Inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunities are rampant both between and within nations around the world. Making strides to rectify inequalities requires examining how people come to understand them as well as the psychological processes that translate those understandings into reparative actions. There is some evidence for a “comparative framing effect,” in which the group that is initially referenced impacts judgements by communicating salient information and the appropriate reference point. Research on this comparative framing effect suggests that focusing on disadvantage, relative to advantage, leads to a more negative assessment and intentions to engage in action to reduce the inequality. 

 

In two pilot studies (reported in the current proposal) focused on global inequalities (low-income vs high-income countries), Schnepf et al. (2023) did not find evidence for a main effect of framing on perceived legitimacy of the inequality or intentions to engage in action. They did, however, find some evidence for an interaction with the perceived size of the inequality. When the low-income country was the subject of the comparison, larger perceptions of the size of the inequality were associated with greater intentions to engage in action (both studies) and greater perceptions of the differences as illegitimate (Study 1 only). Moreover, they found some evidence in both studies that negative social emotions such as guilt and shame were the mechanism that explained why perceiving greater inequality in the low-income framing condition was associated with the outcomes. 

 

In the current study, Schnepf et al. (2023) build upon these two pilot studies to conduct a high-quality replication and a stronger test of their hypotheses. Most notably, the proposed Registered Report uses a much larger sample, providing adequate statistical power to detect relatively small interaction effects. Additionally, the proposed project manipulates the size of the inequality that is being evaluated, rather than relying on participants’ perceptions. Finally, the study includes “justice sensitivity,” or the degree to which individuals assess inequality as unfair as an additional hypothesized moderator, and “social dominance orientation” as an exploratory moderator. Along with the pilot studies, the proposed project will represent a strong test of several hypotheses relevant to many different areas of social and personality psychology. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth peer review, both of which consisted of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise. 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/pgyvw
 
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. Schnepf, J., Reese, G., Bruckmüller, S., Braun, M., Rotzinger, J., & Martiny, S. E. (2023). Justice in the eye of the beholder: How comparison framing affects the perception of global inequality through social emotions and justice sensitivity. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pgyvw

Probability and randomness are foundational statistical concepts used not only throughout the sciences, but also in our daily lives to guide our behavior and make sense of the world. Their importance and widespread use may suggest that they are easy concepts to understand, yet that seems not to be the case. A classic article by Tversky and Kahneman (1971) on the “belief in the law of small numbers” revealed that professional psychologists tended to incorrectly perceive a small sample that is randomly drawn from a population as representative of that population. This finding has been hugely influential, inspiring myriad subsequent studies into error and bias when reasoning about probability. 

 

In the current study, Hong and Feldman (2023) propose a conceptual replication and extension of Tversky and Kahneman (1971). The original article was shockingly sparse on details regarding the method, sample, and findings, and, to our knowledge, has never been replicated. These facts are especially concerning given the foundational status that the article holds in the field. Hong and Feldman (2023) have developed a conceptual replication project, using the same approach and targeting the same claims from Tversky and Kahneman (1971), but modifying the wording of the stimuli for clarity and appropriateness for lay respondents. Although Tversky and Kahneman (1971) relied on professional psychologists as participants, many of their claims were not restricted to that population, but rather were generalized to all people—which is also how the findings have been subsequently applied. Thus, the change from professional to lay responders is entirely appropriate and the study will be diagnostic of the original claims.

 

Finally, Hong and Feldman (2023) extend the target study by manipulating the sample size indicated in the stimuli. Tversky and Kahneman (1971) relied on a single sample size in each scenario, leaving open the question as to how sample size might impact respondents’ reasoning. Accordingly, Hong and Feldman (2023) vary the sample size across the scenarios to determine whether participants answer differently as the sample size increases. 

 

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/fzbq7
 
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
• Experimental Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Hong, C. K., & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the “Belief in the law of small numbers”: Conceptual replication and extensions Registered Report of problems reviewed in Tversky and Kahneman (1971). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/fzbq7

 

2. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322   

The positive relation between word reading and children’s vocabulary development has been extensively documented. That said, like most research in psychology and the behavioral sciences, the available evidence comes predominantly from majority populations. In the context of language learning, that means monolingual speakers or multilingual speakers where there is close alignment between home and school language learning. But what does the relation between word learning and vocabulary knowledge look like when the learning contexts are discordant?

 

In the current study, Pamei et al. (2024) propose to examine this question by investigating word learning and vocabulary development in two languages, English and Meetei Mayek, among a sample of Grade 3 (approximate age 10), students in Manipur, India. In this context, formal literacy education begins in English rather than in students’ regional home language of Meetei Mayek. This fact provides an innovative context in which to understand how a) whether the relation between word reading and vocabulary looks different in the two languages, and b) whether there is linguistic interdependence between learning in the two languages. This study is poised to bring important underrepresented data that goes beyond the dominant contexts from which our knowledge of language learning has been generated, and thus has the potential to contribute to new lines of empirical and theoretical work that is inclusive of global variations. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth peer review, the first two consisting of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise, and the third consisting of a close review by 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/7htv2
 
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. Pamei, G., McBride, C. & Inoue, T. (2024). Reading and vocabulary knowledge in English-Meetei Mayek biliterates. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7htv2

The N2pc is a lateralised ERP component that is often interpreted as a marker of attentional allocation, so much so that it is frequently used a tool in the attention literature for inferring that a stimulus was attentionally processed. This interpretation of N2pc can be traced back to the seminal work of Eimer (1996), which has been conceptually replicated many times but has never been replicated directly.

 

This registered direct replication by Constant et al. (2023) forms part of a larger series of large-scale, multi-lab replications of highly influential EEG papers by the #EEGManyLabs project (Pavlov et al., 2021). Seven labs (with the potential for more to sign up later), will conduct high-powered replications of the critical Experiment 2 of Eimer (1996), where in the crucial conditions, participants discriminate a target letter (M vs W) or colour (blue vs green) in the presence of a distractor. Using four preprocessing pipelines, including the original, the authors will test whether the N2pc is observed over parieto-occipital electrodes contralateral to target presentation.  

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review and one additional round of minor corrections. 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).

 

 

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 (so-called “primary RR”)

 

 

 

 

1. Constant, M., Mandal, A., Asanowicz, D., Yamaguchi, M., Gillmeister, H., Kerzel, D., Luque, D., Pesciarelli, F., Fehr, T., Mushtaq, F., Pavlov, Y. G. & Liesefeld, H. R. (2023). A multilab investigation into the N2pc as an indicator of attentional selectivity: Direct replication of Eimer (1996), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dw68r

 

2. Eimer, M. (1996). The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(96)95711-9

 

3. Pavlov, Y. G., Adamian, N., Appelhoff, S., Arvaneh, M., Benwell, C. S., Beste, C., ... & Mushtaq, F. (2021). #EEGManyLabs: Investigating the replicability of influential EEG experiments. Cortex, 144, 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.03.013

The Bayesian Truth Serum, first introduced by Prelec (2004) rewards participants based on how surprisingly common their own answers are in relation to the actual distribution of answers. As such, it has been suggested as a possible incentive-compatible design for survey studies in different disciplines that rely on participants’ self-reports about their true preferences (Schoenegger, 2021). 

 

In this study, Schoenegger and Verheyen propose to replicate the results reported by Schoenegger (2021) and to directly investigate whether the effect elicited by the manipulations known as the Bayesian Truth Serum is distinct from its separate constituent parts. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. 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 (IPA).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

1. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data. Science, 306(5695), 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081

 

2. Schoenegger, P. (2021). Experimental Philosophy and the Incentivisation Challenge: a Proposed Application of the Bayesian Truth Serum. Review of Philosophy and Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00571-4 

 

3. Schoenegger, P., & Verheyen, S. (2022). Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report. Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dkvms