This manuscript is a programmatic Registered Report that is expected to be the basis of two final manuscripts, one of which explores the feedback mechanisms applied researchers adopt in their work and the role of open scholarship in applied research, and the second that focuses upon climate change.

Working together (vs. individually) improves the performance of people from working-class contexts. Consequently, teams with a higher (vs. lower) percentage of individuals from working-class contexts perform better. However, previous research offers two competing mechanisms for this effect. On the one hand, research has provided evidence for a pathway through skills: people from working-class contexts more frequently engage in effective group processes when working together. On the other hand, there is evidence for a pathway through sense of fit: individuals from working-class contexts feel a greater sense of belonging in interdependent settings. In this registered report, we will provide the first simultaneous test of these two proposed mechanisms as the route to successful performance for working-class individuals in teams. Moreover, we will examine if meeting mode—i.e., the extent to which teams work together synchronously (vs. asynchronously)—serves as an important boundary condition for the performance of people from working-class contexts in teams. We hypothesize that the beneficial effects of working together for students from working-class contexts will be diminished when teams work together primarily asynchronously. Lastly, we will provide the first confirmatory test and extension in a real-world collegiate setting where students from working-class contexts are in the majority (in contrast to prior work where they were in the numerical minority). Taken together, this registered report will replicate and extend past research on contextual routes to reduce social class inequalities, and shed light on the mechanisms through which these routes operate.

Objectives: Racial discrimination experiences contribute to health disparities and can influence individuals’ health. Yet, pathways by which discrimination-related experiences affect alcohol craving remain understudied using experimental designs. Additionally, limited research has examined possible differential effects of “major” discrimination and microaggression experiences in everyday life on alcohol craving. This between-groups experiment examined causal effects of everyday racial discrimination on stress, negative emotions, and alcohol craving. We also tested indirect pathways by which discrimination-related experiences were linked to alcohol craving via stress and negative emotions. Method: People of color and Indigenous peoples participated in the study (N=184; Mage=23.90; 47.8% women; 48.9% community adults). Participants were randomized to one of four experimental conditions, in which they experienced in virtual environments either “major” discrimination, microinsult, microinvalidation, or daily hassles unrelated to race/racism. Participants’ levels of stress, negative emotions, and alcohol craving were assessed immediately before and after experimental simulations. Results: Compared to daily hassles unrelated to race/racism, simulated racial discrimination elicited greater stress and negative emotions. Daily hassles caused greater alcohol craving among those who endorsed higher levels of coping motives for drinking. We observed minimal differences in stress and negative emotions across the three racial discrimination conditions, and found no evidence supporting indirect links between racial discrimination and alcohol craving via stress and negative emotions. Conclusion: Everyday racial discrimination—regardless of intensity level—is more stressful than daily hassles unrelated to race/racism. Future research should examine cumulative effects of racial discrimination, and understanding individual difference factors that moderate its immediate and delayed effects.

Intact cognitive control is critical for goal-directed behavior and is widely studied in healthy and clinical populations using the error-related negativity (ERN). A common assumption in such studies is that ERNs recorded during different experimental paradigms reflect the same construct or functionally equivalent processes and that ERN is functionally distinct from other error-monitoring event-related potentials (ERPs; error positivity [Pe]), other neurophysiological indices of cognitive control (N2), and even other indices unrelated to cognitive control (visual N1). The present registered report represents a replication-plus-extension study of the psychometric validity of cognitive control ERPs (Riesel et al., 2013, Biological Psychology) and evaluated the convergent and divergent validity of ERN, Pe, N2, and visual N1 recorded during three paradigms (flanker, Stroop, Go/no-go). Data from 182 participants were collected from two study sites, and ERP psychometric reliability and validity were evaluated in comparison to ERPs and internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Findings supported replication of convergent and divergent validity of ERN, Pe, and Pe (error minus correct)—these ERPs correlated more with themselves across tasks than with other ERPs measured during the same task. Convergent validity of ERN across tasks was not replicated, despite high internal consistency. ERN was strongly correlated with N2 at levels similar or higher than those in support of convergent validity for other ERPs, although the present study failed to provide evidence of divergent validity for ERN and Pe from N2 or the theoretically-unrelated N1. ERN and ERN were unrelated to internalizing or externalizing symptoms. Present findings underscore the importance of considering the psychometric validity of ERPs as it provides a foundation for interpreting and comparing ERPs across different tasks and studies.

It is important to understand how persuasive the most-cited climate change messaging strategies are. In five replication studies, we found limited evidence of persuasive effects of three highly cited strategies (N = 3,216). We then conducted a registered report megastudy (N = 13,544) testing the effects of the 10 most-cited climate change messaging strategies on Americans’ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour. Six messages significantly affected multiple preregistered attitudes, with effects ranging from 1 to 4 percentage points. Persuasiveness varied little across party lines, inconsistent with theories predicting heterogeneous effects for targeted messages. No message increased pro-environmental donations, suggesting costly behaviours are difficult to influence with messaging alone. Inference of mechanisms driving effects was limited as the most impactful messages influenced multiple mediating variables. Taken together, these results identify several persuasive strategies, while also highlighting the limits of short-form messages for increasing Americans’ support for action to address climate change.