Every field has its own version of this story: a small, almost invisible act of courage that quietly reshapes a career. This post is not a guide on "what you should do" to build a successful collaboration; we believe that road looks different for everyone, and trying to generalize it would miss the point entirely. Instead, it is an attempt to describe how one small step and one small crumb of courage turned into a collaboration we have genuinely loved being part of, in the hope that it might nudge someone else, somewhere, to send that email they have been drafting in their head for months.

 The irony is not lost on us. This project, a paper now accepted at Communications Sustainability and additional research in progress, grew out of a collaboration between two researchers who, as of today, have still never met in person. Add to that the dozens of people who sat through our recurring lab meetings, contributing ideas, questions, and critiques along the way, and you get a picture of modern science that is far less romantic and far more collaborative-by-necessity than the myth of the lone genius researcher. Nothing here is written for self-flattery. If anything, some parts are uncomfortable to admit. But that discomfort feels like the more honest way to tell this story.

As a note, I (Dr. Enis Yakut) drafted this blog post and sent it to Dr. Laurent. Then, I (Dr. Sean M. Laurent) worked on it further and sent it back to Dr Yakut. Although we will both try to keep the awkwardness of having two people write together in the first person to a bare minimum, in places it is hard to avoid. Please bear with us! Although we collaborate well together, we also have varying perspectives, although the end result of our stories is ultimately the same.

## Where It Started

 Yakut: As a marketing academic, my (Yakut) path into this territory began with Bandura's work on moral disengagement, the psychological mechanisms people use to silence remorse when their actions conflict with their values. From there, I became increasingly interested in how moral identity shapes consumer behavior and decision-making. That interest eventually led me to ask a simple but consequential question: who else is thinking seriously about this topic? This led me to reach out to a number of researchers to see if anyone might be interested in a collaboration of some kind. One person responded: Dr. Laurent.

 Laurent: I was an assistant professor (now associate) when I got an email from Dr. Yakut. Perhaps unlike many, I usually respond to anyone that writes me, even if it is only to acknowledge their humanity and the effort it took to contact me. Frequently, that is as far as it goes. But sometimes, the person writing or the ideas they present are interesting enough that I want to take it further. I love collaborating, even though I mostly collaborate with the graduate students I advise. This was one of those times.

## From a Cold Email to a Real Collaboration

 (Both): What followed was an exchange of emails, then online meetings, then genuine intellectual back-and-forth trying to figure out where our interests overlapped. Our respective expertise in consumer and marketing research (Yakut) and in social and moral psychology (Laurent) gave us a shared vocabulary for exploring moral disengagement together. We began discussing a joint grant application to study moral disengagement, and that conversation eventually steered us toward sustainability as the domain worth exploring.

 From there, we expanded the circle: I (Laurent) suggested that we present our ideas to my lab and some other faculty of note (and their grads) in our social psychology area at Penn State. Doing this helped mature the project and motivated an attempt to secure postdoctoral funding that would let Dr. Yakut travel to State College to work on it in person. That did not work out, but we both saw that as part of the process—we are interested in the work, regardless. However, as we thought about grant possibilities that might achieve the same end result, we realized something that seems obvious in hindsight: we had not yet published on the topic, together or separately. For securing grants, this is a problem.

## Building the Study, One Late-Night Meeting at a Time

 After some brainstorming, we came up with a study design based on some of my (Laurent) past work in moral psychology. However, throughout the process, our efforts were shared. We both shared ideas, drafted ideas, and critiqued each other’s work. Finally, we landed on something we were both happy enough with and launched the study.

 Yakut: During this time, I joined Dr. Laurent’s weekly lab meetings. I was made to feel like part of the group. However, because of the time difference, meetings would sometimes end after midnight for me. When combined with having a newborn at home, this has sometimes required some physical and mental stamina to stay present and engaged.

 Laurent: I was (am) happy to have Dr. Yakut attend my weekly meetings, even if I’m surprised that he continues to come, considering the hour and family obligations. In fact, he is not the only one who attends despite not being one of my advisees or research assistants – we’ve had a lawyer who was in town for a year and various students from across the world, including one who lives in Vietnam and attends at 2:30 AM, their time!

## The Work Continued

After Dr. Yakut analyzed the data from the first study, we discussed the results and planned additional studies. About two studies in, post-collection and analysis, Dr. Laurent noted that one of our critical questions could not be addressed with the data we had, and proposed a design that might provide some insight: Was moral disengagement resulting from behaving in a way that was countering participants’ moral identities, or was preexisting disengagement driving those behaviors?

 After we had completed this study and three others, we turned to the questions many scientists face prior to submitting the work for consideration: Was this enough? If so, where should we send it and how should we best frame it? We decided, yes, we had enough for a (first) paper, and an inkling of where we might submit. Next, Dr. Yakut drafted a first draft, Dr. Laurent helped polish it and added his own contributions and questions, and back and forth it went, over and over until we felt satisfied. Then, we sent it off into the void and were lucky to get the opportunity to revise, based on comments from three insightful anonymous reviewers. Again, back and forth between us until we land at the present moment: The paper has been accepted at Communications Sustainability.

## What Comes Next

 It does not end with this paper. At present, we have collected two of four planned, preregistered studies that represent an extension of this work. An additional paper is planned. More will certainly emerge. The more one knows, the more one knows how much one does not know. This is what we love about science: The never-ending questions and the methods we use to keep gaining insight into answers.

Yakut: The postdoctoral position in State College that I had hoped for did not emerge (has not yet emerged!), but the process has been extraordinarily rewarding. I have learned something important: if you genuinely want to build something, don’t give up. You might just succeed. In Turkish, we say something close to this English meaning: fate falls in love with effort. Looking back at this three-year journey and the challenges it has presented, I’ll say I think I witnessed exactly that.

Laurent: I am guilty of not responding to every email I get where I do not know the sender. But when a person has taken the time to learn something about my work and reaches out with an idea for a collaboration, I always respond. I have sent out emails similar to the one that Dr. Yakut sent to me, and it is frustrating to feel like the time spent researching and writing was wasted. It also puts a crimp in the self-esteem. I am very glad that Dr. Yakut wrote me, as it has led us down the path to a very fruitful collaboration, and we have become friends. I am looking forward to meeting him, in person, this coming February at the annual meeting for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology.