PCI Registered Reports

KAYE Linda

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom
Social sciences

Recommendations: 0

Reviews: 2

31 May 2024

STAGE 1

Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And X

A. Masciantonio, N. Heiser, A. Cherbonnier https://osf.io/c9ysv

Social media positivity bias

Recommended by Veli-Matti Karhulahti based on reviews by Linda Kaye, Marcel Martončik, Julius Klingelhoefer and 1 anonymous reviewer

Both research and public debates around social media use tend to involve a premise of positivity bias, which refers to presenting one’s life in an overly positive light by various different means. This premise contributes to multiple potentially important follow-up hypotheses, such as the fear of missing out and low self-image effects, due to repeated consumption of positive social media content (e.g., Bayer et al. 2020, for a review). The positivity bias of social media use, itself, has received limited research attention, however.

In the present study, Masciantonio and colleagues (2024) will test positivity bias in the context of three social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, and X. The experiment involves recruiting participants into platform-specific user groups and crafting posts to be shared with friends as well as respective social media audiences. If positivity bias manifests in this context, the social media posts should introduce more positive valence in comparison to offline sharing—and if the platforms differ in their encouragement of positivity bias, they should introduce significant between-platform differences in valence.

The Stage 1 plan was reviewed by four independent experts representing relevant areas of methodological and topic expertise. Three reviewers proceeded throughout three rounds of review, after which the study was considered having met all Stage 1 criteria and the recommender granted in-principle acceptance.

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9z6hm

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. Bayer, J. B., Triệu, P., & Ellison, N. B. (2020). Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual review of psychology, 71, 471-497. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944

2. Masciantonio, A., Heiser, N., & Cherbonnier, A. (2024). Unveiling the Positivity Bias on Social Media: A Registered Experimental Study On Facebook, Instagram, And X. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/9z6hm

17 Jan 2022

STAGE 1

Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report

Veli-Matti Karhulahti, Jukka Vahlo, Marcel Martončik, Matti Munukka, Raine Koskimaa, Mikaela von Bonsdorff https://osf.io/mpz9q/

Do 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

APA (American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition). APA.
Karhulahti V-M, Vahlo J, Martončik M, Munukka M, Koskimaa R and Bonsdorff M (2022). Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. OSF mpz9q, Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mpz9q/

KAYE Linda

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom
Social sciences