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 will use an online design in 200 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). If justified by the main confirmatory findings, the authors will also explore the moderating role of gender and how any observed associations are reflected in more fine-grained measures of creativity. The results promise to shed light on not only the basic question of whether creativity is related to depressive traits, but the extent to which that association depends on related determinants of mental health.

 

Following two rounds of in-depth review, 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/yub7n
 
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. Verhaeghen, P., Joormann, J., & Khan, R. (2005). Why we sing the blues: The relation between self-reflective rumination, mood, and creativity. Emotion, 5(2), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.2.226

 

2. Lam, C. Y. & Saunders, J. A. (2022). Relationship between creativity and depression: the role of reappraisal and rumination, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/yub7n

High frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (hf-tRNS) is a relatively novel form of non-invasive brain stimulation, thought to enhance neural excitability and facilitate processing in targeted brain areas. The evidence for the efficacy of hf-tRNS is mixed, so a high-powered test of the proposed facilitatory effects would be of value to the field. This Registered Report will target the human middle temporal complex (hMT+), an area with a well-established critical role in global motion processing. The protocol is adapted from a study by Ghin and colleagues (2018) but focusing on a sub-set of the original experimental conditions and using a fully within-subjects design (n=42). Global motion processing will be operationalised in terms of the coherence threshold for identification of the dominant direction of random-dot motion. The experiment will test the predicted facilitation of contralateral motion processing (reduced coherence threshold) during hf-tRNS to the left hMT+. The specificity of this effect will be tested by comparison to a sham stimulation control condition and an active stimulation control condition (left forehead). By targeting a brain area with a well-established critical role in behaviour, this study will provide important information about the replicability and specificity of the facilitatory effects of hf-tRNS.

 

Following two rounds of in-depth review, 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/bce7u
 
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. Ghin, F., Pavan, A., Contillo, A., & Mather, G. (2018). The effects of high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (hf-tRNS) on global motion processing: an equivalent noise approach. Brain Stimulation, 11, 1263–75.

 

2. Caroll, M. B., Edwards, G. & Baker, C. I. (2022). Replicating the facilitatory effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on motion processing: A registered report, in principle acceptance of Version 7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bce7u

Social media is a popular tool for online discussion and debate, bringing with it various forms of hostile interactions –  from offensive remarks and insults, to harassment and threats of physical violence. The nature of such online toxicity has been well studied, but much remains to be understood regarding strategies to reduce it. Existing theory and evidence suggests that a range of responses – including those that emphasise prosociality and empathy – might be effective at mitigating online toxicity. But do such strategies work in practice?

 

In the current study, Young Reusser et al (2023) tested the effectiveness of three types of responses to online toxicity – benevolent correction (including disagreement), benevolent going along (including joking/agreement) and retaliation (additional toxicity) – on how able participants feel to contribute to conversations, their belief that the toxicity would be reduced by the intervention, and their belief that justice had been restored.

 

The results showed the benevolent correction – while an uncommon strategy in online communities – was most effective in helping participants feel freer to contribute to online discussions. Benevolent correction was also the preferred approach for discouraging toxicity and restoring justice. Overall, the findings suggest that responding to toxic commenters with empathy and understanding while (crucially) also correcting their toxicity may be an effective intervention for bystanders seeking to improve the health of online interaction. The authors note that future research should focus on whether benevolent correction actually discourages toxicity, which wasn't tested in the current experiment, and if so how the use of benevolent corrections might be encouraged.

 

Following one round of review and revisions, 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/hfjnb

 

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:

 

 

1. Young Reusser, A. I., Veit, K. M., Gassin, E. A., & Case, J. P. (2023). Responding to Online Toxicity: 
Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored? [Stage 2 Registered Report] Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k46e8

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