PCI Registered Reports

CHAMBERS Chris

CUBRIC, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Life Sciences, Social sciences
administrator, manager, recommender, developer

Recommendations: 22

Review: 1

Educational and work

My primary research focuses on the use of brain stimulation (TMS, TES) and brain imaging techniques (fMRI, MRS, MEG) to understand cognitive control, attention and awareness in the human brain. I am particularly interested in translational applications of cognitive neuroscience in the domain of obesity and behaviour change. My group is also working on the simultaneous combination of human brain stimulation and brain imaging methods, as well as technical advances in brain stimulation methods to improve the precision and reliability of cortical stimulation. I also pursue interests in the relationship between science and the media, the role of science in shaping evidence-based public policy, and the promotion of open research practices. As part of this work, I co-founded Registered Reports, Exploratory Reports, Verification Reports, the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines, the Royal Society Replications initiative, the UK network of open research working groups, the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative, the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN), the GW4 Undergraduate Psychology Consortium programme for promoting reproducible science, the Royal Society Rapid Review Network for COVID-19 Registered Reports, and the Peer Community in Registered Reports. I currently chair the Registered Reports committee supported by the Center for Open Science and I serve on the UKRN steering committee. I also sit on the Advisory Board of Nature Human Behaviour and on the British Neuroscience Association's Credibility Advisory Board. I am author of the Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice, which won the 2018 British Psychological Society Book Award (Best Academic Monograph) and the 2018 PROSE Award from the Association of American Publishers. From 2013-2018 I was a freelancer writer at the Guardian where I co-hosted the psychology blog, Head Quarters.

Recommendations: 22

21 Sep 2022

STAGE 2
(Go to stage 1)

Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report

Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa https://psyarxiv.com/q53jz/

The lived experience of gamers: a comparative qualitative investigation of treatment-seekers and esports players

Recommended 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

16 Sep 2022

STAGE 1

Action-Inaction Asymmetries in Emotions and Counterfactual ‎Thoughts: Meta-Analysis of the Action Effect‎

Siu Kit Yeung, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/ycenp

Charting meta-analytic evidence for the action-effect

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Dan Quintana, Emiel Cracco and priyali rajagopal

Winston Churchill once famously quipped, “I never worry about action, but only inaction.” Churchill, however, may have been an exception to the rule, with psychological research suggesting that people are more concerned about the consequences of actions than inactions. During the so-called “action-effect”, first reported by Kahneman and Tversky (1982), people regret an action leading to a bad outcome more than they do an inaction leading to the same bad outcome

In the current study, Yeung and Feldman (2022) propose a wide-ranging meta-analysis to characterise evidence for the action-effect, focusing in particular on emotions and counterfactual thoughts – that is, mental representations of alternative decisions (or “what if” thoughts). Consistent with the expected consequences of the action-effect on emotion, they predict that action will be associated with stronger negative emotions than inaction (when outcomes are negative), and with stronger positive emotions than inaction (when outcomes are positive). The authors also expect action to be associated with a greater abundance of counterfactual thought compared to inaction.

In addition to examining the overall reliability of the action-effect (plus a range of exploratory questions), the study will also examine the extent to which the action-effect is moderated by temporal distance (with more recent events or behaviours predicted to associated with a stronger action effect), the type of study design, prior outcomes and social norms, the specificity (vs. generality) of the prior event, and whether the study employed a hypothetical scenario or a real-life event.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/4pvs6

Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

1. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160-173. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160

2. Yeung, S. K. & Feldman, G. (2022). Action-Inaction Asymmetries in Emotions and Counterfactual ‎Thoughts: Meta-Analysis of the Action Effect‎, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/4pvs6

08 Sep 2022

STAGE 1

How to succeed in human modified environments

Logan CJ, Shaw R, Lukas D, McCune KB http://corinalogan.com/ManyIndividuals/mi1.html

The role of behavioural flexibility in promoting resilience to human environmental impacts

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Gloriana Chaverri, Vedrana Šlipogor and Alizée Vernouillet

Understanding and mitigating the environmental effects of human expansion is crucial for ensuring long-term biosustainability. Recent research indicates a steep increase in urbanisation – including the expansion of cities – with global urban extent expanding by nearly 10,000 km^2 per year between 1985 and 2015 (Liu et al, 2020). The consequences of these human modified environments on animal life are significant: in order to succeed, species must adapt quickly to environmental changes, and those populations that demonstrate greater behavioural flexibility are likely to cope more effectively. These observations have, in turn, prompted the question of whether enhancing behavioural flexibility in animal species might increase their resilience to human impacts.

In the current research, Logan et al. (2022) will use a serial reversal learning paradigm to firstly understand how behavioural flexibility relates to success in avian species that are already successful in human modified environments. The authors will then deploy these flexibility interventions in more vulnerable species to establish whether behavioural training can improve success, as measured by outcomes such as foraging breadth, dispersal dynamics, and survival rate.

The Stage 1 manuscript was submitted via the programmatic track and will eventually produce three Stage 2 outputs focusing on different species (toutouwai, grackles, and jays). 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/346af

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. Liu, X., Huang, Y., Xu, X., Li, X., Li, X., Ciais, P., Lin, P., Gong, K., Ziegler, A. D., Chen, A., et al. (2020). High-spatiotemporal-resolution mapping of global urban change from 1985 to 2015. Nature Sustainability, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0521-x

2. Logan, C.J., Shaw, R., Lukas, D. & McCune, K.B. (2022). How to succeed in human modified environments, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/346af

15 Jul 2022

STAGE 1

Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation

Jacob Krüger, Gül Çalıklı, Dmitri Bershadskyy, Robert Heyer, Sarah Zabel, Siegmar Otto https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.10985

Bug detection in software engineering: which incentives work best?

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Edson OliveiraJr and 1 anonymous reviewer

Bug detection is central to software engineering, but what motivates programmers to perform as optimally as possible? Despite a long history of economic experiments on incentivisation, there is surprisingly little research on how different incentives shape software engineering performance. In the current study, Krüger et al. (2022) propose an experiment to evaluate how the pay-off functions associated with different financial incentives influence the performance of participants in identifying bugs during code review. The authors hypothesise that performance-based incentivisation will result in higher average performance, as defined using the F1-score, and that different incentivisation schemes may also differ in their effectiveness. As well as testing confirmatory predictions, the authors will explore a range of ancillary strands, including how the different incentivisation conditions influence search and evaluation behaviour (using eye-tracking), and the extent to which any effects are moderated by demographic factors.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and 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/s36c2

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. Krüger, J., Çalıklı, G., Bershadskyy, D., Heyer, R., Zabel, S. & Siegmar, O. (2022). Registered Report: A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/s36c2

30 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting and updating the risk-benefits link: Replication of Fischhoff et al. (1978) with extensions examining pandemic related factors

Jason M. Frank, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/zayn3

Understanding the relationship between the perception of risks and benefits

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Katherine Fox-Glassman, Bjørn Sætrevik, Richard Brown and Toby Wise

Everyday decisions involve weighing up many kinds of risks and benefits, prompting the question of how our perception of those risks relates to our perception of the associated benefits. Intuitively, we might assume that behaviours or practices that are judged by society as riskier would also be seen as carrying greater potential benefits, in keeping with the expression “high risk, high reward”. The psychology of risk perception, however, appears to be more complex. In a seminal study, Fischhoff et al. (1978) in fact found the opposite pattern: that perceived risk and perceived benefit were negatively correlated – behaviours or practices that were perceived to be higher risk tended to be perceived as carrying lower benefits. This counterintuitive finding has had a significant impact on the field of judgment and decision making, despite being subjected only rarely to close replication.

Using a large-scale online design, Frank and Feldman (2022) propose a replication that incorporates key elements of Fischhoff et al. (1978) as well as a recent replication by Fox-Glassman et al. (2016). In particular, the authors will reassess the strength and directionality of the relationship between perceived risks and perceived benefits, and how these relate to both risk characteristics and acceptable levels of risk. As part of a series of exploratory extensions, they will also examine the risk/benefit relationship for policies and practices related to the Covid-19 pandemic, including vaccinations, lockdowns, and social distancing.

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/bx93v

References

1. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739

2. Fox-Glassman, K. T. & Weber, E. U. (2016). What makes risk acceptable? Revisiting the 1978 psychological dimensions of perceptions of technological risks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 75, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.05.003

3. Frank, J. M. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting and updating the risk-benefits link: Replication of Fischhoff et al. (1978) with extensions examining pandemic related factors, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bx93v

29 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language?

Eva Viviani1, Michael Ramscar2, Elizabeth Wonnacott1 [1: University of Oxford, 2: University of Tübingen] https://osf.io/2k6gj/

Can discriminative learning theory explain productive generalisation in language?

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Julien Mayor, Natalia Kartushina, Caroline Rowland and 1 anonymous reviewer

One of the major challenges in studies of language learning is understanding productive generalisation – the ability to use words and linguistic structures in novel settings that the learner has never encountered previously. According to discriminative learning theory, this skill arises from an iterative process of prediction and error-correction that gradually reduces uncertainty, allowing learners to discriminate linguistic outcomes and to identify informative, invariant cues for generalisation to novel cases. In the current study, Viviani et al (2022) use computational modelling to propose a central hypothesis stemming from this theory that children will learn the meaning and use of spatial adpositions (words such as “above” and “below” that describe relative positions) more effectively when there is more variability in the use of the nouns within the spatial sentences. They will also test a range of additional hypotheses, including that learning and generalisation to novel contexts will be enhanced when children learn from skewed distributions that are similar to those found in natural languages.

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Some of the data that will be used in the preregistered analyses was obtained in the second of two pilot experiments. However, since no further revisions to the analysis plan were made after this pilot, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero, and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6.

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

1. Viviani, E., Ramscar, M. & Wonnacott, E. (2022). Go above and beyond: Does input variability affect children’s ability to learn spatial adpositions in a novel language? In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/37dxr

21 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Pathway between Negative Interpretation Biases and Psychological Symptoms: Rumination as a Transdiagnostic Mediator in a Longitudinal Study

Chung, Ho-Fung, Cheung, Sing-Hang, https://osf.io/89n7u

Probing the interaction between interpretation bias and repetitive negative thinking in subclinical psychopathology

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Ariana Castro and Rita Pasion

Research in clinical psychology has found that interpretation bias (perceiving ambiguous information in a systematically negative or hostile way) and repetitive negative thinking (recurrent, prolonged worry or rumination) are associated with a range of psychopathologies – including depression, anxiety and paranoia – but the complex interplay between them in driving symptomatology is unclear. Here, Chung and Cheung (2022) propose a longitudinal examination of the directional relationship between interpretation bias and psychological symptoms in subclinical depression and paranoia, as well as the potential transdiagnostic mediating role of repetitive negative thinking. Using an online three-wave design, they ask whether the association between negative interpretation biases and psychological symptoms is bidirectional, whether negative interpretation biases are associated with repetitive negative thinking over time, and whether repetitive negative thinking is associated with psychological symptoms over time. They will also test whether negative interpretation biases and psychological symptoms exert reciprocal influences across dimensions through repetitive negative thinking, and whether repetitive negative thinking acts as a transdiagnostic mediator for depression and paranoid thoughts. Overall, the study aims to generate a clearer understanding of the relationship between interpretation biases and subclinical symptomatology, as well as clarifying the role of rumination as a transdiagnostic mechanism that mediates psychopathology.

References

1. Chung, H.-F. & Cheung, S.-H. (2022). Repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic mediator in the interplay of interpretation biases and psychological symptoms in depression and paranoia: A three-wave longitudinal study, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/89n7u

20 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting stigma attributions and reactions to stigma: Replication and extensions of Weiner et al. (1988)

Kwan Yin (Gladys) Yeung, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/rqdn2/

Understanding the psychology of stigmas

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Charlotte Pennington and Joanne Rathbone

Stigmas are prejudices or discrimination against people based on qualities that vary from the norm, such as a physical or mental illness, disability, sexuality, race, or one of many other personal characteristics. The harm caused by stigmatisation has made understanding the causes and potential solutions a vital area of study in psychology and public health. One of the major focuses of ongoing research is understanding the factors that determine whether a particular characteristic becomes stigmatised, and if so how the stigma might be eliminated. Previous research has found that for disease-based stigmas, the contagiousness, course, and disruptiveness of a disease can be influential. Another key determinant is the perceived cause of the stigmatised condition or characteristic. In a landmark study, Weiner et al. (1988) reported that attributes based on physical health were more likely to be perceived as being uncontrollable, stable and irreversible, prompting feelings of sympathy without anger or judgment. On the other hand, attributes related to mental health and behaviour were more likely to be regarded as controllable and reversible, prompting lack of sympathy coupled with feelings of anger and negative judgement. In a second experiment, they also found that manipulating the perception of controllability can modify emotional responses and judgments – for some stigmas (but not others), providing participants with information that a particular characteristic was controllable vs. uncontrollable was found to increase or decrease negative attributions, respectively.

In the current study, Yeung and Feldman (2022) propose to replicate Experiment 2 from Weiner et al. (1988) in a large online sample. In particular, they plan to ask how the source of a stigma is related to perceived controllability and stability, emotional reactions, and willingness to help. They also propose a range of extensions, including the inclusion of additional stigmas that have become relevant since the original study was published over 30 years ago.

References

1. Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738

2. Yeung, K. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting stigma attributions and reactions to stigma: Replication and extensions of Weiner et al. (1988), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k957f

13 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting the link between true-self and morality: Replication and extensions of Newman, Bloom and Knobe (2014) Studies 1 and 2

Shuk Ching (Janet) Lee, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/8rp96/

Replicating positive evaluations of our "true selves"

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Andrew Christy, Cillian McHugh, Caleb Reynolds and Sergio Barbosa

The concept of a “true self” – the deepest and most genuine part of a person’s personality – is fundamental to many aspects of psychology, with influences that extend deep into society and culture. For decades, research in psychology has consistently found that people see their true selves as positive and virtuous. But people also positively regard (and indeed overestimate) many other characteristics related to the self, such as their abilities and achievements, prompting the question of whether there is anything special about the “true self” as a psychological concept. In an influential study, Newman et al. (2014) found that people were more likely to attribute morally good than morally bad changes in the behaviour of other people to their true selves. Crucially, they also found that our tendency to view the true self positively is shaped by our own moral values – in essence, what we regard as morally or politically good, we see in the true selves of others. Newman et al’s findings suggest that the tendency for us to regard our true self in a positive light stems from the specific nature of true self as a concept.

In the current study, Lee and Feldman (2022) propose to replicate two key studies from Newman et al. (2014) in a large online sample. In particular, they will ask whether true-self attributions are higher for changes in behaviour that are morally positive compared to morally negative or neutral, and, further, how true-self attributions are aligned with personal moral/political views. The authors also propose exploring the relationship between true-self attributions and perceived social norms.

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/v2tpf

References

1. Newman, G. E., Bloom, P., & Knobe, J. (2014). Value judgments and the true self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213508791

2. Lee, S. C. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the link between true-self and morality: Replication and extension of Newman, Bloom, and Knobe (2014) Studies 1 and 2, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/v2tpf

13 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Associations of fear, anger, happiness, and hope with risk judgments: Revisiting appraisal-tendency framework with a replication and extensions of Lerner and Keltner (2001)

Sirui Lu; Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/zbqyr/

Replicating the relationship between emotions and judgments of risk

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Kelly Wolfe, Max Primbs, Agata Sobków and Karolina Scigala

How do emotions interact with cognition? The last 40 years has witnessed the rise of cognitive-appraisal theories, which propose that emotions can be differentiated along an axis of cognitive dimensions such as certainty, pleasantness, attentional activity, control, anticipated effort, and responsibility (Smith and Ellsworth, 1985). Early tests of such theories focused especially on the impact of the valence – pleasantness/unpleasantness – of emotions on judgment and decision-making, finding, for instance, that negative mood induction can heighten pessimistic estimates of risk (Johnson & Tversky, 1983).

The Appraisal-Tendency Framework proposed by Lerner and Keltner (2000) refined cognitive-appraisal theory by proposing that specific emotions trigger a predisposition to appraise future (or hypothetical) events in line with the central appraisal dimensions that triggered the emotion, even when the emotion and the judgment are unrelated. For example, an individual who is triggered to become fearful of a heightened risk, such as nuclear war, may then exhibit heightened pessimism about risks unrelated to war. The Appraisal-Tendency Framework also predicts relationships between traits, such as between fear, anger and risk-taking/risk-seeking tendencies. In an influential paper, Lerner and Keltner (2001) reported direct empirical support for the Appraisal-Tendency Framework, which aside from its influence in cognitive/affective psychology has had considerable impact in behavioural economics, moral psychology, and studies of consumer behaviour.

In the current study, Lu and Feldman (2022) propose to replicate three key studies from Lerner and Keltner (2001) in a large online sample. Through a combination of replication and extension, the authors will probe the relationship between various trait emotions (including fear, anger, happiness, and hope) and trait characteristics of risk seeking and optimistic risk assessment. The authors also propose examining how the ambiguity of triggering events moderates the relationship between specific emotions and risk judgments.

References

1. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813

2. Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.20

3. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 473-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763

4. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146

5. Lu, S. & Feldman, G. (2022). Associations of fear, anger, happiness, and hope with risk judgments: Revisiting appraisal-tendency framework with a replication and extensions of Lerner and Keltner (2001), in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8yu2x

09 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting diversification bias and partition dependence: Replication and extensions of Fox, Ratner, and Lieb (2005) Studies 1, 2, and 5

Mei Yee (Alice) Li, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/vkp3q/

Testing the replicability of diversification bias and partition dependence

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Craig Fox and Leo Cohen

When offered a range of options and asked to make multiple selections, how do people choose? Over the last 30 years, a key finding to emerge from behavioural economics is that people distribute their choices more evenly than would be considered optimal – a phenomenon termed “diversification bias” or the “diversification heuristic” (Read & Loewenstein, 1995). For example, when filling a plate from a buffet, you might be inclined to choose a relatively even amount of everything on offer, even when you prefer some foods over others. Similarly, when allocating savings among different investment options, people are prone to spreading their money more evenly than would maximise utility.

In an influential study, Fox et al. (2005) found that diversification bias can be shaped by so-called “partition dependence” – the tendency to allocate resources differently across options depending on how they are subjectively grouped. Such groupings could be arbitrary; so, for example, to return to the buffet example, people might diversify across high-level categories such as cooked and uncooked, savoury and sweet, or surf and turf, and then diversify across the options within those categories. The nature of level of these subjective (and potentially arbitrary) categorisations can strongly influence the final allocation of resources. Diversification bias and partition dependence have important implications for basic theory in judgment and decision-making as well as applications in behavioral economics and finance.

In the current study, Li and Feldman (2022) propose to replicate Studies 1, 2 and 5 from Fox et al. (2002) in a large online sample. In particular, they plan to ask how partitioning influences the allocation of choices between options, and the extent to which partition dependence is reduced in people with greater relevant expertise. The authors also propose extending the original study to explore individual differences in the desire for choice diversity as predictors of partition dependence.

References

1. Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1995). Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 34-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.1.1.34

2. Fox, C. R., Ratner, R. K., & Lieb, D. S. (2005). How subjective grouping of options influences choice and allocation: Diversification bias and the phenomenon of partition dependence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.538

3. Li, M. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting diversification bias and partition dependence:
Replication and extension of Fox, Ratner, and Lieb (2005) Studies 1, 2, and 5, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bx8vq

06 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Communicating dynamic norms with visual cues

Alaa Aldoh, Paul Sparks, Peter R Harris https://osf.io/a5xdg

Can dynamic norm information reduce indicators of meat consumption?

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Gabriela Jiga-Boy and 1 anonymous reviewer

Human meat consumption is associated with a variety of risks to health, animal welfare, sustainability, and the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions and loss of biodiversity), prompting a growing research effort to develop psychological interventions to reduce it and encourage alternative diets. At the same time, although meat consumption remains the majority choice in the UK, its prevalence is declining, with the proportion of vegetarians and vegans increasing substantially over the last two decades.

One potential tool to accelerate behaviour change is to expose people to “dynamic norm” messaging, which, rather than providing static descriptive information about the prevalence of a desired behaviour, emphasises how the desired behaviour is changing over time so that people can begin to conform to the emerging trend. Although promising in theory, previous research offers mixed evidence on the effectiveness of dynamic norms in encouraging a reduction in meat consumption, with some studies suggesting benefits and others showing no effect or even counterproductive effects. The methodological rigour of some studies is also in question.

In the present study, Aldoh et al. (2022) will investigate the effectiveness of dynamic norm information (compared to static norms) on several indicators of meat consumption, including interest, attitudes, and intentions toward reducing meat consumption, as well as self-reported meat consumption itself. Using an online sample up to 1500 participants, the authors will also test the role of visual cues (including data trend graphics) in causing any effects and will explore the potential longevity of the intervention over a period of 7 days.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/txzvm

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. Aldoh, A., Sparks, P. & Harris, P. R. (2022). Communicating dynamic norm information, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/txzvm

06 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance: Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986)

Sze Ying (Dawn) Yiu, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/xdes8/

Reducing ambiguity in the psychological understanding of ambiguity avoidance

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Leyla Loued-Khenissi and Hayley Jach

A considerable body of research in behavioural economics has established the existence of ambiguity avoidance: the tendency for people, when given a choice between two options, to choose the option for which there is greater certainty about the probabilities of certain outcomes occurring. In a seminal study, Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986) explored potential psychological explanations of ambiguity avoidance, contrasting five hypotheses: hostile nature (the anticipation that more ambiguous options are biased against oneself), other-evaluation (the anticipation that one’s decision will be evaluated by others), self-evaluation (the anticipation that one's decision will be self-evaluated in the future), forced-choice (in which the less ambiguous option is selected only when all other considerations are equal), and a more general uncertainty avoidance associated with risk aversion. The results favoured other-evaluation as the most promising explanation, with implications in the following decades for research in social psychology, judgment and decision making, behavioural economics, consumer behaviour, and cognitive psychology.

In the current study, Yiu and Feldman (2022) plan to revisit the psychological basis of ambiguity avoidance in a large online sample through a replication of key studies from Curley et al. (1986), including extensions to increase methodological rigour and to explore the relationship between ambiguity avoidance and hostility bias, anticipated future regret, and post-choice social judgment from others, as well as trait measures of risk tolerance and ambiguity tolerance.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/wb3hc

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. Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F. & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90018-X

2. Yiu, S. Y. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance:
Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wb3hc

06 Jun 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1

Yikang Zhang, Fung Chit (Jack) Cheung, Hei Tung (Patrina) Wong, Lok Yee (Noel) Yuen, Hui Ching (Rachel) Sin, Hiu Tang (Kristy) Chow, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/4nqy6/

How do public exposure and moral beliefs impact feelings of shame and guilt?

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Roger Giner-Sorolla and Uriel Haran

Shame and guilt are powerful negative emotions that are notable for their external vs. internal focus: while shame is generally experienced in response to public scrutiny, guilt arises from a self-directed, private evaluation. In a formative study, Smith et al. (2002) asked whether the level of public exposure influenced levels of shame and guilt arising from one's transgressions, and found that, compared to private situations, public exposure was more strongly associated with shame than with guilt. Since then, these findings have had significant implications for theories and applications of moral psychology.

In the current study, Zhang et al. propose to directly replicate Smith et al. (2002) in a large online sample. In particular, they will revisit the critical questions from Study 1, asking (a) whether public exposure affects the magnitude of shame and guilt over one’s misconduct, and (b) whether stronger moral belief increases guilt and shame over one’s misconduct.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/j7kt2

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. Smith, R. H., Webster, J. M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. L. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 138-159. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.138

2. Zhang, Y., Cheung, F. C., Wong, H.T., Yuen, L. Y., Sin, H. C., Chow, H. T. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the role of public exposure and moral beliefs on feelings of shame and guilt: Replication of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1. https://osf.io/j7kt2

17 May 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication of Thaler (1999) and an extension examining impulsivity

Mengfei Li; Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/4ps8m/

Mental accounting under the microscope

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Barnabas Imre Szaszi and Féidhlim McGowan

In recent years, the study of mental accounting – the thought processes by which people informally record, categorise, and evaluate the costs and benefits of their financial transactions – has been an active research area, drawing attention to a range of biases and distortions that deviate from optimal economic decision-making (Zhang & Sussman, 2018). Although the term “mental accounting” is a relatively recent construction (Thaler, 1999), it stems from a longer history of behavioural economic research on value functions, decision frames, risk-taking, and related concepts.

In the current study, Li and Feldman propose to replicate 17 influential mental accounting problems (or tasks) reviewed by Thaler (1999) in a large online sample. The authors also propose several extensions examining the effects of sunk costs and expenses framing.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/d6cjk

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. Zhang, C. Y., & Sussman, A. B. (2018). Perspectives on mental accounting: An exploration of budgeting and investing. Financial Planning Review, 1, e1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/cfp2.1011

2. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3%3C183::AID-BDM318%3E3.0.CO;2-F

3. Li, M. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication of the problems reviewed in Thaler (1999), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d6cjk

03 May 2022

STAGE 1

Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence

Minrui Zhu, Gilad Feldman https://osf.io/8z6ga/

Assessing the replicability of specific links between numeracy and decision-making

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Daniel Ansari and Elena Rusconi

Numeracy – the ability to understand and work with numbers – is associated with a wide range of social and health-related outcomes, including socioeconomic status, employment, literacy, reasoning, and life satisfaction. A substantial body of evidence has also shown links between numeracy and decision-making, prompting the question of how it relates to finer-grained measures of reasoning, judgment and affect/emotion.

In the current study, Zhu and Feldman propose to replicate four influential experiments from a study by Peters et al. (2006), which demonstrated links between numeracy and performance on a variety of decision-making tasks, including attribute framing, frequency-percentage framing, susceptibility to affective influences, and various cognitive biases. The authors also propose several extended questions, including refinements of the original hypotheses and an examination of the relationship between numeracy and confidence in numeric judgments (subjective numeracy).

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/r73fb

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. Zhu, M. & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/r73fb

2. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.2006.01720.x

30 Mar 2022

STAGE 1

Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysis

Alessandro Sparacio, Ivan Ropovik, Gabriela M. Jiga-Boy, Hans IJzerman https://psyarxiv.com/a4zmj

Does emotional support and being in nature influence stress?

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Felix Schönbrodt and Siu Kit Yeung

Stress is a familiar presence in modern life and may be rising in severity (Almeida et al., 2020). As a key driver of many health problems, controlling stress and its impacts is a central goal in clinical and health psychology, yet the effectiveness of existing interventions to regulate stress remains unclear.

In the current study, Sparacio et al propose tackling this question from a meta-analytic perspective, focusing on a corpus of existing research that has addressed the efficacy of two specific stress regulation interventions: being in nature and emotional social support. As well as evaluating the evidential content of the relevant literatures, the authors will examine signs of publication bias and the moderating role of personality traits.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/c25qw

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. Almeida, D. M., Charles, S. T., Mogle, J., Drewelies, J., Aldwin, C. M., Spiro, A. III, & Gerstorf, D. (2020). Charting adult development through (historically changing) daily stress processes. American Psychologist, 75(4), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000597

2. Sparacio, A., Ropovik, I., Jiga-Boy, G. M., & IJzerman, H. (2022). Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysis, in principle acceptance of version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports.

16 Mar 2022

STAGE 1

Neuroanatomical Correlates of System-justifying Ideologies: A Pre-registered Voxel-based Morphometry Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

Jan Paolo M. Balagtas, Serenella Tolomeo, Bindiya L. Ragunath, Paolo Rigo, Marc H. Bornstein & Gianluca Esposito https://osf.io/29p8f/

What are the neuranatomical correlates of system-justifying ideologies?

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Bonni Crawford and 2 anonymous reviewers

Under the tenets of system justification theory, system-justifying ideologies are beliefs held by individuals to defend and justify the status quo, even when doing do perpetuates social inequalities (Jost and Hunyady, 2005). Two such well-studied ideologies to emerge from political science and social psychology are social dominance orientation (SDO) – the belief that some social groups are superior to others – and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) – the belief that people should follow conventional traditions and authorities, avoiding rebellious ideas. Although considered to be stable traits that may have a heritable basis, there has been little investigation of the neural correlates of SDO and RWA, and it remains unknown whether they are associated with common or distinct brain systems.

In the current study, Balagtas et al propose a novel investigation of the neuroanatomical correlates of both SDO and RWA in a Chinese Singaporean sample using voxel-based morphometry. Based on previous research, the authors focus especially on relationships between SDO, RWA and the volume of the amygdala, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and anterior insula.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three 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/btkwq

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. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0963-7214.2005.00377.x

2. Balagtas, P. M., Tolomeo, S., Ragunath, B., Rigo, P., Bornstein, M. H. & Esposito, G. (2022). Neuroanatomical Correlates of System-justifying Ideologies: A Pre-registered Voxel-based Morphometry Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/btkwq

15 Feb 2022

STAGE 1

Does alleviating poverty increase cognitive performance? Short- and long- term evidence from a randomized controlled trial

Barnabas Szaszi, Bence Palfi, Gabor Neszveda, Aikaterini Taka, Peter Szecsi, Christopher Blattman, Julian C. Jamison, Margaret Sheridan https://osf.io/2r8a9/?view_only=1781fb681edc4cdeb61287172cd14ba2

Understanding the effect of unconditional cash transfers on cognition

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Charlotte Pennington and Matúš Adamkovič

Over the last decade, a growing body of evidence has revealed potential benefits of unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) on a variety of outcomes, including self-reported happiness and life satisfaction (Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016), economic and financial well-being (Blattman et al., 2013; Baird et al., 2018) and educational attainment (Baird et al., 2016). Although the effects of UCTs do not always out-perform rigorous control conditions (Whillans & West, 2022), these findings prompt the question of whether the alleviation of poverty via UCTs can also influence cognitive processing and performance.

In the current study, Szaszi et al. propose to analyse the results of a previous randomised trial of UCTs by Blattman et al. (2017) to test whether a $200 lump sum administered to a sample of young men in Liberia carries both short- and long-term benefits for a range of executive functions, including attention, response inhibition, and working memory capacity.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/k56yv

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

1. Haushofer, J. & Shapiro, J. (2016). The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 13, 1973–2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025

2. Blattman, C., Fiala, N. & Martinez, S. (2013) Generating skilled self-employment in developing countries: Experimental evidence from Uganda. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 697–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt057

3. Baird, S., McKenzie, D., & Özler, B. (2018). The effects of cash transfers on adult labor market outcomes. IZA Journal of Development and Migration, 8, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-018-0131-9

4. Baird, S., Chirwa, E., De Hoop, J., & Özler, B. (2016). Girl power: cash transfers and adolescent welfare: evidence from a cluster-randomized experiment in Malawi. In African Successes, Volume II: Human Capital (pp. 139-164). University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13380/c13380.pdf

5. Whillans, A., & West, C. (2022). Alleviating time poverty among the working poor: A pre-registered longitudinal field experiment. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04352-y

6. Szaszi, B., Palfi, B., Neszveda, G., Taka, A., Szecsi, P., Blattman, C., Jamison, J. C., & Sheridan, M. (2022). Does alleviating poverty increase cognitive performance? Short- and long- term evidence from a randomized controlled trial, in principle acceptance of version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k56yv

7. Blattman, C., Jamison, J. C. & Sheridan, M. (2017). Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy in Liberia. American Economic Review, 107, 1165–1206. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150503

08 Feb 2022

STAGE 1

Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI Study

Andreas B. Eder, David Dignath, Matthias Gamer https://osf.io/52xpg/?view_only=551d1c39ed1f41549cbd35ec6b8bbed6

Putting the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory to the test in explaining habitual action

Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewers

What are the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the formation of habits? In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Eder and colleagues propose an fMRI study to test a key prediction of the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory: that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) – a region heavily implicated in reward processing, cognitive control, and action selection – will show increased activity during the presentation of Pavlovian cues that are associated with devalued outcomes. In combination with a series of behavioural positive controls, this observation would provide evidence in support of EVC theory, whereas failure to do so may support alternative accounts that propose independence of habits from the representations of outcomes.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth specialist 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). This IPA recommendation was issued on 8 Feb 2022, and was initially provisional due to lack of ethics approval. The recommendation was then updated and confirmed on 21 Feb 2022 following confirmation that ethics approval had been granted.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/k8ygb

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

Eder, A. B., Dignath, D. & Gamer, M. (2022). Motivational Control of Habits: A Preregistered fMRI Study. Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/k8ygb

29 Sep 2021

STAGE 1

Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of study preregistration in the undergraduate dissertation: A Registered Report

Madeleine Pownall; Charlotte R. Pennington; Emma Norris; Kait Clark https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9HJBW

Does incorporating open research practices into the undergraduate curriculum decrease questionable research practices?

Recommended by Corina Logan and Chris Chambers based on reviews by Kelsey McCune, Neil Lewis, Jr., Lisa Spitzer and 1 anonymous reviewer

In a time when open research practices are becoming more widely used to combat questionable research practices (QRPs) in academia, this Stage 1 Registered Report by Pownall and colleagues (2021) will empirically investigate the practice of preregistering study plans, which will allow us to better understand to what degree such practices increase awareness of QRPs and whether experience with preregistration helps reduce engagement in QRPs. This investigation is timely because results from these kinds of studies are only recently becoming available and the conclusions are providing evidence that open research practices can improve research quality and reliability (e.g., Soderberg et al. 2020, Chambers & Tzavella 2021). The authors crucially focus on the effect of preregistering the undergraduate senior thesis (of psychology students in the UK), which is a key stage in the development of an academic. This data will help shape the future of how we should teach open research practices and what effect we as teachers can have on budding research careers. The five expert peer reviews were of an extremely high quality and were very thorough. The authors did an excellent job of addressing all of the comments in their responses and revised manuscript versions, which resulted in only one round of peer review, plus a second revision based on Recommender feedback. As such, this registered report meets the Stage 1 criteria and is therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). We wish the authors the best of luck with the study and we look forward to seeing the results.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw

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

Pownall M, Pennington CR, Norris E, Clark K. 2021. Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of study preregistration in the undergraduate dissertation: A Registered Report. OSF, stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9HJBW
Chambers C, Tzavella L (2021). The past, present, and future of Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/43298
Soderberg CK, Errington TM, Schiavone SR, Bottesini J, Thorn FS, Vazire S, Esterling KM, Nosek BA (2021) Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4

24 Sep 2021

STAGE 1

Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report

Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Miia Siutila, Jukka Vahlo, Raine Koskimaa https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz

How 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

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

References

Karhulahti V-M, Siutila M, Vahlo J, Koskimaa R (2021) Phenomenological Strands for Gaming Disorder and Esports Play: A Qualitative Registered Report. PsyArXiv preprints, Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 1 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q53jz
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

Review: 1

19 Apr 2022

STAGE 1

Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration

Qinjing Zhang, Yoshitaka Masuda, Kohei Ueda, Kodai Toda, Yuki Yamada https://osf.io/c5uf6/

Could asymmetrical perceptions about the frequency of past and future events explain the Temporal Doppler Effect?

Recommended by Ljerka Ostojic based on reviews by Chris Chambers and 2 anonymous reviewers

The Temporal Doppler Effect is a phenomenon where people subjectively perceive the past to be further away than the future even when both temporal distances are objectively the same from the present moment (Caruso et al., 2013). A common explanation for this phenomenon assumes that our perception of the past and future is based on spatial and temporal analogies (Matlock, Ramscar, & Boroditsky, 2005; Casanto & Boroditsky, 2008) and that the subjective discrepancy is due to people feeling that they are moving towards the future and away from the fast, thus underestimating the temporal distance of the former and overestimating the temporal distance of the latter (Caruso et al., 2013).

In the current study, Zhang et al. propose to replicate the Temporal Doppler Effect as tested by Caruso et al. (2013) in study 1 and to test an alternative explanation for the effect in study 2 based on the filled-duration illusion (Thomas & Brown, 1974). This alternative explanation assumes that the subjective discrepancy is based on the difference that the past and the future are filled with events that we can remember or imagine. Because the past has already happened, it is comprised of more events (those that were planned and those that were not), while the future still exists only of events that are currently planned.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. The main changes during the review process involved clarifications and adaptations of the way that the authors will measure the participants’ perception of how full of events the past and the future are, as the originally proposed way measuring this did not have sufficient theoretical or empirical justifications. The authors decided to address this by firstly, clarifying this issue in the stage 1 report so that the reader is aware of the potential shortcomings of this measure, and secondly, by testing a second group of participants with an alternative measure. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, 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/d9ec3

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. Caruso, E. M., Van Boven, L., Chin, M., & Ward, A. (2013). The temporal doppler effect: When the future feels closer than the past. Psychological Science, 24, 530-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458804

2. Casanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004

3. Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2005). One the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29, 655-664. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_17

4. Thomas, E. C., & Brown, I. (1974). Time perception and the filled-duration illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 449-458. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198571

5. Zhang, Q., Masuda, Y., Ueda, K.,Toda, K., & Yamada, Y. (2022). Is the past farther than the future? A registered replication and test of the time-expansion hypothesis based on the filling rate of duration. Stage 1 Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d9ec3