A poor diet has severe detrimental health effects, and attempts to reduce caloric intake often prove unsuccessful. Unhealthy foods, high in fat, sugar, and salt tend to be highly appetitive, and can undermine individuals’ ability to refrain themselves from consuming them. Computerized cognitive retraining techniques have shown promise in curbing the intake of unhealthy foods and promoting weight loss. However, in real-world scenarios, adherence to such retraining programs can be suboptimal, potentially diminishing their effectiveness.

 

In the present study, Maclellan et al. (2023) aim to investigate whether the incorporation of gamified elements, transforming the cognitive retraining task into a game-like experience, can enhance adherence and overall intervention effectiveness by boosting engagement and motivation. These findings could deepen our understanding of the mechanisms through which cognitive retraining mitigates caloric intake and pave the way for more compelling and successful interventions.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of review and revision. Based on detailed evaluations by two expert reviewers, 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/jspf3 (under temporary private embargo)

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:
 

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a range of neurodegenerative diseases involving progressive deterioration of frontal and temporal brain networks. This scoping review protocol by Carneiro et al. (2024) promises to make a valuable contribution to the conceptualization of dysregulated interoception (the ability to sense and interpret internal bodily signals) and allostasis (anticipation and adjustment of energy use in response to environmental demands) in the context of FTD. The work also has broader implications, potentially offering key insights into the interplay between sensory and regulatory signals, which hold relevance not only for dementia but also for other mental disorders characterized by maladaptive allostatic adaptations, such as addiction. This broader applicability underscores the potential impact of the review across multiple domains of mental health research.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/skebz
 
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.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:

 

• Cortex
• In&Vertebrates
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 
References

Carneiro, F., Hazelton, J. L., Campos, C., Ibáñez, A., & Ferreira-Santos, F. (2024). Allostatic interoception in frontotemporal dementia: a scoping review protocol. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/skebz

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

Mind-wandering broadly refers to the phenomenon by which a person's thoughts are directed towards internally generated states as opposed to being directed towards those that are task-relevant. It has been proposed that mind-wandering and cognitive control are supported by overlapping neural systems. While neuroimaging work has implicated prefrontal cortex in both mind-wandering and cognitive control, studies testing its causal role using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been inconclusive.

 

In this study, Rasmussen and colleagues will test whether the effects of prefrontal cortex tDCS on mind-wandering are mediated by dopaminergic availablility, which is known to be important for cognitive control. Using noninvasive brain stimuluation (prefrontal cortex tDCS vs sham) and a pharmacological intervention (levodopa vs. placebo), the authors will test for a causal role of both prefrontal cortex and dopamine availability in mind-wandering, and whether dopamine availability alters the effect of tDCS on mind-wandering.

 

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/ujp7e
 
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
• Brain and Neuroscience Advances
• Cortex
• Imaging Neuroscience
• NeuroImage: Reports
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica

 

 

1. Rasmussen, T., Dux, P. E. & Filmer, H. (2024). On the neural substrates of mind wandering and dynamic thought: A drug and brain stimulation study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ujp7e

 

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