Attachment and interpersonal relationships are a major subject of research and clinical work in psychology. There are, accordingly, a proliferation of measurement instruments to tap into these broad constructs. The emphasis in these measures tends to be on the emotional dimensions of the relationships—how people feel about their partners and the support that they receive. However, that is not all there is to relationship quality. Increasing attention has been paid to the physical and physiological aspects of relationships, but there are few psychometrically sound measures available to assess these dimensions.

 

In the current study, Dujols et al. (2023) seek to assess the psychometric properties of the Social Thermoregulation and Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1), a measure of physical relationships that targets social thermoregulation, or how physical proximity is used to promote warmth and closeness. The proposed project will be a thorough assessment of the measure’s reliability over time—that is, the degree to which the measure assesses the construct similarly across administrations. The authors will assess the test-retest reliability and longitudinal measurement invariance of the STRAQ-1, providing much-needed psychometric data that can build confidence in the utility of the measure.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the second round consisting of a close read by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pmnk2
 
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. Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., Lindenberg, S., Van Lissa, C. J., & IJzerman, H. (2023). Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pmnk2

The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias in which people persist with a decision that is no longer optimal because of previous resources they have invested (now considered to be spent or “sunk”). Most of us will have heard sunk costs reflected in the saying “throwing good money after bad”, but sunk costs can, in theory, occur more broadly, whether for money, time or any other resource-limited investment. The sunk cost effect for money has been widely studied and appears robust; in contrast, the sunk cost effect for time is more uncertain, and is potentially moderated by the age of respondents (and likely resource availability), the fact that time is irreplaceable, and the tendency for people to account for time less easily than they do for money. In an impactful study, Soman (2001) found that the sunk cost effect for time was indeed weaker than for money, although this finding has not been widely replicated.

 

In the current study, Petrov et al. (2023) propose a replication of three studies from Soman (2001), asking whether sunk costs are weaker for time than for money, and then testing whether the relative absence of a sunk time cost arises from the inability of participants to account for time or due to more rational beliefs in the evaluation of past time investments.

 

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/65htv

 

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. Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,14, 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.370

 

2. Petrov, N. B., Chan, Y. K., Lau, C. N., Kwok, T. H., Chow, L. C., Lo, W. Y. V, Song W., & Feldman, G. (2023). Sunk cost effects for time versus money: Replication of Soman (2001) [Registered Report Stage 1], in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/u34zb

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:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Experimental Psychology *pending editorial evaluation of disciplinary fit
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

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

Everyday decisions can often be biased by how different options are presented and which choices were made previously, over and above whichever option is rationally preferable. Two such major biases in judgment and decision-masking are status quo bias and the default effect. The status quo bias reflects a tendency for people to choose an option that has already been implemented or represents the current state of affairs (for instance, choosing to remain with a current energy supplier rather than switching to a different one, even when the current supplier provides less value for money), while the default effect is a bias toward taking a course of action that would occur automatically in the absence of an active choice (such as the pre-selected energy supplier in questionnaire). Status quo bias and default effects can overlap or diverge: the status quo option will often be the same as the default, while on other occasions the default option in a choice set will be determined by other factors and differ from the option that was already implemented.

 

In the current study, Yam and Feldman (2023) propose a replication and extension of an influential study by Dinner et al. (2011) that purported to examine default effects but, arguably, actually studied its nearby cousin, status quo bias. Using a large online sample, the authors will independently test for the existence of both status quo bias and the default effect, before then asking whether (and if so how) status quo bias and default effects interact and how they are related to several potential explanatory variables, including perceived effort (which may be lower for the status quo or default) and endorsements (whether through direct recommendations or indirectly through perceived norms). The authors also build in additional manipulation checks and comprehension checks, in addition to exploratory analyses examining (among other variables), the political orientation of participants.

 

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/ep3jh
 
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. Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G., & Liu, K. (2011). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 332– 341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024354

2. Yam, M. L. M.  & Feldman, G. (2023). Reference points and decision-making: Impact of status quo and defaults in a conceptual replication and extensions Registered Report of Dinner et al. (2011), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ep3jh

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