PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

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.

Back

270

Title *

The Medusa effect: A registered replication report of Will, Merritt, Jenkins, and Kingstone (2021) use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Jing Han, Minjun Zhang, Jiaxin Liu, Yu Song, Yuki YamadaPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<div>The medusa effect refers to the tendency of people to evaluate a "picture of a person" as more mindful than a "picture of a picture of a person". This phenomenon is strikingly intriguing because it suggests that when people evaluate the humanness of others, they may be integrating information about the dimensions of the world, including their own (Will et al., 2021).</div> <div> </div> <div>The original research conducts 5 experiments to reveal the degree of mind perception and its prosocial effects.We plan to replicate Experiment 2 rather than Experiment 1 to investigate the existence of the effect on account of using a rating task, which is more informative than the two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task in Experiment 1 of the original research. Additionally, Experiment 5 uses the dictator game task, which has the external validity of being an indicator of prosociality, to explore if different levels of abstraction of the picture affect conduct in social interactions (Will et al., 2021).Moreover, whether the Medusa effect can be replicated in a different group of participants matters in the generalization of it.<br> <br>In conclusion, in this research, we aim to replicate Experiment 2 and Experiment 5 of the original research in Japan.</div>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Mind perception, Visual cognition, Prosocial behavior

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2022-08-18 09:50:35

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

Anonymous, Alan Kingstone, Anonymous, Anonymous

or Register
Submit a report