When offered a range of options and asked to make multiple selections, how do people choose? Over the last 30 years, a key finding to emerge from behavioural economics is that people distribute their choices more evenly than would be considered optimal – a phenomenon termed “diversification bias” or the “diversification heuristic” (Read & Loewenstein, 1995). For example, when filling a plate from a buffet, you might be inclined to choose a relatively even amount of everything on offer, even when you prefer some foods over others. Similarly, when allocating savings among different investment options, people are prone to spreading their money more evenly than would maximise utility.

 

In an influential study, Fox et al. (2005) found that diversification bias can be shaped by so-called “partition dependence” – the tendency to allocate resources differently across options depending on how they are subjectively grouped. Such groupings could be arbitrary; so, for example, to return to the buffet example, people might diversify across high-level categories such as cooked and uncooked, savoury and sweet, or surf and turf, and then diversify across the options within those categories. The nature of level of these subjective (and potentially arbitrary) categorisations can strongly influence the final allocation of resources. Diversification bias and partition dependence have important implications for basic theory in judgment and decision-making as well as applications in behavioral economics and finance.

 

In the current study, Li and Feldman (2022) propose to replicate Studies 1, 2 and 5 from Fox et al. (2002) in a large online sample. In particular, they plan to ask how partitioning influences the allocation of choices between options, and the extent to which partition dependence is reduced in people with greater relevant expertise. The authors also propose extending the original study to explore individual differences in the desire for choice diversity as predictors of partition dependence.

 

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/bx8vq

 

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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Experimental Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 
References

 

1. Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1995). Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 34-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.1.1.34

 

2. Fox, C. R., Ratner, R. K., & Lieb, D. S. (2005). How subjective grouping of options influences choice and allocation: Diversification bias and the phenomenon of partition dependence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.538

  
3. Li, M. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting diversification bias and partition dependence: 
Replication and extension of Fox, Ratner, and Lieb (2005) Studies 1, 2, and 5, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bx8vq

This 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:
 

 

 

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

​Karakashevska and colleagues (2024) aim to examine the extraretinal representation of visual symmetry presented in a virtual reality environment. Previous research had demonstrated that individuals can detect symmetry when the symmetry is represented on a perspective plane, slanted away from the viewer. In electroencephalography (EEG), perceived symmetry is marked by an Event Related Potential (ERP) called a Sustained Posterior Negativity (SPN). When symmetry is presented on a perspective plane in comparison to front-on (frontoparallel), the SPN is reduced, termed the perspective cost. Here, Karakashevska et al., (2024) will determine if presenting symmetry on a perspective plane in a virtual reality (VR) environment will reduce the perspective cost with the addition of 3D depth cues. Specifically, participants will be requested to detect symmetry or luminance of a stimulus presented in a VR environment whilst wearing an EEG. The authors hypothesize that no perspective cost will be identified between symmetry presented on a frontoparallel plane versus symmetry on a perspective plane. Furthermore, the authors will examine the impact of task within the virtual environment on symmetry processing. They hypothesize that a task focused on the regularity of the stimuli will result in a larger amplitude of the SPN than a luminance task. This design enables the authors to pinpoint immersive environments as providing cues critical in overcoming perspective cost.

 

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

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/7pnxu
 
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:

 

 

Karakashevska, E., Batterley, M. & Makin, A. D. J. (2024). They look virtually the same: extraretinal representation of symmetry in virtual reality. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7pnxu

When people are less-well-known to us, it can impact how we treat them. People outside our communities may feel more anonymous or de-personalized to us, and this could impact the empathy we feel for them. Indeed, past research shows that people seem to care more for those who are who are identified to us, especially when they are victims of a crime (Small & Loewenstein, 2003). In addition, past research also shows that anonymizing victims can influence criminal behavior (Walters, 2022).  Thus, social cognitive factors related to anonymity appear to affect both positive feelings (engaging in empathy) and negative activities (criminal activity) related to victims. It seems likely that anonymity can also affect how people judge criminals themselves.

 

This paper by Blanke and Twardawski (2024) examines how even minor identifying features can make individuals react differently to a perpetrator of a crime. A picture or name (information that may appear in the press) may impact how people perceive criminals in terms of punishment, empathy, outrage, and blame.

 

How people respond to anonymous or identified criminals may depend on whether the impact of the crime on the victim is made salient. Similar to the Black Sheep Effect (Marques & Paez,1994), the current paper expects that people who identify with victims are expected to punish a perpetrator more when the perpetrator’s name and image are known. This is similar to the case with an ingroup member in The Black Sheep Effect, where ingroup members are punished more for transgressions than outgroup members. For people who view the situation as a third party (and are thus less connected to the victim), an identified perpetrator is expected to lead to less punishment (and also less outrage and blame, and more empathy).

 

The current study focuses on pickpocketing since it is a crime that can be committed without identifying oneself to the victim. Future research should examine how the type of event impacts judgments, especially given the stigma of being a victim of some crimes. Littering and other minor violations may be seen as understandable when you see someone as a person, rather than a anonymous, impersonal criminal.  On the other hand, there can be stigma to being a victim in some cases, such as the case of sexual harassment, where, research shows, perpetrators are judged more positively if they are identified, and victims, especially women, are judged more negatively if they are identified (Barak-Corren & Lewinsohn-Zamir, 2019).

 

People around the world engage in moral and legal transgressions, and if our judgments of them are influenced by minor features such as a photo or name, we should take action to treat people more fairly. This research will help to determine if people are influenced by these factors.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript underwent one round 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).

 

 
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. Barak‐Corren, N., & Lewinsohn‐Zamir, D. (2019). What's in a Name? The Disparate Effects of Identifiability on Offenders and Victims of Sexual Harassment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16, 955-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12233

 

2. Blanke, T. & Twardawski, M. (2024). The Role of Offender Identifiability in Second- and Third-Party Punishment. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7qzva

 

3. Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The ‘black sheep effect’: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000011

 

4. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219

 

5. Walters, G. D. (2022). Crime and social cognition: A meta-analytic review of the developmental roots of adult criminal thinking. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18, 183-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09435-w

Impulsivity, as a construct, operates by an established history with various models and theories (Leshem & Glicksohn 2007) having accumulated evidence of relevance especially for mental disorders. One of the dominant models, the Impulsive Behavior Model, is conventionally measured in survey studies with UPPS-P scales, a short version of which was recently assessed in a large cross-cultural project (Fournier et al. 2024). In the present study, Fournier and colleagues (2025) aim to further test the revised 20-item scale in English via a three-phase protocol involving evaluations of construct validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and criterion validity. As such, the study contributes to ongoing important development of useful and up-to-date survey scales, which can help researchers avoid measurement issues (Flake & Fried 2020) in various fields where, in this case, impulsivity plays a role.

 

The study was reviewed over three rounds by two reviewers, with respective topic and methods expertise. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ feedback and the recommender’s comments on the construct, 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/wevc4 (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. 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. Fournier, L., Bőthe, … & Billieux, J. (2024). Evaluating the factor structure and measurement invariance of the 20-item short version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale across multiple countries, languages, and gender identities. Assessment, 10731911241259560. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241259560

 

3. Fournier, L., Heeren, A., Baggio, S., Clark, L., Verdejo-García, A., Perales J.C., Billieux J. (2025) Development and evaluation of a revised 20-item short version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wevc4

 

4. Leshem, R. & Glicksohn, J. (2007). The construct of impulsivity revisited. Personality and individual Differences, 43, 681-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.015