Social cognition involves complex processes including empathy, mentalizing, and compassion, which rely on structural connectivity and specifically white matter (WM) integrity. Prior research suggests that deficits in social cognition are linked to deficient structural connectivity, indicating that the latter might be an essential foundation for social cognitive abilities. In the current study, Hansl et al. (2025) explore the relationship between social cognition and white matter (WM) integrity in the brain across different populations, by means of a systematic review and meta-analyses. Using diffusion-weighted imaging data, the authors aim to identify specific WM tracts most associated with social cognition. Meta-analyses of region-of-interest (ROI)-based studies will provide further insights, while meta-regression and subgroup analyses will examine differences across social cognitive constructs, imaging metrics, clinical conditions, and age groups. The findings could clarify global and specific WM contributions to social cognition, guiding future research on brain structure-function relationships in social cognition across various populations.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by two expert reviewers. After two rounds of revision, 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/6n3jy (under temporary private embargo)

 

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 and they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Hansl, R., Maliske, L. Z., Valk, S. L., & Kanske, P. (2025). Social cognition as a matter of structural brain connections? A systematic review and diffusion weighted imaging meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6n3jy

This study seeks to understand cultural and age differences in the effort moralization effect, a phenomenon in which people who put more effort into a task are considered more moral, regardless of the quality or the morality associated with the task. This is shown in common phrases such as the “great resignation” or “quiet quitting”, which are mostly used against younger members of the population, in particular generation Z.

 

Tissot and Roth (2025) conducted a replication of a study from Celniker et al. (2023) which found evidence for this effect, with new samples from Mexico and Germany, to test potential cultural and age differences. 

The results indicated a generalization of the effort moralization effect in Germany and Mexico, with important heterogeneity in the effect found, and effects sizes that were smaller than in the original study conducted in the USA. However, no effect was found regarding age, as younger individuals judged effort as being important in the same way as older individuals. It is possible, therefore, that the effort moralization effect is a consistent bias that persists regardless of age.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 
References

 

1. Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259

 

2. Tissot, T. T. & Roth, L. H. O. (2025). Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ck4st_v6

Does knowing more about others necessarily lead to greater liking, or might it breed contempt, as suggested by Norton et al. (2007)? In the current study, Horsham et al. (2025) tried to replicate and extend that original question. Collecting data from a large sample of U.S. undergraduates and employing carefully revised designs reviewed at Stage 1, they replicated Norton et al.’s initial studies (1a, 1b, and 2) while also adding new measures. Their primary aim was to see if the “less is more” effect, where increased familiarity decreases liking, would hold under rigorous modern standards, including pre-registration and several open science practices.

 

Results indicated that people indeed believe they will like someone more if they know more about that person, replicating Norton et al.’s initial finding from Studies 1a and 1b. However, the association between greater knowledge and reduced liking, the core of the “less is more” claim, was not consistently observed. Instead, the data showed little evidence that accumulating information inevitably decreases liking. Moreover, an added examination of curiosity as a potential mediator revealed that although curiosity and liking are positively related, curiosity itself was not strongly contingent on the amount of knowledge participants had. These findings help clarify why previous literature has sometimes presented mixed outcomes, and they underline the distinction between what people predict will happen and what actually does happen in forming impressions of others.

 

Peer review involved thorough evaluations by experts. Following multiple revisions through Stages 1 and 2, the manuscript has been deemed a carefully executed Registered Report, providing transparent methods, open data, and full reproducibility. It adds nuance to discussions around how knowledge, familiarity, and curiosity jointly shape our interpersonal attitudes. On this basis, 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/7mc4y
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97

 

2. Horsham, Z., Haydock-Symonds, A., Imada, H., Tai, H. C., Lau, W. L., Shum, T. L., Zeng, Y., Chow, K., & Feldman, G. (2025). Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguity [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports.​ https://osf.io/ygkft

How well animals may be able to cope with changes of habitat, specifically with rapid changes and thus novelty they encounter in an environment densely populated by humans, may be influenced by how they respond to novelty in general (Batisteli et al., 2022; Biondi et al., 2024; Castano et al., 2024; Heales et al., 2024). In considering this, it may be important to account for any difference in behavioural responses that animals exhibit when encountering a novel situation alone versus when they are doing so as part of a group.

 

Here, Allaert et al. (2025) tested how neophobia – the fear of unfamiliar objects – is affected by the social context in gulls, birds that are increasingly forced to live in urban environments due to the loss of natural coastlines. In this study, in which they reared herring gulls from egg and tested them taking into account that nestmates are not tested within the same groups, the authors found that the birds were faster to eat and spent more time in the zone of interest when they were tested in a group than when they were tested individually, specifically when a novel object was placed next to the food compared to when that object was a familiar one. The birds were also faster to enter the testing area when tested in a group, but this was not specific to the novel object condition. In addition to these changes in the average responses, the authors also report reduced variance when tested in a group in two of their three measures, namely in the latency to enter the testing area and time spent in the zone of interest.

 

The authors interpret their findings as being mostly in line with the ‘risk-dilution’ hypothesis, which is often considered in terms of predation risk (Krause & Buxton, 2002). They discuss possible reasons why other studies, with different species and different methodological setups, found support for alternative explanations.

 

The Stage 2 report was evaluated by the same two reviewers who had also reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript. In the revision, the authors focused on adding sex as a factor in their statistical models, which was the planned procedure for the statistical analyses in the Stage 1 report, and adding information regarding the problems encountered during testing and how these were handled. This specifically refers to the planned sample size (which the authors planned in the Stage 1 report taking into account both mortality and the fact that some birds would be not herring gulls but lesser black-backed gulls, which can only be established after hatching). However, there was higher than expected mortality, leading to a larger-than-planned overall reduction in sample size. During the study, the authors had contacted the recommender and discussed this issue, and the recommender advised on continuing the study and approved of the planned changes in the Stage 2 report. During the revision process, the authors added more information and also conducted an exploratory analysis, which included all birds, i.e. herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls. This was suggested by a reviewer and the authors present this exploratory analysis in full in the supplemental material, while the main inferences are presented in the main text. In addition, during the Stage 2 review it became apparent that some minor details regarding the procedure would be useful to be included in the Stage 2 report, which the authors included in the Stage 2 revision. This did not alter the procedure as described in the Stage 1 report, but merely added more clarity to the text.

 

Based on detailed engagement with these points and the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.

 

 

• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science
• Royal Society Open Science

 

 

1. Allaert, R., Knoch, S., Braem, S., Debeer, D., Martel, A., Müller, W., Stienen, E., Lens, L., & Verbruggen, F. (2025). Neophobia across social contexts in juvenile Herring gulls [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/b58ha

 

2. Batisteli, A. F., Pizo, M. A., & Sarmento, H. (2022). Female neophobia predicts the use of buildings as nesting sites in a Neotropical songbird. Animal Behaviour, 183, 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.11.008

 

3. Biondi, L. M., Medina, A., Bonetti, E. A., Paterlini, C. A., & Bó, M. S. (2024). Cognitive flexibility in a generalist raptor: a comparative analysis along an urbanization gradient. Behavioral Ecology, 35, arae025. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arae025

 

4. Castano, M. V., Zumpano, F., Biondi, L. M., & García, G. O. (2024). Does urbanization affect behavioral responses to novel objects in marine birds? The Olrog’s Gull as a case of study. Urban Ecosystems, 27, 427-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01465-2

 

5. Heales, H. E., Flood, N. J., Oud, M. D., Otter, K. A., & Reudink, M. W. (2024). Exploring differences in neophobia and anti-predator behaviour between urban and rural mountain chickadees. Journal of Urban Ecology, 10, juae01. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juae014

 

6. Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. (2002). Living in Groups. Oxford University Press, USA.

Experimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.

 

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

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 References

 

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

 

2. Chen, Z., & Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898–923. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151
 

3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245

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

 

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