Surveys that measure self-report are a workhorse in psychology and the social sciences, providing a vital window into beliefs, attitudes, and emotions, both at the level of groups and individuals. The validity of self-report data, however, is an enduring methodological concern, with self-reports vulnerable to a range of response biases, including (among others) the risk of social desirability bias in which, rather than responding honestly, participants answer questions in a way that they believe will be viewed favorably by others. One proposed solution to socially desirable responding is the so-called Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), which aims to incentivize truthfulness by taking into account the relationship between an individual’s response and their belief about the dominant (or most likely) response given by other people and then assigning a high truthfulness score to answers that are surprisingly common (Prelec, 2004).

Although valid in theory (under a variety of assumptions), questions remain regarding the empirical utility of the BTS. One area of concern is participants’ uncertainty regarding incentives for truth-telling – if participants don’t understand the extent to which telling the truth is in their own interests (or they don’t believe that it matters) then the validity of the BTS is undermined. 

In the current study, Neville and Williams (2025) tested the role of clarifying incentives, particularly for addressing social desirability bias when answering sensitive questions. The authors administered an experimental survey design (N=877) including sensitive questions, curated from validated scales, that are relevant to current social attitudes and sensitivities (e.g., “Men are not particularly discriminated against”, “Younger people are usually more productive than older people at their jobs”). Three groups of participants completed the survey under different incentive conditions: the BTS delivered alone in a standard format, the BTS with an interim bonus payment that is awarded to participants (based on their BTS score) halfway through the survey to increase certainty in incentives, and a Regular Incentive control group in which participants receive payment without additional incentives.

The authors analyzed the effectiveness of the BTS through two registered hypotheses. First, the authors found that the BTS did not increase agreement with socially undesirable statements (compared to the control group), as theory would suggest, and even observed an opposite effect. This result, which could be confirmed by follow-up studies, raises some concerns about the robustness of the BTS method. Second, the authors conjectured that introducing an interim payment in the BTS mechanism would help reinforce its credibility in the eyes of the participants and would thus magnify its effect. However, the authors failed to detect a statistically significant difference between the standard BTS and interim-payment BTS mechanisms. Overall, the results of Neville and Williams (2025) call for some caution in the use of the BTS and for further work to better understand the contexts in which the BTS might be a useful tool to mitigate social desirability in surveys. 

This Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by two expert reviewers and a second round of review by the recommender. After the revisions, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

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. Neville, C. M & Williams, M. N. (2025). Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian
Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s3znc

 

2. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science, 306, 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081

Video games may provide the option of spending real money in exchange for probabilistically receiving game-relevant rewards; in effect, encouraging potentially young teenagers to gamble. The industry has subscribed to a set of regulatory principles to cover the use of such "loot boxes", including 1) that they will prevent loot box purchasing by under 18s unless parental consent is given; 2) that they will make it initially clear that the game contains loot boxes; and 3) that they will clearly disclose the probabilities of receiving different rewards.

 

Can the industry effectively self regulate? Xiao and Lund (2025) evaluated this important question by investigating the 100 top selling games on the Apple App Store and estimating the percentage compliance to these three regulatory principles at two time points 6 months apart. In all cases compliance was minimal, or even non-existent. The authors recommend stricter legal regulations of loot boxes.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of review. The recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage  2 criteria for 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 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.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 
References
 
Xiao, L. & Lund, M. (2025). Non-compliance with and non-enforcement of UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: A longitudinal study on poor implementation [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3re4n

Most investigations of the relationship between music and speech – two features considered universal to human societies (Brown 1991) – focus on only a few languages in an English and/or European-centric context (Savage et al. 2015). A recent study investigated this relationship in many more languages in a global context and found that songs are different from speech in a few variables (e.g., they are slower), using a relatively small sample per language (Ozaki et al. 2024). The current study (Savage et al. 2025) is conducting a large-scale replication to increase the sample size and understand whether the results reported by Ozaki et al. (2024) persist.

 

In this registered report, Savage and colleagues (2025) will measure pitch height, temporal rate, and pitch stability in 15-30 individuals at 26 sites (languages) around the world. This much larger sample size per language will allow them to determine whether certain languages have different relationships between song and speech, or whether they vary together in the same way across cultures globally. These results will provide robust evidence from which debates about the function of music can move forward.

 

Savage and colleagues (2025) have innovated a more equitable way of conducting big team research using PCI RR’s Programmatic Registered Report mechanism, where one Stage 1 can result in multiple Stage 2 manuscripts. All co-authors are on the Stage 1 manuscript, whereas each site will produce its own Stage 2, thus allowing many authors to move into the first and last author positions and receive the deserved credit for their contributions.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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).

 

 

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.

 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• Biolinguistics
• Collabra: Psychology
• Experimental Psychology *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Brown, D. E. Human Universals. (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1991).

 

2. Ozaki, Y., Tierney, A., Pfordresher, P. Q., McBride, J. M., Benetos, E., Proutskova, P., ... & Savage, P. E. (2024). Globally, songs and instrumental melodies are slower and higher and use more stable pitches than speech: A Registered Report. Science Advances, 10, eadm9797. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adm9797

 

3. Savage, P. E., Brown, S., Sakai, E., & Currie, T. E. (2015). Statistical universals reveal the structures and functions of human music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 8987-8992. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414495112

 

4. Savage P. E., Jia Z., Ozaki Y., Pavlovich D. V., Purdy S., Ampiah-Bonney A., … & der Nederlanden, C. (2025). A Programmatic Stage 1 Registered Report of global song-speech relationships replicating and extending Ozaki et al. (2024) and Savage et al. (2025). In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vs9my

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 current study Chen et al. (2025) set out to examine how action interpretations (e.g. go vs approach) can impact individuals food-choices. This is important for cognitive bias modification approaches which aim to manipulate these actions to promote behaviour change (Iannazzo et al., 2024; Veling et al., 2021), but also theoretical accounts which suggest certain motor-responses acquire valence. Here there are two groups randomised to receive instructions to either go/no-go or approach/avoid images of candy in novel training task (Chen et al., 2019).
 
The results of the experiment suggested that despite both groups making the same responses (pressing a space bar vs not), the framing of the response as go vs approach and no-go vs avoidance influenced subsequent food-choice (i.e. responses framed as approach increased the probability of choosing approach items over avoidance items, but not go items over no-go items).
 
As the authors state, these findings cast doubt on theoretical models which suggest there are ‘hardwired’ links between specific go/approach responses and appetitive systems or specific no-go/avoidance responses and aversive systems. They also suggest these responses aren’t valenced, but acquire valence through interpretation of the action. These findings can also inform future studies into cognitive bias modification.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two reviewers with expertise in the relevant area, who also assessed the Stage 1 manuscript. Based on the authors’ careful responses and revisions, the revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation.
 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
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:
 

 

 References

 

1. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., Serverius, J., Zhu, D. & Figner, B. (2025). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on food choice. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6xhw4_v2

 

2. Chen, Z., & 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
 

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. Iannazzo, L. H., Hayden, M. J., Lawrence, N. S., Kakoschke, N., Hughes, L. K., Van Egmond, K., … Staiger, P. K. (2024). Inhibitory control training to reduce appetitive behaviour: a meta-analytic investigation of effectiveness, potential moderators, and underlying mechanisms of change. Health Psychology Review, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2410018
 
5. Veling, H., Verpaalen, I. A. M., Liu, H., Mosannenzadeh, F., Becker, D., & Holland, R. W. (2021). How can food choice best be trained? Approach-avoidance versus go/no-go training. Appetite, 163, 105226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105226

 

6. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. & Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363

COVID-19 has been associated with cognitive impairments, particularly in memory performance (Guo et al., 2022). Given that associative memory typically declines earlier than item memory in conditions such as mild cognitive impairment (Chen & Chang, 2016), it remains an open question whether COVID-19 differentially affects item and associative memory. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such effects are specific to verbal or non-verbal material. To investigate these questions, Weinerova et al. (2024) recruited participants via long-COVID Facebook groups and clinical settings. They reported a significant detrimental effect of COVID-19 status on long-term memory performance across tasks. However, they did not find evidence for their preregistered hypothesis of an interaction between COVID-19 status and either memory type (item vs. associative) or stimulus type (verbal vs. non-verbal).

 

In the Stage 1 report, the authors preregistered a Bayes Factor threshold of 6 as the criterion for supporting the alternative hypothesis. All planned analyses were preregistered, incorporating both frequentist methods (to replicate Guo et al., 2022) and Bayesian ANCOVA (to test the preregistered hypotheses). As data collection had been completed at the time of Stage 1 submission, we assigned a Level 3 bias control to the Stage 1 report.

 

In the Stage 2 report, the authors confirmed a general negative impact of COVID-19 on long-term memory accuracy. Using frequentist ANCOVA, they successfully replicated Guo et al. (2022)’s findings of reduced accuracy in verbal item and non-verbal associative memory among individuals with prior COVID-19 infection. However, they did not replicate the previously observed effect on reaction times. The Bayesian ANCOVA analyses did not reach the preregistered evidential threshold (BF > 6). Verbal associative memory, which was not part of the original replication attempt, also showed reduced accuracy in individuals with prior infection. In contrast, performance on non-verbal item memory tasks showed a ceiling effect, possibly due to methodological differences from Guo et al. (2022). Across all four memory tasks, the authors found robust evidence for decreased accuracy associated with COVID-19 status but no effect on reaction times.

 

Contrary to their hypotheses, models that included interactions between COVID-19 status and either memory type or stimulus type were less likely than the null model, suggesting a general, rather than specific, detrimental effect of COVID-19 on long-term memory.

 

Analyses of vaccination status yielded inconclusive results, likely due to limited sample size and uncertainty in participants' self-reports of vaccination timing relative to infection. The question of whether vaccination has protective effects on cognition remains unresolved and merits further investigation. The authors also reported tentative exploratory findings, such as a potential association between longer time since infection and slower reaction times in verbal item memory tasks. These observations require confirmation in future studies.

 

Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution by replicating prior findings and extending them to suggest a broad impairment of long-term memory associated with COVID-19.

 

The Stage 2 report was reviewed by the same three reviewers who had evaluated the Stage 1 submission. All reviewers agreed that the authors had addressed prior comments and had adhered to the preregistered methodology and analysis plan. As in the Stage 1 evaluation, we note the potential for selection bias introduced by recruiting participants via long-COVID Facebook groups. Individuals with post-infection cognitive complaints may have been more likely to volunteer, limiting generalizability to the broader SARS-CoV-2-infected population. This and other limitations are clearly acknowledged in the Discussion section of the Stage 2 manuscript. The recommender judged that the manuscript met all Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tjs5u
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question had been accessed by the authors prior to in-principle acceptance (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

1. Chen, P.-C., & Chang, Y.-L. (2016, May). Associative memory and underlying brain correlates in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia, 85, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.032

 

2. Guo, P., Benito Ballesteros, A., Yeung, S. P., Liu, R., Saha, A., Curtis, L., ... Cheke, L. G. (2022b). COVCOG 2: Cognitive and memory deficits in long COVID: A second publication from the COVID and Cognition Study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 14, 804937. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.804937

 

3. Weinerova, J., Yeung, S., Guo, P., Yau, A., Horne, C., Ghinn, M., Curtis, L., Adlard, F., Bhagat, V., Zhang, S., Kaser, M., Bozic, M., Schluppeck, D., Reid, A., Tibon, R., & Cheke, L. (2025). Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: Findings from the Covid and Cognition online study [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/q5vu2?view_only=228165eb161d490b945ca019143ba98c