Announcements
Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.
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.
241 records found
Latest recommendations
Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender▲ | Reviewers | Submission date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 Jul 2024
STAGE 1
Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysisMaria Bruntsch, Samuel E Cooper, Rany Abend, Marian Boor, Anastasia Chalkia, Mana Ehlers, Artur Czeszumski, Dave Johnson, Maren Klingelhöfer-Jens, Jayne Morriss, Erik Mueller, Ondrej Zika, Tina Lonsdorf https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/unx7wIntegrative meta-analysis of anxiety-related traits and fear processing: bridging research to clinical applicationRecommended by Sara Garofalo based on reviews by Yoann Stussi, Luigi Degni, Marco Badioli and 1 anonymous reviewerThe paper aims to bridge gaps in understanding the relationship between anxiety-related traits and fear processing, with a specific focus on fear acquisition and extinction. Fear and safety processing are known to be linked to anxiety symptoms and traits such as neuroticism and intolerance of uncertainty (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). However, the diversity in study focus and measurement methods makes it difficult to integrate findings into clinical practice effectively.
To address this issue, Brunsch et al. (2024) propose a systematic literature search and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines, to explore these associations. They plan to use nested random effects models to analyze both psychophysiological and self-report outcome measures. Additionally, they will examine the role of different questionnaires used to assess anxiety-related traits and conduct a content analysis of these tools to evaluate trait overlaps.
Current knowledge from the literature indicates that individuals with anxiety disorders exhibit differences in fear acquisition and extinction compared to those without such disorders (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). Previous meta-analyses have shown associations between anxiety traits and fear generalization/extinction, but these studies are limited in their scope and focus.
The primary aim of the research is to provide a comprehensive summary of the associations between anxiety-related traits and conditioned responding during fear acquisition and extinction across multiple measures. Another goal is to investigate whether different anxiety-related trait questionnaires yield different associations with fear and extinction learning. The authors will also conduct a content analysis to better interpret the results of their meta-analysis by examining the overlap in questionnaire content.
A secondary aim of the study is to evaluate how sample characteristics, experimental specifics, and study quality influence the associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction. By addressing these aims, the study seeks to advance the understanding of fear-related processes in anxiety and inform more targeted prevention and intervention strategies.
The Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds of thorough review. After considering the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/4mndj
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Bruntsch, M., Abend, R., Chalkia, A., Cooper, S. E., Ehlers, M. R., Johnson, D. C., Klingelhöfer-Jens, M., Morriss, J., Zika, O., & Lonsdorf, T. B. (2024). Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4mndj
2. Lonsdorf, T. B., & Merz, C. J. (2017). More than just noise: Inter-individual differences in fear acquisition, extinction and return of fear in humans - Biological, experiential, temperamental factors, and methodological pitfalls. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 703–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.007
3. Morriss, J., Wake, S., Elizabeth, C., & van Reekum, C. M. (2021). I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training. Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science, 1, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.05.011
| Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysis | Maria Bruntsch, Samuel E Cooper, Rany Abend, Marian Boor, Anastasia Chalkia, Mana Ehlers, Artur Czeszumski, Dave Johnson, Maren Klingelhöfer-Jens, Jayne Morriss, Erik Mueller, Ondrej Zika, Tina Lonsdorf | <p>Background: Deficits in learning and updating of fear and safety associations have been reported in patients suffering from anxiety- and stress-related disorders. Also in healthy individuals, anxiety-related traits have been linked to altered f... | Life Sciences | Sara Garofalo | Luigi Degni, Marco Badioli, Anonymous, Yoann Stussi | 2024-03-15 14:48:20 | View | |
11 Sep 2023
STAGE 1
Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabularyTom E. Hardwicke, Sarah Schiavone, Beth Clarke, Simine Vazire https://osf.io/e5pkz?view_only=3f65527bb5dc428382f4b9154bfc58e0Understanding the validity of standardised language in research evaluationRecommended by Sarahanne Miranda Field and Chris Chambers based on reviews by Chris Hartgerink (they/them), Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Štěpán Bahník and Ross MounceIn 2023, the journal eLife ended the practice of making binary accept/reject decisions following peer review, instead sharing peer review reports (for manuscripts that are peer-reviewed) and brief “eLife assessments” representing the consensus opinions of editors and peer reviewers. As part of these assessments, the journal draws language from a "common vocabulary" to linguistically rank the significance of findings and strength of empirical support for the article's conclusions. In particular, the significance of findings is described using an ordinal scale of terms from "landmark" → "fundamental" → "important" → "valuable" → "useful", while the strength of support is ranked across six descending levels from "exceptional" down to "inadequate".
In the current study, Hardwicke et al. (2023) question the validity of this taxonomy, noting a range of linguistic ambiguities and counterintuitive characteristics that may undermine the communication of research evaluations to readers. Given the centrality of this common vocabulary to the journal's policy, the authors propose a study to explore whether the language used in the eLife assessments will be interpreted as intended by readers. Using a repeated-measures experimental design, they will tackle three aims: first, to understand the extent to which people share similar interpretations of phrases used to describe scientific research; second, to reveal the extent to which people’s implicit ranking of phrases used to describe scientific research aligns with each other and with the intended ranking; and third, to test whether phrases used to describe scientific research have overlapping interpretations. The proposed study has the potential to make a useful contribution to metascience, as well as being a valuable source of information for other journals potentially interested in following the novel path made by eLife.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/mkbtp
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. Hardwicke, T. E., Schiavone, S., Clarke, B. & Vazire, S. (2023). Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mkbtp | Finding the right words to evaluate research: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary | Tom E. Hardwicke, Sarah Schiavone, Beth Clarke, Simine Vazire | <p>The journal eLife recently announced that it would abandon binary ‘accept/reject’ decisions and instead focus on sharing both peer review reports and short “eLife assessments” representing the consensus opinions of editors and peer reviewers. F... | Life Sciences, Social sciences | Sarahanne Miranda Field | 2023-06-16 12:11:14 | View | ||
16 Oct 2024
STAGE 1
Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research/Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered ReportThomas R. Evans, James Bartlett, Olly Robertson, Charlotte R. Pennington, Calvin Burns, Laura Dean, Kate Bradley, Emma L. Henderson, Ruijie Wang, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Emma Wilson-Lemoine, Jérémy E. Wilson-Lemoine, Peter Branney, Joanna Butler, Tamara Kalandadze, Mirela Zaneva, Elias Keller, Vaitsa Giannouli, Helena Hartmann, Gerit Pfuhl, Jan Maskell, Christopher J. Graham, Emma O’Dwyer https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/p8hb4Understanding how applied researchers address open scholarship, feedback and climate change in their workRecommended by Sarahanne Miranda Field based on reviews by Crystal Steltenpohl, Lisa Hof and Jay PatelThis recommendation concerns the plan of two studies that are intended to be conducted simultaneously, using the same data collection approach, and to result in two manuscripts that will be submitted for assessment at Stage 2. The Stage 1 manuscript containing these protocols was submitted via the programmatic track.
Protocol 1 concerns “Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. With this study, the authors aim to explore how applied researchers integrate feedback processes into their work, in relation to transparency and rigor in particular. They will investigate whether their sample are aware of and use feedback mechanisms from the open science movement, such as registered reports, which makes this study nicely metascientific. Through interviews with 50 applied researchers from various fields, the study will examine current feedback practices. The authors intend to use the findings of this first study to inform recommendations on how open science practices can be incorporated into research workflows.
Protocol 2 concerns “Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. This study aims to explore how applied researchers address climate change in their work, including the ways their practices are influenced by and respond to climate challenges. It addresses how their approaches may evolve, and they plan to look into the barriers and opportunities climate change presents in practice. Interviews with 50 applied researchers will be analysed to help understand these dynamics. The authors aim to provide recommendations to help applied researchers and their employers adjust their priorities to align with the urgency of climate action. One reviewer did not comment on this second protocol, as the content was outside of their own research area. Although I would have found a reviewer who specializes in this area directly ideally, I found I could still rely on the other two reviewers and my own knowledge to assess this protocol.
General comments: As I mentioned in my initial assessment text, these studies were well planned from the get-go and the protocol nicely articulated those plans. The use of different colour highlighting clearly helped the reviewers target different elements of the protocol and give direct feedback on specific parts. It also helped prevent me from getting lost in all the details! Well done, once again, to the authors for making the distinction between the two studies so clear. I was also pleased at how well they balanced the information between the two protocols – this made it easier to see if there were deficiencies in either one somehow. Finally, I loved that reflexivity was considered by the authors. One suggestion by me is that the authors might consider providing a collective positionality statement to go with the trainees’ reflexivity statements (if this is already in the plan and I missed it, please forgive the oversight!) in the final studies, even if as part of an appendix. This is because the open science movement and climate change can both be controversial, and because of the nature of the qualitative approach I would like to understand a little of the stance the group takes towards these issues collectively if the authors think it’s appropriate. I understand that with a big group that might be difficult or impossible, but if it is possible I would like to see it. I would also like to see initials used in the manuscripts to indicate who was responsible for what analysis elements where possible. This allows for accountability and to attribute interpretation to specific individuals involved in the data analysis. Alternatively, individuals can be attributed in a statement at the end of each manuscript to serve the same purpose and be less awkward in the text. If this won't work for some reason, please motivate this decision. The three reviewers that took the time to go through the reports nevertheless had useful comments, most of which would have contributed to strengthening the plan and minimizing problematic bias later on. The authors took these comments seriously, and thoughtfully (cheerfully even) responded to each. In my estimation, each of the suggestions of the reviewers were satisfied by the authors’ response to reviews letter. Other than my earlier comment about the positionality statement, I have no further comments for the Stage 1 protocol, and I wish the authors all the best with running the studies and writing up Stage 2 for each.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/jdh32
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
Evans, T. R. et al. (2024). Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research/Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdh32
| Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research/Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report | Thomas R. Evans, James Bartlett, Olly Robertson, Charlotte R. Pennington, Calvin Burns, Laura Dean, Kate Bradley, Emma L. Henderson, Ruijie Wang, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Emma Wilson-Lemoine, Jérémy E. Wilson-Lemoine, Peter Branney, Joanna Butl... | <p>Applied researchers have an important societal role in influencing real-world practice, bridging academic research, theory and practical experiences. Despite this, relatively little is known about the processes or mechanisms of feedback adopted... | Social sciences | Sarahanne Miranda Field | Daniel Dunleavy | 2024-03-28 16:29:25 | View | |
28 Sep 2023
STAGE 1
Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Women’s Sexuality and Well-Being: Estimating Treatment Effects and Their Heterogeneity Based on Longitudinal DataLaura J. Botzet, Julia M. Rohrer, Lars Penke, and Ruben C. Arslan https://osf.io/ejmk6?view_only=9e9a21d41c9a47f998669fec70ea722eThe Causal Effects of Hormonal Contraceptives on Psychological OutcomesRecommended by Thomas Evans based on reviews by Summer Mengelkoch and 2 anonymous reviewersEnsuring universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights is a global concern, exemplified by goal 5.6 of the Sustainable Development Goals (UN General Assembly, 2015). Whilst the range of contraceptive options have increased, our understanding of the impacts of use for women are inadequate and represent a key barrier to positive change in policies and practices. In particular, we have few consensuses on the expected impacts of hormonal contraceptive use on women's sexuality and wellbeing.
In the current programmatic submission, Botzet et al. (2023) argue that this inconclusive evidence base could be due to the wide heterogeneity in responses, the impacts of this heterogeneity upon attrition, differences in contraceptive methods and dosage effects, confounders, and the potential for reverse causality. Tackling some of these potential factors, Botzet (2023) explore whether hormonal contraceptive use influences sexuality and well-being outcomes, and whether (and to what extent) the effects vary between women. To achieve this they have proposed analysis of longitudinal data from the German Family Panel (PAIRFAM) which includes annual waves of data collection from >6500 women, with separate Stage 2 submissions planned to report findings based on sexuality and well-being. The proposed work will progress our understanding of the impact of hormonal contraceptives by overcoming limitations of more common research approaches in this field, and has the potential to contribute to a more contextualised view of the impact of their impacts in real-world practice.
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/kj3h2
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3: 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
Botzet, L. J., Rohrer, J. M., Penke, L. & Arslan, R. C. (2023). Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Women's Sexuality and Well-Being: Estimating Treatment Effects and Their Heterogeneity Based on Longitudinal Data. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/kj3h2
UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html [accessed 27 September 2023]
| Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Women’s Sexuality and Well-Being: Estimating Treatment Effects and Their Heterogeneity Based on Longitudinal Data | Laura J. Botzet, Julia M. Rohrer, Lars Penke, and Ruben C. Arslan | <p>Different women experience hormonal contraceptives differently, reporting side effects on their sexuality and well-being that range from negative to positive. But research on such causal effects of hormonal contraceptives on psychological outco... | Social sciences | Thomas Evans | 2022-11-30 13:20:14 | View | ||
11 Apr 2024
STAGE 1
Does retrieval practice protect memory against stress? A meta-analysis [Stage 1 Registered Report]Mariela Mihaylova, Matthias Kliegel, Nicolas Rothen https://osf.io/3pmv8Can retrieval practice prevent the negative impact of acute stress on memory performance?Recommended by Thomas Evans based on reviews by Chris Hartgerink (they/them) and Adrien FillonThere are a number of broad assumptions about memory which have penetrated societal understanding and mostly reflect supporting academic evidence e.g., that acute stress can compromise memory performance (Shields et al., 2017) and that practicing recalling critical information can help retain that knowledge (Moriera et al., 2019). The evidence base is less consistent when evaluating whether retrieval practice can protect against the negative effects of acute stress on memory, despite it being highly important for educators as to whether this specific strategy for supporting memorisation can be evidenced as especially effective under stressful conditions. A rigorous review of this mixed evidence base could provide the basis for developments in memory theory and research practice, with potential for direct educational applications.
Meta-analyses can play a critical role in furthering our understanding of complex cognitive mechanisms where the evidence base includes a wide range of methods, factors and effect size estimates. Furthermore, there is a lack of rigorous meta-analyses that prioritise open and reproducible processes (Topor et al., 2022) which help role-model good practice. In the current Registered Report, Mihaylova et al. (2024) have proposed a rigorous meta-analysis to systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the effects of retrieval practice for memory performance under acute stress. The work looks to be especially valuable for a) informing future research directions through a structured risk of bias evaluation, and b) generating theoretical developments through a range of confirmatory moderators (including stressor types, memory strategies, time of delay and task type). The findings of the planned analyses are expected to be of immediate interest to educational and occupational domains where memory recall is a priority.
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/pkrzb
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Mihaylova, M., Kliegel, M, & Rothen, N. (2024). Does retrieval practice protect memory against stress? A meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pkrzb
2. Moreira, B. F. T., Pinto, T. S. S., Starling, D. S. V., & Jaeger, A. (2019). Retrieval practice in classroom settings: A review of applied research. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 5). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00005
3. Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., McCullough, A. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2017). The effects of acute stress on episodic memory: A meta-analysis and integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 636–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000100
4. Topor, M. K., Pickering, J. S., Mendes, A. B., Bishop, D., Büttner, F., Elsherif, M. M., ... & Westwood, S. (2022). An integrative framework for planning and conducting Non-Intervention, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR). Meta-Psychology. https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/8gu5z
| Does retrieval practice protect memory against stress? A meta-analysis [Stage 1 Registered Report] | Mariela Mihaylova, Matthias Kliegel, Nicolas Rothen | <p>[Note: This is a Stage 1 Registered Report. All placeholders will be replaced with actual results by Stage 2.]</p> <p><br>Stressors such as test anxiety (TA) are known to decrease memory retrieval, whereas retrieval practice (RP) is the phenom... | Humanities, Social sciences | Thomas Evans | 2023-02-16 14:39:06 | View | ||
22 Oct 2023
STAGE 1
Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes?Jesse S Reid, Yoel Inbar https://osf.io/gsj75Do social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism similarly predict both explicit and implicit attitudes?Recommended by Thomas Evans based on reviews by Luisa Liekefett, Oluwaseyi Adeliyi, Abiola Akinnubi ? and 1 anonymous reviewerMeasurement 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: References:
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
| Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes? | Jesse S Reid, Yoel Inbar | <p>A wide variety of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours can be predicted by political ideology – and more specifically, by the two ideological scales of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; a preference for authority and tradition) and Social Dominanc... | Social sciences | Thomas Evans | 2023-04-08 01:53:30 | View | ||
Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes?Jesse S Reid, Yoel Inbar https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8udpsDo social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism similarly predict both explicit and implicit attitudes?Recommended by Thomas Evans based on reviews by Luisa Liekefett and 1 anonymous reviewerMeasurement 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 current 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 was ideally suited for publication through the Registered Reports format because whilst it may have been expected 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 was great scope to acknowledge a more complex set of findings which may not be immediately interpretable or coherent.
As expected, the results were not completely unambiguous, but the mostly consistent relationships between implicit attitudes and RWA/SDO provided evidence towards both implicit and explict measures capturing the same underlying construct. These results also provide a useful step forward in our discussion of measurement in this domain, acknowledging the complexity of the tradeoff between reliability and specificity.
The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
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 was used to answer the research question existed before the research commenced but was inaccessible to the authors and thus unobservable prior to IPA. List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
References
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. (2024). Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes? [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8udps | Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes? | Jesse S Reid, Yoel Inbar | <p>Many social and political attitudes, beliefs and behaviours can be predicted by Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; a preference for authority and tradition) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; a preference for social hierarchies and inequalit... | Social sciences | Thomas Evans | Luisa Liekefett, Anonymous | 2024-04-02 19:47:51 | 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 Evans based on reviews by Anna Castiglione and Esther PapiesThe 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 | ||
17 Jan 2024
STAGE 1
The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered ReplicationNathan Pond, Frances Meeten, Patrick Clarke, Lies Notebaert, Ryan Scott https://psyarxiv.com/cf4xzExamining attentional retraining of threat as an intervention in pathological worryRecommended by Thomas Meyer based on reviews by Thomas Gladwin, Jakob Fink-Lamotte and 1 anonymous reviewerCognitive models ascribe a pivotal role to cognitive biases in the development and maintenance of mental disorders. For instance, attentional biases that prioritize the processing of threat-related stimuli have been suggested to be causally involved in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), which is marked by pathological worry. Therefore, these biases have garnered significant interest as potential diagnostic indicator and as targets for modification.
The idea that attention bias modification (ABM) can serve as a therapeutic intervention for GAD and other disorders was fueled by a seminal study by Hazen et al. (2009). In this study, 23 individuals experiencing high levels of worry underwent a computerized attentional retraining of threat stimuli (ARTS) or placebo control training during five training sessions. Relative to control, attention retraining was found to reduce preferential attention to threat, as well as depression and anxiety symptoms. However, as Pond et al. (2024) highlight in their review of the literature, the evidence endorsing the efficacy of ABM in alleviating anxiety disorders is still inconclusive. Moreover, some researchers contend that early positive findings might have been inflated due to demand effects.
Based on these considerations, Pond et al. (2024) propose a direct replication of Hazen et al. (2009) by subjecting a high-worry sample to five sessions of ARTS or placebo control. Departing from the frequentist analyses used in the original study, the authors will employ Bayesian analyses that allow more nuanced interpretation of the results, allowing consideration of evidence in support of the null hypothesis. The sampling plan will adhere to a Bayesian stopping rule, whereby the maximal sample size will be set at n=200. Furthermore, the authors extend the original study by addressing potential demand effects. For this purpose, they include a measure of phenomenological control (i.e., the ability to generate experiences align with the expectancies of a given situation) and evaluate its potential moderating impact on the attention bias training.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three 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).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5f7u9
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. Hazen, R. A., Vasey, M. W., & Schmidt, N. B. (2009). Attentional retraining: A randomized clinical trial for pathological worry. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.004
2. Pond, N., Meeten, F., Clarke, P., Notebaert, L., & Scott, R. B. (2024). The efficacy of attentional bias modification for anxiety: A registered replication. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5f7u9
| The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered Replication | Nathan Pond, Frances Meeten, Patrick Clarke, Lies Notebaert, Ryan Scott | <p>Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is a prevalent condition that has been linked to the presence of certain cognitive biases, including attention bias. Attention bias is the tendency to attend preferentially to threat-related stimuli and has be... | Social sciences | Thomas Meyer | 2023-09-15 19:25:47 | View | ||
09 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
How Effortful is Boredom? Studying Self-Control Demands Through PupillometryVanessa C. Radtke, Wanja Wolff, Corinna S. Martarelli https://osf.io/eujpa?view_only=12191f02a5db4689b00b42bab7dbd522Unmasking the effort of boredom: A deeper look into self-control dynamicsRecommended by Thomas Meyer based on reviews by Jonas Dora, Julia Englert, Erik Bijleveld and 1 anonymous reviewerEffective effort regulation is central for self-control and has been a focus of psychological research for many decades. It is well established that challenging cognitive tasks, which impose self-control demands due to their complexity, are perceived as more effortful and require greater physiological activation than simpler tasks. However, the experience and allocation of effort during a task, whether easy or difficult, likely depends on more than these inherent self-control demands. Another key factor is boredom, which can arise during task execution. Yet, the role of boredom and the interplay with perceived task difficulty over time remains underexamined.
Based on these considerations, Radtke et al. (2024) aim to examine how boredom and task difficulty influence both subjective and objective measures of effort. They propose that subjective cognitive effort consists of both boredom-related and difficulty-related components, hypothesizing that both factors together more accurately predict objective effort allocation than task difficulty alone. The proposed study will use a within-subject design, in which participants perform two versions of the Stroop task: an easy version with only congruent trials and a hard version. Thought probes during the task will track subjective boredom, fatigue, perceived difficulty, and effort. Phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation will serve as an objective index of cognitive effort, while a subsequent flanker task will assess effects on secondary task performance.
The authors predict that the easy Stroop version will result in lower perceived difficulty but higher boredom, as well as fewer errors and faster reaction times compared to the hard version. Over time, boredom and perceived effort due to boredom are expected to increase, while perceived task difficulty and effort attributed to difficulty are anticipated to decrease. Linear Mixed Models will be employed to determine whether phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation can be predicted by effort attributed to boredom, difficulty, or both. This innovative approach combines objective and subjective measures and promises to deepen our understanding of the cognitive demands posed by boredom, with significant implications for research on effort regulation and motivation.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by four 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).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/38qz4
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 Radtke, V., Wolff, W., & Martarelli, C. S. (2024). How effortful is boredom? Studying self-control demands through pupillometry. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/38qz4
| How Effortful is Boredom? Studying Self-Control Demands Through Pupillometry | Vanessa C. Radtke, Wanja Wolff, Corinna S. Martarelli | <p>Self-control is essential for managing our actions, yet its exertion is perceived as effortful. Performing a task may require effort not only because of its inherent difficulty but also due to its potential for inducing boredom, as boredom has ... | Humanities, Social sciences | Thomas Meyer | 2023-11-21 17:56:13 | View |
MANAGING BOARD
Chris Chambers
Zoltan Dienes
Corina Logan
Benoit Pujol
Maanasa Raghavan
Emily S Sena
Yuki Yamada