Submit a report

Announcements

Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.


 

Latest recommendationsrssmastodon

IdTitleAuthorsAbstractPictureThematic fieldsRecommenderReviewersSubmission date
10 Feb 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered Report

Different ways of describing problematic substance use and its treatment influence public stigma

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Nicholas Sinclair-House
People experiencing problematic substance use are often stigmatised by the general public. This public stigma may impair such people obtaining help and the quality of help that they receive. For this reason, previous research has investigated the factors that may exacerbate or lessen stigma by focusing on the terminology used to describe problematic substance use. However, the evidence is not clear cut, with some studies suggesting that labelling the condition as a "chronically relapsing brain disease" vs a "problem" reduces certain elements of stigma and other studies finding absence of evidence. A closer look at these studies points to methodological differences that may explain their results, such as whether problematic substance use is compared with another health condition, whether the individual is described as seeking treatment or not, and whether general or discrete elements of stigma are measured.
 
In this Stage 2 Registered Report, Pennington et al. (2023) isolated these methodological differences to investigate if any of them influenced two different measures of stigma used in previous work. They found that greater social distance, danger and public stigma but lower blame were ascribed to drug use relative to a health concern, supporting previous research to suggest that problematic substance use is a highly stigmatised health condition. Furthermore, greater (genetic) blame was reported when drug use was labelled as a ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’ relative to a ‘problem’. The results for attributional judgement were either inconclusive or statistically equivalent. In summary, these findings suggest that the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use may impact upon public stigma in distinct ways. The authors suggest that future research should justify which measures are being used in line with theory. They also put forward the notion that addiction is a functional attribution, which may explain the mixed literature on the brain disease model of addiction to date.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of specialist review and several rounds of discussion with the recommender. Based on comprehensive responses, 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/4vscg
 
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
 
Pennington, C. R., Monk, R. L., Heim, D., Rose, A. K., Gough, T., Clarke, R., Knibb, G., Patel, R., Rai, P., Ravat, H., Ali, R., Anastasiou, G., Asgari, F., Bate, E., Bourke, T., Boyles, J., Campbell, A., Fowler, N., Hester, S., Neil, C., McIntrye, B., Ogilvy, E., Renouf, A., Stafford, J., Toothill, K., Wong, H. K., &  Jones, A. (2023). The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered Report. Stage 2 acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z9bnf
The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered ReportCharlotte R. Pennington, Rebecca L. Monk, Derek Heim, Abi K. Rose, Thomas Gough, Ross Clarke, Graham Knibb, Roshni Patel, Priya Rai, Halimah Ravat, Ramsha Ali, Georgiana Anastasiou, Fatemeh Asgari, Eve Bate, Tara Bourke, Jayme Boyles, Alix Campbel...<p>Objectives: Problematic substance use is one of the most stigmatised health conditions leading research to examine how the labels and models used to describe it influence public stigma. Two recent studies examine whether beliefs in a disease mo...Social sciencesZoltan Dienes2022-10-21 16:13:49 View
10 Feb 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Neuroanatomical Correlates of System-justifying Ideologies: A Pre-registered Voxel-based Morphometry Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

No definitive evidence for neuroanatomical correlates of system-justifying ideologies

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Bonni Crawford and 1 anonymous reviewer
According to the tenets of system justification theory, system-justifying ideologies are beliefs held by individuals to defend and justify the status quo, even when doing do perpetuates social inequalities (Jost and Hunyady, 2005). Two such well-studied ideologies to emerge from political science and social psychology are social dominance orientation (SDO) – the belief that some social groups are superior to others – and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) – the belief that people should follow conventional traditions and authorities, avoiding rebellious ideas. Although considered to be stable traits that may have a heritable basis, there has been little investigation of the neural correlates of SDO and RWA, and it remains unknown whether they are associated with common or distinct brain systems.
 
In the current study, Balagtas et al. report a novel investigation of the neuroanatomical correlates of both SDO and RWA in a Chinese Singaporean sample using voxel-based morphometry. Based on previous research, the authors chose to focus especially on relationships between SDO, RWA and the volume of the amygdala, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and anterior insula.
 
As predicted, the results showed a reliable positive correlation between measures of RWA and SDO; however, none of the neuroanatomical hypotheses were fully supported. Preregistered whole brain analyses revealed no significant regions associated with either RWA or SDO, while ROI analyses identified overlapping (including the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex) and non-overlapping regions (including left anterior insula) associated with RWA and SDO. Exploratory robustness checks suggested that the authors' spherical ROI localisation method may have identified clusters that were not within the amygdala or left anterior insula, prompting the need for future replication in a larger sample using more precise, atlas-based analyses.
 
The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/btkwq
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question already existed AND was accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague) BUT the authors certified that they had not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
 
2. Balagtas, P. M., Tolomeo, S., Ragunath, B., Rigo, P., Bornstein, M. H. & Esposito, G. (2023). Neuroanatomical Correlates of System-justifying Ideologies: A Pre-registered Voxel-based Morphometry Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/nrqtz
Neuroanatomical Correlates of System-justifying Ideologies: A Pre-registered Voxel-based Morphometry Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance OrientationJan Paolo M. Balagtas, Serenella Tolomeo, Bindiya L. Ragunath, Paola Rigo, Marc H. Bornstein & Gianluca Esposito<p>System-justifying ideologies are a cluster of ideals that perpetuate a hierarchical social system despite being fraught with inequalities. Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) are two ideologies that have rec...Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-07-27 17:53:26 View
09 Feb 2023
STAGE 1

The Medusa effect: A registered replication report of Will, Merritt, Jenkins, and Kingstone (2021)

Looking (again) at Medusa: does pictorial abstraction influence mind perception?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Alan Kingstone, Brittany Cassidy and 3 anonymous reviewers
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:
 
References
 
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
The Medusa effect: A registered replication report of Will, Merritt, Jenkins, and Kingstone (2021) Jing Han, Minjun Zhang, Jiaxin Liu, Yu Song, Yuki Yamada<div>The medusa effect refers to the tendency of people to evaluate a "picture of a person" as more mindful than a "picture of a picture of a person". This phenomenon is strikingly intriguing because it suggests that when people evaluate the human...Social sciencesChris ChambersAnonymous, Alan Kingstone, Anonymous, Anonymous2022-08-18 09:50:35 View
06 Feb 2023
STAGE 1

Investigating the impact of vascular risk factors on the progression of white matter lesions

Understanding predictors of white matter lesions in the human brain

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Max Elliott, Isabel Garcia Garcia and 1 anonymous reviewer
Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is a common and multi-faceted set of pathologies that affect the small arteries, arterioles, venules and capillaries of the brain. The disease manifests through a range of symptoms and conditions, including psychiatric disorders, abnormal gait, and urinary incontinence, while accounting for 25% of strokes and nearly 50% of dementia.
 
The presence of CSVD is associated with white matter lesions (WML) detected using neuroimaging, which have in turn been shown to predict future stroke, cognitive decline and dementia. While vascular risk factors of CSVD (such as hypertension and obesity) are also associated with CSVD, a complete picture of the predictive relationship between WML, cognitive decline, and blood pressure remains to be determined, as does the role of sex/gender. These inter-relationships are important to determine for improving the diagnosis and treatment of CSVD.
 
In the current study, Beyer et al. will analyse a large emerging dataset from the LIFE-Adult project – a longitudinal, two-wave, population-based study – to ask whether higher blood pressure predicts a greater increase in WML, and whether progression of WML is associated with measures of memory and executive function. In addition, the authors will explore the relationship between abdominal obesity and WML progression, and the extent to which WML progression, and its interaction with vascular risk factors, depends on sex/gender.
 
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/qkbgj
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Beyer, F., Lammer, L., Loeffler, M., Riedel-Heller, S., Villringer, A. & Witte, V. (2023). Investigating the impact of vascular risk factors on the progression of white matter lesions, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qkbgj
Investigating the impact of vascular risk factors on the progression of white matter lesionsFrauke Beyer,Laurenz Lammer, Markus Loeffler, Steffi Riedel-Heller, Arno Villringer, Veronica Witte<p>Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a major brain pathology contributing to cognitive decline and dementia. Vascular risk factors have been associated with imaging markers of cSVD such as white matter lesions, yet longitudinal studies have ...Life SciencesChris Chambers Max Elliott, Isabel Garcia Garcia2022-10-07 13:44:11 View
23 Jan 2023
STAGE 1

Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: an umbrella review

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in preclinical animal studies of neurodevelopmental conditions

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Marietta Papadatou-Pastou and Richel Bilderbeek
Single gene alterations have been estimated to account for nearly half of neurodevelopmental conditions (NDCs), providing a crucial opportunity for animal models to understand the underlying mechanisms, causes and potential treatments. The use of systematic reviews (SRs) can, in principle, provide a powerful means to synthesise this evidence-base; however, the reporting quality of previous SRs in preclinical animal research has been found lacking (Hunniford et al., 2021). In the current study, Wilson et al. (2023) will undertake an umbrella review – a systematic review of systematic reviews – to assess the characteristics and reporting quality of SRs that, in turn, synthesise research in genetically-modified animals to model NDCs. In particular, the authors will extract key features of reviews (including, among others, the aim and primary research questions, relevant animal model, and number of studies in the SR), in addition to quality indicators such as risk of bias and completeness of reporting. In doing so, the authors aim to enhance guidance on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in this area.
 
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/952qk
 
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:
 
References
 
1. Hunniford V. T., Montroy J., Fergusson D. A., Avey M. T., Wever K. E., McCann S. K., Foster M., Fox G., Lafreniere M., Ghaly M., Mannell S., Godwinska K., Gentles A., Selim S., MacNeil J., Sikora L., Sena E. S., Page M. J., Macleod M., Moher D., & Lalu M. M. (2021). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews. PLOS Biology, 19:e3001177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177
 
2. Wilson, E., Currie, G., Macleod, M., Kind, P. & Sena, E. S. (2023). Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: an umbrella review, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/952qk
Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: an umbrella reviewEmma Wilson; Gillian Currie; Malcolm Macleod; Peter Kind; Emily S Sena<p><strong>Objective</strong><br>Using genetically-modified animals to model neurodevelopmental conditions (NDCs) helps better our understanding of their underlying biology. In vivo research has unique characteristics not shared with clinical rese...Life SciencesChris Chambers2022-08-29 12:08:51 View
23 Jan 2023
STAGE 1

Comparing time versus money in sunk cost effects: Replication of Soman (2001)

Are sunk cost effects weaker for time than money?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Johanna Peetz, Christopher Olivola, David Ronayne, Johannes Leder and Dilip Soman
The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias in which people persist with a decision that is no longer optimal because of previous resources they have invested (now considered to be spent or “sunk”). Most of us will have heard sunk costs reflected in the saying “throwing good money after bad”, but sunk costs can, in theory, occur more broadly, whether for money, time or any other resource-limited investment. The sunk cost effect for money has been widely studied and appears robust; in contrast, the sunk cost effect for time is more uncertain, and is potentially moderated by the age of respondents (and likely resource availability), the fact that time is irreplaceable, and the tendency for people to account for time less easily than they do for money. In an impactful study, Soman (2001) found that the sunk cost effect for time was indeed weaker than for money, although this finding has not been widely replicated.
 
In the current study, Petrov et al. (2023) propose a replication of three studies from Soman (2001), asking whether sunk costs are weaker for time than for money, and then testing whether the relative absence of a sunk time cost arises from the inability of participants to account for time or due to more rational beliefs in the evaluation of past time investments.
 
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/65htv
 
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:
 
References
 
1. Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,14, 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.370
 
2. Petrov, N. B., Chan, Y. K., Lau, C. N., Kwok, T. H., Chow, L. C., Lo, W. Y. V, Song W., & Feldman, G. (2023). Sunk cost effects for time versus money: Replication of Soman (2001) [Registered Report Stage 1], in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/u34zb
Comparing time versus money in sunk cost effects: Replication of Soman (2001) Nikolay Petrov, Wenkai Song, Yin Kan (Megan) CHAN, Cheuk Nam (Chris) LAU, Tin Ho (Donald) KWOK, Lok Ching (Estelle) CHOW, Wai Yan (Vivian) LO, Gilad Feldman (gfeldman@hku.hk)<p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Comparing time versus money in sunk cost effects: Replication of Soman (2001) ​"</p>Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-02-23 10:39:42 View
23 Jan 2023
STAGE 1

Responding to Online Toxicity: Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored?

Testing antidotes to online toxicity

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Corina Logan and Marcel Martončik
Social media is a popular tool for online discussion and debate, bringing with it various forms of hostile interactions –  from offensive remarks and insults, to harassment and threats of physical violence. The nature of such online toxicity has been well studied, but much remains to be understood regarding strategies to reduce it. Existing theory and evidence suggests that a range of responses – including those that emphasise prosociality and empathy – might be effective at mitigating online toxicity. But do such strategies work in practice?
 
In the current study, Young Reusser et al (2023) propose an experiment to test the effectiveness of three types of responses to online toxicity – Benevolent Correction (including disagreement), Benevolent Going Along (including joking/agreement), or Retaliation (additional toxicity) – on how able participants feel to contribute to conversations, their belief that the toxicity would be reduced by the intervention, and their belief that justice had been restored. The findings promise to shed light on approaches for improving the health of online discourse.
 
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/hfjnb (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:
 
References
 
1. Young Reusser, A. I., Veit, K. M., Gassin, E. A., & Case, J. P. (2023). Responding to Online Toxicity: Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hfjnb
Responding to Online Toxicity: Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored?Alison I. Young Reusser, Houghton University; Kristian Veit, Olivet Nazarene University; Lisa Gassin, Olivet Nazarene University; Jonathan Case, Houghton University<p>When we encounter toxic comments online, how might individual efforts to reply to those comments improve others’ experiences conversing in that forum? Is it more helpful for others to publicly, but benevolently (with a polite tone, demonstrated...Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-06-08 18:35:48 View
20 Jan 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppression

Failure to learn cross-modally to suppress distractors

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Miguel Vadillo and 1 anonymous reviewer
There are two fundamental processes that the brain engages in: statistical learning and selection. Indeed, past work has shown these processes often come together: People can use a task-irrelevant stimulus to predict a target stimulus even in different modalities (crossmodal statistical learning), thereby enhancing the processing of the target stimulus (selection). Further, people can learn where a distractor will be in order to efficiently suppress it (selecting out), using task irrelevant stimuli in the same modality (within-modality statistical learning).
 
In two experiments Jagini and Sunny found that people did not learn to use a task-irrelevant stimulus from a different modality (cross modal statistical learning) to suppress a distractor (selecting out). They also found that people had little awareness of the relation between the predictor task-irrelevant stimulus and the location of the distractor. The results may reflect limits on what can be achieved unconsciously.
 
Following peer review, 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/qjbmg
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Jagini, K. K. & Sunny, M. M. (2023). No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppression. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d8wes
No reliable effect of task-irrelevant cross-modal statistical regularities on distractor suppressionKishore Kumar Jagini, Meera Mary Sunny<p>Our sensory systems are known to extract and utilize statistical regularities in sensory inputs across space and time for efficient perceptual processing. Past research has shown that participants can utilize statistical regularities of target ...Humanities, Life Sciences, Social sciencesZoltan Dienes2022-11-21 15:30:30 View
18 Jan 2023
STAGE 1
article picture

Beneath the label: Assessing video games’ compliance with ESRB and PEGI loot box warning label industry self-regulation

How effective is self-regulation in loot box labelling?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Pete Etchells and Jim Sauer
Paid loot boxes – items bought for real-world money that offer randomised rewards – are a prevalent feature of contemporary video games (Zendle et al., 2020). Because they employ random chance to provide rewards after spending real money, loot boxes have been considered a form of gambling, raising concerns about risk of harm to children and other vulnerable users. In response, some countries have taken legal steps to regulate and even ban the use of loot boxes, with only limited success so far (Xiao, 2022). At the same time, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) now expect games that contain loot boxes to be marked with warning labels that, in theory, will enable users (including parents) to make more informed decisions. These requirements by ESRB/PEGI are not legally binding and may be considered a form of industry self-regulation.
 
In the current study, Xiao (2023) will investigate the effectiveness of self-regulation in the use of loot box labels. Study 1 examines the consistency of warning labels by the ESRB and PEGI, with the expectation that if self-regulation works as it should then these labels should always (or nearly always) co-occur. Study 2 establishes the compliance rate for labelling among popular games that are known to contain loot boxes, with a rate of ≥95% considered to be successful. The findings should prove useful in identifying the success or failure of self-regulation as a means of ensuring industry compliance with loot box labelling.
 
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/e6qbm
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
1. Zendle, D., Meyer, R., Cairns, P., Waters, S., & Ballou, N. (2020). The prevalence of loot boxes in mobile and desktop games. Addiction, 115(9), 1768-1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14973

2. Xiao, L. Y. (2022). Breaking Ban: Belgium’s ineffective gambling law regulation of video game loot boxes. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hnd7w 
 
3. Xiao, L. Y. (2023). Beneath the label: Assessing video games’ compliance with ESRB and PEGI loot box warning label industry self-regulation, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/e6qbm
Beneath the label: Assessing video games’ compliance with ESRB and PEGI loot box warning label industry self-regulationLeon Y. Xiao<p>Loot boxes in video games are a form of in-game transactions with randomised elements. Concerns have been raised about loot boxes’ similarities with gambling and their potential harms (e.g., overspending). Recognising players’ and parents’ conc...Humanities, Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-09-17 00:14:51 View
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1

How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication

How much practice is needed before daily actions are performed in a way that feels habitual?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Benjamin Gardner, Wendy Wood and Adam Takacs
Even small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.
 
In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of 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/bj9r2
 
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 (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
References
 
1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
 
2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2
How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replicationde Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J.<p>How long does it take to form a habit? This question will be addressed by an innovative study by Lally et al. (2010), in which they tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine, using the Self-Repor...Social sciencesZoltan Dienes2022-05-26 09:54:26 View