Registered report: How open do you want your science? An international investigation into knowledge and attitudes of psychology students.

The use of Open Science practices is often proposed as a way to improve research practice, especially in psychology. Open Science can increase transparency and therefore reduce questionable research practices, making research more accessible to students, scholars, policy makers, and the public. However, little is known about how widespread Open Science practices are taught and how students are educated about these practices. In addition, it remains unknown how informing students about Open Science actually impacts their understanding and adoption of such practices. This registered report proposes the validation of a questionnaire. The aim is to survey how much psychology students know about Open Science and to assess whether knowledge of and exposure to Open Science in general-be it through university curricula or social media-influences attitudes towards the concept and intentions to implement relevant practices.

The general fault in our fault lines.

Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide.

Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk.

Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky's 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utility theory, which had remarkable impacts on science, policy and industry. Though substantial evidence supports prospect theory, many presumed canonical theories have drawn scrutiny for recent replication failures. In response, we directly test the original methods in a multinational study (n = 4,098 participants, 19 countries, 13 languages), adjusting only for current and local currencies while requiring all participants to respond to all items. The results replicated for 94% of items, with some attenuation. Twelve of 13 theoretical contrasts replicated, with 100% replication in some countries. Heterogeneity between countries and intra-individual variation highlight meaningful avenues for future theorizing and applications. We conclude that the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyond any reasonable thresholds.

Getting closer? Differences remain in neuropsychological assessments converted to mobile devices.

Dementia is an increasing concern in today's aging society. Despite the limited evidence for dementia screening at a population level, a push to improve diagnosis and the expansion of technology usage within health-care settings has led to the rising popularity of computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs). Some CNADs are completely new tests, others are direct translations of traditional pen-and-paper cognitive functioning tests. This study is an investigation of the equivalence between two existing pen-and-paper tests and their translated versions on mobile platforms. In this small-scale study (N = 42), the scores on two multidomain assessments-Saint Louis University Mental State Examination (SLUMS; Feliciano et al., 2013) and Cambridge University Pen to Digital Equivalence assessment (CUPDE; Ruggeri, Maguire, Andrews, Martin, & Menon, 2016)-were significantly different, even with multiple design iterations, when participants were matched by age and score on an independent screening tool, the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Exam (SAGE), t(13) = 2.55, p < .05, d = .680. There was no relationship between the Color Trails Task (CTT; D'Elia, Satz, Uchiyama, & White, 1996; Maj et al., 1993) and its mobile translation, the electronic CTT (eCTT), ρ = -.144, n = 21, p = .533. Though no difference was identified between the eCTT and the modified pen-and-paper CTT (pCTT) scores, t(13) = .092, p = .928, there was no relationship between eCTT and pCTT, r = .139, n = 14, p = .635. Outcome scores of mobile-based assessments appear to remain distinct from the established norms of traditional assessments, adding to existing concerns associated with population-screening programs via mobile applications. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).