Adverse environments involving threat, uncertainty, deprivation and stress can cause significant and long-lasting harm to cognition and development. In this Stage 1 protocol, Vermeent and colleagues (2024) aim to simultaneously test with a single paradigm and statistical model for findings from previous studies showing that human working memory capacity is impaired in adverse environments, as well as other evidence suggesting that adversity may actually enhance updating of working memory. Furthermore, they will also investigate whether working memory is related to each of the adversity types: threat, deprivation, and unpredictability.

 

The findings of this study should help clarify how working memory functions in combination with adversity, and will provide insight into the development of better interventions and training methods for optimal performance in a variety of environments.

 

The manuscript was reviewed by two experts and the recommender. Following two rounds of peer review, and based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, I, 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/dp7wc
 
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:

 

1. Vermeent, S., Schubert, A.-L., DeJoseph, M. L., Denissen, J. J. A, van Gelder, J.-L. & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2024). Working memory performance in adverse environments: Enhanced, impaired, or intact? In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/dp7wc

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

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

Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is a common and multi-faceted set of pathologies that affect the small arteries, arterioles, venules and capillaries of the brain. The disease manifests through a range of symptoms and conditions, including psychiatric disorders, abnormal gait, and urinary incontinence, while accounting for 25% of strokes and nearly 50% of dementia.

 

The presence of CSVD is associated with white matter lesions (WML) detected using neuroimaging, which have in turn been shown to predict future stroke, cognitive decline and dementia. While vascular risk factors of CSVD (such as hypertension and obesity) are also associated with CSVD, a complete picture of the predictive relationship between WML, cognitive decline, and blood pressure remains to be determined, as does the role of sex/gender. These inter-relationships are important to determine for improving the diagnosis and treatment of CSVD.

 

In the current study, Beyer et al. will analyse a large emerging dataset from the LIFE-Adult project – a longitudinal, two-wave, population-based study – to ask whether higher blood pressure predicts a greater increase in WML, and whether progression of WML is associated with measures of memory and executive function. In addition, the authors will explore the relationship between abdominal obesity and WML progression, and the extent to which WML progression, and its interaction with vascular risk factors, depends on sex/gender.

 

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/qkbgj

 

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:

 

 

 

1. Beyer, F., Lammer, L., Loeffler, M., Riedel-Heller, S., Villringer, A. & Witte, V. (2023). Investigating the impact of vascular risk factors on the progression of white matter lesions, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/qkbgj

The psychology of meat-eating offers a fascinating window into moral reasoning, cognition and emotion, as well as applications in the shift toward more sustainable and ethical alternatives to meat consumption. One key observation in this field is the so-called “meat paradox” – the tendency for people to simultaneously eat meat while also caring about animals. One way to resolve this conflict and reduce cognitive dissonance is for people to separate the concept of meat from animals, mentally disengaging from the origins of meat in order to make the act of consumption more ethically acceptable. Another potential explanation is a motivated “denial of mind”, in which people believe that animals lack the mental capacity to experience suffering; therefore, eating an animal is not a harm that the animal will experience. In support of the latter hypothesis, Bastian et al (2012) found that animals judged to have greater mental capacities were also judged as less edible, and that simply reminding meat eaters that an animal was being raised for the purposes of meat consumption led to denial of its mental capacities.

 

Using a large-scale online design in 1000 participants, Jacobs et al. (2024) replicated two studies from Bastian et al. (2012): asking how the perceived mental capabilities of animals relates to both their perceived edibility and the degree of moral concern they elicit, and whether learning that an animal will be consumed influences perceptions of its mental capabilities. The original findings were successfully replicated. For study 1, attributions of mind were negatively related to animals’ edibility, positively related to negative affect towards eating animals, and positively related to moral concern for animals. For study 2, learning that an animal would be used for food led participants to attribute less mind to the animal. Overall, the results strengthen the conclusion that motivated denial of animal minds can be a mechanism for resolving the ‘meat paradox’.

 

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 awarded a positive recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/cru4z

 

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. Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291

 

2. Jacobs, T. P., Wang, M., Leach, S., Loong, S. H., Khanna, M., Chan, K. W., Chau, H. T., Tam, Y. Y. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the motivated denial of mind to animals used for food: Replication and extension of Bastian et al. (2012) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mwyde