Shame and guilt are powerful negative emotions that are notable for their external vs. internal focus: while shame is generally experienced in response to public scrutiny, guilt arises from a self-directed, private evaluation. In a formative study, Smith et al. (2002) asked whether the level of public exposure influenced levels of shame and guilt arising from one's transgressions, and found that, compared to private situations, public exposure was more strongly associated with shame than with guilt. Since then, these findings have had significant implications for theories and applications of moral psychology.

 

In the current study, Zhang et al.  propose to directly replicate Smith et al. (2002) in a large online sample. In particular, they will revisit the critical questions from Study 1, asking (a) whether public exposure affects the magnitude of shame and guilt over one’s misconduct, and (b) whether stronger moral belief increases guilt and shame over one’s misconduct.

 

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 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. 

 

 

 

1. Smith, R. H., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 138-159. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.138

 

2. Zhang, Y., Cheung, F. C., Wong, H.T., Yuen, L. Y., Sin, H. C., Chow, H. T. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1. https://osf.io/j7kt2

Research in clinical psychology has found that interpretation bias (perceiving ambiguous information in a systematically negative or hostile way) and repetitive negative thinking (recurrent, prolonged worry or rumination) are associated with a range of psychopathologies – including depression, anxiety and paranoia – but the complex interplay between them in driving symptomatology is unclear. Here, Chung and Cheung (2022) propose a longitudinal examination of the directional relationship between interpretation bias and psychological symptoms in subclinical depression and paranoia, as well as the potential transdiagnostic mediating role of repetitive negative thinking. Using an online three-wave design, they ask whether the association between negative interpretation biases and psychological symptoms is bidirectional, whether negative interpretation biases are associated with repetitive negative thinking over time, and whether repetitive negative thinking is associated with psychological symptoms over time. They will also test whether negative interpretation biases and psychological symptoms exert reciprocal influences across dimensions through repetitive negative thinking, and whether repetitive negative thinking acts as a transdiagnostic mediator for depression and paranoid thoughts. Overall, the study aims to generate a clearer understanding of the relationship between interpretation biases and subclinical symptomatology, as well as clarifying the role of rumination as a transdiagnostic mechanism that mediates psychopathology.

 

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/89n7u (currently under 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:

 

 

1. Chung, H.-F. & Cheung, S.-H. (2022). Repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic mediator in the interplay of interpretation biases and psychological symptoms in depression and paranoia: A three-wave longitudinal study, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/89n7u

Bug detection is central to software engineering, but what motivates programmers to perform as optimally as possible? Despite a long history of economic experiments on incentivisation, there is surprisingly little research on how different incentives shape software engineering performance. In the current study, Krüger et al. (2022) propose an experiment to evaluate how the pay-off functions associated with different financial incentives influence the performance of participants in identifying bugs during code review. The authors hypothesise that performance-based incentivisation will result in higher average performance, as defined using the F1-score, and that different incentivisation schemes may also differ in their effectiveness. As well as testing confirmatory predictions, the authors will explore a range of ancillary strands, including how the different incentivisation conditions influence search and evaluation behaviour (using eye-tracking), and the extent to which any effects are moderated by demographic factors.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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/s36c2

 

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. Krüger, J., Çalıklı, G., Bershadskyy, D., Heyer, R., Zabel, S. & Siegmar, O. (2022). Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/s36c2

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 to 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. (2022) propose a replication of 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. Among various exploratory analyses, the authors will also examine whether the perception of animal minds (in animals consumed for meat) varies systematically according to species.

 

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/cru4z

 

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. 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. (2022). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/cru4z

Even small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.

 

In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of 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/bj9r2

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.

 

 

 

1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674

 

2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2