Do people who are more alert towards social stimuli vary in loneliness? This report addresses the question how loneliness relates to hypersensitivity to social stimuli using an oddball paradigm. Based on preliminary results, the study plans to compare high and low lonely individuals for how they react to happy and angry facial expressions using neurophysiological correlates. Findings from the study will provide further insights in how loneliness might be related to processing of social information.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and recommender's comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/fxngv
 
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
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• Imaging Neuroscience
• Journal of Cognition
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
   

References
 
1. Bathelt, J., Dijk, C., & Otten, M. (2024). Loneliness in the Brain: Distinguishing Between Hypersensitivity and Hyperalertness. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/fxngv

Pro-social actions are often driven by emotional factors. For instance, emotions have been shown to play a decisive role in the way we judge the fairness of a situation (affect-as-information theory: e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Storbeck and Clore, 2008), and, thus, how we make decisions. Specific emotions like anger have also been shown to stimulate the motivation to fight injustice (Lerner et al., 2015). At the individual level, people might undertake altruistic actions as a way to relieve themselves from these negative emotions (what Cialdini (1991) calls ‘reflexive distress’) but also because these actions are expected by the social norms (‘normative distress’). Indeed, pro-social actions are usually taken in social contexts, and the perception of one’s behavior by third parties might hinder or facilitate the adoption of pro-social behaviors. Understanding the determinants of the perception of altruistic behaviors is thus a key research question to support pro-social actions in collective settings.

 

In the current study, Woo and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate the seminal work of Barasch et al. (2014), who showed that third parties hold more favorable views of agents undertaking pro-social actions when the latter are motivated by emotions. More precisely, the authors aim to replicate two studies of the original work by conducting a well-powered online experiment (US participants, Prolific, N=1,164). First, they will investigate whether donors who exhibit higher distress regarding the suffering of others are perceived as more moral and authentically concerned for others. Second, they will analyze whether individuals who expect material or reputational benefits from their altruistic deeds are perceived by third parties as less moral than those who act for emotional reasons. In addition to these two replication objectives, the authors propose extensions with pre-registered hypotheses that are inspired by Study 2 from the original work. They seek to investigate whether people are seen as more other-focused when they undertake a prosocial action (donation) and under different expected rewards (material, reputational, emotional benefits).

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two external reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and the recommender’s 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.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

1. Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037207

 

2. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_3

 

3. Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., Garvin, E., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition.

 

4. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043

 

5. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1824-1843. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2008.00138.x

 

6. Woo, T. L. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d5bmp

Revisiting a true classic, this registered replication report addresses Kahneman and Tversky’s (1973) introduction of the representativeness heuristic. The heuristic refers to deviations of judgments from normative evaluations of the evidence when the stimulus fits to a prototype. For instance, when an individual is described by features stereotypically associated with a certain target group (e.g., a person who attends dance training several times a week and has a passion for singing and performing), likelihood judgments that the individual belongs to a target group (K-Pop artists) compared to a non-target group (e.g., accountants) are inflated. 

The impact of the original research on the field is clearly immense and long-lasting. All the better that a systematic replication attempt is being undertaken in this registered report, which addresses studies 1 through 7 of Kahneman and Tversky’s classic 1973 paper. Chan and Feldman (2024) propose a well-powered online study, in which all studies from the original article are presented to participants within-subjects. The materials are carefully constructed and closely documented in the accompanying OSF project, where in-depth information on planned data analyses is supported with a simulated dataset.  

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection commenced during the later part of Stage 1 peer review; however, since no substantive changes to the design were made after this point, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6.

 

 

 

1. Chan, H. C. & Feldman, G. (2024). Representativeness heuristic in intuitive predictions: Replication Registered Report of problems reviewed in Kahneman and Tversky (1973). In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/er2cq

 

2. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747

 

This study aims to examine the associations between personality traits, using the big-5 personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and compliance with pandemic measures (e.g. handwashing), and perceived risk of the pandemic to the individual, in a representative sample of the adult Norwegian population.

 

Several previous studies have examined associations between personality and adherence to medical advice using measures administered at the same point in time the during COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Götz et al., 2021), however the dataset the current investigators plan to use assessed personality one year prior to the pandemic (May/June 2019) and the risk and compliance measures four months into the pandemic (August/September 2020). 
 
Here, Sætrevik et al. (2024) make a number of hypotheses, including that conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness and neuroticism will be positively associated with compliance; extraversion will be negatively associated with compliance; extraversion and openness will be negatively associated with perceived risk; and finally, neuroticism will be positively associated with perceived risk. They plan to test their hypotheses using linear regression analyses.
 
Importantly, given the topic, the data for this study already exists and some response distributions of the compliance and risk measures have been examined. However, the authors have yet to link the data on personality to the data on compliance and risk, which is the focus of their hypotheses.  
 
The findings from this study will help us to understand the personality characteristics associated with infection control measures and individual risk perceptions of viral illnesses during a pandemic. 
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science
  
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

1. Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
 
2. Götz, F. M., Gvirtz, A., Galinsky, A. D., and Jachimowicz, J. M. (2021). How personality and policy predict pandemic behavior: Understanding sheltering-in-place in 55 countries at the onset of COVID-19. The American psychologist, 76, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000740

 

3. Sætrevik, B., Erevik, E. K., and Bjørkheim, S. B. (2024). Personality traits predict perception of pandemic risk and compliance with infection control measures. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/p5sjb

Attachment and interpersonal relationships are a major subject of research and clinical work in psychology. There are, accordingly, a proliferation of measurement instruments to tap into these broad constructs. The emphasis in these measures tends to be on the emotional dimensions of the relationships—how people feel about their partners and the support that they receive. However, that is not all there is to relationship quality. Increasing attention has been paid to the physical and physiological aspects of relationships, but there are few psychometrically sound measures available to assess these dimensions.

 

In the current study, Dujols et al. (2024) assessed the psychometric properties of the Social Thermoregulation and Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1), a measure of physical relationships that targets social thermoregulation, or how physical proximity is used to promote warmth and closeness. The project consists of a thorough assessment of the measure’s reliability over time—that is, the degree to which the measure assesses the construct similarly across administrations, in a sample of 183 French university students.

 

The authors assessed the longitudinal measurement invariance and test-restest reliability of the STRAQ-1. Longitudinal measurement invariance across two time points was only found for two of the four subscales. Similarly, test-retest reliability varied by subscale, ranging from poor to good. Taken together, the study suggests caution in using the STRAQ-1 scale as a reliable measure of physical relationships. The study highlights the need for continued assessment of the reliability of widely used measures, particularly reliability over time, and serves as a model for a rigorous analytic approach for doing so.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of 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 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pmnk2
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question was accessed by the authors prior to Stage 1 IPA (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received) but the authors certify that they had not observed ANY part of the data/evidence until after Stage 1 IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., Lindenberg, S., Van Lissa, C. J., & IJzerman, H. (2024). Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/392g6