Submit a report

Announcements

Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions will be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.


 

Latest recommendationsrssmastodon

IdTitleAuthorsAbstractPictureThematic fields▲RecommenderReviewersSubmission date
28 Mar 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Working memory performance in adverse environments: Enhanced, impaired, or intact?

A closer look at working memory changing with adversity

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Kathryn Bates and 1 anonymous reviewer
Adverse environments involving threat, uncertainty, deprivation and stress can cause significant and long-lasting harm to cognition and development. In this Stage 1 protocol, Vermeent and colleagues (2024) aim to simultaneously test with a single paradigm and statistical model for findings from previous studies showing that human working memory capacity is impaired in adverse environments, as well as other evidence suggesting that adversity may actually enhance updating of working memory. Furthermore, they will also investigate whether working memory is related to each of the adversity types: threat, deprivation, and unpredictability.
 
The findings of this study should help clarify how working memory functions in combination with adversity, and will provide insight into the development of better interventions and training methods for optimal performance in a variety of environments.
 
The manuscript was reviewed by two experts and the recommender. Following two rounds of peer review, and based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, I, 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/dp7wc
 
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. Vermeent, S., Schubert, A.-L., DeJoseph, M. L., Denissen, J. J. A, van Gelder, J.-L. & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2024). Working memory performance in adverse environments: Enhanced, impaired, or intact? In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dp7wc
Working memory performance in adverse environments: Enhanced, impaired, or intact?Stefan Vermeent, Anna-Lena Schubert, Meriah L. DeJoseph, Jaap J. A. Denissen, Jean-Louis van Gelder, Willem E. Frankenhuis<p>Decades of research have shown that adversity tends to lower working memory (WM) performance. This literature has mainly focused on impairments in the overall capacity to hold information available in WM for further processing. However, some re...Social sciencesYuki YamadaAnonymous, Kathryn Bates2023-10-30 15:11:48 View
24 Apr 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Synaesthesia as a Model for Assessing Individual Differences in Visual Perception and Memory Performance

What can synaesthesia tell us about links between perception and memory?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Janina Neufeld, David Brang and Tessa van Leeuwen
What is the relationship between perception and memory? Although these topics are typically investigated separately, there is evidence that these cognitive processes may be related: for example, individuals with synaesthesia may experience both enhancements in visual acuity and visual memory; and individuals with amnesia may also show deficits in visual perceptual processing. However, comprehensive evidence for the relationship between perception and different forms of memory (both short-term and long-term) is currently lacking.
 
In this Stage 1 manuscript, Whelan et al. (2024) seek to elucidate this relationship by investigating individual differences in perception and memory in a general population sample (i.e., in synaesthetes, non-synaesthetic relatives, and controls). There are two accounts that may explain enhanced perception and memory in synaesthesia: a ‘dual-coding’ account, which suggests that the extra perceptual information often experienced in synaesthesia (e.g., seeing colors for different letters of the alphabet) may contribute to encoding richer information in sensory memory; and an ‘enhanced processing’ account, which posits that enhanced perception and memory in synaesthesia may be due to genetic or environmental factors not directly related to synaesthetic experiences. In the former case, synaesthetes should perform more similarly to each other than to their non-synaesthetic relatives; in the latter case, non-synaesthetic relatives of synaesthetes should show similar perceptual and memory benefits. The current study should therefore find evidence in favor of one of these accounts over the other. In addition to this, the authors will generate multidimensional cognitive profiles of synaesthetes and their relatives, compared to non-synaethetes, including perception, memory, mental imagery and cognitive styles. 
 
The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and two expert reviewers. Following revisions, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/6h8dx (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. Whelan, E., Sachdeva, C., Ovalle-Fresa, R., Rothen R., & Ward, J. (2024). Synaesthesia as a Model for Assessing Individual Differences in Visual Perception and Memory Performance. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6h8dx
Synaesthesia as a Model for Assessing Individual Differences in Visual Perception and Memory PerformanceEmily Whelan, Chhavi Sachdeva, Rebecca Ovalle-Fresa, Nicolas Rothen and Jamie Ward<p>In this study, the cognitive profile of synaesthesia (a perceptual condition in which primary experiences, such as perceiving digits or words, elicit extra secondary sensations) is used as a model system to assess visual perceptual abilities an...Social sciencesReshanne Reeder2023-11-07 13:02:39 View
26 Feb 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Lure of choice revisited: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Bown et al. (2003)

Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Hu Chuan-Peng and Gakuto Chiba
The "lure of choice" refers to the idea that we prefer to preserve the option to choose even when the choice is not helpful. In a classic study cited hundred of times, Bown et al. (2003) reported evidence for the lure of choice from a series of studies involving choices between competing options of night clubs, bank savings accounts, casino spinners, and the Monty Hall door choice paradigm. In all cases, participants tended to prefer to choose an option when paired with a "lure", even when that lure was objectively inferior (e.g., same probability of winning but lower payoff).
 
The lure of choice phenomenon applies to a variety of real-life situations many of us often face in our daily lives, and Bown et al.’s findings have influenced the way organizations present choices to prospective users. Despite their theoretical and practical impact, Bown et al.'s findings have not previously been directly replicated, even as the importance of replication studies has become increasingly acknowledged (Nosek et al., 2022).
 
Here, Chan & Feldman (2024) outline a close replication of Bown et al. (2003) that will replicate and extend their original design. By unifying Bown et al.'s multiple studies into a single paradigm with which they will collect data from approximately 1,000 online participants via Prolific, they will have substantially greater statistical power than the original study to detect the predicted effects. They will follow LeBel et al.’s (2019) criteria for evaluating replicability, such that it will be considered a successful replication depending on how many of the 4 scenarios show a signal in the same direction as Bown et al.’s original results (at least 3 out of 4 scenarios = successful replication; no scenarios = failed replication; 1 or 2 scenarios = mixed results replication). They have also added additional controls including a neutral baseline choice without a lure, further ensuring the the validity and interpretability of their eventual findings.
 
One of the goals in creating Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI RR) was to increase the availability of publishing venues for replication studies, and so PCI RR is well-suited to the proposed replication. Feldman’s lab has also pioneered the use of PCI RR for direct replications of previous studies (e.g., Zhu & Feldman, 2023), and the current submission uses an open-access template he developed (Feldman, 2023). This experience combined with PCI RR’s efficient scheduled review model meant that the current full Stage 1 protocol was able to go from initial submission, receive detailed peer review by two experts, and receive in-principle acceptance (IPA) for the revised submission, all in less than one month.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8ug9m
 
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
 
Bown, N. J., Read, D. & Summers, B. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.447
 
Chan, A. N. Y. & Feldman, G. (2024). The lure of choice revisited: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Bown et al. (2003) [Stage 1]. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community In Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8ug9m
 
Feldman, G. (2023). Registered Report Stage 1 manuscript template. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YQXTP
 
LeBel, E. P., Vanpaemel, W., Cheung, I. & Campbell, L. (2019). A brief guide to evaluate replications. Meta-Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2018.843
 
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., ... & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719-748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
 
Zhu, M. & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication Registered Report of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77608
Lure of choice revisited: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Bown et al. (2003)Nga Yi (Angela) Chan, Gilad Feldman<p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomised dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o...Social sciencesPatrick Savage2023-11-15 00:40:47 View
21 Apr 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between three causal pathways

Understanding links between secularization, rationalisation and insecurity

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Chris Chambers and 1 anonymous reviewer
What relationship can be expected between secularization, rationalisation and insecurity? While some authors argue that rationalisation reduces the willingness to belong to religious groups, others have suggested that insecurity increases this need to belong to religious groups.
 
In the current study, Lang and Chvaja (2024) will adjudicate between these two possibilities using an economics game in participants from two countries: US and Poland. The central question posed by the authors is whether cooperative insecurity increases the probability of joining a religious normative group. They will test the relationship between an environment (secure and insecure) and institution (which related to the norm context: religious and secular) on the probability of choosing the normative group in an experimental setting. Therefore, the study will be a quantitative analysis.
 
The authors included an adequate power analysis, alternatives for non-supported hypotheses, and filtering to ensure a high quality of data collection. They also undertook a pilot study to ensure the quality of the procedure and sensitivity of the analyses.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s 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/yzgek
 
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.Lang, M. & Chvaja, R. (2024). Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between the rationalization and existential insecurity theories. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/yzgek
Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between three causal pathwaysMartin Lang, Radim Chvaja<p>The study tests two competing explanations of the secularization process related to rationalizing worldviews and decreasing existential insecurity. While the former explanation argues that people are unwilling to join religious groups because o...Social sciencesAdrien Fillon2023-11-22 11:17:30 View
27 Mar 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6

Understanding how motives and emotions driving prosocial actions impact the moral assessment of good doers

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Thibaut Arpinon and Angela Sutan
Pro-social actions are often driven by emotional factors. For instance, emotions have been shown to play a decisive role in the way we judge the fairness of a situation (affect-as-information theory: e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Storbeck and Clore, 2008), and, thus, how we make decisions. Specific emotions like anger have also been shown to stimulate the motivation to fight injustice (Lerner et al., 2015). At the individual level, people might undertake altruistic actions as a way to relieve themselves from these negative emotions (what Cialdini (1991) calls ‘reflexive distress’) but also because these actions are expected by the social norms (‘normative distress’). Indeed, pro-social actions are usually taken in social contexts, and the perception of one’s behavior by third parties might hinder or facilitate the adoption of pro-social behaviors. Understanding the determinants of the perception of altruistic behaviors is thus a key research question to support pro-social actions in collective settings.
 
In the current study, Woo and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate the seminal work of Barasch et al. (2014), who showed that third parties hold more favorable views of agents undertaking pro-social actions when the latter are motivated by emotions. More precisely, the authors aim to replicate two studies of the original work by conducting a well-powered online experiment (US participants, Prolific, N=1,164). First, they will investigate whether donors who exhibit higher distress regarding the suffering of others are perceived as more moral and authentically concerned for others. Second, they will analyze whether individuals who expect material or reputational benefits from their altruistic deeds are perceived by third parties as less moral than those who act for emotional reasons. In addition to these two replication objectives, the authors propose extensions with pre-registered hypotheses that are inspired by Study 2 from the original work. They seek to investigate whether people are seen as more other-focused when they undertake a prosocial action (donation) and under different expected rewards (material, reputational, emotional benefits).
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two external reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and the recommender’s 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/d5bmp

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. Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037207
 
2. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_3
 
3. Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., Garvin, E., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition.
 
4. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
 
5. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1824-1843. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2008.00138.x
 
6. Woo, T. L. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d5bmp
Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6Tse Lyn (Rachael) Woo; Gilad Feldman<p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o...Social sciencesRomain Espinosa2023-11-23 05:22:23 View
11 Apr 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Do pain and effort increase prosocial contributions?: Revisiting the Martyrdom Effect with a Replication and extensions Registered Report of Olivola and Shafir (2013)

More pain, more prosocial? Assessing the Martyrdom Effect

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Vanessa Clemens and Liesbeth Mann
The Martyrdom Effect is a behavioral tendency in which individuals exhibit greater generosity when their acts of giving entail effort or self-sacrifice (Olivola & Shafir, 2013). Giving at a personal cost, in this mindset, is associated with ascribing and inferring more meaning and value to charitable giving or other forms of generosity than in instances where no particular pain or effort is required to enact prosocial behavior. Arguably, the Martyrdom Effect’s ability to boost prosocial behavior therefore departs from other theories of behavior change postulating that easy options to act prosocially could boost contributions (e.g., default effects in charitable giving, see Altmann et al., 2019; Goswami & Urminsky, 2016). Because they introduce complexity to the debate about encouraging prosocial behavior, three studies from Olivola and Shafir (2013) are now being addressed in this Registered Report by Cheng and Feldman (2024).

Combining these three studies in a high-powered within-subjects replication attempt, transparently communicating necessary deviations from the original design and carefully outlining the analysis strategy, the current study will offer insights into the robustness of prior findings on the role of effort and pain in determining donations.

The 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/aq89u
 
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. Altmann, S., Falk, A., Heidhues, P., Jayaraman, R., & Teirlinck, M. (2019). Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 101, 808-826. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00774
 
2. Cheng, Y. T. & Feldman, G. (2024). Do pain and effort increase prosocial contributions?: Revisiting the Martyrdom Effect with a Replication and extensions Registered Report of Olivola and Shafir (2013). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/aq89u
 
3. Goswami, I., & Urminsky, O. (2016). When should the Ask be a Nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 829-846. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0001
 
4. Olivola, C. Y., & Shafir, E. (2013). The Martyrdom Effect: When Pain and Effort Increase Prosocial Contributions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.767
Do pain and effort increase prosocial contributions?: Revisiting the Martyrdom Effect with a Replication and extensions Registered Report of Olivola and Shafir (2013)Yim Tung (Emanuel) Cheng, Gilad Feldman<p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o...Social sciencesRima-Maria Rahal Liesbeth Mann, Vanessa Clemens2023-11-30 12:32:25 View
07 May 2024
STAGE 1
toto

Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996)

When do perceptions of wastefulness affect how people make choices?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Travis Carter and Quentin Andre
How do perceptions of wastefulness affect how people make choices? In an influential set of studies examining different conceptions of wasteful behavior (overspending, underutilization, and sunk costs), Arkes (1996) found a systematic aversion to wastefulness in decision making, even when choosing to avoid wastefulness has no economic value or works against personal interest. While these findings have been influential in basic and applied research, there have been no attempts to directly replicate the results. Moreover, the original study has several methodological limitations, including the use of relatively small samples and gaps in statistical analysis and reporting.
 
In this Stage 1 manuscript, Zhu and Feldman (2024) propose to conduct a high-powered replication of Arkes (1996) using an online sample of participants. The authors will incorporate several extensions to improve methodological rigor relative to the original article, including added comprehension checks, checks of the wastefulness manipulations, a within-subjects design, and a quantitative analysis of participants’ self-reported motivations for their choices. The results of the study will provide insight into the robustness of the original findings, while also better distinguishing wastefulness aversion from other potential reasons behind participants' decisions.
 
The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and two expert reviewers. After two rounds of revision, the recommender determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). 
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/r7tsw
 
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. Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9,
213-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3%3C213::AID-BDM230%3E3.0.CO;2-1
 
2. Zhu, Z. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/r7tsw
Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996)Zijin Zhu, Gilad Feldman<p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o...Social sciencesDouglas Markant2024-01-11 06:55:16 View
30 Apr 2024
STAGE 1
toto

A climate action intervention to boost individual and collective climate mitigation behaviors in young adults

Putting climate action intervention to the test: Part 1

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Helen Landmann, Jana Kesenheimer and 1 anonymous reviewer
It is increasingly recognised that resolving the climate crisis will require not only the reform of law and government policy but collective grassroots action to change individual behaviour and put public pressure on political leaders, companies and institutions to cut emissions. The capacity, however, for individual citizens to take such steps is limited by lack of knowledge/awareness of means and opportunities as well as psychological barriers that can make such actions seem impossible, fruitless or against the person's immediate self-interest. Interventions designed to overcome these obstacles and promote individual behaviour change have met with only limited success, with many based on weak psychological evidence and the outcome measures used to evaluate their success prone to error and bias.
 
In the current submission, Castiglione et al. (2024) propose a series of five studies to test, evaluate, and optimise a longitudinal intervention for engaging young adults (aged 18-35) in individual and collective climate action. Building on existing theory and evidence, the authors have designed an intensive 6-week educational intervention that draws on 12 psychological factors linked to pro-environmental behaviour, including emotional engagement, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, theory of change, cognitive alternatives, perceived behavioral control, implementation intentions, social norms, self-identity, collective identity, appraisal, and faith in institutions. Through the use of ecological momentary assessment (EMA), they plan to measure these targeted psychological correlates as well as individual and collective climate engagement of participants before and after the intervention (and in active groups vs. controls), and then again after a further three months.
 
The current submission is novel in being the first at PCI RR (and possibly the first RR anywhere) to propose an incremental programmatic workflow that combines two innovations: a single Stage 1 protocol leading to multiple Stage 2 outputs (under the PCI RR programmatic track) and a prespecification in which the design of the intervention in later studies is (for now) determined only broadly, with specific parameters to be shaped by the results of the first set of studies (under the PCI RR incremental registrations policy). This particular Stage 1 manuscript specifies the design of study 1 in two samples (high-school and university students in Italy; producing one Stage 2 output for each sample) and the general design of subsequent studies. The details of this later research in study 2 (in the same two populations) and study 3 (university students in the Netherlands) will be developed sequentially based on the results of the previous Stage 2 outputs and the state of the literature at that time.
 
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). Following the completion of study 1, the authors will submit an updated Stage 1 manuscript for re-evaluation that updates the plans for later studies accordingly, hence the current recommendation is labelled "Part 1".
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/zh3w9 (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
 
Castiglione, A., Brick, C., Esposito, G., & Bizzego, A. (2024). A climate action intervention to boost individual and collective climate mitigation behaviors in young adults. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/zh3w9
A climate action intervention to boost individual and collective climate mitigation behaviors in young adultsAnna Castiglione, Cameron Brick, Gianluca Esposito, Andrea Bizzego<p>We present a programmatic research line to test whether a longitudinal intervention aiming to increase key psychological correlates of pro-environmental behavior motivates young adults to take climate action. In five longitudinal studies, we wi...Social sciencesChris Chambers Tyler Jacobs, Matt Williams2024-01-11 16:25:49 View
08 Apr 2024
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)
toto

Applying a Synergistic Mindsets Intervention to an Esports Context

Synergistic Mindset Intervention in Competitive Situations

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Lee Moore, Ivan Ropovik and Jacob Keech
Mindset theories suggest that the mere belief in the malleability of human abilities can help one to develop related performance. On the other hand, one and the same performance situation can also be experienced in various affective ways, which differently contribute to performance outcomes. One theoretically justifiable premise is that appraising a performance situation as a “threat” instead of “challenge” is associated with maladaptive responses, such as impaired cardiovascular mobilization. If people could experience performance situations as positive challenges, this might also improve performance outcomes. Drawing from these connected premises, the synergistic mindset intervention was developed and tentatively found to help adolescents in stressful situations (Yeager et al., 2022).
 
In the present registered report, Behnke et al. (2024) built on the above to test whether the synergistic mindset intervention can help individuals in competitive gaming situations. The authors utilized one of the leading esport games, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive​, and recruited its active players (N=300) into randomized control and intervention groups. The participants competed in a cash-prize tournament involving measures of affective experience and cardiovascular responses. Behnke et al. (2024) hypothesized the synergistic mindset group (SMI) to show greater challenge affective responses and superior performance outcomes. 
 
Although the SMI produced a number of positive outcomes such as more beneficial stress mindsets, the hypotheses were not corroborated but the results supported a null. This may be related to the observation that participants generally experienced the intervention positively, which, in turn, limits the potential for improving affective and physiological responses. These rigorous null results are informative by directing the SMI research program toward test designs where more participants experience strong negative stress responses. Moreover, the results encourage researchers to reassess the underlying auxiliary hypotheses regarding affective responses and performance outcomes, the relationships of which may be complicated by situational factors that are not yet fully understood.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Three out of the four Stage 1 experts returned to review and, due to the study’s exceptionally high level of transparency, the reviewers had only minor requests for revision. As all the requested revisions were implemented carefully, 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/z3adb
 
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. Behnke M., Lakens D., Petrova K., Chwiłkowska P., Kaczmarek L. D., Jamieson J. P., & Gross J. J. (2024) Applying a Synergistic Mindsets Intervention to an Esports Context. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://osf.io/53z8e
 
2. Yeager D.S., Bryan C.J., Gross J.J., Murray J., Krettek D., Santos P., ... & Jamieson J.P. (2022) A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature 607, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7
 
Applying a Synergistic Mindsets Intervention to an Esports ContextMaciej Behnke, Daniël Lakens, Kate Petrova, Patrycja Chwiłkowska, Szymon Jęśko Białek, Maciej Kłoskowski, Wadim Krzyżaniak, Patryk Maciejewski, Lukasz D. Kaczmarek, Kacper Szymański, Jeremy P. Jamieson, James J. Gross<p>Affective responses during stressful, high-stakes situations can play an important role in shaping performance. For example, feeling shaky and nervous at a job interview can undermine performance, whereas feeling excited during that same interv...Social sciencesVeli-Matti Karhulahti2024-02-02 17:57:13 View
11 Apr 2024
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)
toto

Licensing via credentials: Replication Registered Report of Monin and Miller (2001) with extensions investigating the domain-specificity of moral credentials and associations with trait reputational concern

No reliable evidence of a 'moral credential' effect

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Marek Vranka and Štěpán Bahník
Does being good free people up to be bad? A large literature in social psychology suggests that it might, with evidence that moral licensing gives people a perception that actions deemed morally questionable, or socially undesirable, will be tolerated more readily if they have demonstrated a past history of praiseworthy, moral behaviour. In a formative study, Monin and Miller (2001) reported that having a track record of moral credentials as being nonprejudiced (e.g. non-sexist or non-racist) increased the willingness of participants to later express a prejudiced attitude. For example, in their Study 2 they found that participants who built up their moral credit by selecting a Black woman in a hypothetical recruitment task were then more willing to prefer a White man for a second job, compared to participants who did not have the opportunity to initially recommend a Black woman. These results have prompted a burgeoning literature on moral licensing, albeit one that is mixed and has been found to exhibit substantial publication bias.
 
In the current study, Xiao et al. (2024) undertook a large online replication of Study 2 in Monin and Miller (2001), asking whether previous moral behaviours that furnish participants with moral credentials make them more likely to then engage in morally questionable behaviours (N=932). The authors also extended earlier work by testing whether moral credentials license immoral behaviours more effectively in the same domain (e.g. within sex) than in a different domain (e.g. across sex and race), asking whether there is a negative relationship between expression of prejudice and trait reputational concern (fear of negative evaluation), and whether moral credentials attenuate any such observed relationship.
 
The results constitute a resounding non-replication, revealing no reliable evidence of a moral credential effect, no evidence that higher trait reputational concern predicts the expression of potentially problematic preferences, and no evidence that moral credentials moderate any such association. In discussing the implications of their findings, the authors call for further replication attempts and investigations of the effectiveness of experimental manipulations of moral licensing.
 
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 therefore awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/uxgrk
 
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. Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33-43. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33

2. Xiao, Q., Ching Li, L., Au, Y. L., Chung, W. T., Tan, S. N. & Feldman, G. (2024). Licensing via credentials: Replication Registered Report of Monin and Miller (2001) with extensions investigating the domain-specificity of moral credentials and associations with trait reputational concern [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/zgf8y
Licensing via credentials: Replication Registered Report of Monin and Miller (2001) with extensions investigating the domain-specificity of moral credentials and associations with trait reputational concernQinyu Xiao, Lok Ching Li, Ying Lam Au, Wing Tung Chung, See Ngueh Tan, Gilad Feldman<p>The moral credential effect is the phenomenon where an initial behavior that presumably establishes one as moral “licenses” the person to subsequently engage in morally questionable behaviors. In line with this effect, Monin and Miller (2001, S...Social sciencesChris Chambers2024-02-21 05:58:59 View