We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!
Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.
Latest recommendations
| Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * ▲ | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers | Submission date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 Nov 2022
STAGE 1
Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012)Does denial of animal minds explain the "meat paradox"?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Brock Bastian, Ben De Groeve, Florian Lange and Sebastian Berger
The psychology of meat-eating offers a fascinating window into moral reasoning, cognition and emotion, as well as applications in the shift toward more sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat consumption. One key observation in this field is the so-called “meat paradox” – the tendency for people to simultaneously eat meat while also caring about animals. One way to resolve this conflict and reduce cognitive dissonance is for people to separate the concept of meat from animals, mentally disengaging from the origins of meat in order to make the act of consumption more ethically acceptable. Another potential explanation is a motivated “denial of mind”, in which people believe that animals lack the mental capacity to experience suffering; therefore, eating an animal is not a harm that the animal will experience. In support of the latter hypothesis, Bastian et al (2012) found that animals judged to have greater mental capacities were also judged to less edible, and that simply reminding meat eaters that an animal was being raised for the purposes of meat consumption led to denial of its mental capacities.
Using a large-scale online design in 1000 participants, Jacobs et al. (2022) propose a replication of two studies from Bastian et al. (2012): asking how the perceived mental capabilities of animals relates to both their perceived edibility and the degree of moral concern they elicit, and whether learning that an animal will be consumed influences perceptions of its mental capabilities. Among various exploratory analyses, the authors will also examine whether the perception of animal minds (in animals consumed for meat) varies systematically according to species.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/cru4z Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
2. Jacobs, T. P., Wang, M., Leach, S., Loong, S. H., Khanna, M., Chan, K. W., Chau, H. T., Tam, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/cru4z
| Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) | Tyler P. Jacobs, Meiying Wang, Stefan Leach, Siu Ho Loong, Mahika Khanna, Ka Wan Chan, Ho Ting Chau, Yuen Yan Tam, Gilad Feldman | <p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) "</p> | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | Brock Bastian, Florian Lange, Ben De Groeve, Sebastian Berger | 2022-03-04 04:21:18 | ||
06 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance: Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986)Reducing ambiguity in the psychological understanding of ambiguity avoidanceRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Leyla Loued-Khenissi and Hayley Jach
A considerable body of research in behavioural economics has established the existence of ambiguity avoidance: the tendency for people, when given a choice between two options, to choose the option for which there is greater certainty about the probabilities of certain outcomes occurring. In a seminal study, Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986) explored potential psychological explanations of ambiguity avoidance, contrasting five hypotheses: hostile nature (the anticipation that more ambiguous options are biased against oneself), other-evaluation (the anticipation that one’s decision will be evaluated by others), self-evaluation (the anticipation that one's decision will be self-evaluated in the future), forced-choice (in which the less ambiguous option is selected only when all other considerations are equal), and a more general uncertainty avoidance associated with risk aversion. The results favoured other-evaluation as the most promising explanation, with implications in the following decades for research in social psychology, judgment and decision making, behavioural economics, consumer behaviour, and cognitive psychology.
In the current study, Yiu and Feldman (2022) plan to revisit the psychological basis of ambiguity avoidance in a large online sample through a replication of key studies from Curley et al. (1986), including extensions to increase methodological rigour and to explore the relationship between ambiguity avoidance and hostility bias, anticipated future regret, and post-choice social judgment from others, as well as trait measures of risk tolerance and ambiguity tolerance.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/wb3hc
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F. & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90018-X
2. Yiu, S. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance:
Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wb3hc | Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance: Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986) | Sze Ying (Dawn) Yiu, Gilad Feldman | <p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance: Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986) "</p> | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-02-15 09:03:37 | |||
30 Mar 2022
STAGE 1
Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysisDoes emotional support and being in nature influence stress?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Felix Schönbrodt and Siu Kit Yeung
Stress is a familiar presence in modern life and may be rising in severity (Almeida et al., 2020). As a key driver of many health problems, controlling stress and its impacts is a central goal in clinical and health psychology, yet the effectiveness of existing interventions to regulate stress remains unclear. In the current study, Sparacio et al propose tackling this question from a meta-analytic perspective, focusing on a corpus of existing research that has addressed the efficacy of two specific stress regulation interventions: being in nature and emotional social support. As well as evaluating the evidential content of the relevant literatures, the authors will examine signs of publication bias and the moderating role of personality traits. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/c25qw Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References 1. Almeida, D. M., Charles, S. T., Mogle, J., Drewelies, J., Aldwin, C. M., Spiro, A. III, & Gerstorf, D. (2020). Charting adult development through (historically changing) daily stress processes. American Psychologist, 75(4), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000597 2. Sparacio, A., Ropovik, I., Jiga-Boy, G. M., & IJzerman, H. (2022). Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysis, in principle acceptance of version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. | Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysis | Alessandro Sparacio, Ivan Ropovik, Gabriela M. Jiga-Boy, Hans IJzerman | <p>This meta-analysis explored whether being in nature and emotional social support are effective in reducing levels of stress through a Registered Report. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these ... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-10-28 17:23:18 | |||
23 May 2023
STAGE 1
Does Brooding Meaningfully Increase the Likelihood of Believing in a Conspiracy? A Registered ReportDoes brooding increase conspiracy beliefs?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Matt Williams and 1 anonymous reviewer
The world is seemingly awash with conspiracy theories – from well-trodden examples such as fake Moon landings, the 9/11 truth movement, and Holocaust denial, to relative newcomers including COVID as a bioweapon, QAnon, and the belief that the science of climate change has been invented or falsified. While there is a public perception that conspiracy theories are becoming more prevalent, recent evidence suggests that the rate of conspiracism is relatively stable over time (Uscinski et al., 2022). At any point in history, it seems that a certain proportion of people find themselves vulnerable to conspiracy beliefs, but what distinguishes those who do from those who don’t, and what are the causal factors?
In the current study, Liekefett et al. (2023) investigate the critical role of rumination – a perseverative and repetitive focus on negative content leading to emotional distress. In particular, the authors ask whether one component of rumination referred to as brooding (dwelling on one’s worries and distressing emotions) has a specific causal role in the formation of conspiracy beliefs. In a series of preliminary experiments, the authors first established a procedure for successfully inducing rumination, identifying various boundary conditions and requirements for a successful design. In the proposed study (of up to N=1,638), they will then ask whether the induction of brooding causes a significant increase in conspiracy beliefs. Manipulation checks will be included to confirm intervention fidelity (independently of this hypothesis), and exploratory analyses will test the effect of various moderators, as well as the causal role of a complementary manipulation of reflection – a component of rumination in which attention is focused on the issue at hand rather than one’s emotions.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/y82bs
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Uscinski, J., Enders, A., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Drochon, H., Premaratne, K. & Murthi, M. (2022) Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time? PLOS ONE 17: e0270429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270429
2. Liekefett, L. Sebben, S. & Becker, J. C. (2023). Does Brooding Meaningfully Increase the Likelihood of Believing in a Conspiracy? Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/y82bs | Does Brooding Meaningfully Increase the Likelihood of Believing in a Conspiracy? A Registered Report | Luisa Liekefett, Simone Sebben, Julia C. Becker | <p>This project aims to investigate the relationship between rumination and conspiracy beliefs. It<br>involves four pilot studies, including one observational and three experimental studies, but the<br>results were inconclusive. We suggest that ru... | Humanities, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2023-02-01 14:47:09 | |||
18 Jul 2023
STAGE 1
Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered ReportA reliable measure of physical closeness in interpersonal relationships?Recommended by Moin Syed based on reviews by Jacek Buczny and Ian Hussey
Attachment and interpersonal relationships are a major subject of research and clinical work in psychology. There are, accordingly, a proliferation of measurement instruments to tap into these broad constructs. The emphasis in these measures tends to be on the emotional dimensions of the relationships—how people feel about their partners and the support that they receive. However, that is not all there is to relationship quality. Increasing attention has been paid to the physical and physiological aspects of relationships, but there are few psychometrically sound measures available to assess these dimensions.
In the current study, Dujols et al. (2023) seek to assess the psychometric properties of the Social Thermoregulation and Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1), a measure of physical relationships that targets social thermoregulation, or how physical proximity is used to promote warmth and closeness. The proposed project will be a thorough assessment of the measure’s reliability over time—that is, the degree to which the measure assesses the construct similarly across administrations. The authors will assess the test-retest reliability and longitudinal measurement invariance of the STRAQ-1, providing much-needed psychometric data that can build confidence in the utility of the measure.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the second round consisting of a close read by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pmnk2
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., Lindenberg, S., Van Lissa, C. J., & IJzerman, H. (2023). Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pmnk2
| Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report | Olivier Dujols; Richard A. Klein; Siegwart Lindenberg; Hans IJzerman | <p>This Registered Report provides the first test of measurement invariance across time points and estimates of test-retest reliability for the Social Thermoregulation, Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1, Vergara et al., 2019). The scale was de... | Social sciences | Moin Syed | 2023-03-01 16:07:17 | |||
Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered ReportWe may not be measuring physical closeness in interpersonal relationships as reliably as we thinkRecommended by Moin Syed based on reviews by Maanasa Raghavan and Jacek Buczny
Attachment and interpersonal relationships are a major subject of research and clinical work in psychology. There are, accordingly, a proliferation of measurement instruments to tap into these broad constructs. The emphasis in these measures tends to be on the emotional dimensions of the relationships—how people feel about their partners and the support that they receive. However, that is not all there is to relationship quality. Increasing attention has been paid to the physical and physiological aspects of relationships, but there are few psychometrically sound measures available to assess these dimensions.
In the current study, Dujols et al. (2024) assessed the psychometric properties of the Social Thermoregulation and Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1), a measure of physical relationships that targets social thermoregulation, or how physical proximity is used to promote warmth and closeness. The project consists of a thorough assessment of the measure’s reliability over time—that is, the degree to which the measure assesses the construct similarly across administrations, in a sample of 183 French university students.
The authors assessed the longitudinal measurement invariance and test-restest reliability of the STRAQ-1. Longitudinal measurement invariance across two time points was only found for two of the four subscales. Similarly, test-retest reliability varied by subscale, ranging from poor to good. Taken together, the study suggests caution in using the STRAQ-1 scale as a reliable measure of physical relationships. The study highlights the need for continued assessment of the reliability of widely used measures, particularly reliability over time, and serves as a model for a rigorous analytic approach for doing so.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of comments from two reviewers and the second round consisting of a close read by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pmnk2
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question was accessed by the authors prior to Stage 1 IPA (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received) but the authors certify that they had not observed ANY part of the data/evidence until after Stage 1 IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., Lindenberg, S., Van Lissa, C. J., & IJzerman, H. (2024). Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/392g6
| Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report | Olivier Dujols, Siegwart Lindenberg, Caspar J. van Lissa, Hans IJzerman | <p>This Registered Report provides the first test of measurement invariance across time points and estimates of test-retest reliability for the Social Thermoregulation, Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1, Vergara et al., 2019). The scale was de... | Social sciences | Moin Syed | 2024-01-11 16:01:41 | |||
How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationHow an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by 1 anonymous reviewer
Research on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) asked subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants were asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants answered the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they felt best suited their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions was manipulated, such that the question specified a clear objective or not. Contrary to the theory, mental designation preferences indicated that interviewees generally assume interviewers wanted to know complete details, irrespective of question specificity. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on responses to the comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/82qtn Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information [Stage 2]. Acceptance of of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2
| How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information | David A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson | <p>This research explored how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal. We theorized that interviewees estimate the interviewer’s objectives based on how they frame any attempt to solicit information. ... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2023-05-24 06:57:09 | |||
09 Jul 2023
STAGE 1
How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationHow an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewers
Research on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson will ask subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants will be asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants will answer the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they feel best suits their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions will be manipulated, such that the question specifies a clear objective or not. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/82qtn Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2022). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/82qtn
| How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information | David A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson | <p>This research explores how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal, which they may or may not disclose. We theorize that interviewees mentally identify applicable information items by estimating th... | Humanities, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-02-25 22:20:40 | |||
The Effect of Brooding about Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered ReportBrooding increases conspiracy beliefs but with practical significance to be determinedRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Matt Williams and Daniel Toribio-Flórez
The world is seemingly awash with conspiracy theories – from well-trodden examples such as fake Moon landings, the 9/11 truth movement, and Holocaust denial, to relative newcomers including COVID as a bioweapon, QAnon, and the belief that the science of climate change has been invented or falsified. While there is a public perception that conspiracy theories are becoming more prevalent, recent evidence suggests that the rate of conspiracism is relatively stable over time (Uscinski et al., 2022). At any point in history, it seems that a certain proportion of people find themselves vulnerable to conspiracy beliefs, but what distinguishes those who do from those who don’t, and what are the causal factors?
In the current study, Liekefett et al. (2023) investigated the critical role of rumination – a perseverative and repetitive focus on negative content leading to emotional distress. In particular, the authors asked whether one component of rumination referred to as brooding (dwelling on one’s worries and distressing emotions) has a specific causal role in the formation of conspiracy beliefs. In a series of preliminary experiments, the authors first established a procedure for successfully inducing rumination, identifying various boundary conditions and requirements for a successful design. In the main study (N=1,638 to 2,007 depending on the analysis), they asked whether the induction of brooding causes a significant increase in conspiracy beliefs. Manipulation checks were also included to confirm intervention fidelity (independently of this hypothesis), and exploratory analyses tested the effect of various moderators, as well as the causal role of a complementary manipulation of reflection – a component of rumination in which attention is focused on the issue at hand rather than one’s emotions.
As expected by the authors' preliminary work, manipulation checks independently confirmed the effectiveness of the brooding intervention. In answer to the main research question, participants who brooded over the worries and negative emotions associated with an issue were more susceptible to conspiracy beliefs compared to a control group. However, while this effect of brooding was statistically significant, the confidence interval of the effect size estimate overlapped with the authors' proposed smallest effect size of interest (d = 0.20), suggesting that the practical value of the effect remains to be determined.
Overall the findings are consistent with a range of psychological theories suggesting that rumination induces negative affect and/or narrows attention to negative information, which in turn may make conspiracy theories seem more probable and render individuals more vulnerable to cognitive bias. The authors note the importance of future work to define the smallest effect of practical significance, analagous to the criteria used to determine the 'minimal clinically important difference’ in medical research.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/y82bs
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Uscinski, J., Enders, A., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Drochon, H., Premaratne, K. & Murthi, M. (2022) Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time? PLOS ONE 17: e0270429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270429
2. Liekefett, L. Sebben, S. & Becker, J. C. (2023). The Effect of Brooding about Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3e8wc | The Effect of Brooding about Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered Report | Luisa Liekefett, Simone Sebben, Julia C. Becker | <p>This Stage 2 Registered Report concerns the relationship between rumination, a repetitive style of negative thinking, and conspiracy beliefs (Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/y82bs, date of in-principle-acceptance: 23/05/2023). Based on four pi... | Humanities, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2023-10-19 17:46:59 | |||
Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative InterviewsWhat to say to help one's partners in crimeRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Lorraine Hope
When interviewing members of a criminal network, what determines the information a given interviewee chooses to disclose, as guided by the network's collective planning? What principles could help inform a detective preparing for such interviews? In the current study, Neequaye et al. recruited groups of people known to each other to assume the role of networks that run an illegal sports betting business, fronting as a chain of tanning salons. Although each network launders money, they have to come up with a strategy to convince investigators they are legit. The groups are motivated to disclose some information when individuals are interviewed, but only enough to appear cooperative. Members disclosed information they perceived would yield benefical outcomes, but the extent to which members disclosed varied substantially according to the groups they were in.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/n7ugr
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no further revisions were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remained zero, and the manuscript therefore qualified for Level 6. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Neequaye, D. A., Granhag, P. A. & Luke, T. J. (2023). Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f3ct4 | Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews | David A. Neequaye, Pär Anders Granhag, Timothy Luke | <p>This study explored how members of an illicit network navigate investigative interviews probing their crimes. We examined how perceived disclosure outcomes, namely, the projected costs and benefits, affect what members choose to reveal. We recr... | Humanities, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-07-11 15:21:09 |
