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 recommendations
| Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers | Submission date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered ReportThe lived experience of gamers: a comparative qualitative investigation of treatment-seekers and esports playersRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Malte Elson and Peter Branney
Since 2018, the inclusion of “gaming disorder” in the ICD-11 has been met with a mixture of interest, confusion and controversy (Van Rooij et al, 2018), mirroring broader debates about the effects of gaming on mental health. One of the major gaps in understanding the validity of gaming disorder as an identifiable mental illness is the absence of qualitative studies comparing the lived experience of gamers who seek treatment with esports players who do not report health problems.
Here, Karhulahti et al. (2022) tackle this question in the first of two Stage 2 Registered Reports associated with their previous programmatic Stage 1 submission. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in gamers and medical experts, they find that treatment-seekers and esports players differ in how gaming is associated with the sense of self, either interfering with the self for treatment-seekers or successfully integrating into the self for esports players. These findings help to identify the key characteristics of problematic and non-problematic gaming and call for more intensive and wide-reaching qualitative research in this area.
Following one round of in-depth review and revision, 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/a2rwg
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to in-principle acceptance(IPA) but the authors certify that they did not access any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
2. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2022) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
| Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa | <p>The recent inclusion of gaming disorder in the ICD-11 as a mental disorder has further increased the importance of researching the health spectrum related to gaming. A critical area in this regard is the lack of clarity concerning the differenc... |  | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-06-11 23:49:03 | ||
16 Sep 2022
STAGE 1
Action-Inaction Asymmetries in Emotions and Counterfactual Thoughts: Meta-Analysis of the Action EffectCharting meta-analytic evidence for the action-effectRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Dan Quintana, Emiel Cracco and priyali rajagopal
Winston Churchill once famously quipped, “I never worry about action, but only inaction.” Churchill, however, may have been an exception to the rule, with psychological research suggesting that people are more concerned about the consequences of actions than inactions. During the so-called “action-effect”, first reported by Kahneman and Tversky (1982), people regret an action leading to a bad outcome more than they do an inaction leading to the same bad outcome In the current study, Yeung and Feldman (2022) propose a wide-ranging meta-analysis to characterise evidence for the action-effect, focusing in particular on emotions and counterfactual thoughts – that is, mental representations of alternative decisions (or “what if” thoughts). Consistent with the expected consequences of the action-effect on emotion, they predict that action will be associated with stronger negative emotions than inaction (when outcomes are negative), and with stronger positive emotions than inaction (when outcomes are positive). The authors also expect action to be associated with a greater abundance of counterfactual thought compared to inaction. In addition to examining the overall reliability of the action-effect (plus a range of exploratory questions), the study will also examine the extent to which the action-effect is moderated by temporal distance (with more recent events or behaviours predicted to associated with a stronger action effect), the type of study design, prior outcomes and social norms, the specificity (vs. generality) of the prior event, and whether the study employed a hypothetical scenario or a real-life event. 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 awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/4pvs6 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 References | Action-Inaction Asymmetries in Emotions and Counterfactual Thoughts: Meta-Analysis of the Action Effect | Siu Kit Yeung, Gilad Feldman | <p>Action-effect refers to the phenomenon in which people experience, associate, or attribute stronger emotions for action compared to inaction. In this registered report, we conducted a meta-analysis of the action effect literature (k = [enter nu... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-07-16 14:02:56 | |||
Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered ReportReassessing the use of the Bayesian Truth Serum as an incentive-compatible design for self-reportsRecommended by Ljerka Ostojic based on reviews by Joël van der Weele
Different disciplines and research areas that rely on participants’ self-reports to accrue data on participants’ true preferences are faced with the question to what extent the former can be equated with the latter. Using monetary incentivisation for study participation may influence this relationship, and researchers, especially in economics, have been discussing how to develop and implement incentive-compatible research designs, i.e., those in which the incentivisation yields the best payoff for the participant if they report their true preferences (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2011; Baillon, 2017). The Bayesian Truth Serum, first introduced by Prelec (2004), according to which participants are rewarded based on how surprisingly common their own answers are relative to the actual distribution of answers, has been proposed as a possible incentive-compatible design for survey studies that rely on participants’ self-reports about their true preferences (Schoenegger, 2021).
In this study, Schoenegger and Verheyen (2022) ran a replication of the study by Schoenegger (2021) and assessed whether the effect elicited by the manipulations known as the Bayesian Truth Serum is distinct from its separate constituent parts. The authors report that the manipulation did not yield a significant difference compared to control conditions, which they interpret as a failure to replicate the original results. At the same time, the authors are careful in drawing conclusions as to the usefulness of the Bayesian Truth Serum for self-report studies using Likert-scale items in general, as they emphasise that smaller effect sizes may be of interest and that the results may differ when different items are used.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers, one of whom reviewed the first Stage 1 submission, and the other one of whom reviewed the manuscript specifically to assess statistical questions.
Following a careful revision by the authors, the recommender judged that the manuscript meets the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/dkvms
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. Baillon, A. (2017). Bayesian markets to elicit private information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114(30), 7985-7962. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703486114
2. Hertwig, R. & Ortmann (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodlogical challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383-403. https://doi.org/10.1037/e683322011-032
3. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data. Science, 306(5695), 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081
4. Schoenegger, P. (2021). Experimental Philosophy and the Incentivisation Challenge: a Proposed Application of the Bayesian Truth Serum. Review of Philosophy and Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00571-4
5. Schoenegger, P., & Verheyen, S. (2022). Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report. Stage 2 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9zvqj
| Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report | Philipp Schoenegger & Steven Verheyen | <p>Over the past decade, psychology and its cognate disciplines have undergone substantial scientific reform, ranging from advances in statistical methodology to significant changes in academic norms. One aspect of experimental design that has rec... | Social sciences | Ljerka Ostojic | 2022-06-11 14:39:38 | |||
16 Sep 2022
STAGE 1
Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered ReportUnderstanding the key ingredients of the Bayesian Truth SerumRecommended by Ljerka Ostojic based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewers
The Bayesian Truth Serum, first introduced by Prelec (2004) rewards participants based on how surprisingly common their own answers are in relation to the actual distribution of answers. As such, it has been suggested as a possible incentive-compatible design for survey studies in different disciplines that rely on participants’ self-reports about their true preferences (Schoenegger, 2021).
In this study, Schoenegger and Verheyen propose to replicate the results reported by Schoenegger (2021) and to directly investigate whether the effect elicited by the manipulations known as the Bayesian Truth Serum is distinct from its separate constituent parts.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, 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/dkvms
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. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data. Science, 306(5695), 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081
2. Schoenegger, P. (2021). Experimental Philosophy and the Incentivisation Challenge: a Proposed Application of the Bayesian Truth Serum. Review of Philosophy and Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00571-4
3. Schoenegger, P., & Verheyen, S. (2022). Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report. Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dkvms
| Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report | Philipp Schoenegger & Steven Verheyen | <p>Over the past decades, psychology and its cognate disciplines have undergone substantial reform, ranging from advances in statistical methodology to significant changes in academic norms. One aspect of experimental design that has received comp... | Social sciences | Ljerka Ostojic | 2021-12-06 17:36:15 | |||
08 Sep 2022
STAGE 1
How to succeed in human modified environmentsThe role of behavioural flexibility in promoting resilience to human environmental impactsRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Gloriana Chaverri, Vedrana Šlipogor and Alizée Vernouillet
Understanding and mitigating the environmental effects of human expansion is crucial for ensuring long-term biosustainability. Recent research indicates a steep increase in urbanisation – including the expansion of cities – with global urban extent expanding by nearly 10,000 km^2 per year between 1985 and 2015 (Liu et al, 2020). The consequences of these human modified environments on animal life are significant: in order to succeed, species must adapt quickly to environmental changes, and those populations that demonstrate greater behavioural flexibility are likely to cope more effectively. These observations have, in turn, prompted the question of whether enhancing behavioural flexibility in animal species might increase their resilience to human impacts.
In the current research, Logan et al. (2022) will use a serial reversal learning paradigm to firstly understand how behavioural flexibility relates to success in avian species that are already successful in human modified environments. The authors will then deploy these flexibility interventions in more vulnerable species to establish whether behavioural training can improve success, as measured by outcomes such as foraging breadth, dispersal dynamics, and survival rate.
The Stage 1 manuscript was submitted via the programmatic track and will eventually produce three Stage 2 outputs focusing on different species (toutouwai, grackles, and jays). Following two rounds of in-depth review, 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/wbsn6
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. Liu, X., Huang, Y., Xu, X., Li, X., Li, X., Ciais, P., Lin, P., Gong, K., Ziegler, A. D., Chen, A., et al. (2020). High-spatiotemporal-resolution mapping of global urban change from 1985 to 2015. Nature Sustainability, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0521-x
2. Logan, C.J., Shaw, R., Lukas, D. & McCune, K.B. (2022). How to succeed in human modified environments, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wbsn6
| How to succeed in human modified environments | Logan CJ, Shaw R, Lukas D, McCune KB | <p>Human modifications of environments are increasing, causing global changes that other species must adjust to or suffer from. Behavioral flexibility (hereafter ‘flexibility’) could be key to coping with rapid change. Behavioral research can cont... | | Life Sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-05-06 12:12:05 | ||
05 Aug 2022
STAGE 1
Through the lens of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): experiences of a late diagnosisDevelopmental Coordination Disorder Diagnosis as Part of Evolving Self-ConceptsRecommended by Veli-Matti Karhulahti based on reviews by Moin Syed, Gill Waters and Catherine Purcell
Although developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder with an estimated prevalence of up to 6% in children (APA, 2013), many DCD diagnoses are not made before late adulthood. Receiving a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis has been found adding to people’s self-concepts, for instance, with autism spectrum disorder (Tan, 2018), but it is not well known if and how such events unfold in late DCD diagnoses. In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Topor et al. (2022) present a careful plan to qualitatively investigate the lived experiences of individuals with a late DCD diagnosis in order to map out the variety of emotional responses to diagnoses and their effects on self-concepts.
Topor et al. (2022) will carry out 10–15 semi-structured interviews with participants who received a DCD diagnosis at the age of 30 or after. They commit to realist epistemology when utilizing thematic analysis; namely, instructions have been preregistered for two separate analysts who will code the transcript data independently. At the same time, the methodology involves reflexive components. The authors have prepared strong positionality statements through which their analyses will be carried out with post-analysis reflections to be written at Stage 2. The coding process will explicitly involve a data analysis log that pursues interpretive transparency. The data and materials will be shared, which adds to the work's value in the context of open qualitative psychology in general. The study will help us better understand the process of receiving (late) DCD diagnoses and, specifically, how the emotional aftermath is potentially related to one’s evolving self-concept. In addition to making a clear contribution to cumulative scientific knowledge, the findings can be useful for professionals working with DCD-diagnosed individuals as well as for the development of related support services. The Registered Report format allowed the research design to be reviewed in three rounds before data collection. Initially, three experts representing developmental psychology and DCD reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript, after which the recommender carried out two iterations with further requested revisions. This was followed by in-principle acceptance. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/67h3f
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. APA (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. 2. Tan, C. D. (2018). “I'm a normal autistic person, not an abnormal neurotypical”: Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis as biographical illumination.” Social Science & Medicine, 197, 161-167. 3. Topor, M., Armstrong, G., Gentle, J. (2022). Through the lens of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): experiences of a late diagnosis, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/67h3f
| Through the lens of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): experiences of a late diagnosis | Marta Topor, Gemma Armstrong, Judith Gentle | <p>A late diagnosis of a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition has been shown to be an important life event with strong emotional consequences and deep personal reflections. Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD/Dyspraxia) is a common, y... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Veli-Matti Karhulahti | 2022-01-11 21:48:18 | |||
15 Jul 2022
STAGE 1
Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering ExperimentationBug detection in software engineering: which incentives work best?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Edson OliveiraJr and 1 anonymous reviewer
Bug detection is central to software engineering, but what motivates programmers to perform as optimally as possible? Despite a long history of economic experiments on incentivisation, there is surprisingly little research on how different incentives shape software engineering performance. In the current study, Krüger et al. (2022) propose an experiment to evaluate how the pay-off functions associated with different financial incentives influence the performance of participants in identifying bugs during code review. The authors hypothesise that performance-based incentivisation will result in higher average performance, as defined using the F1-score, and that different incentivisation schemes may also differ in their effectiveness. As well as testing confirmatory predictions, the authors will explore a range of ancillary strands, including how the different incentivisation conditions influence search and evaluation behaviour (using eye-tracking), and the extent to which any effects are moderated by demographic factors.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round 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/s36c2 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. Krüger, J., Çalıklı, G., Bershadskyy, D., Heyer, R., Zabel, S. & Siegmar, O. (2022). Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/s36c2
| Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation | Jacob Krüger, Gül Çalıklı, Dmitri Bershadskyy, Robert Heyer, Sarah Zabel, Siegmar Otto | <p>Empirical studies in software engineering are often conducted with open-source developers or in industrial collaborations. Seemingly, this resulted in few experiments using financial incentives (e.g., money, vouchers) as a strategy to motivate ... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-02-23 09:30:05 | |||
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDifferent ontologies, different constructs? Instruments for gaming-related health problems identify different groups of people and measure different problemsRecommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy and David Ellis
Screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications of gaming-related health problems derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. Underpinned by this, Karhulahti et al. (2022) assessed how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8217 Finnish participants completed four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?).
The results indicate that measures based on the ICD-11, DSM-5, DSM-IV, and self-assessment appear to be associated with lower mental health. However, these measures of gaming-related health problems differed significantly in terms of prevalence and/or overlap, suggesting that they identify different groups of people and that different problems or constructs are being measured by different instruments. These findings are important because they contribute to the rapidly growing literature on the ‘fuzziness’ of constructs and measures relating to technology use. The authors recommend that researchers working with these measures should: (a) define their construct of interest; and (b) evaluate the construct validity of their instruments. Being able to answer these questions will enhance research quality and contribute to strengthened meta-analyses. Importantly, this will prevent hype around gaming-related disorders, allowing researchers to communicate clearly and appropriately without risk of confusing related yet different constructs.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two of the reviewers who assessed it at Stage 1. Following revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. To ensure that the manuscript met the requirements of the PCI RR TOP guidelines, prior to this acceptance an email communication was sent to the authors by the recommender to ensure that study data were openly available on a temporary OSF link before the final data archive is full validated by the Finnish Social Sciences Data Archive (FSD). This is noted in the recommended preprint.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/usj5b
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. Karhulahti V.-M., Vahlo J., Martončik M., Munukka M., Koskimaa R. and Bonsdorff M. (2022). Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. Peer-reviewed and recommended at Stage 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://psyarxiv.com/qytrs
| Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p>Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “internet gaming disorder” (in the 3r... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2022-05-23 16:14:04 | |||
30 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
Revisiting and updating the risk-benefits link: Replication of Fischhoff et al. (1978) with extensions examining pandemic related factorsUnderstanding the relationship between the perception of risks and benefitsRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Katherine Fox-Glassman, Bjørn Sætrevik, Richard Brown and Toby Wise
Everyday decisions involve weighing up many kinds of risks and benefits, prompting the question of how our perception of those risks relates to our perception of the associated benefits. Intuitively, we might assume that behaviours or practices that are judged by society as riskier would also be seen as carrying greater potential benefits, in keeping with the expression “high risk, high reward”. The psychology of risk perception, however, appears to be more complex. In a seminal study, Fischhoff et al. (1978) in fact found the opposite pattern: that perceived risk and perceived benefit were negatively correlated – behaviours or practices that were perceived to be higher risk tended to be perceived as carrying lower benefits. This counterintuitive finding has had a significant impact on the field of judgment and decision making, despite being subjected only rarely to close replication.
Using a large-scale online design, Frank and Feldman (2022) propose a replication that incorporates key elements of Fischhoff et al. (1978) as well as a recent replication by Fox-Glassman et al. (2016). In particular, the authors will reassess the strength and directionality of the relationship between perceived risks and perceived benefits, and how these relate to both risk characteristics and acceptable levels of risk. As part of a series of exploratory extensions, they will also examine the risk/benefit relationship for policies and practices related to the Covid-19 pandemic, including vaccinations, lockdowns, and social distancing.
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/bx93v 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. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
2. Fox-Glassman, K. T. & Weber, E. U. (2016). What makes risk acceptable? Revisiting the 1978 psychological dimensions of perceptions of technological risks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 75, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.05.003
3. Frank, J. M. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting and updating the risk-benefits link: Replication of Fischhoff et al. (1978) with extensions examining pandemic related factors, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bx93v
| Revisiting and updating the risk-benefits link: Replication of Fischhoff et al. (1978) with extensions examining pandemic related factors | Jason M. Frank, Gilad Feldman | <p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting and updating the risk-benefits link: Replication of Fischhoff et al. (1978) with extensions examining pandemic related factors "</p> | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-02-15 09:21:15 | |||
29 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language?Can discriminative learning theory explain productive generalisation in language?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Julien Mayor, Natalia Kartushina, Caroline Rowland and 1 anonymous reviewer
One of the major challenges in studies of language learning is understanding productive generalisation – the ability to use words and linguistic structures in novel settings that the learner has never encountered previously. According to discriminative learning theory, this skill arises from an iterative process of prediction and error-correction that gradually reduces uncertainty, allowing learners to discriminate linguistic outcomes and to identify informative, invariant cues for generalisation to novel cases. In the current study, Viviani et al (2022) use computational modelling to propose a central hypothesis stemming from this theory that children will learn the meaning and use of spatial adpositions (words such as “above” and “below” that describe relative positions) more effectively when there is more variability in the use of the nouns within the spatial sentences. They will also test a range of additional hypotheses, including that learning and generalisation to novel contexts will be enhanced when children learn from skewed distributions that are similar to those found in natural languages.
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/37dxr Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Some of the data that will be used in the preregistered analyses was obtained in the second of two pilot experiments. However, since no further revisions to the analysis plan were made after this pilot, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero, and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Viviani, E., Ramscar, M. & Wonnacott, E. (2022). Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language? In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/37dxr
| Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language? | Eva Viviani1, Michael Ramscar2, Elizabeth Wonnacott1 [1: University of Oxford, 2: University of Tübingen] | <p>Human language is characterized by productivity, that is, the ability to use words and structures in novel contexts. How do learners acquire these productive systems? Under a <em>discriminative learning approach,</em> language learning involves... | | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-11-15 15:04:42 |
