Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon
Lure of choice revisited: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Bown et al. (2003)
Abstract
Recommendation: posted 21 February 2024, validated 26 February 2024
Savage, P. (2024) Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/PCIRegisteredReports/articles/rec?id=595
Recommendation
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:
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.
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/vytde
Version of the report: 1
Author's Reply, 21 Feb 2024
Revised manuscript: https://osf.io/f48ku
All revised materials uploaded to: https://osf.io/e47jh/ , updated manuscript under sub-directory "PCIRR Stage 1\PCI-RR submission following R&R"
Decision by Patrick Savage, posted 16 Feb 2024, validated 16 Feb 2024
This Stage 1 protocol has now been reviewed by two experts with experience in PCI-RR and open science. Both reviewers are enthusiastic about the study and recommend only relatively minor changes. I agree, and am optimistic that I could recommend In Principle Acceptance without further peer review to an appropriately revised version that addresses their concerns. In particular, please ensure that you:
1) are explicit about the limitations on generalizability from your proposed online recruitment, and
2) clarify Figs. 1-3 and the Introduction to more clearly summarize earlier in the manuscript what Bown et al.’s key “nightclub”, “bank”, and “casino” studies actually involved. (Readers should not have to wait until the Methods section to learn about these details for the first time).
Reviewed by Gakuto Chiba, 12 Feb 2024
Reviewed by Hu Chuan-Peng, 15 Feb 2024
1B. The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses (where a submission proposes hypotheses)
1C. The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis or alternative sampling plans where applicable)
1D. Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail is sufficient to closely replicate the proposed study procedures and analysis pipeline and to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the procedures and analyses
1E. Whether the authors have considered sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. absence of floor or ceiling effects; positive controls; other quality checks) for ensuring that the obtained results are able to test the stated hypotheses or answer the stated research question(s).