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

 

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
 

Investigative interviews are structured social interactions where interviewers seek information from interviewees to address various objectives (e.g., Neequaye, 2023). Across diverse contexts such as eyewitness recall or intelligence gathering (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1986; Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), interviewees must first identify their interviewer’s goals before deciding whether to cooperate or resist their requests. This is the central focus of the current study.

 

In a prior study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) made an unexpected discovery: interviewees tended to assume their interviewer was interested in all the information they possessed on a topic, regardless of the specificity of the questions (high vs. low specificity). The current submission by Neequaye and Lorson (2025) seeks to replicate these findings while addressing two potential confounds from the earlier research.

 

Replication 1 utilizes a within-subjects design for question-specificity trials, while Replication 2 employs a between-subjects design. In both replications, participants indicate what they believe their interviewer wants to know using free-text responses rather than selecting from predefined options. The authors present clear hypotheses, predicted outcomes, and alternative predictions, supported by well-reasoned rationales. Furthermore, the methodology, including data collection and analysis plans, is described in detail and has undergone review by three experts. Based on the expert reviews and the authors’ responses, the recommender concluded that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance.

 

 

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:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Social Psychological Bulletin
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open 
   

 

1. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422492

 

2. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: A Conceptual Overview. In A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10

 

3. Neequaye, D. A. (2023). Why Rapport Seems Challenging to Define and What to Do About the Challenge. Collabra: Psychology, 9, 90789. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90789

 

4. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information. Royal Society Open Science, 10(8), 230986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230986

 

5. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2025). How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9suze

Beyond the semantics communicated by speech, human vocalisations can convey a wealth of non-verbal information, including the speaker’s identity, body size, shape, health, age, intentions, emotional state, and personality characteristics. While much has been studied about the neurocognitive basis of voice processing and perception, the richness of vocalisations leaves open fundamental questions about the aesthetics of (and across) song and speech, including which factors determine our preference (liking) for different vocal styles.

 

In the current study, Bruder et al. (2024) examined the characteristics that determine the enjoyment of voices in different contexts and the extent to which these preferences are shared across different types of vocalisation. Sixty-two participants reported their degree of liking across a validated stimulus set of naturalistic and controlled vocal performances by female singers performing different melody excerpts as a lullaby, as a pop song and as opera aria, as well as reading the corresponding lyrics aloud as if speaking to an adult audience or to an infant. The authors then asked two main questions: first if there is a difference in the amount of shared taste (interrater agreement) across contrasting vocal styles, and second, as suggested by sexual selection accounts of voice attractiveness, whether the same performers are preferred across styles.

 

Support for the preregistered hypotheses was mixed. Shared taste differed significantly between singing styles, but contrary to the hypothesis that it would be higher for more “natural”/ universal styles (lullabies) than for more “artificial” (operatic) forms of singing (with pop singing in an intermediary position), it was found to be higher for operatic than pop singing. At the same time, the hypothesis of low consistency in preferences for singers across styles was confirmed, contradicting the notion that singing and speaking voices convey the same information about an individual's physical fitness. Overall, the results suggest that enjoyment of singing and speaking is idiosynchratic and prone to substantial individual differences. The authors conclude that a broader approach is needed to studying this question that traverses geographic, linguistic, and cultural contexts.

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's 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/7dvme
 
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. Bruder, C., Frieler, K. and Larrouy-Maestri, P. (2024). Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncratic [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/rp5jx?view_only=506d243a6e7a4d3680c81e696ca81025

Visual symmetry is critical to our interaction with our environment so that when detected, symmetry automatically produces a neural marker in the form of an Event Related Potential (ERP) called Sustained Posterior Negativity (SPN). However, when symmetry is presented to the visual system slanted away from the viewer, there is a reduction in SPN, termed a perspective cost. 

 

Considering ​objects are rarely presented front-on (or frontoparallel) in our natural environment, Karakashevska et al., (2023) examined the extent of the perspective cost with the addition of visual cues to facilitate extraretinal representation of the visual symmetry. The authors recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from 120 participants while they performed a luminance task on symmetrical and asymmetrical stimuli. The authors hypothesized that perspective cost would be reduced by three perspective cues: 1) monocular viewing, eliminating binocular cue conflict, 2) a static frame surrounding the symmetrical stimulus, adding a depth cue, and 3) a moving frame, providing a structure-from-motion 3D cue, prior to the symmetry onset. If the SPN was equivalent during frontoparallel and slanted presentation in a cue condition, the authors would have concluded extraretinal representation can be automatic when sufficient visual cues are available. The experiment was powered to detect a relatively small difference between perspective cue conditions.

 

The authors found that there was no impact of different visual cues on the perspective cost, as measured using the SPN. Perspective cost was consistent across all conditions, contrary to the pre-registered hypotheses. Karakashevska and colleagues conclude that the three perceptual cues tested in their design do not reduce perspective cost. The study prompts future research into the nature of the extraretinal representations of planar symmetry.  

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds by three expert reviewers. Two of our reviewers reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript, and one new reviewer. Following in-depth review and responses from the authors, the recommenders determined that the Stage 2 criteria were met and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/yzsq5
 
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. Karakashevska, E., Bertamini, M. & Makin, A. D. J. (2024). Putting things into perspective: Which visual cues facilitate automatic extraretinal symmetry representation? [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z9c28

The Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect (Dehaene et al., 1993) is a key phenomenon in numerical cognition. It describes the tendency for individuals to respond faster to smaller numbers with a left-side key and to larger numbers with a right-side key, suggesting a mental mapping of numerical magnitudes onto space. While this effect has been widely replicated, its precise nature remains debated, particularly regarding its task dependency.

 

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Roth et al. (2025) present a highly powered study that systematically investigates whether the SNARC effect differs in two widely used numerical cognition tasks: magnitude classification (MC) and parity judgment (PJ). In the MC task, participants determine whether a presented number is smaller or larger than a reference value (typically 5). This task explicitly requires magnitude processing, making numerical magnitude directly relevant to the response. In contrast, the PJ task requires participants to judge whether a number is odd or even, a decision that does not explicitly involve numerical magnitude.

 

The authors address a fundamental theoretical question in numerical cognition: while the SNARC effect in PJ is often considered continuous, does it follow a categorical pattern in MC? To investigate this, the study directly compares continuous and categorical representations of the SNARC effect across these two tasks, using Bayesian statistical approaches to determine the best-fitting model. By systematically analysing the SNARC effect in these widely used paradigms, this work aims to refine our understanding of how numerical magnitudes are mapped onto space and whether this mapping depends on task demands. The findings of this study will provide crucial insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying numerical-spatial associations, highlighting the extent to which task structure shapes the emergence of the SNARC effect.

 

Three expert reviewers provided valuable feedback across multiple rounds of review. Based on ​detailed responses to the reviewers’ and recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​

 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/968ad

 

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. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371

 

2. Roth, L., Cipora, K., Overlander, A. T., Nuerk, H.-C., & Reips, U.-D. (2025). Shape of SNARC: How task-dependent are Spatial-Numerical Associations? A highly powered online experiment. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/968ad