The world is seemingly awash with conspiracy theories – from well-trodden examples such as fake Moon landings, the 9/11 truth movement, and Holocaust denial, to relative newcomers including COVID as a bioweapon, QAnon, and the belief that the science of climate change has been invented or falsified. While there is a public perception that conspiracy theories are becoming more prevalent, recent evidence suggests that the rate of conspiracism is relatively stable over time (Uscinski et al., 2022). At any point in history, it seems that a certain proportion of people find themselves vulnerable to conspiracy beliefs, but what distinguishes those who do from those who don’t, and what are the causal factors?

 

In the current study, Liekefett et al. (2023) investigated the critical role of rumination – a perseverative and repetitive focus on negative content leading to emotional distress. In particular, the authors asked whether one component of rumination referred to as brooding (dwelling on one’s worries and distressing emotions) has a specific causal role in the formation of conspiracy beliefs. In a series of preliminary experiments, the authors first established a procedure for successfully inducing rumination, identifying various boundary conditions and requirements for a successful design. In the main study (N=1,638 to 2,007 depending on the analysis), they asked whether the induction of brooding causes a significant increase in conspiracy beliefs. Manipulation checks were also included to confirm intervention fidelity (independently of this hypothesis), and exploratory analyses tested the effect of various moderators, as well as the causal role of a complementary manipulation of reflection – a component of rumination in which attention is focused on the issue at hand rather than one’s emotions.

 

As expected by the authors' preliminary work, manipulation checks independently confirmed the effectiveness of the brooding intervention. In answer to the main research question, participants who brooded over the worries and negative emotions associated with an issue were more susceptible to conspiracy beliefs compared to a control group. However, while this effect of brooding was statistically significant, the confidence interval of the effect size estimate overlapped with the authors' proposed smallest effect size of interest (d = 0.20), suggesting that the practical value of the effect remains to be determined.

 

Overall the findings are consistent with a range of psychological theories suggesting that rumination induces negative affect and/or narrows attention to negative information, which in turn may make conspiracy theories seem more probable and render individuals more vulnerable to cognitive bias. The authors note the importance of future work to define the smallest effect of practical significance, analagous to the criteria used to determine the 'minimal clinically important difference’ in medical 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/y82bs
 
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
• International Review of Social Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 

1. Uscinski, J., Enders, A., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Drochon, H., Premaratne, K. & Murthi, M. (2022) Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time? PLOS ONE 17: e0270429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270429

2. Liekefett, L. Sebben, S. & Becker, J. C. (2023). The Effect of Brooding about Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered Report. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3e8wc

Mindset theories suggest that the mere belief in the malleability of human abilities can help one to develop related performance. On the other hand, one and the same performance situation can also be experienced in various affective ways, which differently contribute to performance outcomes. One theoretically justifiable premise is that appraising a performance situation as a “threat” instead of “challenge” is associated with maladaptive responses, such as impaired cardiovascular mobilization. If people could experience performance situations as positive challenges, this might also improve performance outcomes. Drawing from these connected premises, the synergistic mindset intervention was developed and tentatively found to help adolescents in stressful situations (Yeager et al., 2022).
 
In the present registered report, Behnke et al. (2024) built on the above to test whether the synergistic mindset intervention can help individuals in competitive gaming situations. The authors utilized one of the leading esport games, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive​, and recruited its active players (N=300) into randomized control and intervention groups. The participants competed in a cash-prize tournament involving measures of affective experience and cardiovascular responses. Behnke et al. (2024) hypothesized the synergistic mindset group (SMI) to show greater challenge affective responses and superior performance outcomes. 
 
Although the SMI produced a number of positive outcomes such as more beneficial stress mindsets, the hypotheses were not corroborated but the results supported a null. This may be related to the observation that participants generally experienced the intervention positively, which, in turn, limits the potential for improving affective and physiological responses. These rigorous null results are informative by directing the SMI research program toward test designs where more participants experience strong negative stress responses. Moreover, the results encourage researchers to reassess the underlying auxiliary hypotheses regarding affective responses and performance outcomes, the relationships of which may be complicated by situational factors that are not yet fully understood.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Three out of the four Stage 1 experts returned to review and, due to the study’s exceptionally high level of transparency, the reviewers had only minor requests for revision. As all the requested revisions were implemented carefully, 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/z3adb
 
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.

 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 
1. Behnke M., Lakens D., Petrova K., Chwiłkowska P., Kaczmarek L. D., Jamieson J. P., & Gross J. J. (2024) Applying a Synergistic Mindsets Intervention to an Esports Context. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://osf.io/53z8e

 

2. Yeager D.S., Bryan C.J., Gross J.J., Murray J., Krettek D., Santos P., ... & Jamieson J.P. (2022) A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature 607, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7

 

In a time when open research practices are becoming more widely used to combat questionable research practices (QRPs) in academia, this Registered Report by Pownall and colleagues (2023) empirically investigated the practice of preregistering study plans, which allows us to better understand to what degree such practices increase awareness of QRPs and whether experience with preregistration helps reduce engagement in QRPs. This investigation is timely because results from these kinds of studies are only recently becoming available and the conclusions are providing evidence that open research practices can improve research quality and reliability (e.g., Soderberg et al. 2021, Chambers & Tzavella 2022). The authors crucially focused on the effect of preregistering the undergraduate senior thesis (of psychology students in the UK), which is a key stage in the development of an academic.

 

Pownall and colleagues found that preregistration did not affect attitudes toward QRPs, but it did improve student understanding of open research practices. Using exploratory analyses, they additionally found that those who preregistered were those students who reported that they had more opportunity, motivation, and greater capability. This shows how important it is to incorporate the teaching of open research practices such that students can increase their capability, motivation, and opportunity to pursue such practices, whether it is preregistration or other practices that are better known to reduce QRPs (such as registered reports; Krypotos et al. 2022). 

 

After four rounds of review and revisions, 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/9hjbw

 

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.

 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
• Cambridge Educational Research e-Journal
• Collabra: Psychology
• Experimental Psychology
• F1000Research
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Chambers C. D. & Tzavella, L. (2022). The past, present, and future of Registered Reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7

 

2. Krypotos, A. M., Mertens, G., Klugkist, I., & Engelhard, I. M. (2022). Preregistration: Definition, advantages, disadvantages, and how it can help against questionable research practices. In Avoiding Questionable Research Practices in Applied Psychology (pp. 343-357). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

 

3. Pownall, M., Pennington, C. R., Norris, E., Juanchich, M., Smaile, D., Russell, S., Gooch, D., Rhys Evans, T., Persson, S., Mak, M. H. C., Tzavella, L., Monk, R., Gough, T., Benwell, C. S. Y., Elsherif, M., Farran, E., Gallagher-Mitchell, T., Kendrick, L. T., Bahnmueller, J., Nordmann, E., Zaneva, M., Gilligan-Lee, K., Bazhydai, M., Jones, A., Sedgmond, J., Holzleitner, I., Reynolds, J., Moss, J., Farrelly, D., Parker, A. J. & Clark, K. (2023). Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of study preregistration in the undergraduate dissertation [Stage 2 Registered Report], acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://psyarxiv.com/xg2ah

 

4. Soderberg C. K., Errington T. M., Schiavone S. R., Bottesini J., Thorn F. S., Vazire S., Esterling K. M. & Nosek B. A. (2021) Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4

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. (2022) propose 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 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/by89c

 

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. 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. (2022). Revisiting the positive association between loneliness and anthropomorphism with an extension to belief in free will: Replication and extensions of Epley et al. (2008), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/by89c

Decisions to give to charities are affected by numerous external and internal factors. Understanding the elements that influence 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 pro-social behaviors and might facilitate collective actions in the case of public goods. 

 

Previous work identified multiple mechanisms affecting altruistic donations to charities (Bekkers and Weeping, 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. 

 

In the current study, Chan and Feldman seek to replicate the results of Baron and Szymanska (2011). They propose a close replication of the original study using a large sample of online participants (1,400 participants). In addition to the five mechanisms identified by the original study, they will further explore whether public donation increases contributions and whether individuals are more likely to donate when the charities’ overhead costs are paid for by other donors. 

 

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/gmswz
 
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. Baron, J. & Szymanska, E. (2011). Heuristics and Biases in Charity. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (pp. 215–235). Psychology Press. 

 

2. Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973.

 

3. Chan, M. & Feldman, G. (2023). Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/gmswz