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

IdTitleAuthorsAbstractPictureThematic fieldsRecommender▲ReviewersSubmission date
21 Apr 2024
STAGE 1

Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between three causal pathways

Understanding links between secularization, rationalisation and insecurity

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Chris Chambers and 1 anonymous reviewer
What relationship can be expected between secularization, rationalisation and insecurity? While some authors argue that rationalisation reduces the willingness to belong to religious groups, others have suggested that insecurity increases this need to belong to religious groups.
 
In the current study, Lang and Chvaja (2024) will adjudicate between these two possibilities using an economics game in participants from two countries: US and Poland. The central question posed by the authors is whether cooperative insecurity increases the probability of joining a religious normative group. They will test the relationship between an environment (secure and insecure) and institution (which related to the norm context: religious and secular) on the probability of choosing the normative group in an experimental setting. Therefore, the study will be a quantitative analysis.
 
The authors included an adequate power analysis, alternatives for non-supported hypotheses, and filtering to ensure a high quality of data collection. They also undertook a pilot study to ensure the quality of the procedure and sensitivity of the analyses.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round 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/yzgek
 
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.Lang, M. & Chvaja, R. (2024). Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between the rationalization and existential insecurity theories. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/yzgek
Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between three causal pathwaysMartin Lang, Radim Chvaja<p>The study tests two competing explanations of the secularization process related to rationalizing worldviews and decreasing existential insecurity. While the former explanation argues that people are unwilling to join religious groups because o...Social sciencesAdrien Fillon2023-11-22 11:17:30 View
21 Jun 2024
STAGE 1

Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort

Are people who exert more effort in a task seen as more moral?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Jared Celniker, Ignazio Ziano and Michael Inzlicht
This study seeks to understand cultural and age differences in the effort moralization effect, a phenomenon in which people who put more effort into a task are considered more moral, regardless of the quality or the morality associated with the task. This is shown in common phrases such as the “great resignation” or “quiet quitting”, which are mostly used against younger members of the population, in particular generation Z.
 
Tissot and Roth (2024) propose to conduct a replication of a study from Celniker et al. (2023) which found evidence for this effect, with new samples from Mexico and Germany to test potential cultural differences. They will also test the effect of age on the effort moralization effect. Therefore, the study will be a quantitative analysis.
 
The authors included an adequate power analysis, alternatives for non-supported hypotheses, and filtering to ensure a high quality of data collection. They already provided an R script and dummy data to ensure the quality of the analysis.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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/tvgw2
 
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. Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259
 
2. Tissot, T. T. & Roth, L. H. O. (2024). Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/tvgw2
Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of EffortTassilo T. Tissot, Leopold H. O. Roth<p>Inferring the character of individuals is an adaptive need for partner and mating decisions as well as to avoid harm. The effort moralization effect is the finding that people who exert more effort in a task are seen as more moral, even if high...Social sciencesAdrien Fillon2024-01-18 14:58:04 View
14 Feb 2024
STAGE 1

Detecting DIF in Forced-Choice Assessments: A Simulation Study Examining the Effect of Model Misspecification

Developing differential item functioning (DIF) testing methods for use in forced-choice assessments

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Timo Gnambs and 2 anonymous reviewers
Traditional Likert-type items are commonly used but can elicit response bias. An alternative approach, the forced-choice question, required respondents to rank order all items. Forced-choice questions boast some advantages but required advanced item response theory analysis to generate scores which are comparable across individuals and to evaluate the properties of those scales. However, there has been limited discussion of how to test differential item functioning (DIF) in these scales. In a previous study, Lee et al. (2021) proposed a method for testing DIF.
 
Here, Plantz et al. (2024) explore the implications of incorrect specification of anchors in DIF detection for forced choice items. The study proposes to use a Monte Carlo simulation which manipulates sample size, equality of sample size across groups, effect size, percentage of differentially functioning items, analysis approach, anchor set size, and percent of DIF blocks in the anchor set. This study aims to answer research questions about the type I error and power of DIF detection strategies under a variety of circumstances, both evaluating whether the results from Lee et al. (2021) generalize to misspecified models and expanding to evaluate new research questions. Results of this study will provide practical implications for DIF testing with forced-choice questions. An important limitation of the study is that it does not explore non-uniform DIF, only uniform DIF. Additionally, as with all simulation studies not all results can only apply to conditions which are simulated and so rely on the realistic selection of simulation conditions. The authors have selected conditions to match reality in circumstances where data is available, but relied on previous simulations in cases when data is not available. 
 
This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review by two reviewers with expertise in psychometrics. An additional round of review was completed by the recommender only. Based on the merits of the original submission and responsiveness of the authors to requests from the reviewers, 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/p8awx
 
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. Lee, P., Joo, S.-H. & Stark, S. (2021). Detecting DIF in multidimensional forced choice measures using the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model. Organizational Research Methods, 24, 739–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120959822
 
2. Plantz, J. W.,  Brown, A., Wright, K. & Flake, J. K. (2024). Detecting DIF in Forced-Choice Assessments: A Simulation Study Examining the Effect of Model Misspecification. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/p8awx
Detecting DIF in Forced-Choice Assessments: A Simulation Study Examining the Effect of Model Misspecification Jake Plantz, Anna Brown, Keith Wright, Jessica K. Flake<p>On a forced-choice (FC) questionnaire, the respondent must rank two or more items instead of indicating how much they agree with each of them. Research demonstrates that this format can reduce response bias. However, the data are ipsative, resu...Social sciencesAmanda Montoya2023-09-06 22:43:32 View
01 Jun 2024
STAGE 1

Can Imagining Actions as Occurring Involuntarily Cause Intentional Behaviour to Feel Involuntary?

Can the sense of agency and reality be altered by our meta-cognitive models?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Zoltan Kekecs and Sophie Siestrup
Alterations in subjective experience, including alterations in the sense of agency (SoA) and reality (SoR), are commonly implicated in direct-verbal suggestions, such as hypnotic suggestions. Although extensively studied, how direct-verbal suggestions can alter the SoA and SoR is not understood (e.g., see Martin & Pacherie, 2019; Zahedi et al., 2024). One class of theories postulates that the alterations in SoA and SoR are related to meta-cognition. For instance, the intention to move or form a mental image can be kept out of conscious awareness, creating a sense of involuntariness (Dienes & Perner, 2007).

Relying on this theory, in the current study Sheldrake and Dienes (2024) postulate that the metacognitive processes related to these alterations can occur by appropriate use of imagination. In other words, by imagining the movement or object to be hallucinated and further imagining the underlying process was outside of awareness, one can elicit alterations in SoA and SoR. To this end, an intervention is devised whereby the participant is repeatedly asked to consider what might help or hinder them from imagining they are unaware of the relevant intention and thereby adjust their imagination. A control group will be asked to increase the feeling of involuntariness or altered reality simply by repeated practice. Afterward, participants will be asked in a test phase the extent to which the suggested experience felt involuntary.
 
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/f8hsd
 
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. Dienes, Z. & Perner, J. (2007). Executive control without conscious awareness: The cold control theory of hypnosis. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 293-314). Oxford University Press.
 
2. Martin, J. R. & Pacherie, E. (2019). Alterations of agency in hypnosis: A new predictive coding model. Psychol Rev, 126(1), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000134
 
3. Sheldrake, K. & Dienes, Z. (2043). Can Imagining Actions as Occurring Involuntarily Cause Intentional Behaviour to Feel Involuntary? In principle acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/f8hsd
 
4. Zahedi, A., Lynn, S. J., & Sommer, W. (2024). Cognitive Simulation along with Neural Adaptation Explain Effects of Suggestions: A Novel Theoretical Framework. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1388347
Can Imagining Actions as Occurring Involuntarily Cause Intentional Behaviour to Feel Involuntary?Kevin Sheldrake, Zoltan Dienes<p>The cold control theory of response to imaginative suggestions calling for distortions in veridical experience (including hypnotic suggestions) states that behavioural and cognitive responses are generated intentionally, but are perceived as in...Social sciencesAnoushiravan Zahedi Zoltan Kekecs2023-11-25 16:24:53 View
21 Feb 2022
STAGE 1
article picture

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Jean-François Gerard, Rachel Harrison and 1 anonymous reviewer

This submission has been withdrawn (see notice below)

Sex-biased dispersal is widely acknowledged to influence range expansion and the geographic limits of species (Trochet et al. 2016). Evidence is accruing that suggests an impact of the learning ability of species on their capacity to colonise new habitats because the ability to learn provides an advantage when confronted to novel challenges (Lee and Thornton 2021). Whether these two mechanisms interact to shape range expansion remains however unknown. One could expect this interaction because both dispersal and the ability to learn are linked to related behaviours (e.g., exploration, Lee and Thornton 2021). 

In their study entitled “Investigating sex differences in learning in a range-expanding bird”, Alexis J. Breen and Dominik Deffner (Breen and Deffner 2022) propose to test this hypothesis in range-expanding great-tailed grackles (Quiscalus mexicanus) by exploring the individual variation of several behavioural traits (e.g., exploration, neophobia, problem solving, Logan 2016) linked to their learning ability. They will use a colour-reward reinforcement experimental approach to compare the learning performance between male and female great-tailed grackles in three study sites and evaluate whether sex-biased learning ability interacts with sex-biased dispersal. Data will be analysed by a Bayesian reinforcement learning model (Deffner et al. 2020), which was validated. 

This Stage 1 registered report was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by Jean-François Gerard, Rachel Harrison and one anonymous reviewer, and another round of review by Jean-François Gerard and Rachel Harrison. 

Based on detailed responses to the comments and the modifications brought to the manuscript by the authors, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

Withdrawal notice: The Stage 2 manuscript associated with this accepted Stage 1 protocol was submitted to PCI RR on 22 July 2022. On 25 July 2022, the Managing Board offered the opportunity for the authors to revise the manuscript prior to in-depth review. On 7 Sep 2022, the authors withdrew the Stage 2 manuscript from consideration due to time constraints.

 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/v3wxb
 
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

Trochet, A., Courtois, E. A., Stevens, V. M., Baguette, M., Chaine, A., Schmeller, D. S., Clobert, J., & Wiens, J. J. (2016). Evolution of sex-biased dispersal. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 91(3), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1086/688097

Lee, V. E., & Thornton, A. (2021). Animal cognition in an urbanised world. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.633947

Logan, C. J. (2016b). Behavioral flexibility in an invasive bird is independent of other behaviors. PeerJ, 4, e2215. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2215

Deffner, D., Kleinow, V., & McElreath, R. (2020). Dynamic social learning in temporally and spatially variable environments. Royal Society Open Science, 7(12), 200734. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200734

Breen, A. J. & Deffner D. (2022). Investigating sex differences in learning in a range-expanding bird., https://github.com/alexisbreen/Sex-differences-in-grackles-learning, in principle acceptance of version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/v3wxb

[WITHDRAWN]: Investigating sex differences in learning in a range-expanding birdAlexis J. Breen & Dominik Deffner<p style="text-align: justify;">How might differences in dispersal and learning interact in range expansion dynamics? To begin to answer this question, in this preregistration we detail the background, hypothesis plus associated predictions, and m...Life SciencesBenoit Pujol Rachel Harrison, Kate Cross, Jean-François Gerard2021-11-10 13:12:04 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
19 Mar 2023
STAGE 1

How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report

Does relaying ‘house edge’ information influence gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Zhang Chen, Graeme Knibb and Luke Clarke
Many products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g. alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. In this study, Newall et al. (2022) aim to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,000 UK-based online gamblers will be randomly assigned to receive two alternative phrasings of the house edge or the equivalent return-to-player information. Two outcome measures will be used to judge the effectiveness of the house edge information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and rates of accurate responding on a multiple-choice question measuring factual understanding of this information. This study will therefore assess the most effective communication of gambling risk, which can inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm.
 
Following a positive initial appraisal, and after two rounds of in-depth review, the recommender 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/5npy9
 
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. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2022). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5npy9
How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered ReportPhilip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard<p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in ...Social sciencesCharlotte Pennington2022-07-18 16:25:06 View
19 Mar 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report

Does relaying ‘house edge’ information influence gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Zhang Chen and Graeme Knibb
Many products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g., alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. This Registered Report aimed to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,333 UK-based online gamblers received one of three phrasings: an original house-edge (“his game keeps 10% of all money bet on average”), an alternative house-edge (“on average this game is programmed to cost you 10% of your stake on each bet”) or return-to-player (“this game has an average percentage payout of 90%”). Two outcome measures were employed to judge the effectiveness of this information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and factual understanding. The findings indicate that the two-house edge formats were more effective in communicating gambling-related harms than the return-to-player format, but the original house edge phrasing appeared to be the most optimal as it decreased gambler’s perceived chances of winning and increased their factual understanding compared to return-to-player. These results can therefore inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm by presenting the most effective communication of gambling risk.
 
After two in-depth reviews, 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/5npy9
 
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. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2023). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfnzd
How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered ReportPhilip Newall, Richard James, Olivia Maynard<p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in ...Social sciencesCharlotte Pennington Zhang Chen2023-01-09 14:56:36 View
02 Jun 2024
STAGE 1

Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Study

Capturing Perspectives on Responsible Research Practice: A Delphi Study

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO and based on reviews by Moin Syed, Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Thomas Evans, Priya Silverstein and Sean Grant
​​The responsible conduct of research (RCR) is crucial for the health of the research ecosystem: high quality research should lead to more credible findings and increase public trust. However, the dimensions and responsibilities that make up RCR differ across disciplines, who together can learn from one another to ensure rigorous, transparent, and reliable research and foster healthier research culture.
 
Bridging this gap, in their Stage 1 Registered Report, Field and colleagues (2024) outline their plans for a large-scale Delphi study to evaluate academics' perceived levels of importance of the most crucial elements of RCR and how these align and differ across disciplines. First, they plan to assemble a Delphi panel of RCR experts across multiple disciplines who will evaluate a list of RCR dimensions to suggest any additions. Then, these same panellists will judge each RCR dimension on its importance within their discipline of expertise, with iterative rounds of ratings until stability is reached. In this latter phase, the goal is to probe which items are more broadly appreciated by the sample (i.e., those that are perceived as a universally valuable RCR practice), versus which might be more discipline specific. The findings will present the median importance ratings and categories of response agreement across the entire panel and between different disciplines. Finally, to contextualise these findings, the team will analyse qualitative findings from open-ended text responses with a simple form of thematic analysis. From this, the team will develop a framework, using the identified RCR dimensions, that reflects the needs of the academic community. 
 
By mapping a broader multidisciplinary perspective on RCR, this research will fill the gap between the two extremes that existing conceptualisations of RCR tend to fall under: high-level frameworks designed to be universally applicable across all disciplines (e.g., the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity) and prescriptive guides tailored to the practical instruction of researchers within a specific discipline or field (e.g., RCR training designed for members of a university department). The hope is that this will stimulate a more nuanced understanding and discussion of cross-disciplinary conceptions of RCR.
 
Five expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewer’s comments, the recommenders 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/xmnu5
 
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
 
Field, S. M., Thompson, J., van Drimmelen, T., Ferrar, J., Penders, B., de Rijcke, S., & Munafò, M. R. (2024). Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Study. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xmnu5
Mapping Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi StudySarahanne M. Field, Jackie Thompson, Tom van Drimmelen, Jennifer Ferrar, Bart Penders, Sarah de Rijcke, and Marcus R. Munafò<p>Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is generally agreed to be a laudable goal. It promotes high quality research practices, which should lead to more credible findings, and instill confidence in the research community. However, it is as yet u...Social sciencesCharlotte Pennington2023-05-19 15:27:54 View