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

 

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

 

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

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on responses to the comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The irrelevant-speech effect (ISE) is a laboratory phenomenon in which performance at memory recall is impaired by the presence of irrelevant auditory stimuli during the initial encoding phase. In a typical ISE experiment, participants are asked to remember a sequence of letters presented visually (e.g. F, K, L, M, Q, R, Y in a shuffled random order between trials) while irrelevant speech is played over headphones. The typical finding is that recall performance is impaired by the presentation of speech compared with silence. The ISE has been influential in cognitive psychology, prompting the advancement of two broad classes of competing explanations: one in which the irrelevant sounds gain automatic access to memory processes without any specified role for attentional selection, and another in which the ISE is explained by irrelevant speech drawing attention away from the relevant items to be recalled.

 

In the current study, Kattner et al. (2023) propose a replication of a seminal study by Jones and Macken (1995) that provided a foundation for the automatic access (or ‘interference-by-process’) class of theories. In their original set of experiments, Jones and Macken reported that the segregating individual components of the irrelevant speech (the spoken letters V, J, and X) into different lateralized locations reduced the magnitude of the ISE by converting a single ‘changing-state’ stream three separate ‘steady-state’ streams. Here, Kattner et al. ask firstly whether this classic finding can be successfully replicated in a well-powered sample, and secondly whether the streaming-by-location effect in Jones and Macken reduces the ISE to the same level as observed during a steady-state baseline condition in which a single letter is repeated from each location. If the answer to either question is No then doubts will have been raised about interference-by-process theories, opening the door (even more) to alternative theoretical explanations of the ISE.
 

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/2tb8e
 
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. Jones, D. M. & Macken, W. J. (1995). Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: The role of spatial location and timing. Memory & Cognition, 23, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197221 

 
2. Kattner, F., Hassanzadeh, M. & Ellermeier, W. (2023). The role of spatial location in irrelevant speech revisited: A registered replication of Jones and Macken (1995). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2tb8e

For centuries, the ubiquity of language and music across human societies has prompted scholars to speculate about their cross-cultural origins as well as their shared and unique characteristics. Depending on the extent to which contemporary theories emphasise the role of biology vs. culture, a range of hypotheses have been proposed concerning expected similarities and differences in song and speech. One class of hypotheses stemming from cultural relativism assumes a lack of universal regularities in song and speech, and therefore predicts no systematic cross-cultural relationships. On the other hand, more recent evolutionary hypotheses such as the social bonding hypothesis, motor constraint hypothesis, and sexual selection hypothesis all predict differences or similarities in specific characteristic of vocalisations, such as pitch regularity, pitch interval size, and melodic contour. Existing results are mixed in their support of these predictions.

 

In the current study, Ozaki et al. (2023) elucidated cross-cultural similarities and differences between speech and song in 75 different linguistic varieties spanning 21 language families. Understanding precisely how song and speech are related is methodologically challenging due to the multitude of confounds that can arise in comparing natural recordings. Here the authors overcame these difficulties with four types of carefully controlled recordings: singing, recitation of sung lyrics, spoken description of the song, and instrumental version of the sung melody. The authors then examined six features that are amenable to reliable comparison, including pitch height, temporal rate, pitch stability, timbral brightness, pitch interval size, and pitch declination. With this data in hand, the authors asked which acoustic features differ reliably between song and speech across cultures, with the expectation that song would exhibit higher pitch, slower rate and more stable pitch than speech. At the same time, the authors expected song and speech to be reliably similar in the characteristics of timbral brightness, pitch intervals and pitch contours

 

The findings provided strong support for the preregistered hypotheses. Relative to speech, songs exhibited higher pitch, slower temporal rate, and more stable pitches, while both songs and speech had similar pitch interval size and timbral brightness. Only one hypothesis was unsupported, with the comparison of pitch declination between song and speech turning out inconclusive. To overcome potential sources of analytic bias, the authors undertook additional robustness checks, including reanalysis of a previously published dataset of over 400 song/speech recordings; this exploratory analysis corroborated the conclusions from the confirmatory analysis. Overall this study offers a unique insight into the shared global characteristics of langage and music, with implications for understanding their cultural and biological (co)evolution.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that were be used to answer the research question AND they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

 

 

 

1. Ozaki, Y. et al. (2023). Globally, songs and instrumental melodies are slower, higher, and use more stable pitches than speech [Stage 2 Registered Report]. Acceptance of Version 11 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jr9x7

Social media is a popular tool for online discussion and debate, bringing with it various forms of hostile interactions –  from offensive remarks and insults, to harassment and threats of physical violence. The nature of such online toxicity has been well studied, but much remains to be understood regarding strategies to reduce it. Existing theory and evidence suggests that a range of responses – including those that emphasise prosociality and empathy – might be effective at mitigating online toxicity. But do such strategies work in practice?

 

In the current study, Young Reusser et al (2023) tested the effectiveness of three types of responses to online toxicity – benevolent correction (including disagreement), benevolent going along (including joking/agreement) and retaliation (additional toxicity) – on how able participants feel to contribute to conversations, their belief that the toxicity would be reduced by the intervention, and their belief that justice had been restored.

 

The results showed the benevolent correction – while an uncommon strategy in online communities – was most effective in helping participants feel freer to contribute to online discussions. Benevolent correction was also the preferred approach for discouraging toxicity and restoring justice. Overall, the findings suggest that responding to toxic commenters with empathy and understanding while (crucially) also correcting their toxicity may be an effective intervention for bystanders seeking to improve the health of online interaction. The authors note that future research should focus on whether benevolent correction actually discourages toxicity, which wasn't tested in the current experiment, and if so how the use of benevolent corrections might be encouraged.

 

Following one round of review and revisions, 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/hfjnb

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. 

 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Young Reusser, A. I., Veit, K. M., Gassin, E. A., & Case, J. P. (2023). Responding to Online Toxicity: 
Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored? [Stage 2 Registered Report] Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k46e8

The psychology of meat-eating offers a fascinating window into moral reasoning, cognition and emotion, as well as applications in the shift toward more sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat consumption. One key observation in this field is the so-called “meat paradox” – the tendency for people to simultaneously eat meat while also caring about animals. One way to resolve this conflict and reduce cognitive dissonance is for people to separate the concept of meat from animals, mentally disengaging from the origins of meat in order to make the act of consumption more ethically acceptable. Another potential explanation is a motivated “denial of mind”, in which people believe that animals lack the mental capacity to experience suffering; therefore, eating an animal is not a harm that the animal will experience. In support of the latter hypothesis, Bastian et al (2012) found that animals judged to have greater mental capacities were also judged as less edible, and that simply reminding meat eaters that an animal was being raised for the purposes of meat consumption led to denial of its mental capacities.

 

Using a large-scale online design in 1000 participants, Jacobs et al. (2024) replicated two studies from Bastian et al. (2012): asking how the perceived mental capabilities of animals relates to both their perceived edibility and the degree of moral concern they elicit, and whether learning that an animal will be consumed influences perceptions of its mental capabilities. The original findings were successfully replicated. For study 1, attributions of mind were negatively related to animals’ edibility, positively related to negative affect towards eating animals, and positively related to moral concern for animals. For study 2, learning that an animal would be used for food led participants to attribute less mind to the animal. Overall, the results strengthen the conclusion that motivated denial of animal minds can be a mechanism for resolving the ‘meat paradox’.

 

The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/cru4z

 

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

 

 

1. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291

 

2. Jacobs, T. P., Wang, M., Leach, S., Loong, S. H., Khanna, M., Chan, K. W., Chau, H. T., Tam, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mwyde