Robin Samuel

Dr. Robin Samuel


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
28 October 2022 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Nate BreznauNate Breznau
Nate Breznau
EREike Mark Rinke
Eike Mark Rinke
AWAlexander Wuttke
Alexander Wuttke
HNHung H. V. Nguyen
Hung H. V. Nguyen
MAMuna Adem
Muna Adem
TŻTomasz Żółtak
Tomasz Żółtak
This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

3 November 2016 in Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KBKaspar Burger
Kaspar Burger
RSRobin Samuel
Robin Samuel
Life satisfaction is an important indicator of successful development. However, adolescents’ life satisfaction tends to be relatively unsteady, and environmental influences play a critical role in shaping life satisfaction among adolescents in the transition to young adulthood. Given the paramount importance that education plays in adolescents’ lives, adolescents’ life satisfaction may vary as a function of school-related stress experience. At the same time, coping resources may help reduce adverse effects of stress on life satisfaction. With this in mind, we examined whether, and to what extent, perceived stress in education and general self-efficacy (a resource that facilitates coping) affect the life satisfaction of adolescents in transition to young adulthood. We distinguished between baseline levels of stress and self-efficacy and within-person change in stress and self-efficacy to determine whether life satisfaction is sensitive to fluctuations in stress and self-efficacy when person-specific levels of stress and self-efficacy are taken into account. Estimating growth curve models on data from a panel study on the life trajectories of compulsory-school leavers (n = 5126, 55.3 % female), we found that baseline levels of stress and self-efficacy, as well as within-person change in stress and self-efficacy, affected adolescents’ life satisfaction. Moreover, our results showed that baseline self-efficacy mitigated the negative effect of baseline stress on life satisfaction. These findings improve our understanding of two major psychological determinants of adolescents’ life satisfaction and extend our knowledge of life satisfaction trajectories during the transition to young adulthood.


7 July 2018 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Martin N. StienenMartin N. Stienen
Martin N. Stienen
FSFelix Scholtes
Felix Scholtes
RSRobin Samuel
Robin Samuel
AWAlexander Weil
Alexander Weil
AWAstrid Weyerbrock
Astrid Weyerbrock
WSWerner Surbeck
Werner Surbeck
Objectives Medical practice may attract and possibly enhance distinct personality profiles. We set out to describe the personality profiles of surgical and medical specialties focusing on board-certified physicians. Design Prospective, observational. Setting Online survey containing the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), an internationally validated measure of the Five Factor Model of personality dimensions, distributed to board-certified physicians, residents and medical students in several European countries and Canada. Differences in personality profiles were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance and Canonical Linear Discriminant Analysis on age-standardised and sex-standardised z-scores of the personality traits. Single personality traits were analysed using robust t-tests. Participants The TIPI was completed by 2345 board-certified physicians, 1453 residents and 1350 medical students, who also provided demographic information. Results Normal population and board-certified physicians’ personality profiles differed (p<0.001). The latter scored higher on conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness, but lower on neuroticism (all p<0.001). There was no difference in openness to experience. Board-certified surgical and medical doctors’ personality profiles were also different (p<0.001). Surgeons scored higher on extraversion (p=0.003) and openness to experience (p=0.002), but lower on neuroticism (p<0.001). There was no difference in agreeableness and conscientiousness. These differences in personality profiles were reproduced at other levels of training, that is, in students and training physicians engaging in surgical versus medical practice. Conclusion These results indicate the existence of a distinct and consistent average ‘physician personality’. Despite high variability within disciplines, there are moderate but solid and reproducible differences between surgical and medical specialties.

1 March 2015 in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AHAndreas Hadjar
Andreas Hadjar
RSRobin Samuel
Robin Samuel
A main assumption of social production function theory is that status is a major determinant of subjective well-being (SWB). From the perspective of the dissociative hypothesis, however, upward social mobility may be linked to identity problems, distress, and reduced levels of SWB because upwardly mobile people lose their ties to their class of origin. In this paper, we examine whether or not one of these arguments holds. We employ the United Kingdom and Switzerland as case studies because both are linked to distinct notions regarding social inequality and upward mobility. Longitudinal multilevel analyses based on panel data (UK: BHPS, Switzerland: SHP) allow us to reconstruct individual trajectories of life satisfaction (as a cognitive component of SWB) along with events of intragenerational and intergenerational upward mobility—taking into account previous levels of life satisfaction, dynamic class membership, and well-studied determinants of SWB. Our results show some evidence for effects of social class and social mobility on well-being in the UK sample, while there are no such effects in the Swiss sample. The UK findings support the idea of dissociative effects in terms of a negative effect of intergenerational upward mobility on SWB

15 June 2015 in Frontiers in Energy Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PBPaul Burger
Paul Burger
VBValã©Ry Bezenã§On
Valã©Ry Bezenã§On
BBBasil Bornemann
Basil Bornemann
TBTobias Brosch
Tobias Brosch
VCVicente Carabias-Hã¼Tter
Vicente Carabias-Hã¼Tter
BVBenjamin Volland
Benjamin Volland
Transforming today’s energy systems in industrialized countries requires a substantial reduction of the total energy consumption at the individual level. Selected instruments have been found to be effective in changing people’s behavior in single domains. However, the so far weak success story on reducing overall energy consumption indicates that our understanding of the determining factors of individual energy consumption as well as of its change is far from being conclusive. Among others, the scientific state of the art is dominated by analyzing single domains of consumption and by neglecting embodied energy. It also displays strong disciplinary splits and the literature often fails to distinguish between explaining behavior and explaining change of behavior. Moreover, there are knowledge gaps regarding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the governance of individual consumption behavior and its change. Against this backdrop, the aim of this paper is to establish an integrated interdisciplinary framework that offers a systematic basis for linking the different aspects in research on energy related consumption behavior, thus paving the way for establishing a better evidence base to inform societal actions. The framework connects the three relevant analytical aspects of the topic in question: (1) It systematically and conceptually frames the objects, i.e. the energy consumption behavior and its change (explananda); (2) it structures the factors that potentially explain the energy consumption behavior and its change (explanantia); (3) it provides a differentiated understanding of change inducing interventions in terms of governance. Based on the existing states of the art approaches from different disciplines within the social sciences the proposed framework is supposed to guide interdisciplinary empirical research.