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:

 

 

 
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 

Making causal judgements are part of everyday life, whether seeking to understand the action of complex humans or the relations between inanimate objects in our environments. Albert Michotte’s (1963) classic book, The perception of causality, contained an extensive report of experiments demonstrating not only that observers perceive causality of inanimate shapes, but do so in manifold ways, creating different “causal impressions.” This work has been highly influential across psychology and neuroscience. 

 

In the current study, White (2025) conducted 14 experiments aimed at replicating and extending Michotte’s work. Despite the fact that this research is foundational to current work on perception and understanding of causal relations, it has never been subject to rigorous replication. Moreover, like many research studies from that era, Michotte was sparse on details about methodology and did not rely on statistical analysis. White carried out an ambitious set of 14 experiments and 18 hypotheses that directly replicated and, in some cases, extended Michotte’s experiments. The results of the experiments were mixed, with the hypotheses evenly divided among being supported, partially supported, and not supported. The current effort by White not only brings rigorous contemporary data to classic studies of perceptual impressions of causality, but the results point to important new directions for future study on the topic. In particular, the findings suggest a need to broaden our investigations of causal explanations of movement beyond launching (i.e., contact of one object leading to motion of another) to also consider entraining (i.e., joint movement following contact) and pulling. The collected studies provide fertile ground for further testing a variety of mechanisms that explain different perceptual impressions of causality. 

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review, the first two rounds consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the third round consisting of a close read by the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, 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/5jx8f
 
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. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality (T. R. Miles & E. Miles, trans.). London: Methuen. (English translation of Michotte, 1954). 

 

2. White, P. A. (2025). Michotte's research on perceptual impressions of causality: A registered replication study [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdac7

One of the key drivers of how organisms respond to stressful events or situations is the controllability of the stressor – the extent to which the individual has (or believes) they can control the stress-inducing event or situation. A considerable literature has explored controllability and the effects of aversive events, with the general finding that uncontrollable situations more strongly impair emotion and cognition while increasing stress responses (Maier & Seligman, 1976). In a key review, Foa et al. (1992) evaluated the effects of unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events that caused disturbance in animals. Although it remains unclear, longevity of stress exposure may play a role in responsiveness when exposed to uncontrollable threats in humans.

 

Here, Dudziak et al. (2025) examine whether acute stress exposure impacts reactivity to a subsequent loss of control over threat. Participants (N=128) will be assigned to a stress or a no-stress group, undergoing an acute stress induction or a non-stressful control procedure, followed by a behavioural loss-of-control task. By assessing salivary cortisol and salivary alpha-amylase assays, blood pressure measurements, and self-report ratings they hypothesize that participants exposed to acute stress will show stronger biological and psychological responses to the loss of control over threat than those in the no-stress group. The authors will also test whether individual differences in childhood adversity are associated with heightened stress responses. Overall, the findings promise to shed light on the directional relationship between threat controllability and stress reactivity, and will therefore be relevant across a range of research areas in clinical psychology, biological psychology, and associated domains.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers who performed in-depth and constructive evaluation across multiple rounds of revisions. The authors were responsive in amending their manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and dedicated much effort to increasing the clarity and interpretability of their design and sampling plan. The revised manuscript was judged to meet the Stage 1 criteria and was awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/dca3g
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no substantive revisions to the design or analysis were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remained zero, and the manuscript therefore qualified for Level 6.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Dudziak, M., Smeets, T., Vervliet, B., & Beckers, T. (2025). Impact of acute stress exposure on reactivity to loss of control over threat. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dca3g

 

2. Foa, E. B., Zinbarg, R., & Rothbaum, B. O. (1992). Uncontrollability and unpredictability in post-traumatic stress disorder: An animal model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 218-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.218

 

3. Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 3-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.105.1.3

 

We may not believe what our memory tells us: Memory may deliver a compelling recollection we believe did not happen (we know we were not there at the time); and we may know an event happened that we fail to remember. That is, there can be distrust in remembering and distrust in forgetting. Previous work by the authors has looked at this through a signal detection lens, reporting in separate studies that people who have distrust in remembering have either a high or low criterion for saying "old" (Zhang et al, 2023, 2024). A plausible explanation for these contrasting results is that the criterion can either be the means by which false memories are generated enabling the distrust (low criterion); or rather, in conditions where accuracy is at stake, the means for compensating for the distrust (high criterion).

 

In the current study by Zhang et al (2025), participants were incentivised to be as accurate as possible, and in a memory test given feedback about commission errors or, in another group, ommission errors. The manipulation check indicated that the feedback did not increase (by a meaningful amount) distrust in remembering or distrust in forgetting, respectively, compared to a no feedback control group. Nonetheless, the authors found that people adjusted the criterion to say "old" in a compensatory way in each group. The possible mechanisms underlying these criterion shifts are discussed by the authors, who grapple with the distinction between response criterion shifts versus genuine meta-memory belief changes, and for the latter case, whether any memory distrust change could be contextual versus global (the manipulation check measured the latter).

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by four reviewers. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and recommender's comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/x69qt
 
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. Zhang, Y., Qi, F., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Jelicic, M. (2023). A Tale of Two Distrusts: Memory Distrust towards Commission and Omission Errors in the Chinese Context. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000134

 

2. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Rosar, L. (2024). Time and memory distrust shape the dynamics of recollection and belief-in-occurrence. Memory, 32, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2336166

 

3. Zhang, Y., Otgaar, H., Nash, R. A., & Li, C. (2025). The effects of false feedback on state memory distrust toward commission and omission, and recognition memory errors [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z8mv5

This study seeks to understand cultural and age differences in the effort moralization effect, a phenomenon in which people who put more effort into a task are considered more moral, regardless of the quality or the morality associated with the task. This is shown in common phrases such as the “great resignation” or “quiet quitting”, which are mostly used against younger members of the population, in particular generation Z.

 

Tissot and Roth (2025) conducted a replication of a study from Celniker et al. (2023) which found evidence for this effect, with new samples from Mexico and Germany, to test potential cultural and age differences. 

The results indicated a generalization of the effort moralization effect in Germany and Mexico, with important heterogeneity in the effect found, and effects sizes that were smaller than in the original study conducted in the USA. However, no effect was found regarding age, as younger individuals judged effort as being important in the same way as older individuals. It is possible, therefore, that the effort moralization effect is a consistent bias that persists regardless of age.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to the reviewers’ and recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

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. Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259

 

2. Tissot, T. T. & Roth, L. H. O. (2025). Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ck4st_v6