Decision-making based on limited information is a common occurrence. Whether it is the possibility of a cheaper product elsewhere or the unknown qualifications of election candidates, people are regularly forced to make a decision under ignorance or uncertainty. In such situations, information about certain events is unavailable or too costly to acquire and people rely on subjective probability allocation to guide decision-making processes. This allocation seems to result in what is known as ignorance priors, i.e., decision-makers assigning equal probabilities to each possible outcome within a given set. How events are grouped or partitioned is often subjective and may influence probability judgments and subsequent decisions. In such cases, the way the choices within a choice set are presented may shape the perceived likelihood of different outcomes. Understanding the impact of partitioning on probability estimation is crucial for both psychological and economic theories of judgment and decision.

 

The question of evaluating probabilities under uncertainty has received much attention in the psychology and economics literature over the past decades given the wide range of possible applications. In the current work, Ding and Feldman (2024) seek to replicate one of the foundational works on the topic: Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). In the original work, the authors provided exploratory evidence indicating that the framing of a situation affects the way individuals perceive probabilities of possible outcomes. They showed that people assigned uniform probabilities to sets of events described in a problem, such that the way the events are described partly determines people’s partitioning of those events and evaluations of the probabilities of the possible outcomes. Additionally, this partitioned framing affected judgments both under conditions of ignorance (where individuals have no information and rely solely on uniform probability assignments) and uncertainty (where individuals have some information but still rely on heuristics influenced by partitioning). This suggests that priors resulting from the inference of available evidence are sometimes partly contaminated by partitioning bias, affecting both uninformed and partially informed decision-making processes. As a consequence, the partitioning of events into different subsets might lead to varying evaluations of a single situation, resulting in inconsistencies and poorly calibrated probability assessments.

 

Ding and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate Studies 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 from Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). Their close replication will rely on original data (US participants, Prolific, N=600, not collected yet) with a large statistical power (>95%). Their replication aims to examine whether the partitioned framing affects prior formation under ignorance (Studies 1a, 1b, and 4) and uncertainty (Study 3). In addition, the authors propose an extension examining estimations of alternative event(s) contrasting estimations of the probabilities of events happening versus of events not happening.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

1. Ding, K. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting Partition Priming in judgment under uncertainty:
Replication and extension Registered Report of Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/px6vb

 

2. Fox, C. R. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2003). Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 14, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02431

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

 

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

 
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).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/7dvme
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that 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. Bruder, C., Frieler, K. & Larrouy-Maestri, P. (2024). Voice preferences across contrasting singing and speaking styles. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7dvme

Alterations in subjective experience, including alterations in the sense of agency (SoA) and reality (SoR), are commonly implicated in direct-verbal suggestions, such as hypnotic suggestions. Although extensively studied, how direct-verbal suggestions can alter the SoA and SoR is not understood (e.g., see Martin & Pacherie, 2019; Zahedi et al., 2024). One class of theories postulates that the alterations in SoA and SoR are related to meta-cognition. For instance, the intention to move or form a mental image can be kept out of conscious awareness, creating a sense of involuntariness (Dienes & Perner, 2007).

Relying on this theory, in the current study Sheldrake and Dienes (2024) postulate that the metacognitive processes related to these alterations can occur by appropriate use of imagination. In other words, by imagining the movement or object to be hallucinated and further imagining the underlying process was outside of awareness, one can elicit alterations in SoA and SoR. To this end, an intervention is devised whereby the participant is repeatedly asked to consider what might help or hinder them from imagining they are unaware of the relevant intention and thereby adjust their imagination. A control group will be asked to increase the feeling of involuntariness or altered reality simply by repeated practice. Afterward, participants will be asked in a test phase the extent to which the suggested experience felt involuntary.

 

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). 
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/f8hsd
 
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
• Collabra: Psychology
• Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

1. Dienes, Z. & Perner, J. (2007). Executive control without conscious awareness: The cold control theory of hypnosis. In G. A. Jamieson (Ed.), Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 293-314). Oxford University Press.

 

2. Martin, J. R. & Pacherie, E. (2019). Alterations of agency in hypnosis: A new predictive coding model. Psychol Rev, 126(1), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000134

 

3. Sheldrake, K. & Dienes, Z. (2043). Can Imagining Actions as Occurring Involuntarily Cause Intentional Behaviour to Feel Involuntary? In principle acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/f8hsd

 

4. Zahedi, A., Lynn, S. J., & Sommer, W. (2024). Cognitive Simulation along with Neural Adaptation Explain Effects of Suggestions: A Novel Theoretical Framework. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1388347

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

 

How can qualitative research and case studies inform theoretical models of gaming disorder? Gaming Disorder has generated a large amount of research, with up to 95% of it focusing on quantitative studies. As a result, most of the meta-analyses and review studies focus on quantitative research and disregard qualitative approaches. However, studying the direct experiences of gamers can provide more detailed and direct evidence that can feed into theoretical models. 

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Auranen et al. (2024) will perform a qualitative meta-analysis of gaming disorder case studies, case reports, and case series of treatment-seekers using a 3-phase approach. First, they will focus on examining the reported problems of participants, the reported reasons for seeking help to reduce their gaming, and the causal link between gaming and reported problems, including the context of these problematic behaviors. Second, thematic synthesis will generate construct themes regarding the contexts of the individuals and the reported problems. Lastly, the authors will examine the relevance of findings in regards to the coping model, value fulfillment theory and the theory of cultural dissonance.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and three expert reviewers, one of which was recused due to conflicts of interest that emerged after the first round of revisions. The recommender and co-recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

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:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 
References

Auranen, T., Adamkovič, M., Martončik, M., Park, S., Kauraoja, V., Siutila, M., Jin, Y., & Karhulahti, V.-M. (2024). Gaming Disorder: A qualitative meta-synthesis of related case studies. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hzc5a