=============================================================================
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to ALL submissions from 1st Jul - 1st Sep. During this time, reviewers can submit reviews and recommenders can issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors.
The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st Jul can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.
We recommend that authors submit at least 1-2 weeks prior to commencement of the shutdown period to enable time to make any required revisions prior to in-depth review.
=============================================================================
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | |||
27 Mar 2024
STAGE 1
Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6Understanding how motives and emotions driving prosocial actions impact the moral assessment of good doersRecommended by Romain Espinosa based on reviews by Thibaut Arpinon and Angela Sutan
Pro-social actions are often driven by emotional factors. For instance, emotions have been shown to play a decisive role in the way we judge the fairness of a situation (affect-as-information theory: e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Storbeck and Clore, 2008), and, thus, how we make decisions. Specific emotions like anger have also been shown to stimulate the motivation to fight injustice (Lerner et al., 2015). At the individual level, people might undertake altruistic actions as a way to relieve themselves from these negative emotions (what Cialdini (1991) calls ‘reflexive distress’) but also because these actions are expected by the social norms (‘normative distress’). Indeed, pro-social actions are usually taken in social contexts, and the perception of one’s behavior by third parties might hinder or facilitate the adoption of pro-social behaviors. Understanding the determinants of the perception of altruistic behaviors is thus a key research question to support pro-social actions in collective settings.
In the current study, Woo and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate the seminal work of Barasch et al. (2014), who showed that third parties hold more favorable views of agents undertaking pro-social actions when the latter are motivated by emotions. More precisely, the authors aim to replicate two studies of the original work by conducting a well-powered online experiment (US participants, Prolific, N=1,164). First, they will investigate whether donors who exhibit higher distress regarding the suffering of others are perceived as more moral and authentically concerned for others. Second, they will analyze whether individuals who expect material or reputational benefits from their altruistic deeds are perceived by third parties as less moral than those who act for emotional reasons. In addition to these two replication objectives, the authors propose extensions with pre-registered hypotheses that are inspired by Study 2 from the original work. They seek to investigate whether people are seen as more other-focused when they undertake a prosocial action (donation) and under different expected rewards (material, reputational, emotional benefits).
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).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/d5bmp
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. Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037207 2. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_3
3. Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., Garvin, E., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition.
4. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
5. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1824-1843. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2008.00138.x
6. Woo, T. L. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d5bmp
| Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6 | Tse Lyn (Rachael) Woo; Gilad Feldman | <p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2023-11-23 05:22:23 | |||
Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication Registered Report of Bastian et al. (2012)Confirmatory evidence that the denial of animal minds explains the "meat paradox"Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Brock Bastian, Ben De Groeve and Florian Lange
The psychology of meat-eating offers a fascinating window into moral reasoning, cognition and emotion, as well as applications in the shift toward more sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat consumption. One key observation in this field is the so-called “meat paradox” – the tendency for people to simultaneously eat meat while also caring about animals. One way to resolve this conflict and reduce cognitive dissonance is for people to separate the concept of meat from animals, mentally disengaging from the origins of meat in order to make the act of consumption more ethically acceptable. Another potential explanation is a motivated “denial of mind”, in which people believe that animals lack the mental capacity to experience suffering; therefore, eating an animal is not a harm that the animal will experience. In support of the latter hypothesis, Bastian et al (2012) found that animals judged to have greater mental capacities were also judged as less edible, and that simply reminding meat eaters that an animal was being raised for the purposes of meat consumption led to denial of its mental capacities.
Using a large-scale online design in 1000 participants, Jacobs et al. (2024) replicated two studies from Bastian et al. (2012): asking how the perceived mental capabilities of animals relates to both their perceived edibility and the degree of moral concern they elicit, and whether learning that an animal will be consumed influences perceptions of its mental capabilities. The original findings were successfully replicated. For study 1, attributions of mind were negatively related to animals’ edibility, positively related to negative affect towards eating animals, and positively related to moral concern for animals. For study 2, learning that an animal would be used for food led participants to attribute less mind to the animal. Overall, the results strengthen the conclusion that motivated denial of animal minds can be a mechanism for resolving the ‘meat paradox’.
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/cru4z 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. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
2. Jacobs, T. P., Wang, M., Leach, S., Loong, S. H., Khanna, M., Chan, K. W., Chau, H. T., Tam, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mwyde
| Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication Registered Report of Bastian et al. (2012) | Tyler P. Jacobs, Meiying Wang, Stefan Leach, Ho Loong Siu, Mahika Khanna, Ka Wan Chan, Ho Ting Chau, Yuen Yan Tam, Gilad Feldman | <p>Bastian et al. (2012) argued that the ‘meat paradox’–caring for animals yet eating them–exemplifies the motivated moral disengagement driven by a psychologically aversive tension between people’s moral standards (caring for animals) and their b... | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2023-08-10 21:19:16 | |||
21 Nov 2022
STAGE 1
Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012)Does denial of animal minds explain the "meat paradox"?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Brock Bastian, Ben De Groeve, Florian Lange and Sebastian Berger
The psychology of meat-eating offers a fascinating window into moral reasoning, cognition and emotion, as well as applications in the shift toward more sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat consumption. One key observation in this field is the so-called “meat paradox” – the tendency for people to simultaneously eat meat while also caring about animals. One way to resolve this conflict and reduce cognitive dissonance is for people to separate the concept of meat from animals, mentally disengaging from the origins of meat in order to make the act of consumption more ethically acceptable. Another potential explanation is a motivated “denial of mind”, in which people believe that animals lack the mental capacity to experience suffering; therefore, eating an animal is not a harm that the animal will experience. In support of the latter hypothesis, Bastian et al (2012) found that animals judged to have greater mental capacities were also judged to less edible, and that simply reminding meat eaters that an animal was being raised for the purposes of meat consumption led to denial of its mental capacities.
Using a large-scale online design in 1000 participants, Jacobs et al. (2022) propose a replication of two studies from Bastian et al. (2012): asking how the perceived mental capabilities of animals relates to both their perceived edibility and the degree of moral concern they elicit, and whether learning that an animal will be consumed influences perceptions of its mental capabilities. Among various exploratory analyses, the authors will also examine whether the perception of animal minds (in animals consumed for meat) varies systematically according to species.
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/cru4z 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. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
2. Jacobs, T. P., Wang, M., Leach, S., Loong, S. H., Khanna, M., Chan, K. W., Chau, H. T., Tam, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/cru4z
| Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) | Tyler P. Jacobs, Meiying Wang, Stefan Leach, Siu Ho Loong, Mahika Khanna, Ka Wan Chan, Ho Ting Chau, Yuen Yan Tam, Gilad Feldman | <p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) "</p> | Social sciences | Chris Chambers | Florian Lange, Brock Bastian, Sebastian Berger, Ben De Groeve | 2022-03-04 04:21:18 | ||
24 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
Independent Comparative Evaluation of the Pupil Neon - A New Mobile Eye-trackerAssessing the Promise of Affordable, Mobile Eye-Tracking Devices: Evaluation of the Pupil NeonRecommended by Rima-Maria Rahal based on reviews by Lisa Spitzer and Benedikt Ehinger
Studying eye-gaze has long been employed as a central method for understanding attentional dynamics and cognitive processes in a variety of domains. The development of affordable, mobile eye-tracking devices, such as the Pupil Neon, promises new opportunities to extend this research beyond the contexts in which traditional eye-trackers have been available. But how good are such novel devices at detecting variables relevant for the study of eye movements and pupil dilations?
Foucher, Krug and Sauter (2024) propose an independent evaluation of the Pupil Neon eye-tracker using the Ehinger et al. (2019) test battery, comparing its performance with a traditional EyeLink 1000 Plus device. In an empirical study, participants will be asked to perform a wide variety of tasks while eye movements and pupil dilations are tracked using both devices. Results on the strengths and weaknesses, as well as potential use cases of the Pupil Neon will be informative for subsequent eye-tracking research.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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/3kc5t
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. Ehinger, B. V., Groß, K., Ibs, I., and König, P. (2019). A New Comprehensive Eye-Tracking Test Battery Concurrently Evaluating the Pupil Labs Glasses and the Eyelink 1000. PeerJ, 7, e7086. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7086 2. Foucher, V., Krug, A., and Sauter, M. (2024). Independent Comparative Evaluation of the Pupil Neon - A New Mobile Eye-tracker. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3kc5t | Independent Comparative Evaluation of the Pupil Neon - A New Mobile Eye-tracker | Valentin Foucher, Alina Krug, Marian Sauter | <p>Due to the rapid adoption of (mobile) eye-tracking devices in both academic and consumer research, it becomes more important that the increasing number of datasets is based on reliable recordings. This study provides an independent evaluation o... | Engineering, Life Sciences, Social sciences | Rima-Maria Rahal | 2024-05-29 10:29:06 | |||
09 Sep 2024
STAGE 1
How Effortful is Boredom? Studying Self-Control Demands Through PupillometryUnmasking the effort of boredom: A deeper look into self-control dynamicsRecommended by Thomas Meyer based on reviews by Jonas Dora, Julia Englert, Erik Bijleveld and 1 anonymous reviewer
Effective effort regulation is central for self-control and has been a focus of psychological research for many decades. It is well established that challenging cognitive tasks, which impose self-control demands due to their complexity, are perceived as more effortful and require greater physiological activation than simpler tasks. However, the experience and allocation of effort during a task, whether easy or difficult, likely depends on more than these inherent self-control demands. Another key factor is boredom, which can arise during task execution. Yet, the role of boredom and the interplay with perceived task difficulty over time remains underexamined.
Based on these considerations, Radtke et al. (2024) aim to examine how boredom and task difficulty influence both subjective and objective measures of effort. They propose that subjective cognitive effort consists of both boredom-related and difficulty-related components, hypothesizing that both factors together more accurately predict objective effort allocation than task difficulty alone. The proposed study will use a within-subject design, in which participants perform two versions of the Stroop task: an easy version with only congruent trials and a hard version. Thought probes during the task will track subjective boredom, fatigue, perceived difficulty, and effort. Phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation will serve as an objective index of cognitive effort, while a subsequent flanker task will assess effects on secondary task performance.
The authors predict that the easy Stroop version will result in lower perceived difficulty but higher boredom, as well as fewer errors and faster reaction times compared to the hard version. Over time, boredom and perceived effort due to boredom are expected to increase, while perceived task difficulty and effort attributed to difficulty are anticipated to decrease. Linear Mixed Models will be employed to determine whether phasic and stimulus-evoked pupil dilation can be predicted by effort attributed to boredom, difficulty, or both. This innovative approach combines objective and subjective measures and promises to deepen our understanding of the cognitive demands posed by boredom, with significant implications for research on effort regulation and motivation.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by four 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/38qz4
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 Radtke, V., Wolff, W., & Martarelli, C. S. (2024). How effortful is boredom? Studying self-control demands through pupillometry. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/38qz4
| How Effortful is Boredom? Studying Self-Control Demands Through Pupillometry | Vanessa C. Radtke, Wanja Wolff, Corinna S. Martarelli | <p>Self-control is essential for managing our actions, yet its exertion is perceived as effortful. Performing a task may require effort not only because of its inherent difficulty but also due to its potential for inducing boredom, as boredom has ... | Humanities, Social sciences | Thomas Meyer | 2023-11-21 17:56:13 | |||
17 Jan 2022
STAGE 1
Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDo different screening instruments for ‘gaming disorder’ measure the same or different construct(s)?Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy, Linda Kaye, David Ellis and 1 anonymous reviewer
There is considerable debate regarding the relationship between excessive gaming and mental health problems. Whilst the diagnostic classification of “gaming disorder” has now been included in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the APA decided not to include this diagnosis in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) because the literature “suffers from a lack of a standard definition from which to derive prevalence data” (APA 2013, p. 796). Furthermore, screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete 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?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems. Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided 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/usj5b 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
| Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p style="text-align: justify;">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), “interne... | | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2021-08-25 23:08:26 | ||
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 | |||
15 Apr 2023
STAGE 1
Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered ReportHow can the experiences of those who engage in video games in healthy and unhealthy ways be systematically organised?Recommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Michelle Carras, Lukas J. Gunschera and Christopher Ferguson
People are often drawn into intensive video game use in ways they or others may find troubling, harmless or even praiseworthy. Understanding these different experiences may help with integrating intensive technology use into everyday life in a healthy way.
In this programmatic submission, Karhulahti et al. (2023) will explore the gaming experiences of three groups of people (those who have sought treatment for gaming, esport players, and adolescents who play around two hours every day), using phenomenological and clinical interviews, and gaming diary logs every four months over three years. Around 200-300 participants will be recruited initially from Finland, Slovakia, and South Korea. In order to further increase cross-cultural range, the study will apply a new duplication method to collect similar data also in countries that have been studied little in the past. The aim will be to answer the questions of a) Is it possible to distinguish passionate from pathological gaming by the meanings and values that players attach to videogame play? and b) What are the design structures of videogames, which are played intensively and/or with gaming-related health problems? Ultimately, the study aims to synthesise all its data into a new taxonomic system, which can help better understand the differences and idiosyncrasies of gaming in lives across cultures.
This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. 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/ekm8x 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
Karhulahti, V.-M., Martončik. M., Siutila, M., Park, S., Jin, J., Adamkovič, M., Auranen, T., Na, B., & Yoon, T.-J. (2023). Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ekm8x
| Reconstructing Gaming Disorder: A Taxonomy by Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Marcel Martončik, Miia Siutila, Solip Park, Yaewon Jin, Matúš Adamkovič, Tiina Auranen, Bora Na, Tae-Jin Yoon | <p style="text-align: justify;">Videogames have become one of the most prevalent cultural forms around the world. While their role in art, pedagogy, and everyday life keeps growing, the health debates on videogame play—gaming—culminated in 2022 wi... | | Humanities, Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | Oluwaseyi Adeliyi, Abiola Akinnubi | 2022-10-10 15:09:55 | |
24 Sep 2021
STAGE 1
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered ReportHow does the phenomenology of "gaming disorder" differ from intensive but non-pathological videogame play?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Malte Elson, Peter Branney and Michelle Carras
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti and colleagues (2021) propose a qualitative, interview-based study of videogame play, with the central aim to understand key phenomological differences between gaming behaviour that is associated with vs. without health problems. This question is particularly important given the recent inclusion of "gaming disorder" in the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). In recent years, the validity of "gaming disorder" as an identifiable mental illness has been controversial (e.g. Van Rooij et al, 2018), as has the debate concerning purported harms or benefits of gaming for mental health. This Stage 1 manuscript describes a rigorous qualitative investigation that should provide new insights on this question, and will also include a longitudinal component to examine changes in phenomonology over time, as well as an examination of the extent to which the phenomonology of gaming is reflected in the experiences of medical experts such as doctors, nurses, and therapists who have worked with gaming-related health problems. More broadly, the manuscript breaks new ground for Registered Reports, being one of the first to focus on qualitative methods, while also making use of the Programmatic submission track in which the approved Stage 1 manuscript is intended to produce two Stage 2 manuscripts focusing on different elements of the project. Three expert reviewers with a variety of field-specialist and qualitative methodological expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Following revision, the reviewers and recommender agreed 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/a2rwg 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
| Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa | <p style="text-align: justify;">The recent inclusion of gaming disorder in the ICD-11 as a mental disorder has further increased the importance of researching the health spectrum related to gaming. A critical area in this regard is the lack of cla... | | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-06-16 20:22:24 |
