The reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?

 

Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! Brevers et al. (2023) will ask people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they will experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings is the prediction error.

 

Participants will also rate their remembered pleasure in running and the authors will investigate whether running pleasure depends on prediction error.
 
The study plan was refined across four rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers and the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
 
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. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2023). Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xh724

In the past two decades, most academic fields have witnessed an open science revolution that has led to significant increases in open access publishing, reproducibility efforts, and scientific transparency in general (e.g., Spellman et al. 2018). One of the key areas in this ongoing change is data sharing. Although some evidence already points at progress in data sharing practices, many new datasets remain unshared (see Tedersoo et al. 2021).
 
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. 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/2gm5s (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. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s

 

2. Spellman, B. A., Gilbert, E. A. & Corker, K. S. (2018). Open Science. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn519

 

3. Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., ... & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific data, 8, 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0

The Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative Template has been created in 2022 to provide more structure and detail to preregistrations. The goal of the current study is to test if the PRP-QUANT template indeed provides greater restriction of the flexibility in a study for preregistered hypotheses than other existing templates. This question is important because one concern that has been raised about the practice of preregistration is that the quality of preregistrations is often low. Metascientific research has shown that preregistrations are often of low quality (Bakker et al., 2020), and hypothesis tests from preregistrations are still selectively reported (van den Akker, van Assen, Enting, et al., 2023). It is important to improve the quality of preregistrations, and if a better template can help, it is a cost-effective approach to improve quality if the wider adoption of the better template can be promoted. 

 

In the current study, Spitzer and Mueller (2024) will follow the procedure of a previous meta-scientific study by Heirene et al. (2021). 74 existing preregistrations with the PRP-QUANT template are available, and will be compared with an existing dataset coded by Bakker and colleagues (2020). The sample size is limited, but allows detecting some differences that would be considered large enough to matter, even though there might be smaller differences that would not be detectable based on the currently available sample size. Nevertheless, given that there is a need for improvement, even preliminary data might already be useful to provide tentative recommendations. Restrictiveness will be coded in 23 items, and adherence to or deviations from the preregistration are coded as well. As such deviations are common, the question whether this template reduced the likelihood of deviations is important. Two coders will code all studies. 

 

The study should provide a useful initial evaluation of the PRP-QUANT template, and has the potential to have practical implications if the PRP-QUANT template shows clear benefits. Both authors have declared COI's related to the PRP-QUANT template, making the Registered Report format a fitting approach to prevent confirmation bias from influencing the reported results. 

 

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two expert reviewers and the recommender. After the revisions, 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/vhezj
 
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:
 

 

 

1. van den Akker, O. R., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Bakker, M., Elsherif, M., Wong, T. K., & Wicherts, J. M. (2023). Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02277-0

 

2. Bakker, M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Assen, M. A. L. M. van, Crompvoets, E. A. V., Ong, H. H., Nosek, B. A., Soderberg, C. K., Mellor, D., & Wicherts, J. M. (2020). Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLOS Biology, 18(12), e3000937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937

 

3. Spitzer, L. & Mueller, S. (2024). Stage 1 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Template. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vhezj

 

4. Heirene, R., LaPlante, D., Louderback, E. R., Keen, B., Bakker, M., Serafimovska, A., & Gainsbury, S. M. (2021). Preregistration specificity & adherence: A review of preregistered gambling studies & cross-disciplinary comparison. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nj4es

‘Pseudoneglect’ is a small, lateralised bias of visuospatial attention towards the left side of space, and is typically observed in healthy adults. Recently, Strauch et al. (2022) reported that bright stimuli presented in the left visual field induced a greater constriction of the pupil (the pupillary light reflex) compared to the same bright stimuli presented in the right visual field. Further, the pupillary restriction bias was positively correlated with a behavioural measure of pseudoneglect (the greyscales task). This is potentially an important development for attention research, because the passive nature of the task, in addition to the ability to track the time course of the bias measures, could provide a new, and highly sensitive, method of studying spatial attention.

 

In this report, Burns and McIntosh (2023) aim to replicate and extend the study of Strauch et al. (2022). The extension centres around investigating whether the pupillary biases are influenced by recording pupillary responses from the right or left eye. In their pilot replication data, Burns & McIntosh identified a larger constriction in response to stimuli on the right side when recording from the right eye. They hypothesise that pupillary biases may be stronger to stimuli presented in the ipsilateral, rather than contralateral, side of space.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over 2 rounds by 2 reviewers, including the authors of the study being replicated. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the Stage 1 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

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. Strauch, C., Romein, C., Naber, M., Van der Stigchel, S. & Ten Brink, A. F. (2022). The orienting response drives pseudoneglect—Evidence from an objective pupillometric method. Cortex, 151, 259-271.

 
2. Burns, N. E. & McIntosh, R. D. (2023). Does pupillometry provide a valid measure of spatial attentional bias (pseudoneglect)? In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ua9jn

For centuries, the relationship between creativity and mental health has been a subject of fascination, propelled by the impression that many of the most famous artists in history likely suffered from mood disorders or other mental illnesses. However, with the advent of psychological science – including more precise and diagnostic clinical measures – the empirical evidence for an association between creativity and depressive symptoms has been mixed, with some studies suggesting a positive relationship and others showing either no effect or indicating that the link, if there is one, may be driven by other personality characteristics (Verhaeghen et al., 2005).

 

In the current study, Lam and Saunders used an online design in 201 participants to ask whether creativity is associated with higher depressive traits, and further, whether that relationship depends on two additional variables that could explain an observed positive correlation: self-reflective rumination (repetitive thoughts that maintain a negative mood state) and the frequency with which individuals engage in reappraisal (a regulation strategy that involves reinterpreting an event or situation to diminish its negative impact).

 

Results showed mixed support for the hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, the relationship between creativity and depression was significantly negative rather than positive. However, even though the directionality of this relationship was opposite to predicted, the hypothesis that the association between creativity and depression is mediated by self-reflective rumination was supported. Finally, the results disconfirmed the hypothesis that reappraisal frequency contributes to the relationship between creativity and depression. Exploratory analyses indicated no reliable moderating role of gender. Overall, these findings suggest that creativity and depression may be only weakly related, and that self-reflective rumination could account for that relationship.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of review provided by the recommender and Managing Board, as the Stage 1 reviewers were no longer available. Based on additional changes to the manuscript, 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/yub7n
 
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. Verhaeghen, P., Joormann, J., & Khan, R. (2005). Why we sing the blues: The relation between self-reflective rumination, mood, and creativity. Emotion, 5, 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.2.226

 

2. Lam, C. Y. & Saunders, J. A. (2023). Relationship between creativity and depression: the role of reappraisal and rumination [Stage 2 Registered Report]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z3ap5