Feedback is New Scientist A well-known source for the latest in science and technology news. To share feedback on items that may interest our readers, please reach out via email at feedback@newscientist.com.

Crusaders in Capes

It’s been a while since Mrs. Feedback was pregnant, yet she vividly recalls the discomfort of trying to sit on public transport with a belly the shape of a volleyball. Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that other passengers will yield their seats.

But imagine if Feedback had boarded the bus dressed as Batman? Surprisingly, this could have made a difference. Researchers led by Francesco Panini conducted an experiment and published results from a study on Milan’s subway system in npj Mental Health Research in November 2025. I tried this experiment.

A female team member, donning a prosthetic bump, boarded a train with a lifeguard. Some tests also included a third individual in a Batman costume. The costume featured a distinctive cape, logo, and pointed cowl for easy recognition, although the mask was omitted to avoid scaring passengers.

From photo reviews published in newspapers, it’s clear the costume is more charming than frightening, reminiscent of George Clooney’s outfit in Batman & Robin.

Notably, passengers relinquished their seats to “pregnant” women 67% of the time when Batman was present, compared to only 38% without him. The researchers suggest that “unexpected events may foster prosocial behavior.” Remarkably, many passengers were often unconscious of Batman’s presence; 44% who gave up their seats reported not seeing him.

Feedback posits that perhaps Batman, a lifelong champion of social justice, encourages others to reflect on fairness and decency. However, researchers caution that experiments on social priming often don’t yield consistent results, highlighting the “replication crisis” in social sciences. They emphasize the importance of Batman’s unexpectedness.

The researchers speculate that “psychologists could explore ways to weave ‘positive disruption’ into daily life,” through artistic or theatrical interventions in public spaces that temporarily break routines and foster connections. All of this suggests that impactful feedback “guides” people toward better behavior, but as with social priming, results can be unreliable. Regardless, crafting an eye-catching costume may just be key.

Interestingly, if someone dressed as Batman boarded a train, many would hardly glance twice. Perhaps the Milanese cosplay scene lacks vibrancy compared to other locales.

Please Read

In Feedback, we’ve discussed the trend of academics using pop culture references in paper titles, attempting to draw readers in. It’s a tricky balance, but when successful, it shines. Kudos to Rebecca White and Anna Remington for their 2018 study, “Object Anthropomorphism in Autism: You’ll Be Very Sad If You Don’t Read This Paper.”

This study explores how often autistic and non-autistic individuals anthropomorphize inanimate objects and its emotional consequences. Initially, the feedback made me question our household; our vacuum cleaner remains nameless. However, I recollected that we do name our cars (we sold “Carol” because it was faulty, now we drive “Kitty”).

Clearly, we aren’t alone. When a paper was shared on social media, one user remarked, “We just had a serious debate about whether the robot vacuum is a boy or a girl and what we should name it.” Feedback suggests that the ideal name might be inspired by an iconic character, like Mario’s nemesis, Goomba.

Another commenter said: “I always grab another croissant if there’s nothing left, so no one feels neglected…” Feedback operates similarly but for distinct reasons.

Reviewer 2 Strikes Again

Before academics can publish their work, they must navigate the challenging peer review process, where fellow researchers critique their submissions (often anonymously). Scholars refer to “Reviewer 2” much like ordinary folks talk about infamous figures.

Historian Andre Pagliarini took to social media to report a particularly egregious example of peer review: “First, when rejecting a paper I submitted, Reviewer 2 noted that I had no involvement with a man named Andre Pagliarini.”

As others quickly pointed out, this is a hypothetical scenario. If Pagliarini had cited more of his work, he might have faced accusations of self-promotion or had his paper rejected for lack of originality.

When we hear feedback, we often echo the lines other reviewers wrote in response. “But sir, I am Pagliarini.” If you’re unfamiliar with this joke, count yourself fortunate, as there’s no room for further explanation.

Have a story for Feedback?

You can submit your article to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and previous Feedback editions are available on our website.