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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of EffortAre people who exert more effort in a task seen as more moral?Recommended by Adrien Fillon based on reviews by Jared Celniker, Ignazio Ziano and Michael Inzlicht
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.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/tvgw2
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
| 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 | Tassilo T. Tissot, Leopold H. O. Roth | <p>Inferring moral character of individuals is an adaptive need for social decision-making. The effort moralization effect describes the finding that people who exert more effort in a task are seen as more moral, even if higher effort does not enh... | Social sciences | Adrien Fillon | 2024-11-15 10:14:56 | |||
Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of AmbiguityRevisiting ‘less is more’: A failure to replicate the association between increased knowing and decreased likingRecommended by Yuki Yamada based on reviews by Philipp Schoenegger and Zoltan Kekecs
Does knowing more about others necessarily lead to greater liking, or might it breed contempt, as suggested by Norton et al. (2007)? In the current study, Horsham et al. (2025) tried to replicate and extend that original question. Collecting data from a large sample of U.S. undergraduates and employing carefully revised designs reviewed at Stage 1, they replicated Norton et al.’s initial studies (1a, 1b, and 2) while also adding new measures. Their primary aim was to see if the “less is more” effect, where increased familiarity decreases liking, would hold under rigorous modern standards, including pre-registration and several open science practices.
Results indicated that people indeed believe they will like someone more if they know more about that person, replicating Norton et al.’s initial finding from Studies 1a and 1b. However, the association between greater knowledge and reduced liking, the core of the “less is more” claim, was not consistently observed. Instead, the data showed little evidence that accumulating information inevitably decreases liking. Moreover, an added examination of curiosity as a potential mediator revealed that although curiosity and liking are positively related, curiosity itself was not strongly contingent on the amount of knowledge participants had. These findings help clarify why previous literature has sometimes presented mixed outcomes, and they underline the distinction between what people predict will happen and what actually does happen in forming impressions of others.
Peer review involved thorough evaluations by experts. Following multiple revisions through Stages 1 and 2, the manuscript has been deemed a carefully executed Registered Report, providing transparent methods, open data, and full reproducibility. It adds nuance to discussions around how knowledge, familiarity, and curiosity jointly shape our interpersonal attitudes. On this basis, 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/7mc4y
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. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97
2. Horsham, Z., Haydock-Symonds, A., Imada, H., Tai, H. C., Lau, W. L., Shum, T. L., Zeng, Y., Chow, K., & Feldman, G. (2025). Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguity [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ygkft
| Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguity | Zöe Horsham, Ashleigh Haydock-Symonds, Hirotaka Imada, Hiu Ching Tai, Wing Lam Lau, Tsz Lui Shum, Yuqing Zeng, Hiu Tang Chow, Gilad Feldman | <p>Norton et al. (2007) demonstrated a counterintuitive phenomenon that knowing other people better and/or having more information about them is associated with decreased liking. They summarized it as - ambiguity leads to liking, whereas familiari... | Social sciences | Yuki Yamada | Philipp Schoenegger, Zoltan Kekecs | 2024-11-22 04:27:45 | ||
Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on food choiceDoes interpretation of actions as either avoid or inhibit influence choice behaviour for candy?Recommended by Andrew Jones based on reviews by Alexander MacLellan and Katrijn HoubenExperimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.
In the current study Chen et al. (2025) set out to examine how action interpretations (e.g. go vs approach) can impact individuals food-choices. This is important for cognitive bias modification approaches which aim to manipulate these actions to promote behaviour change (Iannazzo et al., 2024; Veling et al., 2021), but also theoretical accounts which suggest certain motor-responses acquire valence. Here there are two groups randomised to receive instructions to either go/no-go or approach/avoid images of candy in novel training task (Chen et al., 2019).
The results of the experiment suggested that despite both groups making the same responses (pressing a space bar vs not), the framing of the response as go vs approach and no-go vs avoidance influenced subsequent food-choice (i.e. responses framed as approach increased the probability of choosing approach items over avoidance items, but not go items over no-go items). As the authors state, these findings cast doubt on theoretical models which suggest there are ‘hardwired’ links between specific go/approach responses and appetitive systems or specific no-go/avoidance responses and aversive systems. They also suggest these responses aren’t valenced, but acquire valence through interpretation of the action. These findings can also inform future studies into cognitive bias modification. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two reviewers with expertise in the relevant area, who also assessed the Stage 1 manuscript. 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/bn5xa
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. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., Serverius, J., Zhu, D. & Figner, B. (2025). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on food choice. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6xhw4_v2
2. Chen, Z., & Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898–923. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151
3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245
4. Iannazzo, L. H., Hayden, M. J., Lawrence, N. S., Kakoschke, N., Hughes, L. K., Van Egmond, K., … Staiger, P. K. (2024). Inhibitory control training to reduce appetitive behaviour: a meta-analytic investigation of effectiveness, potential moderators, and underlying mechanisms of change. Health Psychology Review, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2410018 5. Veling, H., Verpaalen, I. A. M., Liu, H., Mosannenzadeh, F., Becker, D., & Holland, R. W. (2021). How can food choice best be trained? Approach-avoidance versus go/no-go training. Appetite, 163, 105226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105226 6. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. & Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363
| Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on food choice | Zhang Chen, Pieter Van Dessel, Jordi Serverius, Daxun Zhu, Bernd Figner | <p>Executing go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses toward objects can increase people's choices of go over no-go items, and of approach over avoidance items. Some theoretical accounts explain these effects as the results of merely executing th... | Social sciences | Andrew Jones | 2024-11-24 11:21:55 | |||
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 based on reviews by Philipp Schoenegger and Sarahanne Miranda Field
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 favorably by others. One proposed solution to socially desirable responding is the so-called Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS), which aims to incentivize 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 (Prelec, 2004). 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 (2025) tested the role of clarifying incentives, particularly for addressing social desirability bias when answering sensitive questions. The authors administered an experimental survey design (N=877) 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 completed the survey under different incentive conditions: the BTS delivered alone in a standard format, the BTS with an interim bonus payment that is awarded to participants (based on their BTS score) halfway through the survey to increase certainty in incentives, and a Regular Incentive control group in which participants receive payment without additional incentives. The authors analyzed the effectiveness of the BTS through two registered hypotheses. First, the authors found that the BTS did not increase agreement with socially undesirable statements (compared to the control group), as theory would suggest, and even observed an opposite effect. This result, which could be confirmed by follow-up studies, raises some concerns about the robustness of the BTS method. Second, the authors conjectured that introducing an interim payment in the BTS mechanism would help reinforce its credibility in the eyes of the participants and would thus magnify its effect. However, the authors failed to detect a statistically significant difference between the standard BTS and interim-payment BTS mechanisms. Overall, the results of Neville and Williams (2025) call for some caution in the use of the BTS and for further work to better understand the contexts in which the BTS might be a useful tool to mitigate social desirability in surveys. This Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review by two expert reviewers and a second round of review by the recommender. After the revisions, 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/vuh8b
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. Neville, C. M & Williams, M. N. (2025). Does Truth Pay? Investigating the Effectiveness of the Bayesian
Truth Serum with an Interim Payment: A Registered Report [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s3znc 2. Prelec, D. (2004). A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science, 306, 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102081
| 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 (SDR) can compromise its validity. While various methods are employed to mitigate these biases, they have limitations. Th... | Social sciences | Romain Espinosa | 2025-01-15 01:46:05 | |||
24 Sep 2021
STAGE 1
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered ReportHow does the phenomenology of "gaming disorder" differ from intensive but non-pathological videogame play?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Malte Elson, Peter Branney and Michelle Carras
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti and colleagues (2021) propose a qualitative, interview-based study of videogame play, with the central aim to understand key phenomological differences between gaming behaviour that is associated with vs. without health problems. This question is particularly important given the recent inclusion of "gaming disorder" in the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). In recent years, the validity of "gaming disorder" as an identifiable mental illness has been controversial (e.g. Van Rooij et al, 2018), as has the debate concerning purported harms or benefits of gaming for mental health. This Stage 1 manuscript describes a rigorous qualitative investigation that should provide new insights on this question, and will also include a longitudinal component to examine changes in phenomonology over time, as well as an examination of the extent to which the phenomonology of gaming is reflected in the experiences of medical experts such as doctors, nurses, and therapists who have worked with gaming-related health problems. More broadly, the manuscript breaks new ground for Registered Reports, being one of the first to focus on qualitative methods, while also making use of the Programmatic submission track in which the approved Stage 1 manuscript is intended to produce two Stage 2 manuscripts focusing on different elements of the project. Three expert reviewers with a variety of field-specialist and qualitative methodological expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over two rounds of in-depth review. Following revision, the reviewers and recommender agreed 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/a2rwg 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
| Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa | <p style="text-align: justify;">The recent inclusion of gaming disorder in the ICD-11 as a mental disorder has further increased the importance of researching the health spectrum related to gaming. A critical area in this regard is the lack of cla... | | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2021-06-16 20:22:24 | ||
17 Nov 2022
STAGE 1
Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patientsStage 1 acceptance (IPA)Recommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Joshua Tasoff, Bence Palfi and Alaa Aldoh
Thank you for your careful response to the points of myself and the reviewers. I am now happy to award in principle acceptance (IPA). As requested, your submission is being awarded a private Stage 1 acceptance, which will not appear yet on the PCI RR website. Your Stage 1 manuscript has also been registered under the requested 4-year private embargo on the OSF (link below). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/fc9gp 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: | Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients | Romain Espinosa, Thibaut Arpinon, Paco Maginot, Sébastien Demange, and Florimond Peureux | <div style="text-align: justify;">Shifting to plant-based diets can alleviate many of the externalities associated with the current food system. Spontaneous shifts in diet are often hindered by consumers’ imperfect knowledge about the health risks... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2021-08-16 16:50:43 | |||
17 Jan 2022
STAGE 1
Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDo different screening instruments for ‘gaming disorder’ measure the same or different construct(s)?Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy, Linda Kaye, David Ellis and 1 anonymous reviewer
There is considerable debate regarding the relationship between excessive gaming and mental health problems. Whilst the diagnostic classification of “gaming disorder” has now been included in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the APA decided not to include this diagnosis in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) because the literature “suffers from a lack of a standard definition from which to derive prevalence data” (APA 2013, p. 796). Furthermore, screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems. Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided 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/usj5b 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
| Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p style="text-align: justify;">Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “interne... | | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2021-08-25 23:08:26 | ||
05 Aug 2022
STAGE 1
Through the lens of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): experiences of a late diagnosisDevelopmental Coordination Disorder Diagnosis as Part of Evolving Self-ConceptsRecommended by Veli-Matti Karhulahti based on reviews by Moin Syed, Gill Waters and Catherine Purcell
Although developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder with an estimated prevalence of up to 6% in children (APA, 2013), many DCD diagnoses are not made before late adulthood. Receiving a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis has been found adding to people’s self-concepts, for instance, with autism spectrum disorder (Tan, 2018), but it is not well known if and how such events unfold in late DCD diagnoses. In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Topor et al. (2022) present a careful plan to qualitatively investigate the lived experiences of individuals with a late DCD diagnosis in order to map out the variety of emotional responses to diagnoses and their effects on self-concepts.
Topor et al. (2022) will carry out 10–15 semi-structured interviews with participants who received a DCD diagnosis at the age of 30 or after. They commit to realist epistemology when utilizing thematic analysis; namely, instructions have been preregistered for two separate analysts who will code the transcript data independently. At the same time, the methodology involves reflexive components. The authors have prepared strong positionality statements through which their analyses will be carried out with post-analysis reflections to be written at Stage 2. The coding process will explicitly involve a data analysis log that pursues interpretive transparency. The data and materials will be shared, which adds to the work's value in the context of open qualitative psychology in general. The study will help us better understand the process of receiving (late) DCD diagnoses and, specifically, how the emotional aftermath is potentially related to one’s evolving self-concept. In addition to making a clear contribution to cumulative scientific knowledge, the findings can be useful for professionals working with DCD-diagnosed individuals as well as for the development of related support services. The Registered Report format allowed the research design to be reviewed in three rounds before data collection. Initially, three experts representing developmental psychology and DCD reviewed the Stage 1 manuscript, after which the recommender carried out two iterations with further requested revisions. This was followed by in-principle acceptance. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/67h3f
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. APA (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. 2. Tan, C. D. (2018). “I'm a normal autistic person, not an abnormal neurotypical”: Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis as biographical illumination.” Social Science & Medicine, 197, 161-167. 3. Topor, M., Armstrong, G., Gentle, J. (2022). Through the lens of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): experiences of a late diagnosis, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/67h3f
| Through the lens of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): experiences of a late diagnosis | Marta Topor, Gemma Armstrong, Judith Gentle | <p>A late diagnosis of a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition has been shown to be an important life event with strong emotional consequences and deep personal reflections. Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD/Dyspraxia) is a common, y... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Veli-Matti Karhulahti | 2022-01-11 21:48:18 | |||
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered ReportDifferent ontologies, different constructs? Instruments for gaming-related health problems identify different groups of people and measure different problemsRecommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy and David Ellis
Screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications of gaming-related health problems derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals. Underpinned by this, Karhulahti et al. (2022) assessed how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8217 Finnish participants completed four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?).
The results indicate that measures based on the ICD-11, DSM-5, DSM-IV, and self-assessment appear to be associated with lower mental health. However, these measures of gaming-related health problems differed significantly in terms of prevalence and/or overlap, suggesting that they identify different groups of people and that different problems or constructs are being measured by different instruments. These findings are important because they contribute to the rapidly growing literature on the ‘fuzziness’ of constructs and measures relating to technology use. The authors recommend that researchers working with these measures should: (a) define their construct of interest; and (b) evaluate the construct validity of their instruments. Being able to answer these questions will enhance research quality and contribute to strengthened meta-analyses. Importantly, this will prevent hype around gaming-related disorders, allowing researchers to communicate clearly and appropriately without risk of confusing related yet different constructs.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated by two of the reviewers who assessed it at Stage 1. Following revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation. To ensure that the manuscript met the requirements of the PCI RR TOP guidelines, prior to this acceptance an email communication was sent to the authors by the recommender to ensure that study data were openly available on a temporary OSF link before the final data archive is full validated by the Finnish Social Sciences Data Archive (FSD). This is noted in the recommended preprint.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/usj5b
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to Stage 1 in-principle acceptance.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Karhulahti V.-M., Vahlo J., Martončik M., Munukka M., Koskimaa R. and Bonsdorff M. (2022). Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. Peer-reviewed and recommended at Stage 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports https://psyarxiv.com/qytrs
| Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff | <p>Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different “ontologies” as reference systems, from self-assessed “game addiction” to “pathological gambling” (in the DSM-IV), “internet gaming disorder” (in the 3r... | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Charlotte Pennington | 2022-05-23 16:14:04 | |||
Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered ReportThe lived experience of gamers: a comparative qualitative investigation of treatment-seekers and esports playersRecommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Malte Elson and Peter Branney
Since 2018, the inclusion of “gaming disorder” in the ICD-11 has been met with a mixture of interest, confusion and controversy (Van Rooij et al, 2018), mirroring broader debates about the effects of gaming on mental health. One of the major gaps in understanding the validity of gaming disorder as an identifiable mental illness is the absence of qualitative studies comparing the lived experience of gamers who seek treatment with esports players who do not report health problems.
Here, Karhulahti et al. (2022) tackle this question in the first of two Stage 2 Registered Reports associated with their previous programmatic Stage 1 submission. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in gamers and medical experts, they find that treatment-seekers and esports players differ in how gaming is associated with the sense of self, either interfering with the self for treatment-seekers or successfully integrating into the self for esports players. These findings help to identify the key characteristics of problematic and non-problematic gaming and call for more intensive and wide-reaching qualitative research in this area.
Following one round of in-depth review and 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/a2rwg
Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that was used to answer the research question existed prior to in-principle acceptance(IPA) but the authors certify that they did not access any part of that data/evidence prior to IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. van Rooij AJ, Ferguson CJ, Carras MC, Kardefelt-Winther D, Shi J, Aarseth E, Bean AM, Bergmark KH, Brus A, Coulson M, Deleuze J, Dullur P, Dunkels E, Edman J, Elson M, Etchells PJ, Fiskaali A, Granic I, Jansz J, Karlsen F, Kaye LK, Kirsh B, Lieberoth A, Markey P, Mills KL, Nielsen RKL, Orben A, Poulsen A, Prause N, Prax P, Quandt T, Schimmenti A, Starcevic V, Stutman G, Turner NE, Looy J van, Przybylski AK (2018) A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19
2. Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2022) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
| Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report | Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa | <p>The recent inclusion of gaming disorder in the ICD-11 as a mental disorder has further increased the importance of researching the health spectrum related to gaming. A critical area in this regard is the lack of clarity concerning the differenc... |  | Medical Sciences, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-06-11 23:49:03 |
