Submit a report

Announcements

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

IdTitle * Authors * Abstract * PictureThematic fields * RecommenderReviewersSubmission date
30 Sep 2024
STAGE 1

Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses

Does interpretation of actions as either avoid or inhibit influence choice behaviour for candy?

Recommended by based on reviews by Alexander MacLellan and Katrijn Houben
Experimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.
 
In the present study, Chen et al. (2024) will use a novel version of a combined go/no-go / approach avoidance paradigm to test the effects on choice of consumable candy. In this task, participants are randomly assigned to make a response framed as a go / no-go action or an approach / avoidance action to control a shopping cart (Chen & Van Dessel, 2024). Following this they will complete a food choice task in which participants make a series of binary choices for different candies. Their performance on this task will lead to the receipt of real-world candy. The authors aim to test whether the same responses will lead to different effects on food choice, depending on how the response was interpreted (e.g. participants in the approach/avoidance instruction group will select Approach items more often than those in the go/no-go instruction group). The study is well powered to detect the proposed effect size of interest, and data will be analysed using Bayesian mixed-effect models.
 
This study will shed light onto theoretical predictions of action interpretation on stimulus value and choice, which may improve the efficacy of behaviour change tools such as approach bias training in future.  
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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/bn5xa
 
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. Chen, Z. and Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898-923.  https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151
 
2. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., and Figner, B. (2024). Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245
 
4. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. and Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363
 
Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responsesZhang Chen, Pieter Van Dessel, Bernd Figner <p>Executing go/no-go (GNG) and approach/avoidance (AAT) responses toward objects can increase people’s choices for go over no-go items, and for approach over avoidance items. Some theoretical accounts explain these effects as the results of merel...Social sciencesAndrew Jones Alexander MacLellan, Katrijn Houben2024-06-17 17:57:07 View
22 Jul 2024
STAGE 1

Probing the dual-task structure of a metacontrast-masked priming paradigm with subjective visibility judgments

Do trial-wise visibility reports - and how these reports are made - alter unconscious priming effects?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Markus Kiefer, Thomas Schmidt and 3 anonymous reviewers
Many studies of unconscious processing measure priming effects. Such experiments test whether a prime stimulus can exert an effect on speeded responses to a subsequently presented target stimulus even when participants are unaware of the prime. In some studies, participants are required to report their awareness of the prime in each trial - a dual-task design. Other studies conduct such visibility tests in separate experiments, so that the priming effect is measured via a single task. Both these approaches have pros and cons; however, it remains unclear to what extent they can affect the process of interest. Can the choice of experimental design and its parameters interfere with the priming effect? This could have implications for interpreting such effects, including in previous literature.
 
In the current study, Wendt and Hesselmann (2024) will investigate the effects of using a dual-task design in a masked priming paradigm, focusing on subjective visibility judgments. Based on power analysis, the study will test 34 participants performing both single-task and several dual-task conditions to measure reaction times and priming effects. Priming is tested via a speeded forced-choice identification of a target. The key manipulation is the non-speeded visibility rating of the prime using a Perceptual Awareness Scale, either with a graded (complex) rating or a dichotomous response. Moreover, participants will either provide their awareness judgement via a keyboard or vocally. Finally, participants will also complete a control condition to test prime visibility by testing the objective identification of the prime. These conditions will be presented in separate blocks, with the order randomised across participants. The authors hypothesise that using a dual-task slows down response times and boosts priming effects. However, they further posit that keyboard responses and graded visibility ratings, respectively, in the dual task reduce priming effects (but also slow response times) compared to vocal responses and dichotomous visibility judgements. In addition to the preregistered hypotheses, the study will also collect EEG data to explore the neural underpinnings of these processes.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript went through three rounds of review by the recommender and five expert reviewers. While the recommender would have preferred to see targeted, directional hypotheses explicitly specified in the design instead of non-directional main effects/interactions, he nevertheless considers this experimental design ready for commencing data collection, and therefore granted in-principle acceptance.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ds2w5
 
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

Wendt, C. & Hesselmann, G. (2024). Probing the dual-task structure of a metacontrast-masked priming paradigm with subjective visibility judgments. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ds2w5
Probing the dual-task structure of a metacontrast-masked priming paradigm with subjective visibility judgmentsCharlott Wendt, Guido Hesselmann<p>Experiments contrasting conscious and masked stimulus processing have shaped, and continue to shape, cognitive and neurobiological theories of consciousness. However, as shown by Aru et al. (2012) the contrastive approach builds on the untenabl...Social sciencesD. Samuel Schwarzkopf2024-03-02 18:20:03 View
31 Dec 2024
STAGE 1

Allostatic Interoception in Frontotemporal Dementia: A Scoping Review Protocol

What is the evidence for interoceptive and allostatic dysfunction in frontotemporal dementia?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Mallory Feldman, Eliza Bliss-Moreau and 1 anonymous reviewer
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a range of neurodegenerative diseases involving progressive deterioration of frontal and temporal brain networks. This scoping review protocol by Carneiro et al. (2024) promises to make a valuable contribution to the conceptualization of dysregulated interoception (the ability to sense and interpret internal bodily signals) and allostasis (anticipation and adjustment of energy use in response to environmental demands) in the context of FTD. The work also has broader implications, potentially offering key insights into the interplay between sensory and regulatory signals, which hold relevance not only for dementia but also for other mental disorders characterized by maladaptive allostatic adaptations, such as addiction. This broader applicability underscores the potential impact of the review across multiple domains of mental health research.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/skebz
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References

Carneiro, F., Hazelton, J. L., Campos, C., Ibáñez, A., & Ferreira-Santos, F. (2024). Allostatic interoception in frontotemporal dementia: a scoping review protocol. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/skebz
Allostatic Interoception in Frontotemporal Dementia: A Scoping Review ProtocolFábio Carneiro, Jessica L. Hazelton, Carlos Campos, Agustín Ibáñez, Fernando Ferreira-Santos<p>Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) encompasses a spectrum of disorders characterized by distinct behavioral, cognitive, and motor symptoms. Deficits in interoception and allostasis have garnered attention, considering the involvement of the allostat...Medical SciencesMateo Leganes-Fonteneau2024-03-08 19:37:35 View
06 Jul 2022
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report

Different ontologies, different constructs? Instruments for gaming-related health problems identify different groups of people and measure different problems

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy and David Ellis
Screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications of gaming-related health problems derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. Underpinned by this, Karhulahti et al. (2022) assessed how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8217 Finnish participants completed four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?).
 
The results indicate that measures based on the ICD-11, DSM-5, DSM-IV, and self-assessment appear to be associated with lower mental health. However, these measures of gaming-related health problems differed significantly in terms of prevalence and/or overlap, suggesting that they identify different groups of people and that different problems or constructs are being measured by different instruments. These findings are important because they contribute to the rapidly growing literature on the ‘fuzziness’ of  constructs and measures relating to technology use. The authors recommend that researchers working with these measures should: (a) define their construct of interest; and (b) evaluate the construct validity of their instruments. Being able to answer these questions will enhance research quality and contribute to strengthened meta-analyses. Importantly, this will prevent hype around gaming-related disorders, allowing researchers to communicate clearly and appropriately without risk of confusing related yet different constructs.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two of the reviewers who assessed it at Stage 1. Following revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a  positive recommendation. To ensure that the manuscript met the requirements of the PCI RR TOP guidelines, prior to this acceptance an email communication was sent to the authors by the recommender to ensure that study data were openly available on a temporary OSF link before the final data archive is full validated by the Finnish Social Sciences Data Archive (FSD). This is noted in the recommended preprint.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/usj5b
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Karhulahti V.-M., Vahlo J., Martončik M., Munukka M., Koskimaa R. and Bonsdorff M. (2022). Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. Peer-reviewed and recommended at Stage 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://psyarxiv.com/qytrs
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportVeli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff<p>Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “internet gaming disorder” (in the 3r...Medical Sciences, Social sciencesCharlotte Pennington2022-05-23 16:14:04 View
17 Jan 2024
STAGE 1

The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered Replication

Examining attentional retraining of threat as an intervention in pathological worry

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Thomas Gladwin, Jakob Fink-Lamotte and 1 anonymous reviewer
Cognitive models ascribe a pivotal role to cognitive biases in the development and maintenance of mental disorders. For instance, attentional biases that prioritize the processing of threat-related stimuli have been suggested to be causally involved in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), which is marked by pathological worry. Therefore, these biases have garnered significant interest as potential diagnostic indicator and as targets for modification.
 
The idea that attention bias modification (ABM) can serve as a therapeutic intervention for GAD and other disorders was fueled by a seminal study by Hazen et al. (2009). In this study, 23 individuals experiencing high levels of worry underwent a computerized attentional retraining of threat stimuli (ARTS) or placebo control training during five training sessions. Relative to control, attention retraining was found to reduce preferential attention to threat, as well as depression and anxiety symptoms. However, as Pond et al. (2024) highlight in their review of the literature, the evidence endorsing the efficacy of ABM in alleviating anxiety disorders is still inconclusive. Moreover, some researchers contend that early positive findings might have been inflated due to demand effects.
 
Based on these considerations, Pond et al. (2024) propose a direct replication of Hazen et al. (2009) by subjecting a high-worry sample to five sessions of ARTS or placebo control. Departing from the frequentist analyses used in the original study, the authors will employ Bayesian analyses that allow more nuanced interpretation of the results, allowing consideration of evidence in support of the null hypothesis. The sampling plan will adhere to a Bayesian stopping rule, whereby the maximal sample size will be set at n=200. Furthermore, the authors extend the original study by addressing potential demand effects. For this purpose, they include a measure of phenomenological control (i.e., the ability to generate experiences align with the expectancies of a given situation) and evaluate its potential moderating impact on the attention bias training.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5f7u9
 
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. Hazen, R. A., Vasey, M. W., & Schmidt, N. B. (2009). Attentional retraining: A randomized clinical trial for pathological worry. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.004 
 
2. Pond, N., Meeten, F., Clarke, P., Notebaert, L., & Scott, R. B. (2024). The efficacy of attentional bias modification for anxiety: A registered replication. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5f7u9
 
The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered ReplicationNathan Pond, Frances Meeten, Patrick Clarke, Lies Notebaert, Ryan Scott<p>Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is a prevalent condition that has been linked to the presence of certain cognitive biases, including attention bias. Attention bias is the tendency to attend preferentially to threat-related stimuli and has be...Social sciencesThomas Meyer2023-09-15 19:25:47 View
30 Jun 2023
STAGE 1

Justice in the Eye of the Beholder: How Comparison Framing Affects the Perception of Global Inequality Through Social Emotions and Justice Sensitivity

Why are there variations in perceptions of inequality?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Mario Gollwitzer and Sa-Kiera Hudson
Inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunities are rampant both between and within nations around the world. Making strides to rectify inequalities requires examining how people come to understand them as well as the psychological processes that translate those understandings into reparative actions. There is some evidence for a “comparative framing effect,” in which the group that is initially referenced impacts judgements by communicating salient information and the appropriate reference point. Research on this comparative framing effect suggests that focusing on disadvantage, relative to advantage, leads to a more negative assessment and intentions to engage in action to reduce the inequality. 
 
In two pilot studies (reported in the current proposal) focused on global inequalities (low-income vs high-income countries), Schnepf et al. (2023) did not find evidence for a main effect of framing on perceived legitimacy of the inequality or intentions to engage in action. They did, however, find some evidence for an interaction with the perceived size of the inequality. When the low-income country was the subject of the comparison, larger perceptions of the size of the inequality were associated with greater intentions to engage in action (both studies) and greater perceptions of the differences as illegitimate (Study 1 only). Moreover, they found some evidence in both studies that negative social emotions such as guilt and shame were the mechanism that explained why perceiving greater inequality in the low-income framing condition was associated with the outcomes. 
 
In the current study, Schnepf et al. (2023) build upon these two pilot studies to conduct a high-quality replication and a stronger test of their hypotheses. Most notably, the proposed Registered Report uses a much larger sample, providing adequate statistical power to detect relatively small interaction effects. Additionally, the proposed project manipulates the size of the inequality that is being evaluated, rather than relying on participants’ perceptions. Finally, the study includes “justice sensitivity,” or the degree to which individuals assess inequality as unfair as an additional hypothesized moderator, and “social dominance orientation” as an exploratory moderator. Along with the pilot studies, the proposed project will represent a strong test of several hypotheses relevant to many different areas of social and personality psychology. 
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth peer review, both of which consisted of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise. 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/pgyvw
 
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. Schnepf, J., Reese, G., Bruckmüller, S., Braun, M., Rotzinger, J., & Martiny, S. E. (2023). Justice in the eye of the beholder: How comparison framing affects the perception of global inequality through social emotions and justice sensitivity. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pgyvw
Justice in the Eye of the Beholder: How Comparison Framing Affects the Perception of Global Inequality Through Social Emotions and Justice SensitivityJulia Schnepf, Gerhard Reese, Susanne Bruckmüller, Maike Braun, Julia Rotzinger, Sarah E. Martiny<p>Global inequality is one of today’s major challenges. How people mentally represent inequality is often determined by its comparative framing. In the present work, we seek to analyze whether putting the focus of a comparison on the disadvantage...Social sciencesMoin Syed2021-12-11 15:41:26 View
08 Feb 2022
STAGE 1

Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI Study

Putting the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory to the test in explaining habitual action

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewers

What are the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the formation of habits? In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Eder and colleagues propose an fMRI study to test a key prediction of the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory: that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) – a region heavily implicated in reward processing, cognitive control, and action selection – will show increased activity during the presentation of Pavlovian cues that are associated with devalued outcomes. In combination with a series of behavioural positive controls, this observation would provide evidence in support of EVC theory, whereas failure to do so may support alternative accounts that propose independence of habits from the representations of outcomes.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth specialist 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). This IPA recommendation was issued on 8 Feb 2022, and was initially provisional due to lack of ethics approval. The recommendation was then updated and confirmed on 21 Feb 2022 following confirmation that ethics approval had been granted.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/k8ygb

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

Eder, A. B., Dignath, D. & Gamer, M. (2022). Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI Study. Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k8ygb

Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI StudyAndreas B. Eder, David Dignath, Matthias Gamer<p>Habitual action is typically distinguished from goal-directed action by its insensitivity to changes in the reward value. There is an ongoing discussion whether this insensitivity is an intrinsic design feature of habits or, rather, a function ...Social sciencesChris Chambers2021-10-05 11:51:08 View
24 Oct 2024
STAGE 1

Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claim

Does metacognition influence how children test surprising claims?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Elizabeth Lapidow and Amy Masnick
As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.
 
In this lab-based study of 175 children, Hermansen et al. (2022) will test the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors will ask whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they will investigate whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.
 
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/uq6dw
 
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. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2022). Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claim, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/uq6dw
Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claimTone Hermansen, Kamilla Mathisen, Samuel Ronfard<p>Hearing about surprising phenomena triggers exploration, even in young children. This exploration increases and changes with age. It becomes more targeted and efficient with children around 6-years-old clearly exploring with the intent to verif...Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-05-09 18:10:57 View
24 Oct 2024
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims

The role of metacognition in how children test surprising claims

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Elizabeth Lapidow and Amy Masnick
As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.
 
In this lab-based study of 174 children, Hermansen et al. (2024) tested the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors asked whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they investigated whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.
 
Results provided mixed support for the hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, older children were not more likely than younger children to express uncertainty about surprising claims -- although an exploratory analysis suggested that prior belief may moderate the relationship with age. Consistent with predictions, older children did, however, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty and were more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Interestingly, prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty did not significantly increase the likelihood that they would generate an efficient test for a claim, although exploratory analysis again suggested that taking to account additional variables (in this case the type of explanation children provide when prompted) could moderate the effect. Taken together, these findings suggest that the development of children’s reasoning about their own beliefs influences their empirical evaluation of those beliefs. Overall, the study highlights the role of metacognition in the development of explicit scientific thinking and suggests a variety of promising avenues for future 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/uq6dw
 
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:
 
*Note: Despite being listed as a PCI RR-friendly outlet at Stage 1 (in 2022), Infant and Child Development was removed from the above listing at Stage 2 due to the decision by the journal's publisher (Wiley) in 2024 to withdraw its journals from all PCIs, including PCI RR. As part of this withdrawal, Wiley chose to renege on previous commitments issued by Infant and Child Development to PCI RR authors.
 
References
 
1. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2024). When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6ket7?view_only=d86eb8b5296b4499801e052a6a22291f
When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claimsTone K. Hermansen, Kamilla F. Mathisen, Samuel Ronfard<p>Hearing about surprising phenomena triggers exploration, even in young children. This exploration increases and changes with age. It becomes more targeted and efficient with children around 6-years-old clearly exploring with the intent to verif...Social sciencesChris Chambers2024-06-19 09:39:15 View
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1

How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication

How much practice is needed before daily actions are performed in a way that feels habitual?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Benjamin Gardner, Wendy Wood and Adam Takacs
Even small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.
 
In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of 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/bj9r2
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
References
 
1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
 
2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2
How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replicationde Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J.<p>How long does it take to form a habit? This question will be addressed by an innovative study by Lally et al. (2010), in which they tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine, using the Self-Repor...Social sciencesZoltan Dienes2022-05-26 09:54:26 View