Peer-Reviewed Publications

Real Men Don’t Share (Online): Perceived Neediness and the Frequent-Posting Femininity Stereotype (2023), European Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 572-589, with Nathan B. Warren [Paper].

Abstract: We theorize and demonstrate evidence of a frequent-posting femininity stereotype: All else being equal, men who post more often on social media are considered more feminine than those who seldom post. Because online posting is associated with attention-seeking, we posit that the frequent-posting femininity stereotype is explained by the poster’s perceived neediness (i.e. a desire for external validation), a trope that falls within the communal orientation of feminine gender performance. Drawing on the theory of precarious manhood — the idea that idealized masculinity is difficult to attain and easy to lose – we suggest that posting frequently online comes with a critical degree of embedded stigma and can change gender perceptions of men but not women.

• Original press release: “Why guys who post a lot on social media are seen as less manly” (The Conversation, July 2023; 30,000+ reads); covered on NPR’s “The Academic Minute” (2/6/2024); received further coverage in Fast Company, Slate, and The Miami Herald.

Weighing People Rather Than Food: A Framework for Examining External Validity (2020), Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 483-496, with Caitlin M. Loyka, John Ruscio, Lindsey Hatch, Brittany Wetreich, and Amanda Zabel [Paper].

Abstract: Research training in psychological science emphasizes common threats to internal validity, with no comparably systematic or rigorous treatment of external validity. Trade-offs between internal and external validity are well known in some areas (e.g., efficacy vs. effectiveness studies in clinical psychology), less so in others (e.g., forensic research on eyewitness identification, false memories, or confessions). We present a framework for examining external validity grounded in four domains—populations, settings, outcomes, and timeframes—that can be used to enhance the generalizability of findings. We discuss this framework and then illustrate its use by reviewing mindless eating interventions intended to help people lose weight. Research in this published literature seldom samples from appropriate populations (e.g., overweight or obese individuals) or measures appropriate outcomes (e.g., weight change) in appropriate settings (e.g., the home) over appropriate timeframes (e.g., sustained interventions with follow-up) to determine whether practical advice is empirically supported. In their applied work, we encourage psychological scientists to design studies, analyze data, and report findings with greater attention to external validity to demonstrate, rather than assume, the generalizability of findings to the intended populations, settings, outcomes, and timeframes. Editors and reviewers can hold investigators accountable for doing so.