Video games may provide the option of spending real money in exchange for probabilistically receiving game-relevant rewards; in effect, encouraging potentially young teenagers to gamble. The industry has subscribed to a set of regulatory principles to cover the use of such "loot boxes", including 1) that they will prevent loot box purchasing by under 18s unless parental consent is given; 2) that they will make it initially clear that the game contains loot boxes; and 3) that they will clearly disclose the probabilities of receiving different rewards.

 

Can the industry effectively self regulate? Xiao (2024) will evaluate this important question by investigating the 100 top selling games on the Apple App Store and estimating the percentage compliance to these three regulatory principles at two time points 6 months apart.

 

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).

 

 
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:
 

 
References
 
1. Xiao, L. (2024). Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a 6-month longitudinal study on the implementation process. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3knyb

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:
 

 

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

The competitive play of digital games known as ‘esports’ has surged in popularity over the past few decades. Millions of people nowadays participate in esports as a hobby, and many consider becoming professional esports athletes as a potential career path. However, psychological factors that may predict one's long-term success in esports are not entirely clear.

 

The current Registered Report by Martončik and colleagues (2024) offered a comprehensive test of potential predictors of long-term success in the two currently most impactful PC esports games, namely League of Legends (LoL) and Counter Strike: Global Offensive (CSGO). A wide range of predictors were examined, including native and deliberate practice, attention, intelligence, reaction time, and persistence etc. In both LoL and CSGO, deliberate practice did not meaningfully predict players' highest rank in the past 12 months, as an indicator of long-term success. Younger age predicted better performance in both titles though. Lastly, two title-specific predictors emerged: in LoL, more non-deliberate practice hours predicted better performance, while in CSGO better attention predicted better performance.

 

To explain these findings, the authors proposed the information density theory. Different games differ in the amount of knowledge that is required for achieving long-term success. For information-heavy games such as LoL, naive practice hours may be more essential for players to acquire game-relevant information via playing, compared to information-light games such as CSGO. This might also explain why deliberative practice did not meaningfully predict performance in LoL and CSGO. While this theory still needs to be further tested, the current results will be useful to individuals who are considering pursuing a professional career in esports, as well as professional and semi-professional esports teams and coaches.

 

This Stage 2 manuscript was assessed over two rounds of in-depth review. The recommenders judged the responses to the reviewers' comments were satisfactory, and that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/84zbv
 
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: 
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
   

 
Martončik, M., Karhulahti, V.-M., Jin, Y. & Adamkovič, M. (2023). Psychological predictors of long-term esports success: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 1.7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/b6vdf

Online sports betting is becoming increasingly popular worldwide, which has raised concerns about the negative consequences it has on both individual health and public health. To prevent and reduce these negative consequences, it is important to understand how gambling-related harms arise in the context of online sports betting. 

Impulsivity has long been recognized as a risk factor for disordered gambling, yet how impulsivity may lead to gambling-related harms is not entirely clear. In the current study, Jacob and colleagues (2024) aim to examine this question using a longitudinal cross-lagged panel design. Regular online sports bettors will be invited to fill out measures of impulsivity (including impulsive choice, impulsive action, and impulsivity personality) and gambling disorder symptoms three times at three-month intervals. Player tracking data on these players' online betting behavior in these three-month intervals will then be retrieved from the online gambling provider. Combining these data provides a unique opportunity to test the hypotheses that impulsivity may lead to riskier online gambling behavior, which in turn may lead to more gambling-related problems later on. The results of the current study will offer novel insights into the causal pathways from impulsivity to disordered gambling in online sports betting, and may also inform the development of early prevention strategies to reduce gambling-related harms.

The current Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers and the recommender. 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/7wsfh
 
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. Jacob, A., Joshanloo, M., Czernecka, R., & Kräplin, A. (2024). Impulsivity and online sports betting behavior: Untangling the causal relationship. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7wsfh

The world is seemingly awash with conspiracy theories – from well-trodden examples such as fake Moon landings, the 9/11 truth movement, and Holocaust denial, to relative newcomers including COVID as a bioweapon, QAnon, and the belief that the science of climate change has been invented or falsified. While there is a public perception that conspiracy theories are becoming more prevalent, recent evidence suggests that the rate of conspiracism is relatively stable over time (Uscinski et al., 2022). At any point in history, it seems that a certain proportion of people find themselves vulnerable to conspiracy beliefs, but what distinguishes those who do from those who don’t, and what are the causal factors?

 

In the current study, Liekefett et al. (2023) investigated the critical role of rumination – a perseverative and repetitive focus on negative content leading to emotional distress. In particular, the authors asked whether one component of rumination referred to as brooding (dwelling on one’s worries and distressing emotions) has a specific causal role in the formation of conspiracy beliefs. In a series of preliminary experiments, the authors first established a procedure for successfully inducing rumination, identifying various boundary conditions and requirements for a successful design. In the main study (N=1,638 to 2,007 depending on the analysis), they asked whether the induction of brooding causes a significant increase in conspiracy beliefs. Manipulation checks were also included to confirm intervention fidelity (independently of this hypothesis), and exploratory analyses tested the effect of various moderators, as well as the causal role of a complementary manipulation of reflection – a component of rumination in which attention is focused on the issue at hand rather than one’s emotions.

 

As expected by the authors' preliminary work, manipulation checks independently confirmed the effectiveness of the brooding intervention. In answer to the main research question, participants who brooded over the worries and negative emotions associated with an issue were more susceptible to conspiracy beliefs compared to a control group. However, while this effect of brooding was statistically significant, the confidence interval of the effect size estimate overlapped with the authors' proposed smallest effect size of interest (d = 0.20), suggesting that the practical value of the effect remains to be determined.

 

Overall the findings are consistent with a range of psychological theories suggesting that rumination induces negative affect and/or narrows attention to negative information, which in turn may make conspiracy theories seem more probable and render individuals more vulnerable to cognitive bias. The authors note the importance of future work to define the smallest effect of practical significance, analagous to the criteria used to determine the 'minimal clinically important difference’ in medical research.

 

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/y82bs
 
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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra Psychology
• Experimental Psychology
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 

1. Uscinski, J., Enders, A., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Drochon, H., Premaratne, K. & Murthi, M. (2022) Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time? PLOS ONE 17: e0270429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270429

2. Liekefett, L. Sebben, S. & Becker, J. C. (2023). The Effect of Brooding about Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3e8wc