Summary of the Article:

The conducted Registered Replication Report for the foundational Lerner & Keltner paper by 2001., which investigated associations between dispositional fear, anger, happiness and risk optimism or risk preference. The replication features an adapted design, improved analyses, and an extension (hope). The replication was partially successful.

Summary of the Review:

I recommend minor revisions. The authors report their results and conclusions faithful to the Stage 1 RR. Moreover, the track changed manuscript does not show that the authors unduly altered their introduction and methods sections. I have a few small comments:

Minor points:

1. I commend the authors for setting a SESOI. However, it would be even better if the SESOI was used more throughout the manuscript. Currently, the reporting of results very much focusses on statistical significance. I would suggest that the authors make use of their earlier work and discuss how their results relate to the SESOI. 

2. Relatedly to 1, the authors present a series of null results for their hope extension. I would suggest that the authors make use of equivalence testing to increase the informativeness of these nulls. Equivalence testing rules out a few explanations for these null results.

3. Related to 2, I feel like the discussion of the results of the hope extension falls flat. The authors write that there are many possible reasons: Discuss those reasons! Why does the framework not extend to hope? And why and to which other positive emotions does it extend (the negativity bias discussion is good!)? And what makes these other positive emotions different than hope? More broadly, I often miss a discussion of what the results mean for the ATF – for both the successful and the failed replications. 

Really minor points:

4. The authors report e.g., on page 32 and following results in both text and table form. The table contains the CI in addition. I feel like we can shorten the manuscript by moving the tables to an appendix and/or reporting the CIs in text. 

5. The authors report Cronbach’s alpha (e.g. page 20). Current papers recommend McDonald’s Omega instead (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629). The authors might consider adding this to the manuscript. 

6. I applaud the transparency and usefulness of Table 7. 

7. Page 49: You mention that whether the ATF has constraints on population generalisability still needs further investigation. I’d ask the authors to discuss this a bit more: Why would there be constraints theoretically?

8. Page 11: Your description of what got Ethics approval changed. Why? 

9. Make the number of total trials and the number of trials per ambiguity level clearer in the main text. The way it is presented in Table 4 was not super clear. 

I congratulate the authors on their manuscript and regret that I cannot offer more content-related comments. 

With Kind Regards,

Maximilian Primbs