Paid loot boxes – items bought for real-world money that offer randomised rewards – are a prevalent feature of contemporary video games (Zendle et al., 2020). Because they employ random chance to provide rewards after spending real money, loot boxes have been considered a form of gambling, raising concerns about risk of harm to children and other vulnerable users. In response, some countries have taken legal steps to regulate and even ban the use of loot boxes, with only limited success so far (Xiao, 2022). At the same time, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) and PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) now expect games that contain loot boxes to be marked with warning labels that, in theory, will enable users (including parents) to make more informed decisions. These requirements by ESRB/PEGI are not legally binding and may be considered a form of industry self-regulation.

 

In the current study, Xiao (2023) investigated the effectiveness of self-regulation in the use of loot box labels. Study 1 examined the consistency of warning labels by the ESRB and PEGI, with the expectation that if self-regulation works as it should then these labels should always (or nearly always) co-occur. Study 2 established the compliance rate for labelling among popular games that are known to contain loot boxes, with a rate of ≥95% considered to be successful.

 

The results of both studies reveal deficiences in industry self-regulation. The consistency rate of warning labels by the ESRB and PEGI was just 39.4% in preregistered analyses, rising to 83.9% in an unregistered exploratory analysis that took into account industry responses to the findings. Even at this upper bound, this rate is lower than expected by complete (or near-complete) consistency. The results of Study 2 indicate that only 29% of games on the Google Play Store known to contain loot boxes were accurately labelled, indicating that 71% were non-compliant with industry requirements.

 

Following careful evaluation, 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/e6qbm

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that was used to the answer the research question had been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certifed that they had not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence prior to in-principle-acceptance.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Zendle, D., Meyer, R., Cairns, P., Waters, S., & Ballou, N. (2020). The prevalence of loot boxes in mobile and desktop games. Addiction, 115(9), 1768-1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14973

2. Xiao, L. Y. (2022). Breaking Ban: Belgium’s ineffective gambling law regulation of video game loot boxes. Stage 2 Registered Report, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hnd7w 

 

3. Xiao, L. Y. (2023). Beneath the label: Unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI, and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies, acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/asbcg

People experiencing problematic substance use are often stigmatised by the general public. This public stigma may impair such people obtaining help and the quality of help that they receive. For this reason, previous research has investigated the factors that may exacerbate or lessen stigma by focusing on the terminology used to describe problematic substance use. However, the evidence is not clear cut, with some studies suggesting that labelling the condition as a "chronically relapsing brain disease" vs a "problem" reduces certain elements of stigma and other studies finding absence of evidence. A closer look at these studies points to methodological differences that may explain their results, such as whether problematic substance use is compared with another health condition, whether the individual is described as seeking treatment or not, and whether general or discrete elements of stigma are measured.

 

In this Stage 2 Registered Report, Pennington et al. (2023) isolated these methodological differences to investigate if any of them influenced two different measures of stigma used in previous work. They found that greater social distance, danger and public stigma but lower blame were ascribed to drug use relative to a health concern, supporting previous research to suggest that problematic substance use is a highly stigmatised health condition. Furthermore, greater (genetic) blame was reported when drug use was labelled as a ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’ relative to a ‘problem’. The results for attributional judgement were either inconclusive or statistically equivalent. In summary, these findings suggest that the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use may impact upon public stigma in distinct ways. The authors suggest that future research should justify which measures are being used in line with theory. They also put forward the notion that addiction is a functional attribution, which may explain the mixed literature on the brain disease model of addiction to date.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of specialist review and several rounds of discussion with the recommender. Based on comprehensive responses, 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/4vscg

 

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.

 

 

• Addiction Research & Theory
• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Pennington, C. R., Monk, R. L., Heim, D., Rose, A. K., Gough, T., Clarke, R., Knibb, G., Patel, R., Rai, P., Ravat, H., Ali, R., Anastasiou, G., Asgari, F., Bate, E., Bourke, T., Boyles, J., Campbell, A., Fowler, N., Hester, S., Neil, C., McIntrye, B., Ogilvy, E., Renouf, A., Stafford, J., Toothill, K., Wong, H. K., &  Jones, A. (2023). The labels and models used to describe problematic substance use impact discrete elements of stigma: A Registered Report. Stage 2 acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/z9bnf

The Medusa effect is a recently described phenomenon in which people judge a person to be more mindful when they appear as a picture than as a picture within a picture. Across a series of experiments, Will et al. (2021) reported that at higher levels of abstraction, images of people were judged lower in realness (how real the person seemed), experience (the ability to feel) and agency (the ability to plan and act), and also benefited less from prosocial behaviour. The findings provide an intriguing window into mind perception – the extent to which we attribute minds and mental capacities to others.

 

In the current study, Han et al. (2023) propose a close replication of two experiments from the original report by Will et al. (2021), asking first, whether the level of pictorial abstraction influences ratings of realness, agency and experience, and second, whether it also influences prosocial behaviour as measured in the dictator game (with participants predicted to allocate more money to recipients presented as pictures than as pictures within pictures). In the event of a non-replication using the original materials, the authors will further repeat the experiments using newly generated stimuli that are better matched for cultural context and more tightly controlled along various dimensions.

 

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/xj46z

 

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
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research and Practice
• Royal Society Open Science
• Swiss Psychology Open
   

 

1. Will, P., Merritt, E., Jenkins, R., & Kingstone, A. (2021). The Medusa effect reveals levels of mind perception in pictures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(32), e2106640118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106640118

 

2. Han, J., Zhang, M., Liu, J., Song, Y. & Yamada, Y. (2023).The Medusa effect: A registered replication report of Will, Merritt, Jenkins, and Kingstone (2021), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xj46z

Single gene alterations have been estimated to account for nearly half of neurodevelopmental conditions (NDCs), providing a crucial opportunity for animal models to understand the underlying mechanisms, causes and potential treatments. The use of systematic reviews (SRs) can, in principle, provide a powerful means to synthesise this evidence-base; however, the reporting quality of previous SRs in preclinical animal research has been found lacking (Hunniford et al., 2021). In the current study, Wilson et al. (2023) will undertake an umbrella review – a systematic review of systematic reviews – to assess the characteristics and reporting quality of SRs that, in turn, synthesise research in genetically-modified animals to model NDCs. In particular, the authors will extract key features of reviews (including, among others, the aim and primary research questions, relevant animal model, and number of studies in the SR), in addition to quality indicators such as risk of bias and completeness of reporting. In doing so, the authors aim to enhance guidance on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in this area.

 

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/952qk

 

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 BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.

 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Hunniford V. T., Montroy J., Fergusson D. A., Avey M. T., Wever K. E., McCann S. K., Foster M., Fox G., Lafreniere M., Ghaly M., Mannell S., Godwinska K., Gentles A., Selim S., MacNeil J., Sikora L., Sena E. S., Page M. J., Macleod M., Moher D., & Lalu M. M. (2021). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews. PLOS Biology, 19:e3001177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177

 

2. Wilson, E., Currie, G., Macleod, M., Kind, P. & Sena, E. S. (2023). Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: an umbrella review, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/952qk

Social media is a popular tool for online discussion and debate, bringing with it various forms of hostile interactions –  from offensive remarks and insults, to harassment and threats of physical violence. The nature of such online toxicity has been well studied, but much remains to be understood regarding strategies to reduce it. Existing theory and evidence suggests that a range of responses – including those that emphasise prosociality and empathy – might be effective at mitigating online toxicity. But do such strategies work in practice?

 

In the current study, Young Reusser et al (2023) propose an experiment to test the effectiveness of three types of responses to online toxicity – Benevolent Correction (including disagreement), Benevolent Going Along (including joking/agreement), or Retaliation (additional toxicity) – on how able participants feel to contribute to conversations, their belief that the toxicity would be reduced by the intervention, and their belief that justice had been restored. The findings promise to shed light on approaches for improving the health of online discourse.

 

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/hfjnb (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:

 

 

1. Young Reusser, A. I., Veit, K. M., Gassin, E. A., & Case, J. P. (2023). Responding to Online Toxicity: Which Strategies Make Others Feel Freer to Contribute, Believe That Toxicity Will Decrease, and Believe that Justice Has Been Restored? In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hfjnb