The Temporal Doppler Effect refers to the subjective perception that the past is further away than the future even when both temporal distances are objectively the same from the present moment (Caruso et al., 2013). In the current study, Zhang et al. ran a replication of this phenomenon and tested one possible explanation for it, namely that people overestimate the temporal distance of the past because the past is filled with more events than the future. This is because we can access information only about planned events for the future, but have access to both planned and unplanned events that happened in the past (filled-duration illusion; Thomas & Brown, 1974).

 

Over two studies, the authors found that the sampled participants reported feeling that the past was psychologically closer than the future, which is the opposite of what has previously been reported and termed the Temporal Doppler Effect (Caruso et al., 2013). In addition, the authors reported inconsistent results regarding the correlations between the psychological distance and different variables associated with the filling rate of duration. The authors discuss the differences between their own results and those by Caruso et al. (2013) in terms of methodological and contextual differences and highlight cultural aspects that may be critical to consider in future replications and overall testing of this phenomenon. As such, they highlight that, at the moment, the Temporal Doppler Effect should not be considered a robust and culturally universal phenomenon. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers who had also reviewed the stage 1 report. Following a revision by the authors, which consisted of adding the Data Availability statement, as well as a more precise summary of the results in various sections of the report, 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/d9ec3/
 
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. 

 

 

 

1. Caruso, E. M., Van Boven, L., Chin, M., & Ward, A. (2013). The temporal doppler effect: When the future feels closer than the past. Psychological Science, 24, 530-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458804 

 

2. Thomas, E. C., & Brown, I. (1974). Time perception and the filled-duration illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 449-458. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198571 

 

3. Zhang, Q., Masuda, Y., Ueda, K.,Toda, K., & Yamada, Y. (2022). Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://psyarxiv.com/pb47n/ 

 

The popularity of gaming has spurred interest in understanding its impact on wellbeing. Significant research has investigated the impact of gaming from multiple angles. However, prior research has been limited by a lack of behavioural data that could be more reliable in examining the impact of gaming than self-reports of behavior. Similarly, previous research has called for examining the impact of gaming while taking genre differences into consideration.

 

In this programmatic submission (3 x Stage 2 outputs), Ballou et al. (2024) address these gaps by combining digital trace data of gamers across multiple gaming platforms (Nintendo Switch, Xbox (US only), Steam, and mobile systems (iOS and Android)) with psychological surveys measuring the gamers’ basic psychological needs, sleep quality, and subjective wellbeing over a three-month period. Participants will complete 30 daily surveys (US only) and six bi-weekly panel surveys.

 

The combination of behavioral trace data and psychological self-reports offers a rare and comprehensive look at how gaming influences different important aspects of wellbeing. This work is ambitious and addresses scientifically and socially important questions on the impact of gaming.

 

The manuscript underwent one round of in-depth review, where three reviewers with a combination of methodological and domain expertise gave generally positive feedback on the manuscript, providing directions to further strengthen the research. The authors – as judged by the recommender – thoroughly addressed the reviewer comments and have worked to further strengthen the rigour of the manuscript. A further revision round was issued by the recommender to address a minor issue with one hypothesis and other small linguistic edits.

 

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).

 

 

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. Ballou, N., Hakman, T., Földes, T., Vuorre, M., Magnusson, K., & Przybylski, A. K. (2024). Psychological Wellbeing, Sleep, and Video Gaming: Analyses of Comprehensive Digital Traces. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mvngt

How can qualitative research and case studies inform theoretical models of gaming disorder? Gaming Disorder has generated a large amount of research, with up to 95% of it focusing on quantitative studies. As a result, most of the meta-analyses and review studies focus on quantitative research and disregard qualitative approaches. However, studying the direct experiences of gamers can provide more detailed and direct evidence that can feed into theoretical models. 

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Auranen et al. (2024) will perform a qualitative meta-analysis of gaming disorder case studies, case reports, and case series of treatment-seekers using a 3-phase approach. First, they will focus on examining the reported problems of participants, the reported reasons for seeking help to reduce their gaming, and the causal link between gaming and reported problems, including the context of these problematic behaviors. Second, thematic synthesis will generate construct themes regarding the contexts of the individuals and the reported problems. Lastly, the authors will examine the relevance of findings in regards to the coping model, value fulfillment theory and the theory of cultural dissonance.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and three expert reviewers, one of which was recused due to conflicts of interest that emerged after the first round of revisions. The recommender and co-recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

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:

 

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

 
References

Auranen, T., Adamkovič, M., Martončik, M., Park, S., Kauraoja, V., Siutila, M., Jin, Y., & Karhulahti, V.-M. (2024). Gaming Disorder: A qualitative meta-synthesis of related case studies. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hzc5a

This Stage 1 registered report by Szecsi et al. (2024) seeks to clarify whether individuals' economic conditions moderate how scarcity cues affect their attentional performance. This idea has been previously explored: Here, the authors aim to clarify understanding of the how scarcity cues affect cognition by studying a large and diverse Hungarian sample with improved experimental methods.

 

Specifically, while it has been previously reported that financially less well-off individuals' are differentially affected by finance-related stimuli (e.g. Shah et al., 2018), Szecsi et al. (2024) argue that prior studies have used small samples with insufficient consideration of potentially important demographic variables. Therefore, the generalizability of prior studies might be lacking.

 

Second, Szecsi et al. (2024) aim to conduct a more realistic experiment by asking participants to free-associate in response to financial scarcity-related cues, whereas prior studies have often focused on simply querying for rating responses, which might not sufficiently engage the related cognitive mechanisms that could be most affected.

 

In the proposed study, then, the authors will rigorously test whether financially less well-off individuals have lower attentional performance while experiencing scarcity-related cues than individuals who are financially better off, and that attentional performance does not differ while experiencing non-scarcity related cues. Ultimately, Szecsi et al. propose to shed light on theories of scarcity-related cognition that posit overall decrements in attentional performance irrespective of individuals' financial status.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was initially reviewed by two experts in the area, who both recommended several improvements to the study. The authors then thoroughly revised their write-up and protocol, and the two reviewers were satisfied with the substance of these revisions. Based on these evaluations, the recommender judged that the Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance. There were remaining editorial clarifications and suggestions which the authors can incorporate in their eventual Stage 2 report.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/3zdyb
 
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
• Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Shah, A. K., Zhao, J., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2018). Money in the mental lives of the poor. Social Cognition, 36, 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2018.36.1.4

 

2. Szecsi, P., Bognar, M., & Szaszi, B., (2024). Do Scarcity-Related Cues Affect the Sustained Attentional Performance of the Poor and the Rich Differently? In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/3zdyb

Inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunities are rampant both between and within nations around the world. Making strides to rectify inequalities requires examining how people come to understand them as well as the psychological processes that translate those understandings into reparative actions. There is some evidence for a “comparative framing effect,” in which the group that is initially referenced impacts judgements by communicating salient information and the appropriate reference point. Research on this comparative framing effect suggests that focusing on disadvantage, relative to advantage, leads to a more negative assessment and intentions to engage in action to reduce the inequality. 

 

In two pilot studies (reported in the current proposal) focused on global inequalities (low-income vs high-income countries), Schnepf et al. (2023) did not find evidence for a main effect of framing on perceived legitimacy of the inequality or intentions to engage in action. They did, however, find some evidence for an interaction with the perceived size of the inequality. When the low-income country was the subject of the comparison, larger perceptions of the size of the inequality were associated with greater intentions to engage in action (both studies) and greater perceptions of the differences as illegitimate (Study 1 only). Moreover, they found some evidence in both studies that negative social emotions such as guilt and shame were the mechanism that explained why perceiving greater inequality in the low-income framing condition was associated with the outcomes. 

 

In the current study, Schnepf et al. (2023) build upon these two pilot studies to conduct a high-quality replication and a stronger test of their hypotheses. Most notably, the proposed Registered Report uses a much larger sample, providing adequate statistical power to detect relatively small interaction effects. Additionally, the proposed project manipulates the size of the inequality that is being evaluated, rather than relying on participants’ perceptions. Finally, the study includes “justice sensitivity,” or the degree to which individuals assess inequality as unfair as an additional hypothesized moderator, and “social dominance orientation” as an exploratory moderator. Along with the pilot studies, the proposed project will represent a strong test of several hypotheses relevant to many different areas of social and personality psychology. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth peer review, both of which consisted of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pgyvw
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Schnepf, J., Reese, G., Bruckmüller, S., Braun, M., Rotzinger, J., & Martiny, S. E. (2023). Justice in the eye of the beholder: How comparison framing affects the perception of global inequality through social emotions and justice sensitivity. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pgyvw