The reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?

 

Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! Brevers et al. (2023) will ask people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they will experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings is the prediction error.

 

Participants will also rate their remembered pleasure in running and the authors will investigate whether running pleasure depends on prediction error.
 
The study plan was refined across four rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers and the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
 
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. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2023). Do error predictions of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xh724

Research on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?

 
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson will ask subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants will be asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants will answer the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they feel best suits their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions will be manipulated, such that the question specifies a clear objective or not.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, 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/82qtn
 
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. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2022). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/82qtn

When interviewing members of a criminal network, what determines what information a given interviewee chooses to disclose, as guided by the network's collective planning? What principles could help inform a detective preparing for such interviews? In the current study, Neequaye et al. will recruit groups of people known to each other to assume the role of networks that run an illegal sports betting business, fronting as a chain of tanning salons. Although each network launders money, they have to come up with a strategy to convince investigators they are legit. The groups are motivated to disclose some information when individuals are interviewed, but only enough to appear cooperative. The relation of the amount of different sorts of information disclosed depending on estimated risks and benefits for the group will be tested.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two expert reviewers. 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/n7ugr
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no further revisions were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero, and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6.

 

 

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

 

References
 
1. Neequaye, D. A., Granhag, P. A. & Luke, T. J. (2022). Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/n7ugr

An interviewee in an intelligence interview can face competing interests in disclosing information: The value in cooperating because, for example, information given leads to the arrest of a narcotics gang, making the neighbourhood safer; and the risk that disclosing the information leads to reprisals from the gang. Different pieces of information will compete with each other for disclosure, depending on this balance of risks to self-interest. According to the disclosure-outcomes management model of Neequaye et al., information will be disclosed more with a high than low probability of reward, as might be straightforwardly expected, but this difference will be larger when there is a low probability of cost rather than a high probability. The high probability of cost will induce more a variable response to the possible benefits.

Neequaye et al. (2023) will invite participants to assume the role of an informant, with the goal of maximizing their points according to stated probabilities of costs and benefits of disclosing pieces of information relating to given scenarios. Then the degree to which each type of information is disclosed in a subsequent interview will be assessed: this way the crucial interaction can be tested.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 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:

 

 

 

Neequaye, D. A., Luke, T. J., & Kollback, K. (2023). Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ru8j5

As virtual reality environments become more common, it is important to understand our sensorimotor interactions with them. In real world settings, sensory information is supplemented by prior expectations from past experiences, aiding efficient action control. In VR, the relative role of expectations could decrease due to a lack of prior experience with the environment, or increase because sensory information is impoverished or ambiguous. Harris, Arthur and Buckingham (2024) propose to test these possibilities by comparing a real-world object lifting task and a VR version in which the same objects are lifted but visual feedback is substituted by a virtual view. The experiment uses the Size-Weight Illusion (SWI) and the Material Weight Illusion (MWI). In these paradigms, the visual appearance of the object induces expectations about weight that can affect the perception of weight during lifting, and the fingertip forces generated. The degree to which the visual appearance of objects induces differences in perceived weight, and in measured fingertip forces, will index the influence of prior expectations for these two paradigms. The analyses will test whether the influence of prior expectations is lower or higher in the VR set-up than in real-world lifting. The outcomes across tasks (SWI and MWI) and measures (perceived weight, fingertip forces) will broaden our understanding of the role of predictive sensorimotor control in novel virtual environments.

 

After three rounds of evaluation, with input from two external reviewers, the recommender judged that the Stage 1 manuscript met the criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Communications in Kinesiology
• Experimental Psychology
• In&Vertebrates
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 
References

 

1. Harris, D. J., Arthur, T., & Buckingham, G. (2024). Does ‘virtuality’ affect the role of prior expectations in perception and action? Comparing predictive grip and lifting forces in real and virtual environments. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/36jhb