Both research and public debates around social media use tend to involve a premise of positivity bias, which refers to presenting one’s life in an overly positive light by various different means. This premise contributes to multiple potentially important follow-up hypotheses, such as the fear of missing out and low self-image effects, due to repeated consumption of positive social media content (e.g., Bayer et al. 2020, for a review). The positivity bias of social media use, itself, has received limited research attention. 
 
In the present study, Masciantonio and colleagues (2025) tested positivity bias in the context of three social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, and X. The experiment involved recruiting participants (n=312) into platform-specific user groups and crafting posts to be shared with friends as well as respective social media audiences. For social media positivity bias to differ from everyday positivity bias, posts in the former should introduce more positive valence in comparison to offline sharing—and if the platforms differ in their encouragement of positivity bias, they should introduce significant between-platform differences in valence.
 
Based on how the participants reported events, the study found no significant differences between everyday and social media positivity bias, but messages posted on Twitter/X had a more negative valence than posts in other social media platforms. The results would be consistent with the implication that people's positive actions in social media simply follow the natural human tendency to present oneself positively to others—a hypothesis that should be investigated in follow-up work. More research attention should also be given to specific design features, which may contribute to platform-specific differences in user habits, as suggested by the distinct valence rate found in relation to Twitter/X.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by three experts (areas: experimental methods, social media, statistics) via in-depth peer review across two rounds, with one reviewer returning to validate analysis code and methdological accuracy on a final round. 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/9z6hm
 
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. Bayer, J. B., Triệu, P., & Ellison, N. B. (2020). Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual review of psychology, 71, 471-497. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944

 

2. Masciantonio, A., Heiser, N., & Cherbonnier, A. (2025). Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And X [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/s93yu 

The Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect (Dehaene et al., 1993) is a key phenomenon in numerical cognition. It describes the tendency for individuals to respond faster to smaller numbers with a left-side key and to larger numbers with a right-side key, suggesting a mental mapping of numerical magnitudes onto space. While this effect has been widely replicated, its precise nature remains debated, particularly regarding its task dependency.

 

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Roth et al. (2025) present a highly powered study that systematically investigates whether the SNARC effect differs in two widely used numerical cognition tasks: magnitude classification (MC) and parity judgment (PJ). In the MC task, participants determine whether a presented number is smaller or larger than a reference value (typically 5). This task explicitly requires magnitude processing, making numerical magnitude directly relevant to the response. In contrast, the PJ task requires participants to judge whether a number is odd or even, a decision that does not explicitly involve numerical magnitude.

 

The authors address a fundamental theoretical question in numerical cognition: while the SNARC effect in PJ is often considered continuous, does it follow a categorical pattern in MC? To investigate this, the study directly compares continuous and categorical representations of the SNARC effect across these two tasks, using Bayesian statistical approaches to determine the best-fitting model. By systematically analysing the SNARC effect in these widely used paradigms, this work aims to refine our understanding of how numerical magnitudes are mapped onto space and whether this mapping depends on task demands. The findings of this study will provide crucial insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying numerical-spatial associations, highlighting the extent to which task structure shapes the emergence of the SNARC effect.

 

Three expert reviewers provided valuable feedback across multiple rounds of review. Based on ​detailed responses to the reviewers’ and recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​

 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/968ad

 

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:

 

 

 

1. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371

 

2. Roth, L., Cipora, K., Overlander, A. T., Nuerk, H.-C., & Reips, U.-D. (2025). Shape of SNARC: How task-dependent are Spatial-Numerical Associations? A highly powered online experiment. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/968ad

The replication crisis/credibility revolution has driven a vast number of changes to our research environment (Korbmacher et al., 2023) including a much needed spotlight on issues surrounding measurement (Flake & Fried, 2020). As general understanding and awareness has increased surrounding the 'garden of forking paths' or 'researcher degrees of freedom' (Simmons et al., 2011), and the various decisions made during the scientific process that could impact the conclusions drawn by the process, so too should our interest in meta-research that tells us more about the methodological processes we follow, and how discretionary decisions may influence the design, analysis and reporting of a project.

 

Peeters et al. (2025) have proposed a systematic literature review of this nature, mapping the methodological variation in experience sampling methods (ESM) from the design stage all the way to dissemination. It starts this journey by mapping how ESM studies vary e.g., in design, considering a variety of factors like sample size, number of measurements, and sampling scheme. It also evaluates reporting quality, rationales provided, and captures the extent of open science practices adopted. Covering many parts of the research process that get assumed, unreported or otherwise unjustified, the proposed work looks set to springboard an important body of work that can tell us more effectively how to design, implement and report ESM studies.

 

The Stage 1 submission was reviewed over one round of in-depth review with two reviewers. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ feedback, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.

 

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 1. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been accessed and observed by the authors, including key variables, but the authors certify that they have not yet performed any of their preregistered analyses, and in addition they have taken stringent steps to reduce the risk of bias.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

 

2. Korbmacher, M., Azevedo, F., Pennington, C. R., Hartmann, H., Pownall, M., Schmidt, K., ... & Evans, T. (2023). The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes. Communications Psychology, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2

 

3. Peeters, L., Van Den Noortgate, W., Blanchard, M. A., Eisele, G., Kirtley, O., Artner, R., & Lafit, G. (2025). Mapping Methodological Variation in ESM Research from Design to Data Analysis: A Systematic Review. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ztvn3

 

4. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

The human capacity and need for play has been recognized as a central psychotherapeutic component for a long time (e.g. Winnicott 1971). More recently, experts have started developing specialized digital gameplay to be used as therapeutic tools and even utilizing existing videogames for similar purposes (see Ceranoglu 2010). On the other hand, the concerns about some players becoming overinvolved in videogames also led the World Health Organization to include “gaming disorder” in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, which echoes the nuance required to address human-technology relationships in general.  
 
In the present registered report, Billieux et al. (2024) make use of analog structured role-play in a new intervention aiming to mitigate social anxiety and problematic gaming patterns in online gamers. The authors carried out an exploratory pilot to test a 10-week protocol over three modules inspired by the well-known Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Through a multiple single-case design with a 3-month follow-up, the authors carried out the pilot with 20 participants (two dropped out), which enabled collecting valuable early data about the feasibility and potential of the intervention. 
 
Weekly psychometric assessments indicated that the intervention may support participants and it should continue to be studied in order to comprehensively evaluate its effectiveness. Feedback obtained from participants and other parts of the pilot project enabled identifying elements (e.g., difficulty adjustments), which can be given attention usefully in intervention development. Without question, the study by Billieux et al. (2024) is to be commended for highly transparent documentation of the project, which allows future researchers and intervention developers to learn from the pilot beyond initial results. Among other relevant materials, the supplements provide a detailed case study and item-level psychometric reporting, which can help the development of technical solutions and new hypotheses.
 
Taken together, the study by Billieux et al. (2024) paves the way for open science invention piloting in the field. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by three experts (areas: experimental methods, psychopathology, gaming) via in-depth peer review across two rounds. 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/h7qat

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: 

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 
1. Billieux, J., Fournier, L., Rochat, L., Georgieva, I., Eben, C., Malmdorf Andersen, M., King, D., Simon, O., Khazaal, Y., Lieberoth, A. & Blocha., J. (2024) Can playing Dungeons and Dragons be good for you? A registered exploratory pilot program using offline Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPGs) to mitigate social anxiety and reduce problematic involvement in multiplayer online videogames [Stage 2 RR]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z32d5

 

2. Ceranoglu, T. (2010). Video Games in Psychotherapy. Review of General Psychology, 14 (2). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019439

 

3. Winnicott, D. (1971/2009). Playing and Reality. Routledge.

A convergence of evidence suggests that early life adversity may cause dysfunction in opioid-sensitive reward systems. Childhood adversity is associated with opioid use, potentially by altering reward and motivation networks, and experimental models in animals have found that early life adversity increases and consolidates opioid seeking behaviours. Further, in a recent controlled experiment, Carlyle et al. (2021) found that opioid administration produced stronger positive responses, and weaker negative responses, in adults with a history of childhood abuse and neglect.

 

In the current study, Carlyle et al. (2023) tested the generalisability of these previous findings in a pre-operative clinical setting. Using partially observed data from an existing cohort study (N=155), the authors asked whether patients with greater experience of childhood trauma in turn exhibit a larger mood boost and express greater subjective pleasure following opioid administration.

 

In contrast to previous findings, the results did not support the hypotheses that more experiences of childhood adversity would heighten ratings of drug liking and feeling good following opioid administration. Regression analyses instead revealed a statistically significant negative association between childhood adversity and post-opioid liking and no significant relationship with feeling good. The authors suggest that the discrepancy between the current and previous results may be due to stress related to the pre-surgical setting, the brief duration of drug exposure, and the relatively limited levels of high childhood adversity in the study sample. Nevertheless, these findings cast some doubt on the theory that adversity elevates risk of opioid addiction by altering sensitivity to subjectively pleasurable effects.

 

Following one round of in-depth review, 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/7ymts
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question AND they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour. 

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

1. Carlyle M., Broomby R., Simpson G., Hannon R., Fawaz L., Mollaahmetoglu O.M., Drain, J., Mostazir, M., & Morgan C. (2021). A randomised, double‐blind study investigating the relationship between early childhood trauma and the rewarding effects of morphine. Addiction Biology, 26(6):e13047. https://doi.org/10.1111/adb.13047

 

2. Carlyle, M., Kvande, M., Meier, I. M., Trøstheim, M., Buen, K., Jensen, E. N., Ernst, G. & Leknes, S. & Eikemo, M. (2023). Does childhood adversity alter opioid drug reward? A conceptual replication in outpatients before surgery, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9kt3a?view_only=4238d2ee3d654c4f908a94efea82a027