@_mark_ord_

Lecturer in evolutionary psychology at Sunderland University.

Joined February 2009
  • Tweets902
  • Following114
  • Followers341
31Media
Here’s a brief thread 🧵on our latest paper: “Sexual partner number and distribution over time affect long-term partner evaluation: evidence from 11 countries across 5 continents” out now in Scientific Reports (nature.com/articles/s41598-0…) [1/16]

Sexual partner number and distribution over time affect long-term partner evaluation: evidence from...

Scientific Reports - Sexual partner number and distribution over time affect long-term partner evaluation: evidence from 11 countries across 5 continents

nature.com
6
28
6
88
21,305
When it comes to online hate communities, it is of little surprise that the vast majority of research and awareness focuses on ‘online misogyny’. The Manosphere, The Red Pill, Andrew Tate, Digital Misogyny; are all newly fangled terms that now pepper the lexicon of society. Today, ‘Online Harms’, according to OfCom, is being re-evaluated to focus on ‘women and girls’, with the very laws around hate speech similarly being rewritten to criminalize ‘misogyny’ as a hate crime. I don’t deny such changes can be useful, and are needed; I see plenty of awful things said about women online, but so too I see and experience awful things said about men. Terrible things said about men's mental health, and about male loneliness; even men who quietly attempt to end their lives are cruelly targeted, with disgraceful talk of “let’s get those numbers higher!” The only difference seems to be that online misogyny is largely condemned by society, whilst online misandry is scoffed and sneered at, widely minimized, or denied altogether. But ironically... nothing is more misandric, than denying its very existence.
18
64
2
412
10,066
Dr Mark Ord retweeted
TheTinMen
@TheTinMenBlog3 Dec 2025
Last week the ONS released their latest data on domestic abuse in England and Wales, this time using their new enhanced and expanded survey. It found – 41% of domestic abuse and 51% of current partner abuse was against male victims, with boys aged 16-19 the most at risk to both.
3
25
5
105
3,075
New AIBM research reveals the “hidden” gender gaps missed by many major reports - because they don’t measure in both directions. But there are massive education & health gaps affecting boys and men, that should become visible with a better approach: 🧵
8
25
3
152
14,716
This type of media outlet say that men opening up about their feelings is good whilst also saying that men who do are a burden to women. Is it any wonder men hide their struggles from those they love when messages like this are common?
VICE
@VICE14 Nov 2025
Managing his stress. Interpreting his moods. Holding his hand through feelings he won’t share with anyone else. All of it unpaid, unacknowledged, and often unreciprocated. Is it any wonder women are fed up?
1
2
4
1,391
As an example, here is an excerpt from the same magazine suggesting men opening up about emotions a good thing in romantic relationships. As a member of a research team trying to help struggling men, messages like these are both unhelpful and tiresome. vice.com/en/article/these-5-…
51
The ReGPC presents comprehensive GWAS of the Big Five personality in N=611K-1.14M and within-family GWAS in N=51K. In contrast to many other social/behav traits, pop GWAS of personality almost entirely reflect direct genetic effects. doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.16.6…
4
50
12
184
146,183
Dr Mark Ord retweeted
Ed Hagen@ed_hagen30 Apr 2025
1. The Santa Barbara school of evolutionary psychology holds that a universal set of complex psychological adaptations evolved in Pleistocene Africa. In no particular order, here are few folks on here doing research in this tradition, highlighting one paper/thread each:🧵
12
81
8
264
70,031
Are opposite-sex friendships ever truly platonic? I polled 527 heterosexual/bisexual people. ✅ 81% of women said yes ❌ Only 58% of men said yes Women were 3× more likely than men to say their friendship was purely platonic (OR = 3.03, 95% CI [1.77, 5.17]) Statistically significant, with a small-to-medium effect (Cramér’s V = .18)
William Costello
@CostelloWilliam14 Apr 2025
Heterosexual/bisexuals. Do you have an opposite sex friendship that is purely platonic, i.e., neither party has ever or would ever take the friendship sexual (even for a one night stand). And not just because you “can’t” because of other relationships. Are you male or female?
47%Male | yes
34%Male | no
15%Female | yes
4%Female | no
527 votes • Final results
14
18
7
118
29,049
🙌 A huge thank you to today's brilliant speakers and panel members – @Jon_C_Rees , @_mark_ord_, Kieron Brady, Kathy McKenna and @JeffAB61 – for joining today’s conference and generously sharing their experiences and expertise. An afternoon filled with honest conversations and thoughtful reflections on men’s mental health 🧠🗣️
2
1
5
707
👨‍🏫 Dr Mark Ord, a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Sunderland University, is up next to discuss the evolution of male competitive behaviour and how societal changes affect this.
1
1
425
Abstaining from social media does not significantly affect positive affect, negative affect, or life satisfaction, finds @LauraLemahieu @YannickVdZ Mennes @ernst_koster @KPoels, in a meta analysis doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-9…
The effects of social media abstinence on affective well-being and life satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abstaining from social media has become a popular digital disconnection strategy of individuals to enhance their well-being. To date, it is unclear whether social media abstinences are truly effective in improving well-being, however, as studies produce inconsistent outcomes. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis therefore aims to provide a more precise answer regarding the impact of social media abstinence on well-being. The databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Communication Source, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for studies examining the effect of social media abstinence on three outcomes, namely positive affect, negative affect, and/or life satisfaction. In total, ten studies (N = 4674) were included, allowing an examination of 38 effect sizes across these three outcomes. The analyses revealed no significant effects

ALT The effects of social media abstinence on affective well-being and life satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abstaining from social media has become a popular digital disconnection strategy of individuals to enhance their well-being. To date, it is unclear whether social media abstinences are truly effective in improving well-being, however, as studies produce inconsistent outcomes. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis therefore aims to provide a more precise answer regarding the impact of social media abstinence on well-being. The databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Communication Source, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for studies examining the effect of social media abstinence on three outcomes, namely positive affect, negative affect, and/or life satisfaction. In total, ten studies (N = 4674) were included, allowing an examination of 38 effect sizes across these three outcomes. The analyses revealed no significant effects

Figure 1. Forest plot showing results from a meta-analysis of studies on digital interventions and their effect on positive affect. Each row lists a study with its estimated effect size (Hedges' g), 95% confidence interval (CI), and weight in the meta-analysis. Most individual study estimates are close to zero, with some negative and some positive. The overall effect size is 0.03 [95% CI: -0.11, 0.16], suggesting a small, non-significant positive effect. The prediction interval spans from -0.42 to 0.47. The plot indicates moderate heterogeneity (I² = 61%, p < .01). A diamond represents the overall effect at the bottom of the plot.

ALT Figure 1. Forest plot showing results from a meta-analysis of studies on digital interventions and their effect on positive affect. Each row lists a study with its estimated effect size (Hedges' g), 95% confidence interval (CI), and weight in the meta-analysis. Most individual study estimates are close to zero, with some negative and some positive. The overall effect size is 0.03 [95% CI: -0.11, 0.16], suggesting a small, non-significant positive effect. The prediction interval spans from -0.42 to 0.47. The plot indicates moderate heterogeneity (I² = 61%, p < .01). A diamond represents the overall effect at the bottom of the plot.

Figure 2. Funnel plot displaying the relationship between standard error (y-axis) and effect size (Hedges' g, x-axis) for individual studies in a meta-analysis. Each dot represents a study. The plot includes a vertical dashed line at zero, a solid triangle indicating the estimated overall effect, and shaded areas representing regions of increasing statistical significance. The distribution of studies appears slightly asymmetrical, with more studies showing positive effect sizes. A dashed diagonal line and funnel-shaped contours illustrate expected dispersion under no publication bias.

ALT Figure 2. Funnel plot displaying the relationship between standard error (y-axis) and effect size (Hedges' g, x-axis) for individual studies in a meta-analysis. Each dot represents a study. The plot includes a vertical dashed line at zero, a solid triangle indicating the estimated overall effect, and shaded areas representing regions of increasing statistical significance. The distribution of studies appears slightly asymmetrical, with more studies showing positive effect sizes. A dashed diagonal line and funnel-shaped contours illustrate expected dispersion under no publication bias.

20
2
74
6,843
Psychology experts @Jon_C_Rees, @_mark_ord_ and @DrBecciOwens are exploring the cultural understanding of male mental health at a free public lecture hosted by @SpaceNorthEast @sunderlanduni sunderland.ac.uk/more/news/u…
7
11
567
Gaslighting: Tim to producers: ‘she’s not physically what I like’ Tim to Katie: ‘you’re not my type/I like petite blonds’ Katie to Tim: ‘the spark is a mask to hide that in not your type’ Tim to Katie: ‘you’re so focused on looks. That’s shallow. Why you doing that?’ #MAFSAU
15
797
Physical attraction is central to relationship formation. There are deep evolutionary reasons as to why. Tim has said some awful things, but the experts should have known that paring people who are unlikely to be attracted to each other together is recipe for hurt. #MAFSAU
1
243
“Participants reacted less positively to the male-favoring than the female-favoring findings. The male-favoring aversion remains one of the most robust and replicable findings I’ve encountered in my research career.” [Link below.]
17
57
13
419
36,553
Two @sunderlanduni academics will be among the guest speakers at a major conference on men’s mental health sunderland.ac.uk/more/news/u… @SAFCFoL @BeaconofLight @DrBecciOwens @GmiG
5
1
9
678
Been waiting to see this one. ManyBabies replication of the famous 'infants prefer helpers over hinderers' effect finds "the current work did not replicate ... the preference for the Helper observed in the original paradigm". Going straight into my lectures.
1
22
5
57
16,406
So pleased to finally see this paper in print. In what we think is one of the largest meta-analyses of animal behaviour, we find no evidence for inequity aversion in nonhumans (in accept/reject paradigms). Led by @oded_ritov & with @JanEngelmann5 & Christoph Völter. 👇
1
26
4
74
23,212
Final PhD study is ready to go! If you're 18+ and interested in #BDSM then feel free to take part, if you aren't #kinky then please share with any friends who are! Any questions please contact me at [email protected] or DM me here. sundunievals.qualtrics.com/j…
4
1
3
995
Load more