Submit a report

Announcements

Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

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 recommendationsrssmastodon

IdTitle * Authors * Abstract * PictureThematic fields * RecommenderReviewersSubmission 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 ORCID_LOGO 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 sciencesChris Chambers Ben De Groeve, Florian Lange, Brock Bastian, Sebastian Berger2022-03-04 04:21:18 View
17 Jan 2022
STAGE 1
article picture

Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report

Do different screening instruments for ‘gaming disorder’ measure the same or different construct(s)?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy, Linda Kaye, David Ellis and 1 anonymous reviewer

There is considerable debate regarding the relationship between excessive gaming and mental health problems. Whilst the diagnostic classification of “gaming disorder” has now been included in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the APA decided not to include this diagnosis in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) because the literature “suffers from a lack of a standard definition from which to derive prevalence data” (APA 2013, p. 796). Furthermore, screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals.

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete 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?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems.

Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided 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/usj5b

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. APA (American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition). APA.
  2. Karhulahti V-M, Vahlo J, Martončik M, Munukka M, Koskimaa R and Bonsdorff M (2022). Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. OSF mpz9q, Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mpz9q/
Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportVeli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff<p style="text-align: justify;">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), “interne...Medical Sciences, Social sciencesCharlotte Pennington2021-08-25 23:08:26 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
15 Apr 2023
STAGE 1
article picture

Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered Report

How can the experiences of those who engage in video games in healthy and unhealthy ways be systematically organised?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Michelle Carras, Lukas J. Gunschera and Christopher Ferguson
People are often drawn into intensive video game use in ways they or others may find troubling, harmless or even praiseworthy. Understanding these different experiences may help with integrating intensive technology use into everyday life in a healthy way.
 
In this programmatic submission, Karhulahti et al. (2023) will explore the gaming experiences of three groups of people (those who have sought treatment for gaming, esport players, and adolescents who play around two hours every day), using phenomenological and clinical interviews, and gaming diary logs every four months over three years. Around 200-300 participants will be recruited initially from Finland, Slovakia, and South Korea. In order to further increase cross-cultural range, the study will apply a new duplication method to collect similar data also in countries that have been studied little in the past. The aim will be to answer the questions of a) Is it possible to distinguish passionate from pathological gaming by the meanings and values that players attach to videogame play? and b) What are the design structures of videogames, which are played intensively and/or with gaming-related health problems? Ultimately, the study aims to synthesise all its data into a new taxonomic system, which can help better understand the differences and idiosyncrasies of gaming in lives across cultures.
 
This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on the comprehensive responses to the reviewers' feedback, 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/ekm8x
 
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
Karhulahti, V.-M., Martončik. M., Siutila, M., Park, S., Jin, J., Adamkovič, M., Auranen, T., Na, B., & Yoon, T.-J. (2023). Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered Report​, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ekm8x
Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered ReportVeli-Matti Karhulahti, Marcel Martončik, Miia Siutila, Solip Park, Yaewon Jin, Matúš Adamkovič, Tiina Auranen, Bora Na, Tae-Jin Yoon<p style="text-align: justify;">Videogames have become one of the most prevalent cultural forms around the world. While their role in art, pedagogy, and everyday life keeps growing, the health debates on videogame play—gaming—culminated in 2022 wi...Humanities, Medical Sciences, Social sciencesZoltan Dienes Oluwaseyi Adeliyi, Abiola Akinnubi 2022-10-10 15:09:55 View
24 Sep 2021
STAGE 1
article picture

Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report

How does the phenomenology of "gaming disorder" differ from intensive but non-pathological videogame play?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Malte Elson, Peter Branney and Michelle Carras

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti and colleagues (2021) propose a qualitative, interview-based study of videogame play, with the central aim to understand key phenomological differences between gaming behaviour that is associated with vs. without health problems. This question is particularly important given the recent inclusion of "gaming disorder" in the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD).

In recent years, the validity of "gaming disorder" as an identifiable mental illness has been controversial (e.g. Van Rooij et al, 2018), as has the debate concerning purported harms or benefits of gaming for mental health. This Stage 1 manuscript describes a rigorous qualitative investigation that should provide new insights on this question, and will also include a longitudinal component to examine changes in phenomonology over time, as well as an examination of the extent to which the phenomonology of gaming is reflected in the experiences of medical experts such as doctors, nurses, and therapists who have worked with gaming-related health problems.

More broadly, the manuscript breaks new ground for Registered Reports, being one of the first to focus on qualitative methods, while also making use of the Programmatic submission track in which the approved Stage 1 manuscript is intended to produce two Stage 2 manuscripts focusing on different elements of the project.

Three expert reviewers with a variety of field-specialist and qualitative methodological expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Following revision, the reviewers and recommender agreed 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/a2rwg

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. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2021) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. PsyArXiv preprints, Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
  2. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered ReportVeli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa<p style="text-align: justify;">The recent inclusion of gaming disorder in the ICD-11 as a mental disorder has further increased the importance of researching the health spectrum related to gaming. A critical area in this regard is the lack of cla...Medical Sciences, Social sciencesChris Chambers2021-06-16 20:22:24 View
21 Sep 2022
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)
article picture

Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report

The lived experience of gamers: a comparative qualitative investigation of treatment-seekers and esports players

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Malte Elson and Peter Branney
Since 2018, the inclusion of “gaming disorder” in the ICD-11 has been met with a mixture of interest, confusion and controversy (Van Rooij et al, 2018), mirroring broader debates about the effects of gaming on mental health. One of the major gaps in understanding the validity of gaming disorder as an identifiable mental illness is the absence of qualitative studies comparing the lived experience of gamers who seek treatment with esports players who do not report health problems.
 
Here, Karhulahti et al. (2022) tackle this question in the first of two Stage 2 Registered Reports associated with their previous programmatic Stage 1 submission. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in gamers and medical experts, they find that treatment-seekers and esports players differ in how gaming is associated with the sense of self, either interfering with the self for treatment-seekers or successfully integrating into the self for esports players. These findings help to identify the key characteristics of problematic and non-problematic gaming and call for more intensive and wide-reaching qualitative research in this area.
 
Following one round of in-depth review and revision, 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/a2rwg
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to in-principle acceptance(IPA) but the authors certify that they did not access any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
 
2. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2022) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered ReportVeli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa<p>The recent inclusion of gaming disorder in the ICD-11 as a mental disorder has further increased the importance of researching the health spectrum related to gaming. A critical area in this regard is the lack of clarity concerning the differenc...Medical Sciences, Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-06-11 23:49:03 View
14 Aug 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)
article picture

Life Thinning and Gaming Disorder: A Longitudinal Qualitative Registered Report

How do intensive gaming experiences evolve over time in clinical and non-clinical contexts?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Peter Branney and Michelle Carras
Over the last 5 years the inclusion of “gaming disorder” in the ICD-11 been controversial (Van Rooij et al, 2018), mirroring wider public debate about the effects of gaming on mental health. One of the major gaps in understanding the validity of gaming disorder as an identifiable mental illness is the absence of qualitative studies comparing the lived experience of gamers who seek treatment with esports players who do not report health problems.
 
Here, Karhulahti et al. (2023) tackle this question in the second of two Stage 2 Registered Reports associated with their previous programmatic Stage 1 submission. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, the authors undertook in-depth interviews over a 1-year period with treatment-seeking participants (N=5) and esports-playing participants (N=4) who did not experience gaming-related health problems. The authors sought to answer the folllwing primary question: How do the experiences and meanings of playing videogames—shaped by the individuals’ diverse sociocultural contexts—evolve in those with related health problems (as defined by treatment-seeking) and those who play esports games several hours per day while self-reporting no related health problems?
 
Both groups exhibited intense relationships with gaming that were cyclical over time across various dimensions, with fluctuations occurring in response to changes in health, occupation, and social networks. The observed variation over time was substantial, with individuals attaching and detaching from games involving hundreds or thousands of hours. The authors report treatment-seeking being followed by a search of new gaming and life meanings, while intensive gaming without related problems continued as an integrated part of the self, with resilience adapting and evolving in the face of unexpected life events. Taking into account their findings, the authors propose life thinning and resilience integration processes to help describe and explain how some individuals end up seeking treatment for their gaming, while for others gaming supports them and becomes integrated into their identity.
 
Following one round of in-depth review and revision, 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/a2rwg
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4.  At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to in-principle acceptance(IPA) but the authors certify that they did not access any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
 
2. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2023). Life Thinning and Gaming Disorder: A Longitudinal Qualitative Registered Report [Stage 2 Registered Report], acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hmcqz
Life Thinning and Gaming Disorder: A Longitudinal Qualitative Registered ReportVeli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa<p>The academic debates regarding the psychiatric relevance of gaming disorder continue largely because the lived experiences of treatment-seekers remain mostly unstudied. This registered report addresses the above research gap with a longitudinal...Humanities, Medical Sciences, Social sciencesChris Chambers2023-05-15 11:01:37 View
15 Jun 2023
STAGE 1

Revisiting the impact of affection on insurance purchase and claim decision-making: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Hsee and Kunreuther (2000)

Understanding how object-oriented emotional attachment influences economic response to loss

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Bence Palfi, Rima-Maria Rahal and Fausto Gonzalez
Emotion is a well-established mediator of decision-making, including prospective economic decisions, but does it affect the way we respond economically to loss? According to classic economic theories, when an object is lost and cannot be recovered, our emotional attachment to that object should be irrelevant for decisions such as choosing whether to claim insurance or compensation. Intriguingly, however, this does not appear to be the case: in a series of experiments, Hsee and Kunreuther (2000) found that when people have higher affection towards an object, they are more sensitive to its loss and are more willing to claim compensation or purchase insurance for the object. They explained these findings according to an influential “consolation hypothesis” in which people see insurance compensation as means to mitigate against the emotional distress associated with property loss.
 
Using a large online sample (N=1000), Law and Feldman (2023) propose to replicate four of six studies from Hsee and Kunreuther (2000), each asking (primarily) whether people with higher affection towards an object are more willing to claim compensation or purchase insurance for that object. In each experiment, participants are randomly assigned to either a high affection group or a low affection group and then given a scenario in which the level of affection to an object is correspondingly manipulated while the monetary value is held constant. For example, for high affection: “You liked the now-damaged painting very much and you fell in love with it at first sight. Although you paid only $100, it was worth a lot more to you”, and for low affection: “You were not particularly crazy about the now-damaged painting. You paid $100 for it, and that’s about how much you think it was worth.” A range of dependent measures are then collected, including the maximum hours participants would be willing to spend driving to claim compensation, the maximum amount participants would be willing to pay for insurance, and how likely participants would be to claim compensation or purchase insurance. As part of the replication, the authors have also built in manipulation checks to confirm that the scenarios influenced participants' (imagined) level of affection for the object, and a range of exploratory analyses.
 
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/b7y5z
 
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. Hsee, C. K., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2000). The affection effect in insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007876907268

2. Law, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the impact of affection on insurance purchase and claim decision-making: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Hsee and Kunreuther (2000), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/b7y5z
Revisiting the impact of affection on insurance purchase and claim decision-making: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Hsee and Kunreuther (2000)Yan Yi (Veronica) Law, Gilad Feldman<p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting the impact of affection on insurance purchase and claim decision-making: Replication and extensions of Hsee and Kunreuther (2000)"</p>Social sciencesChris Chambers2023-02-02 11:02:51 View
06 Jun 2022
STAGE 1

Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1

How do public exposure and moral beliefs impact feelings of shame and guilt?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Roger Giner-Sorolla and Uriel Haran
Shame and guilt are powerful negative emotions that are notable for their external vs. internal focus: while shame is generally experienced in response to public scrutiny, guilt arises from a self-directed, private evaluation. In a formative study, Smith et al. (2002) asked whether the level of public exposure influenced levels of shame and guilt arising from one's transgressions, and found that, compared to private situations, public exposure was more strongly associated with shame than with guilt. Since then, these findings have had significant implications for theories and applications of moral psychology.
 
In the current study, Zhang et al.  propose to directly replicate Smith et al. (2002) in a large online sample. In particular, they will revisit the critical questions from Study 1, asking (a) whether public exposure affects the magnitude of shame and guilt over one’s misconduct, and (b) whether stronger moral belief increases guilt and shame over one’s misconduct.
 
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/j7kt2
 
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. Smith, R. H., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 138-159. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.138
 
2. Zhang, Y., Cheung, F. C., Wong, H.T., Yuen, L. Y., Sin, H. C., Chow, H. T. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1. https://osf.io/j7kt2
Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1Yikang Zhang, Fung Chit (Jack) Cheung, Hei Tung (Patrina) Wong, Lok Yee (Noel) Yuen, Hui Ching (Rachel) Sin, Hiu Tang (Kristy) Chow, Gilad Feldman<p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting the impact of public exposure on shame and guilt: Replications of Smith et al. (2002) Study 1 with extensions examining regret, responsibility, and robustness to a within-s...Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-02-16 05:05:36 View
23 Mar 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication Registered Report of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1

The effect of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Uriel Haran
Shame and guilt are powerful negative emotions that are notable for their external vs. internal focus: while shame is generally experienced in response to public scrutiny, guilt arises from a self-directed, private evaluation. In a formative study, Smith et al. (2002) asked whether the level of public exposure influenced levels of shame and guilt arising from one's transgressions, and found that, compared to private situations, public exposure was more strongly associated with shame than with guilt. Since then, these findings have had significant implications for theories and applications of moral psychology.
 
In the current study, Zhang et al. (2023) directly replicated Smith et al. (2002) in a large online sample, revisiting two critical questions from Study 1: (a) whether public exposure affects the magnitude of shame and guilt over one’s misconduct, and (b) whether stronger moral belief increases guilt and shame over one’s misconduct. The results fail to confirm the original conclusions: both public exposure and manipulation of moral beliefs were found to influence shame and guilt, with no reliable evidence that shame was influenced more strongly than guilt. These findings thus constitute a non-replication and offer a challenge to theoretical models that hinge on the separability of shame and guilt as separate constructs.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's 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/j7kt2
 
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. Smith, R. H., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 138-159. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.138
 
2. Zhang, Y., Cheung, F. C., Wong, H.T., Yuen, L. Y., Sin, H. C., Chow, H. T. & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication Registered Report of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jpx87
Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication Registered Report of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1 Yikang Zhang, Fung Chit (Jack) Cheung, Hei Tung (Patrina) Wong, Lok Yee (Noel) Yuen, Hui Ching (Rachel) Sin, Hiu Tung Kristy Chow, Gilad Feldman<p>Shame and guilt are unpleasant self-conscious emotions associated with negative evaluations of oneself or one’s behavior. Smith et al. (2002) demonstrated that shame and guilt are distinct and are impacted differently by public exposure, that i...Social sciencesChris Chambers2023-02-03 10:58:20 View