["itemContainer",{"xmlns:xsi":"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance","xsi:schemaLocation":"http://omeka.org/schemas/omeka-xml/v5 http://omeka.org/schemas/omeka-xml/v5/omeka-xml-5-0.xsd","uri":"https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/items?output=omeka-json&sort_dir=d&sort_field=Dublin+Core%2CTitle","accessDate":"2026-05-22T22:57:13+00:00"},["miscellaneousContainer",["pagination",["pageNumber","1"],["perPage","10"],["totalResults","148"]]],["item",{"itemId":"156","public":"1","featured":"0"},["collection",{"collectionId":"2"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"179"},["text","Eye tracking "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"180"},["text","Understanding psychological processes though eye tracking"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3205"},["text"," Dr Megan Readman"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3206"},["text","MSc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3207"},["text","Neuro-clinical psychology "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3208"},["text","20"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3209"},["text","T-test and regression"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"199","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"226"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/96376421108de2636d9e981cf41048d7.pdf"],["authentication","207c5b9b4b7a6c1b355951f5e4cfe9e3"]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3968"},["text","What person attributes influence the comprehension of written health information? A scoping review and critical appraisal "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3969"},["text","Charlotte Betts "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3970"},["text","11/09/2023"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3971"},["text","Increasingly, individuals are required to be actively involved in their healthcare. To do so successfully, individuals need to possess the skills and resources to be able to access, understand, and apply health information. Health communication guidance proposes that health information is not understood due to the mismatch between adults average literacy skills and the literacy skills required to comprehend health information. To tackle this, the use of plain language, such as shortening sentences and removing jargon, is promoted. Policies, however, do not commonly consider the impact of person attributes, such as age, education, and gender, on the comprehension of health information. To understand the nature and scope of current research, and whether person attributes do have an impact, a scoping review was conducted. The search strategy yielded 5,459 articles which were then screened, resulting in a final sample of 99 studies. Quantitative analyses and a critical appraisal revealed three main findings: (1) the research is heterogenous and evolving; (2) person attributes are not commonly used in analyses; and (3) when person attributes are included, the effects on comprehension vary. The findings and implications of this review have the potential to influence how future research is conducted, and crucially inform policies about the importance of person attributes on the comprehension of health information."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3972"},["text","health literacy, comprehension, person attributes, health outcomes.\r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3973"},["text","Stage 1: Identify the Research Question\r\nThe current research is an updated scoping review, building upon earlier work by Davies et al. (in preparation), which seeks to answer: What person attributes affect or can be predicted to affect the response of individuals to written health information?\r\n\r\nTable 2\r\nForm Developer: Rebecca A. James\r\n\r\nSearch strategy methods\r\nStrategy\r\nMethod\r\nBibliographic \r\nSearched the following: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; PubMed; and Web of Science (WoS).\r\nJournal \r\nObtained all sources from the following journals between 2018-11-08 and 2023-05-05: Patient Education and Counselling; Health Communication; and Journal of Health Communication.\r\nAuthor\r\nObtained sources from the following authors between the dates 2018-11-08 and 2023-05-05: TC Davis; Dan Morrow; Chiung-Ju Liu; Michael Paasche-Orlow; Lisa Soederberg Miller; Rima Rudd; and Michael Wolf.\r\nReference\r\nOnce the full text of the bibliographic, journal, and author searches were complete, the reference lists of the included items were examined to locate new and possibly relevant articles.\r\n\r\nStage 2: Identifying Relevant Studies\r\nSources were identified using four methods: (1) bibliographic search; (2) journal search; (3) author search; and (4) reference search. Grey literature was not searched due to concerns with the quality of the literature and possible time constraints. Excluding the reference search, all articles were published between 8th November 2018 to 5th May 2023. Details of each of the search methods are outlined in Table 2.\r\n\r\nStage 3: Study Selection\r\nOnce articles were imported to Rayyan, a free online software application for conducting reviews (Ouzzani et al., 2016), duplicate articles were identified and removed. Then articles went through a title and abstract screening whereby articles which did not include the following were excluded: (1) a measure of understanding, comprehension, or readability; (2) a quantitative outcome; (3) populations who are typically developed; (4) presentation of health information; (5) present original data (excluding reviews); and (6) presented in English or English was a first language.\r\n\r\nThe exclusion criteria (Table 3) enabled the final sample of studies to be focussed and relevant to the review. Included articles were then read in full and the same exclusion criteria was applied. Articles which passed the full-text screening were then examined to identify relevant studies from the reference lists, and these references then underwent the same screening process outlined above. Following best practice recommendations (Levac et al., 2010), study selection was conducted by myself and TM (a MSc student) to reduce the chance of bias. Further, regular training and meetings took place (with TM and supervisor RD) to become familiar with the process and to discuss and resolve conflicting decisions between researchers. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTable 3\r\nExclusion criteria for study selection\r\nExclusion Criteria\r\nReasoning\r\nNot a measure(-s) of understanding, comprehension, or readability, metacomprehension, or recall\r\nArticles which do not measure understanding, either directly, or indirectly, and do not measure readability of texts, are not relevant to the current review.\r\nNot quantitative outcomes\r\nQuantitative data is needed to understand average associations between the variation of person attributes and comprehension responses.\r\nNot typical development (excluding participants presenting cognitive or language impairments)\r\nNeed to first understand how responses to health information varies within a typical population. Future research should be more inclusive to see how response varies in the whole population.\r\nNo presentation of health information.\r\nThe present review is concerned with comprehension and response to written health information.\r\nNot original data (rather than reviews).\r\n\r\nAlthough reviews themselves are not targets for review, they will be identified as potentially informative.\r\nNot English or second language speakers of English.\r\nThere is limited information regarding how comprehension responses to text may be different or similar in different language, further, text properties may differ.\r\n\r\nStage 4: Data Charting\r\nArticles were classified as being either an experimental, readability, or review article and as this paper focusses on research investigating the effects of person attributes, only experimental articles are analysed and reported. TM analysed and reported readability studies. Data extraction was completed so that information about the nature and characteristics of the study could be recorded. Data extraction was achieved by entering information (Table 4) into an online Qualtrics form which was developed and used by Davies et al. (in preparation) in their scoping review, which allowed for systematic extraction of information regarding the characteristics, methods, and findings of each study. To ensure that data extraction was reliable, a sample of studies were charted in parallel by myself and TM and were checked by RD for consistency. \r\n\r\nTable 4\r\nCharacteristics that will be extracted from experimental studies for data charting.\r\nForm Developer: Rebecca A. James\r\n\r\nthe article title\r\nthe article DOI, if available\r\nthe article authors\r\nthe article year of publication\r\nthe location of data collection (location may be inferred by author affiliation, or reported in article text concerning the regional or national source of health texts, or the locality of participant recruitment)\r\ninformation about the composition of the participant sample (e.g., healthy adults, patients, etc.)\r\nthe number of participants\r\nindividual differences measures, if reported (e.g., gender, age, etc.)\r\ntext type (the type of the health information text sampled, e.g., website, medicine information, etc.)\r\ntext topic (the topic of the health texts sampled)\r\ntext sample size (the number of texts sampled)\r\nif the study involved the manipulation of text properties, information on what linguistic or other features were manipulated, or what intervention was implemented (e.g., variation in organization or structure, in the inclusion of pictures, in readability, format, or other)\r\nwhat test of comprehension was conducted (e.g., verbal or written summary, true/false question, open-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, cloze, recall, etc.)\r\nwhat outcome measure was analysed (accuracy, or other)\r\n\r\nStage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results\r\nData charting resulted in the creation of a database of detailed information about the nature and scope of each article. To effectively make sense of such information, the original database of information was organised using thematic labels (Table 5). For example, the thematic label leaflet would be applied to articles which referenced handouts of medical information as pamphlets, leaflets, and brochures. This process enabled greater ease and clarity to conduct quantitative analyses and to provide a textual commentary of the findings. Quantitative analyses include frequencies and distributions of study characteristics observed in the sample, in addition to evidencing what direction of effect person attributes had on responses to health information. Directionality of the results, as opposed to reporting significance is deemed appropriate as the reporting of significance in reviews is misleading (McKenzie & Brennan, 2019). Following the synthesis and quantitative analyses, a critical appraisal of the evidence was conducted. Although this stage is optional for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018; Levac et al., 2010), it was considered necessary to provide a sense-making of the conclusions we can reach given the synthesis of evidence. The appraisal followed guidance from the Synthesis Without Meta-Narrative (SWiM) guidance (Campbell et al., 2020) and Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards (Wong et al., 2013). Such guidance provides a framework \r\nForm Developer: Rebecca A. James\r\n\r\nfor the critical appraisal to comprehensively answer the research question, and discuss the traditions, trends, and value of research. Unlike other reviews such as systematic reviews, formal assessment tools such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools will not be used as this review does not focus on examining randomised control trials and the research is too heterogenous to appropriately apply such tools (Levac et al., 2010).\r\n\r\nTable 5\r\nThematic labels for experimental studies\r\nlocation\r\ntext type (e.g., consent form, decision aid)\r\ntopic or health area (e.g., arthritis, cancer)\r\nintervention (e.g., counselling, drug)\r\n[study] design (e.g., illustration type, text readability)\r\n[study] implementation (e.g., different data visualizations, different organisation)\r\noutcome (e.g., comprehension, knowledge)\r\n[outcome] measure (e.g., multiple choice question, self-rated)\r\nindividual differences (e.g., age, gender)"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3974"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3975"},["text","Data.csv and Text.doc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3976"},["text","Betts2023"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3977"},["text","Oliver Powell"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3978"},["text","Unsure. Contact Dr. Rob Davies."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"46"},["name","Relation"],["description","A related resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3979"},["text","In part, in collaboration with TM. Supervised by Dr. Rob Davies\r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3980"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3981"},["text","Scoping Review"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3982"},["text","LA1 4YW"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3983"},["text","Dr. Rob Davies"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3984"},["text","MSC"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3985"},["text","Scoping Review - Health Communication"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3986"},["text","99 Studies"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"3987"},["text","Density plot and dot plot with critical appraisal"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"38","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"13"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/ea52745ea1b0fa26c4425be6d7c88489.pdf"],["authentication","9714f2508e84b0bbeedf06ad1c912c48"]],["file",{"fileId":"14"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/84385ffd21820f91dfe2ad323611b937.pdf"],["authentication","2d5a1ebe0d3968bd48beaa3d1ba2275f"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"12"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1136"},["text","linguistic analysis"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1195"},["text","What impact does the model statement have on future intentions for liars and truth tellers?"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1196"},["text","Eleanor Evans"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1197"},["text","2017"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1198"},["text","Current literature states that there is a marked difference between statements given by truth tellers in comparison to liars. This difference is seemingly determined from when the cognitive load for participants is increased and liars struggle more. There is also evidence from distinctions in the linguistic make-up of the statements. Thirty-six undergraduate participants took part in a study exploring the effect of the model statement on truth tellers compared to liars when discussing a future event. All participants gave their first statement, then listened to the model statement before giving their second statement. Participants also filled out a questionnaire after completing the interview. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using CBCA, WMatrix and ANOVA. Results indicated that while there was a clear effect of the model statement, there was no significant effect of veracity from the CBCA and ANOVA analysis. On the other hand, WMatrix indicated differences in veracity.  In conclusion, both truth tellers and liars were able to increase the amount of information between their first and second statements, thus providing an effect of the model statement. However, there were nevertheless distinct differences between the language used by participants under both conditions; suggesting that there are in fact marked differences between truth tellers and liars when discussing a future event."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1199"},["text","liars\r\nmanipulation\r\nmodel statement\r\ntruth tellers\r\nveracity"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1200"},["text","The model statement (Appendix A) is a 734-word document and was replicated from Leal et al. (2015). It is known that the model statement had an effect in the Leal et al. (2015) experiment and therefore it seemed appropriate to remain consistent with using the exact same model statement for this study. The interview questions (Appendix B) were also adapted from the Leal et al. (2015) study. \r\nQuestionnaires (Appendix C and Appendix D) were fashioned for each condition. The material for the questionnaires was largely developed for this experiment with the questions specifically tailored to relate to the interview. Both questionnaires contained a total of nine questions, a mix of Likert-scale and open-ended questions. \r\nA digirecorder was used to record all participant interviews. \r\nThis study is a 2 (within factor: the manipulation through using the model statement) x 2 (between factor: the veracity, participants are either in the truth telling condition or the lying condition) mixed effects ANOVA.  The experiment was carried out in two sections, the first being the interview and the second involving a questionnaire. \r\nProcedure\r\nBefore completing the experiment, all participants were provided with an information sheet (Appendix E). Participants met with the researcher so that they could be briefed about their task: to discuss the day in which the participants would go and collect their degree results. In addition, the participants were given a consent form (Appendix F), which they were required to fill out in order to participate. Participants took part in the experiment individually. \r\nOnce consent was given the participants were further briefed about which condition they would be participating in – either the truth telling condition or the lying condition. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. All participants were told as a baseline for the interview that the normality for collecting their degree results was that they would go to their subject department on the day, show their library card, and be given an envelope with their degree results in. Those participants placed in the Truth Telling condition (N = 16) were told to answer the questions asked by the interviewer as truthfully as possible to the best of their knowledge. Participants in the Lying condition (N = 17) were informed to lie when answering the interviewer’s questions. Participants in the lying condition were told that they could either lie about one element of the intended event or all aspects of it. \r\nA third party member, who was unaware of the participants’ veracity status, carried out the interview; this is how the interview was conduced in the Leal et al. (2015) experiment. During the interview the participants were asked the first question of “OK, just so I can understand, I am going to need you to take me to the day that you will collect your degree results, and tell me in as much detail as possible everything that will happen from before you collect your results through to you receiving your results”. Participants then gave their first statement in response to the question. Preceding this, all participants in both conditions were exposed to an example statement after the interviewer said, “I know that sometimes people are not sure just how much detail to include. In order to give you an idea of what I am looking for I'd like to play you an example of what we consider a detailed answer”. This example statement, known as the model statement was a recording of someone dictating the details of an event that has no relevance to what the participants were asked to talk about during the experiment. Following the model statement, the interviewer asked “OK, I know that wasn’t too relevant to your story but hopefully you have an idea of the amount of detail it takes for us to get a clear rounded idea of how the event will go! Could you now please tell me in as much detail as possible everything that will happen from before you collect your results through to you receiving your results” and the participants proceeded to give their second statement. \r\nOnce the participants had completed the interview section of the experiment, they were given a questionnaire to fill out. The questionnaire was tailored to whichever condition they were allocated – there was a separate questionnaire for the Truth Tellers and the Liars. All participants in the lying condition were asked as part of their questionnaire to state the element(s) they had lied about. \r\nData Analysis\r\nAfter the data collection, the participants’ interviews were transcribed and a primary analysis was performed using Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA). There are a total of 19 possible criteria for analysing statements, however only a certain number were selected for the purpose of this study. The chosen criteria can be seen in table 1. Each statement was given a score corresponding with each individual criterion, leading to an overall CBCA score. Each criterion was scored between 0 and 2: 0, if the criterion is not found in the statement; 1 if it is a present, but only a small amount; and 2, if the criterion was found frequently throughout the statement. Following CBCA coding, the scores were analysed in SPSS using a repeated measures ANOVA, in which the overall scores for each of the statements could be compared. \r\nTable 1\r\nList of criteria used for CBCA coding and the descriptions \r\nGeneral Characteristics\r\n\r\n1.Logical Structure\r\nCoherency of the statement in terms of not containing logical inconsistences or contradictions\r\n2. Unstructured Production\r\nThe presentation of the information in a (non) chronological order\r\n3. Quantity of Details\r\nThe inclusion of specific descriptions of place, time, persons, objects and events\r\nSpecific Contents\r\n\r\n4. Contextual Embedding \r\nEvents being placed in time and location, and actions being connected with other daily activities and/or customs\r\n5. Description of Interactions\r\nInformation that interlinks at least the alleged perpetrator and witness \r\n7. Unexpected Complications During the Incident \r\nElements incorporated in the statement that are somewhat expected\r\n8. Unusual Details\r\nDetails of people, objects or events that are unique, unexpected or surprising but meaningful in the context\r\n9. Superfluous Details\r\nDetails in connection with the allegations that are not essential for the accusation \r\n11. Related External Associations\r\nEvents are reported that are not actually part of the alleged offence but are merely related to the alleged offence\r\n12. Accounts of Subjective Mental State\r\nDevelopment and change in feelings experienced at the time of the incident \r\nMotivated-Related Contents\r\n\r\n14. Spontaneous Corrections\r\nCorrections that are made or information that is added to material previously provided in the statement without having been prompted by the interviewer\r\n15. Admitting Lack of memory\r\nAn unprompted interviewee admitting lack of memory either by saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” \r\nNote. This list of criteria was adapted from Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 11(1), 3-41\r\n\r\nWMatrix (Rayson, 2008) was used in addition to CBCA and SPSS. All the statements were separated into files and uploaded onto WMatrix so that linguistic analysis could commence. WMatrix is a software program that allows for corpus linguistic analysis and comparison.  It provides frequencies and percentages of how the words are distributed in a given text; it also lists the concordances for reference. It produces tables from the output for each comparison and ranks the words based on their log-likelihood. The log-likelihood is an indicator based on the difference among frequencies, in this instance how often a particular word is used by participants. The word count and interview duration were also calculated and used in the analysis. \r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1201"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1202"},["text","data/SPSS.sav"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1203"},["text","Evans2017"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1204"},["text","John Towse"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1205"},["text","Open"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1206"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1207"},["text","Data"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1208"},["text","LA1 4YF"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1209"},["text","Lara Warmelink"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1210"},["text","MSc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1211"},["text","Cognitive Psychology"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1212"},["text","Thirty-six participants (males 12 and females 24) were recruited to take part in the study. All participants were Undergraduate Lancaster University Students over the age of 18 (Mage = 20.29, SD = 1.36)"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1213"},["text","ANOVA"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"70","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"24"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/59a7edf93d70608679c4404a6a2cf427.pdf"],["authentication","19db76515b8d3de5a0a79a15c9b3551a"]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1658"},["text","Visual engagement with different animals"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1659"},["text","Rebecca Gregson"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1660"},["text","2018"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1661"},["text","People treat animals differently depending on how they are dichotomized.The present study tested the consequences of dichotomization on our visual engagement with still images of different animals. Fifty-seven participants took part in two identical image visualization tasks, the first preceded a short empathy inducing video,and the second followed. We used eye-tracking to study dwell time percentage oriented towards the eyes of companion, farmed and endangered animals. Eye-directed visual engagement was greatest for companion animals in the first image visualization task. This bias in visual engagement towards companion animals was attenuated in the second image visualization task.We hypothesised that the empathy inducing video would change gaze towards farmed animals, evidencing either increased attentional avoidance or increased engagement. Although mean averages suggest a slight increase in visual engagement following the video, this difference was not significant. Participants reported highest levels of negative emotion regarding the farmed animal’s videos. Empathic gaze with farmed animals correlated positively with participants’ level of meat consumption restriction.  The findings support several pre-registered hypotheses but disconfirm others, and are discussed in terms of the extension of empathic gaze to animals. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1662"},["text","Animals, dichotomization, eye-tracking, empathic gaze, guilt"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1663"},["text","Participants\r\nOur pre-registered recruitment strategy was to collect fifty participants with complete data. Fifty participants were recruited through (1) Lancaster University’s research participation system, SONA or(2) poster advertisementand were paid £3for their involvement. Each participant saw 9 images, presented twice, each for 10 seconds, totaling 180 seconds of eye-tracking data. On first inspection of the data we were forced to exclude seven participants whose eyes had not been tracked for 50% of the experiment. To reach our pre-registered participant pool of 50 we recruited seven more participants, one of whom had to be excluded on the same grounds as previous. Our final data set was comprised of 49 participants, 36 females and 13 males. Age ranged between 18 and 30 (M= 21.10, SD= 2.13). Participants reported a range of nationalities, including: American (n=1), British (n=28), Bulgarian (n=3), Chinese (n=3), Croatian (n=2), German (n=2), Hungarian (n=2) Indian (n=3), Indonesian (n= 1), Latvian (n=1), Nigerian (n=1), Malaysian (n=1) and Slovakian (n =1). Participants dietary classifications were as follows:Meat lover(n =1), Omnivore (n =23), Semi-vegetarian (n =16), Pescatarian(n =3),Lacto-or Ovo-vegetarian(n =5), Strict vegetarian(n =0), Dietary vegan(n =0),andLifestyle vegan(n =1).Design The experiment employed a 3x2 fully within-subjects design. The independent variables were animal category and time. The variable animal category hadthree levels: farmed animals (sheep, cow, pig), companion animals (dog, cat), and endangered wild animals (chimpanzee, tiger, koala) and was operationalized using still images. Our main research interest was the distinction between farmed and companion animals, given the marginalized status of farmed animals in society and the privileged status of companion animals. Endangered animals are vulnerable to human interference and confer some value \r\nVISUAL ENGAGMENT WITH ANIMALS.4due to their endangered status, but they are not actively used by humans as objects of consumption. For this reason, endangered animals were used as a control or comparison group. The variable time had two levels, pre-and post-video task. Participants took part in two IVT, one before a video watching task and one after. Our main dependent variable was dwell time percentage on the eyes of the animal. This was recorded during the presentation of each of the nine images in both IVT. At no other point in the experiment were eye-movements recorded. Additional outcome measures.We recorded the participants emotional state immediately after the video watching task. Participants emotion ratings were transformed into numerical valuesas follows: Extremely positive (+3), Fairly positive (+2), Slightly positive(+1), Neutral (0), Slightly negative (-1), Fairly negative (-2) and Extremely negative(-3). As a result, more negative responses were represented by a more negative value. We asked participants if they(Yes/No) contribute to the suffering and well-being of each animal category. Participants were also asked to state their agreement (Yes/No) with two statements, the first regarding their outrage having heard about the harm inflicted on animals, and the second about the animal’s capacity to suffer as being meaningfully similar to a human’s capacity to suffer.However, due to an experimenter error, these four measures were not recorded by the experiment-analysis system, and therefore cannot be discussed further.MaterialsImages. In total we sourced nine images, three for each animal category in our design. We sourced images for three different species of animal to make up our target category. The companion animal category was the only exception to this rule. For this category of animal, we used two dog images (Siberian Husky and Staffordshire Bull Terrier) and one cat image. In our original companion animal category, we had considered using the \r\nVISUAL ENGAGMENT WITH ANIMALS.5image of a horse, but decided against this for two reasons. Firstly, the composition of the face was noticeably different in comparison to the other eight images. The horses face was longer with its eyes positioned laterally. Secondly, the category in which horses fall in to (i.e. farmed or companion) is often blurred. Whilst cows pose similar facial composite issues tothe horse, there is no question that cows are members of the farmed animal category. We decided that this justified the inclusion of the cow in the experiment, but we could not justify the use of the horse. The original source for each image is displayed in Appendix A.Due to limited financial resources we were restricted to the use of free, open-source images. This meant that the images contain some background colour and contextual inconsistencies. Nonetheless, all images share these same consistencies: forward facing gaze, minimal to no background noise and the absence of other animals. We adjusted some of the images so that the body of the animals is mostly cropped out. As a result, all nine images have a central focus on the animals face. We ensured that the images did not objectively indicate animal harm nor confinement. Finally, all animals were adult so as to avoid the baby schema effect–the finding that infantile features promote caregiving behaviour(Archer & Monton, 2011; Borgi, Cogliati-Dezza, Brelsford, Meints & Cirulli., 2014; Fridlund& MacDonald, 1998). This was an important consideration as the baby schema effect has been linked to stronger caregiving motivationswith animals(Piazza, McLatchie & Olesen, 2018).Videos. Three videos were selected to induce empathic concern with each of the three animal categories. Each video targeted a specific class of animal (companion, farmed, or endangered) and was presented prior to the second viewing session. All three videos outlined the harm inflicted upon the relevant animal category. They include emotional but not graphic content and were selected for their empathy arousing nature. To reduce any variation caused by the different music styles of the videos, all audio was removed. Videos were trimmed to \r\nVISUAL ENGAGMENT WITH ANIMALS.6ensure that they had a similar duration time. Supplementary details of each video can be found in Appendix B. Additionally, each video can be accessed in the “Materials” section of our OSF file. Stimuli presentation. All stimuli werepresented on a Windows 10 Pro hplaptop which had a 14-inch monitor, a screen resolution of 60 Hz and the Intel® Core™ i7-4710MQ CPU processor. Stimuli ran semi-automatically. The experiment was built using Experiment Centre (Version 3.6, SensoMotoric Instruments).Eye-tracking device. Eye movements were recorded monocularly and at a frequency of 30Hz using the REDn Scientific eye-tracking device (SensoMotoric Instruments). Gaze was calibrated using a 5-point method and a calibration area of 1920 X 1080. We used a centered black cross for the fixation points during the initial calibration and throughout the experiment. These were Arial in font and 72 in size. The experiment was built to measure dwell time percentage during the IVT only. Diet. Diet was assessed using an adapted version of the 5 item dietary practice scale used by Piazza, Ruby, Loughnan et al.(2015).We expanded the original scale to include 8 dietary practices. These included “Meat lover,” “Omnivore,”“Semi-vegetarian,” “Pescatarian,” “Lacto-or Ovo-vegetarian,”“Strict vegetarian,”“Dietary vegan,” and“Lifestyle vegan”. Definitions for each category are provided in Appendix C. Procedure Preliminary procedures. Participants were tested individually. Having been welcomed into the lab each participant received an information sheet and consent form. All participants who arrived at the lab gave their consent. Each participant was seated on a stationary chair at a desk where the equipment stood. The experimenter explained that they\r\nVISUAL ENGAGMENT WITH ANIMALS.7would load up the experiment and leave them to complete it in privacy. The experiment ran an initial calibration of the eye before moving through into the task information. Task information was presented across three separate screens which outlined for the participant what would be required of them (See Appendix D). Warm-up. Participants took part in two identical IVT. The first was framed as a warm-up. These warm-up trials ran automatically and did not require any participant action. Following task information, participants saw a screen which read “Warm-up” for 4000ms. The animal category was then announced (e.g. “Farmed Animals” “Companion Animals” or Endangered Animals”) and remained on screen for 4000ms. A centered fixation point appeared for 500ms before the first category animal image appeared for 10,000ms. It was during each 10,000ms image presentation that eye-movements were recorded. This same fixation point/image presentation routine was repeated three times over to cover all three images in each category. The order in which each animal category was presented was randomized across participants. Having completed the IVT for each animal category, participants were presented with a screen instructing them that the warm-up was now complete. This instruction screen was advanced manually by the participant. Video watching task. Following the first IVT, participants took part in the video watching task. The animal category was first announced and remained on screen for 4000ms. The appropriate video then played and was concluded with a blank screen lasting 3000ms. Participants were then made aware that the video had finished. Having manually moved the experiment along, the participant was next asked to indicate their current emotional state. They read: “Howpositive or negative do you feel right now?” and should select their response via mouse-click on a 7-point scale with the following range: “Really negative,” “Fairly negative,” “Slightly negative,” “Neutral,” “Slightly positive,” “Fairly positive” and “Really positive”. Again, this screen was manually advanced. The participant was next \r\nVISUAL ENGAGMENT WITH ANIMALS.8presented with the statement “I contribute to the suffering of Farmed/ Companion/ Endangered animals” and was asked to indicate their response using the “Y” (Yes) and “N” (No) keys on the keyboard before pressing space bar to advance.  “I contribute to the well-being of Farmed/Companion/Endangered animals” was presented on the next screen and participants indicated their response as previous. Responses to these Y/N questions failed to record due to a programming error, and therefore will not be discussed further.The second IVT. As in the first IVT, participants saw a centered fixation point (500ms) followed by the first category animal image (10,000ms). Again, the REDn was programmed to record eye-movement during each of the 10,000ms image presentation. After each animal image the participant was then presented with the statement: “Thinking about how ___ (e.g. Cows) are slaughtered for their meat makes me feel outraged” and are again asked to indicate their response using the “Y” (Yes) and “N” (No) keys on the keyboard. This question was tailored to each animal category and target animal (see Appendix E for a list of each statements used). Next the participant read: “___ (e.g.,Cows) possess a capacity to suffer that is meaningfully similar to humans” and are asked to indicate their response Y/N as previous. This procedure was repeated three times over, once for each animal target. Due to a programming error, responses to these Y/N question were not recorded, and therefore they will not be discussed further. The entire procedure from the beginning of the video watching task to the end of the second IVT was repeated for each animal category, the order of which was randomized for each participant. See Appendix F for a visual representation of the experiment flow."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1664"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1665"},["text","SPSS data "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1666"},["text","Gregson2018"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1667"},["text","Rebecca James"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1668"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1669"},["text","SPSS.sav"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1695"},["text","LA1 4YF"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1670"},["text","Dr. Jared Piazza"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1671"},["text","MSC"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1672"},["text","Social"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1673"},["text","49 participants"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1674"},["text","ANOVA, correlation, t-test"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"61","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"57"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/ee6c9a9fb70a964519577d2b8a098680.doc"],["authentication","dd2a4ec39b75345858daecc1f5050a4f"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"4"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"183"},["text","Focus group"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"184"},["text","Primarily qualitative analysis based on forming focus groups to collect opinions and attitudes on a topic of interest"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1521"},["text","Use This or You’ll Lose That: Investigating Appropriate Psychological Theories to Market the Bogallme Tracking System."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1522"},["text","Elizabeth Wardman"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1523"},["text","2015"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1524"},["text","The Bogallme Tracking System is an anonymous ‘Lost and Found’ system which uses stickers with QR codes printed on them to facilitate the return of lost items. It is thought that the main motivations behind the purchasing of these stickers are fear appeal and loss aversion, as people fear losing their possessions and will do whatever they can to prevent this from occurring. This study aimed to investigate whether this is the case using focus groups consisting of primarily students - the target audience for this specific product. The research also explored Rogers’ (1962; 1976) Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI) in relation to this product as well as opinions regarding the product and brand. Findings suggested that all three of the above theories are relevant and useful in the development of this product and can be used to create an efficient marketing campaign whilst creating scope for further research which would benefit the development of the brand and product. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1525"},["text","Marketing/Advertising\r\nQualitative (Thematic Analysis)"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1526"},["text","Methodology\r\nParticipants.\r\nSixteen participants took part in this study. Participants were recruited via opportunity sampling through various social media platforms and word of mouth. The age of participants ranged between 20 and 23. This age range was selected due to a market segmentation suggesting that over 50% of QR code users were aged between 18 and 34 and that 18 to 24 year olds were 36% more likely to scan them (14 Million Americans Scanned QR Codes on their Mobile Phones in June 2011., n.d.)\r\nMaterials. \r\nThe focus groups loosely followed a discussion guide (See Appendix D) which asked general questions corresponding to the product, brand and incentives as well as questions related to Fear, Loss Aversion and Diffusion of Innovations theory. The majority of questions within the Discussion Guide were open-ended as they encourage participants to express their views and opinions in full (Turner, 2010) and allow for any further elaboration. During the focus group participants were shown three potential names for the brand (Scannit, GlobalQR and the brand name Bogallme) and an example of the Diffusion of Innovations Model (Figure 1). Participants were each given prototypes of the product that they tested during the group and were allowed to keep these at the end of the study. \r\nProcedure.\r\nFocus Groups\r\nFocus groups were used as the method of data collection for this study. Although focus groups cannot provide data as rich as that of individual interviews, they can allow for group discussions. These group discussions and interactions allow for comparisons between participant experiences and opinions which could otherwise only be inferred after proceedings with individual interviews (Morgan, 1997). \r\nThis study consisted of two focus groups which lasted approximately 60 minutes each. Within each focus group, eight participants sat facing one another around a circular table. After reading the information sheet and signing the consent forms, the focus group started with introductory questions to make participants feel more comfortable and able to voice their opinions. After this brief period, participants were asked questions which followed the discussion guide (See Appendix D), however elaboration was allowed and encouraged. Each participant was encouraged to answer all questions and to contribute to discussions as much as possible. Participants were also made aware that they did not have to answer anything that made them feel uncomfortable. Debrief sheets were handed out to participants at the end of each group and any further questions were answered.\r\nAnalysis\r\nBoth of the focus groups were audio recorded on an Edirol R-09HR recorder and then transferred to a computer so that they could be deleted from the device. Recordings were then transcribed verbatim using the app Audacity, with each participant being given an anonymous ID in case of withdrawal. From these transcriptions, thematic analysis was conducted using the software NVivo, which identified and inferred themes and opinions in order to draw conclusions regarding the discussed theories of Fear, Loss Aversion and Diffusion of Innovations. Other themes and inferences also came to light which will be outlined in the Results section. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1527"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1528"},["text","Results\r\nThere were several overarching themes present in both focus groups which relate to the three discussed theories (Fear, Loss Aversion and DOI Theory) and the proposed areas for exploration, along with new themes which were not previously considered. In response to the second objective relating to participant motivations to buy and use the product, the main theme of ‘motivations’ was created to investigate motivations to buy and use the product. Under this theme came the categories ‘fear’, ‘loss aversion’ and ‘adoption’. Following this, further sub-categories were created for each category which each included ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’. The ‘adoption’ category under this main theme also included the further sub-categories ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’. The category ‘explicit’ was based on what participants said outright whereas the ‘implicit’ category was based on inferences and implications from the discussion. The next main theme was created in relation to the first objective which aimed to explore brand and product opinions and was named ‘brand ideas’ and contained the categories ‘name’, ‘product idea’, ‘incentives’ and ‘other opinions’. For the final and arguably most significant objective, the main theme of ‘development’ was created which contained the categories ‘audience’, ‘barriers’ and ‘ideas’ which aimed to assist in making informed suggestions as to how to proceed with product development. \r\nBrand Name\r\nThe opinions relating to the brand name were very clear: participants did not like it. After being presented with three options of a possible brand name with no previous knowledge not one participant deemed ‘Bogallme’ appropriate for the product. Not one participant worked out that the word ‘Bogall’ was an anagram of the word ‘Global’ and the majority of participants chose the name ‘Scannit’ as the most appropriate for both the product and the brand. Many participants also had trouble in pronouncing the brand name correctly and it was pointed out in the first group that some individuals may have trouble reading it.\r\n“It’s not compatible with my dyslexia that one! Not at all.” (PL: Age 22)\r\n“The other two also worked like internationally, you’d have to think about that as even as people who speak English we didn’t get that.” (SD: Age 22)\r\nParticipants in both groups suggested that the name seemed quite childish and was trying too hard to be ‘down with the kids’ instead of being marketed at their age range. Another general consensus regarding the brand name was that it sounded similar to ‘Boggle’, the famous children’s board game, which again gave it a childish theme. \r\n“It’s like the game Boggle you used to play when you were a kid.” (GP: Age 22)\r\nOverall, it seems apparent that the brand name could have detrimental effects for the future development of the product.\r\nProduct Idea\r\nDespite the brand name, after reading the product description, participants liked the concept of the product and agreed that it was something that they would use. \r\n“I need this in my life (laughs)” (EG: Age 22)\r\nThe suggested uses for the stickers included: phones, keys, laptops, passports, luggage and notebooks. Participants said they were more likely to use the service in its current state (using Safari or another web browser) as opposed to downloading an app. However, some participants did have concerns surrounding the legitimacy of the product and would be wary when asked to fill in their details on the website. In terms of pricing, ideas of how much participants would pay for one sticker ranged from £1 to £10 with some participants suggesting that they would prefer to pay for a subscription service. The suggested subscription service consisted of paying a yearly fee for a certain number of stickers.\r\n“Yeah you could subscribe for like a year and you get five stickers and you could use it on whatever you want” (RD: Age 22)\r\nDespite this suggestion, many participants still disliked the idea of a subscription service and compared it to services such as Amazon Prime which continues to charge you if you forget to cancel it. As participants were all students or graduates, most liked the idea of paying per sticker best as it was affordable and not tying. However, another subscription idea came to light when participants were discussing potential problems with people forging the stickers. It was suggested that a subscription would include unlimited stickers and you would instead be paying to use the service as a whole. This would stop people from forging stickers because it would not be necessary once payment had already been made.\r\n“Unless, if you do have a subscription then surely you’d be paying the same amount anyway no matter how many… so why would anyone copy theirs.” (GP: Age 22)\r\nThe issue of forging was quite a prominent topic within the second focus group. They suggested a variety of ways to overcome this: customisable stickers, laminated stickers and the creation of a unique QR code similar to that of Snapchat or Messenger. The idea of customisation was also popular in the first group. Several participants from this group said that they wouldn’t put the sticker on their mobile phone as it is currently for aesthetic reasons. They did however state that if the stickers came in different colours or were customizable, that they would be much more likely to purchase the product. \r\n“I’d say make them customisable. If you could design your own stickers that would be… To match your phone case you could be like ‘ooh I’ll have it black with rose gold’ and then it would match and look cute” (GP: Age 22)\r\nThese participants did still agree that they would put the stickers on items other than phones, such as keys and passports, as it is not as important to participants for these items to be aesthetically pleasing. Stemming from this, the use of the stickers for travelling purposes was discussed in detail. Participants in the first group all agreed that it would be a useful addition to travelling supplies as the stickers could be placed on passports and luggage items. This was a very popular idea with the group for a number of reasons. Firstly, a passport doesn’t have the same sell-on value as a mobile phone, so you’d be much more likely to have it returned to you. Another suggested reason was the speed of having the item returned to you. If you are travelling across several different countries and using many different transportation methods, it may be difficult to continue without documents such as your passport and so a speedy return is very important. The final reason was that people often buy new products and innovations for when they travel due to excitement.\r\n“You’re just looking for stuff to buy when you’re going travelling as well,  like ‘what do I need, what do I need’ so yeah I think that would work quite well.” (KR: Age 23)\r\n\r\nFear and Loss Aversion\r\nWhen asked how they would feel if they lost an item, most participants described feelings of stress and anxiety along with anger. Not all participants had the experience of losing an important item, but all at least had a friend or family member who had had this experience. Participants suggested that the feelings they experience when losing something would make them want to return an item and that they would be more likely to return an item of personal over financial value. \r\nOne of the main advantages of the product was discussed when participants compared the product to insurance. It was suggested that the product was a cheaper alternative that, although return is not guaranteed, is better than no back-up at all. In terms of product development, these findings suggest that there is potential to work with an insurance company to effectively market the Tracking System.\r\n“It’s kind of like an insurance isn’t it? Like for your phone so… I’d pay like a tenner if it was a one off because people pay, I don’t know, I think mine…well I don’t pay insurance lol but I think it’s like sixty pounds” (AB: Age 22)\r\nThe time-saving of the product compared to insurance also produced positive comments about the product as it was explained how long it takes for an item to be replaced through insurance and how much effort this can be.\r\n“Also, insurance is like an effort, like you have to file a claim and then it takes ages for them to get it back but if you could just like message someone you like might get it today. It’s easier” (TM: Age 20)\r\nAnother comparison to insurance was made in terms of the personal value of possessions. When discussing phones, participants pointed out that they’d prefer their original phone returned over a new phone of the same model as their original phone has all their photos, music and original settings on it which can often be difficult to retrieve if lost. \r\n“(Be)cause you’ve got your photos and everything…like everything is set up on your phone in the way you like it. I hate setting up a phone when you first get it and you have to download everything and set it back up again.” (GP: Age 22)\r\nParticipants in the first group felt so strongly about the insurance aspect of the product that one attendee suggested that the brand partner up with a phone company and sell the product as an add-on for phone contracts. \r\n“You need to have a partnership with like a phone company or something so when people start getting new phones and upgrades, say you partnership with O2 and you have it as part of your package on your phone or something.” (DF: Age 22)\r\n\r\nIncentives\r\nThe majority of participants stated that they would not require an incentive to use the service and to return an item and that empathy alone would be enough. Participants also suggested that the gratitude of the person who had lost the item could contribute towards them returning it. Some suggested that an incentive could add extra persuasion however it was quickly pointed out that there would be issues with monitoring any incentives. Examples of incentives discussed included: a lottery, money, and a points system whereby points could be collected to go towards a discount or a cash reward. Participants admitted that some of them would be likely to abuse the incentive as there would be no way to monitor whether people are actually finding items or are just working together with friends to make some money or have more chance in a lottery. Overall it was decided that any incentive would either be abused or would not encourage someone who was unlikely to return the item to return it. \r\n“Yeah it would’ve been such a good idea saying five returns gets you a free sticker but people literally will just get each other’s items and be like oh” (BC: Age 22)\r\nHowever, it is quite naïve of participants to expect all individuals to return items via the service with no incentive. They made good points surrounding the potential abuse of incentives, yet the use of incentives is not something that should simply be ignored because of this potential hurdle. It would be best to suggest plausible alternatives, such as the individual who lost the item having to pay an incentive to the returner in order to retrieve their item. \r\nAdoption\r\nWhen presented with the Diffusion of Innovations Model, all participants initially suggested that they would personally be in the centre of the model between Early and Late Majority or in the Late Majority. However, after asking what stage they thought they were at across different innovations such as iPhones and Apps this altered somewhat. From broader discussion it could be inferred that most participants would fit in the ‘Early Majority’ stage of the model as they would be more likely to buy the product if they could see it used successfully by someone else, but they also usually try new innovations earlier than the majority. \r\n“I was probably an early majority. I’d say I’m between early and late majority.” (GP: Age 22)\r\n“Yeah, I’d have to hear people like using it well, like see people all around using it” (RH: Age 22)\r\nWhen questioned as to the type of person that would be situated in the first two stages of the model, there was a variety of answers. In the first group the most popular answer was people in an older age group, with many participants describing the habits and behaviours of their fathers. \r\n“I actually feel like older people like my dad or someone, he’d totally buy into this” (EG: Age 22)\r\nThey suggested that due to the simplicity of the product and its purpose, this would be the first market to espouse. Many were surprised by their own responses to this question as they initially assumed that the product would be more popular with a younger audience. The second group also agreed on an older audience, with suggestions of ‘overprotective mothers’ buying the product to protect their children’s’ possessions. The second group also indicated that, whilst they didn’t think that students would be the Innovators or Early Adopters, businesses targeting students would still be very interested in the product. \r\n“I think anyone who’s in the student-y industry. I reckon you could quite easily do this with like nightclubs. Anything to do with students people would want to get involved with.” (BC: Age 22)"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1529"},["text","Bogallmetrackingsystem2015"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1530"},["text","Frances Jackson "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1531"},["text","There is no license suggested for this work as far as the research is aware."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"46"},["name","Relation"],["description","A related resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1532"},["text","Leslie Hallam"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1533"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1534"},["text","Qualitative interview data"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1535"},["text","LA1 4YQ"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2216"},["text","Leslie Hallam"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2217"},["text","MSc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2218"},["text","Marketing/Advertising"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2219"},["text","16 participants"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2220"},["text","Qualitative (Thematic Analysis)"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"100","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"60"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/eade41fda3588a9bbf652805dc6abab3.png"],["authentication","eafbd1067232f3da6799a0629d008bc0"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"5"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"185"},["text","Questionnaire-based study"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"186"},["text","An analysis of self-report data from the administration of questionnaires(s)"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2276"},["text","Understanding the Role of Academic Self-Efficacy, Social Support, and Anxiety in University Students’ Academic Resilience"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2277"},["text","Regan Kelly"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2278"},["text","2020"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2279"},["text","Academic resilience can refer to a student’s response when they are faced with academic hinderances, such as lower than expected grades. Those with a high ability to bounce back from hinderances have previously been shown to perform well during exams and have more positive mental health outcomes. Whilst a number of research studies have attempted to explain the academic resilience of primary and secondary school students, the factors that underpin university students’ academic resilience remain unclear. Therefore, the present study attempts to investigate the extent to which both protective and risk factors underpin university students’ academic resilience. The variables explored include academic self-efficacy; social support; and anxiety. Participants (N = 246) were all university students in the United Kingdom and they completed four self-report measures online via Qualtrics. In line with the hypotheses, a series of zero-order correlations showed a negative association between anxiety and academic resilience, while both academic self-efficacy and social support positively correlated with academic resilience. A multiple linear regression showed that the three predictor variables significantly predicted academic resilience and accounted for 41% of the variance. The findings lend support to a number of other recent studies that have explored characteristics of students’ resilience. Furthermore, the current study applied a context-specific resilience and despite the use of just three predictor variables, the most variance was explained in the present study. Whilst the study does have useful directions for both educators and future research, the use of self-report scales to measure a range of psychological concepts, that individuals tend to see themselves in a favourable manner in, does limit the study’s validity. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2280"},["text","academic reselience, self-efficacy, social support, anxiety, university students, multiple linear regression"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2281"},["text","Method\r\nParticipants \r\nThe sample consisted of 246 participants who were all students at universities in the U.K. After the exclusion of incomplete responses (N = 5); invalid responses to demographic questions (N = 1); and invalid ratings on scales (N = 7), the final sample consisted of 233 participants. There was 165 females and 68 males with ages ranging from 17 to 52 and the mean age was 24.3 years (SD = 4.8). Participants were primarily recruited through Facebook dissertation exchange groups and online participant recruiting software SONA was also used, thus a simple random sample was employed. To ensure the desired number of participants was reached, the chance to opt-in to a raffle draw for five £10 Amazon vouchers was offered to participants.\r\nMeasures \r\nAcademic Resilience. Consisting of 30 items and a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), the Academic Resilience Scale (ARS-30; Cassidy, 2016) was used to measure academic resilience. On this measure, individuals read a short vignette and were asked to imagine themselves in the situation described. The vignette details how a student has recently received a number of poor grades and one fail and has subsequently received critical feedback. The items are presented as statements and these are grouped into three sub-scales (i.e., perseverance, reflecting and adaptive help-seeking, and negative affect), and consist of both positively (e.g., I would try to think of new solutions) and negatively phrased statements (e.g., I would just give up). A summed score of the three sub-scales was used as a measure of academic resilience in the present study and the scores can range from 30 to 150, with a high score reflecting a highly academically resilient individual. \r\nAcademic Self-Efficacy. Owen and Froman’s (1988) College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) was used to measure academic self-efficacy. This measure comprises of 33 items and individuals used a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (quite a lot), to indicate how confident they feel when engaging in a range of behaviours at university (e.g., challenging a lecturer’s opinion in class). As this measure was originally intended for use with American students, certain words and phrases were altered to suit the present study’s sample who were all students in the U.K. For example, ‘professor’ became ‘lecturer’ and ‘math course’ was changed to ‘statistic module’. The scores on the CASES can range from 33 to 165, with a high score being indicative of those who are confident when completing academic tasks. \r\nAnxiety. To measure the extent to which individuals worry about their academic performance, the anxiety sub-scale from the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES; Martin, 2020) was used. This measure consists of four statements (e.g., when exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot) and individuals used a seven-point Likert scale to specify how much they agree with each statement, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores can range from 4 to 28 and a higher score is indicative of those who tend to worry about their academic performance. Variations of this measure are available for populations in primary, secondary, and higher education from the author. \r\nSocial Support. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley, 1988) was used to measure individuals’ perceptions of their social support. This measure consists of 12 items (e.g., I can talk about my problems with my friends) and a seven-point Likert scale is used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The items can be divided into three sources of social support (family, friends, and significant other) and scores are produced for each grouping factor. However, in the present study an overall score of perceived social support was used and scores can range from 12 to 84 – with higher scores indicating greater perceived social support. \r\nProcedure\r\nA total of four self-report measures was used in the present study and these were presented online using the Qualtrics software. Participants were initially presented with the participant information sheet and consent form – for participants’ ease, both of these were presented on the same page so that when participants were completing the consent form, they could refer to the information sheet to read what their participation would entail. On the following page, demographic questions were collated regarding the participants’ age and sex. Next, the self-report measures were completed by participants. The anxiety, academic resilience, academic self-efficacy, and social support scales were presented in a fixed order and each scale was presented on separate screens. Once participants had completed all four measures, they were directed to the debrief sheet which provided some background to the present study and also included a link to a separate survey, whereby participants could enter the raffle draw by providing their personal details. Although each scale differed in terms of the number of items used, it generally took participants between seven and ten minutes to complete the study.\r\nDesign and Analysis\r\nA correlational design was employed in the present study. A series of zero-order correlations between the dependent variable and each of the predictor variables were initially carried out, followed by a multiple regression analysis. The dependent variable was academic resilience and the predictor variables include academic self-efficacy, social support, and anxiety.\r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2282"},["text","Lancaster University "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2283"},["text","RK Dissertation_August 8, 2020_07.57 inc. res reversed.csv"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2284"},["text","Regan2015"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2285"},["text","Aimee Fletcher\r\nEleni Gkari"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2286"},["text","Open "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"46"},["name","Relation"],["description","A related resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2287"},["text","None"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2288"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2289"},["text","Data"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2290"},["text","LA14YF"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2291"},["text","Prof. Louise Connell"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2292"},["text","MSc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2293"},["text","social"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2294"},["text","246 participants: 165 females and 68 males "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2295"},["text","multiple linear regression"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"138","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"132"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/a339e171ed4f4ad6da75e1f93c80db7c.pdf"],["authentication","74c6799c7cc96af439fc872b4f1cc5f2"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"10"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"819"},["text","Interviews"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2889"},["text","Understanding the psychological, perceptual and emotional impact signage has on residents in a local community. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2890"},["text","Alexander Wootton"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2891"},["text","15/09/2021"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2892"},["text","The placement of signage, street furniture and advertisements can have a profound impact on the appearance of a built environment. They play a vital role in shaping the cultural, physical and social identities that impact the perceptions that residents and other stakeholders hold towards local communities, which in turn impacts on behaviours. Adopting a qualitative approach, this study will examine the impact of signage and other visual features that can contribute to the psychological, perceptual and emotional impact that these elements can have on residents in a local community. A number of semi-structured interviews were conducted amongst residents in One Manchester property areas, One Manchester place officers and residents near these areas. Participants were shown a variety of visual images of signage and were prompted to discuss their emotional response and thoughts, and propose suggestions to improve signage. A thematic analysis was conducted using the interview data and indicated the following four themes: signage design, reputation, community engagement and impact of signage. Reflecting upon these themes, the results suggested that existing signage was psychically ill-fitted and visually dull, lacking positive influential stimuli and evocative colours and that it lacked the authenticity and character needed to emotionally resonate with passers-by. This negatively impacted the reputation of the communities, leading them to be categorised as economically poor with high crime rates, resulting in stakeholders feeling alienated and some fearful. The results highlighted that the signage needs to be revitalised as a part of a wider placemaking strategy to rejuvenate local environments, perceived to be run down. This should support the ongoing evolution of these areas and engage community members to instal signage that is both influential and reflects an overall collective vision.  \r\n\r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2893"},["text","signage, placemaking, community engagement, qualitative research, community reputation\r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2894"},["text","Design\r\nDue to the need to gain an in-depth understanding of the psychological, perceptual, and emotional impact signage has on residents in a community and factoring in the Covid-19 pandemic, a qualitative approach was adopted consisting of semi-structured interviews. This style of interviews was considered the most suitable method as they provide rich data on the participant’s thoughts which are not constrained by the bounds of tick box exercises or strict discussion guides. They enable researchers to “assess, confirm, validate, refute, or elaborate upon existing knowledge and the discovery of new knowledge” (Mcintosh & Morse, 2015, p. 1). This enables the discussion between the moderator and participant to flow more smoothly and naturally (Roulston et al., 2003) yet, a flexible guide at the moderators disposal keeps the conversation on topic. Interviews in the project were conducted using Microsoft Teams and telephone communication. The data was then assessed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six step thematic analysis.\r\nBraun & Clarke’s (2006) six-steps thematic analysis: \r\nFamiliarisation: Getting to know the overall data collected through re-reads of transcripts. \r\nCoding: Reducing sentences and phrases into small fragments of meaning or “codes”.  \r\nGenerating themes: Identifying patterns among codes. \r\nReview themes: Assuring that the meanings identified are relevant to the representation of data collected (research objectives). \r\nDefine themes: Refine themes developed by establishing their essence and significance. \r\nAnalysing themes: Highlight the frequency of themes and meanings derived from qualitative data analysis. Generate conclusions agreed-upon by all researchers.\r\n\r\nParticipants\r\nA sample of 24 participants was originally agreed, however, only 14 participants were interviewed for the project. Participants were either recruited by One Manchester or the lead researcher from areas across south, east and central Manchester. Participants were made up of the following:\r\n\r\nEight One Manchester residents \r\nThree One Manchester Place Coordinators who worked in specific patch areas\r\nThree Local residents living in areas where One Manchester own property \r\n\r\nThe lead researcher conducted site visits around areas of Manchester, this was done so the lead researcher could physically inspect communities to identify signage which were used to aid the discussion guide. The sites visits were conducted in Rusholme, Openshawe and Clayton. \r\n\r\nVisiting these locations first to view all the signage, symbols and other visual features was invaluable both to generating stimulus material for the interviews and the discussion guides. The aim of the sample was to gain a diverse range of viewpoints from a variety of demographics across Manchester to generate a rich data. Participants were recruited from: Clayton, Droysden, Fallowfield, Gorton, Hulme, Openshawe, Rusholme and Whalley range. A £20 shopping voucher was put forward to incentivise participation in the study. \r\n\r\n\r\nMatierials \r\nInterview guide \r\n\r\nTo obtain the most effective feedback from participants, a discussion guide was created, which provided a structured framework to guide discussions (See Appendix A, see Appendix B for discussed images). When formatting the discussion guide, the lead researcher took into consideration current literature on signage and sought to examine resident’s attitudes, perceptions and behaviours in connection to signage in their local community. \r\n\r\nThe discussion guide was composed of four sections:\r\nSection 1:  Was a general introduction to the subject area and participants’ current awareness of signage and other visuals in their area.\r\nSection 2: Heavily focussed on signage and other visuals gathered from site visits  In all of the interviews, participants were shown the images in the order reflected in Appendix B, and they will be asked the same set of questions in relation to each image in order to generate an in-depth discussion on such images. One Manchester and the lead researcher agreed participants would not be informed figures 1-4 were the perceived negative images and figures 5-8 were the perceived positive images.\r\nSection 3: Focused on the future trajectory for signage and symbols. Participants were asked how their perceptions would be impacted if any of the discussed signage was placed in their areas now and in the future. Following this, participants were invited to share any recommendations into the designs of signage.\r\nSection 4: This was only for One Manchester residents. They were asked questions about One Manchester’s performance and potential future actions with their communities. The section was designed to give residents an active voice in how One Manchester can strengthen their relations with residents and enact positive change to protect the future of local communities.\r\n\r\nEach question in the discussion guide was designed to be open-ended, to allow participants to have a wider scope and openly share their opinions. The guide was configured to offer flexibility to discuss topics, therefore when required the lead researcher altered the order and wording of questions to maintain the natural flow of discussion with participants.\r\n\r\nProcedure\r\n\r\nInterviews were carried out between June and August 2021. Participants were requested to share their opinions around a variety of topics concerning how signage in local communities impact a resident psychological, perceptual and emotionally. Before embarking with interviews, participants were provided an information sheet outlining the study procedure, purpose, confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any time of the study’s duration. If participants accepted the conditions to being interviewed and part of the project, a time was then arranged to administer the interview at the convenience of the participant. Nine of the interviews were overseen through Microsoft Teams, the remaining five were facilitated by telephone at the request of the participants. Before proceeding with the interview, the lead researcher pointed out again the aims of the project and received verbal permission to go ahead with the discussion. Interviews were expedited using the discussion guide to ensure interviews remained structured whilst probing concepts tied to the research question. Attention was devoted to each interview to give participants adequate flexibility to discuss matters significant to them not included in the discussion guide. When required, to guarantee ample depth, follow-up questions and prompts were employed to stimulate participants to delve deeper on essential and intriguing answers (DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019). Field notes were developed during discussion, underlining both relevant and vital points, which enabled the researcher to refer to any major points and subsequently, assist them with data analysis (Rapley, 2004). As soon as all the questions had been completed, participants were promptly asked to share any other matters they deemed crucial. If participants were then satisfied with the feedback provided, the moderator would end the interview, and debrief participants about the study which was sent electronically. Discussions typically ranged between 30 minutes – 1 hour which were then all transcribed.\r\n\r\nAnalysis \r\n\r\nAs previously mentioned, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six step thematic analysis was used to detect themes and patterns underpinning residents’ psychological perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards signage in local communities. To support Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis, a bottom-up analysis was utilised due to the project’s exploratory nature and this facilitates identification of themes that arise from consistent patterns within the data set. Firstly, after each interview was completed, the researcher instantly made notes of the key concepts and beliefs and then transcribed the discussion. To guarantee preciseness of the transcript and the lead researchers’ familiarity with the data content, audio recordings and transcripts were reviewed several times. Subsequently, the process to create codes began, the lead researcher analysed the data set and identified key extracts from the data on the basis of their significance and relevance which led to the creation of the codes. Thereafter, provisional themes were produced through a thorough examination of the coded data set, when shared patterns were discovered and judged to be similar or unified under a core notion. All codes were integrated into a central theme. From this, the provisional themes then were revised and reviewed to ensure the themes had remained articulated and unique. During this period, the coded excerpts linked to a core theme was re-examined to verify it could reinforce the central theme and they featured no inconsistencies with that theme (Braun and Clarke, 2006). By which time, a number of themes were either excluded or merged due the lack of sufficient data to uphold the theme. The procedure was repeated several times to consolidate relevancy of the themes to the research question whilst rigorously ensuring they mirrored the patterns found in the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Ultimately, the final themes had been selected and a meticulous account of each theme was supplied. Once the thematical analysis process had been completed, extracts from the content were chosen to illustrate and support the relevant themes in the report \r\n\r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2895"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2896"},["text","Word doc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2897"},["text","Wooton2022"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2898"},["text","Joel Fox"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2899"},["text","open"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"46"},["name","Relation"],["description","A related resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2900"},["text","Consultancy - Commercial report"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2901"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2902"},["text","Data"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2903"},["text","Leslie Hallam"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2904"},["text","MSC"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2905"},["text","Psychology of Advertising"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2906"},["text","14"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2907"},["text","Qualitative (thematic analysis)"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"130","public":"1","featured":"0"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"125"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/8084b44115d59813660e075ffce6d2ea.doc"],["authentication","f1a23c86f34e4f68a5974dbcff0f1e50"]],["file",{"fileId":"126"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/262025a38e591b0c3482ff3dae927560.doc"],["authentication","b70dc83ed90fba9c6c24a6b32ae6b3de"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"10"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"819"},["text","Interviews"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2765"},["text","Understanding the psychological, perceptual and emotional impact signage has on residents in a local community. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2766"},["text","Alexander Wootton"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2767"},["text","2021"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2768"},["text","The placement of signage, street furniture and advertisements can have a profound impact on the appearance of a built environment. They play a vital role in shaping the cultural, physical and social identities that impact the perceptions that residents and other stakeholders hold towards local communities, which in turn impacts on behaviours. Adopting a qualitative approach, this study will examine the impact of signage and other visual features that can contribute to the psychological, perceptual and emotional impact that these elements can have on residents in a local community. A number of semi-structured interviews were conducted amongst residents in One Manchester property areas, One Manchester place officers and residents near these areas. Participants were shown a variety of visual images of signage and were prompted to discuss their emotional response and thoughts, and propose suggestions to improve signage. A thematic analysis was conducted using the interview data and indicated the following four themes: signage design, reputation, community engagement and impact of signage. Reflecting upon these themes, the results suggested that existing signage was psychically ill-fitted and visually dull, lacking positive influential stimuli and evocative colours and that it lacked the authenticity and character needed to emotionally resonate with passers-by. This negatively impacted the reputation of the communities, leading them to be categorised as economically poor with high crime rates, resulting in stakeholders feeling alienated and some fearful. The results highlighted that the signage needs to be revitalised as a part of a wider placemaking strategy to rejuvenate local environments, perceived to be run down. This should support the ongoing evolution of these areas and engage community members to instal signage that is both influential and reflects an overall collective vision.  "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2769"},["text","signage, placemaking, community engagement, qualitative research, community reputation"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2770"},["text","Design\r\nDue to the need to gain an in-depth understanding of the psychological, perceptual, and emotional impact signage has on residents in a community and factoring in the Covid-19 pandemic, a qualitative approach was adopted consisting of semi-structured interviews. This style of interviews was considered the most suitable method as they provide rich data on the participant’s thoughts which are not constrained by the bounds of tick box exercises or strict discussion guides. They enable researchers to “assess, confirm, validate, refute, or elaborate upon existing knowledge and the discovery of new knowledge” (Mcintosh & Morse, 2015, p. 1). This enables the discussion between the moderator and participant to flow more smoothly and naturally (Roulston et al., 2003) yet, a flexible guide at the moderators disposal keeps the conversation on topic. Interviews in the project were conducted using Microsoft Teams and telephone communication. The data was then assessed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six step thematic analysis.\r\nBraun & Clarke’s (2006) six-steps thematic analysis: \r\nFamiliarisation: Getting to know the overall data collected through re-reads of transcripts. \r\nCoding: Reducing sentences and phrases into small fragments of meaning or “codes”.  \r\nGenerating themes: Identifying patterns among codes. \r\nReview themes: Assuring that the meanings identified are relevant to the representation of data collected (research objectives). \r\nDefine themes: Refine themes developed by establishing their essence and significance. \r\nAnalysing themes: Highlight the frequency of themes and meanings derived from qualitative data analysis. Generate conclusions agreed-upon by all researchers.\r\n\r\nParticipants\r\nA sample of 24 participants was originally agreed, however, only 14 participants were interviewed for the project. Participants were either recruited by One Manchester or the lead researcher from areas across south, east and central Manchester. Participants were made up of the following:\r\n\r\nEight One Manchester residents \r\nThree One Manchester Place Coordinators who worked in specific patch areas\r\nThree Local residents living in areas where One Manchester own property \r\n\r\nThe lead researcher conducted site visits around areas of Manchester, this was done so the lead researcher could physically inspect communities to identify signage which were used to aid the discussion guide. The sites visits were conducted in Rusholme, Openshawe and Clayton. \r\n\r\nVisiting these locations first to view all the signage, symbols and other visual features was invaluable both to generating stimulus material for the interviews and the discussion guides. The aim of the sample was to gain a diverse range of viewpoints from a variety of demographics across Manchester to generate a rich data. Participants were recruited from: Clayton, Droysden, Fallowfield, Gorton, Hulme, Openshawe, Rusholme and Whalley range. A £20 shopping voucher was put forward to incentivise participation in the study. \r\n\r\n\r\nMatierials \r\nInterview guide \r\n\r\nTo obtain the most effective feedback from participants, a discussion guide was created, which provided a structured framework to guide discussions (See Appendix A, see Appendix B for discussed images). When formatting the discussion guide, the lead researcher took into consideration current literature on signage and sought to examine resident’s attitudes, perceptions and behaviours in connection to signage in their local community. \r\n\r\nThe discussion guide was composed of four sections:\r\nSection 1:  Was a general introduction to the subject area and participants’ current awareness of signage and other visuals in their area.\r\nSection 2: Heavily focussed on signage and other visuals gathered from site visits  In all of the interviews, participants were shown the images in the order reflected in Appendix B, and they will be asked the same set of questions in relation to each image in order to generate an in-depth discussion on such images. One Manchester and the lead researcher agreed participants would not be informed figures 1-4 were the perceived negative images and figures 5-8 were the perceived positive images.\r\nSection 3: Focused on the future trajectory for signage and symbols. Participants were asked how their perceptions would be impacted if any of the discussed signage was placed in their areas now and in the future. Following this, participants were invited to share any recommendations into the designs of signage.\r\nSection 4: This was only for One Manchester residents. They were asked questions about One Manchester’s performance and potential future actions with their communities. The section was designed to give residents an active voice in how One Manchester can strengthen their relations with residents and enact positive change to protect the future of local communities.\r\n\r\nEach question in the discussion guide was designed to be open-ended, to allow participants to have a wider scope and openly share their opinions. The guide was configured to offer flexibility to discuss topics, therefore when required the lead researcher altered the order and wording of questions to maintain the natural flow of discussion with participants.\r\n\r\nProcedure\r\n\r\nInterviews were carried out between June and August 2021. Participants were requested to share their opinions around a variety of topics concerning how signage in local communities impact a resident psychological, perceptual and emotionally. Before embarking with interviews, participants were provided an information sheet outlining the study procedure, purpose, confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any time of the study’s duration. If participants accepted the conditions to being interviewed and part of the project, a time was then arranged to administer the interview at the convenience of the participant. Nine of the interviews were overseen through Microsoft Teams, the remaining five were facilitated by telephone at the request of the participants. Before proceeding with the interview, the lead researcher pointed out again the aims of the project and received verbal permission to go ahead with the discussion. Interviews were expedited using the discussion guide to ensure interviews remained structured whilst probing concepts tied to the research question. Attention was devoted to each interview to give participants adequate flexibility to discuss matters significant to them not included in the discussion guide. When required, to guarantee ample depth, follow-up questions and prompts were employed to stimulate participants to delve deeper on essential and intriguing answers (DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019). Field notes were developed during discussion, underlining both relevant and vital points, which enabled the researcher to refer to any major points and subsequently, assist them with data analysis (Rapley, 2004). As soon as all the questions had been completed, participants were promptly asked to share any other matters they deemed crucial. If participants were then satisfied with the feedback provided, the moderator would end the interview, and debrief participants about the study which was sent electronically. Discussions typically ranged between 30 minutes – 1 hour which were then all transcribed.\r\n\r\nAnalysis \r\n\r\nAs previously mentioned, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six step thematic analysis was used to detect themes and patterns underpinning residents’ psychological perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards signage in local communities. To support Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis, a bottom-up analysis was utilised due to the project’s exploratory nature and this facilitates identification of themes that arise from consistent patterns within the data set. Firstly, after each interview was completed, the researcher instantly made notes of the key concepts and beliefs and then transcribed the discussion. To guarantee preciseness of the transcript and the lead researchers’ familiarity with the data content, audio recordings and transcripts were reviewed several times. Subsequently, the process to create codes began, the lead researcher analysed the data set and identified key extracts from the data on the basis of their significance and relevance which led to the creation of the codes. Thereafter, provisional themes were produced through a thorough examination of the coded data set, when shared patterns were discovered and judged to be similar or unified under a core notion. All codes were integrated into a central theme. From this, the provisional themes then were revised and reviewed to ensure the themes had remained articulated and unique. During this period, the coded excerpts linked to a core theme was re-examined to verify it could reinforce the central theme and they featured no inconsistencies with that theme (Braun and Clarke, 2006). By which time, a number of themes were either excluded or merged due the lack of sufficient data to uphold the theme. The procedure was repeated several times to consolidate relevancy of the themes to the research question whilst rigorously ensuring they mirrored the patterns found in the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Ultimately, the final themes had been selected and a meticulous account of each theme was supplied. Once the thematical analysis process had been completed, extracts from the content were chosen to illustrate and support the relevant themes in the report."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2771"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2772"},["text","Word doc."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2773"},["text","Wootton2021"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2774"},["text","Reva Maria George"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2775"},["text","Open"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"46"},["name","Relation"],["description","A related resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2776"},["text","Consultancy - Commercial report "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2777"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2778"},["text","Text"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2779"},["text","LA1 4YF"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2780"},["text","Leslie Hallam"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2781"},["text","MSc."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2782"},["text","Psychology of Advertising"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2783"},["text","14"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"2784"},["text","Qualitative (Thematic Analysis)"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"32","public":"1","featured":"1"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"7"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/cdb23c2286b021c0f2addfb10c820dc0.odt"],["authentication","1147f54efcb16c08a962caad9605140f"]],["file",{"fileId":"8"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/054bedda6a1a3827c2a53e6607654f77.odt"],["authentication","008be7d19265e517999d51940bb70ff7"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"8"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"191"},["text","Ratings"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"192"},["text","Studies where participants make a series of ratings or judgements when presented with stimuli"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1044"},["text","Typeface and taste: The bittersweet effect of typeface on the perception of taste"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1045"},["text","Charlotte Wright"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1046"},["text","2014"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1047"},["text","This article aims to explore how the visual features of typeface on a product’s packaging, are capable of altering one’s taste experience with the product within through cross-sensory correspondences. A total of ninety-two participants from a selection of university graduates were selected to take part in one of three studies rating yogurts, typefaces and the interaction between the two. While visual features of the typeface like thickness and heaviness did not directly affect the rating of a products perceived thickness and weight, the typefaces were able to trigger different experiences of bitterness. When presented on the yogurt container, the more angular, thin typeface Palatino Italic caused the yogurt to be rated as significantly more bitter than the rounder, thicker font Cooper Black. Secondary tests found that the two typefaces rated alone, without the yogurt, did not possess the same significant differences in bitterness. However, they were rated as significantly different on the other scales measured, thus raising the question of exactly how the fonts were capable of manipulating participant’s taste experience. The study addresses this question and looks further into how typefaces perceptual qualities change once the letters presenting it are capitalised."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1048"},["text","Rating Chart \r\nA rating chart (found in Appendix 4) was designed to allow participants to select the most neutral yogurt by ordering them in terms of the adjectives rated in the main study. These were thick to thin, heavy to light, dull to sharp, sweet to bitter and slow to quick. The chart contained a three point scale with related variables anchored at each end. Participants were then able to fill in which yogurt (A, B or C) they believed possessed the extremities of each variable pair (i.e. the thickest and the thinnest) leaving the most neutral yogurt being rated as somewhere between the two.\r\nProducts \r\nAs natural yogurt appeared to be the plainest yogurt in terms of flavour, colour and texture, three natural yogurts were selected for the pre-test. The first yogurt ‘A’ was the cheapest home-brand yogurt from Morrisons. Yogurt B was slightly more expensive (Yeo Natural), and the third (yogurt C) was the most expensive plain natural yogurt available (Onken). All yogurts were purchased from Morrisons Supermarket and cost between £1.00 and £2.00.\r\n\r\n\r\nPackaging \r\nBecause all three products contained packaging with commercial labels which used a combination of various typefaces, colours and shapes, the yogurt had to be removed from the containers. The yogurts were then placed in three identical bowls and set on a table. A piece of paper in front of each informed the participant which was yogurt A, B and C.\r\nProcedure \r\n\tIn turn participants were brought into an empty room and asked to sit at a desk in front of the three yogurts. They were presented with an information sheet, consent form and the rating sheet (Appendix 1, 2 and 4) and asked to sample each yogurt as many times as they felt necessary to rate which of the three was the least extreme in regards to the variables rated. \r\nThey were each given a plastic spoon to test the yogurt and asked not to touch the bowl in case its weight affected their perception of the product. They then used the pen provided to rate which yogurt (A,B or C) possessed the least extreme qualities. Once the twenty participants had completed the test they were given the opportunity to ask any questions and presented with the debrief sheet in Appendix 3. Their results were then correlated and ‘Yogurt A’ was clearly found to be the most neutral yogurt of the three in terms of the variables rated.\r\n\r\nMain Study\r\nParticipants\r\nBetween June 2014 and July 2014 forty-eight students and recent graduates (Male= 36, Female= 12) aged between eighteen and fifty-four years old (M= 23.25, SD=4.86) from Lancaster University were recruited as part of a volunteer sample to take part in this study. They were informed of the study through a monthly newsletter emailed to their University email address by a University Administrator. The students came from a variety of academic years and subject areas. All participants confirmed that they had no deficits regarding their ability to smell or taste, nor any allergy to dairy. \r\nMaterials\r\nRating Chart \r\nThe rating chart was designed to allow participants to quantify their perception of the product. Each quality was presented on a scale with one extreme anchored horizontally to the other (See Appendix 5). So for the adjective pair thick-thin participants would state if the product was ‘Very Thick, Quite Thick, Slightly Thick, Neither Thick nor Thin, Slightly Thin, Quite Thin or Very Thin’. This produced a seven-point scale for each variable rated.\r\nSeveral qualities that had previously been identified as sharing cross-modular correspondences linked to shape, and influencing aspects of flavour were implanted within the rating chart. In addition to being held by one or several modalities, they were a sample of adjectives both able and unable to be conveyed directly by visual qualities of the typeface to the yogurt (for example a thick font may lead to the yogurt being rated as thick but a typeface is unable to directly convey bitterness through its visual features). The adjectives rated were thick-thin, heavy-light, sharp-dull, bitter-sweet, quick-slow. The order by which these variables were rated was swapped between participants in order to reduce order effects. It was predicted that the adjectives thick, heavy, dull, sweet and slow would be aligned, while thin, light, sharp, bitter and fast would share conative meaning.\r\n\r\nProducts \r\nFollowing the preliminary test yogurt A (Morrison’s own Natural Yogurt) was selected as the most neutral yogurt in terms of the variables rated and yogurt tested. In effect the yogurt was most frequently rated as neither the thickest, nor thinnest yogurt of the three tested, as so on across the variables rated. As a result yogurt A was chosen for the study. Regardless of the label on the pot, the contents within were always yogurt A, leading to participants rating the same yogurt twice without their knowledge.\r\nPackaging \r\nThere were four parts to the packaging: the typeface used; the brand name in which the typeface was printed; the label displaying the brand name; and the pot containing the yogurt.  Each element of the packaging aimed to trigger as few cross-sensory perceptions as possible, with the exception of the typeface being tested.\r\nAfter a great deal of consideration, the two typefaces chosen were Cooper Black and Palatino Italic. Walker et al had noted that these typefaces possessed a variety of qualities capable of triggering cross-modular correspondences strong enough to induce a congruency effect between word meaning and typeface characteristic (Lewis and Walker, 1989). As a result they seemed the most likely typefaces to induce cross-modular correspondences relating to taste. Additionally they were particularly representative of typefaces as a whole possessing characteristics such as italics, roman and bold. Visually Cooper Black is much thicker and rounder than Palatino Italic. Palatino Italic also appears to convey speed and sharpness, pointing forward at an angle. \r\nExisting brand names and real words could not be used to display the typeface due to the potential confounding connotations they may carry. Additionally if both typefaces were presented in the same brand name participants would be more likely to realise that both yogurts were indeed the same. Therefore two non-words had to be selected as product brand names. \r\nSound symbolism is known to have an effect on the perceptions activated by a word, in particular Klink noted that brand names containing front vowels were associated with more angular brand marks than back vowels (Klink, 2003). To avoid this effect confounding the ratings, a combination of front and back vowels were present in each brand name. Moreover, because the positioning of back and front vowels has been highlighted as a factor influencing perception, the order of the front and back vowels were changed between the two non-words. This process was inspired by a similar method by Klink and Wu, where brand names were built using vowels and letters conveying different meanings (Klink and Wu, 2013). The two non-words generated from this procedure were ‘Bemdom’ (front/closed vowel ‘bem’, back/open vowel ‘dom’) and ‘Nordin’ (back/open vowel ‘nor’, front/closed vowel ‘din’). \r\nAs seen in Figure 1, these names were printed in black on white rectangular sticker paper creating the label. Printed in font size 14, their first letters were capitalised to appear more like a product name. Four versions of the label were created: one with the curved typeface (Cooper Black) stating Bemdom; one with the curved typeface stating Nordin; one with the angular typeface (Palatino Italic) stating Bemdom and one with the angular typeface presenting Nordin. \r\n\r\nFigure 1: Examples of the four yogurt pots presented to participants. Presented first is Bemdom in Palatino Italic, followed by Nordin the same type, Nordin in Cooper Black and Bemdom in Cooper Black.\r\nThe labels were attached to the circular lids of ninety-six clear 60ml plastic sample pots displayed in Figure 2. In an attempt to counter-balance the effect of a circular shaped lid on the rating of the yogurt, the sticker containing the brand name was cut into the more angular shape of a rectangle. The pot was also clear allowing visibility of the white yogurt contained within it, rather than being coloured packaging that may have its own connotations.  \r\n\r\nFigure 2: The pots used to present participants with the yogurt and the typeface.\r\nWith the type of spoon used to consume yogurt being found to affect one’s perception of yogurt, all participants consumed the yogurt with the same type of white plastic spoon displayed in Figure 3 (Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2011). As the testing pot was already plastic and the yogurt white, a plastic white spoon seemed the best option for reducing the number of new extraneous variables introduced into the study.\r\n\r\nFigure 3: The plastic spoon used for sampling the yogurt.\r\n\r\n\r\nResearch Design\r\n\tThe study involved a 2 (type of typeface) x 2 (non-word used) x2 (order in which the font was presented) design. It was conducted using a repeated measures design with each participant rating each typeface and non-word although in different combinations. The order of both the typeface and non-word used was counterbalanced throughout the study leading to the creation of four participant groups.\r\nProcedure \r\nParticipants were randomly split into four conditions; two of whom rated ‘Bemdom’ in Cooper Black and ‘Nordin’ in Palatino Italic but in contrasting orders, and two of whom rated ‘Bemdom’ in Palatino Italic and ‘Nordin’ in Cooper Black, again in contrasting orders. All groups received exactly the same experimental procedure and exactly the same yogurt in each pot. The only differences were the order each typeface and non-word were presented, and which non-word was allocated which type. Participants were not informed that the samples of yogurts were identical, and were encouraged to believe they were two different yogurts through use of different brand names.\r\nOnce the participant was seated they were randomly assigned to a research group, then asked to read the participant information sheet (Appendix 1) and complete the consent form shown in Appendix 2. Once they had had the opportunity to ask any questions that came to mind, two boxes were placed on the table in front of the participant. Each had ‘Nordin’ or ‘Bemdom’ printed on it in either Cooper Black or Palatino Italic depending on the group they were assigned to. In order to provide a contrast effect highlighting the package’s typeface, the two pots of yogurt were taken from larger boxes sharing their name and label, which were present on the table throughout the study. This again aimed to reduce participant’s likelihood of identifying the yogurts as the same. \r\nThe participant was then presented with a yogurt pot from one of the boxes and asked to write the product’s name on the rating sheet (Appendix 5) ensuring that they had paid some attention to the name and in doing so, the typeface. To ensure that the weight of the yogurt didn’t confound participant’s perception of the product, the pot of yogurt was placed in a tube securing it in place on the table while the participant sampled it. Participants were given a plastic spoon to consume it with and still water was provided for the participants to cleanse their mouth with between tastings. \r\nThe participant was welcome to eat as much or as little of the produce as required to rate it on the several variables. Once they had finished rating the first yogurt it was removed from the tube and replaced by the second. The original pot was left on the table in order to allow contrast between the names and more importantly typeface. When the rating was complete participants were given the debrief sheet (Appendix 3) and the opportunity to ask any questions before being thanked for their time.\r\nEthics\r\nAn ethics review rated the study as low risk to participants. As the main risk was that of an allergy to the yogurt, all participants were asked twice if they were allergic to dairy products- once through the consent form and once verbally. Informed consent was collected from all participants.  Participants were also asked if they were happy to participate in the experiment and told they had the right to withdraw at any point without facing any negative consequences. The participants were debriefed after, being informed of the reasoning behind the study. All interviews followed the BPA code of conduct. While a small amount of deception was used to imply that the two pots of yogurt were different, participants were never explicitly lied to. During debriefing, not one participant stated that they had had a problem with the small lack of full disclosure. \r\n"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1049"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1050"},["text","data/data.ods"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1051"},["text","Wright2014"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1052"},["text","John Towse"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1053"},["text","Open"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1054"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1055"},["text","data"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1056"},["text","LA1 4YF"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1057"},["text","Peter Walker"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1058"},["text","MSc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1059"},["text","Cognitive Psychology\r\nPerception "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1060"},["text","A sample of twenty participants (Male= 12, Female= 8) were recruited for the pre-test stage aged between twenty-two and fifty-four (M= 26.7 SD=7.4)"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1061"},["text","ANOVA\r\nCorrelation"]]]]]]]],["item",{"itemId":"31","public":"1","featured":"1"},["fileContainer",["file",{"fileId":"84"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/d9ec28d2595cae82a23d00f217468f9b.doc"],["authentication","0b3f1388984a2d5a7508900b80476211"]],["file",{"fileId":"85"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/74fc7eead2f61c385212a7bae93eff2a.txt"],["authentication","d6d530c5d70a86ab26cc60e890ba0a43"]],["file",{"fileId":"86"},["src","https://johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/files/original/e05a0d5300b408575310f0f4b2cd424b.csv"],["authentication","8dd217dfaef24c4c9a41f8b2ee5a1738"]]],["collection",{"collectionId":"6"},["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"187"},["text","RT & Accuracy"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"188"},["text","Projects that focus on behavioural data, using chronometric analysis and accuracy analysis to draw inferences about psychological processes"]]]]]]]],["elementSetContainer",["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"1"},["name","Dublin Core"],["description","The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/."],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"50"},["name","Title"],["description","A name given to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1024"},["text","Training Transfer Between False-belief, Card Sorting and Counterfactual Reasoning in Children with ASD."]]]],["element",{"elementId":"39"},["name","Creator"],["description","An entity primarily responsible for making the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1025"},["text","Amna Ahmed"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"40"},["name","Date"],["description","A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1026"},["text","2015"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"41"},["name","Description"],["description","An account of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1027"},["text","Previous training studies for typically developed (TD) children and children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) show that theory of mind and executive functions are two interrelated domains, and that training in one task could lead to improvement on the other. This training study aimed to examine the developmental relationship between three domains (Theory of Mind (ToM), Executive Functions (EF) and Counterfactual Reasoning (CR)) in children with ASD. A group of 30 children diagnosed with ASD were randomly allocated to one of three training groups, each group received training in one of the three domains stated. After training, the entire sample was tested to measure for improvements. Results indicate that ToM training leads to improvement on the EF and CR tasks, while EF training did not lead to ToM improvement and CR training did not lead to EF improvement. Findings are discussed and a novel cognitive model is proposed to account for the observed outcomes. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"49"},["name","Subject"],["description","The topic of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1028"},["text","ASD, Training study\r\nDomain general\r\nTheory of Mind\r\nCounterfactual reasoning\r\nExecutive Functions"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"48"},["name","Source"],["description","A related resource from which the described resource is derived"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1029"},["text","Following the design of Kloo and Perner (2003), first children were pretested. The pretest involved measures of verbal and nonverbal ability, two false-belief tasks followed by a card sorting task and two counter-factual reasoning tasks. The pretest was scored to create a baseline for the participants' abilities in each of the areas assigned to the training groups. Children were then randomly assigned to one of three experimental training groups. Each group was given two sessions of training (approximately 1 week apart) on one of the three areas; false belief, counterfactual reasoning or DCCS. A posttest was given a week after the second training session, it was similar to the pretest in design but different materials were used. The posttest was given to the children to measure any improvements in performance after training and examine any crossover effects between the different training groups. Finally, the children were given a follow-up test (approximately 6 weeks after the posttest) to investigate if the effects of training are lasting. All of the sessions took place in a quiet room in the child's school.\r\n\r\n            Procedure and Materials\r\nPretest and posttest. Both sessions that preceded and followed the training sessions involved tasks measuring performance in false belief, counter-factual reasoning and card sorting.\r\nFalse-belief. One of two traditional unexpected transfer tasks was administered on the pretest based on Wimmer and Perner (1983), modeled after Baron-Cohen et al.’s Sally-Anne task (1985). A scene was enacted to the child using wooden toy figures and a kitchen model in which an item is unexpectedly transferred during the protagonist's absence. The stories where altered slightly to be more fitting to the knowledge of a Bahraini child by changing character names and making other alternations where appropriate. However, the main consciences of the stories remained very similar to the original stories. After the story is told, the character returns to the scene and the child is then asked a false-belief test question such as 'where do you think Ahmed will look for his teddy bear now?' followed by two control questions (memory and reality). One of the two stories was administered in the pre-test and the other in the post-test. \r\nThe false-belief pretest and posttest also included an unexpected content task, another task modeled by Wimmer and Perner (1983) as a measure of false-belief. In this task the child was presented with a closed familiar container (such as a Band-Aid box) and then the child was asked to guess the content of the box. The item in the box was then revealed to the child (a coin, for example). Next the item was placed in the closed box again and the child was asked 'what did you think was in the box before I opened it?' The correct answer should be Band-Aids, but most children with ASD find difficulty in suppressing the reality of what they know to be in the box so the answer they give is ‘a coin’. The child was then asked about another person’s state of mind 'what will (name another child) think is inside the box?’ Finally, the child was asked a memory control question 'what is really in the box?' \r\n\r\nCard Sorting. Following the false-belief task, the child was presented with a dimensional change card sorting task (DCCS; Frye et al., 1995). One set of cards (5cm x 10cm) was used as well as two target cards (a blue house and an orange car) to be placed on two sorting boxes (12cm x 16cm). The card set had 12 testing cards (6 orange houses and 6 blue cars). The task involved two phases, in the pre-switch phase the participant was asked to sort the cards according to shape. After completing six trails successfully, the examiner explained to the child that now the rules of the game will change and the child was asked to sort the cards according to colour rather than shape in the post-switch phase. \r\nCounterfactual Reasoning. Lastly, the pretest and posttest sessions included two counterfactual thinking tasks based on Beck et al. (2011). One of the tasks in each session was enacted using wooden figures and materials such as doll sized bed, cabin, teddy bears or pets. The second task was presented using a picture story consisting of three panels illustrating the events of the story. In these stories, both enacted and illustrated, a series of events lead to a specific end state. For example, the character picks flowers from the garden and places them in a vase on the table. Then the child is asked 'if Zainab had not picked the flowers where would they be’? Two control questions (memory and reality) followed. Similarly to the false-belief task, some alterations where made to the stories where appropriate to accommodate the child's environment and imagination.  The use of two different methods of delivery for the counter-factuality task was introduced to create more variation in the understanding of counterfactual reasoning and to distinguish this task from the false-belief task. \r\nTraining\r\nFollowing the pretest, the participants were assigned to three experimental groups each receiving two training sessions in one of the three areas; false-belief, counterfactual reasoning and DCCS. The aim of the training is to provide the children with explanations and feedback based on performance. \r\nFalse-belief training group. In each of the training sessions, the false belief group received two of four Ernie-says-something-wrong tasks (renamed to Ali-says-something-wrong) (Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2003), one unexpected transfer task different from the tasks administered during the pre and post-test sessions, and finally one unexpected content task. \r\nAli-says-something-wrong. As in the original Kloo and Perner (2003), the task was presented with the aid of three puppets. In each of the stories Ali carried an action towards one of the puppets but then stated that he did it to another puppet. In each training session the child received two of the four original stories followed by a question about the content of Ali's statement and about the conflicting reality. The other two stories where then administered in the following session.\r\nUnexpected transfer. The training sessions also included one story about an item being unexpectedly transferred in the protagonist's absence following Baron-cohen et al. (1985). The stories was enacted using wooden dolls and doll house furniture. This training task aimed to teach children about the main aspects of an unexpected transfer and to gradually guide them towards considering the character's false belief (Kloo and Perner, 2003). \r\nUnexpected content. This task is presented using a different box and content for each test and training session. Examples of the materials used are a smarties tube, a pringles box, a crayons card box. The training of this task aimed to help the child understand his own false-belief as well as others’ state of mind.  \r\n\r\nDCCS training group. The card sorting group was given training in two DCCS tasks in each of the training sessions. Both tasks involved sorting according to colour and number, and the switch was always from colour to number. The two tasks administered were the three dimension switch and the transfer sorting task. \r\nThree dimension switch. In this card sorting task, the participant was presented with two target cards (one yellow house and two green houses) placed on a sorting box. The test cards were similar to the target cards on one dimension; either colour or number (two yellow houses, one green house). The child had to sort by colour, then number, then by colour again and finally by number one last time. Two sets of cards were used, one for each training session. The experimenter helped the child identify each dimension after each switch was made and the rules of the game were covered again. Each switch involved six trials. \r\nTransfer sorting task. Here, the target cards remained the same as the previous task (one yellow house and two green houses) but a new test card that is only similar to the target cards on one dimension (two yellow cars) was introduced. The test cards was supposed to be sorted according to the dimension stated by the experimenter, starting with colour then switching to number.\r\n\r\nCounterfactual reasoning training group. Counter-factual reasoning tasks and false-belief tasks are interchangeable in some studies by asking questions testing both skills following a single story. However, in this study, the training groups had to receive different stories, followed by questions that only tap on counterfactual thinking in order to distinguish it from false-belief training. The purpose of this divide in training is to ensure that each experimental group receives training that does not overlap with the other groups' as the study aims to ultimately measure the crossover effects. The CR group received two tasks in each training session. Like the pretest and posttest, one of the tasks was enacted using figures and the other was presented as a picture story. The stories are based on Beck et al. (2011) and Guajardo and Turley-Ames (2004).\r\nFigure stories. Following Guajardo and Turley-Ames' (2004) counterfactual thinking tasks, the children were shown a story, presented using wooden dolls, in which an event occurs (usually as a consequence of an action taken by the protagonist) and the child was asked to generate alternative scenarios that would have prevented the occurrence of that event. For example, the character is drawing a picture using pencil colours when the colour breaks and a result he cannot finish his drawing. The question following this story is 'what could the character have done so that he would have drawn the rest of the picture?' and the child is to give as many responses as he/she can generate. Other scenarios include avoiding breaking a glass, keeping their clothes clean, taking a nap leading them to miss their favorite show, and someone eating the character's last chocolate bar. In the training sessions, the examiner walks the child through the logic of having different actions leading to alternative endings. \r\nPicture stories. The second task in the counter-factual training involved a single picture story based on Beck et al (2011). The images were digitally drawen using Adobe Illustrator and the stories showed a sequence of three square panels. However, the question format following the stories differed from the task given using figures. In the picture stories task, the child is presented with a simple story of consequential events followed by a question about where someone or something would have been if a certain event had not occurred. For example, one of the stories showed a cat napping on top of a car, the cat then spies a bird flying by and chases the bird all the way to the traffic light. The question associated with this story is 'if the cat had not spied the bird, where would the cat be?' Similar illustrations include a man receiving a call to meet a friend, a girl picking flowers, a drawing flying out of an open window and a man who gets sand on his shoes. The training aims to allow the child some insight on how an occurrence could alter the course of events resulting in certain outcomes, and thus if the occurrence had not taken place we would be presented with a counterfactual state.    \r\n\r\nFollow-up test. The follow up test was added to the experiment to measure whether children with ASD maintained any effects gained from the training past the posttest. Therefore, this test was similar to the pretest and posttest in design; it included a false belief task, a card sorting task and two counter-factuality tasks. However, the materials and stories used were all different from those used previously in the tests and training. The follow-up test took place 6 weeks after the post-test session. "]]]],["element",{"elementId":"45"},["name","Publisher"],["description","An entity responsible for making the resource available"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1030"},["text","Lancaster University"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"42"},["name","Format"],["description","The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1031"},["text","data/SPSS.sav"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"43"},["name","Identifier"],["description","An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1032"},["text","Ahmed2015"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"37"},["name","Contributor"],["description","An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1033"},["text","John Towse"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"47"},["name","Rights"],["description","Information about rights held in and over the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1034"},["text","Open"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"46"},["name","Relation"],["description","A related resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1035"},["text","Open"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"44"},["name","Language"],["description","A language of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1036"},["text","English"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"51"},["name","Type"],["description","The nature or genre of the resource"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1037"},["text","Data"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"38"},["name","Coverage"],["description","The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1038"},["text","LA1 4YF"]]]]]],["elementSet",{"elementSetId":"4"},["name","LUSTRE"],["description","Adds LUSTRE specific project information"],["elementContainer",["element",{"elementId":"52"},["name","Supervisor"],["description","Name of the project supervisor"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1039"},["text","Charlie Lewis"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"53"},["name","Project Level"],["description","Project levels should be entered as UG or MSC"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1040"},["text","MSc"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"54"},["name","Topic"],["description","Should contain the sub-category of Psychology the project falls under"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1041"},["text","Developmental Psychology"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"56"},["name","Sample Size"],["description"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1042"},["text","Participants were 30 children with ASD (2 girls, 28 boys; M age = 6,5 years, SD = 24 months). Children, recruited from special education schools in Bahrain, received a diagnosis of ASD by a team of qualified educational psychologists either based on DSM-IV or CARS II and OWL"]]]],["element",{"elementId":"55"},["name","Statistical Analysis Type"],["description","The type of statistical analysis used in the project"],["elementTextContainer",["elementText",{"elementTextId":"1043"},["text","ANOVA\r\nmixed effects analysis\r\n t-test"]]]]]]]]]