Mindset theories suggest that the mere belief in the malleability of human abilities can help one to develop related performance. On the other hand, one and the same performance situation can also be experienced in various affective ways, which differently contribute to performance outcomes. One theoretically justifiable premise is that appraising a performance situation as a “threat” instead of “challenge” is associated with maladaptive responses, such as impaired cardiovascular mobilization. If people could experience performance situations as positive challenges, this might also improve performance outcomes. Drawing from these connected premises, the synergistic mindset intervention was developed and tentatively found to help adolescents in stressful situations (Yeager et al., 2022).
 
In the present registered report, Behnke et al. (2024) built on the above to test whether the synergistic mindset intervention can help individuals in competitive gaming situations. The authors utilized one of the leading esport games, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive​, and recruited its active players (N=300) into randomized control and intervention groups. The participants competed in a cash-prize tournament involving measures of affective experience and cardiovascular responses. Behnke et al. (2024) hypothesized the synergistic mindset group (SMI) to show greater challenge affective responses and superior performance outcomes. 
 
Although the SMI produced a number of positive outcomes such as more beneficial stress mindsets, the hypotheses were not corroborated but the results supported a null. This may be related to the observation that participants generally experienced the intervention positively, which, in turn, limits the potential for improving affective and physiological responses. These rigorous null results are informative by directing the SMI research program toward test designs where more participants experience strong negative stress responses. Moreover, the results encourage researchers to reassess the underlying auxiliary hypotheses regarding affective responses and performance outcomes, the relationships of which may be complicated by situational factors that are not yet fully understood.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Three out of the four Stage 1 experts returned to review and, due to the study’s exceptionally high level of transparency, the reviewers had only minor requests for revision. As all the requested revisions were implemented carefully, 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/z3adb
 
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.

 

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

References
 
1. Behnke M., Lakens D., Petrova K., Chwiłkowska P., Kaczmarek L. D., Jamieson J. P., & Gross J. J. (2024) Applying a Synergistic Mindsets Intervention to an Esports Context. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://osf.io/53z8e

 

2. Yeager D.S., Bryan C.J., Gross J.J., Murray J., Krettek D., Santos P., ... & Jamieson J.P. (2022) A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature 607, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7

 

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. (2024) invited 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. The degree to which each type of information was disclosed in a subsequent interview wase assessed. Perceived benefits positively influenced the likelihood of disclosing information. The crucial interaction, obtained in a Pilot study, was not significant in the pre-registered replication. The study had decent power to pick up an interaction the same size as found in the pilot, but not half the size, which would still have been interesting.

 

The Stage 2 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 2 criteria.

 

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:

 

 

 

Neequaye, D. A., Luke, T. J., & Kollback, K. (2024). Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 11 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tfp2c

When people are less-well-known to us, it can impact how we treat them. People outside our communities may feel more anonymous or de-personalized to us, and this could impact the empathy we feel for them. Indeed, past research shows that people seem to care more for those who are who are identified to us, especially when they are victims of a crime (Small & Loewenstein, 2003). In addition, past research also shows that anonymizing victims can influence criminal behavior (Walters, 2022).  Thus, social cognitive factors related to anonymity appear to affect both positive feelings (engaging in empathy) and negative activities (criminal activity) related to victims. It seems likely that anonymity can also affect how people judge criminals themselves.

 

This paper by Blanke and Twardawski (2024) examines how even minor identifying features can make individuals react differently to a perpetrator of a crime. A picture or name (information that may appear in the press) may impact how people perceive criminals in terms of punishment, empathy, outrage, and blame.

 

How people respond to anonymous or identified criminals may depend on whether the impact of the crime on the victim is made salient. Similar to the Black Sheep Effect (Marques & Paez,1994), the current paper expects that people who identify with victims are expected to punish a perpetrator more when the perpetrator’s name and image are known. This is similar to the case with an ingroup member in The Black Sheep Effect, where ingroup members are punished more for transgressions than outgroup members. For people who view the situation as a third party (and are thus less connected to the victim), an identified perpetrator is expected to lead to less punishment (and also less outrage and blame, and more empathy).

 

The current study focuses on pickpocketing since it is a crime that can be committed without identifying oneself to the victim. Future research should examine how the type of event impacts judgments, especially given the stigma of being a victim of some crimes. Littering and other minor violations may be seen as understandable when you see someone as a person, rather than a anonymous, impersonal criminal.  On the other hand, there can be stigma to being a victim in some cases, such as the case of sexual harassment, where, research shows, perpetrators are judged more positively if they are identified, and victims, especially women, are judged more negatively if they are identified (Barak-Corren & Lewinsohn-Zamir, 2019).

 

People around the world engage in moral and legal transgressions, and if our judgments of them are influenced by minor features such as a photo or name, we should take action to treat people more fairly. This research will help to determine if people are influenced by these factors.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript underwent one round of thorough review. After considering the detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender determined that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and granted 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. Barak‐Corren, N., & Lewinsohn‐Zamir, D. (2019). What's in a Name? The Disparate Effects of Identifiability on Offenders and Victims of Sexual Harassment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16, 955-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12233

 

2. Blanke, T. & Twardawski, M. (2024). The Role of Offender Identifiability in Second- and Third-Party Punishment. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bxqu6

 

3. Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The ‘black sheep effect’: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000011

 

4. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219

 

5. Walters, G. D. (2022). Crime and social cognition: A meta-analytic review of the developmental roots of adult criminal thinking. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18, 183-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09435-w

Despite inattentional blindness being a widely recognized and researched phenomenon — popularized by experiments like the invisible gorilla — the evidence on how individual differences affect the occurrence of inattentional blindness has remained inconsistent, largely due to small sample sizes and methodological variations.

 

In this context, Daniel J. Simons, known for his role in bringing public attention to inattentional blindness, along with Yifan Ding, Connor M. Hults, and Brent W. Roberts, presents an ambitious yet well-constructed registered report that addresses this critical gap in the literature. Their report outlines a comprehensive investigation into whether individual differences in cognitive ability or personality traits can predict the likelihood of noticing unexpected objects in various inattentional blindness tasks. The two proposed studies — one focusing on cognitive predictors and the other on personality predictors — arguably represent the most extensive single-sample tests to date on this topic.

 

The authors propose a robust methodology that includes a total of 2,000 participants (1,000 per study). The study design features three distinct inattentional blindness tasks with varying levels of demand to assess the generalizability of the findings across different experimental contexts. In Study 1, cognitive measures such as matrix reasoning and operation span — both well-established indicators of fluid intelligence and working memory — are utilized. Study 2 incorporates a range of personality measures, including the Big Five personality traits and attention-related traits (e.g., ADHD and obsessive-compulsive characteristics).

 

The report also presents a detailed analysis plan with pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes, strong justifications for the sample size, and clearly defined criteria for data inclusion and exclusion. The authors intend to employ multiple statistical techniques, such as correlation analyses and regression models, along with rigorous checks for replicability, to explore the relationship between individual differences and inattentional blindness.

 

Overall, this registered report is a well-justified and meticulously planned investigation into the role of individual differences in inattentional blindness. The proposed studies have the potential to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the cognitive and personality factors that influence the noticing of unexpected objects. The rigorous experimental design, large sample sizes, and adherence to open science practices make this a valuable addition to the literature.

Based on the strengths of the proposal and the authors' responsiveness to the detailed feedback from two reviewers, the recommender justed that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xtwfs (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:

 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• Cortex
• Experimental Psychology *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Personality Science *pending editorial consideration of disciplinary fit
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Simons, D. J., Ding, Y., Hults, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2024). Registered Report: Do individual differences in cognitive ability or personality predict noticing in inattentional blindness tasks? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xtwfs

 

How do emotions interact with cognition? The last 40 years has witnessed the rise of cognitive-appraisal theories, which propose that emotions can be differentiated along an axis of cognitive dimensions such as certainty, pleasantness, attentional activity, control, anticipated effort, and responsibility (Smith and Ellsworth, 1985). Early tests of such theories focused especially on the impact of the valence – pleasantness/unpleasantness – of emotions on judgment and decision-making, finding, for instance, that negative mood induction can heighten pessimistic estimates of risk (Johnson & Tversky, 1983).

 

The Appraisal-Tendency Framework proposed by Lerner and Keltner (2000) refined cognitive-appraisal theory by proposing that specific emotions trigger a predisposition to appraise future (or hypothetical) events in line with the central appraisal dimensions that triggered the emotion, even when the emotion and the judgment are unrelated. For example, an individual who is triggered to become fearful of a heightened risk, such as nuclear war, may then exhibit heightened pessimism about risks unrelated to war. The Appraisal-Tendency Framework also predicts relationships between traits, such as fear, anger and risk-taking/risk-seeking tendencies. In an influential paper, Lerner and Keltner (2001) reported direct empirical support for the Appraisal-Tendency Framework, which aside from its influence in cognitive/affective psychology has had considerable impact in behavioural economics, moral psychology, and studies of consumer behaviour.

 

In the current study, Lu et al. (2024) replicated three key studies from Lerner and Keltner (2001) in a large online sample. Through a combination of replication and extension, the authors probed the relationship between various trait emotions (including fear, anger, happiness, and hope) and trait characteristics of risk seeking and optimistic risk assessment. The authors also examined how the ambiguity of triggering events moderates the relationship between specific emotions and risk judgments.

 

Overall, the results provide mixed support for the predictions of the Appraisal-Tendency Framework. Trait anger and trait happiness were positively associated with risk-seeking and optimistic risk estimates, while trait fear was negatively associated with optimistic risk assessment (although a reliable association between fear and risk-seeking was not observed). The original finding of Lerner and Keltner (2001) that the valence-based approach applied to risk optimism for unambiguous events was not supported. In addition, there was no reliable evidence for a positive relationship between hope and risk-seeking preference or optimistic risk estimates. The authors conclude that future research should consider a wider range of emotions to develop a more complete understanding of the link to risk-related judgment and decision-making.

 

The Stage 2 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 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8yu2x

 

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. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813

 

2. Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.20

 

3. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 473-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763 

 

4. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146

  
5. Lu, S., Efendić, E., & Feldman, G. (2024). Associations of fear, anger, happiness, and hope with risk judgments: Revisiting appraisal-tendency framework with a replication and extensions Registered Report of Lerner and Keltner (2001) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xytsw