When does the perceived wastefulness of different actions affect people's choices? In an influential set of studies examining different conceptions of wastefulness (overspending, underutilization, and sunk costs), Arkes (1996) found a systematic aversion to wastefulness in decision making, even when choosing to avoid wastefulness has no economic value or works against personal interest. While these findings have been influential in basic and applied research, there have been no attempts to directly replicate the results. Moreover, the original study had several methodological limitations, including the use of relatively small samples and critical gaps in statistical reporting and analyses.

 

In the current study, Zhu and Feldman (2024) conducted a high-powered replication of Arkes (1996) using an online sample of participants (N=659). The authors incorporated several extentions to improve the methodological rigor relative to the original article, including comprehension checks, manipulation checks, a within-subjects design, and a novel quantitative analysis of participants' self-reported motivations for their choices. The authors successfully replicated the effect of perceived wastefulness on two of the three scenarios used in the original article, but participants' self-reported reasons for their choices only provided partial support for the role of perceived wastefulness in decisions, with behavioral consistency and maximizing economic value also playing a role. The original effect was not observed in a third scenario, with a failed manipulation check that may indicate changes in the perceptions of wastefulness in the domain (tax preparation). Overall, the results provide some support for the role of wastefulness aversion in decision making, while also showing that perceived wastefulness might be outweighted by other considerations depending on how people interpret or reason about a situation.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by the recommender and two expert reviewers. Following revision, 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/r7tsw
 
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. Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9,
213-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3%3C213::AID-BDM230%3E3.0.CO;2-1

 

2. Zhu, Z. and Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2jnc8

People can represent quantities in different ways. Numbers can be represented non-symbolically through an Object Tracking System (for small quantities, when one immediately perceives how many objects are there) and an Approximate Number System (for large quantities), and symbolically, for example with Arabic symbols or words. One unresolved question is the extent to which using these numerical representations, and transferring between them, can be done automatically, or rather involves components of working memory. Key relevant working memory components are the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.

 

In this study, Xenidou-Dervou and colleagues (2022) will ask subjects to perform a dot comparison task with small and large numbers, to engage the non-symbolic systems, and a digit comparison task, to engage the symbolic system, and a cross modal task to engage translation between the systems. Participants will either perform these tasks alone or with a secondary task, one that loads either the phonological loop or else the visuospatial sketchpad. The extent of interference of the secondary task on the primary tasks will indicate the involvement of the corresponding working memory component with using and translating numerical representations which are either symbolic or non-symbolic. The results may thus shed light on the ways in which people can deal with numbers successfully – or fail to do so.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the Stage 1 report, 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/32qdw
 
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:

 

 

 

Xenidou-Dervou, I., Appleton, C., & Gilmore, C. (2022). Can adults automatically process and translate between numerical representations? In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/32qdw

This recommendation concerns the plan of two studies that are intended to be conducted simultaneously, using the same data collection approach, and to result in two manuscripts that will be submitted for assessment at Stage 2. The Stage 1 manuscript containing these protocols was submitted via the programmatic track.

 

Protocol 1 concerns “Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. With this study, the authors aim to explore how applied researchers integrate feedback processes into their work, in relation to transparency and rigor in particular. They will investigate whether their sample are aware of and use feedback mechanisms from the open science movement, such as registered reports, which makes this study nicely metascientific. Through interviews with 50 applied researchers from various fields, the study will examine current feedback practices. The authors intend to use the findings of this first study to inform recommendations on how open science practices can be incorporated into research workflows.

 

Protocol 2 concerns “Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report”. This study aims to explore how applied researchers address climate change in their work, including the ways their practices are influenced by and respond to climate challenges. It addresses how their approaches may evolve, and they plan to look into the barriers and opportunities climate change presents in practice. Interviews with 50 applied researchers will be analysed to help understand these dynamics. The authors aim to provide recommendations to help applied researchers and their employers adjust their priorities to align with the urgency of climate action. One reviewer did not comment on this second protocol, as the content was outside of their own research area. Although I would have found a reviewer who specializes in this area directly ideally, I found I could still rely on the other two reviewers and my own knowledge to assess this protocol.
 
General comments: As I mentioned in my initial assessment text, these studies were well planned from the get-go and the protocol nicely articulated those plans. The use of different colour highlighting clearly helped the reviewers target different elements of the protocol and give direct feedback on specific parts. It also helped prevent me from getting lost in all the details! Well done, once again, to the authors for making the distinction between the two studies so clear. I was also pleased at how well they balanced the information between the two protocols – this made it easier to see if there were deficiencies in either one somehow. Finally, I loved that reflexivity was considered by the authors. One suggestion by me is that the authors might consider providing a collective positionality statement to go with the trainees’ reflexivity statements (if this is already in the plan and I missed it, please forgive the oversight!) in the final studies, even if as part of an appendix. This is because the open science movement and climate change can both be controversial, and because of the nature of the qualitative approach I would like to understand a little of the stance the group takes towards these issues collectively if the authors think it’s appropriate. I understand that with a big group that might be difficult or impossible, but if it is possible I would like to see it. I would also like to see initials used in the manuscripts to indicate who was responsible for what analysis elements where possible. This allows for accountability and to attribute interpretation to specific individuals involved in the data analysis. Alternatively, individuals can be attributed in a statement at the end of each manuscript to serve the same purpose and be less awkward in the text. If this won't work for some reason, please motivate this decision. 

 

The three reviewers that took the time to go through the reports nevertheless had useful comments, most of which would have contributed to strengthening the plan and minimizing problematic bias later on. The authors took these comments seriously, and thoughtfully (cheerfully even) responded to each. In my estimation, each of the suggestions of the reviewers were satisfied by the authors’ response to reviews letter. Other than my earlier comment about the positionality statement, I have no further comments for the Stage 1 protocol, and I wish the authors all the best with running the studies and writing up Stage 2 for each.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/jdh32
 
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:
 

 

 

Evans, T. R. et al. (2024). Open Scholarship and Feedback in Applied Research/Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Applied Research: A Qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/jdh32

When we familiarise with new faces over repeated exposures, it is generally in situations that have meaning for us. Seeing a face more often tends to go along with learning more about the person, and their likely contexts and actions. In this Registered Report, Noad and Andrews (2024) tested whether meaningful context during exposure improves the consolidation of faces into long-term memory. Participants were shown video clips from the TV series Life on Mars, either in their original chronological sequence, which provides meaningful context, or in a scrambled sequence. It was expected that the original sequence would provide a better conceptual understanding, and this was confirmed by free recall and structured question tests. Face recognition memory was tested with images of the actor from the original clips (‘in show’) and the same actor from another show (‘out-of-show’), to test whether memory was modulated by the similarity of appearance to that at encoding. Face recognition was tested immediately after exposure and after four weeks, to allow time for consolidation. As expected, recognition memory was better for participants in the meaningful context condition, and for in-show faces. However, meaningful context did not lead to less forgetting of the faces at the follow up test, even for in-show faces, which did not support the original predictions. An exploratory analysis found that a metric of overlap between pairs of participants’ conceptual understanding was related to overlap in the set of faces they recognised. This relationship was stronger after four weeks, which suggests increased interaction of conceptual knowledge and face recognition after consolidation.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was assessed over two rounds of review, and the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria for recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8wp6f
 
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. Noad, K. & Andrews, T. J. (2024). The importance of conceptual knowledge when becoming familiar
with faces during naturalistic viewing [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/thgrz

Comparative research is how evidence is generated to support or refute broad hypotheses (e.g., Pagel 1999). However, the foundations of such research must be solid if one is to arrive at the correct conclusions. Determining the external validity (the generalizability across situations/individuals/populations) of the building blocks of comparative data sets allows one to place appropriate caveats around the robustness of their conclusions (Steckler & McLeroy 2008).

In the current study, Alley and colleagues (2023) tackled the external validity of comparative research that relies on subjects who are either university students or participating in experiments via an online platform. They determined whether data from these two types of subjects have measurement equivalence - whether the same trait is measured in the same way across groups.

Although they use data from studies involved in the Many Labs replication project to evaluate this question, their results are of crucial importance to other comparative researchers whose data are generated from these two sources (students and online crowdsourcing). The authors show that these two types of subjects do not often have measurement equivalence, which is a warning to others to evaluate their experimental design to improve validity. They provide useful recommendations for researchers on how to to implement equivalence testing in their studies, and they facilitate the process by providing well annotated code that is openly available for others to use.

After one round of review and revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that was used to answer the research question had been accessed and partially observed by the authors prior to Stage 1 IPA, but the authors certify that they had not yet observed the key variables within the data that were used to answer the research question AND they took additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.

 

 

• Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Pagel, M. (1999). Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature, 401, 877-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/44766

 

2. Steckler, A. & McLeroy, K. R. (2008). The importance of external validity. American Journal of Public Health 98, 9-10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126847

 

3. Alley L. J., Axt, J., & Flake J. K. (2023). Convenience Samples and Measurement Equivalence in Replication Research [Stage 2 Registered Report] Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports​. https://osf.io/s5t3v