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

In the past two decades, most academic fields have witnessed an open science revolution that has led to significant increases in open access publishing, reproducibility efforts, and scientific transparency in general (e.g., Spellman et al. 2018). One of the key areas in this ongoing change is data sharing. Although some evidence already points at progress in data sharing practices, many new datasets remain unshared (see Tedersoo et al. 2021).
 
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ 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/2gm5s (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:

 

 

References
 
1. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s

 

2. Spellman, B. A., Gilbert, E. A. & Corker, K. S. (2018). Open Science. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn519

 

3. Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., ... & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Scientific data, 8, 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0

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 (2023) asked 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 were asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants answered the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they felt best suited their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions was manipulated, such that the question specified a clear objective or not. Contrary to the theory, mental designation preferences indicated that interviewees generally assume interviewers wanted to know complete details, irrespective of question specificity.

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/82qtn
 
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:

 

 

 

1. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information [Stage 2]. Acceptance of of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2

Many studies have investigated the extent to which word learning is underpinned by statistical learning, i.e. tracking probabilistic relationships between forms and referents. Previous literature has investigated whether these processes differ in bilingual learners – who have to track two such sets of mappings in their linguistic environment. However, the evidence is mixed: some say bilinguals have a learning advantage and some find no evidence of differences.

 

The current study by Simonetti et al. (2024) aims to further explore this in an experiment using the cross-situational word learning paradigm. In this paradigm participants hear words and view arrays of object across a series of trials. Taking each trial in isolation the word is ambiguous, but there are consistent co-occurrences of words with referents across the trials. Two groups of participants will be compared: monolingual English speaker and English-German bilinguals. Using this paradigm, the study can track learning over time as well as looking at individual trial by trial analyses. The researchers predict specifically that bilingual learners will have a specific advantage in learning 1:2 mappings, where one-word maps to two objects. The study will use Bayes Factors as the method of inference when analysing the data, allowing them to differentiate evidence for "no difference" from ambiguous evidence from which no conclusion can be drawn.

 

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

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8n5gh
 
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
• Biolinguistics
• Collabra: Psychology
• Cortex
• 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

 
References

 

Simonetti, M. E., Lorenz, M. G., Koch, I., & Roembke, T. C. (2024). The Influence of Bilingualism on Statistical Word Learning: A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8n5gh

 

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:
 

 

 

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