PONE-D-24-25340Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and Extending a Test of Error Management TheoryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Title: "Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and Extending a Test of Error Management Theory":

1. Clarity Issues: The title is somewhat convoluted and might be difficult for readers to immediately grasp. The phrase "Possessing Potential Weapons (Still)" is particularly vague and could be clearer. It's not immediately obvious what "Still" refers to—whether it's the persistence of a previous finding or a temporal aspect.
2. Overly Complex: The title tries to convey too much information in a single line. It combines replication, extension, and the application of Error Management Theory, which could be confusing. Simplifying the title to focus on the primary aspect of the research might make it more accessible.
3. Lack of Specificity: The title doesn’t specify what kind of "potential weapons" are being discussed. This could lead to ambiguity about the scope and context of the study. Specifying whether the research focuses on physical weapons, symbolic threats, or another form of potential aggression would improve clarity.
4. Redundancy: The phrase "Heightens Anger Perception" could be seen as redundant in the context of "Error Management Theory," which may already imply a focus on perception and response. This might suggest that the title could be more concise.
5. Jargon Heavy: The use of terms like "Error Management Theory" might be too technical for a broader audience. While this may be appropriate for a specialized academic journal, it could limit the title's appeal and accessibility to a wider readership.
6. Potential for Misinterpretation: The title might be interpreted as suggesting a direct causative relationship between possessing potential weapons and heightened anger perception without adequately explaining the mechanisms or variables involved. This could lead to misunderstandings about the study’s findings.
7. Lack of Novelty Indication: The title mentions "Replicating and Extending," but doesn’t clearly indicate what new insights or contributions the research offers beyond previous studies. It might benefit from highlighting what novel aspect or new understanding the study brings to the field.

​

Here are some alternative titles that might address the issues with the original title while maintaining the core focus of the research:

1. "The Impact of Potential Weapon Possession on Anger Perception: New Insights from Error Management Theory"
2. "How Potential Weapons Influence Anger Perception: A Replication and Expansion of Error Management Theory"
3. "Reevaluating Anger Perception in the Presence of Potential Weapons: Insights from Error Management Theory"
4. "Potential Weapons and Anger Perception: A Study Extending Error Management Theory"
5. "The Role of Potential Weapons in Heightening Anger Perception: A Test of Error Management Theory"
6. "Exploring the Link Between Potential Weapons and Anger Perception: A Replication of Error Management Theory"
7. "Does Possessing Potential Weapons Affect Anger Perception? A New Test of Error Management Theory"
8. "Potential Threats and Anger Perception: An Updated Analysis of Error Management Theory"

Abstract:

1. Lack of Novelty: The abstract highlights that the study replicates previous findings without introducing significant new insights or contributions. The mention of a "reverse-halo" effect and its failure to be observed might not be sufficiently compelling if the main contribution is merely confirming past results.
2. Complex Language: The abstract uses technical jargon and complex phrasing that might not be accessible to a broader audience. Terms like "affordances," "orthogonal to error management motivations," and "homophilic similarity" could be confusing for readers unfamiliar with the specific theoretical framework.
3. Unclear Motivation for Study: The abstract doesn’t clearly justify why exploring the “reverse-halo” effect is important. The motivation for testing this effect and its implications for Error Management Theory (EMT) could be better articulated to underscore its relevance.
4. Methodological Details: While the abstract describes the general methodology, it lacks details on how the images were presented or the specific nature of the control objects used. More information on these aspects could help in assessing the validity and reliability of the findings.
5. Inadequate Discussion of Results: The results are summarized but not deeply analyzed. The abstract notes the replication of previous findings and the absence of a “reverse-halo” effect, but it does not delve into possible reasons for these outcomes or their implications for EMT.
6. Overemphasis on Negative Findings: The failure to observe the “reverse-halo” effect might overshadow the importance of the replicated findings. The abstract could benefit from a more balanced discussion that highlights the significance of the replicated results alongside the null findings.
7. Lack of Specific Implications: The abstract mentions that the results “inform prior EMT research” and “motivate further study” but does not specify how. Providing concrete examples of how these findings could influence future research or practical applications would strengthen the abstract.
8. Sample Details: The abstract mentions a sample size of 476 participants but does not provide information on participant demographics or how they might affect the study's generalizability. Including such details could enhance the understanding of the study's context and limitations.

Introduction section:

1. Overuse of Jargon: The introduction uses specialized terms and concepts, such as "Error Management Theory," "Type I and Type II errors," and "affordances," which may be unclear or confusing to readers not familiar with these concepts. Simplifying the language or providing brief definitions could improve readability.
2. Lack of Clear Focus: The introduction attempts to cover a wide range of topics, from basic Error Management Theory to the specifics of emotion perception in groups and halo effects. This breadth might make the introduction seem unfocused and could dilute the primary research question or objective.
3. Insufficient Background Context: While the introduction mentions previous research and related concepts, it does not provide enough background on why the specific study is important or how it fills a gap in the literature. More emphasis on the significance of the research question would strengthen the context.
4. Unclear Motivation for Study: The rationale for exploring the “reverse-halo” effect in the context of individuals with potentially dangerous objects could be better articulated. The introduction should make it clearer why this specific extension of the research is necessary and how it advances the field.
5. Complexity of Sentence Structure: Some sentences are complex and lengthy, which can hinder understanding. For example, sentences that introduce multiple concepts or studies simultaneously could be broken down into simpler, more digestible parts.
6. Redundancy: There is some repetition of ideas, particularly concerning the impact of possessing potentially dangerous tools and the effects of context on emotion perception. Streamlining these sections to avoid redundancy could make the introduction more concise and focused.
7. Insufficient Definition of Key Terms: Key terms like "reverse-halo effect" and "error management effects" are mentioned but not clearly defined or explained. Providing definitions or a brief explanation of these concepts would help readers grasp the research's context better.
8. Limited Discussion of Previous Research: Although the introduction references prior studies, it does not critically assess them or discuss their limitations. A more detailed review of previous findings and their shortcomings could highlight the need for the current study more effectively.
9. Inadequate Transition to Research Questions: The transition from discussing background information to stating the research questions is abrupt. A smoother transition that clearly connects the background information to the specific aims of the study would improve coherence.
10. Lack of Specificity in Hypotheses: The introduction outlines broad research aims but does not specify detailed hypotheses or predictions. Providing clear, specific hypotheses would give readers a better understanding of what the study intends to test.

Materials and Methods section:

1. Inadequate Justification for Sample Size: The decision to double the sample size from the prior study is mentioned, but the rationale behind this choice is not fully explained. More detail on how the sample size was determined, including power analysis or estimates of effect size, would strengthen the justification.
2. Recruitment Compensation: Offering $0.75 for participation may be perceived as insufficient compensation, which could affect the quality of responses and participant motivation. This low payment might lead to concerns about the adequacy of participant engagement and data quality.
3. Lack of Diversity in Sample: The sample is predominantly White (78%), which may limit the generalizability of the findings. There is no mention of how this demographic composition might impact the results or the steps taken to address potential biases related to ethnicity.
4. Insufficient Detail on Exclusion Criteria: While the introduction of exclusion criteria is noted (e.g., duplicated participants, smartphone users), there is limited information on the specific criteria used to identify these issues. More detail on how these criteria were applied and their impact on the final sample would be useful.
5. Ambiguity in Experimental Conditions: The description of the Armed and Unarmed conditions could benefit from additional detail. For example, it’s unclear how the digital manipulation was performed or whether there were any potential confounds associated with the images.
6. Potential for Demand Characteristics: The simultaneous presentation of the photograph and rating questions might lead to demand characteristics, where participants’ responses are influenced by the immediate visual context. This could affect the validity of the reported emotions.
7. Limited Description of Control Conditions: The control condition involves showing a knife in a separate window, but it is not clear if the visual presentation of the knife might still influence participants’ perceptions or if the knife image was entirely neutralized.
8. Exploratory Measures: The exploratory questions about confidence in assessments might not be sufficiently justified or linked to the primary research aims. These questions could be seen as extraneous if they do not clearly contribute to understanding the main hypotheses.
9. Potential Bias in Face Selection: The use of three white male faces to represent the friend character aims to avoid racial or ethnic confounding. However, this choice could still introduce biases related to race or ethnicity that are not addressed in the analysis or discussion.
10. Unclear Statistical Methods: The section mentions the standardization and averaging of measures but does not provide details on the statistical methods used for analysis. More information on how the data were analyzed, including any statistical tests or models, would be beneficial.
11. Methodological Limitations Not Addressed: There is no discussion of potential limitations related to the methodology, such as the potential impact of digital manipulation on the realism of the stimuli or the generalizability of the findings.
12. Confusion About Ratings: The introduction of rating scales for both state and trait emotions is clear, but the specific rationale for including both types of ratings and how they contribute to the research objectives could be better explained.

Pre-registered Hypotheses section:

1. Redundancy and Lack of Clarity: The hypotheses related to the friend of the target character are very similar to those for the target character, with only minor variations. This redundancy could make the section seem repetitive and may not clearly justify why these specific predictions about the friend character are necessary. The explanation could be more concise and focused on the novelty of the hypotheses.
2. Insufficient Justification for Predictions: While the hypotheses are listed, there is limited justification or theoretical grounding provided for why these specific predictions are made. The introduction to the predictions could benefit from a clearer explanation of the underlying rationale or theoretical framework that supports these expectations.
3. Ambiguity in Contingent Predictions: The mention that predictions regarding envisioned physical formidability are contingent on the friend character being perceived as dangerous could be confusing. The explanation for this contingency is vague, and it is unclear how this might affect the interpretation of the results.
4. Potential Overemphasis on Weak Effects: The section notes that the predictions are "highly conservative" due to the "relatively weak connection to danger cues." This might be seen as an attempt to preemptively justify the lack of strong effects, which could be perceived as a way to downplay potential negative results or lack of significant findings.
5. Lack of Specificity in Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical methods is minimal and lacks detail. For instance, the choice of a general linear model is mentioned, but there is no explanation of how variables were controlled for, or why this particular model was chosen over other possible analyses. More detail on the statistical approach and its appropriateness for the hypotheses would be beneficial.
6. Insufficient Discussion of Potential Limitations: The pre-registered hypotheses section does not address any potential limitations of the study design or hypotheses. A discussion of possible limitations or challenges in testing these hypotheses would provide a more balanced perspective.
7. No Mention of Effect Size Considerations: The section does not discuss expected effect sizes or how they were estimated. Including this information would help in understanding the anticipated magnitude of the effects and the adequacy of the sample size.
8. Lack of Integration with Prior Research: The section does not clearly integrate the pre-registered hypotheses with existing research beyond the immediate context. Providing more context on how these hypotheses build upon or diverge from prior work would strengthen the rationale.
9. Unclear Operationalization of Constructs: The operationalization of constructs like "envisioned physical formidability" is mentioned but not thoroughly explained. Clear definitions and how these constructs are measured would improve the clarity and replicability of the study.
10. Insufficient Detail on the Friend Face Model Control: While it is noted that the analyses control for which friend face model was displayed, there is no explanation of how this control was implemented or how it might impact the results. More detail on this aspect of the analysis would be useful.

Results section:

1. Insufficient Detail on Non-Significant Results: The section reports a lack of significant differences in several traits (e.g., trait fear, disgust, dishonesty) without providing much detail on these non-significant findings. It would be useful to include more information about effect sizes and power analyses to better understand the implications of these null results. Without this, it is difficult to gauge whether the non-significant results are due to true absence of effect or insufficient power.
2. Inconsistencies in Reporting: The results mention "strong effects" for the friend model but do not clearly define what constitutes a "strong effect" in this context. The use of subjective terms like "strong effects" could be replaced with more precise statistical measures or effect sizes to ensure clarity and objectivity.
3. Lack of Explanation for Post-Hoc Analyses: The post-hoc Tukey comparisons and subsequent results are mentioned briefly without a clear explanation of why these analyses were necessary. Including a rationale for performing post-hoc tests and how they contribute to the understanding of the data would enhance the clarity and robustness of the results section.
4. Ambiguous Interpretation of “Reverse-Halo” Effect: The results section states that no effects of condition were found on ratings of the friend character but does not delve into potential reasons for this null finding beyond the methodological limitations. More detailed discussion of why the hypothesized "reverse-halo" effect might not have been observed could provide deeper insights.
5. Insufficient Context for Correlations: The significant correlations found between state and trait ratings of the target and friend are reported, but the implications of these correlations are not fully explored. More discussion is needed on how these correlations contribute to the understanding of affective homophily and whether they support or contradict the hypotheses.
6. Methodological Limitations Briefly Noted: The discussion of methodological limitations, such as the sequential presentation of the target and friend and the online nature of the study, is somewhat superficial. A more thorough exploration of how these limitations specifically impact the findings and suggestions for addressing these issues in future research would strengthen the section.
7. Overemphasis on Significant Results: There is a noticeable focus on the significant findings related to state and trait anger and unpleasantness, while the non-significant results receive less attention. Balancing the discussion to equally address and interpret non-significant results would provide a more comprehensive view of the data.
8. Lack of Integration with Pre-Registered Hypotheses: The results section could better integrate with the pre-registered hypotheses by clearly mapping out which predictions were supported or refuted. A more direct comparison between the hypothesized and observed results would help in evaluating the study's contribution to the existing literature.
9. Presentation of Statistical Data: The tables and figures are mentioned but not thoroughly discussed. Providing more detailed explanations of the statistical data presented in Tables 1 and 2, as well as Figures 2, would enhance the reader's understanding of the results.
10. Exploratory Findings: The exploratory findings on inferred homophily are mentioned but not thoroughly analyzed. A more detailed discussion on how these findings contribute to the overall research question and their implications for future studies would be beneficial.

Discussion section:

1. Lack of Critical Analysis of Null Results: The discussion briefly mentions the null results for traits such as fear, disgust, and dishonesty but does not deeply explore the potential reasons for these findings. The lack of significant results is mentioned as potentially due to increased statistical power, but more detailed analysis and potential explanations for the absence of expected effects are needed.
2. Methodological Limitations: Although methodological limitations are acknowledged, such as the sequential presentation of individuals and the use of online platforms, the discussion does not sufficiently address how these limitations might have specifically influenced the findings. A more detailed critique of how these factors could have impacted the results and suggestions for overcoming these limitations in future research would provide a clearer understanding of the study's limitations.
3. Overemphasis on Replication Success: The discussion focuses heavily on the successful replication of certain effects, particularly related to state and trait anger and unpleasantness. While replication is important, the discussion could benefit from a more balanced view that also critically examines the aspects where the study did not replicate prior findings.
4. Insufficient Exploration of “Reverse-Halo” Effect: The absence of support for the "reverse-halo" effect is mentioned but not explored in depth. The discussion should more thoroughly investigate why the hypothesized reverse-halo effect was not observed and consider alternative explanations or factors that may have influenced this outcome.
5. Exploratory Findings and Their Implications: The exploratory findings on affective homophily are briefly noted but not discussed in depth. A more detailed interpretation of how these findings contribute to the understanding of emotion perception and the implications for future research would strengthen the discussion.
6. Generalizability Issues: The discussion touches on the lack of ecological validity of the online approach but does not elaborate on how this might limit the generalizability of the findings. More emphasis on how the study's results might differ in real-world settings or using more immersive research methods would be useful.
7. Future Research Directions: While future research is mentioned, the discussion could provide more specific recommendations for subsequent studies. For instance, what exact aspects of the "reverse-halo" effect need further exploration, and how can future research address the limitations identified in this study?
8. Implications of Findings: The discussion mentions the implications of the findings for Error Management Theory (EMT) and affective science but does so in a somewhat cursory manner. A deeper analysis of how the findings specifically advance or challenge existing theories and what this means for practical applications or theoretical advancements would be beneficial.
9. Inconsistent Emphasis: The emphasis on certain results, like the significant findings of state and trait anger, might overshadow other important aspects of the study. A more balanced discussion that equally addresses both significant and non-significant results, and integrates these into the broader context of the study's aims, would provide a more comprehensive view.
10. Clarity and Structure: The discussion could benefit from clearer structuring. It jumps between various topics, such as replication success, methodological limitations, and exploratory findings, without a clear narrative thread. A more organized discussion that systematically addresses each aspect of the study and ties them back to the research questions would improve readability and coherence.

References:

1. Reference Duplication:
   • Issues:
     1. References 4 and 5 are identical, creating unnecessary duplication in the reference list. This redundancy can confuse readers and detract from the professionalism of the manuscript.
   • Recommendation: Remove the duplicated reference and ensure each reference entry is unique.
2. Incomplete or Incorrect Details:
   • Issues:
     1. Reference 2 is incomplete, lacking details such as the full journal name or volume and page numbers.
     2. Reference 16 is cited as “RTeam. Core. R,” which is not a standard citation format and does not provide sufficient details for readers to locate the source.
   • Recommendation: Ensure all references are complete and correctly formatted according to the journal’s citation style. For example, provide full details for software references, including the version number and accurate publication information.
3. Outdated or Irrelevant Sources:
   • Issues:
     1. Some references, like Remmers and Martin (1944), may be outdated given the field's advancements in understanding the halo effect.
     2. Several references are from niche or less widely-read journals, which might limit the broader applicability of the cited works.
   • Recommendation: Consider including more recent and widely-recognized sources to ensure the literature review reflects current research trends and standards.

Comments on Supplementary Tables:

1. Lack of Contextual Information:
   • Issues:
     1. Tables 4, 5, and 6 lack adequate context or explanation within the supplementary materials. Readers may struggle to understand the relevance of these tables without additional narrative or background information.
   • Recommendation: Provide a brief description or explanation for each supplementary table to clarify their significance and how they relate to the main findings of the study.
2. Data Interpretation and Clarity:
   • Issues:
     1. Table 4’s post-hoc results are presented with limited interpretation, making it difficult to understand the implications of the findings without further explanation.
     2. Table 5 and Table 6 focus on the removal of Model 3, but the rationale for this removal and its impact on the results are not clearly explained.
   • Recommendation: Include a discussion or summary that interprets the results shown in these tables, particularly how the removal of Model 3 affects the overall conclusions.
3. Inconsistency in Reporting:
   • Issues:
     1. The p-values and F-values in Tables 5 and 6 are reported without accompanying effect sizes or confidence intervals, which are crucial for interpreting the practical significance of the results.
   • Recommendation: Report effect sizes and confidence intervals in addition to p-values and F-values to provide a more comprehensive view of the data’s implications.
4. Potential Errors or Omissions:
   • Issues:
     1. The p-values for some tests in Tables 5 and 6 are very close to conventional significance thresholds (e.g., p = 0.054), which may suggest potential issues with the data or analysis that require further scrutiny.
   • Recommendation: Re-evaluate the data and ensure that all statistical analyses are accurately reported and interpreted. Address any borderline results with a detailed explanation of their implications.

Statistical Concerns and Results Interpretation:

• Table 4: Post-Hoc Tukey T-Tests
  • Significant Differences: The Tukey HSD test results reveal significant differences between Model 3 and Models 1 and 2 for state anger and trait anger. The p-values for contrasts between Model 1 and Model 3 and Model 2 and Model 3 are all significant, indicating that Model 3 differs significantly in its impact on state anger and trait anger compared to the other models. However, the non-significant results for other comparisons (e.g., State M1-M2, Trait M1-M2) might suggest that these models do not differ meaningfully in certain aspects.
  • Implications: These results suggest that Model 3 has a different effect compared to Models 1 and 2. The study needs to better address why Model 3 shows such a pronounced difference and what this means for the overall findings. The variation across models needs clearer interpretation and discussion.
• Table 5: Effects After Removal of Model 3
  • Effect Sizes and p-Values: The F-values and p-values for the effects of the armed condition on various emotions show that while state anger and trait unpleasantness are significantly affected, trait anger's p-value is on the borderline of significance (p = 0.054). This indicates potential issues with the robustness of some findings.
  • Implications: The removal of Model 3 changes the significance of some effects. The study must clarify how the exclusion of a model impacts the results and ensure that the findings are consistently reliable.
• Table 6: Null Effects on Friend’s Emotions
  • Null Findings: The results indicate null effects for most emotions (e.g., state anger, trait anger, trait fear) when the armed condition is present. This raises questions about the lack of impact on the friend’s emotional ratings and the generalizability of the findings.
  • Implications: The null results for the friend’s emotional perceptions suggest that the study’s hypothesis about the “reverse-halo” effect may not be supported. This needs a thorough discussion of why these null results occurred and what it means for the study’s conclusions.

2. Discussion and Theoretical Implications:

• Results and Hypotheses: The tables reveal discrepancies between predicted and observed effects. For instance, the "reverse-halo" effect hypothesis is not supported by the data. The discussion needs to address why the expected effects did not materialize and how this impacts the theoretical framework.
• Ecological Validity: The study’s findings might be influenced by the experimental design, including the use of photographs and online methods. The discussion should provide a more robust explanation of how these factors might affect the results and their practical implications.

3. Reference and Supplementary Materials:

• Accuracy and Completeness: The references and supplementary materials must be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Any inconsistencies or errors in data presentation can affect the study's credibility and require correction.
• Clarity in Reporting: The presentation of supplementary tables should be clear and directly related to the main results. Any discrepancies or unexpected results should be addressed and explained in the context of the main findings.

This revision should involve:

1. Re-evaluating Statistical Analyses: Ensure all models are appropriately assessed and clarify the impact of removing Model 3.
2. Clarifying Theoretical Implications: Address how the findings align or deviate from theoretical predictions and discuss the implications for the proposed “reverse-halo” effect.
3. Improving Results Presentation: Ensure accuracy and clarity in reporting results and references.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

In addition to addressing these editor’s comments, please ensure that you also incorporate the suggestions from the reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pradeep Paraman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Where in USA was this research carried out?This is not stated. A brief description of the study site (population and ethnic composition included) will assist us apppreciate the study conditions and also agree/or not on the appropriateness of the study sample

Reviewer #2: Review of: Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and

Extending a Test of Error Management Theory

MSID: PONE-D-24-25340

This manuscript professes to replicate previous findings about Error Management Theory (EMT) and to extend the findings to examine potential “halo-effects” to neutral associated individuals. In sum, I find the research design and empirical evaluations to be acceptable (with a possible exception), and the results sound given the experiment.

First and foremost, this is not my area of expertise. While I am competent to evaluate the research design and implementation, this literature is foreign to me, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise in my review. With this caveat noted, here are my impressions. First, I am a bit surprised to see the results of this experiment being expressed in terms of linear regression models. Given the authors’ use of Latex and R, I would have expected a more sophisticated modeling schema, especially given the truncated data and non-linear comparisons. Conversely, dealing with experimental design in this manner, I would have expected to see the discussion of and the results presented of a Latin Square design. Not that this matters much, as the OLS models will replicate the more conventional ANOVA presentation – it's just interesting.

I see no deficits in the empirical modeling nor in the interpretation of that modeling. The authors do an excellent job of qualifying the findings. Similarly, I have no problems with the sampling strategy or sample size. My concerns with this manuscript are twofold. First, the treatment illustration portrays an individual with a chef’s knife in a partially extended arm. My concern here is that attitudinal data of perceived threats extends beyond inanimate objects to body position and posturing. Given that this is a somewhat atypical posture for a “cooking enthusiast” to hold a knife, I have concerns about the validity of the neutral armed image. Secondly, and far less important, I am skeptical that this replication presents much in the way of substantive contribution to the literature – but that is a question far better suited for someone with better knowledge of the literature.

Reviewer #3: The target manuscript reports the results of one study. Its primary goal is to replicate the results of Halbrook et al (2014, study 1), with a secondary goal of exploring the so called "reverse-halo effect". The manuscript is very well written (I found only a typo in page 3, line 82: the sentence ends with quotation marks), clear and rigorous while also managing to be engaging – it was truly a pleasure for me to read this work. I also congratulate the authors for their effort to replicate an important result – despite its widely acknowledged relevance, it is unfortunate that most authors seldomly devote their efforts to replications.

In regards to the secondary goal – exploring the "reverse-halo effect" – there is room for improvement and I could easily suggest some ways to strengthen the methodological choices. However, I will abstain from doing so in this review. For one, it is unlikely that any of my suggestions would supplant the authors’ own perspectives for future studies. On the other hand, within the logic of this manuscript, where that part of the study is manifestly exploratory in nature, any such possible modifications of the methodology might compromise the main goal. All things considered, I found the work reported in this manuscript to be well thought and well balanced, given its two aims (the thoughtful discussion on limitations greatly contributes to this assessment).

Maybe the only section that I found could be slightly improved is the “Materials and methods”. On a first reading, it was not immediately clear to me what parts of the task were similar when assessing the Target and the Friend – only when reading the results did I understand that most questions regarding the Target were also posed for the Friend. If the authors decide to revise this section, it would only improve an already great paper.

In sum, I found this manuscript to be as close to be published in its current from as possible. For that, I congratulate the authors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Willice O. Abuya

Reviewer #2: Yes: Warren S Eller

Reviewer #3: Yes: Nuno Alexandre De Sá Teixeira

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-25340.pdf

PONE-D-24-25340R1Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and Extending a Test of Error Management TheoryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

I have received two independent reviews from experts in the field of emotion. I am very grateful for their rigorous evaluations. The reviewers have identified potential in your paper; however, they also raised several critical concerns and offered suggestions.

The comments from the reviewers are included below. Specifically, Reviewer 4 raised several critical concerns regarding the methodological rigor and transparency. These concerns shall be fully addressed through amendments, updates to results, additional analyses, or clarifications of limitations. Reviewer 5 also provided practical suggestions for enhancing clarity. I have independently reviewed your manuscript and concur that these concerns need addressing.

After careful consideration, I believe that your manuscript has merit, but in its current form, it does not fully meet the publication criteria of PLOS ONE. As the reviewers’ concerns provide clear direction for the revision of your manuscript, we invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

June Chun Yeung

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: The authors conducted a useful study consisting of a replication, extended to test a novel hypothesis. Their work constitutes valuable contributions to the field. However, while reading the manuscript I noticed some errors in the interpretation of the results, as well as doubts as to how the statistical analyses were conducted. I present them along with recommendations on how to improve the paper beyond its current state below. I realize that the authors have already passed through one stage of revisions and might feel tired with the revisions, however I believe that the points I’ve outlined below will improve the works scientific value and allow the readers to fully benefit from reading it. I encourage the authors to share my perspective.

1. , The authors test all of their hypotheses related to state and trait emotions both in the target and the friend condition using one huge MANOVA, controlling for the specific picture condition that was shown for the friend condition. This does not make sense as the ratings for the target were presented prior to presenting the friends faces, therefore the friend face condition cannot possibly modulate the responses of participants with regards to the target. The authors should rerun their analyses, separating the tests for the target, and the friend condition.

2. The authors should explicitly specify the type of replication they are running on the Holbrook et al., 2014. In my estimation this is a direct replication, as opposed to conceptual, however authors should double check it in light of their knowledge of the methodology of their study.

3. The authors write:

“However, departing from prior findings, we observed no effects of the object manipulation on trait fear, disgust, or dishonesty, potentially owing to the greater power in this study (N =476) compared to the initial study (N =264).”

This interpretation appears to misconstrue the concept of statistical power. Statistical power is defined as the probability of detecting an effect, assuming that an effect actually exists. Greater statistical power increases the likelihood of identifying a true effect, not the likelihood of failing to find one. Therefore, attributing the absence of effects to higher statistical power is conceptually inconsistent. A more plausible explanation might involve differences in study design, sample characteristics, or genuine null effects in this larger sample. This section should be revised.

4. The authors write:

“While this null finding may be interpreted as evidence against the proposed ”reverse-halo” effect with respect to appraisals of allies”

However, this interpretation is not justified. A null finding does not provide evidence against the hypothesis; it merely indicates that the test failed to detect an effect under the conditions of the study. Without a prior assumption about the expected effect size, the test is inconclusive and cannot substantiate or refute the validity of the hypothesis, nor inform its validity in any way. Aside from that, the two methodological limitations that the authors proceed to outline after the snippet above do not include the potential insufficient power limitation. This section should be revised.

5. I recommend the authors to specify the least meaningful effect size of interest for their reverse halo effect, conduct a post-hoc power analysis, and comment on it in the discussion. Additionally, since some of the Holbrook effects were not replicated despite having a twice as large sample, similar post-hoc power analyses would be in order for the replication effects.

6. It would be useful to expand on alternative or complementary explanations of the recovered effect for the knife condition. This meta-analysis https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868317725419 for example explains similar effects using the General Aggression Model (GAM), authors are free to take inspiration from it. (Disclaimer: I did not author it, nor am I personally benefiting from recommending it in any shape or form).

7. While I agree with the limitation of low ecological validity with regards to the model holding the knife, I would argue that the friend model photos you used are even less ecologically valid, given that they are basically disembodied faces, without traces of necks nor bodies, which might have directly prevented you from noticing the reverse halo effect. I recommend the authors to add this point to the limitation section, hoping that other researchers will test your hypothesis with more ecologically valid methods in the future, which the authors could also consider adding as a future studies direction recommendation. (I understand that the choice of the stimuli might have been dictated by the want to control information such as clothing etc., but this seems like an overkill)

8. I recommend the authors to specify that the study is a replication of the Holbrook study directly in the abstract so that meta-analysts will have an easier time finding it in the future. Failed (or partially replicated) published replications are just as useful to that end as they are rare.

9. Finally, it is my duty as a reviewer to ensure that the study has been conducted in accordance with ethical standards, especially since it is a preregistration. For that reason, I will kindly request the authors to explain why the csv file that they have used to store the results is named EMT2, implying that it could be a second version of a file, and why the initial R code uploaded on the same date as the preregistration was deleted, and replaced by a different R code. Furthermore, the R code that has been uploaded later uses a csv named EMT.csv, and not EMT2 implying that the csv was altered after the code has been run. Explanations for all of that would be most welcome.

10. Connected to the previous point, I wasn’t able to reproduce the same statistical results as reported in the paper using the code and data available on the osf platform. Granted, the results look similar – for example the computed F value for State Anger is 12.58, while authors report 13.51 in the paper. Reproducible results need to be provided and reported. Please also explain the reason for why this discrepancy currently exists.

11. When it comes to describing the statistical tests all that authors write is that they employed the general linear model. When I first read the paper, I understood from that that the authors conducted parallel regressions for each dependent variable, which led me to question whether presenting significant results without correcting for multiple comparisons is necessary. When I was finally able to see the code, I noticed that the authors used a MANOVA for their results, which is indeed the preferred analysis for this situation and eliminates the multiple comparison problem. This should be reported in more detail in the manuscript text.

12. Finally in the R code, the authors test the effect of the condition on state fear and state disgust, yet they do not report the results. This is concerning as the authors do not report any hypotheses with regard to those metrics, yet they include it in the manova. Why?

Overall, the two main issues I have with the manuscript currently is the lack of transparency with regard to how the analyses were conducted, as well as the inaccuracies in the interpretation of results. Unless these issues are corrected, I deem the manuscript unfit for publication. Also, until the reproducibility issues are solved I treat this situation as if the authors did not share all of the data they used to generate the results from the manuscript.

Reviewer #5: The study has two main objectives. Firstly, it aims to replicate Holbrook et al. (2014)’s work and examine whether a target in the armed condition (vs. unarmed condition) is perceived to be angrier. Secondly, it extends prior replication work by exploring whether a friend of the target in the armed condition (vs. unarmed condition) is also appraised as angrier as well.

With the sample size larger than that in Holbrook et al. (2014), the authors replicated the result that participants perceived the target holding a threatening (vs. non-threatening) object as angrier. However, the result was not extended to their friend of the target. Interestingly, the authors found that the affective homophily was present, as the state and trait emotion ratings of both the target and their friend were generally similar.

While I am not an expert in the field of emotion perception, I can understand most parts of the research report. Since this is my first time reading it, I believe the authors could make some slight revisions to enhance clarity, and I have the following suggestions:

#1) In line 78, it would be clearer if the authors replaced the word 'control' with 'unarmed,' assuming that the control condition refers to the unarmed condition. In line 79, the authors can also consider revising the text to clearly state whether the model in the control condition is the same as the model in the unarmed condition.

#2.1) In Figure 1 (Stimuli representing Target and Friend), the authors might consider adding labels for Models 1, 2, and 3 next to each photo of the target’s close friend. While reading the results of the post-hoc Tukey comparisons (lines 160-164), I was unsure which male photo represented Model 3. I assumed the male model with the shortest hair was Model 3.

#2.2) I also assumed the results of post-hoc Tukey comparisons (lines 160-164, and SI Table 1) refer to comparisons of state and trait emotions between friends in the armed condition.

#3) In line 166, the authors wrote ‘We ran multiple linear regressions on friend state and trait anger with both friend state and trait anger and condition as our predictor variables.’.

However, after checking with the data and the syntax, I believe the sentence should be revised to: ‘We ran multiple linear regressions on friend state and trait anger, using both the target’s state and trait anger and condition as our predictor variables.’.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to Authors 08122024.docx

PONE-D-24-25340R2Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and Extending a Test of Error Management TheoryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moser,

Thank you for your thorough revision of the manuscript titled "Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and Extending a Test of Error Management Theory." I appreciate the effort you and your co-authors have put into addressing the reviewers' comments and clarifying methodological details.

The revisions successfully improve the methodological rigor and transparency of the study, particularly in response to concerns about statistical analyses and data reporting. Your responses to Reviewers 4 and 5 demonstrate careful attention to their feedback, and the modifications made to the manuscript effectively enhance its clarity and accuracy.

Upon my independent evaluation, I find that your manuscript is now close to a publishable standard. That said, there are still a few areas where minor, additional refinements are needed:

1. Currently, the manuscript does not provide a descriptive table summarizing the mean and standard deviation (SD) for all emotion ratings across all conditions (target and friend, armed vs. unarmed conditions). While the OSF script shows that some means and SDs were computed, not all emotion variables appear to be reported. I also noticed that some calculations for descriptive statistics (mean and SD) may be incomplete or inconsistent (https://osf.io/sdaqj, lines 70-90, Date modified: January 29, 2025). I recommend update the script and adding a descriptive statistics table to the results section, ensuring all reported outcome variables are included and clearly reported. For example, structuring a table to include rows for each emotion measure (e.g., state anger, trait anger, state fear, etc.), with separate columns for the experimental conditions (armed/unarmed) and for the target and friend ratings with Mean and SD.

2. Based on the descriptive table suggested in #1, I also recommend reporting the standardized differences and statistical tests (t-tests and Cohen’s d) between the armed vs. unarmed conditions. This would provide an initial insight into the experimental effects before the main MANOVA analysis.

3. Before conducting the main analysis, please examine and briefly report the key assumptions of MANOVA, including tests for multivariate normality and homogeneity of covariance matrices.

4. For all the MANOVA results (both main text and SOM), please report effect sizes (e.g., eta squared or omega squared) alongside F-values and p-values, and provide corresponding effect size interpretations.

5. In Table 3, the reported values are labeled as β (beta coefficients) and the caption is about regression analysis, but based on the provided description and analysis, these values appear to be correlation coefficients (r). If the analysis was conducted using correlation, the caption should be revised to reflect this. If the authors intend to report regression results (with more than one predictor), run the regression analysis accordingly and report the appropriate regression coefficients separately.

Given the above points, I am recommending Minor Revision for your manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

June Chun Yeung

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: I applaud the authors on the hopefully final version of their article. All of the comments that I've had have been appropriately addressed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: Yes: Hubert Plisiecki

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Possessing Potential Weapons (Still) Heightens Anger Perception: Replicating and Extending a Test of Error Management Theory

PONE-D-24-25340R3

Dear Dr. Moser,

Thank you for your thorough response and for the detailed revisions made to your manuscript. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

June Chun Yeung

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE