The enhanced processing account suggests that domain-specific expertise enhances the processing of information in that domain, such as enhanced color perception in visual artists and grapheme-color synaesthetes. A previous study (Ovalle-Fresa et al., 2021) found support for this account in both synaesthetes and non-synaesthete color experts; however, to fully understand the domain specificity of enhanced processing, other domains of expertise should be investigated and compared against each other in a double dissociation.

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Sachdeva et al. (2024) will investigate whether an enhanced processing account can explain domain-specific expertise in groups of color experts (i.e., visual artists) / grapheme-color synaesthetes and spatial experts (i.e., architects) / sequence-space synaesthetes. The spatial domain was chosen to compare to color since color and spatial processing recruit two distinctive cortical visual pathways: the ventral and dorsal streams, respectively. If enhanced processing is domain specific, then color experts / grapheme-color synaesthetes should show selective perceptual and memory performance enhancements for color tasks but not spatial tasks; and vice versa for spatial experts and sequence-space synaesthetes. The authors of this planned study further propose that perceptual performance should predict memory performance in the domain of expertise only; and that synaesthetes and non-synaesthetes with the same domain of expertise should perform similarly to each other.

 

To address these hypotheses, four independent groups will be recruited: grapheme-color synaesthetes, visual artists, sequence-space synaesthetes, and architects. Individuals with overlapping expertise and synaesthesia (e.g., visual artists who also have grapheme-color synaesthesia) will be excluded. Perception, short-term memory, and long-term memory for color (3 tasks) and space (3 tasks) will be assessed in all groups, and the authors will compare groups (synaesthetes, non-synaesthetes), domains of expertise (color, space), and task feature (color, space) in 2x2x2 linear mixed models. For all models, the authors predict that a significant interaction between domain of expertise and task feature will provide evidence for the domain specificity of the enhanced processing account. Additional analyses concerning working memory load (one, three, or five items) in the short-term memory tasks, and testing day (one, two, or three days post-training) in the long-term memory tasks, will be conducted to more deeply explore potential performance enhancements related to domain-specific expertise. Although these analyses may potentially provide additional evidence in favor of the hypothesized direction of effects, any deviation from predicted may pose a challenge for the interpretation of results. Nevertheless, this planned study is methodologically rigorous, and comprehensive in its aims.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and two expert reviewers. Following revisions, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded 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:
 

References
 

1. Ovalle-Fresa, R., Ankner, S., & Rothen, N. (2021). Enhanced perception and memory: Insights from synesthesia and expertise. Cortex, 140, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.01.024

2. Sachdeva, D. & Whelan, E., Ovalle-Fresa, R., Rey-Mermet, A., Ward, J., & Rothen, N.. (2024). How perceptual ability shapes memory: An investigation in healthy special populations. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/6wn4m

 

Inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunities are rampant both between and within nations around the world. Making strides to rectify inequalities requires examining how people come to understand them as well as the psychological processes that translate those understandings into reparative actions. There is some evidence for a “comparative framing effect,” in which the group that is initially referenced impacts judgements by communicating salient information and the appropriate reference point. Research on this comparative framing effect suggests that focusing on disadvantage, relative to advantage, leads to a more negative assessment and intentions to engage in action to reduce the inequality. 

 

In two pilot studies (reported in the current proposal) focused on global inequalities (low-income vs high-income countries), Schnepf et al. (2023) did not find evidence for a main effect of framing on perceived legitimacy of the inequality or intentions to engage in action. They did, however, find some evidence for an interaction with the perceived size of the inequality. When the low-income country was the subject of the comparison, larger perceptions of the size of the inequality were associated with greater intentions to engage in action (both studies) and greater perceptions of the differences as illegitimate (Study 1 only). Moreover, they found some evidence in both studies that negative social emotions such as guilt and shame were the mechanism that explained why perceiving greater inequality in the low-income framing condition was associated with the outcomes. 

 

In the current study, Schnepf et al. (2023) build upon these two pilot studies to conduct a high-quality replication and a stronger test of their hypotheses. Most notably, the proposed Registered Report uses a much larger sample, providing adequate statistical power to detect relatively small interaction effects. Additionally, the proposed project manipulates the size of the inequality that is being evaluated, rather than relying on participants’ perceptions. Finally, the study includes “justice sensitivity,” or the degree to which individuals assess inequality as unfair as an additional hypothesized moderator, and “social dominance orientation” as an exploratory moderator. Along with the pilot studies, the proposed project will represent a strong test of several hypotheses relevant to many different areas of social and personality psychology. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth peer review, both of which consisted of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pgyvw
 
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. Schnepf, J., Reese, G., Bruckmüller, S., Braun, M., Rotzinger, J., & Martiny, S. E. (2023). Justice in the eye of the beholder: How comparison framing affects the perception of global inequality through social emotions and justice sensitivity. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/pgyvw

Probability and randomness are foundational statistical concepts used not only throughout the sciences, but also in our daily lives to guide our behavior and make sense of the world. Their importance and widespread use may suggest that they are easy concepts to understand, yet that seems not to be the case. A classic article by Tversky and Kahneman (1971) on the “belief in the law of small numbers” revealed that professional psychologists tended to incorrectly perceive a small sample that is randomly drawn from a population as representative of that population. This finding has been hugely influential, inspiring myriad subsequent studies into error and bias when reasoning about probability. 

 

In the current study, Hong and Feldman (2023) propose a conceptual replication and extension of Tversky and Kahneman (1971). The original article was shockingly sparse on details regarding the method, sample, and findings, and, to our knowledge, has never been replicated. These facts are especially concerning given the foundational status that the article holds in the field. Hong and Feldman (2023) have developed a conceptual replication project, using the same approach and targeting the same claims from Tversky and Kahneman (1971), but modifying the wording of the stimuli for clarity and appropriateness for lay respondents. Although Tversky and Kahneman (1971) relied on professional psychologists as participants, many of their claims were not restricted to that population, but rather were generalized to all people—which is also how the findings have been subsequently applied. Thus, the change from professional to lay responders is entirely appropriate and the study will be diagnostic of the original claims.

 

Finally, Hong and Feldman (2023) extend the target study by manipulating the sample size indicated in the stimuli. Tversky and Kahneman (1971) relied on a single sample size in each scenario, leaving open the question as to how sample size might impact respondents’ reasoning. Accordingly, Hong and Feldman (2023) vary the sample size across the scenarios to determine whether participants answer differently as the sample size increases. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of detailed comments from two reviewers and the second 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 1 criteria and was therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/fzbq7
 
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
• Experimental Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

1. Hong, C. K., & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the “Belief in the law of small numbers”: Conceptual replication and extensions Registered Report of problems reviewed in Tversky and Kahneman (1971). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/fzbq7

 

2. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322   

The positive relation between word reading and children’s vocabulary development has been extensively documented. That said, like most research in psychology and the behavioral sciences, the available evidence comes predominantly from majority populations. In the context of language learning, that means monolingual speakers or multilingual speakers where there is close alignment between home and school language learning. But what does the relation between word learning and vocabulary knowledge look like when the learning contexts are discordant?

 

In the current study, Pamei et al. (2024) propose to examine this question by investigating word learning and vocabulary development in two languages, English and Meetei Mayek, among a sample of Grade 3 (approximate age 10), students in Manipur, India. In this context, formal literacy education begins in English rather than in students’ regional home language of Meetei Mayek. This fact provides an innovative context in which to understand how a) whether the relation between word reading and vocabulary looks different in the two languages, and b) whether there is linguistic interdependence between learning in the two languages. This study is poised to bring important underrepresented data that goes beyond the dominant contexts from which our knowledge of language learning has been generated, and thus has the potential to contribute to new lines of empirical and theoretical work that is inclusive of global variations. 

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth peer review, the first two consisting of substantial comments from two scholars with relevant expertise, and the third consisting of a close review by the recommender. 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/7htv2
 
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. Pamei, G., McBride, C. & Inoue, T. (2024). Reading and vocabulary knowledge in English-Meetei Mayek biliterates. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/7htv2

Attachment and interpersonal relationships are a major subject of research and clinical work in psychology. There are, accordingly, a proliferation of measurement instruments to tap into these broad constructs. The emphasis in these measures tends to be on the emotional dimensions of the relationships—how people feel about their partners and the support that they receive. However, that is not all there is to relationship quality. Increasing attention has been paid to the physical and physiological aspects of relationships, but there are few psychometrically sound measures available to assess these dimensions.

 

In the current study, Dujols et al. (2024) assessed the psychometric properties of the Social Thermoregulation and Risk Avoidance Questionnaire (STRAQ-1), a measure of physical relationships that targets social thermoregulation, or how physical proximity is used to promote warmth and closeness. The project consists of a thorough assessment of the measure’s reliability over time—that is, the degree to which the measure assesses the construct similarly across administrations, in a sample of 183 French university students.

 

The authors assessed the longitudinal measurement invariance and test-restest reliability of the STRAQ-1. Longitudinal measurement invariance across two time points was only found for two of the four subscales. Similarly, test-retest reliability varied by subscale, ranging from poor to good. Taken together, the study suggests caution in using the STRAQ-1 scale as a reliable measure of physical relationships. The study highlights the need for continued assessment of the reliability of widely used measures, particularly reliability over time, and serves as a model for a rigorous analytic approach for doing so.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review, the first round consisting of comments from two reviewers and the second 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 therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/pmnk2
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question was accessed by the authors prior to Stage 1 IPA (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received) but the authors certify that they had not observed ANY part of the data/evidence until after Stage 1 IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 

1. Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., Lindenberg, S., Van Lissa, C. J., & IJzerman, H. (2024). Test-Retest Reliability of the STRAQ-1: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/392g6