=============================================================================
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And XSocial media positivity bias, or just positivity bias?Recommended by Veli-Matti Karhulahti based on reviews by Marcel Martončik, Julius Klingelhoefer and 1 anonymous reviewer
Both research and public debates around social media use tend to involve a premise of positivity bias, which refers to presenting one’s life in an overly positive light by various different means. This premise contributes to multiple potentially important follow-up hypotheses, such as the fear of missing out and low self-image effects, due to repeated consumption of positive social media content (e.g., Bayer et al. 2020, for a review). The positivity bias of social media use, itself, has received limited research attention.
In the present study, Masciantonio and colleagues (2025) tested positivity bias in the context of three social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, and X. The experiment involved recruiting participants (n=312) into platform-specific user groups and crafting posts to be shared with friends as well as respective social media audiences. For social media positivity bias to differ from everyday positivity bias, posts in the former should introduce more positive valence in comparison to offline sharing—and if the platforms differ in their encouragement of positivity bias, they should introduce significant between-platform differences in valence. Based on how the participants reported events, the study found no significant differences between everyday and social media positivity bias, but messages posted on Twitter/X had a more negative valence than posts in other social media platforms. The results would be consistent with the implication that people's positive actions in social media simply follow the natural human tendency to present oneself positively to others—a hypothesis that should be investigated in follow-up work. More research attention should also be given to specific design features, which may contribute to platform-specific differences in user habits, as suggested by the distinct valence rate found in relation to Twitter/X. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by three experts (areas: experimental methods, social media, statistics) via in-depth peer review across two rounds, with one reviewer returning to validate analysis code and methdological accuracy on a final round. Based on the authors’ careful responses and revisions, the revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9z6hm 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. Bayer, J. B., Triệu, P., & Ellison, N. B. (2020). Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual review of psychology, 71, 471-497. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944 2. Masciantonio, A., Heiser, N., & Cherbonnier, A. (2025). Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And X [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/s93yu
| Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And X | Alexandra Masciantonio, Neele Heiser, Anthony Cherbonnier | <p>Social media has transformed how people engage with the world around them. The positivity bias on social media, in particular, warrants in-depth investigation. This is particularly true as previous research has concentrated on one specific plat... | Social sciences | Veli-Matti Karhulahti | Marcel Martončik | 2024-09-23 11:20:07 | ||
15 Oct 2023
STAGE 1
Can one-shot learning be elicited from unconscious information?Can unconscious experience drive perceptual learning?Recommended by Vishnu Sreekumar based on reviews by Jeffrey Saunders and 1 anonymous reviewer
Unconscious priming effects have fascinated not just psychologists but also ad-makers and consumers alike. A related phenomenon in perception is illustrated by presenting participants with two-tone images, which are degraded versions of images of objects and scenes. These two-tone images look like and are indeed judged as meaningless dark and light patches. Upon presenting the actual template image, however, the two-tone image is accurately recognized. This perceptual learning is abrupt, robust, and long-lasting (Daoudi et al., 2017). Surprisingly, Chang et al. (2016) showed that such perceptual disambiguation of two-tone images can happen even in the absence of conscious awareness of having seen the template image.
Halchin et al. (2023) in the current study propose to conduct a conceptual replication of Chang et al. (2016) with important modifications to the procedures to address limitations with the earlier work. Specifically, there was no explicit manipulation of levels of conscious awareness of the template images in the original study. Therefore, miscategorization of low-confidence awareness as unaware could have led to an erroneous conclusion about unconscious priors guiding perceptual learning. Such miscategorization errors and how to tackle them are of interest to the broader field of consciousness studies. Furthermore, a conceptual replication of Chang et al. (2016) is also timely given that prior related work suggests that masking impairs not only conscious awareness of visual features but also blocks processing of higher-level information about the images (e.g. object category).
To address the issues identified above, Halchin et al. (2023) propose to experimentally manipulate conscious awareness by masking the template image very quickly (i.e., a short stimulus onset asynchrony; SOA) or by allowing some more time to induce weak and strong conscious awareness, respectively. The SOAs were validated through pilot studies. Furthermore, they include a four-point perceptual awareness scale instead of the original yes/no options to gauge participants’ subjective awareness of the template images. The authors also propose multiple experiments to include different ways of testing participants’ objective ability to identify the masked template images. Last but not least, the proposed design includes a stronger control condition than the original study by using masked images created from related images (e.g. belonging to the same semantic category). Depending on the results obtained in the main experiments, the inclusion of this control allows the authors to conduct a third experiment to investigate whether the results in the first two can be explained by semantic priming. The proposed study is sufficiently powered (as demonstrated through simulations), and Bayesian statistical procedures will be used to test the main hypotheses. In summary, the proposed work offers a significant improvement in terms of experimental procedures over the original study. If the Chang et al. (2016) results are replicated, the stronger design in the current study is likely to lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying unconscious priors guiding perceptual learning. On the other hand, a failure to replicate not just Chang et al. (2016)’s results but also effects across the three experiments in the current study would raise legitimate questions about the reality of unconscious information guiding perceptual learning.
The study plan was refined across two rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers who both agreed that the proposed study is well designed, timely, and scientifically valid. The recommender then reviewed the revised manuscript and judged that the study met the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/juckg
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. 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 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. Daoudi, L. D., Doerig, A., Parkosadze, K., Kunchulia, M. & Herzog, M. H. (2017). The role of one-shot learning in #TheDress. Journal of Vision, 17, 15-15. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.3.15
2. Chang, R., Baria, A. T., Flounders, M. W., & He, B. J. (2016). Unconsciously elicited perceptual prior. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niw008
3. Halchin, A.-M., Teuful, C. & Bompas, A. (2023). Can one-shot learning be elicited from unconscious information? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/juckg
| Can one-shot learning be elicited from unconscious information? | Adelina-Mihaela Halchin, Christoph Teufel, Aline Bompas | <p>The human brain has the remarkable ability to make sense of highly impoverished images once relevant prior information is available. Fitting examples of this effect are two-tone images, which initially look like meaningless black-and-white patc... | Life Sciences | Vishnu Sreekumar | 2022-11-30 00:34:07 | |||
24 Sep 2023
STAGE 1
Sensorimotor Effects in Surprise Word Memory – a Registered ReportEvaluating adaptive and attentional accounts of sensorimotor effects in word recognition memoryRecommended by Vishnu Sreekumar based on reviews by Gordon Feld and Adam Osth
Words have served as stimuli in memory experiments for over a century. What makes some words stand out in memory compared to others? One plausible answer is that semantically rich words are more distinctive and therefore exhibit a mirror effect in recognition memory experiments where they are likely to be correctly endorsed and also less likely to be confused with other words (Glanzer & Adams, 1985). Semantic richness can arise due to extensive prior experience with the word in multiple contexts but can also arise due to sensorimotor grounding, i.e., direct perceptual and action-based experience with the concepts represented by the words (e.g. pillow, cuddle). However, previous experiments have revealed inconsistent recognition memory performance patterns for words based on different types of sensorimotor grounding (Dymarska et al., 2023). Most surprisingly, body-related words such as cuddle and fitness exhibited greater false alarm rates.
In the current study, Dymarska and Connell (2023) propose to test two competing theories that can explain the increased confusability of body-related words: 1) the adaptive account - contextual elaboration-based strategies activate other concepts related to body and survival, increasing confusability; and 2) the attentional account - somatic attentional mechanisms automatically induce similar tactile and interoceptive experiences upon seeing body-related words leading to less distinctive memory traces. The adaptive account leads to different predictions under intentional and incidental memory conditions. Specifically, contextual elaboration strategies are unlikely to be employed when participants do not expect a memory test and therefore in an incidental memory task, body-related words should not lead to inflated false alarm rates (see Hintzman (2011) for a discussion on incidental memory tasks and the importance of how material is processed during memory tasks). However, the attentional account is not dependent on the task instructions or the knowledge about an upcoming memory test. Here, Dymarska and Connell (2023) have designed an incidental recognition memory experiment with over 5000 words, disguised as a lexical decision task using carefully matched pseudowords during the encoding phase. The sample size will be determined by using a sequential hypothesis testing plan with Bayes Factors. To test the predictions of the adaptive and attentional accounts, the authors derive a set of lexical and sensorimotor variables (including a body-component) after dimensionality reduction of a comprehensive set of lexical and semantic word features. The analysis will involve running both Bayesian and frequentist hierarchical linear regression to explain four different measures of recognition memory performance based on the key sensorimotor variables and other baseline/confounding variables. While this analysis plan enables a comparison with the earlier results from an expected memory test (Dymarska et al., 2023), the current study is self-contained in that it is possible to distinguish the adaptive and attentional accounts based on the effect of body component scores on hit rate and false alarm rate. The study plan was refined across two rounds of review, with input from two external reviewers after which the recommender judged that the study satisfied the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ck5bg
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
Dymarska, A. & Connell, L. (2023). Sensorimotor Effects in Surprise Word Memory – a Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ck5bg
Dymarska, A., Connell, L. & Banks, B. (2023). More is Not Necessarily Better: How Different Aspects of Sensorimotor Experience Affect Recognition Memory for Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, Cognition. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001265 Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & cognition, 13, 8-20. Hintzman, D. L. (2011). Research strategy in the study of memory: Fads, fallacies, and the search for the “coordinates of truth”. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 253-271. | Sensorimotor Effects in Surprise Word Memory – a Registered Report | Agata Dymarska, Louise Connell | <p>Sensorimotor grounding of semantic information elicits inconsistent effects on word memory, depending on which type of experience is involved, with some aspects of sensorimotor information facilitating memory performance while others inhibit it... | Social sciences | Vishnu Sreekumar | 2023-01-31 15:21:17 | |||
28 Feb 2024
STAGE 1
Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online studyIs memory affected in the long run following SARS-CoV-2 infection?Recommended by Vishnu Sreekumar based on reviews by Phivos Phylactou, Dipanjan Ray and Mitul Mehta
COVID-19 has been suspected to have long-lasting effects on cognitive function. The SARS-CoV-2 virus may enter the central nervous system (Frontera et al., 2020; Miners, Kehoe, & Love, 2020), explaining the observed detrimental effects of COVID-19 on verbal planning and reasoning (Hampshire et al., 2021; Wild et al., 2021), executive function (Hadad et al., 2022), and long-term memory (Guo et al., 2022). In particular, Guo et al. (2022) used verbal item recognition and non-verbal associative memory tasks. Weinerova et al. (2024), in the current study, propose to conduct a replication of Guo et al. (2022), but specifically, to disentangle the effect of COVID-19 infection status on both memory type (item vs. associative) and stimulus modality (verbal vs. non-verbal). Furthermore, Weinerova et al. (2024) propose to analyze cognitive function based on vaccination status before infection to provide a critical test of the potential protective effects of vaccination on cognitive function.
Data collection has been completed with 325 participants after exclusion criteria were applied (COVID group N = 232, No COVID group N = 93). Simulations assuming an effect size observed in Guo et al. (2022), a Bayesian t-test comparing the groups, and a Bayes Factor of 6 indicated that N = 320 is sufficient to detect an effect on 79% of simulations. The main analyses will be conducted using a Bayesian ANCOVA that allows for the inclusion of control variables such as age, sex, country, and education level. Both accuracy and reaction times from the item and associative recognition tasks will be analyzed as the dependent variables. In one analysis, vaccination status will be included as a between-subjects factor, to understand whether vaccination status at the time of infection influences subsequent cognitive function. It is important to note that participants were recruited through long-COVID Facebook groups and clinics. Therefore, the results must be interpreted carefully to avoid generalizing to all COVID-19 infections. The data are part of a larger longitudinal study, and the current pre-registration applies only to the baseline timepoint for a cross-sectional analysis. The remaining longitudinal data collection is ongoing and is not part of the current pre-registration. The study plan was refined after one round of review, with input from three external reviewers who all agreed that the proposed study was well-designed and scientifically valid. The recommender then reviewed the revised manuscript and judged that the study met the Stage 1 criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tjs5u
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Frontera, J., Mainali, S., Fink, E.L. et al. Global Consortium Study of Neurological Dysfunction in COVID-19 (GCS-NeuroCOVID): Study Design and Rationale. Neurocrit Care 33, 25–34 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-00995-3
2. Guo, P., Benito Ballesteros, A., Yeung, S. P., Liu, R., Saha, A., Curtis, L., Kaser, M., Haggard, M. P. & Cheke, L. G. (2022). COVCOG 2: Cognitive and Memory Deficits in Long COVID: A Second Publication From the COVID and Cognition Study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.804937 3. Hadad, R., Khoury, J., Stanger, C., Fisher, T., Schneer, S., Ben-Hayun, R., Possin, K., Valcour, V., Aharon-Peretz, J. & Adir, Y. (2022). Cognitive dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. Journal of NeuroVirology, 28(3), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13365-022-01079-y 4. Hampshire, A., Trender, W., Chamberlain, S. R., Jolly, A. E., Grant, J. E., Patrick, F., Mazibuko, N., Williams, S. C., Barnby, J. M., Hellyer, P. & Mehta, M. A. (2021). Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19. EClinicalMedicine, 39, 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101044 5. Miners, S., Kehoe, P. G., & Love, S. (2020). Cognitive impact of COVID-19: looking beyond the short term. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 12, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00744-w 6. Weinerova, J., Yeung, S., Guo, P., Yau, A., Horne, C., Ghinn, M., Curtis, L., Adlard, F., Bhagat, V., Zhang, S., Kaser, M., Bozic, M., Schluppeck, D., Reid, A., Tibon, R. & Cheke, L. G. (2024). Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/tjs5u
7. Wild, C. J., Norton, L., Menon, D. K., Ripsman, D. A., Swartz, R. H. & Owen, A. M. (2022). Disentangling the cognitive, physical, and mental health sequelae of COVID-19. Cell Reports Medicine, 3, 100750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100750 | Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online study | Josefina Weinerova, Sabine Yeung, Panyuan Guo, Alice Yau, Connor Horne, Molly Ghinn, Lyn Curtis, Francess Adlard, Vidita Bhagat, Seraphina Zhang, Muzaffer Kaser, Mirjana Bozic, Denis Schluppeck, Andrew Reid, Roni Tibon, Lucy Cheke | <p>SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, has been shown to have an impact on cognitive function, but the specific aspects of cognition that are affected remain unclear. In this Registered Report, we present a study aimed at ... | Life Sciences | Vishnu Sreekumar | 2023-08-14 11:09:45 | |||
Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online study.Evidence for General Long-Term Memory Impairment Following SARS-CoV-2 InfectionRecommended by Vishnu Sreekumar based on reviews by Phivos Phylactou, Mitul Mehta and 1 anonymous reviewer
COVID-19 has been associated with cognitive impairments, particularly in memory performance (Guo et al., 2022). Given that associative memory typically declines earlier than item memory in conditions such as mild cognitive impairment (Chen & Chang, 2016), it remains an open question whether COVID-19 differentially affects item and associative memory. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such effects are specific to verbal or non-verbal material. To investigate these questions, Weinerova et al. (2024) recruited participants via long-COVID Facebook groups and clinical settings. They reported a significant detrimental effect of COVID-19 status on long-term memory performance across tasks. However, they did not find evidence for their preregistered hypothesis of an interaction between COVID-19 status and either memory type (item vs. associative) or stimulus type (verbal vs. non-verbal).
In the Stage 1 report, the authors preregistered a Bayes Factor threshold of 6 as the criterion for supporting the alternative hypothesis. All planned analyses were preregistered, incorporating both frequentist methods (to replicate Guo et al., 2022) and Bayesian ANCOVA (to test the preregistered hypotheses). As data collection had been completed at the time of Stage 1 submission, we assigned a Level 3 bias control to the Stage 1 report.
In the Stage 2 report, the authors confirmed a general negative impact of COVID-19 on long-term memory accuracy. Using frequentist ANCOVA, they successfully replicated Guo et al. (2022)’s findings of reduced accuracy in verbal item and non-verbal associative memory among individuals with prior COVID-19 infection. However, they did not replicate the previously observed effect on reaction times. The Bayesian ANCOVA analyses did not reach the preregistered evidential threshold (BF > 6). Verbal associative memory, which was not part of the original replication attempt, also showed reduced accuracy in individuals with prior infection. In contrast, performance on non-verbal item memory tasks showed a ceiling effect, possibly due to methodological differences from Guo et al. (2022). Across all four memory tasks, the authors found robust evidence for decreased accuracy associated with COVID-19 status but no effect on reaction times.
Contrary to their hypotheses, models that included interactions between COVID-19 status and either memory type or stimulus type were less likely than the null model, suggesting a general, rather than specific, detrimental effect of COVID-19 on long-term memory.
Analyses of vaccination status yielded inconclusive results, likely due to limited sample size and uncertainty in participants' self-reports of vaccination timing relative to infection. The question of whether vaccination has protective effects on cognition remains unresolved and merits further investigation. The authors also reported tentative exploratory findings, such as a potential association between longer time since infection and slower reaction times in verbal item memory tasks. These observations require confirmation in future studies.
Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution by replicating prior findings and extending them to suggest a broad impairment of long-term memory associated with COVID-19.
The Stage 2 report was reviewed by the same three reviewers who had evaluated the Stage 1 submission. All reviewers agreed that the authors had addressed prior comments and had adhered to the preregistered methodology and analysis plan. As in the Stage 1 evaluation, we note the potential for selection bias introduced by recruiting participants via long-COVID Facebook groups. Individuals with post-infection cognitive complaints may have been more likely to volunteer, limiting generalizability to the broader SARS-CoV-2-infected population. This and other limitations are clearly acknowledged in the Discussion section of the Stage 2 manuscript. The recommender judged that the manuscript met all Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tjs5u
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question had been accessed by the authors prior to in-principle acceptance (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Chen, P.-C., & Chang, Y.-L. (2016, May). Associative memory and underlying brain correlates in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia, 85, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.032 2. Guo, P., Benito Ballesteros, A., Yeung, S. P., Liu, R., Saha, A., Curtis, L., ... Cheke, L. G. (2022b). COVCOG 2: Cognitive and memory deficits in long COVID: A second publication from the COVID and Cognition Study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 14, 804937. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.804937
3. Weinerova, J., Yeung, S., Guo, P., Yau, A., Horne, C., Ghinn, M., Curtis, L., Adlard, F., Bhagat, V., Zhang, S., Kaser, M., Bozic, M., Schluppeck, D., Reid, A., Tibon, R., & Cheke, L. (2025). Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: Findings from the Covid and Cognition online study [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/q5vu2?view_only=228165eb161d490b945ca019143ba98c
| Changes in memory function in adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection: findings from the Covid and Cognition online study. | Josefina Weinerova, Sabine Yeung, Panyuan Guo, Alice Yau, Connor Horne, Molly Ghinn, Lyn Curtis, Frances Adlard, Vidita Bhagat, Seraphina Zhang, Muzaffer Kaser, Mirjana Bozic, Denis Schluppeck, Andrew Reid, Roni Tibon, Lucy Cheke | <p>SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, has been shown to have an impact on cognitive function, but the specific aspects of cognition that are affected remain unclear. In this Registered Report, we analysed cognitive data c... | Life Sciences | Vishnu Sreekumar | Phivos Phylactou, Anonymous, Benedict Michael, Mitul Mehta | 2024-11-21 12:32:53 | ||
20 Jan 2025
STAGE 1
How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to KnowDecoding Interviewer’s Intent: How Interviewees Infer Information GoalsRecommended by Yikang Zhang based on reviews by Feni Kontogianni and 2 anonymous reviewers
Investigative interviews are structured social interactions where interviewers seek information from interviewees to address various objectives (e.g., Neequaye, 2023). Across diverse contexts such as eyewitness recall or intelligence gathering (e.g., Geiselman et al., 1986; Granhag & Hartwig, 2015), interviewees must first identify their interviewer’s goals before deciding whether to cooperate or resist their requests. This is the central focus of the current study.
In a prior study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) made an unexpected discovery: interviewees tended to assume their interviewer was interested in all the information they possessed on a topic, regardless of the specificity of the questions (high vs. low specificity). The current submission by Neequaye and Lorson (2025) seeks to replicate these findings while addressing two potential confounds from the earlier research.
Replication 1 utilizes a within-subjects design for question-specificity trials, while Replication 2 employs a between-subjects design. In both replications, participants indicate what they believe their interviewer wants to know using free-text responses rather than selecting from predefined options. The authors present clear hypotheses, predicted outcomes, and alternative predictions, supported by well-reasoned rationales. Furthermore, the methodology, including data collection and analysis plans, is described in detail and has undergone review by three experts. Based on the expert reviews and the authors’ responses, the recommender concluded that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9suze
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, 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. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422492
2. Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2015). The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique: A Conceptual Overview. In A. Vrij & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 231–251). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118510001.ch10
3. Neequaye, D. A. (2023). Why Rapport Seems Challenging to Define and What to Do About the Challenge. Collabra: Psychology, 9, 90789. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90789
4. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How intelligence interviewees mentally identify relevant information. Royal Society Open Science, 10(8), 230986. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230986
5. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2025). How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9suze
| How Interviewees Determine What Interviewers Want to Know | David A. Neequaye, Alexandra Lorson | <p>We examine the mechanisms by which interviewees in investigative interviews mentally organize information when deciphering what an interviewer wants to know. The overarching idea is that such a process stems from the extent to which an intervie... | Social sciences | Yikang Zhang | 2024-06-14 22:53:12 | |||
07 Apr 2023
STAGE 1
The WEIRD problem in a “non-WEIRD” context: A meta-research on the representativeness of human subjects in Chinese psychological researchHow well do "non-WEIRD" participants in multi-lab studies represent their local population?Recommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by Zoltan Dienes, Patrick Forscher and Kai Hiraishi
In this protocol, Yue et al. (2023) aim to clarify whether the sample of non-WEIRD countries included in multi-lab studies is actually representative of those countries and cultures. Focusing on China, this study will compare Chinese samples in several multi-lab studies with participants in studies published in leading national Chinese journals on various aspects, including demographic data and geographic information. This work will provide useful information on the extent to which multi-lab studies are able to deal with generalizability, especially as they intend to address the generalizability problem.
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed by three experts, including two with an interest in the WEIRD problem and a wealth of experience in open science and multi-lab research, plus an expert in Bayesian statistics, which this manuscript uses. Following multilpe rounds of peer review, and 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/ehw54 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
Yue, L., Zuo, X.-N., & Hu, C.-P. (2023) The WEIRD problem in a “non-WEIRD” context: A meta-research on the representativeness of human subjects in Chinese psychological research, in principle acceptance of Version 7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ehw54 | The WEIRD problem in a “non-WEIRD” context: A meta-research on the representativeness of human subjects in Chinese psychological research | YUE Lei, ZUO Xi-Nian, HU Chuan-Peng | <p><strong></strong><strong>Psychological science aims at understanding human mind and behavior, but it primarily relies on subjects from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic regions, i.e., the WEIRD problem. This lack of d... | Social sciences | Yuki Yamada | Zoltan Dienes | 2021-09-07 11:25:52 | ||
28 Dec 2021
STAGE 1
Sight vs. sound in the judgment of music performance: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitionsUnderstanding the role of visual and auditory information in evaluating musical performanceRecommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by David Hughes and Kyoshiro Sasaki
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Chiba and colleagues (2021) aim to investigate how people use information from visual and auditory modalities when evaluating musical performances. Previous studies, mainly using Western music, have reported a visual dominance, but this has not yet been clearly and consistently reported. Thus, the authors propose to evaluate both the reproducibility and generalizability of the previous findings by conducting a replication study using the methodology of the previous studies and by introducing a new experimental condition in which the Tsugaru-shamisen, a unique Japanese musical instrument, is also performed. This study could represent an important turning point in the research context of performance evaluation and would be of considerable value. This manuscript was peer-reviewed by two experts in scientific methodology and Japanese traditional music, respectively, and during the two-round peer-review process they made a number of important points, but eventually awarded the manuscript a highly positive response. I am therefore pleased to recommend that this Stage 1 Registered Report meets our Stage 1 criteria and is worthy of in-principle acceptance. I look forward to seeing the results and discussion reported in Stage 2, with the expectation that the experiment conducted by the authors will be in strict accordance with this protocol. *The following is a very minor comment, which I hope the authors will find helpful in the future. Of course, this is not related to hypothesis construction and does not require revision: The "Blind Audition" study cited in the introduction is very impactful, but has recently been called into question, so I am at least a little cautious when citing this study. This article may be useful. https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-audition-study-11571599303 URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ry2b6 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
| Sight vs. sound in the judgment of music performance: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions | Gakuto Chiba, Yuto Ozaki, Shinya Fujii, Patrick E. Savage | <p style="text-align: justify;">Which information dominates in evaluating performance in music? Both experts and laypeople consistently report believing that sound should be the most important domain when judging music competitions, but experime... | | Social sciences | Yuki Yamada | Kyoshiro Sasaki | 2021-09-24 08:59:26 | |
Sight vs. sound judgments of music performance depend on relative performer quality: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions [Stage 2 Registered Report]Music is appreciated cross-modally, but is culture- and context-dependentRecommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by Kyoshiro Sasaki and 1 anonymous reviewer
Music is not merely limited to the aural experience we garner through our auditory faculties, as commonly perceived. Rather, various studies have explored the cross-modal impact of visual stimuli on the evaluation of music. These previous studies have been confined exclusively to Western music. Hence, Chiba et al. (2023) designed a study with a focus on the Tsugaru shamisen, a renowned folk instrument indigenous to Japan, and of which the first author is an outstanding player.
The study methodology was an improved version of previous endeavors, wherein actual musical material sourced from concours performances was displayed through audio-only, video-only or both modalities. A sample of Japanese participants were then asked to evaluate the concours performances on both the piano and the Tsugaru shamisen. The results, obtained through pre-registered protocols, revealed that for both concours performances, the participants displayed a cross-modal impact of visual information on their aural evaluation of music. This effect was also found to be contingent on cultural and contextual factors. These outcomes furnish valuable evidence towards the generalizability of the interplay between sight and sound in the assessment of music. The study underwent rigorous peer-review processes in both Stage 1 and Stage 2, with three experts specializing in Japanese folk music, open science, and statistics, respectively, providing their critical assessments. Following multiple rounds of revision, the final manuscript was deemed fit for recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ry2b6
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
Chiba G., Ozaki Y., Fujii S., & Savage P.E. (2023). Sight vs. sound judgments of music performance depend on relative performer quality: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions [Stage 2 Registered Report]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j
| Sight vs. sound judgments of music performance depend on relative performer quality: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions [Stage 2 Registered Report] | Gakuto Chiba, Yuto Ozaki, Shinya Fujii, Patrick E. Savage | <p>Which information dominates in evaluating performance in music? Both experts and laypeople consistently report believing that sound should be the most important domain when judging music competitions, but experimental studies of Western partici... |  | Social sciences | Yuki Yamada | 2022-11-30 08:04:37 | ||
30 May 2024
STAGE 1
Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of AmbiguityDoes familiarity really breed contempt?Recommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by Philipp Schoenegger and Zoltan Kekecs
In interpersonal evaluation, the amount of information available about the other person has a significant impact. Norton et al. (2007) conducted systematic experiments suggesting a 'less is more' effect – that a lack of information leads to a more positive evaluation. However, subsequent studies have not always reached the same conclusion.
In the current study, Horsham et al. (2024) aim to address this issue by conducting direct and conceptual replications of the Norton et al. (2007) experiments, as well as additional extensive experiments focusing on the effects of curiosity. The authors seek to confirm in a reliable way the relationship between ambiguity and liking, and even to clarify the factors that mediate this relationship. The results should significantly advance our understanding of the importance of information management in interpersonal relationships.
The Stage 1 manuscript was peer-reviewed by two experts; after four rounds of review and based on their revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded it in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/7mc4y
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. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97
2. Horsham, Z., Haydock-Symonds, A., Imada, H., Tai, H. C., Lau, W. L., Shum, T. L., Zeng, Y., Chow, H. T., & Feldman, G., (2024). Does learning more about others impact liking them? Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguity. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7mc4y
| Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguity | Zöe Horsham, Ashleigh Haydock-Symonds, Hirotaka Imada, Hiu Ching Tai, Wing Lam Lau, Tsz Lui Shum, Yuqing Zeng, Hiu Tang Chow, 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 | Yuki Yamada | Zoltan Kekecs | 2023-07-11 12:33:00 |
