The Medusa effect is a recently described phenomenon in which people judge a person to be more mindful when they appear as a picture (termed L1) than as a picture within a picture (L2). Across a series of experiments, Will et al. (2021) reported that at higher levels of abstraction, images of people were judged lower in realness (how real the person seemed), experience (the ability to feel) and agency (the ability to plan and act), and also benefited less from prosocial behaviour. The findings provide an intriguing window into mind perception – the extent to which we attribute minds and mental capacities to others.

 

In the current study, Han et al. (2023) undertook a close replication of two experiments from the original report by Will et al. (2021), asking first, whether the level of pictorial abstraction influences ratings of realness, agency and experience, and second, whether it also influences prosocial behaviour as measured in the dictator game (with participants predicted to allocate more money to recipients presented as pictures than as pictures within pictures). In the event of a non-replication using the original materials, the authors planned to further repeat the experiments using newly generated stimuli that are better matched for cultural context and more tightly controlled along various dimensions.

 

Results supported all pre-registered hypotheses. Participants rated and perceived L1 stimuli as having significantly higher levels of realness, agency, and experience than L2, and they also allocated significantly more money to L1 recipients than L2 recipients in a dictator game. Furthermore, participants who judged L1 as higher than L2 on all three dimensions also differentiated significantly between L1 and L2 in the dictator game, indicating a relationship between mind perception and prosociality. Overall, the findings confirm that pictures with lower levels of abstraction are perceived as more mindful and are associated with higher levels of prosocial behavior. Consequently, the results suggest that the Medusa effect is a reproducible phenomenon.

 

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/xj46z

 

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:

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra Psychology
• Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
   

 

1. Will, P., Merritt, E., Jenkins, R., & Kingstone, A. (2021). The Medusa effect reveals levels of mind perception in pictures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(32), e2106640118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106640118

 

2. Han, J., Zhang, M., Liu, J., Song, Y. & Yamada, Y. (2023).The Medusa effect: A registered replication report of Will, Merritt, Jenkins, and Kingstone (2021). Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/yqnu8

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. (2023) 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 carry out an exploratory pilot to test a 10-week protocol over three modules inspired by the well-known Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Through multiple single-case design, the authors explore the feasibility of the intervention and its effectiveness on social skills, self-esteem, loneliness, assertiveness, and gaming disorder symptoms.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds by three experts with experimental specializations in psychopathology and gaming. Based on the comprehensive responses to the reviewers' feedback, 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/h7qat

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: 

 

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

 

References
 
1. Billieux  J., Bloch J., Rochat L., Fournier L., Georgieva I., Eben C., Andersen M. M., King D. L., Simon O., Khazaal Y. & Lieberoth A. (2023). 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. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/h7qat

 

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.

Measuring people’s experiences, thoughts, and mental processes has always been a core challenge of psychological science (e.g. Nisbett & Wilson 1977). When such measurement relates to rapidly changing and conceptually diverse human-technology interactions, the task becomes even more difficult due to protean, multidimensional constructs. A good understanding of a construct is a basic step in its measurement (Borsboom 2005).  
 
In the present registered report—carried out as part of a long-term measure development project—Dunne et al. (2024) carried out a focus group study with adolescents (n=26) aged 11 to 15 in Northwest England to improve the understanding of constructs related to social media and mental health. The authors applied reflexive thematic analysis to explore adolescents’ social media use experiences and related motivations in the light of mental health.
 
The data and research process led to a construction of five themes, which were connected to mental health in direct and indirect ways. The participants voiced direct experiences of anxiety, self-esteem, and social aspects that reflect a mental health network where social media play diverse roles. Indirect implications of coping and self-control were found to supplement the network. Taken together, the themes and their implications to wellbeing make a valuable contribution to the evolving qualitative understanding young people's social media use in the UK (e.g., Conroy et al. 2023) and serve as a useful basis for future measure development.
 
A particular strength of the work was the engagement of three Young Researchers who co-facilitated the focus groups and were involved in the analysis. The research meets high reflexivity and transparency criteria, and the carefully constructed supplementary materials provide informative details especially for measure developers. Finally, the authors must be commended for sharing these valuable data for reuse.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was reviewed over two rounds by three unique reviewers. The reviewers’ expertise ranged from social media and technology use research to health psychology and qualitative methods. Based on careful revisions and 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/w24ec
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to IPA, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question.

 

List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals: 
 

• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open
• WiderScreen  

 

References
 
1. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.
 
2. Conroy, D., Chadwick, D., Fullwood, C., & Lloyd, J. (2023). “You have to know how to live with it without getting to the addiction part”: British young adult experiences of smartphone overreliance and disconnectivity. Psychology of Popular Media, 12, 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000425

 

3. Dunne, J. H., Black, L., Banwell, E., Nanda, P., Anderton, M, Butters, L.C., Demkowicz, O., Davies, J., Davidson, B., Qualter, P., Humphrey, N., Jay, C., & Panayiotou, M. (2024). Identifying relevant dimensions to the measurement of adolescent social media experience via focus groups with young people [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 9 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/erjvz
 
4. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review, 84, 231-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

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:

 

 

 

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

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