We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!
Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.
Latest recommendations
| Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender▼ | Reviewers | Submission date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 Jul 2024
STAGE 1
Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysisIntegrative meta-analysis of anxiety-related traits and fear processing: bridging research to clinical applicationRecommended by Sara Garofalo based on reviews by Yoann Stussi, Luigi Degni, Marco Badioli and 1 anonymous reviewer
The paper aims to bridge gaps in understanding the relationship between anxiety-related traits and fear processing, with a specific focus on fear acquisition and extinction. Fear and safety processing are known to be linked to anxiety symptoms and traits such as neuroticism and intolerance of uncertainty (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). However, the diversity in study focus and measurement methods makes it difficult to integrate findings into clinical practice effectively.
To address this issue, Brunsch et al. (2024) propose a systematic literature search and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines, to explore these associations. They plan to use nested random effects models to analyze both psychophysiological and self-report outcome measures. Additionally, they will examine the role of different questionnaires used to assess anxiety-related traits and conduct a content analysis of these tools to evaluate trait overlaps.
Current knowledge from the literature indicates that individuals with anxiety disorders exhibit differences in fear acquisition and extinction compared to those without such disorders (Lonsdorf et al., 2017; Morriss et al., 2021). Previous meta-analyses have shown associations between anxiety traits and fear generalization/extinction, but these studies are limited in their scope and focus.
The primary aim of the research is to provide a comprehensive summary of the associations between anxiety-related traits and conditioned responding during fear acquisition and extinction across multiple measures. Another goal is to investigate whether different anxiety-related trait questionnaires yield different associations with fear and extinction learning. The authors will also conduct a content analysis to better interpret the results of their meta-analysis by examining the overlap in questionnaire content.
A secondary aim of the study is to evaluate how sample characteristics, experimental specifics, and study quality influence the associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction. By addressing these aims, the study seeks to advance the understanding of fear-related processes in anxiety and inform more targeted prevention and intervention strategies.
The Stage 1 manuscript underwent two rounds 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).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/4mndj
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:
References
1. Bruntsch, M., Abend, R., Chalkia, A., Cooper, S. E., Ehlers, M. R., Johnson, D. C., Klingelhöfer-Jens, M., Morriss, J., Zika, O., & Lonsdorf, T. B. (2024). Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysis. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4mndj
2. Lonsdorf, T. B., & Merz, C. J. (2017). More than just noise: Inter-individual differences in fear acquisition, extinction and return of fear in humans - Biological, experiential, temperamental factors, and methodological pitfalls. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 703–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.007
3. Morriss, J., Wake, S., Elizabeth, C., & van Reekum, C. M. (2021). I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training. Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science, 1, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.05.011
| Associations between anxiety-related traits and fear acquisition and extinction - an item-based content and meta-analysis | Maria Bruntsch, Samuel E Cooper, Rany Abend, Marian Boor, Anastasia Chalkia, Mana Ehlers, Artur Czeszumski, Dave Johnson, Maren Klingelhöfer-Jens, Jayne Morriss, Erik Mueller, Ondrej Zika, Tina Lonsdorf | <p>Background: Deficits in learning and updating of fear and safety associations have been reported in patients suffering from anxiety- and stress-related disorders. Also in healthy individuals, anxiety-related traits have been linked to altered f... | Life Sciences | Sara Garofalo | Yoann Stussi, Luigi Degni, Anonymous, Marco Badioli | 2024-03-15 14:48:20 | ||
01 Dec 2022
STAGE 1
Cerebral lateralization of writing in students at risk for dyslexia using functional Transcranial Doppler ultrasonographyLateralisation for written language in primary school students at risk for dyslexiaRecommended by Saloni Krishnan based on reviews by Margriet Groen and Todd Richards
While cerebral lateralisation for oral language is well-characterised, cerebral lateralisation for written language is much less well-understood. In this study, Papadopoulou et al. (2022) will use functional transcranial Doppler ultrasonography to assess lateralisation for written language in 7- to 9-year-old children at risk for dyslexia and neurotypical children. They will use tasks that assess efficiency in reading and writing names as well as speed and fluency in writing. The findings of this manuscript will highlight whether children with dyslexia showed atypical lateralisation for language in a written task. In addition, the authors plan to explore the correlation between lateralisation and writing competence.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on the edits made to the manuscript, and 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/u54tk (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. Papadopoulou, A.-K., Vlachos, F., Pervanidou, P., Anesiadou, S., Antoniou, F., Phylactou, P., Badcock, N.A. & Papadatou-Pastou, M. (2022). Cerebral lateralization of writing in students at risk for dyslexia using functional Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/u54tk (under temporary private embargo)
| Cerebral lateralization of writing in students at risk for dyslexia using functional Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography | Anastasia-Konstantina Papadopoulou, Filippos Vlachos, Panagiota Pervanidou, Sofia Anesiadou, Faye Antoniou, Phivos Phylactou, Nicholas A. Badcock, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou | <p>It is well established that the left hemisphere is dominant in oral language in the majority of neurotypical individuals, while a more symmetrical pattern of activation in shown in cases of language disorders, such as dyslexia. Cerebral lateral... | Humanities, Life Sciences, Social sciences | Saloni Krishnan | Todd Richards, Margriet Groen | 2022-06-06 09:00:26 | ||
20 Apr 2023
STAGE 1
Oxytocin, individual differences, and trust game behavior: a registered large-scale replicationDoes oxytocin enhance pro-social behaviors?Recommended by Romain Espinosa based on reviews by Thibaut Arpinon and 1 anonymous reviewer
Trust is a fundamental element for the well-functioning of our society. By achieving large levels of trust, societies can reduce monitoring costs (e.g., contract supervision, conflict resolution) and increase investments in more profitable but socially riskier projects. Trust serves as a way to foster cooperation among individuals and can benefit the entire social group.
As a result, numerous researchers have sought to explore the biological foundations of trust. In particular, several research teams have tried to explore the role of oxytocin in modulating prosocial behaviors. However, previous research findings obtained mixed findings, and several methodological issues, such as low statistical power, have hindered the development of a definite view on the matter.
In the current study, Kroll et al. (2023) seek to replicate the seminal study of Kosfeld et al. (2005). Kosfeld and co-authors originally found that the intranasal administration of oxytocin can significantly increase trust among individuals. However, recent replication evidence shows no general effect of oxytocin on pro-social behaviors or suggests that the effect might be heterogeneous among social groups (Declerck et al., 2020). The objective of the current study of Kroll et al. (2023) is twofold. First, the authors propose to replicate the original study of Kosfeld et al. (2005) and to investigate whether the lack of replication can be due to an overall effect that is smaller than the original findings suggest. Second, the authors propose to replicate recent but exploratory results on the heterogeneous effect of oxytocin on pro-social choices.
The Stage 1 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 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/h5gdp
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague) BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References:
1. Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Pauwels, L., Vogt, B., & Fehr, E. (2020). A registered replication study on oxytocin and trust. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 646–655. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0878-x
2. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03701
3. Kroll, C. F., Schruers, K., Viechtbauer, W., Vingerhoets, C., Seidel, L., Riedl, A. & Hernaus, D. (2023). Oxytocin, individual differences, and trust game behavior: a registered large-scale replication, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/h5gdp
| Oxytocin, individual differences, and trust game behavior: a registered large-scale replication | Charlotte F. Kroll, Koen Schruers, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Claudia Vingerhoets, Leonie Seidel, Arno Riedl, and Dennis Hernaus | <p>The neuropeptide oxytocin (OXT) is thought to modulate important aspects of prosocial behavior. In a seminal paper, Kosfeld et al. (2005) reported that intranasally administered OXT modulated trusting behavior in an economic trust game. Several... | Life Sciences, Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2022-11-25 18:07:23 | |||
11 Jul 2023
STAGE 1
Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions of Baron and Szymanska (2011)Understanding biases and heuristics in charity donationsRecommended by Romain Espinosa based on reviews by Amanda Geiser and Jonathan Berman ?
Decisions to give to charities are affected by numerous external and internal factors. Understanding the elements that influence donation decisions is of first-order importance for science and society. On the scientific side, understanding the determinants of charity giving contributes to the knowledge of altruistic behaviors in the presence of collective problems such as poverty, climate change, or animal welfare. On the social side, pointing out which factors affect donations can help increase pro-social behaviors and might facilitate collective actions in the case of public goods.
Previous work identified multiple mechanisms affecting altruistic donations to charities (Bekkers and Weeping, 2011). Importantly, Baron and Szymanska (2011) collected empirical evidence suggesting that people prefer (i) their donations to be directly used for projects rather than organizational costs, (ii) when charities have low past costs, (iii) to diversity their donations into several NGOs, (iv) to favor charities that deal with close peers like nationals, and (v) to give voluntarily rather than through taxes.
In the current study, Chan and Feldman seek to replicate the results of Baron and Szymanska (2011). They propose a close replication of the original study using a large sample of online participants (1,400 participants). In addition to the five mechanisms identified by the original study, they will further explore whether public donation increases contributions and whether individuals are more likely to donate when the charities’ overhead costs are paid for by other donors.
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/gmswz
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. Baron, J. & Szymanska, E. (2011). Heuristics and Biases in Charity. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (pp. 215–235). Psychology Press.
2. Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973.
3. Chan, M. & Feldman, G. (2023). Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/gmswz
| Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions of Baron and Szymanska (2011) | Mannix CHAN, Gilad FELDMAN | <p>This is a scheduled PCI-RR snap shot for a planned project: "Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions of Baron and Szymanska (2011)"</p> | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2023-02-28 13:19:52 | |||
27 Mar 2024
STAGE 1
Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6Understanding how motives and emotions driving prosocial actions impact the moral assessment of good doersRecommended by Romain Espinosa based on reviews by Thibaut Arpinon and Angela Sutan
Pro-social actions are often driven by emotional factors. For instance, emotions have been shown to play a decisive role in the way we judge the fairness of a situation (affect-as-information theory: e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Storbeck and Clore, 2008), and, thus, how we make decisions. Specific emotions like anger have also been shown to stimulate the motivation to fight injustice (Lerner et al., 2015). At the individual level, people might undertake altruistic actions as a way to relieve themselves from these negative emotions (what Cialdini (1991) calls ‘reflexive distress’) but also because these actions are expected by the social norms (‘normative distress’). Indeed, pro-social actions are usually taken in social contexts, and the perception of one’s behavior by third parties might hinder or facilitate the adoption of pro-social behaviors. Understanding the determinants of the perception of altruistic behaviors is thus a key research question to support pro-social actions in collective settings.
In the current study, Woo and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate the seminal work of Barasch et al. (2014), who showed that third parties hold more favorable views of agents undertaking pro-social actions when the latter are motivated by emotions. More precisely, the authors aim to replicate two studies of the original work by conducting a well-powered online experiment (US participants, Prolific, N=1,164). First, they will investigate whether donors who exhibit higher distress regarding the suffering of others are perceived as more moral and authentically concerned for others. Second, they will analyze whether individuals who expect material or reputational benefits from their altruistic deeds are perceived by third parties as less moral than those who act for emotional reasons. In addition to these two replication objectives, the authors propose extensions with pre-registered hypotheses that are inspired by Study 2 from the original work. They seek to investigate whether people are seen as more other-focused when they undertake a prosocial action (donation) and under different expected rewards (material, reputational, emotional benefits).
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two external reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and the recommender’s 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/d5bmp
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. Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037207 2. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_3
3. Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., Garvin, E., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition.
4. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
5. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1824-1843. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2008.00138.x
6. Woo, T. L. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d5bmp
| Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6 | Tse Lyn (Rachael) Woo; Gilad Feldman | <p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2023-11-23 05:22:23 | |||
05 Jun 2024
STAGE 1
Revisiting Partition Priming in judgment under uncertainty: Replication and extension Registered Report of Fox and Rottenstreich (2003)Understanding probability assessments with partitioned framingRecommended by Romain Espinosa based on reviews by Olivier L'Haridon and Don Moore
Decision-making based on limited information is a common occurrence. Whether it is the possibility of a cheaper product elsewhere or the unknown qualifications of election candidates, people are regularly forced to make a decision under ignorance or uncertainty. In such situations, information about certain events is unavailable or too costly to acquire and people rely on subjective probability allocation to guide decision-making processes. This allocation seems to result in what is known as ignorance priors, i.e., decision-makers assigning equal probabilities to each possible outcome within a given set. How events are grouped or partitioned is often subjective and may influence probability judgments and subsequent decisions. In such cases, the way the choices within a choice set are presented may shape the perceived likelihood of different outcomes. Understanding the impact of partitioning on probability estimation is crucial for both psychological and economic theories of judgment and decision.
The question of evaluating probabilities under uncertainty has received much attention in the psychology and economics literature over the past decades given the wide range of possible applications. In the current work, Ding and Feldman (2024) seek to replicate one of the foundational works on the topic: Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). In the original work, the authors provided exploratory evidence indicating that the framing of a situation affects the way individuals perceive probabilities of possible outcomes. They showed that people assigned uniform probabilities to sets of events described in a problem, such that the way the events are described partly determines people’s partitioning of those events and evaluations of the probabilities of the possible outcomes. Additionally, this partitioned framing affected judgments both under conditions of ignorance (where individuals have no information and rely solely on uniform probability assignments) and uncertainty (where individuals have some information but still rely on heuristics influenced by partitioning). This suggests that priors resulting from the inference of available evidence are sometimes partly contaminated by partitioning bias, affecting both uninformed and partially informed decision-making processes. As a consequence, the partitioning of events into different subsets might lead to varying evaluations of a single situation, resulting in inconsistencies and poorly calibrated probability assessments.
Ding and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate Studies 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 from Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). Their close replication will rely on original data (US participants, Prolific, N=600, not collected yet) with a large statistical power (>95%). Their replication aims to examine whether the partitioned framing affects prior formation under ignorance (Studies 1a, 1b, and 4) and uncertainty (Study 3). In addition, the authors propose an extension examining estimations of alternative event(s) contrasting estimations of the probabilities of events happening versus of events not happening.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two external reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and the recommender’s 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/px6vb
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. Ding, K. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting Partition Priming in judgment under uncertainty:
Replication and extension Registered Report of Fox and Rottenstreich (2003). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/px6vb 2. Fox, C. R. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2003). Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 14, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02431
| Revisiting Partition Priming in judgment under uncertainty: Replication and extension Registered Report of Fox and Rottenstreich (2003) | Kerou Ding, Gilad Feldman | <p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose o... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2024-01-18 12:46:26 | |||
Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011)Understanding biases and heuristics in charity donationsRecommended by Romain Espinosa based on reviews by Amanda Geiser and Jonathan Berman
Decisions to give to charities are affected by numerous external and internal factors. Understanding the elements influencing donation decisions is of first-order importance for science and society. On the scientific side, understanding the determinants of charity-giving contributes to the knowledge of altruistic behaviors in the presence of collective problems such as poverty, climate change, or animal welfare. On the social side, pointing out which factors affect donations can help increase prosocial behaviors and might facilitate collective actions in the case of public goods. Previous work has identified multiple mechanisms affecting altruistic donations to charities (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011). Importantly, Baron and Szymanska (2011) collected empirical evidence suggesting that people prefer (i) their donations to be directly used for projects rather than organizational costs, (ii) when charities have low past costs, (iii) to diversity their donations into several NGOs, (iv) to favor charities that deal with close peers like nationals, and (v) to give voluntarily rather than through taxes. Here, Chan and Feldman (2024) conducted a close replication of Studies 1 to 4 of Baron and Szymanska (2011) using a large sample of online participants (four studies, overall N=1,403). In their replication, the authors found supporting evidence for the phenomena reported in the original study. In particular, people were more likely to donate to charities with lower organizational and lower past costs, to diversify their donations, and to show ingroup/nationalist preferences with larger donations to NGOs helping local over foreign children. Chan and Feldman (2024) ran additional analyses that indicated validity concerns regarding the analysis and questions that resulted in finding a preference for voluntary donations over taxation. In their added extensions that went beyond the original study, they also found that donors preferred to donate to charities whose overhead costs are paid for by other donors and unexpected evidence that making donations anonymous increased rather than decreased contributions. 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/gmswz
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. Baron, J. and Szymanska, E. (2011). Heuristics and Biases in Charity. In D. M. Oppenheimer and C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (pp. 215–235). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203865972
2. Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927
3. Chan, M. and Feldman, G. (2024). Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011) [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 5 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4etkp
| Factors impacting effective altruism: Revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extensions Registered Report of Baron and Szymanska (2011) | Mannix Chan, Gilad Feldman | <p>Individuals who donate to charity may be affected by various biases and donate inefficiently. In a replication and extension Registered Report with a US Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 1403), we replicated Studies 1 to 4 ... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2024-04-27 02:28:49 | |||
27 Nov 2024
STAGE 1
Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered ReportDo interim payments promote honesty in self-report? A test of the Bayesian Truth SerumRecommended by Romain Espinosa and Chris Chambers based on reviews by Philipp Schoenegger, Sarahanne Miranda Field and Martin Schnuerch
Surveys that measure self-report are a workhorse in psychology and the social sciences, providing a vital window into beliefs, attitudes and emotions, both at the level of groups and individuals. The validity of self-report data, however, is an enduring methodological concern, with self-reports vulnerable to a range of response biases, including (among others) the risk of social desirability bias in which, rather than responding honestly, participants answer questions in a way that they believe will be viewed favourably by others. One proposed solution to socially desirable responding is the so-called Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), which aims to incentivise truthfulness by taking into account the relationship between an individual’s response and their belief about the dominant (or most likely) response given by other people, and then assigning a high truthfulness score to answers that are surprisingly common.
Although valid in theory (under a variety of assumptions), questions remain regarding the empirical utility of the BTS. One area of concern is participants’ uncertainty regarding incentives for truth-telling – if participants don’t understand the extent to which telling the truth is in their own interests (or they don’t believe that it matters) then the validity of the BTS is undermined. In the current study, Neville and Williams (2024) aim to test the role of clarifying incentives, particularly for addressing social desirability bias when answering sensitive questions. The authors will administer an experimental survey design including sensitive questions, curated from validated scales, that are relevant to current social attitudes and sensitivities (e.g. “Men are not particularly discriminated against”, “Younger people are usually more productive than older people at their jobs”). Three groups of participants will complete the survey under different incentive conditions: the BTS delivered alone in standard format, the BTS with an interim bonus payment that is awarded to participants (based on their BTS score) half-way through the survey to increase certainty in incentives, and a Regular Incentive control group in which participants receive payment without additional incentives.
The authors will then address two questions: whether the BTS overall effectively incentivises honesty (the contrast of BTS alone + BTS with interim payment vs the Regular Incentive group), and whether interim payments, specifically, further boost assumed honesty (the contrast of BTS alone vs BTS with interim payment). Regardless of how the results turn out, the study promises to shed light on the effectiveness of the BTS and its dependence on the visibility of incentives, with implications for survey design in psychology and beyond.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommenders 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/vuh8b
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
Neville, C. M & Williams, M. N. (2024). Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian
Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vuh8b | Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report | Claire M. Neville, Matt N. Williams | <p>Self-report data is vital in psychological research, but biases like careless responding and socially desirable responding can compromise its validity. While various methods are employed to mitigate these biases, they have limitations. The Baye... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | Sarahanne Miranda Field, Martin Schnuerch, Philipp Schoenegger | 2024-05-02 06:40:18 | ||
14 Feb 2022
STAGE 1
Minimal mindfulness of the world as an active control for a full mindfulness of mental states intervention: A Registered Report and Pilot studyTesting the metacognitive basis and benefits of mindfulness trainingRecommended by Robert McIntosh based on reviews by Chris Noone and Julieta Galante
Mindfulness is inherently metacognitive in that it requires monitoring of one’s own thoughts and attention in order to remain on task. Mindfulness practice is especially metacognitive when focused on internal mental states, rather than on the external world. This Registered Report will compare remote training in mindfulness of mental states with remote training in mindfulness of the world, and a wait list control, to test the idea that mindfulness of mental states has an additional metacognitive component, and that this has benefits for (self-reported) mental health. A comparison of participant expectancies between mindfulness conditions will be used to establish whether mindfulness of the world can be considered a true ‘active control’ condition. Additional comparisons will test whether this mindfulness control has benefits over the (inactive) waiting list condition. The study plan is informed by prior research, including pilot data presented in the Stage 1 report, and a sample of up to 300 participants will be tested. The Stage 1 plan has been evaluated through two round of signed external review, and a further two rounds of minor revisions, with the recommender obtaining specialist advice on key points from a relevant external expert. The recommender has judged that the manuscript now meets all Stage 1 criteria, and has awarded In Principle Acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tx54k 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 Lovell, M., & Dienes, Z. (2022). Minimal mindfulness of the world as an active control for a full mindfulness of mental states intervention: A Registered Report and Pilot study, in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/tx54k | Minimal mindfulness of the world as an active control for a full mindfulness of mental states intervention: A Registered Report and Pilot study | Max Lovell, Zoltan Dienes | <p>Mindfulness is a continual renewal of non-elaborative attention on an object of focus, without clinging or aversion, and with equanimity. As this requires the capacity to monitor and control the extent to which one is on task, it is a metacogni... | Social sciences | Robert McIntosh | 2021-06-21 16:49:39 | |||
21 Oct 2022
STAGE 1
Replicating the facilitatory effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on motion processing: A registered reportTesting the facilitatory effect of high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation through enhancement of global motion processingRecommended by Robert McIntosh based on reviews by Sam Westwood and Filippo Ghin
High frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (hf-tRNS) is a relatively novel form of non-invasive brain stimulation, thought to enhance neural excitability and facilitate processing in targeted brain areas. The evidence for the efficacy of hf-tRNS is mixed, so a high-powered test of the proposed facilitatory effects would be of value to the field. This Registered Report will target the human middle temporal complex (hMT+), an area with a well-established critical role in global motion processing. The protocol is adapted from a study by Ghin and colleagues (2018) but focusing on a sub-set of the original experimental conditions and using a fully within-subjects design (n=42). Global motion processing will be operationalised in terms of the coherence threshold for identification of the dominant direction of random-dot motion. The experiment will test the predicted facilitation of contralateral motion processing (reduced coherence threshold) during hf-tRNS to the left hMT+. The specificity of this effect will be tested by comparison to a sham stimulation control condition and an active stimulation control condition (left forehead). By targeting a brain area with a well-established critical role in behaviour, this study will provide important information about the replicability and specificity of the facilitatory effects of hf-tRNS.
Following two rounds of in-depth review, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bce7u 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. Ghin, F., Pavan, A., Contillo, A., & Mather, G. (2018). The effects of high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (hf-tRNS) on global motion processing: an equivalent noise approach. Brain Stimulation, 11, 1263–75.
2. Caroll, M. B., Edwards, G. & Baker, C. I. (2022). Replicating the facilitatory effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on motion processing: A registered report, in principle acceptance of Version 7 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bce7u
| Replicating the facilitatory effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on motion processing: A registered report | Mica B. Carroll*, Grace Edwards*, Chris I. Baker | <p>Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have the potential to demonstrate the causal impact of targeted brain regions on specific behaviors, and to regulate or facilitate behavior in clinical applications. Transcranial random noise sti... | Life Sciences | Robert McIntosh | 2022-06-02 21:25:02 |
