We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!
Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.
Latest recommendations
| Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * ▲ | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers | Submission date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDifferent ontologies, different constructs? Instruments for gaming-related health problems identify different groups of people and measure different problemsRecommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy and David Ellis
Screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications of gaming-related health problems derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. Underpinned by this, Karhulahti et al. (2022) assessed how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8217 Finnish participants completed four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?).
The results indicate that measures based on the ICD-11, DSM-5, DSM-IV, and self-assessment appear to be associated with lower mental health. However, these measures of gaming-related health problems differed significantly in terms of prevalence and/or overlap, suggesting that they identify different groups of people and that different problems or constructs are being measured by different instruments. These findings are important because they contribute to the rapidly growing literature on the ‘fuzziness’ of constructs and measures relating to technology use. The authors recommend that researchers working with these measures should: (a) define their construct of interest; and (b) evaluate the construct validity of their instruments. Being able to answer these questions will enhance research quality and contribute to strengthened meta-analyses. Importantly, this will prevent hype around gaming-related disorders, allowing researchers to communicate clearly and appropriately without risk of confusing related yet different constructs.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two of the reviewers who assessed it at Stage 1. Following revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. To ensure that the manuscript met the requirements of the PCI RR TOP guidelines, prior to this acceptance an email communication was sent to the authors by the recommender to ensure that study data were openly available on a temporary OSF link before the final data archive is full validated by the Finnish Social Sciences Data Archive (FSD). This is noted in the recommended preprint.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/usj5b
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Karhulahti V.-M., Vahlo J., Martončik M., Munukka M., Koskimaa R. and Bonsdorff M. (2022). Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. Peer-reviewed and recommended at Stage 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://psyarxiv.com/qytrs
| Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p>Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “internet gaming disorder” (in the 3r... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2022-05-23 16:14:04 | |||
17 Jan 2024
STAGE 1
The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered ReplicationExamining attentional retraining of threat as an intervention in pathological worryRecommended by Thomas Meyer based on reviews by Thomas Gladwin, Jakob Fink-Lamotte and 1 anonymous reviewer
Cognitive models ascribe a pivotal role to cognitive biases in the development and maintenance of mental disorders. For instance, attentional biases that prioritize the processing of threat-related stimuli have been suggested to be causally involved in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), which is marked by pathological worry. Therefore, these biases have garnered significant interest as potential diagnostic indicator and as targets for modification.
The idea that attention bias modification (ABM) can serve as a therapeutic intervention for GAD and other disorders was fueled by a seminal study by Hazen et al. (2009). In this study, 23 individuals experiencing high levels of worry underwent a computerized attentional retraining of threat stimuli (ARTS) or placebo control training during five training sessions. Relative to control, attention retraining was found to reduce preferential attention to threat, as well as depression and anxiety symptoms. However, as Pond et al. (2024) highlight in their review of the literature, the evidence endorsing the efficacy of ABM in alleviating anxiety disorders is still inconclusive. Moreover, some researchers contend that early positive findings might have been inflated due to demand effects.
Based on these considerations, Pond et al. (2024) propose a direct replication of Hazen et al. (2009) by subjecting a high-worry sample to five sessions of ARTS or placebo control. Departing from the frequentist analyses used in the original study, the authors will employ Bayesian analyses that allow more nuanced interpretation of the results, allowing consideration of evidence in support of the null hypothesis. The sampling plan will adhere to a Bayesian stopping rule, whereby the maximal sample size will be set at n=200. Furthermore, the authors extend the original study by addressing potential demand effects. For this purpose, they include a measure of phenomenological control (i.e., the ability to generate experiences align with the expectancies of a given situation) and evaluate its potential moderating impact on the attention bias training.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers in two rounds of in-depth review. Following responses from the authors, the recommender determined that Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5f7u9
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. Hazen, R. A., Vasey, M. W., & Schmidt, N. B. (2009). Attentional retraining: A randomized clinical trial for pathological worry. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.004
2. Pond, N., Meeten, F., Clarke, P., Notebaert, L., & Scott, R. B. (2024). The efficacy of attentional bias modification for anxiety: A registered replication. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/5f7u9
| The Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification for Anxiety: A Registered Replication | Nathan Pond, Frances Meeten, Patrick Clarke, Lies Notebaert, Ryan Scott | <p>Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is a prevalent condition that has been linked to the presence of certain cognitive biases, including attention bias. Attention bias is the tendency to attend preferentially to threat-related stimuli and has be... | Social sciences | Thomas Meyer | 2023-09-15 19:25:47 | |||
30 Jun 2023
STAGE 1
Justice in the Eye of the Beholder: How Comparison Framing Affects the Perception of Global Inequality Through Social Emotions and Justice SensitivityWhy are there variations in perceptions of inequality?Recommended by Moin Syed based on reviews by Mario Gollwitzer and Sa-Kiera Hudson
Inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunities are rampant both between and within nations around the world. Making strides to rectify inequalities requires examining how people come to understand them as well as the psychological processes that translate those understandings into reparative actions. There is some evidence for a “comparative framing effect,” in which the group that is initially referenced impacts judgements by communicating salient information and the appropriate reference point. Research on this comparative framing effect suggests that focusing on disadvantage, relative to advantage, leads to a more negative assessment and intentions to engage in action to reduce the inequality.
In two pilot studies (reported in the current proposal) focused on global inequalities (low-income vs high-income countries), Schnepf et al. (2023) did not find evidence for a main effect of framing on perceived legitimacy of the inequality or intentions to engage in action. They did, however, find some evidence for an interaction with the perceived size of the inequality. When the low-income country was the subject of the comparison, larger perceptions of the size of the inequality were associated with greater intentions to engage in action (both studies) and greater perceptions of the differences as illegitimate (Study 1 only). Moreover, they found some evidence in both studies that negative social emotions such as guilt and shame were the mechanism that explained why perceiving greater inequality in the low-income framing condition was associated with the outcomes.
In the current study, Schnepf et al. (2023) build upon these two pilot studies to conduct a high-quality replication and a stronger test of their hypotheses. Most notably, the proposed Registered Report uses a much larger sample, providing adequate statistical power to detect relatively small interaction effects. Additionally, the proposed project manipulates the size of the inequality that is being evaluated, rather than relying on participants’ perceptions. Finally, the study includes “justice sensitivity,” or the degree to which individuals assess inequality as unfair as an additional hypothesized moderator, and “social dominance orientation” as an exploratory moderator. Along with the pilot studies, the proposed project will represent a strong test of several hypotheses relevant to many different areas of social and personality psychology.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth peer review, both of which consisted of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pgyvw
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. Schnepf, J., Reese, G., Bruckmüller, S., Braun, M., Rotzinger, J., & Martiny, S. E. (2023). Justice in the eye of the beholder: How comparison framing affects the perception of global inequality through social emotions and justice sensitivity. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pgyvw
| Justice in the Eye of the Beholder: How Comparison Framing Affects the Perception of Global Inequality Through Social Emotions and Justice Sensitivity | Julia Schnepf, Gerhard Reese, Susanne Bruckmüller, Maike Braun, Julia Rotzinger, Sarah E. Martiny | <p>Global inequality is one of today’s major challenges. How people mentally represent inequality is often determined by its comparative framing. In the present work, we seek to analyze whether putting the focus of a comparison on the disadvantage... | Social sciences | Moin Syed | 2021-12-11 15:41:26 | |||
08 Feb 2022
STAGE 1
Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI StudyPutting the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory to the test in explaining habitual actionRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewers
What are the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the formation of habits? In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Eder and colleagues propose an fMRI study to test a key prediction of the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory: that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) – a region heavily implicated in reward processing, cognitive control, and action selection – will show increased activity during the presentation of Pavlovian cues that are associated with devalued outcomes. In combination with a series of behavioural positive controls, this observation would provide evidence in support of EVC theory, whereas failure to do so may support alternative accounts that propose independence of habits from the representations of outcomes. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth specialist 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). This IPA recommendation was issued on 8 Feb 2022, and was initially provisional due to lack of ethics approval. The recommendation was then updated and confirmed on 21 Feb 2022 following confirmation that ethics approval had been granted. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/k8ygb 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 Eder, A. B., Dignath, D. & Gamer, M. (2022). Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI Study. Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k8ygb | Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI Study | Andreas B. Eder, David Dignath, Matthias Gamer | <p>Habitual action is typically distinguished from goal-directed action by its insensitivity to changes in the reward value. There is an ongoing discussion whether this insensitivity is an intrinsic design feature of habits or, rather, a function ... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-10-05 11:51:08 | |||
24 Oct 2024
STAGE 1
Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claimDoes metacognition influence how children test surprising claims?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Elizabeth Lapidow and Amy Masnick
As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.
In this lab-based study of 175 children, Hermansen et al. (2022) will test the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors will ask whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they will investigate whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two 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/uq6dw
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. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2022). Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claim, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/uq6dw
| Knowing why: Children’s reflection on their own uncertainty about an adult’s surprising claim increases their tendency to test that claim | Tone Hermansen, Kamilla Mathisen, Samuel Ronfard | <p>Hearing about surprising phenomena triggers exploration, even in young children. This exploration increases and changes with age. It becomes more targeted and efficient with children around 6-years-old clearly exploring with the intent to verif... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-05-09 18:10:57 | |||
When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claimsThe role of metacognition in how children test surprising claimsRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Elizabeth Lapidow and Amy Masnick
As children grow, their cognition develops alongside their metacognition – the awareness and understanding of their own thought processes. One important aspect of cognitive development is learning effective strategies for exploring new situations and testing surprising claims, prompting the question of how improvement in cognition and reasoning is related to metacognitive understanding of these processes. For example, as children develop more targeted and efficient exploration strategies to test a surprising claim (e.g. “of these three rocks, the smallest one is the heaviest”), metacognitive understanding of why they are uncertain or skeptical may be crucial to testing the claim effectively and, in the long run, developing more complex reasoning and logical skills.
In this lab-based study of 174 children, Hermansen et al. (2024) tested the role of metacognition in shaping how children search for information to test surprising claims. Using a series of measures – including an experimental task involving comparative claims (e.g. “this rubber duck sinks much faster than this metal button”) – the authors asked whether older (relative to younger) children express more uncertainty about surprising claims, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty, and are more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Furthermore, they investigated whether prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty helps them devise an efficient test for the claim, and whether any such benefit of prompting is greater for younger children.
Results provided mixed support for the hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, older children were not more likely than younger children to express uncertainty about surprising claims -- although an exploratory analysis suggested that prior belief may moderate the relationship with age. Consistent with predictions, older children did, however, propose more plausible reasons for their uncertainty and were more likely to suggest specific empirical tests for a claim. Interestingly, prompting children to reflect on their uncertainty did not significantly increase the likelihood that they would generate an efficient test for a claim, although exploratory analysis again suggested that taking to account additional variables (in this case the type of explanation children provide when prompted) could moderate the effect. Taken together, these findings suggest that the development of children’s reasoning about their own beliefs influences their empirical evaluation of those beliefs. Overall, the study highlights the role of metacognition in the development of explicit scientific thinking and suggests a variety of promising avenues for future research.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, 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/uq6dw
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:
*Note: Despite being listed as a PCI RR-friendly outlet at Stage 1 (in 2022), Infant and Child Development was removed from the above listing at Stage 2 due to the decision by the journal's publisher (Wiley) in 2024 to withdraw its journals from all PCIs, including PCI RR. As part of this withdrawal, Wiley chose to renege on previous commitments issued by Infant and Child Development to PCI RR authors.
References
1. Hermansen T. K., Mathisen, K. F., & Ronfard, S. (2024). When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6ket7?view_only=d86eb8b5296b4499801e052a6a22291f
| When children can explain why they believe a claim, they suggest better empirical tests for those claims | Tone K. Hermansen, Kamilla F. Mathisen, Samuel Ronfard | <p>Hearing about surprising phenomena triggers exploration, even in young children. This exploration increases and changes with age. It becomes more targeted and efficient with children around 6-years-old clearly exploring with the intent to verif... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2024-06-19 09:39:15 | |||
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1
How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre ReplicationHow much practice is needed before daily actions are performed in a way that feels habitual?Recommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Benjamin Gardner, Wendy Wood and Adam Takacs
Even small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.
In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of 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/bj9r2 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:
References
1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2
| How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication | de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J. | <p>How long does it take to form a habit? This question will be addressed by an innovative study by Lally et al. (2010), in which they tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine, using the Self-Repor... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-05-26 09:54:26 | |||
Insufficient evidence of a positive association between chronic loneliness and anthropomorphism: Replication and extension Registered Report of Epley et al. (2008)Weak-to-no evidence for a positive link between loneliness and anthropomorphismRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by John Protzko
Anthropomorphism is a widespread phenomenon in which people instil non-human entities or objects with human-like characteristics, such as motivations, intentions, and goals. Although common, the tendency to anthropomorphise varies between people, and a growing body of psychological research has examined the importance of various individual differences. One major theoretical account of anthropomorphism (Epley et al. 2007) suggests that sociality motivation – the drive to establish social relationships – is a key moderator of the phenomenon. In support of this account, some evidence suggests that people who experience greater loneliness (a proposed marker of sociality motivation) are more likely to anthropomorphise. In an influential series of studies, Epley et al. (2008) found that anthropomorphism and loneliness were positively correlated and that inducing participants experimentally to feel more lonely led to greater anthropomorphism. Later studies, however, produced more mixed results, particularly concerning the effectiveness of the experimental interventions.
In the current study, Elsherif et al. (2024) undertook a partial replication of Epley et al. (2008), focusing on the correlational relationship between anthropomorphism and loneliness, with extensions to examine free will beliefs, anthropomorphism for supernatural beings (in addition to objects/gadgets), and the extent to which participants judged objects/gadgets to be controllable. The results revealed no reliable evidence for a positive relationship between anthropomorphism and loneliness. Analyses of the extended questions revealed that the perceived controllability of gadgets was associated negatively with anthropomorphism and that free will belief was associated positively with belief in anthropomorphism of supernatural beings. Broadly, the current findings constitute a non-replication of Epley et al. (2008). The authors conclude by calling for more direct and conceptual replications to establish the link (if any) between sociality motivation and anthropomorphism.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's and recommender's comments, 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/by89c 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:
References
1. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
2. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, Gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x
3. Elsherif, M., Pomareda, C., Xiao, Q., Chu, H. Y., Tang, M. C., Wong, T. H., Wu, Y. & Feldman, G. (2024). Insufficient evidence of a positive association between chronic loneliness and anthropomorphism: Replication and extension Registered Report of Epley et al. (2008) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/x96kn
| Insufficient evidence of a positive association between chronic loneliness and anthropomorphism: Replication and extension Registered Report of Epley et al. (2008) | Qinyu Xiao, Mahmoud Elsherif, Hoi Yan Chu, Ming Chun Tang, Ting Hin (Angus) Wong, Yiming Wu, Christina Pomareda, Gilad Feldman | <p>Human beings have a fundamental need to connect with others. Epley, Akalis, et al. (2008) found that people higher in chronic loneliness had a stronger tendency to anthropomorphize non-human objects, presumably for fulfilling unmet needs for so... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2024-03-27 16:17:16 | |||
29 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language?Can discriminative learning theory explain productive generalisation in language?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Julien Mayor, Natalia Kartushina, Caroline Rowland and 1 anonymous reviewer
One of the major challenges in studies of language learning is understanding productive generalisation – the ability to use words and linguistic structures in novel settings that the learner has never encountered previously. According to discriminative learning theory, this skill arises from an iterative process of prediction and error-correction that gradually reduces uncertainty, allowing learners to discriminate linguistic outcomes and to identify informative, invariant cues for generalisation to novel cases. In the current study, Viviani et al (2022) use computational modelling to propose a central hypothesis stemming from this theory that children will learn the meaning and use of spatial adpositions (words such as “above” and “below” that describe relative positions) more effectively when there is more variability in the use of the nouns within the spatial sentences. They will also test a range of additional hypotheses, including that learning and generalisation to novel contexts will be enhanced when children learn from skewed distributions that are similar to those found in natural languages.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two 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/37dxr Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Some of the data that will be used in the preregistered analyses was obtained in the second of two pilot experiments. However, since no further revisions to the analysis plan were made after this pilot, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero, and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Viviani, E., Ramscar, M. & Wonnacott, E. (2022). Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language? In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/37dxr
| Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language? | Eva Viviani1, Michael Ramscar2, Elizabeth Wonnacott1 [1: University of Oxford, 2: University of Tübingen] | <p>Human language is characterized by productivity, that is, the ability to use words and structures in novel contexts. How do learners acquire these productive systems? Under a <em>discriminative learning approach,</em> language learning involves... | | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-11-15 15:04:42 | ||
08 Sep 2022
STAGE 1
How to succeed in human modified environmentsThe role of behavioural flexibility in promoting resilience to human environmental impactsRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Gloriana Chaverri, Vedrana Šlipogor and Alizée Vernouillet
Understanding and mitigating the environmental effects of human expansion is crucial for ensuring long-term biosustainability. Recent research indicates a steep increase in urbanisation – including the expansion of cities – with global urban extent expanding by nearly 10,000 km^2 per year between 1985 and 2015 (Liu et al, 2020). The consequences of these human modified environments on animal life are significant: in order to succeed, species must adapt quickly to environmental changes, and those populations that demonstrate greater behavioural flexibility are likely to cope more effectively. These observations have, in turn, prompted the question of whether enhancing behavioural flexibility in animal species might increase their resilience to human impacts.
In the current research, Logan et al. (2022) will use a serial reversal learning paradigm to firstly understand how behavioural flexibility relates to success in avian species that are already successful in human modified environments. The authors will then deploy these flexibility interventions in more vulnerable species to establish whether behavioural training can improve success, as measured by outcomes such as foraging breadth, dispersal dynamics, and survival rate.
The Stage 1 manuscript was submitted via the programmatic track and will eventually produce three Stage 2 outputs focusing on different species (toutouwai, grackles, and jays). Following two rounds of in-depth review, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/wbsn6
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. Liu, X., Huang, Y., Xu, X., Li, X., Li, X., Ciais, P., Lin, P., Gong, K., Ziegler, A. D., Chen, A., et al. (2020). High-spatiotemporal-resolution mapping of global urban change from 1985 to 2015. Nature Sustainability, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0521-x
2. Logan, C.J., Shaw, R., Lukas, D. & McCune, K.B. (2022). How to succeed in human modified environments, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wbsn6
| How to succeed in human modified environments | Logan CJ, Shaw R, Lukas D, McCune KB | <p>Human modifications of environments are increasing, causing global changes that other species must adjust to or suffer from. Behavioral flexibility (hereafter ‘flexibility’) could be key to coping with rapid change. Behavioral research can cont... | | Life Sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-05-06 12:12:05 |
