Measuring people’s experiences, thoughts, and mental processes has always been a core challenge of psychological science (e.g. Nisbett & Wilson 1977). When such measurement further relates to rapidly changing and conceptually diverse human-technology interactions, the task becomes even more difficult due to protean, multidimensional constructs. A good understanding of a construct is a basic step in its measurement (Borsboom 2005).  
 
In the present registered report, Hickman Dunne et al. (2023) carry out a focus group study with adolescents (n=32) aged 11 to 15 in Northwest England to improve the understanding of constructs related to social media and mental health experiences. The work is carried out as part of a long-term measure development project. The authors apply reflexive thematic analysis to explore adolescents’ social media use experiences and related motivations in the light of mental health, in addition to which the adolescents’ own views of benefits and risks are mapped out.
 
A particular strength of the design is the engagement of three Young Researchers who will co-facilitate the focus groups and be involved in the analysis. The research plan also meets high reflexivity and transparency criteria, and as such, can significantly contribute to future scale development as well as our general understanding of adolescents’ social media experiences.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over two rounds by five unique reviewers, one of which participated in both rounds. The reviewers’ expertise ranged from social media and technology use research to health psychology and qualitative methods. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ 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/w24ec
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
• WiderScreen 

 

References
 
1. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.

 

3. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review, 84, 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

2. Hickman Dunne J., Black L., Banwell E., Nanda P., Anderton M, Butters L.C., Demkowicz O., Davidson B., Qualter P., Humphrey N., Jay C., and Panayiotou M. (2023). Identifying relevant dimensions to the measurement of adolescent social media experience via focus groups with young people: A registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/w24ec

The rapid methodological development in digital humanities keeps opening new possibilities to better understand our cultural artifacts and, in the process, also ourselves. Some of the historically most influential works of literary human culture are the plays of Shakespeare, which continue to be read and treasured around the world. Although the social networks of Shakespeare’s plays have attracted scientific attention already more than two decades (Stiller et al. 2003), the understanding of their complexity in terms of character networks remains limited and not fully contextualized in the larger landscape of European drama.

 

In the present registered report, Thurn and colleagues (2024) apply Kolmogorov complexity analysis to investigate the social networks in 37 existing plays of Shakespeare. The authors replicate the original work by Stiller et al. (2003) and situate the findings in a larger regional context by further analyzing over 3,000 plays available in the European Drama Corpus. Ultimately, the authors explore the relationships between (Kolmogorov) complexity and the size of character networks as well as the robustness of their results in relation to possible researcher decisions in the analytic process.

 

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review by four expert reviewers from the research fields of literature, networks, and social analysis. Based on the authors’ careful revisions and responses to the reviewers’ feedback, 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/6uw27
 
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:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Social Psychological Bulletin
• WiderScreen

 

 

1. Stiller, J., Nettle, D. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The small world of shakespeare’s plays. Human Nature, 14, 397-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1013-1

2. Thurn, C., Sebben, S. & Kovacevic, Z. (2024) Using Shakespeare to Answer Psychological Questions: Complexity and Mental Representability of Character Networks. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6uw27

What are the neurophysiological correlates of paired associative stimulation (PAS) in inducing plastic changes in human motor cortex (M1)? Here, Arrigoni and colleagues (2024) will apply transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to left M1 paired with electrical stimulation of the right median nerve at an ISI of 25 ms or 10 ms to induce long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD), respectively. Arrigoni and colleagues (2024) will determine if these stimulation pairings effect cortical excitability using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). Specifically, they hypothesize PASLTP will increase the peak-to-peak amplitude of MEPs, whereas PASLTD will decrease the amplitude, replicating previous work. They will then extend these previous findings by examining TEPs. The authors anticipate modulation of the P30 and P60, which are TEPs thought to reflect local cortical excitability. They plan to account for the MEP reafference which may also mediate the P60 amplitude by stimulating at sub- and supra- motor threshold. Further, they hypothesize an increase of the N100, a marker of inhibitory processing mediated by GABA, by PASLTD. Finally, the authors will also examine the impact of cortical excitability over time to determine the duration of the PAS effects.   

 

This detailed examination of TEPs following PAS stimulation will determine which TEPs could be used as biomarkers with the induction of LTP and LTD through stimulation. The authors have built in an MEP replication for the PAS stimulation, supporting previous literature and acting as a positive control.  

 

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

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/detjc (under temporary private embargo)
 
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. Arrigoni, E., Bolognini, N., Pisoni, A. & Guidali, G. (2024). Neurophysiological correlates of plasticity induced by paired associative stimulation (PAS) targeting the motor cortex: a TMS-EEG registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/detjc

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