Submit a report

Announcements

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

IdTitle * Authors * Abstract * PictureThematic fields * RecommenderReviewersSubmission date
04 Jun 2024
STAGE 1
article picture

Voice preferences across contrasting singing and speaking styles

Exploring the enjoyment of voices

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Patrick Savage, Christina Vanden Bosch der Nederlanden, Christina Krumpholz and 1 anonymous reviewer
Beyond the semantics communicated by speech, human vocalisations can convey a wealth of non-verbal information, including the speaker’s identity, body size, shape, health, age, intentions, emotional state, and personality characteristics. While much has been studied about the neurocognitive basis of voice processing and perception, the richness of vocalisations leaves open fundamental questions about the aesthetics of (and across) song and speech, including which factors determine our preference (liking) for different vocal styles.
 
In the current study, Bruder et al. (2024) examine the characteristics that determine the enjoyment of voices in different contexts and the extent to which these preferences are shared across different types of vocalisation. Sixty participants will report their degree of liking across a validated stimulus set of naturalistic and controlled vocal performances by female singers performing different melody excerpts as a lullaby, as a pop song and as opera aria, as well as reading the corresponding lyrics aloud as if speaking to an adult audience or to an infant. The authors will then ask two main questions: first if there is a difference in the amount of shared taste (interrater agreement) across contrasting vocal styles, and second, as suggested by sexual selection accounts of voice attractiveness, whether the same performers are preferred across styles.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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/7dvme
 
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. Bruder, C., Frieler, K. & Larrouy-Maestri, P. (2024). Voice preferences across contrasting singing and speaking styles. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7dvme
Voice preferences across contrasting singing and speaking stylesCamila Bruder, Klaus Frieler & Pauline Larrouy-Maestri<p>Voice preferences are an integral part of interpersonal interactions and shape how people 1 connect with each other. While a large number of studies has investigated the mechanisms behind 2 (spoken) voice attractiveness, very little research wa...Social sciencesChris Chambers2022-11-30 23:02:34 View
13 Sep 2024
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncratic

Exploring the enjoyment of voices

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Patrick Savage
Beyond the semantics communicated by speech, human vocalisations can convey a wealth of non-verbal information, including the speaker’s identity, body size, shape, health, age, intentions, emotional state, and personality characteristics. While much has been studied about the neurocognitive basis of voice processing and perception, the richness of vocalisations leaves open fundamental questions about the aesthetics of (and across) song and speech, including which factors determine our preference (liking) for different vocal styles.
 
In the current study, Bruder et al. (2024) examined the characteristics that determine the enjoyment of voices in different contexts and the extent to which these preferences are shared across different types of vocalisation. Sixty-two participants reported their degree of liking across a validated stimulus set of naturalistic and controlled vocal performances by female singers performing different melody excerpts as a lullaby, as a pop song and as opera aria, as well as reading the corresponding lyrics aloud as if speaking to an adult audience or to an infant. The authors then asked two main questions: first if there is a difference in the amount of shared taste (interrater agreement) across contrasting vocal styles, and second, as suggested by sexual selection accounts of voice attractiveness, whether the same performers are preferred across styles.
 
Support for the preregistered hypotheses was mixed. Shared taste differed significantly between singing styles, but contrary to the hypothesis that it would be higher for more “natural”/ universal styles (lullabies) than for more “artificial” (operatic) forms of singing (with pop singing in an intermediary position), it was found to be higher for operatic than pop singing. At the same time, the hypothesis of low consistency in preferences for singers across styles was confirmed, contradicting the notion that singing and speaking voices convey the same information about an individual's physical fitness. Overall, the results suggest that enjoyment of singing and speaking is idiosynchratic and prone to substantial individual differences. The authors conclude that a broader approach is needed to studying this question that traverses geographic, linguistic, and cultural contexts.

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewer's 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/7dvme
 
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. Bruder, C., Frieler, K. and Larrouy-Maestri, P. (2024). Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncratic [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/rp5jx?view_only=506d243a6e7a4d3680c81e696ca81025
Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncraticCamila Bruder, Klaus Frieler, Pauline Larrouy-Maestri<p>Voice preferences are an integral part of interpersonal interactions and shape how people connect with each other. While a large number of studies has investigated the mechanisms behind (speaking) voice attractiveness, very little research was ...Social sciencesChris Chambers2024-06-04 22:06:03 View
31 May 2023
STAGE 1

Defacing biases in manual and automated quality assessments of structural MRI with MRIQC

The impact of removing facial features on quality measures of structural MRI scans

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Catherine Morgan and Cassandra Gould van Praag
Data sharing is perhaps the most fundamental step for increasing the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research. However, the goals of open science must be tempered by ethical considerations, protecting the privacy and safety of research participants. Bridging this gap causes challenges for many fields, such as human neuroimaging. Brain images, as measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are unique to the participant and therefore contain identifying information by definition. One way to mitigate the risk to participants arising from public data sharing has been "defacing" the MRI scans, i.e., literally removing the part of the image that contains the face and surrounding tissue, while preserving the brain structure. This procedure however also removes information that is not (or at least minimally) identifiable. It also remains unclear whether defacing the images affects image quality and thus the information necessary for addressing many research questions.
 
The current study by Provins et al. (2023) seeks to address this question. Leveraging a publicly available "IXI dataset" comprising hundreds of T1-weighted structural MRI scans, they will assess the effect of defacing on manual and automatic estimates of image quality. Specifically, the researchers will compare image quality ratings by experts for a subset of 185 images. They hypothesise that images in which facial features have been removed are typically assigned higher quality ratings. Moreover, using a full data set of 580 images, which have been obtained across three scanning sites, they will also test the impact defacing MRI scans has on automated quality measures obtained with MRIQC software. The results of this study should have important implications for open science policy and for designing the optimal procedures for sharing structural MRI data in an ethical way. For example, if the authors' hypothesis is confirmed, studies relying on MRI quality measures might be better served by a custodianship model where identifiable data is shared under strict conditions, rather than relying on publishing defaced data. More generally, the outcome of this study may have significant legal implications in many jurisdictions.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated at the inital triage stage by the Recommender and PCI:RR team, and another round of in-depth review by two experts. After a detailed response and substantial revisions, the recommender judged the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/qcket (under temporary private embargo)
 
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 AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
References
 
1. Provins, C., Savary, E., Alemán-Gómez, Y., Richiardi, J., Poldrack, R. A., Hagmann, P. & Esteban, O. (2023). Defacing biases in manual and automated quality assessments of structural MRI with MRIQC, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qcket
Defacing biases in manual and automated quality assessments of structural MRI with MRIQCCéline Provins, Yasser Alemán-Gómez, Jonas Richiardi, Russell A. Poldrack, Patric Hagmann, Oscar Esteban<p>A critical requirement before data-sharing of human neuroimaging is removing facial features to protect individuals’ privacy. However, not only does this process redact identifiable information about individuals, but it also removes non-identif...Medical SciencesD. Samuel Schwarzkopf Catherine Morgan, Cassandra Gould van Praag, Abiola Akinnubi 2022-11-28 10:59:32 View
11 Apr 2023
STAGE 1

The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1

Is empathy important for forgiveness?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Wenrui Cao, James Bartlett and Saleh Shuqair
Forgiveness is a core feature of human psychology in which a person makes a deliberate decision to cease negative emotions or attitudes toward an offender who has done them harm. The concept of interpersonal forgiveness is deeply embedded across societies, but much remains to be understood about how it actually works. What are its key ingredients and why does it occur in the first place? Research in social psychology has demonstrated a range of personal and social benefits of forgiveness, giving rise to two dominant mechanistic accounts – one that positions empathy as the driving factor and another that centres motivated reasoning (Donovan & Priester, 2017).
 
In the current study, Chan and Feldman (2023) seek to replicate a formative study by McCullough et al (1997) that led to the so-called Empathy Model of forgiveness. According to this theory, forgiving is a motivational change facilitated (crucially) by empathy, promoting constructive over destructive behaviour toward the offender. Chan and Feldman will replicate Study 1 from McCullough et al., measuring the correlational relationship between apology, forgiving, and empathy for offenders, and exploring whether forgiving is associated with increased conciliation and decreased avoidance motivation. As well as closely replicating the original study, the authors will extend it to test the more severe hypothesis that empathy causally influences forgiveness. To achieve this, they will experimentally manipulate empathy by adding two groups to the design: one in which participants are asked to recall hurtful past experiences in which they were not empathetic to the offender, and another in which they were highly empathetic.
 
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/q78fs
 
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. Donovan, L. A. N., & Priester, J. R. (2017). Exploring the psychological processes underlying interpersonal forgiveness: The superiority of motivated reasoning over empathy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.005
 
2. Chan, C. F. & Feldman, G. (2023). The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/q78fs
The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1Chan Chi Fung, 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 sciencesChris Chambers Wenrui Cao, James Bartlett2023-01-25 11:15:13 View
07 Aug 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1

Strong evidence that empathy is important for forgiveness

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by James Bartlett and Saleh Shuqair
Forgiveness is a core feature of human psychology in which a person makes a deliberate decision to cease negative emotions or attitudes toward an offender who has done them harm. The concept of interpersonal forgiveness is deeply embedded across societies, but much remains to be understood about how it actually works. What are its key ingredients and why does it occur in the first place? Research in social psychology has demonstrated a range of personal and social benefits of forgiveness, giving rise to two dominant mechanistic accounts – one that positions empathy as the driving factor and another that centres motivated reasoning (Donovan & Priester, 2017).
 
In the current study, Chan and Feldman (2023) sought to replicate a formative study by McCullough et al (1997) that led to the so-called Empathy Model of forgiveness. According to this theory, forgiving is a motivational change facilitated (crucially) by empathy, promoting constructive over destructive behaviour toward the offender. Chan and Feldman replicated Study 1 from McCullough et al., measuring the correlational relationship between apology, forgiving, and empathy for offenders, and exploring whether forgiving is associated with increased conciliation and decreased avoidance motivation. As well as closely replicating the original study, the authors extended it to test the more severe hypothesis that empathy causally influences forgiveness. To achieve this, they experimentally manipulated empathy by adding two groups to the design: one in which participants were asked to recall hurtful past experiences in which they were not empathetic to the offender, and another in which they were highly empathetic.
 
The outcomes constitute a successful replication. Affective empathy was positively associated with perceived apology and forgiveness, and forgiveness was positively associated with conciliation motivation and negatively associated with both avoidance motivation and revenge motivation. In addition, the results of the experimental extension revealed a reliable causal effect of empathy on forgiveness and perceived apology. Overall, the findings provide robust support for the Empathy Model of forgiveness.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on responses to the comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/q78fs
 
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. Donovan, L. A. N., & Priester, J. R. (2017). Exploring the psychological processes underlying interpersonal forgiveness: The superiority of motivated reasoning over empathy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.005
 
2. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321 
 
3. Chan, C. F. & Feldman, G. (2023). The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1, acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/956fa
The link between Empathy and Forgiveness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of McCullough et al. (1997)'s Study 1Chan Chi Fung, Gilad Feldman <p>The empathy model of forgiveness conceptualized forgiving as an empathy-facilitated motivational change that leads to reductions in the motivation to behave in relationship -destructive ways and increases in the motivation to behave in relation...Social sciencesChris Chambers2023-04-13 14:28:05 View
20 Apr 2023
STAGE 1

Oxytocin, individual differences, and trust game behavior: a registered large-scale replication

Does oxytocin enhance pro-social behaviors?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Thibaut Arpinon and 1 anonymous reviewer
Trust is a fundamental element for the well-functioning of our society. By achieving large levels of trust, societies can reduce monitoring costs (e.g., contract supervision, conflict resolution) and increase investments in more profitable but socially riskier projects. Trust serves as a way to foster cooperation among individuals and can benefit the entire social group.
 
As a result, numerous researchers have sought to explore the biological foundations of trust. In particular, several research teams have tried to explore the role of oxytocin in modulating prosocial behaviors. However, previous research findings obtained mixed findings, and several methodological issues, such as low statistical power, have hindered the development of a definite view on the matter.
 
In the current study, Kroll et al. (2023) seek to replicate the seminal study of Kosfeld et al. (2005). Kosfeld and co-authors originally found that the intranasal administration of oxytocin can significantly increase trust among individuals. However, recent replication evidence shows no general effect of oxytocin on pro-social behaviors or suggests that the effect might be heterogeneous among social groups (Declerck et al., 2020). The objective of the current study of Kroll et al. (2023) is twofold. First, the authors propose to replicate the original study of Kosfeld et al. (2005) and to investigate whether the lack of replication can be due to an overall effect that is smaller than the original findings suggest. Second, the authors propose to replicate recent but exploratory results on the heterogeneous effect of oxytocin on pro-social choices. 
 
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).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/h5gdp
 
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:
 
1. Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Pauwels, L., Vogt, B., & Fehr, E. (2020). A registered replication study on oxytocin and trust. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 646–655. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0878-x
 
2. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03701
 
3. Kroll, C. F., Schruers, K., Viechtbauer, W., Vingerhoets, C., Seidel, L., Riedl, A. & Hernaus, D. (2023). Oxytocin, individual differences, and trust game behavior: a registered large-scale replication, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/h5gdp
Oxytocin, individual differences, and trust game behavior: a registered large-scale replicationCharlotte F. Kroll, Koen Schruers, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Claudia Vingerhoets, Leonie Seidel, Arno Riedl, and Dennis Hernaus<p>The neuropeptide oxytocin (OXT) is thought to modulate important aspects of prosocial behavior. In a seminal paper, Kosfeld et al. (2005) reported that intranasally administered OXT modulated trusting behavior in an economic trust game. Several...Life Sciences, Social sciencesRomain Espinosa2022-11-25 18:07:23 View
25 Jan 2022
STAGE 1

To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma?

Understanding the role of health condition, aetiological labels, and attributional judgements in public stigma toward problematic substance use

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Nicholas Sinclair-House and Roger Giner-Sorolla

People suffering from substance misuse problems are often stigmatised. Such public stigma may impair such people obtaining help and the quality of help that they receive. For this reason, previous research has investigated the factors that may reduce stigma. Evidence has been found, but not consistently, for the claim that labelling the condition as "chronically relapsing brain disease" vs a "problem" reduces stigma; as does "a health concern" vs " drug use". Another potentially relevant difference that may explain different previous results is describing how effective treatment can be.

In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Pennington et al. (2022) describe how they will investigate if any of these factors affect two different measures of stigma used in previous work, with a study well powered for testing whether the 99% CI lies outside or inside an equivalence region. While the CI being outside the region will straightforwardly justify concluding an effect of interest, a CI within the region will need to be interpreted with due regard to the fact that some effects within the region may be interesting.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review (including one round of in-depth specialist review). Based on comprehensive 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/4vscg

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

Pennington, C. R., Monk, R. L., Heim, D., Rose, A. K., Gough, T., Clarke, R., Knibb, G.,  & Jones, A. (2022). To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma? Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4vscg

To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma?Charlotte R. Pennington, Rebecca L. Monk, Derek Heim, Abi K. Rose, Thomas Gough, Ross Clarke, Graeme Knibb, and Andrew Jones.<p>Objectives: Problematic substance use is one of the most stigmatised health conditions, leading research to examine how the labels and models used to describe it influence public stigma. Two recent studies examine whether beliefs in a disease m...Social sciencesZoltan Dienes2021-10-28 13:26:28 View
10 Feb 2023
STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered Report

Different ways of describing problematic substance use and its treatment influence public stigma

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Nicholas Sinclair-House
People experiencing problematic substance use are often stigmatised by the general public. This public stigma may impair such people obtaining help and the quality of help that they receive. For this reason, previous research has investigated the factors that may exacerbate or lessen stigma by focusing on the terminology used to describe problematic substance use. However, the evidence is not clear cut, with some studies suggesting that labelling the condition as a "chronically relapsing brain disease" vs a "problem" reduces certain elements of stigma and other studies finding absence of evidence. A closer look at these studies points to methodological differences that may explain their results, such as whether problematic substance use is compared with another health condition, whether the individual is described as seeking treatment or not, and whether general or discrete elements of stigma are measured.
 
In this Stage 2 Registered Report, Pennington et al. (2023) isolated these methodological differences to investigate if any of them influenced two different measures of stigma used in previous work. They found that greater social distance, danger and public stigma but lower blame were ascribed to drug use relative to a health concern, supporting previous research to suggest that problematic substance use is a highly stigmatised health condition. Furthermore, greater (genetic) blame was reported when drug use was labelled as a ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’ relative to a ‘problem’. The results for attributional judgement were either inconclusive or statistically equivalent. In summary, these findings suggest that the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use may impact upon public stigma in distinct ways. The authors suggest that future research should justify which measures are being used in line with theory. They also put forward the notion that addiction is a functional attribution, which may explain the mixed literature on the brain disease model of addiction to date.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of specialist review and several rounds of discussion with the recommender. Based on comprehensive responses, 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/4vscg
 
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
 
Pennington, C. R., Monk, R. L., Heim, D., Rose, A. K., Gough, T., Clarke, R., Knibb, G., Patel, R., Rai, P., Ravat, H., Ali, R., Anastasiou, G., Asgari, F., Bate, E., Bourke, T., Boyles, J., Campbell, A., Fowler, N., Hester, S., Neil, C., McIntrye, B., Ogilvy, E., Renouf, A., Stafford, J., Toothill, K., Wong, H. K., &  Jones, A. (2023). The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered Report. Stage 2 acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z9bnf
The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered ReportCharlotte R. Pennington, Rebecca L. Monk, Derek Heim, Abi K. Rose, Thomas Gough, Ross Clarke, Graham Knibb, Roshni Patel, Priya Rai, Halimah Ravat, Ramsha Ali, Georgiana Anastasiou, Fatemeh Asgari, Eve Bate, Tara Bourke, Jayme Boyles, Alix Campbel...<p>Objectives: Problematic substance use is one of the most stigmatised health conditions leading research to examine how the labels and models used to describe it influence public stigma. Two recent studies examine whether beliefs in a disease mo...Social sciencesZoltan Dienes2022-10-21 16:13:49 View
22 Jul 2024
STAGE 1

Probing the dual-task structure of a metacontrast-masked priming paradigm with subjective visibility judgments

Do trial-wise visibility reports - and how these reports are made - alter unconscious priming effects?

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Markus Kiefer, Thomas Schmidt and 3 anonymous reviewers
Many studies of unconscious processing measure priming effects. Such experiments test whether a prime stimulus can exert an effect on speeded responses to a subsequently presented target stimulus even when participants are unaware of the prime. In some studies, participants are required to report their awareness of the prime in each trial - a dual-task design. Other studies conduct such visibility tests in separate experiments, so that the priming effect is measured via a single task. Both these approaches have pros and cons; however, it remains unclear to what extent they can affect the process of interest. Can the choice of experimental design and its parameters interfere with the priming effect? This could have implications for interpreting such effects, including in previous literature.
 
In the current study, Wendt and Hesselmann (2024) will investigate the effects of using a dual-task design in a masked priming paradigm, focusing on subjective visibility judgments. Based on power analysis, the study will test 34 participants performing both single-task and several dual-task conditions to measure reaction times and priming effects. Priming is tested via a speeded forced-choice identification of a target. The key manipulation is the non-speeded visibility rating of the prime using a Perceptual Awareness Scale, either with a graded (complex) rating or a dichotomous response. Moreover, participants will either provide their awareness judgement via a keyboard or vocally. Finally, participants will also complete a control condition to test prime visibility by testing the objective identification of the prime. These conditions will be presented in separate blocks, with the order randomised across participants. The authors hypothesise that using a dual-task slows down response times and boosts priming effects. However, they further posit that keyboard responses and graded visibility ratings, respectively, in the dual task reduce priming effects (but also slow response times) compared to vocal responses and dichotomous visibility judgements. In addition to the preregistered hypotheses, the study will also collect EEG data to explore the neural underpinnings of these processes.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript went through three rounds of review by the recommender and five expert reviewers. While the recommender would have preferred to see targeted, directional hypotheses explicitly specified in the design instead of non-directional main effects/interactions, he nevertheless considers this experimental design ready for commencing data collection, and therefore granted in-principle acceptance.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ds2w5
 
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

Wendt, C. & Hesselmann, G. (2024). Probing the dual-task structure of a metacontrast-masked priming paradigm with subjective visibility judgments. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ds2w5
Probing the dual-task structure of a metacontrast-masked priming paradigm with subjective visibility judgmentsCharlott Wendt, Guido Hesselmann<p>Experiments contrasting conscious and masked stimulus processing have shaped, and continue to shape, cognitive and neurobiological theories of consciousness. However, as shown by Aru et al. (2012) the contrastive approach builds on the untenabl...Social sciencesD. Samuel Schwarzkopf2024-03-02 18:20:03 View
19 Jun 2023
STAGE 1

Revisiting the “Belief in the law of small numbers”: Conceptual replication and extensions Registered Report of problems reviewed in Tversky and Kahneman (1971) [Stage 1]

Should we believe in the “belief in the law of small numbers?”

Recommended by ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Romain Espinosa and Kariyushi Rao
Probability and randomness are foundational statistical concepts used not only throughout the sciences, but also in our daily lives to guide our behavior and make sense of the world. Their importance and widespread use may suggest that they are easy concepts to understand, yet that seems not to be the case. A classic article by Tversky and Kahneman (1971) on the “belief in the law of small numbers” revealed that professional psychologists tended to incorrectly perceive a small sample that is randomly drawn from a population as representative of that population. This finding has been hugely influential, inspiring myriad subsequent studies into error and bias when reasoning about probability. 
 
In the current study, Hong and Feldman (2023) propose a conceptual replication and extension of Tversky and Kahneman (1971). The original article was shockingly sparse on details regarding the method, sample, and findings, and, to our knowledge, has never been replicated. These facts are especially concerning given the foundational status that the article holds in the field. Hong and Feldman (2023) have developed a conceptual replication project, using the same approach and targeting the same claims from Tversky and Kahneman (1971), but modifying the wording of the stimuli for clarity and appropriateness for lay respondents. Although Tversky and Kahneman (1971) relied on professional psychologists as participants, many of their claims were not restricted to that population, but rather were generalized to all people—which is also how the findings have been subsequently applied. Thus, the change from professional to lay responders is entirely appropriate and the study will be diagnostic of the original claims.
 
Finally, Hong and Feldman (2023) extend the target study by manipulating the sample size indicated in the stimuli. Tversky and Kahneman (1971) relied on a single sample size in each scenario, leaving open the question as to how sample size might impact respondents’ reasoning. Accordingly, Hong and Feldman (2023) vary the sample size across the scenarios to determine whether participants answer differently as the sample size increases. 
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the second 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 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/fzbq7
 
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. Hong, C. K., & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the “Belief in the law of small numbers”: Conceptual replication and extensions Registered Report of problems reviewed in Tversky and Kahneman (1971). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/fzbq7
 
2. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322   
Revisiting the “Belief in the law of small numbers”: Conceptual replication and extensions Registered Report of problems reviewed in Tversky and Kahneman (1971) [Stage 1]Cheuk Kiu (Jeffery) HONG, Gilad FELDMAN<p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Revisiting the “Belief in the law of small numbers”: Replication and extensions of problems reviewed in Tversky and Kahneman (1971)​"</p>Social sciencesMoin Syed2023-02-23 08:23:23 View