Decision-making based on limited information is a common occurrence. Whether it is the possibility of a cheaper product elsewhere or the unknown qualifications of election candidates, people are regularly forced to make a decision under ignorance or uncertainty. In such situations, information about certain events is unavailable or too costly to acquire and people rely on subjective probability allocation to guide decision-making processes. This allocation seems to result in what is known as ignorance priors, i.e., decision-makers assigning equal probabilities to each possible outcome within a given set. How events are grouped or partitioned is often subjective and may influence probability judgments and subsequent decisions. In such cases, the way the choices within a choice set are presented may shape the perceived likelihood of different outcomes. Understanding the impact of partitioning on probability estimation is crucial for both psychological and economic theories of judgment and decision.

 

The question of evaluating probabilities under uncertainty has received much attention in the psychology and economics literature over the past decades given the wide range of possible applications. In the current work, Ding and Feldman (2024) seek to replicate one of the foundational works on the topic: Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). In the original work, the authors provided exploratory evidence indicating that the framing of a situation affects the way individuals perceive probabilities of possible outcomes. They showed that people assigned uniform probabilities to sets of events described in a problem, such that the way the events are described partly determines people’s partitioning of those events and evaluations of the probabilities of the possible outcomes. Additionally, this partitioned framing affected judgments both under conditions of ignorance (where individuals have no information and rely solely on uniform probability assignments) and uncertainty (where individuals have some information but still rely on heuristics influenced by partitioning). This suggests that priors resulting from the inference of available evidence are sometimes partly contaminated by partitioning bias, affecting both uninformed and partially informed decision-making processes. As a consequence, the partitioning of events into different subsets might lead to varying evaluations of a single situation, resulting in inconsistencies and poorly calibrated probability assessments.

 

Ding and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate Studies 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 from Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). Their close replication will rely on original data (US participants, Prolific, N=600, not collected yet) with a large statistical power (>95%). Their replication aims to examine whether the partitioned framing affects prior formation under ignorance (Studies 1a, 1b, and 4) and uncertainty (Study 3). In addition, the authors propose an extension examining estimations of alternative event(s) contrasting estimations of the probabilities of events happening versus of events not happening.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two external reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

1. Ding, K. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting Partition Priming in judgment under uncertainty:
Replication and extension Registered Report of Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/px6vb

 

2. Fox, C. R. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2003). Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 14, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02431

Decisions to give to charities are affected by numerous external and internal factors. Understanding the elements influencing donation decisions is of first-order importance for science and society. On the scientific side, understanding the determinants of charity-giving contributes to the knowledge of altruistic behaviors in the presence of collective problems such as poverty, climate change, or animal welfare. On the social side, pointing out which factors affect donations can help increase prosocial behaviors and might facilitate collective actions in the case of public goods.  

Previous work has identified multiple mechanisms affecting altruistic donations to charities (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011). Importantly, Baron and Szymanska (2011) collected empirical evidence suggesting that people prefer (i) their donations to be directly used for projects rather than organizational costs, (ii) when charities have low past costs, (iii) to diversity their donations into several NGOs, (iv) to favor charities that deal with close peers like nationals, and (v) to give voluntarily rather than through taxes. 

Here, Chan and Feldman (2024) conducted a close replication of Studies 1 to 4 of Baron and Szymanska (2011) using a large sample of online participants (four studies, overall N=1,403). In their replication, the authors found supporting evidence for the phenomena reported in the original study. In particular, people were more likely to donate to charities with lower organizational and lower past costs, to diversify their donations, and to show ingroup/nationalist preferences with larger donations to NGOs helping local over foreign children. Chan and Feldman (2024) ran additional analyses that indicated validity concerns regarding the analysis and questions that resulted in finding a preference for voluntary donations over taxation. In their added extensions that went beyond the original study, they also found that donors preferred to donate to charities whose overhead costs are paid for by other donors and unexpected evidence that making donations anonymous increased rather than decreased contributions.

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by the recommender and two expert reviewers. Following revision, 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/gmswz
 
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. Baron, J. and Szymanska, E. (2011). Heuristics and Biases in Charity. In D. M. Oppenheimer and C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (pp. 215–235). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203865972

 

2. Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927

 

3. Chan, M. and Feldman, G. (2024). Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4etkp

 

Over the past decade there has been an exponential increase in the number of research papers utlising nanoparticles for biological applications such as intracellular sensing [1, 2], theranostics [3-5] and more recently drug delivery and precision medicine [6, 7]. Despite the success stories, there is a disconnect regarding current dogma on issues such as nanoparticle uptake and trafficking, nanoparticle delivery via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, and endosomal escape. Critical re-evaluation of these concepts both conceptually and experimentally is needed for continued advancement in the field.

 

For this preregistration, Said et al. (2024) focus on nanoparticle intracellular trafficking, specifically endosomal escape [8]. The current consensus in the literature is that nanoparticles enter cells via endocytosis [9, 10] but reportedly just 1-2% of nanoparticles/ nanoparticle probes escape endosomes and enter the cytoplasm [11-13]. There is therefore an apparent paradox over how sensing nanoparticles can detect their intended targets in the cytoplasm if they are trapped within the cell endosomes. To address this fundamental issue of nanoparticle endosomal escape, Lévy and coworkers are carrying out replication studies to thoroughly and transparently replicate the most influential papers in the field of nanoparticle sensing. The aim of these replication studies is twofold: to establish a robust methodology to study endosomal escape of nanoparticles, and to encourage discussions, transparency and a step-change in the field.  

 

 

For this replication study, the authors classified papers on the topic of nanoparticle sensing and subsequently ranked them by number of citations.  Based on this evaluation they selected a paper by Zhu and colleagues [14] entitled “Carbon-Dot-Based Dual-Emission Nanohybrid Produces a Ratiometric Fluorescent Sensor for In Vivo Imaging of Cellular Copper Ions” for their seminal replication study.  To determine the reproducibility of the results from Zhu et al., the authors aim to establish the proportion of endosomal escape of the nanoparticles, and to examine the data in a biological context relevant to the application of the probe.

 

 

The authors plan to replicate the exact conditions reported in the materials and methods section of the selected paper such as nanoparticle probe synthesis of CdSe@C-TPEA nanoparticles, assessment of particle size, stability and reactivity and effect on cells (TEM, pH experiments, fluorescent responsivity to metal ions and cell viability). In addition, Said et al., plan to include further experimental characterisation to complement the existing study by Zhu and colleagues. They will incorporate additional controls and methodology to determine the intracellular location of nanoparticle probes in cells including: quantifying excess fluorescence in the culture medium, live cell imaging analysis, immunofluorescence with endosomal and lysosomal markers, and electron microscopy of cell sections. The authors will also include supplementary viability studies to assess the impact of the nanoparticles on HeLa cells as well as an additional biologically relevant cell line (for use in conjunction with the HeLa cells as per the original paper).

 

The Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds of thorough in-depth review. After considering the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommenders  determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).  

 

The authors have thoughtfully considered their experimental approach to the replication study, whilst acknowledging any potential limitations. Given that conducting such a replication study is novel in the field of Nanotechnology and there is currently no ‘gold standard’ approach in doing so, the authors have showed thoughtful regard of statistical analysis and unbiased methodology where possible.

 

Based on current information, this study is the first use of preregistration via Peer Community in Registered Reports and the first formalised replication study in Nanotechnology for Biosciences. The outcomes of this of this study will be significant both scientifically and in the wider context in discussion of the scientific method.

 

 
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. Howes, P. D., Chandrawati, R., & Stevens, M. M. (2014). Colloidal nanoparticles as advanced biological sensors. Science, 346(6205), 1247390. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247390

 

2. Liu, C. G., Han, Y. H., Kankala, R. K., Wang, S. B., & Chen, A. Z. (2020). Subcellular performance of nanoparticles in cancer therapy. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 675-704. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S226186

 

3. Tang, W., Fan, W., Lau, J., Deng, L., Shen, Z., & Chen, X. (2019). Emerging blood–brain-barrier-crossing nanotechnology for brain cancer theranostics. Chemical Society Reviews, 48(11), 2967-3014. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CS00805A

 

4. Yoon, Y. I., Pang, X., Jung, S., Zhang, G., Kong, M., Liu, G., & Chen, X. (2018). Smart gold nanoparticle-stabilized ultrasound microbubbles as cancer theranostics. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 6(20), 3235-3239. https://doi.org/10.1039%2FC8TB00368H

 

5. Lin, H., Chen, Y., & Shi, J. (2018). Nanoparticle-triggered in situ catalytic chemical reactions for tumour-specific therapy. Chemical Society Reviews, 47(6), 1938-1958. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CS00471K

 

6. Hou, X., Zaks, T., Langer, R., & Dong, Y. (2021). Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nature Reviews Materials, 6(12), 1078-1094. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00358-0

 

7. Mitchell, M. J., Billingsley, M. M., Haley, R. M., Wechsler, M. E., Peppas, N. A., & Langer, R. (2021). Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 20(2), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8

 

8. Said, M., Gharib, M., Zrig, S., & Lévy, R. (2024). Replication of “Carbon-Dot-Based Dual-Emission Nanohybrid Produces a Ratiometric Fluorescent Sensor for In Vivo Imaging of Cellular Copper Ions”. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qbxpf

 

9. Behzadi, S., Serpooshan, V., Tao, W., Hamaly, M. A., Alkawareek, M. Y., Dreaden, E. C., ... & Mahmoudi, M. (2017). Cellular uptake of nanoparticles: Journey inside the cell. Chemical Society Reviews, 46(14), 4218-4244. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CS00636A

 

10. de Almeida, M. S., Susnik, E., Drasler, B., Taladriz-Blanco, P., Petri-Fink, A., & Rothen-Rutishauser, B. (2021). Understanding nanoparticle endocytosis to improve targeting strategies in nanomedicine. Chemical society reviews, 50(9), 5397-5434. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CS01127D

 

11. Smith, S. A., Selby, L. I., Johnston, A. P., & Such, G. K. (2018). The endosomal escape of nanoparticles: toward more efficient cellular delivery. Bioconjugate Chemistry, 30(2), 263-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00732

 

12. Cupic, K. I., Rennick, J. J., Johnston, A. P., & Such, G. K. (2019). Controlling endosomal escape using nanoparticle composition: current progress and future perspectives. Nanomedicine, 14(2), 215-223. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-0326

 

13. Wang, Y., & Huang, L. (2013). A window onto siRNA delivery. Nature Biotechnology, 31(7), 611-612. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2634

 

14. Zhu, A., Qu, Q., Shao, X., Kong, B., & Tian, Y. (2012). Carbon-dot-based dual-emission nanohybrid produces a ratiometric fluorescent sensor for in vivo imaging of cellular copper ions. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English), 51(29), 7185-7189. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201109089

Rapid learning in response to pain is a crucial survival mechanism, relying on forming associations between cues in the environment and subsequent pain or injury. Existing evidence suggests that associations between conditioned stimuli (cues) and unconditioned aversive stimuli (such as pain) are learned faster than for appetitive stimuli that signal pain relief. In addition, when the link between a conditioned and unconditioned stimulus is broken (by unpairing them), the extinction of this learning effect is slower for aversive that appetitive stimuli, resulting in a flatter extinction slope. Understanding why extinction slopes are reduced for aversive stimuli is important for advancing theoretical models of learning, and for devising ways of increasing the slope (and thus facilitating extinction learning) could help develop more effective methods of pain relief, particularly in the treatment of chronic pain.

 

In the current programmatic submission, Busch et al. (2023) will undertake two Registered Reports to test whether a verbal instruction intervention that explicitly informs participants about contingency changes between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli facilitates extinction learning, especially for aversive (painful) stimuli, and how changes in extinction learning relate to neural biomarkers of functional connectivity. In the first Registered Report, they will initially seek to replicate previous findings including faster acquisition of aversive than appetitive conditioned stimuli as well as incomplete extinction of aversive conditioned stimuli without verbal instruction. They will then test how the instruction intervention alters extinction slopes and the completeness of extinction for appetitive and aversive stimuli, using a range of behavioral measures (expectancy and valence ratings) and physiological measures (pupillometry, skin conductance responses). To shed light on the neural correlates of these processes, in the second Registered Report the authors will use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to ask firstly how acquisition and extinction of aversive and appetitive conditioned responses are related to resting state brain connectivity within a network that includes ventromedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and striatum, and secondly, whether the effectiveness of instruction on extinction learning is associated with differences in resting state connectivity across this network.

 

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/cj75p (under temporary private embargo)
 
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. Busch, L., Wiech, K., Gamer, M., Knicses, B., Spisak, T., Schmidt, K., & Bingel, U. (2023). Modulatory effects of instructions on extinction efficacy in appetitive and aversive learning: A registered report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/cj75p

Recent studies have revealed potential benefits of unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) on a variety of health and social outcomes, including self-reported happiness and life satisfaction (Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016), economic and financial well-being (Blattman et al., 2013; Baird et al., 2018) and educational attainment (Baird et al., 2016). Although the effects of UCTs do not always out-perform rigorous control conditions (Whillans & West, 2022), these findings prompt the question of whether the alleviation of poverty via UCTs can also influence cognitive processing and performance.

 

In the current study, Szaszi et al. analysed the results of a previous randomised trial of UCTs by Blattman et al. (2017) to test whether a $200 lump sum – equivalent to three months of income – administered to a sample of young men in Liberia carries both short- and long-term benefits for a range of executive functions, including attention, response inhibition, and working memory capacity. Overall, the results suggest minimal if any consequences of the intervention – the observed effects of UCTs on cognition were several times smaller than suggested by previous research, and the evidence for a positive effect was inconclusive. Extensive multiverse analyses showed that these findings were robust to a range of alternative analytical specifications, and the authors estimate that a sample size of nearly 5000 would be required to provide strong evidence.

 

In their Discussion, the authors explore a range of reasons for the negative findings compared with previous research, including the more rigorous and severe causal test enabled by the randomised trial design, the demographic homogeneity of the sample demographic, the use of pen-and-paper tests (cf. computerised tests in previous studies), and the delivery of a lump-sum cash transfer compared with a regular monthly installment. In addition, although the results were negative or inconclusive, there were hints that a positive effect of UCTs may be more evident in some cognitive domains than in others – in this case, potentially benefiting working memory more than inhibitory control. Further research would be required to confirm this hypothesis.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on the 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/k56yv

 

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 Stage 1 acceptance, but the authors certified that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that would be used to answer the research question AND they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

 

 

 

 

1. Haushofer, J. & Shapiro, J.  (2016). The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 13, 1973–2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025

 

2. Blattman, C., Fiala, N. & Martinez, S. (2013) Generating skilled self-employment in developing countries: Experimental evidence from Uganda. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 697–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt057

 

3. Baird, S., McKenzie, D., & Özler, B. (2018). The effects of cash transfers on adult labor market outcomes. IZA Journal of Development and Migration, 8, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-018-0131-9

 

4. Baird, S., Chirwa, E., De Hoop, J., & Özler, B. (2016). Girl power: cash transfers and adolescent welfare: evidence from a cluster-randomized experiment in Malawi. In African Successes, Volume II: Human Capital (pp. 139-164). University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13380/c13380.pdf

 

5. Whillans, A., & West, C. (2022). Alleviating time poverty among the working poor: A pre-registered longitudinal field experiment. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04352-y

 

6. Blattman, C., Jamison, J. C. & Sheridan, M. (2017). Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy in Liberia. American Economic Review, 107, 1165–1206. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150503

 

7. Szaszi, B., Palfi, B., Neszveda, G., Taka, A., Szecsi, P., Blattman, C., Jamison, J. C., & Sheridan, M. (2022). Does alleviating poverty increase cognitive performance? Short- and long-term evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://psyarxiv.com/4gyzh