affects mind-body dualism remains unclear. Here, we draw on a large and erse cross-cultural s le (24 countries, N = 10195) to systematically quantify cultural variation in tendencies for mind-body dualism. Our findings replicate previous work suggesting that mind-body dualism is culturally universal. Furthermore, our experiment reveals that religion lifies dualistic tendencies. At the same time, however, the modal response across most countries was the cessation of all states. In addition, explicit afterlife beliefs were more prevalent than implicit afterlife beliefs (i.e., continuity judgments). Overall, these data suggest that intuitive materialism is the cross-cultural norm, with dualism arising from culturally acquired beliefs.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-02-2022
DOI: 10.1038/S41562-021-01273-8
Abstract: People tend to evaluate information from reliable sources more favourably, but it is unclear exactly how perceivers' worldviews interact with this source credibility effect. In a large and erse cross-cultural s le (N = 10,195 from 24 countries), we presented participants with obscure, meaningless statements attributed to either a spiritual guru or a scientist. We found a robust global source credibility effect for scientific authorities, which we dub 'the Einstein effect': across all 24 countries and all levels of religiosity, scientists held greater authority than spiritual gurus. In addition, in idual religiosity predicted a weaker relative preference for the statement from the scientist compared with the spiritual guru, and was more strongly associated with credibility judgements for the guru than the scientist. Independent data on explicit trust ratings across 143 countries mirrored our experimental findings. These findings suggest that irrespective of one's religious worldview, across cultures science is a powerful and universal heuristic that signals the reliability of information.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 07-2023
DOI: 10.1177/25152459231182318
Abstract: Team-science projects have become the “gold standard” for assessing the replicability and variability of key findings in psychological science. However, we believe the typical meta-analytic approach in these projects fails to match the wealth of collected data. Instead, we advocate the use of Bayesian hierarchical modeling for team-science projects, potentially extended in a multiverse analysis. We illustrate this full-scale analysis by applying it to the recently published Many Labs 4 project. This project aimed to replicate the mortality-salience effect—that being reminded of one’s own death strengthens the own cultural identity. In a multiverse analysis, we assess the robustness of the results with varying data-inclusion criteria and prior settings. Bayesian model comparison results largely converge to a common conclusion: The data provide evidence against a mortality-salience effect across the majority of our analyses. We issue general recommendations to facilitate full-scale analyses in team-science projects.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 12-2020
Abstract: People tend to evaluate information from reliable sources more favourably, but it is unclear exactly how perceivers' worldviews interact with this source credibility effect. In a large and erse cross-cultural s le (N = 10,195 from 24 countries), we presented participants with obscure, meaningless statements attributed to either a spiritual guru or a scientist. We found a robust global source credibility effect for scientific authorities, which we dub `the Einstein effect': across all 24 countries scientists hold greater authority than spiritual source, even among highly committed religious people, who are relatively also more credulous of nonsense from scientists than they are of nonsense from spiritual gurus. Additionally, in idual religiosity predicted a weaker relative preference for the statement from the scientist vs. the spiritual guru, and was more strongly associated with credibility judgments for the guru than the scientist. Independent data on explicit trust ratings across 143 countries mirrored the experimental patterns. These findings suggest that irrespective of religious worldview, science is a powerful and universal heuristic that signals the reliability of information.
No related grants have been discovered for Suzanne Hoogeveen.