Vocal sounds, including both speech and non-speech sounds, have been found to activate the Superior Temporal Sulci and Gyri in comparison to non-vocal sounds. These regions, termed Temporal Voice Areas (TVAs), are considered to be involved in early voice processing and therefore critical for social interaction. TVA activation has been examined in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to determine if the characteristic difficulties in social communication and interaction are linked to an impaired early voice processing. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), one study found typical brain activation in TVAs for 15 out of 16 autistic participants (Schelinski et al., 2016), whereas another found atypical activation in 4 out of 5 autistic participants (Gervais et al., 2004).

 

Here, the inconsistencies in the previous literature propel Gautier et al. (2023) to examine brain activation of TVAs with a larger sample size (26 ASD and 26 non-ASD participants). Gautier et al. (2023) will present vocal sounds and non-vocal sounds to both groups of participants during fMRI and predict that fewer participants in the ASD group will show a preferential response to voices in TVAs compared to the non-ASD group. These results would suggest that symptoms of ASD interfere with early stages of social interaction, at the level of voice processing.

 

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated in an initial round by the co-recommenders and another two rounds of in-depth review by two expert reviewers. With these revisions, the recommenders judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/538m4
 
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. Gautier, R., Houy-Durand, E., Barantin, L., Briend, F. & Latinus, M. (2023). Cortical voice processing in Autism Spectrum Disorder. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/538m4

Measurement is a vital activity for all research areas, but we so often fail to provide sufficient clarity, rigor and transparency about it, undermining the validity of our studies' conclusions (Flake & Fried, 2020). This concern is of wide societal interest when applied to the domains of ideology and attitudes where measurements of both implicit and explicit attitudes are assumed to reflect the same underlying concept. The extent to which this can be accepted is undermined by mixed evidence demonstrating a lack of consensus on the extent to which relevant psychological factors similarly predict both implicit and explicit attitudes.

 

In the proposed study, Reid & Inbar (2023) question these assumptions through use of the Project Implicit dataset, exploring the extent to which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) similarly predict implicit and explicit attitudes. This work is ideally suited for publication through the Registered Reports format because whilst we may expect that relationships between SDO/RWA are similar in effect size across measures of both implicit and explicit attitude (because they tap into the same underlying attitude), there is great scope to acknowledge a more complex set of findings which may not be immediately interpretable or coherent. The proposed work will help us unpack further the assumptions surrounding measurement of attitudes and can help us better understand the extent to which SDO and RWA predict atittudes. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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/zv4jw
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 5. All of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exist, but are currently inaccessible to the authors and thus unobservable prior to IPA (e.g. held by a gatekeeper) 
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Flake, J. K. & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

 

2. Reid, J. & Inbar, Y. (2023). Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/zv4jw

Forgiveness is a core feature of human psychology in which a person makes a deliberate decision to cease negative emotions or attitudes toward an offender who has done them harm. The concept of interpersonal forgiveness is deeply embedded across societies, but much remains to be understood about how it actually works. What are its key ingredients and why does it occur in the first place? Research in social psychology has demonstrated a range of personal and social benefits of forgiveness, giving rise to two dominant mechanistic accounts – one that positions empathy as the driving factor and another that centres motivated reasoning (Donovan & Priester, 2017).

 

In the current study, Chan and Feldman (2023) sought to replicate a formative study by McCullough et al (1997) that led to the so-called Empathy Model of forgiveness. According to this theory, forgiving is a motivational change facilitated (crucially) by empathy, promoting constructive over destructive behaviour toward the offender. Chan and Feldman replicated Study 1 from McCullough et al., measuring the correlational relationship between apology, forgiving, and empathy for offenders, and exploring whether forgiving is associated with increased conciliation and decreased avoidance motivation. As well as closely replicating the original study, the authors extended it to test the more severe hypothesis that empathy causally influences forgiveness. To achieve this, they experimentally manipulated empathy by adding two groups to the design: one in which participants were asked to recall hurtful past experiences in which they were not empathetic to the offender, and another in which they were highly empathetic.

 

The outcomes constitute a successful replication. Affective empathy was positively associated with perceived apology and forgiveness, and forgiveness was positively associated with conciliation motivation and negatively associated with both avoidance motivation and revenge motivation. In addition, the results of the experimental extension revealed a reliable causal effect of empathy on forgiveness and perceived apology. Overall, the findings provide robust support for the Empathy Model of forgiveness.

 

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.

 

 

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:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open
   

 

1. Donovan, L. A. N., & Priester, J. R. (2017). Exploring the psychological processes underlying interpersonal forgiveness: The superiority of motivated reasoning over empathy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.005

 

2. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321 

 

3. Chan, C. F. & Feldman, G. (2023). The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1, acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/956fa

Visual symmetry is critical to our interaction with our environment so that when detected, symmetry automatically produces a neural marker in the form of an Event Related Potential (ERP) called Sustained Posterior Negativity (SPN). However, when symmetry is presented to the visual system slanted away from the viewer, there is a reduction in SPN, termed a perspective cost. 

 

Considering ​objects are rarely presented front-on (or frontoparallel) in our natural environment, Karakashevska et al., (2023) plan to examine the extent of the perspective cost with the addition of visual cues to facilitate extraretinal representation of the visual symmetry. The authors will record electroencephalography (EEG) from 120 participants while they perform a luminance task on symmetrical and asymmetrical stimuli. The authors hypothesize perspective cost will be reduced by three perspective cues: 1) monocular viewing, when cue conflict caused by binocular viewing is eliminated, 2) a static frame surrounding the symmetrical stimulus, adding a depth cue, and 3) a moving frame, assisting 3D perception prior to the symmetry onset. If the SPN is equivalent during frontoparallel and slanted presentation in a cue condition, the authors will conclude extraretinal representation can be automatic when sufficient visual cues are available. The proposed experiment is powered to detect a relatively small difference between perspective cue conditions. This will solidify fundamental research on visual symmetry processing and will further our understanding of object perception and recognition. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds by four expert reviewers. Following in-depth review and responses from the authors, the recommenders have determined that Stage 1 criteria was met and have awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/yzsq5
 
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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• F1000Research
• Imaging Neuroscience
• In&Vertebrates
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 
References
 
1. Karakashevska, E., Bertamini, M. & Makin, A. D. J. (2023). Putting things into perspective: Which visual cues facilitate automatic extraretinal symmetry representation? [Stage 1 Registered Report]. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/yzsq5

The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias in which people persist with a decision that is no longer optimal because of previous resources they have invested (now considered to be spent or “sunk”). Most of us will have heard sunk costs reflected in the saying “throwing good money after bad”, but sunk costs can, in theory, occur more broadly, whether for money, time or any other resource-limited investment. The sunk cost effect for money has been widely studied and appears robust; in contrast, the sunk cost effect for time is more uncertain, and is potentially moderated by the age of respondents (and likely resource availability), the fact that time is irreplaceable, and the tendency for people to account for time less easily than they do for money. In an impactful study, Soman (2001) found that the sunk cost effect for time was indeed weaker than for money, although this finding has not been widely replicated.

 

In the current study, Petrov et al. (2023) replicated three studies (1, 2 and 5) from Soman (2001), asking whether sunk costs are weaker for time than for money, and then testing whether the relative absence of a sunk time cost arises from the inability of participants to account for time or due to more rational beliefs in the evaluation of past time investments.

 

Results provided mixed support for the original findings. Consistent with Soman (2001), the sunk cost effect for money was reliably stronger than for time in Study 1; however, sunk costs for both money and time were comparable in Study 2 (and if anything, slightly stronger for time). The indirect replication of Study 5 from Soman (2001) found that the sunk cost effect for time was not significantly influenced by accounting for time, either using education or by highlighting opportunity costs. Robustness checks confirmed the main preregistered outcomes while also ruling out a range of potential alternative explanations. Overall, the results suggest that that sunk cost effects for time are more context-dependent and empirically volatile than sunk costs for money.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/65htv

 

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:

 

 

1. Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,14, 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.370

 

2. Petrov, N. B., Chan, Y. K., Lau, C. N., Kwok, T. H., Chow, L. C., Lo, W. Y. V, Song W., & Feldman, G. (2023). Sunk cost effects for time versus money: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Soman (2001), acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/q9s6p