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.​​​

 

 

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

​

What relationship can be expected between secularization, rationalization and insecurity? While some authors argue that rationalization 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) adjudicated between these two possibilities using an economics game with 811 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 tested 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.

 

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. There were only a few, minor, and well documented deviations from stage 1.

 

For the non-religious group, secularity increased the odds of joining the normative group when faced with insecurity. For the religious group, the results were mixed, mostly due to the unexpected high rate of participants joining the religious group in the secure environment. The researchers then pooled the regular and reversed scenarii and found support for the existential insecurity theory.

 

The authors concluded that both theories (the rationalization theory and the existential insecurity theory) can be at work, as the majority of the sample did not choose the religious normative group due to a potential rationalization, but they do slightly more when faced with (existential) insecurity.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s 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:

 

 
References
 
1.Lang, M. & Chvaja, R. (2024). Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between the rationalization and existential insecurity theories [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gy7sj

​

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 (2025) conducted 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 and age differences. 

The results indicated a generalization of the effort moralization effect in Germany and Mexico, with important heterogeneity in the effect found, and effects sizes that were smaller than in the original study conducted in the USA. However, no effect was found regarding age, as younger individuals judged effort as being important in the same way as older individuals. It is possible, therefore, that the effort moralization effect is a consistent bias that persists regardless of age.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to the reviewers’ and recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and 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:
 

 
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. (2025). 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 [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ck4st_v6

This study aims to examine the associations between personality traits, using the big-5 personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and compliance with pandemic measures (e.g. handwashing), and perceived risk of the pandemic to the individual, in a representative sample of the adult Norwegian population.

 

Several previous studies have examined associations between personality and adherence to medical advice using measures administered at the same point in time the during COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Götz et al., 2021), however the dataset the current investigators plan to use assessed personality one year prior to the pandemic (May/June 2019) and the risk and compliance measures four months into the pandemic (August/September 2020). 
 
Here, Sætrevik et al. (2024) make a number of hypotheses, including that conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness and neuroticism will be positively associated with compliance; extraversion will be negatively associated with compliance; extraversion and openness will be negatively associated with perceived risk; and finally, neuroticism will be positively associated with perceived risk. They plan to test their hypotheses using linear regression analyses.
 
Importantly, given the topic, the data for this study already exists and some response distributions of the compliance and risk measures have been examined. However, the authors have yet to link the data on personality to the data on compliance and risk, which is the focus of their hypotheses.  
 
The findings from this study will help us to understand the personality characteristics associated with infection control measures and individual risk perceptions of viral illnesses during a pandemic. 
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

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:
 

• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science
  
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

1. Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
 
2. Götz, F. M., Gvirtz, A., Galinsky, A. D., and Jachimowicz, J. M. (2021). How personality and policy predict pandemic behavior: Understanding sheltering-in-place in 55 countries at the onset of COVID-19. The American psychologist, 76, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000740

 

3. Sætrevik, B., Erevik, E. K., and Bjørkheim, S. B. (2024). Personality traits predict perception of pandemic risk and compliance with infection control measures. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/p5sjb

Experimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.
 
In the present study, Chen et al. (2024) will use a novel version of a combined go/no-go / approach avoidance paradigm to test the effects on choice of consumable candy. In this task, participants are randomly assigned to make a response framed as a go / no-go action or an approach / avoidance action to control a shopping cart (Chen & Van Dessel, 2024). Following this they will complete a food choice task in which participants make a series of binary choices for different candies. Their performance on this task will lead to the receipt of real-world candy. The authors aim to test whether the same responses will lead to different effects on food choice, depending on how the response was interpreted (e.g. participants in the approach/avoidance instruction group will select Approach items more often than those in the go/no-go instruction group). The study is well powered to detect the proposed effect size of interest, and data will be analysed using Bayesian mixed-effect models.
 
This study will shed light onto theoretical predictions of action interpretation on stimulus value and choice, which may improve the efficacy of behaviour change tools such as approach bias training in future.  
 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bn5xa

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 
1. Chen, Z. and Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898-923.  https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151

 

2. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., and Figner, B. (2024). Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245
 
4. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. and Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363