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.
259 records found
Latest recommendations
Id | Title * | Authors * ▲ | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers | Submission date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
27 Nov 2024
STAGE 1
![]() Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered ReportClaire M. Neville, Matt N. Williams https://osf.io/cyf39Do interim payments promote honesty in self-report? A test of the Bayesian Truth SerumRecommended by Romain EspinosaSurveys that measure self-report are a workhorse in psychology and the social sciences, providing a vital window into beliefs, attitudes and emotions, both at the level of groups and individuals. The validity of self-report data, however, is an enduring methodological concern, with self-reports vulnerable to a range of response biases, including (among others) the risk of social desirability bias in which, rather than responding honestly, participants answer questions in a way that they believe will be viewed favourably by others. One proposed solution to socially desirable responding is the so-called Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), which aims to incentivise truthfulness by taking into account the relationship between an individual’s response and their belief about the dominant (or most likely) response given by other people, and then assigning a high truthfulness score to answers that are surprisingly common.
Although valid in theory (under a variety of assumptions), questions remain regarding the empirical utility of the BTS. One area of concern is participants’ uncertainty regarding incentives for truth-telling – if participants don’t understand the extent to which telling the truth is in their own interests (or they don’t believe that it matters) then the validity of the BTS is undermined. In the current study, Neville and Williams (2024) aim to test the role of clarifying incentives, particularly for addressing social desirability bias when answering sensitive questions. The authors will administer an experimental survey design including sensitive questions, curated from validated scales, that are relevant to current social attitudes and sensitivities (e.g. “Men are not particularly discriminated against”, “Younger people are usually more productive than older people at their jobs”). Three groups of participants will complete the survey under different incentive conditions: the BTS delivered alone in standard format, the BTS with an interim bonus payment that is awarded to participants (based on their BTS score) half-way through the survey to increase certainty in incentives, and a Regular Incentive control group in which participants receive payment without additional incentives.
The authors will then address two questions: whether the BTS overall effectively incentivises honesty (the contrast of BTS alone + BTS with interim payment vs the Regular Incentive group), and whether interim payments, specifically, further boost assumed honesty (the contrast of BTS alone vs BTS with interim payment). Regardless of how the results turn out, the study promises to shed light on the effectiveness of the BTS and its dependence on the visibility of incentives, with implications for survey design in psychology and beyond.
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 recommenders 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/vuh8b
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
Neville, C. M & Williams, M. N. (2024). Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian
Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vuh8b | Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report | Claire M. Neville, Matt N. Williams | <p>Self-report data is vital in psychological research, but biases like careless responding and socially desirable responding can compromise its validity. While various methods are employed to mitigate these biases, they have limitations. The Baye... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | Martin Schnuerch, Philipp Schoenegger, Sarahanne Miranda Field | 2024-05-02 06:40:18 | View | |
14 Jan 2025
STAGE 1
Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changesCorina J Logan, Kelsey B McCune, Nancy Chen, Dieter Lukas http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.htmlThe role of behavior and habitat availability on species geographic expansionRecommended by Chris ChambersNote from the PCI RR Managing Board: This Stage 1 recommendation was originally written by Esther Sebastián González for PCI Ecology on 06 Oct 2020 and was transferred to PCI Registered Reports on 14 Jan 2025 to facilitate the submission and evaluation of the resulting Stage 2 submissions. The link to the original recommendation and review history at PCI Ecology may be found at this link (and in PDF format here).
===
Understanding the relative importance of species-specific traits and environmental factors in modulating species distributions is an intriguing question in ecology [1]. Both behavioral flexibility (i.e., the ability to change the behavior in changing circumstances) and habitat availability are known to influence the ability of a species to expand its geographic range [2,3]. However, the role of each factor is context and species dependent and more information is needed to understand how these two factors interact. In this pre-registration, Logan et al. [4] explain how they will use Great-tailed grackles (Quiscalus mexicanus), a species with a flexible behavior and a rapid geographic range expansion, to evaluate the relative role of habitat and behavior as drivers of the species’ expansion [4]. The authors present very clear hypotheses, predicted results and also include alternative predictions. The rationales for all the hypotheses are clearly stated, and the methodology (data and analyses plans) are described with detail. The large amount of information already collected by the authors for the studied species during previous projects warrants the success of this study. It is also remarkable that the authors will make all their data available in a public repository, and that the pre-registration in already stored in GitHub, supporting open access and reproducible science. I agree with the three reviewers of this pre-registration about its value and I think its quality has largely improved during the review process. Thus, I am happy to recommend it and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.html
Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals: References
[1] Gaston KJ. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
[2] Sol D, Lefebvre L. 2000. Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to new zealand. Oikos. 90(3): 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900317.x
[3] Hanski I, Gilpin M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biological journal of the Linnean Society. 42(1-2): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00548.x
[4] Logan CJ, McCune KB, Chen N, Lukas D. 2020. Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changes (http://corinalogan.com/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.html) In principle acceptance by PCI Ecology of the version on 16 Dec 2021 https://github.com/corinalogan/grackles/blob/0fb956040a34986902a384a1d8355de65010effd/Files/Preregistrations/gxpopbehaviorhabitat.Rmd
=======
Full review history: [link]
| Implementing a rapid geographic range expansion - the role of behavior and habitat changes | Corina J Logan, Kelsey B McCune, Nancy Chen, Dieter Lukas | <p>It is generally thought that behavioral flexibility, the ability to change behavior when circumstances change, plays an important role in the ability of a species to rapidly expand their geographic range (Chow et al., 2016; Griffin & Guez, ... | Life Sciences | Chris Chambers | 2025-01-13 12:12:15 | View | ||
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1
![]() Similarities and differences in a global sample of song and speech recordingsCorresponding authors: Yuto Ozaki and Patrick E. Savage (Keio University, Japan). Full list of 80 authors is in the manuscript https://psyarxiv.com/jr9x7Exploring cross-cultural variation in speech and songRecommended by Chris ChambersFor centuries, the ubiquity of language and music across human societies has prompted scholars to speculate about their cross-cultural origins as well as their shared and unique characteristics. Depending on the extent to which contemporary theories emphasise the role of biology vs. culture, a range of hypotheses have been proposed concerning expected similarities and differences in song and speech. One class of hypotheses stemming from cultural relativism assumes a lack of universal regularities in song and speech, and therefore predicts no systematic cross-cultural relationships. On the other hand, more recent evolutionary hypotheses such as the social bonding hypothesis, motor constraint hypothesis, and sexual selection hypothesis all predict differences or similarities in specific characteristic of vocalisations, such as pitch regularity, pitch interval size, and melodic contour. Existing results are mixed in their support of these predictions.
In the current study, Ozaki et al. (2022) embark on an ambitious project to elucidate cross-cultural similarities and differences between speech and song in 81 different linguistic varieties spanning 23 language families. Understanding precisely how song and speech are related is methodologically challenging due to the multitude of confounds that can arise in comparing natural recordings. Here the authors overcome these difficulties with four types of carefully controlled recordings: singing, recitation of sung lyrics, spoken description of the song, and instrumental version of the sung melody. The authors will then examine six features that are amenable to reliable comparison, including pitch height, temporal rate, pitch stability, timbral brightness, pitch interval size, and pitch declination. With this data in hand, the authors will ask which acoustic features differ reliably between song and speech across cultures, with the expectation that song will exhibit higher pitch, slower rate and more stable pitch than speech. At the same time, the authors expect song and speech to be reliably similar in the characteristics of timbral brightness, pitch intervals and pitch contours. In addition to these confirmatory tests, the authors will explore variation across a range of additional stimulus characteristics and ancillary research questions.
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/jdhtz
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 AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Ozaki, Y., Savage P. E. et al. (2022). Similarities and differences in a global sample of song and speech recordings, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdhtz
| Similarities and differences in a global sample of song and speech recordings | Corresponding authors: Yuto Ozaki and Patrick E. Savage (Keio University, Japan). Full list of 80 authors is in the manuscript | <p>What, if any, similarities and differences between song and speech are consistent across cultures? Both song and speech are found in all known human societies and are argued to share evolutionary roots and cognitive resources, yet no studies ha... | ![]() | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | Bob Slevc, Nai Ding | 2022-09-16 16:03:10 | View |
15 Sep 2023
STAGE 1
![]() Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure?Damien Brevers, Guillaume Martinent, İrem Tuğçe Öz, Olivier Desmedt, Bas de Geus https://osf.io/y8d9mDoes running pleasure result from finding it easier than you thought you would?Recommended by Zoltan DienesThe reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?
Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! Brevers et al. (2023) will ask people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they will experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings is the prediction error.
Participants will also rate their remembered pleasure in running and the authors will investigate whether running pleasure depends on prediction error.
The study plan was refined across four rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers and the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
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. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2023). Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xh724 | Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? | Damien Brevers, Guillaume Martinent, İrem Tuğçe Öz, Olivier Desmedt, Bas de Geus | <p>Humans have the ability to mentally project themselves into future events (prospective thinking) to promote the implementation of health-oriented behaviors, such as the planning of daily sessions of physical exercise. Nevertheless, it is curren... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2023-04-21 17:40:50 | View | ||
Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure?Damien Brevers, Guillaume Martinent, İrem Tuğçe Öz, Olivier Desmedt, Bas de Geus https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2SB86Running pleasure results from finding it easier than you thought you wouldRecommended by Zoltan DienesThe reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?
Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! In the current study, Brevers et al. (2024) asked people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they would experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings was the prediction error. Participants also rated their remembered pleasure in running. As hypothesized, the authors found that running pleasure increased linearly with how much retrospective exertion was than predicted.
The Stage 2 manuscript received one round of review from two external reviewers, then some minor comments from the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
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. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2024). Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? [Stage 2]. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xfgqp | Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? | Damien Brevers, Guillaume Martinent, İrem Tuğçe Öz, Olivier Desmedt, Bas de Geus | <p>Humans have the ability to mentally project themselves into future events (prospective thinking) to promote the implementation of health-oriented behaviors, such as the planning of daily physical exercise sessions. Nevertheless, it is currently... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2024-04-26 11:58:57 | View | ||
06 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
![]() Do individual differences in cognitive ability or personality predict noticing in inattentional blindness tasks?Daniel J. Simons, Yifan Ding, Connor M. Hults, Brent W. Roberts https://osf.io/xtwfsAre individual difference in inattentional blindness related to cognitive abilities or personality traits?Recommended by Gidon FrischkornDespite inattentional blindness being a widely recognized and researched phenomenon — popularized by experiments like the invisible gorilla — the evidence on how individual differences affect the occurrence of inattentional blindness has remained inconsistent, largely due to small sample sizes and methodological variations.
In this context, Daniel J. Simons, known for his role in bringing public attention to inattentional blindness, along with Yifan Ding, Connor M. Hults, and Brent W. Roberts, presents an ambitious yet well-constructed registered report that addresses this critical gap in the literature. Their report outlines a comprehensive investigation into whether individual differences in cognitive ability or personality traits can predict the likelihood of noticing unexpected objects in various inattentional blindness tasks. The two proposed studies — one focusing on cognitive predictors and the other on personality predictors — arguably represent the most extensive single-sample tests to date on this topic.
The authors propose a robust methodology that includes a total of 2,000 participants (1,000 per study). The study design features three distinct inattentional blindness tasks with varying levels of demand to assess the generalizability of the findings across different experimental contexts. In Study 1, cognitive measures such as matrix reasoning and operation span — both well-established indicators of fluid intelligence and working memory — are utilized. Study 2 incorporates a range of personality measures, including the Big Five personality traits and attention-related traits (e.g., ADHD and obsessive-compulsive characteristics).
The report also presents a detailed analysis plan with pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes, strong justifications for the sample size, and clearly defined criteria for data inclusion and exclusion. The authors intend to employ multiple statistical techniques, such as correlation analyses and regression models, along with rigorous checks for replicability, to explore the relationship between individual differences and inattentional blindness.
Overall, this registered report is a well-justified and meticulously planned investigation into the role of individual differences in inattentional blindness. The proposed studies have the potential to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the cognitive and personality factors that influence the noticing of unexpected objects. The rigorous experimental design, large sample sizes, and adherence to open science practices make this a valuable addition to the literature.
Based on the strengths of the proposal and the authors' responsiveness to the detailed feedback from two reviewers, the recommender justed that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xtwfs (under temporary private embargo) 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
Simons, D. J., Ding, Y., Hults, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2024). Registered Report: Do individual differences in cognitive ability or personality predict noticing in inattentional blindness tasks? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xtwfs
| Do individual differences in cognitive ability or personality predict noticing in inattentional blindness tasks? | Daniel J. Simons, Yifan Ding, Connor M. Hults, Brent W. Roberts | <p>People often fail to notice unexpected objects or events when they focus attention on another task or different aspects of a scene. Recently, a number of studies have examined whether individual differences in cognitive abilities or personality... | Social sciences | Gidon Frischkorn | 2024-03-28 21:52:33 | View | ||
09 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
![]() Does concern regarding climate change impact subsequent mental health? A longitudinal analysis using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)Daniel Major-Smith, Isaac Halstead, Katie Major-Smith https://osf.io/8mbhsDoes concern regarding climate change impact subsequent mental health?Recommended by Thomas EvansThe link between climate change and health is becoming increasingly clear, and problematic (IPCC, 2023). While most agree that climate change is a problem (Vlasceanu et al., 2024) and evidence is starting to emerge that individual's wellbeing can benefit from engaging in proenvironmental behaviour (Prinzing, 2023), there is little robust longitudinal evidence available to make causal claims about the complex and inter-related nature of these types of effects.
In their proposed study, Major-Smith et al. (2024) use the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children to explore whether climate concern has a causal impact upon mental health. Strategic use of this pre-existing data allows consideration of both confounding bias and reverse causality to provide more rigorous evidence for this causal effect. The second research question (whether climate action moderates this relationship) is of both personal and professional interest, as someone who struggles with climate anxiety, and plants hundred of trees annually to try and mitigate the dread. Capable of exploring the potential for individual-level climate action to have a double effect - directly help with climate change mitigation and also an individuals' mental health, the proposed research is a rewarding and insightful line of inquiry in a domain desperate for a more rapid and rigorous evidence-base.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round 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/t6d3k
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 AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly Journals:
References
1. IPCC (2023). Accessed here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements
2. Major-Smith, D., Halstead, I., & Major-Smith, K. (2024) Does concern regarding climate change impact subsequent mental health? A longitudinal analysis using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/t6d3k
3. Prinzing, M. (2023). Proenvironmental Behavior Increases Subjective Well-Being: Evidence From an Experience-Sampling Study and a Randomized Experiment. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241251766
4. Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Grayson, S. J., ... & Lutz, A. E. (2024). Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries. Science Advances, 10, eadj5778. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
| Does concern regarding climate change impact subsequent mental health? A longitudinal analysis using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) | Daniel Major-Smith, Isaac Halstead, Katie Major-Smith | <p>Climate change is having a substantial – and increasingly severe – impact on our planet, affecting people’s health, security and livelihoods. As a consequence, the concept of ‘climate anxiety’ has recently been developed to characterise the psy... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Thomas Evans | 2024-05-24 15:50:50 | View | ||
09 Jul 2023
STAGE 1
![]() How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationDavid A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson https://psyarxiv.com/bpdn2How an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan DienesResearch 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 | View | ||
How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationDavid A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2How an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan DienesResearch 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 | View | ||
20 Jan 2025
STAGE 1
![]() How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to KnowDavid A. Neequaye, Alexandra Lorson https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/8s35kDecoding Interviewer’s Intent: How Interviewees Infer Information GoalsRecommended by Yikang ZhangInvestigative interviews are structured social interactions where interviewers seek information from interviewees to address various objectives (e.g., Neequaye, 2023). Across diverse contexts such as eyewitness recall or intelligence gathering (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1986; Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), interviewees must first identify their interviewer’s goals before deciding whether to cooperate or resist their requests. This is the central focus of the current study.
In a prior study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) made an unexpected discovery: interviewees tended to assume their interviewer was interested in all the information they possessed on a topic, regardless of the specificity of the questions (high vs. low specificity). The current submission by Neequaye and Lorson (2025) seeks to replicate these findings while addressing two potential confounds from the earlier research.
Replication 1 utilizes a within-subjects design for question-specificity trials, while Replication 2 employs a between-subjects design. In both replications, participants indicate what they believe their interviewer wants to know using free-text responses rather than selecting from predefined options. The authors present clear hypotheses, predicted outcomes, and alternative predictions, supported by well-reasoned rationales. Furthermore, the methodology, including data collection and analysis plans, is described in detail and has undergone review by three experts. Based on the expert reviews and the authors’ responses, the recommender concluded that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9suze
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, 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. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422492
2. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: A Conceptual Overview. In A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10
3. Neequaye, D. A. (2023). Why Rapport Seems Challenging to Define and What to Do About the Challenge. Collabra: Psychology, 9, 90789. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90789
4. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information. Royal Society Open Science, 10(8), 230986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230986
5. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2025). How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9suze
| How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know | David A. Neequaye, Alexandra Lorson | <p>We examine the mechanisms by which interviewees in investigative interviews mentally organize information when deciphering what an interviewer wants to know. The overarching idea is that such a process stems from the extent to which an intervie... | Social sciences | Yikang Zhang | 2024-06-14 22:53:12 | View |
FOLLOW US
MANAGING BOARD
Chris Chambers
Zoltan Dienes
Corina Logan
Benoit Pujol
Maanasa Raghavan
Emily S Sena
Yuki Yamada