Many products that can impact upon health and wellbeing (e.g., alcohol, food) relay information to consumers about the potential risks. However, such information is commonly provided in suboptimal format for gambling-related products. To encourage safer gambling, research has therefore recommended that information about the average loss from a gambling product (“house edge”) or percentage payout (“return-to-player”) should be communicated, with the former translating to better perceived understanding by gamblers. This Registered Report aimed to experimentally compare two phrasings of the house edge against a control return-to-player to arrive at the most effective phrasing to aid gambler’s perceived chances of winning and their factual understanding of the statistical outcomes of their bet. Using a hypothetical gambling scenario, a sample of 3,333 UK-based online gamblers received one of three phrasings: an original house-edge (“his game keeps 10% of all money bet on average”), an alternative house-edge (“on average this game is programmed to cost you 10% of your stake on each bet”) or return-to-player (“this game has an average percentage payout of 90%”). Two outcome measures were employed to judge the effectiveness of this information: gamblers’ perceived changes of winning and factual understanding. The findings indicate that the two-house edge formats were more effective in communicating gambling-related harms than the return-to-player format, but the original house edge phrasing appeared to be the most optimal as it decreased gambler’s perceived chances of winning and increased their factual understanding compared to return-to-player. These results can therefore inform public health policies to reduce gambling-related harm by presenting the most effective communication of gambling risk.

 

After two in-depth reviews, 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/5npy9
 
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:
 

References
  
1. Newall, P. W. S., James, R. J. E. & Maynard, O. M. (2023). How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pfnzd

Numeracy – the ability to understand and work with numbers – is associated with a wide range of social and health-related outcomes, including socioeconomic status, employment, literacy, reasoning, and life satisfaction. A substantial body of evidence has also shown links between numeracy and decision-making, prompting the question of how it relates to finer-grained measures of reasoning, judgment and affect/emotion.

 

In the current study, Zhu and Feldman repeated four influential experiments from a study by Peters et al. (2006), which reported links between numeracy and performance on a variety of decision-making tasks, including attribute framing, frequency-percentage framing, susceptibility to affective influences, and various cognitive biases. The authors also explored several extended questions, including refinements of the original hypotheses and an examination of the relationship between numeracy and confidence in numeric judgments (subjective numeracy).

 

The results broadly constitute a successful replication, with higher numeracy associated with weaker attribute framing and susceptibility to bias. The relationship between numeracy and the frequency-percentage framing effect – that is, the change in decision-making when numbers are presented as frequencies (e.g. 5 out of 100) rather than percentages (e.g. 5%) – was inconclusive for the main analysis that treated numeracy as a categorical variable (low vs. high); however the link emerged reliably in exploratory analyses that considered numeracy as a continuous variable. The outcomes of the extended analyses were mixed, revealing evidence for a potentially weak relationship between numeracy and confidence.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's 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/r73fb

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

1. Zhu, M. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication Registered Report of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/62wqb

 

2. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2006.01720.x

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) seek 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 will replicate 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 will extend it to test the more severe hypothesis that empathy causally influences forgiveness. To achieve this, they will experimentally manipulate empathy by adding two groups to the design: one in which participants are asked to recall hurtful past experiences in which they were not empathetic to the offender, and another in which they were highly empathetic.

 

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/q78fs

 

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. 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. Chan, C. F. & Feldman, G. (2023). The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/q78fs

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) investigate the critical role of rumination – a perseverative and repetitive focus on negative content leading to emotional distress. In particular, the authors ask 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 proposed study (of up to N=1,638), they will then ask whether the induction of brooding causes a significant increase in conspiracy beliefs. Manipulation checks will be included to confirm intervention fidelity (independently of this hypothesis), and exploratory analyses will test 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.

 

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/y82bs
 
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
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• 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). Does Brooding Meaningfully Increase the Likelihood of Believing in a Conspiracy? Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/y82bs

A convergence of evidence suggests that early life adversity may cause dysfunction in opioid-sensitive reward systems. Childhood adversity is associated with opioid use, potentially by altering reward and motivation networks, and experimental models in animals have found that early life adversity increases and consolidates opioid seeking behaviours. Further, in a recent controlled experiment, Carlyle et al. (2021) found that opioid administration produced stronger positive responses, and weaker negative responses, in adults with a history of childhood abuse and neglect.

 

In the current study, Carlyle et al. (2023) tested the generalisability of these previous findings in a pre-operative clinical setting. Using partially observed data from an existing cohort study (N=155), the authors asked whether patients with greater experience of childhood trauma in turn exhibit a larger mood boost and express greater subjective pleasure following opioid administration.

 

In contrast to previous findings, the results did not support the hypotheses that more experiences of childhood adversity would heighten ratings of drug liking and feeling good following opioid administration. Regression analyses instead revealed a statistically significant negative association between childhood adversity and post-opioid liking and no significant relationship with feeling good. The authors suggest that the discrepancy between the current and previous results may be due to stress related to the pre-surgical setting, the brief duration of drug exposure, and the relatively limited levels of high childhood adversity in the study sample. Nevertheless, these findings cast some doubt on the theory that adversity elevates risk of opioid addiction by altering sensitivity to subjectively pleasurable effects.

 

Following one round of in-depth review, 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/7ymts
 
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 prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question AND they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour. 

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

1. Carlyle M., Broomby R., Simpson G., Hannon R., Fawaz L., Mollaahmetoglu O.M., Drain, J., Mostazir, M., & Morgan C. (2021). A randomised, double‐blind study investigating the relationship between early childhood trauma and the rewarding effects of morphine. Addiction Biology, 26(6):e13047. https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.13047

 

2. Carlyle, M., Kvande, M., Meier, I. M., Trøstheim, M., Buen, K., Jensen, E. N., Ernst, G. & Leknes, S. & Eikemo, M. (2023). Does childhood adversity alter opioid drug reward? A conceptual replication in outpatients before surgery, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9kt3a?view_only=4238d2ee3d654c4f908a94efea82a027