Understanding the psychology of stigmas
Revisiting stigma attributions and reactions to stigma: Replication and extensions of Weiner et al. (1988)
Abstract
Recommendation: posted 20 June 2022, validated 20 June 2022
Chambers, C. (2022) Understanding the psychology of stigmas. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/PCIRegisteredReports/articles/rec?id=179
Recommendation
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/k957f
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Experimental Psychology
- F1000Research
- Meta-Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Reviewed by Joanne Rathbone, 15 Jun 2022
The authors have done an excellent job at addressing reviewer comments and amending issues identified with the methodology. I have no further comments at this stage.
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/zc4w5/
Author's Reply, 06 Jun 2022
Revised manuscript: https://osf.io/rqdn2/
All revised materials uploaded to: https://osf.io/gwcbt/, updated manuscript under sub-directory "PCIRR Stage 1\PCI-RR submission following R&R"
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 04 Apr 2022
Two reviewers have now provided rapid and helpful assessments the Stage 1 manuscript. As you will see, both evaluations are generally positive, noting the value of the replication (and extension), as well as the adherence to rigorous open practices. The reviews do, however, note a range of areas requiring careful revision, including strengthening of the study rationale, clarification (and likely correction) of a range of specific methodological details, tightening the link between the critical design elements, ensuring that the analysis plans are statistically valid, and ensuring that the study itself avoids stigmatising language. All of these issues fall within the typical expectations for a Stage 1 RR, and on this basis I am happy to invite a revision.