As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.

 

In this lab-based study of 175 children, Hermansen et al. (2022) will test the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors will ask whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they will investigate whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.

 

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/uq6dw
 
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. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2022). Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claim, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/uq6dw

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) propose an experiment to test the effectiveness of three types of responses to online toxicity – Benevolent Correction (including disagreement), Benevolent Going Along (including joking/agreement), or 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 findings promise to shed light on approaches for improving the health of online discourse.

 

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/hfjnb (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:

 

 

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? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hfjnb

Infant-directed speech (IDS) – colloquially known as “baby talk” – is a form of speech produced by parents that may be important for emotional bonding with children while also helping infants with early language development. In contrast to adult-directed speech (ADS), IDS is characterised by a higher and broader pitch range, slower speech rate, and shorter/simpler syntax. A significant body of research has studied the dynamics of IDS and shown that infants prefer IDS over ADS, however the great majority of this work has focused on maternal speech, leaving much to be discovered about the differences and similarities between paternal and maternal IDS, the relative preference infants exhibit for paternal IDS compared with ADS, and the role of paternal interaction in shaping these dynamics.

 

Using a Norwegian sample of 70 fathers and children, the proposed study by Robberstad et al. (2022) takes an important step into this less-explored domain, asking whether (and if so, how) fathers employ IDS when interacting with infants, whether any such modulation of speech is related to the amount of time they spend as a caregiver, whether infants show the same preferences for IDS over ADS in fathers as observed previously in mothers, and whether that preference is related to the amount of exposure the infant has to parental speech. The authors will analyse speech modulation using acoustic analysis, while preference for IDS will be tested using eye-tracking to measure infants’ overt gaze orientation while listening to IDS vs ADS.

 

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/c43xu
 
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. Robberstad, S., Kartushina, N. & Mayor, J. (2022). Fathers learning on the job: Role of paternity leave duration on paternal infant-directed speech and preference for male infant-directed speech in infants, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/sjupt

According to the tenets of system justification theory, system-justifying ideologies are beliefs held by individuals to defend and justify the status quo, even when doing do perpetuates social inequalities (Jost and Hunyady, 2005). Two such well-studied ideologies to emerge from political science and social psychology are social dominance orientation (SDO) – the belief that some social groups are superior to others – and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) – the belief that people should follow conventional traditions and authorities, avoiding rebellious ideas. Although considered to be stable traits that may have a heritable basis, there has been little investigation of the neural correlates of SDO and RWA, and it remains unknown whether they are associated with common or distinct brain systems.

 

In the current study, Balagtas et al. report a novel investigation of the neuroanatomical correlates of both SDO and RWA in a Chinese Singaporean sample using voxel-based morphometry. Based on previous research, the authors chose to focus especially on relationships between SDO, RWA and the volume of the amygdala, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and anterior insula.

 

As predicted, the results showed a reliable positive correlation between measures of RWA and SDO; however, none of the neuroanatomical hypotheses were fully supported. Preregistered whole brain analyses revealed no significant regions associated with either RWA or SDO, while ROI analyses identified overlapping (including the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex) and non-overlapping regions (including left anterior insula) associated with RWA and SDO. Exploratory robustness checks suggested that the authors' spherical ROI localisation method may have identified clusters that were not within the amygdala or left anterior insula, prompting the need for future replication in a larger sample using more precise, atlas-based analyses.

 

The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/btkwq

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question already existed AND was accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague) BUT the authors certified that they had not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.

 

 

 

 

1. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0963-7214.2005.00377.x

 

2. Balagtas, P. M., Tolomeo, S., Ragunath, B., Rigo, P., Bornstein, M. H. & Esposito, G. (2023). Neuroanatomical Correlates of System-justifying Ideologies: A Pre-registered Voxel-based Morphometry Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/nrqtz

Single gene alterations have been estimated to account for nearly half of neurodevelopmental conditions (NDCs), providing a crucial opportunity for animal models to understand the underlying mechanisms, causes and potential treatments. The use of systematic reviews (SRs) can, in principle, provide a powerful means to synthesise this evidence-base; however, the reporting quality of previous SRs in preclinical animal research has been found lacking (Hunniford et al., 2021). In the current study, Wilson et al. (2023) will undertake an umbrella review – a systematic review of systematic reviews – to assess the characteristics and reporting quality of SRs that, in turn, synthesise research in genetically-modified animals to model NDCs. In particular, the authors will extract key features of reviews (including, among others, the aim and primary research questions, relevant animal model, and number of studies in the SR), in addition to quality indicators such as risk of bias and completeness of reporting. In doing so, the authors aim to enhance guidance on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in this area.

 

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/952qk

 

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 BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.

 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Hunniford V. T., Montroy J., Fergusson D. A., Avey M. T., Wever K. E., McCann S. K., Foster M., Fox G., Lafreniere M., Ghaly M., Mannell S., Godwinska K., Gentles A., Selim S., MacNeil J., Sikora L., Sena E. S., Page M. J., Macleod M., Moher D., & Lalu M. M. (2021). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews. PLOS Biology, 19:e3001177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177

 

2. Wilson, E., Currie, G., Macleod, M., Kind, P. & Sena, E. S. (2023). Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: an umbrella review, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/952qk