The Lab

Researchers

Mascots

Loempia
Mascot
No matching items

Alumni

Click a name to see their lab publications.

  • Triki, A., Cassario, A. L., & Brandt, M. J. (in press). American liberals and conservatives have different cognitive styles, but (mostly) respond the same to party cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. pdf | code | data
  • Cassario, A. L. & Brandt, M. J. (2025). Testing theories of threat, conservatism, and individual difference: Little evidence of personality based individual differences in ideological responses to threat. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16, 657-668. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Cassario, A. L., Vallabha, S., Thompson, J. L., Carrillo, A., Solanki, P., Gnall, S., Rice, S., Wetherell, G. A., & Brandt, M. J. (2025). Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64, e12814. doi | pdf | code
  • Thompson, J. L., Cassario, A., Vallabha, S., Rice, S., Gnall, S., Carrillo, A., Solanki, P., Brandt, M. J, & Wetherell, G. A. (2025) Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice. PLoS ONE, 20, e0334152 doi | pdf
  • Wetherell, G., Thompson, J. L., Cassario, A., Brandt, M. J., Gnall, S., Rice, S., Solanki, P., Vallabha, S., & Carillo, A. (2025). Do mismatches between individual and target group personality predict prejudice? Collabra: Psychology, 11, 136887. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Brandt, M. J., Vallabha, S., & Cassario, A. L. (2024). Is political identification a key for political animosity? In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), The Tribal Mind and the Psychology of Collectivism. Routledge. doi | pdf
  • Brandt, M. J. & Cassario, A. (2023). Distinguishing between worldview conflict and shared alliances: Commentary on Pinsof, Sears, and Haselton. Psychological Inquiry, 34, 168-174. doi | pdf
  • Tunç, M. N., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2026). Are regret and disappointment differentially associated with norm compliant and norm deviant failures? Cognition and Emotion, 40, 567-583. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Tunç, M . N., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2023). Not every dissatisfaction is the same: The impact of electoral regret, disappointment, and anger on subsequent electoral behavior. Emotion, 23, 554–568. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Brandt, M. J. & Vallabha, S. (2025). Intraindividual changes in political identity strength (but not direction) are associated with political animosity in the United States and the Netherlands. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 828-844. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Brandt, M. J., Vallabha, S., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2025). The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic made people feel threatened, but had a limited impact on political attitudes in the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 284-300. doi | pdf | code
  • Cassario, A. L., Vallabha, S., Thompson, J. L., Carrillo, A., Solanki, P., Gnall, S., Rice, S., Wetherell, G. A., & Brandt, M. J. (2025). Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64, e12814. doi | pdf | code
  • Thompson, J. L., Cassario, A., Vallabha, S., Rice, S., Gnall, S., Carrillo, A., Solanki, P., Brandt, M. J, & Wetherell, G. A. (2025) Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice. PLoS ONE, 20, e0334152 doi | pdf
  • Wetherell, G., Thompson, J. L., Cassario, A., Brandt, M. J., Gnall, S., Rice, S., Solanki, P., Vallabha, S., & Carillo, A. (2025). Do mismatches between individual and target group personality predict prejudice? Collabra: Psychology, 11, 136887. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Brandt, M. J., Vallabha, S., & Cassario, A. L. (2024). Is political identification a key for political animosity? In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), The Tribal Mind and the Psychology of Collectivism. Routledge. doi | pdf
  • Vallabha, S., Doriscar, J. E., & Brandt, M. J. (2024). When the specter of the past haunts current groups: Psychological antecedents of historical blame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127, 638–663. doi | pdf
  • Brandt, M. J. & Vallabha, S. (2023). Inter-attitude centrality does not appear to reduce persuasion for political attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 1342-1358. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Van Noord, J., Turner-Zwinkels, F., Kesberg, R., Brandt, M. J., Easterbrook, M. J., Kuppens, T., & Spruyt, B. (2025). The nature and structure of European belief systems: Exploring the varieties of belief systems across 23 European countries. European Sociological Review, 41, 143-161. doi | pdf
  • Brandt, M. J., Vallabha, S., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2025). The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic made people feel threatened, but had a limited impact on political attitudes in the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 284-300. doi | pdf | code
  • Johnson, B. B., Brandt, M. J., Turner-Zwinkels, F., & Swedlow, B. (2025). How alike are universal values, moral foundations, cultural theory, and cultural cognition theory? A comparison of theories, concepts, and measures. Social Science Quarterly, 106, e70107. doi | pdf
  • Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., van Noord, J., Kesberg, R., Garcia-Sánchez, E., Brandt, M. J., Kuppens, T., Easterbrook, M. J., Turner-Zwinkels, T., Gorska, P. Marchlewska, M., & Smets, L. (2025). Affective polarization and political belief systems: The role of political identity, and the content and structure of political beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 222-238. doi | pdf | code
  • Kesberg, R., Brandt, M. J., Easterbrook, M., Spruyt, B., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2024). Finding (dis-)advantaged system justifiers – A bottom-up approach to explore system justification theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 81-96. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Turner-Zwinkels, F. M. & Brandt, M. J. (2024). Ideology strength vs. party identity strength: Ideology strength is the key predictor of attitude stability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 125-138. doi | pdf | code
  • Turner-Zwinkels, F. M. & Brandt, M. J. (2022). Belief system networks can be used to predict where to expect dynamic constraint. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 100, 104279. doi | pdf
  • Brandt, M. J., Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., Karapirinler, B., van Leeuwen, F., Bender, M., van Osch, Y., & Adams, B. G. (2021). The association between threat and politics depends on the type of threat, the political domain, and the country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 324-343. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Brandt, M. J., Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., & Kubin, E. (2021). Political psychology data from a 26-wave yearlong longitudinal study (2019-2020). Journal of Open Psychology Data, 9, 2. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., Sibley, C. G., Johnson, B. B., & Brandt, M. J. (2021). Conservatives moral foundations are more densely connected than liberals’ moral foundations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 167-184. doi | pdf | code
  • Brandt, M. J. & Turner-Zwinkels, F. M. (2020). No additional evidence that proximity to the July 4th holiday affects affective polarization. Collabra: Psychology, 6, 39. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Kodapanakkala, R. I., Kogler, C., Brandt, M. J., & van Beest, I. (2024). Differences in information acquisition and justice sensitivity predict adoption of apps affecting own and others’ privacy. Acta Psychologica, 251, 104589. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Kodapanakkal, R. I., Brandt, M. J., Kogler, C., & van Beest, I. (2022). Moral frames are persuasive and moralize attitudes; nonmoral frames are persuasive and de-moralize attitudes. Psychological Science, 33, 433-449. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Kodapanakkal, R. I., Brandt, M. J., Kogler, C., & van Beest, I. (2022). Moral relevance varies due to inter-individual and intra-individual differences across big data technology domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 46-70. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Kodapanakkal, R.I., Brandt, M.J., Kogler, C., & van Beest, I., (2020). Self-interest and data protection drive the adoption and moral acceptability of big data technologies: A conjoint analysis approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106303. doi | pdf
  • Brandt, M. J. & Spälti, A. K. (2018). Norms and explanations in social and political psychology. In J. T. Crawford & L. Jussim (Eds.) Frontiers of Social Psychology Series: Politics of Social Psychology (pp 26-43). Psychology Press. doi | pdf
  • Spälti, A. K., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2017). Memory retrieval processes help explain the incumbency advantage. Judgment and Decision Making, 12, 173-182. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Spälti, A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2019, November 10). Comparing the Effects of Decision Time and Direct Decision Processing Information on (Moral) Character Evaluations. PsyArXiv. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Spälti, A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2019, July 12). The effects of decision time on perceptions of decisions and decision makers in (moral) trade-off scenarios. PsyArXiv. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Spälti, A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2019, July 6). Endowment vs. previous preferences: Which cue drives consumer decision-making? PsyArXiv. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Wagemans, F. A. M., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2019). Weirdness of disgust sensitivity items predicts their relationship to purity moral judgments. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 182-187. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Wagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2018). Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. Emotion, 18, 277-289. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Brandt, M. J. & Wagemans, F. M. A. (2017). From the political here and now to generalizable knowledge. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 317-320. doi | pdf
  • Wagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2018, July 2). Disgust sensitivity and moral judgments of purity: The role of transgression weirdness. PsyArXiv. doi | pdf | code | data
  • Wagemans, F. M. A., Sleegers, W., Brandt, M. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2019, July 15). Attentional biases associated with individual differences in disgust sensitivity: An eye tracking study. PsyArXiv. doi | pdf

Master’s and Bachelor’s Research Assistants

Aymin Triki (2023-2026 ), Emma Dye (2025-2026), Genevieve Orlewicz (2025-2026), Madeline Hilditch (2025-2026), Mina Arikan (2025-2026), Nicole Thomas (2024-2026), Peyton McLaughlin (2025-2026), Jolie Kretzschmar (2022-2025), Luke Richard (2024-2025), Madison Reeves (2024-2025), Hope Hesseltine (2023-2024), Jayden Vann (2022-2024), Minaleah Koffron (2024), Shub Ranjan (2023-2024), Adeline Elute (2022-2023), Haley Hall (2023), Hussain Basrai (2022-2023), John Horton (2022-2023), Phillip Angelos (2022-2023 ), Anthony Aron (2020-2022 ), Rayan Abdullah M Albehair (2022), Sadie Mrakuzic (2021-2022), Brady Wing (2020-2021), Cristina Rodas (2020-2021 ), Felicity Roman Pelvas (2021), Himali Bhandari (2020-2021), Jackie Duckett (2020-2021), Megan Sarah Parker (2020-2021 ), Megan Shaffer (2020-2021 ), Natalie Spence (2020-2021), Ryan McLean (2020-2021), Zach Voyles (2020-2021), Angelina Raco (2020), Ben Chandler (2020), Bengisu Sezer (2020 ), Emily Kubin (2018-2020 ), Kendall Droste (2020), Lauren Veldboom (2020), Morgan Sanford (2020), Natalie Beaudoin (2020), Jan Voelkel (2017-2019 ), Jorick Post (2018-2019), Linda Doyle (2017-2018), Tim Otten (2017), Mengyu Ye (2016), Hilmar Brohmer (2014-2015 ), Linda Oosterwijk (2015), Tunde van Hoek (2015), Joeri Wissink (2014)

Profile  ·  Co-author on lab publications