Paid loot boxes, i.e. randomised monetization methods that are similar to lottery-type gambling, have become prominent features of contemporary gaming (e.g., Macey & Bujić, 2022). Because the design structures of loot boxes vary and the value of their virtual rewards is not always clear-cut, many countries now struggle how to deal with them legally and in practice (see Drummond et al., 2020). Belgium is one of the few countries that have officially interpreted loot box monetization to widely belong under gambling regulation. Mobile games that monetize with paid loot boxes in Belgium should thus apply for a gambling license, and companies should generally not offer paid loot boxes to local underage players at all.
 
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Xiao (2022) has constructed a careful plan for testing whether the “ban” in Belgium has made the local mobile game market distinct in terms of paid loot boxes. The work builds on a rapidly accumulating literature and evolving methods (e.g., Xiao et al., 2021). The author will carry out a systematic qualitative investigation of the country’s top 100 (iPhone) mobile games to investigate whether paid loot box design components have indeed been removed from the products -- and if not, whether related game companies operate with a required gambling license. Additionally, Xiao (2022) will assess Belgium’s overall paid loot box prevalence in comparison to other countries and carry out a field experiment to test whether players can easily circumvent the local regulation by transporting or downloading different versions of software.
 
The study will produce valuable evidence regarding the effectiveness of loot box regulation in general, and more specifically, the results should be of utmost interest to Belgian legal authorities. To ensure the transparency and validity of the chosen methods as well as upcoming interpretations, the registered report format allowed the research design to be reviewed in three rounds before data collection. Three experts, representing the fields of law and gaming, reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript twice and agreed upon the acceptance of all details. Finally, the recommender carried out a third iteration with further requested revisions, which was followed by in-principle acceptance. 

 

Video games may provide the option of spending real money in exchange for probabilistically receiving game-relevant rewards; in effect, encouraging potentially young teenagers to gamble. The industry has subscribed to a set of regulatory principles to cover the use of such "loot boxes", including 1) that they will prevent loot box purchasing by under 18s unless parental consent is given; 2) that they will make it initially clear that the game contains loot boxes; and 3) that they will clearly disclose the probabilities of receiving different rewards.

 

Can the industry effectively self regulate? Xiao (2024) will evaluate this important question by investigating the 100 top selling games on the Apple App Store and estimating the percentage compliance to these three regulatory principles at two time points 6 months apart.

 

The Stage 1 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 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 
References
 
1. Xiao, L. (2024). Assessing compliance with UK loot box industry self-regulation on the Apple App Store: a 6-month longitudinal study on the implementation process. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3knyb

Measurement is a vital activity for all research areas, but we so often fail to provide sufficient clarity, rigor and transparency about it, undermining the validity of our studies' conclusions (Flake & Fried, 2020). This concern is of wide societal interest when applied to the domains of ideology and attitudes where measurements of both implicit and explicit attitudes are assumed to reflect the same underlying concept. The extent to which this can be accepted is undermined by mixed evidence demonstrating a lack of consensus on the extent to which relevant psychological factors similarly predict both implicit and explicit attitudes.

 

In the current study, Reid & Inbar (2023) question these assumptions through use of the Project Implicit dataset, exploring the extent to which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) similarly predict implicit and explicit attitudes. This work was ideally suited for publication through the Registered Reports format because whilst it may have been expected that relationships between SDO/RWA are similar in effect size across measures of both implicit and explicit attitude (because they tap into the same underlying attitude), there was great scope to acknowledge a more complex set of findings which may not be immediately interpretable or coherent.

 

As expected, the results were not completely unambiguous, but the mostly consistent relationships between implicit attitudes and RWA/SDO provided evidence towards both implicit and explict measures capturing the same underlying construct. These results also provide a useful step forward in our discussion of measurement in this domain, acknowledging the complexity of the tradeoff between reliability and specificity.

 

The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. 

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/zv4jw
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 5. All of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed before the research commenced but was inaccessible to the authors and thus unobservable prior to IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 

References
 
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. Reid, J. & Inbar, Y. (2024). Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes? [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8udps

Researchers are often interested in moderated mediation. A predictor variable, such as number of counselling sessions, may predict an outcome, such as approach to a feared object, by way of a mediator, for example number of times the object was described in counselling. The strength of mediation in turn may depend on a moderator, such as vividness of imagery: Counselling reduces fear by way of imaginative exposure, particularly in those with vivid imagery. There may be a number of mediators ("indirect" paths), and any or all of these mediators may be moderated. In testing moderated mediation, a statistical model is specified which may or may not match the data generating process; in particular, there may or may not be moderators in the model corresponding to moderators that may or may not exist in the real data generating process, resulting in overspecification (more moderators of the indirect paths in the model than reality), underspecification (less moderators of indirect paths in the model than reality) or complete misspecification (where the moderated indirect paths in the model are not moderated in reality, and vice versa).

Researchers rely on the validity of tests (correct type I error rates), if they use frequentist statistics. Model misspecification may impact the validity of inferential tests for moderated mediation. Similarly, researchers need to be able to assess power for any analysis. In simulating power for mediated moderation, it may be important to know the possible extent to which the model is misspecified, and take this into account in planning numbers of participants. Fossum et al. (2024) will address this important problem with a series of simulations to determine if power is reduced meaningfully with over or under specification, or type I error and parameter estimates are biased for complete misspecification.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​

 

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

 

Fossum, J. L., Montoya, A. K., & Anderson, S. F. (2024). How Does Model (Mis)Specification Impact Statistical Power, Type I Error Rate, and Parameter Bias in Moderated Mediation? A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8gwfu

Making causal judgements are part of everyday life, whether seeking to understand the action of complex humans or the relations between inanimate objects in our environments. Albert Michotte’s (1963) classic book, The perception of causality, contained an extensive report of experiments demonstrating not only that observers perceive causality of inanimate shapes, but do so in manifold ways, creating different “causal impressions.” This work has been highly influential across psychology and neuroscience. 

 

In the current study, White (2025) conducted 14 experiments aimed at replicating and extending Michotte’s work. Despite the fact that this research is foundational to current work on perception and understanding of causal relations, it has never been subject to rigorous replication. Moreover, like many research studies from that era, Michotte was sparse on details about methodology and did not rely on statistical analysis. White carried out an ambitious set of 14 experiments and 18 hypotheses that directly replicated and, in some cases, extended Michotte’s experiments. The results of the experiments were mixed, with the hypotheses evenly divided among being supported, partially supported, and not supported. The current effort by White not only brings rigorous contemporary data to classic studies of perceptual impressions of causality, but the results point to important new directions for future study on the topic. In particular, the findings suggest a need to broaden our investigations of causal explanations of movement beyond launching (i.e., contact of one object leading to motion of another) to also consider entraining (i.e., joint movement following contact) and pulling. The collected studies provide fertile ground for further testing a variety of mechanisms that explain different perceptual impressions of causality. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review, the first two rounds consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the third round consisting of a close read by the recommender. 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/5jx8f
 
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. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, trans.). London: Methuen. (English translation of Michotte, 1954). 

 

2. White, P. A. (2025). Michotte's research on perceptual impressions of causality: A registered replication study [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdac7