The psychology of meat-eating offers a fascinating window into moral reasoning, cognition and emotion, as well as applications in the shift toward more sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat consumption. One key observation in this field is the so-called “meat paradox” – the tendency for people to simultaneously eat meat while also caring about animals. One way to resolve this conflict and reduce cognitive dissonance is for people to separate the concept of meat from animals, mentally disengaging from the origins of meat in order to make the act of consumption more ethically acceptable. Another potential explanation is a motivated “denial of mind”, in which people believe that animals lack the mental capacity to experience suffering; therefore, eating an animal is not a harm that the animal will experience. In support of the latter hypothesis, Bastian et al (2012) found that animals judged to have greater mental capacities were also judged to less edible, and that simply reminding meat eaters that an animal was being raised for the purposes of meat consumption led to denial of its mental capacities.

 

Using a large-scale online design in 1000 participants, Jacobs et al. (2022) propose a replication of two studies from Bastian et al. (2012): asking how the perceived mental capabilities of animals relates to both their perceived edibility and the degree of moral concern they elicit, and whether learning that an animal will be consumed influences perceptions of its mental capabilities. Among various exploratory analyses, the authors will also examine whether the perception of animal minds (in animals consumed for meat) varies systematically according to species.

 

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/cru4z

 

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. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291

 

2. Jacobs, T. P., Wang, M., Leach, S., Loong, S. H., Khanna, M., Chan, K. W., Chau, H. T., Tam, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/cru4z

The paper aims to bridge gaps in understanding the relationship between anxiety-related traits and fear processing, with a specific focus on fear acquisition and extinction. Fear and safety processing are known to be linked to anxiety symptoms and traits such as neuroticism and intolerance of uncertainty (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). However, the diversity in study focus and measurement methods makes it difficult to integrate findings into clinical practice effectively.

 

To address this issue, Brunsch et al. (2024) propose a systematic literature search and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines, to explore these associations. They plan to use nested random effects models to analyze both psychophysiological and self-report outcome measures. Additionally, they will examine the role of different questionnaires used to assess anxiety-related traits and conduct a content analysis of these tools to evaluate trait overlaps.

 

Current knowledge from the literature indicates that individuals with anxiety disorders exhibit differences in fear acquisition and extinction compared to those without such disorders (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). Previous meta-analyses have shown associations between anxiety traits and fear generalization/extinction, but these studies are limited in their scope and focus.

 

The primary aim of the research is to provide a comprehensive summary of the associations between anxiety-related traits and conditioned responding during fear acquisition and extinction across multiple measures. Another goal is to investigate whether different anxiety-related trait questionnaires yield different associations with fear and extinction learning. The authors will also conduct a content analysis to better interpret the results of their meta-analysis by examining the overlap in questionnaire content.

 

A secondary aim of the study is to evaluate how sample characteristics, experimental specifics, and study quality influence the associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction. By addressing these aims, the study seeks to advance the understanding of fear-related processes in anxiety and inform more targeted prevention and intervention strategies.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds of thorough review. After considering the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

1. Bruntsch, M., Abend, R., Chalkia, A., Cooper, S. E., Ehlers, M. R., Johnson, D. C., Klingelhöfer-Jens, M., Morriss, J., Zika, O., & Lonsdorf, T. B. (2024). Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4mndj

 

2. Lonsdorf, T. B., & Merz, C. J. (2017). More than just noise: Inter-individual differences in fear acquisition, extinction and return of fear in humans - Biological, experiential, temperamental factors, and methodological pitfalls. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 703–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.007

 

3. Morriss, J., Wake, S., Elizabeth, C., & van Reekum, C. M. (2021). I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training. Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science, 1, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.05.011

The Medusa effect is a recently described phenomenon in which people judge a person to be more mindful when they appear as a picture than as a picture within a picture. Across a series of experiments, Will et al. (2021) reported that at higher levels of abstraction, images of people were judged lower in realness (how real the person seemed), experience (the ability to feel) and agency (the ability to plan and act), and also benefited less from prosocial behaviour. The findings provide an intriguing window into mind perception – the extent to which we attribute minds and mental capacities to others.

 

In the current study, Han et al. (2023) propose a close replication of two experiments from the original report by Will et al. (2021), asking first, whether the level of pictorial abstraction influences ratings of realness, agency and experience, and second, whether it also influences prosocial behaviour as measured in the dictator game (with participants predicted to allocate more money to recipients presented as pictures than as pictures within pictures). In the event of a non-replication using the original materials, the authors will further repeat the experiments using newly generated stimuli that are better matched for cultural context and more tightly controlled along various dimensions.

 

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/xj46z

 

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
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open
   

 

1. Will, P., Merritt, E., Jenkins, R., & Kingstone, A. (2021). The Medusa effect reveals levels of mind perception in pictures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(32), e2106640118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106640118

 

2. Han, J., Zhang, M., Liu, J., Song, Y. & Yamada, Y. (2023).The Medusa effect: A registered replication report of Will, Merritt, Jenkins, and Kingstone (2021), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xj46z

Comparative research is how evidence is generated to support or refute broad hypotheses (e.g., Pagel 1999). However, the foundations of such research must be solid if one is to arrive at the correct conclusions. Determining the external validity (the generalizability across situations/individuals/populations) of the building blocks of comparative data sets allows one to place appropriate caveats around the robustness of their conclusions (Steckler & McLeroy 2008).

In the current study, Alley and colleagues (2023) tackled the external validity of comparative research that relies on subjects who are either university students or participating in experiments via an online platform. They determined whether data from these two types of subjects have measurement equivalence - whether the same trait is measured in the same way across groups.

Although they use data from studies involved in the Many Labs replication project to evaluate this question, their results are of crucial importance to other comparative researchers whose data are generated from these two sources (students and online crowdsourcing). The authors show that these two types of subjects do not often have measurement equivalence, which is a warning to others to evaluate their experimental design to improve validity. They provide useful recommendations for researchers on how to to implement equivalence testing in their studies, and they facilitate the process by providing well annotated code that is openly available for others to use.

After one round of review and revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

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 Stage 1 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.

 

 

• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Pagel, M. (1999). Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature, 401, 877-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/44766

 

2. Steckler, A. & McLeroy, K. R. (2008). The importance of external validity. American Journal of Public Health 98, 9-10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126847

 

3. Alley L. J., Axt, J., & Flake J. K. (2023). Convenience Samples and Measurement Equivalence in Replication Research [Stage 2 Registered Report] Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports​. https://osf.io/s5t3v

Experimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.
 
In the present study, Chen et al. (2024) will use a novel version of a combined go/no-go / approach avoidance paradigm to test the effects on choice of consumable candy. In this task, participants are randomly assigned to make a response framed as a go / no-go action or an approach / avoidance action to control a shopping cart (Chen & Van Dessel, 2024). Following this they will complete a food choice task in which participants make a series of binary choices for different candies. Their performance on this task will lead to the receipt of real-world candy. The authors aim to test whether the same responses will lead to different effects on food choice, depending on how the response was interpreted (e.g. participants in the approach/avoidance instruction group will select Approach items more often than those in the go/no-go instruction group). The study is well powered to detect the proposed effect size of interest, and data will be analysed using Bayesian mixed-effect models.
 
This study will shed light onto theoretical predictions of action interpretation on stimulus value and choice, which may improve the efficacy of behaviour change tools such as approach bias training in future.  
 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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/bn5xa (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. Chen, Z. and Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898-923.  https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151

 

2. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., and Figner, B. (2024). Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245
 
4. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. and Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363