Optimising the Use of Synaesthetic Metaphors in Advertising: The Roles of Metaphor Construction and Complexity
Metaphors; Synaesthetic Metaphors; Advertising; Persuasiveness
Metaphors are commonly employed in advertising to increase its persuasive effects. Research suggests that metaphors are most effective when conveyed visually, however linguists believe that additionally providing a linguistic cue, designed to help metaphor interpretation, can increase their effectiveness. In addition, metaphors of medium complexity are believed to drive higher effectiveness than simpler or more complex metaphors. This research aims to investigate how these issues relate to synaesthetic metaphors, those that reference two sensory modalities. Participants were presented with print adverts, the visual and linguistic elements of which were adapted to contain literal messages or synaesthetic metaphors. Participants provided ratings of appreciation, purchase intentions, and perceived advert complexity. Synaesthetic metaphors were shown to produce significantly stronger persuasive effects, measured via appreciation and purchase intentions, when conveyed visually and when rated highly on complexity. Implications for advertisers, who wish to incorporate and optimise the use of synaesthetic metaphors in print advertising, are discussed.
Participants This research recruited 122 participants via opportunistic sampling. Participants were native speakers of English aged 18 or over, with no history of disabilities in any of the sensory domains (sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch). Twelve participants were excluded due to incomplete survey responses and/or ineligibility according to the inclusion criteria, resulting in a sample of 110 participants (88 female, 20 male, 2 other; age: M = 38.11, SD = 18.60) who were randomly assigned to complete one of four surveys (see Design). The demographics per survey are detailed in Table 1. Table 1 The Sample Size and Demographics Per Survey N Gender Age Male Female Other Mean SD Survey 1 28 4 24 - 43.68 18.94 Survey 2 29 7 21 1 32.90 17.77 Survey 3 28 5 22 1 35.07 17.09 Survey 4 25 4 21 - 41.32 19.48 Materials Advert Stimuli The advert stimuli used in this research were gathered and modified by previous researchers at Francesca Citron’s laboratory (Chen, 2019; Pan, 2019). The researchers obtained real adverts containing synaesthetic metaphors from the dataset of Bolognesi and Strik Lievers (2018). These base adverts were labelled 1-8 (see Appendix A). The researchers produced three modified versions of each base advert. They edited the visual and linguistic elements, of product images and slogans respectively, to contain, or not contain, a synaesthetic metaphor, in accordance with the ‘Metaphor Category’ they represented. One version of each base advert conveyed a synaesthetic metaphor in both the visual and linguistic advert elements (Visual-Linguistic SM; labelled “VL”). One version contained a synaesthetic metaphor in the visual, but not linguistic, advert elements (Visual SM Only; labelled “V). One version contained a synaesthetic metaphor in the linguistic, but not visual, advert elements (Linguistic SM Only; labelled “L”). The final version served as a control as a synaesthetic metaphor did not appear in the visual or linguistic advert elements (No SM; labelled “N”). These metaphor categories are illustrated by the example of Advert 2 (see Figure 1). In 2VL, the image displays a lemon wearing a studded mask whilst the slogan writes “A PLEASINGLY SHARP TASTE”. This synaesthetic metaphor, conveyed by the image and slogan, attributes the lemonade as having a sharp taste, which references the sensory modalities of touch (via “sharp” in the slogan, and the studded mask in the image) and taste (via “taste” in the slogan, and the lemon in the image). In 2V, the synaesthetic metaphor containing the image of 2VL is retained, however the slogan, “A PLEASINGLY SOUR TASTE”, no longer contains a synaesthetic metaphor since it a) is literal and b) only references one sense (via “sour taste”). In contrast, 2L retains the synaesthetic metaphor-containing slogan of 2VL (“A PLEASINGLY SHARP TASTE”) but contains a literal product image. The synaesthetic metaphor here therefore only appears in the linguistic advert elements. In 2N, the image of 2L and the slogan of 2V appear, meaning that a synaesthetic metaphor is not conveyed in either the visual or linguistic elements. This process, of creating four versions per base advert, resulted in 32 advert stimuli. Within this, eight adverts, one per base advert, represented each metaphor category. The advert stimuli were labelled according to their base advert number (1-8) and their metaphor category (VL; V; L; N). For example, 1VL presents the version of base advert 1 belonging to the visual-linguistic SM category. The full stimuli set can be viewed in Appendix A. The synaesthetic metaphors constructed in the stimuli, and the sensory domains referenced (see Table 2), are briefly explained in Appendix B. All adverts were written in English and printed in full colour. Online Survey This research used a modified version of a Qualtrics (Provo, UT) survey produced by Chen (2019) and Pan (2019). The original survey featured 11 bipolar Likert scales per advert stimuli, all intended to contain 5-points but with some mistakenly containing 7-points. This was corrected in the present research, with all scales measured 0-5. The first four scales, measuring “Appreciation”, asked participants whether they liked the advert (Agree – Disagree) and whether they perceived it as “Bad”–“Good”; “Unpleasant”-“Pleasant”; and “Unappealing”-“Appealing”. The two following questions measured “Perceived Complexity” and concerned participants’ perception of the advert as “Unclear”–“Straightforward” and as “Difficult to Understand”– “Easy to Understand”. The next three questions measured “Purchase Intentions”. In the original survey, these focused on the purchase intentions of the respondent. This was modified in this research, following Pan (2019) and Chen’s (2019) finding that purchase intentions were merged with appreciation in PCA, and the belief that personal factors influence purchase intentions (Habich-Sobiegalla et al., 2019). The current survey instead asked respondents whether others would like to purchase the product, soon and in the future, and whether the advert would make others more likely to purchase the product (“Disagree”-“Agree”). On the final two questions, measuring “Perceived Realism”, participants rated the advert as “Unrealistic”–“Realistic” and “Fictitious”– “Real”. This question set was presented per advert stimulus, resulting in a total of 88 questions per survey. Figure 1 The Four Versions of Advert 2 Table 2 The Sensory Domains Referenced by Each Advert, When Sensory Metaphors Were and Were Not Present Sensory Domains Referenced SM Present No SM Present Source Target Advert 1 Auditory Taste Taste Advert 2 Tactile Taste Taste Advert 3 Tactile Taste Taste Advert 4 Visual Auditory Auditory Advert 5 Visual Auditory Auditory Advert 6 Visual Smell Smell Advert 7 Auditory Taste Taste Advert 8 Tactile Taste Taste Design In an independent groups design, participants were randomly assigned to complete one of four online surveys. The independent variable was the metaphor category of each advert. Each survey presented eight adverts, one belonging to each of the eight base adverts and two belonging to each of the four metaphor categories. For example, Survey 1 presented two Visual-SM only adverts (Adverts 1 and 5), two Linguistic-SM Only adverts (Adverts 2 and 6), two Visual-Linguistic SM adverts (Adverts 3 and 7), and two No-SM adverts (Adverts 4 and 8), with one version of each base advert appearing only once. Table 3 lists the advert stimuli presented per survey. The four dependent variables, of ‘Appreciation’, ‘Purchase Intentions’, ‘Perceived Realism’ and ‘Perceived Complexity’, are further detailed in Materials and Variable Construction. Table 3 The Adverts Displayed per Survey, In Order of Appearance Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4 1V 3N 5VL 7L 2L 4V 6N 8VL 3VL 5L 7V 1N 4N 6VL 8L 2V 5V 7N 1VL 3L 6L 8V 2N 4VL 7VL 1L 3V 5N 8N 2VL 4L 6V Procedure The entirety of this study was completed on Qualtrics (Provo, UT). Participants were informed of the researchers' background and requirements, and briefed of their anonymity, confidentiality and right to withdraw (Appendix C), before providing informed consent (Appendix D). Participants declared their age and gender and confirmed that English was their native language and that they did not suffer from any sensory inabilities. Participants viewed each of the eight adverts in turn and answered 11 five-point Bipolar Likert scales per advert (see Materials, Survey). Finally, participants were debriefed, reminded of their terms of participation, and provided with further reading (Appendix E). The study took 10 minutes to complete.
Follow up on previous research in Francesca Citron's lab
Extending the Cortical Hyperexcitability Index
Perceptual Aberrations, Cortical Hyperexcitability, Migraine, Aura, Tinnitus, Auditory Perception, Visual Perception, Hallucinations
Anomalous perceptual experiences are associated with underlying excitation of neural activity in the cerebral cortex, known as cortical hyperexcitability (Wilkins, 1995). This can be measured behaviourally by the pattern glare test, where migraineurs consistently show greater susceptibility to anomalous visual percepts in response to grating patterns than control participants (for review see Evans & Stevenson, 2008). Based on these findings, Fong, Takahashi and Braithwaite (2019) developed a screening measure of visual cortical hyperexcitability, the Cortical Hyperexcitability Index (CHi-II), through exploratory factor analysis. This project aims to create auditory-based items for the CHi-II. We know cortical hyperexcitability in the auditory cortex is also associated with a number of auditory symptoms in migraine such as heightened auditory sensitivity and a range of anomalous auditory percepts, ranging from tinnitus-like tones to multiple conversing voices (Vingen, Pareja & Støren et al., 1998; Miller, Grosberg, Crystal & Robbins, 2015). As such we created seven auditory items through adaptation of related questionnaire items and generating unique items based on phenomenology of patient descriptions; these refer to experiences of hearing voices or unexplained sounds under various circumstances, as well as sensitivity to noise. Exploratory Factor Analysis will be conducted on the CHi-II alongside auditory items to test which factor each item best loads onto, as well as using Cronbach's Alpha to assess internal validity. Results are discussed in terms of the debate on global versus localised effects of patterns of hyperexcitability, as well as implications for our understanding of multisensory anomalous perceptual experiences.
Method Participants Forty-five participants age 18-24 (M = 19.24) took part either for research credits or without incentive. Of these, thirty-seven (82%) were female and thirty-seven (82%) were right-handed. Prior to the main questionnaire, a pre-screening survey asked participants to declare any history of neurosurgeries (8.22%), neurological conditions (2.22%), psychological conditions (17.78%), ocular conditions (15.56%), epilepsy (0%), migraine (24.44%), or tinnitus (15.56%). Auditory Item Creation As with the original CHi-II, items were based on previous questionnaires measuring anomalous perceptual experiences (Sierra & Berrios, 2000; Bell, Halligan & Ellis, 2006) alongside patient reports of auditory experiences in migraine (Miller, Grosberg, Crystal & Robbins, 2015; Vreeburg, Leijten, Sommer & Sommer, 2016). These items were split into two categories: voice-hearing, and noise-hearing. We distinguished between hearing a single voice in item one ‘Do you ever hear a single voice talking aloud in your head without a clear source?’, or multiple voices in item two ‘Do you ever hear 2 or more unexplained voices talking with each other?’, as these are delineated in patient reports (Miller et al., 2015; Vreebrug et al., 2016). We also distinguish between hearing instructing voices in item three ‘Do you ever hear voices telling you what to do?’, and hearing voices which comment on thoughts and actions in item four ‘Do you ever hear voices telling you what to do, or commenting on what you are thinking or doing?’, as suggested by the CAPS and CDS (Sierra & Berrios, 2000; Bell et al., 2006). The first noise item asked participants about the occurrence of anomalous sounds in item five ‘Do you ever notice sounds, such as ringing / buzzing , which other people around you cannot hear?’ as recommended by CAPS and CDS (Sierra & Berrios, 2000; Bell et al., 2006). The final noise items referred to volume of sounds in item six ‘Do you ever become annoyed or agitated by sounds that are too loud or uncomfortable for you?’, and distraction caused by sounds in item seven ‘Do you ever become distracted when surrounded by lots of noise?’ as these are common auditory complaints of migraine sufferers (Miller, Grosberg, Crystal & Robbins, 2015; Vreeburg, Leijten, Sommer & Sommer, 2016). As with the original CHi-II, participants respond to items in terms of their frequency on a zero (‘Never’) to six (‘All the time’) Likert scale, and their intensity on a zero (‘Not at all’) to six (‘Extremely intense’) Likert scale. Scores from these two scales are added to create a total score for each item. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Analysis Total scores were collected from both the original CHi-II questionnaire (Braithwaite, Marchant & Takahashi et al., 2015; Fong, Takahashi & Braithwaite, 2019) and these additional auditory items to complete an EFA. Parallel analysis was also applied to statistically verify the loadings of the new items onto the underlying factor structure (Horn, 1965; Hayton, Allen & Scarpello, 2004). Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the internal consistency of each factor.
Braithwaite, Marchant, Takahashi, Dewe & Watson (2015) Fong, Takahashi & Braithwaite (2019)
Do trustworthiness judgements help people to recognise synthetic faces?
StyleGAN, synthetic face, trustworthiness perception, facial trustworthiness
Recent advances in digital image generative models have allowed for artificial creation of fake imagery such as synthesising highly photorealistic human faces. Style-based Generative Adversarial Networks (StyleGAN) is one of the most state-of-the-art generative models in this field, and has been widely used on facial image generation. However, with the increasing ease of using such image generative models, the security in many domains, such as forensic, border control and mass media, is vulnerable in front of the potential threats resulted from the misuse of image generative technologies. To date there has only been limited empirical research into the facial characteristics of StyleGAN-generated faces to support the design of detection methods against such synthetic faces. This study used StyleGAN2 (an improved version of StyleGAN) to generate faces and invited people to complete two facial image evaluation tasks, 1) Discrimination task, 2) Trustworthiness rating task. The study results demonstrated that, in the discrimination task, subjects had trouble recognising synthetic faces by direct/explicit judgement; while in the trustworthiness rating task, subjects perceived the synthetic faces as significantly more trustworthy than real faces. The study further analysed gender bias and ethnicity bias on the perception of facial trustworthiness, with results showing some differences between different levels of gender and ethnicity. In conclusion, people’s ability to recognise synthetic faces is poor, but it is possible that people rely on the perception of facial trustworthiness to discriminate synthetic from real faces. The findings in this study have implications for the development of detection methods against digitally generated faces.
Subjects and design Three hundred and fifty-seven subjects (114 males, mean age = 25.2, SD = 5.8; 227 females, mean age = 25.0, SD = 6.3; 10 non-binary, mean age = 23.6, SD = 8.93) were recruited to complete an online survey test delivered on www.qualtrics.com. The responses of subjects who started but did not complete the online survey were eliminated to avoid distorting the research results. We used computer-synthesised facial images in this research as fake faces, mixed with real faces to examine people’s ability to detect fake faces and perceptual differences of trustworthiness between real/fake faces. Subjects did not get rewards for their participation, though they could see the test score of their performances at the end of the survey. The Qualtrics survey was based on a within-subjects design in which all subjects viewed the same two sets of adult facial images and completed each of the two tasks. To eliminate the effect of between-sets difference, the use of each image sets was counterbalanced in the individual test for each subject. Before the survey started, all subjects provided informed consent and completed a demographic questionnaire about their age, gender, ethnicity. In terms of the experimental power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05, with a small effect, the power calculation indicated that the study needed at least 198 subjects. Stimuli A total of thirty-two human facial images (1024×1024 resolution), including 16 real and 16 synthetic faces, were used as stimuli in the survey. All real faces were taken from a publicly available dataset for high-quality human facial images, Flickr-Faces-HQ (FFHQ), which is created as a benchmark for GAN (see https://github.com/NVlabs/ffhq-dataset), and all synthetic faces were gained from the dataset of the generative image modeling, StyleGAN2 (see https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan2). To ensure a diverse dataset, in each of the two sets of faces, there were 4 Black, 4 East Asian, 4 South Asian, 4 White, and 2 males and 2 females for each ethnicity. Among the sixteen faces of each set, half of them were real and half were synthetic, but this was unknown to subjects.
The impact of retribution on perception of transgressor by others
Retribution, Transgression, Guilt, Vignette
Emotions play a key role in within society, behaviour and human life with moral emotions such as guilt, regret and shame being able to influence individuals’ judgments and actions. For example, a person who experiences guilt will want to fix their wrongdoing that has caused this. There are times where these efforts to repair ones transgression, can lead an individual to self-punish in order to repair bonds with others and reduce negative consequences of the situation. The present study experimentally investigated the effect of self-punishment intensity on perceptions of a transgressor. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions of self-punishment intensity (low, correct and high). Vignettes were manipulated for each condition and presented for participants to read for them to answer questions on their judgments of the transgressor (perceptions of guilt, shame, regret, moral character, and trustworthiness, their willingness to forgive the transgressor, how likely they thought they would reoffend in the future) and rated this on a Likert scale of 0-5. Participants allocated to low self-punishment had more negative perceptions towards the transgressor overall when compared to correct self-punishment. However, this was not found beyond this as no differences were seen for those within the high self-punishment condition
Participants. Participants were recruited through the use of LU Sona system as well as opportunity sampling through use of social media and network platforms accessible. A total of 174 responses were collected via Qualtrics, of those 158 have been successfully completed through to the end whilst 16 have only been started and answered few questions at most. Therefore, the decision has been made to exclude any incomplete attempts. This resulted in a final sample of 158 of which 54 are in the high punishment condition, 52 in low punishment condition and 52 in correct punishment. Design. This is a one-factor study with 3 levels (self-punishment: Low punishment, correct punishment, and high punishment) between-subjects design. Qualtrics randomly allocated participants to one of the three conditions. Materials. A short hypothetical vignette was used to describe an event between two individuals; ‘Simon’ the transgressor and his friend, who he steals money from. With each of the punishment conditions, the vignette introduced the scenario with the same starting sentences to create the scene of someone performing a transgression against their friend with feelings of self-directed negative affect presented by the transgressor: Simon is out with his friends when he noticed that a member of his group has left their wallet unattended. Simon helps himself to the £40 that was in the wallet. His friend eventually realises that the money has been stolen and seems distressed. The next day, Simon feels bad for his actions and confesses to his friend that he took the money. The final sentence of the vignettes was manipulated for each of the three conditions. The sentence stated the amount of money returned to Simon’s friend, which was either less than originally taken (low punishment, £20), same amount (correct punishment, £40) or more than originally taken (high punishment, £60). He gives his friend all the money he has in his wallet, which came to £20 (or £40, or £60). Hypothetical vignettes have been a popular method to explore social actions within research allowing actions to be explored in context to specific situations, people’s judgments, reactions and perceptions of the scenario being described and/or the individual people within the vignette. It allows this all to be clarified in the form of data collection and provides a less personal, and therefore less threatening way of exploring sensitive issues and topics in society (Barter & Renold, 1999; Hughs, 1998; Schoenberg & Ravdal, 2000). Vignettes are a valuable technique for exploring perceptions of situations and have been utilised previously in research on guilt and perceptions of a transgressor post-transgression (McLatchie, 2019; Manstead & Semin, 1981; Dijk, de Jong & Peters, 2009) and so have been utilised in this research of intensity of self-punishment post-transgression. Empirical research has shown that emotions and perceptions of guilt specifically focuses attention on the behaviour and action that has occurred which has in turn elicited these feelings (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). This is why the vignette in the present study was written with a particular emphasis on presenting the transgressor to be feeling remorse/guilt after failing to adhere to a social standard, being explicitly stated through acceptance of responsibility. This was done through stating that Simon ‘felt bad for his actions’, intentionally presenting to participants that, regardless of the punishment, Simon did know his behaviour was wrong. It can also be seen in this study through the motivations and efforts to recompensate the wrongdoing through his self-punishment and returning of a quantity of money. Absence of this could imply to participants a lack of emotional response, this could have impacted judgments on Simon regardless of the presence of punishment or not. As stated previously, other emotions can be used synonymously within conversation when referring to guilt, such as self-conscious emotions like regret and shame; it was important to ensure that guilt was specifically being portrayed. McLatchie (2019) ensured this in his study investigating punishment types (no punishment, self-punishment, and other punishment). McLatchie used a vignette that described interpersonal violations as these are primarily associated with guilt than the other emotions. This is because it includes other individuals and not merely directed at the self where the common emotion that would most likely be triggered would be shame instead. Due to this, the present study also used a vignette that described an interpersonal violation of moral and social standards with the last sentence manipulated to present three self-punishment conditions based on varying intensities. These terms are popularly used interchangeably within conversation due to multiple similarities between them (Shen, 2018; Bhushan, Basu & Dutta; 2020; Stearns & Parrott, 2012), Participants were then asked a series of questions which gathered information on the participants judgments of Simon. Participants were asked to rate the extent of the perceived guilt, shame, and regret of the transgressor as a third-party observer which keeps in line with current research which provides evidence for a strong internal consistency of these measures (McLatchie, 2019). It is also consistent with previous research where the same elements were combined to calculate an overall guilt score. This emphasised the importance of these emotional responses and behaviours that an individual may present when judging overall guilt being experienced by the perpetrator. How much the participant thinks Simon (the transgressor) deserves to be forgiven was also measured. This was done with an adapted version of Zhu et al.’s (2017) way of measuring this and has proved to be effective in prior research related to guilt and self-punishment (McLatchie, 2019). The final questions were – how likely the participants thought Simon would reoffend, and to what extent they thought the punishment performed was sufficient for the transgression committed. All answers were presented and rated on a Likert scale with the question above. Procedure. Participants were invited to partake in a study aiming to evaluate a ‘social action’. Qualtrics was used to provide the survey to participants where they were asked to read through the vignette prior to moving through the questions and answers which measured their responses. As each question appeared, the vignette remaining at the top of the screen for reference throughout. Answers were presented on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“Not at all”) to 5 (“Completely”) which they were required to choose their response through a rating. Once participants completed this survey, a final section asked participants to provide demographic information with a full debrief. Demographic information included basic information such as the participants age and gender. Additional questions were included in order to gain an insight into the participants experience with situations such as the one described in the vignette and their personal experiences with guilt allowing any influences of the participants character to be seen when analysing results. These include being asked if they have ever had an experience as the protagonist (Simon in this case), someone who has been stolen from, and if they are prone to feelings of guilt.
The Paradox of Choice in fictitious COVID-19 vaccination scenario: the role of the number of options and the amount of information in decision-making.
Previous research evidence showed that when people face abundance of choices or too much information, they tend to experience the paradox of choice. This study investigates the role of the number of options and amount of information in decision-making, respectively, the paradox of choice in the fictitious COVID-19 vaccination scenario. Participants (N = 128) were randomly allocated to one of four experimental conditions. The conditions differed in the number of options (high – six options; low – two options) and the information (high – six pieces of information per option; low – two pieces of information per option). As a result, the four experimental conditions were: low options, low information; low options, high information; high options, low information; high options, high information. Participants were asked to choose one of the vaccines from a list presented separately from the experimental stimuli. The reaction time of choosing a vaccine was measured. Participants were asked to evaluate how satisfied they were with their choice, how confident they were about their choice and their anticipated regret. Participants were also asked to write the reason why they chose a particular option. The study did not find a significant effect of the number of options and the amount of information on the decision-making. Participants identified five main themes why they chose a particular option: features of the vaccine, scientific evidence, information, lawfulness, and personal preference. The study revealed positive relationships between choice satisfaction, confidence, and anticipated regret.
Participants The participants’ pool was collected from the general public. In total, 191 participants took part in the study. However, 62 participants were excluded due to missing values. Another participant was further excluded because of stating being 0 years of age. Thus, the data of 128 participants (36 males, 90 females, 1 non-binary/third gender, and 1 prefer not to say) were used for the analysis. The participants were in the age group between 18 and 51 years of age (M = 23.1, SD = 6.02). Based on power analysis when effect size f = .25 (medium effect), p = .05, power (1 – β error probability) = .80, and the number of groups = 4, it was indicated that the sample size of 128 participants is necessary to ensure the study results have high statistical power. In terms of age, one participant was stated to be 22,5 years old. For the analysis, this was taken as 22 years of age. The participants were invited to the research via Facebook post, Instagram story, and direct messaging friends and family circles. From the overall sample, 103 participants (29 males, 72 females, 1 non-binary/third gender, 1 prefer not to say) also filled an additional qualitative question investigating the reasoning behind the participants’ choice. As drawn from the overall sample, the age of participants responding to the qualitative question ranged from 18 to 47 years of age (M = 22, SD = 5.76). Design Participants were presented with information about fictitious COVID-19 vaccines. The current study applied a 2x2 between-subject design. Participants were randomly split according to the number of options (high – six options; low – two options) and the amount of information they received (high – six pieces of information per option; low – two pieces of information per option). Consequently, the four experimental conditions were: a) Low options, low information b) Low options, high information c) High options, low information d) High options, high information The six vaccines in the high options scenario represented the first six COVID-19 vaccines used in the world in more than two countries (Forbes, 2021). Two vaccines in the low option scenario were chosen as it is the smallest number of options participants can compare and choose from. The amount of information then copied the design of the number of options. The number of options and the amount of information was then counterbalanced, enabling testing the effect of the number of options versus the amount of information and their interaction on decision-making. Materials As mentioned above, the data was collected using an online questionnaire. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the experimental conditions using the Qualtrics.com question randomiser function. Thus, there was no control of the researcher regarding the experimental condition allocation. The experimental stimuli consisted of pictures containing the information about vaccines varying in the number of information and the number of vaccines, as can be seen in Figure 1 to Figure 4. The information about each vaccine in the experimental stimuli was inspired by the real-world COVID-19 vaccines in use. For collecting the information, official sources were reviewed, news articles and videos, and other websites. Although the information was modified, it does not directly correspond with any real-world vaccine. The sources also do not directly match with real-world sources of information. All people, social media accounts, and websites are fictitious. The information was counterbalanced, so each of the fictitious vaccines has a similar amount of information from official sources (CDC, NHS, WHO, Government) and unofficial sources (made up websites and social media profiles). Further, to ensure there is no dominant option, the number of people in fictitious vaccine trials was similar. Likewise, the efficiency levels were kept similar across the options, and positive and negative information was also balanced. Figure 1 Experimental stimulus – Low information, low options Note. This picture represents the low information, low options experimental condition presenting two pieces of information and two vaccines options. Figure 2 Experimental stimulus – Low information, low options Note. In this picture, the low option high information experimental condition can be seen. Two options of vaccines and six pieces of information for each vaccine were presented in this condition. Figure 3 Experimental stimulus – Low information, high options Note. This figure illustrates the high options and low information experimental condition. In this experimental condition, six vaccines and two pieces of information for each vaccine were presented. Figure 4 Experimental stimulus – High information, high options Note. The high options, high information condition stimulus was split into two pictures to assure that the font of the text is sufficiently large for the participants to read the information. Six options of vaccines and six pieces of information to each vaccine were presented in this condition. After viewing the stimuli, participants were asked to select one vaccine from the list on a separate page. The lists of vaccines varied depending on the experimental conditions—the number and type of vaccines corresponded with the experimental stimulus. The page with vaccines options was timed to measure how long participants spend deciding between the vaccines. The time was measured from when the page came up until submitting the page. For the open-ended question about the rationale behind the choice, a larger text box was provided so the participants could type in a short paragraph about why they decided on that vaccine. 5-point Likert scales were used to measure satisfaction (unsatisfied to satisfied), confidence (unconfident to confident), and regret (regret to not regret at all). Procedure In the beginning, participants were informed about the nature of the experimental task; however, they were not told that the study measures the paradox of choice. Participants could continue the study after completing a consent form. Then, participants were informed that they would view lists of information about fictitious COVID-19 vaccines. They were recommended to take notes to maximise their attention to the information. Then participants proceeded to one of the experimental conditions and were asked to read through the information presented. Then they continued to another page and were asked to choose one of the vaccines from the list based on the information from the previous page. The questionnaire continued with the open-ended question. The following page contained the evaluation of the choice satisfaction, confidence, and regret. Participants were disclosed that the paradox of choice was measured in the debriefing, followed by its definition and links to the actual COVID-19 vaccines information. The participants were given the option to withdraw by closing the browser window without saving their data if they no longer wished to participate in the study. The experimental design was reviewed and approved by the Lancaster University Department of Psychology ethical committee. Data analysis methods This study investigates the effect of the number of options and the amount of information on the paradox of choice across the four experimental conditions. The dependent variables measured were the reaction time, satisfaction levels, choice confidence, and anticipated regret measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The data gathered consists of independent observations as everyone went through one experimental condition at the time. Convenient sampling was used to collect data as the participants were mainly the researcher’s family, friends, and acquaintances. However, the participants come from different countries, age categories and educational backgrounds; thus, it can be assumed that the observations are independent of each other. The effect of two factors (information, options) with two levels (low and high) on dependent variables are observed. Hence, a 2x2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was chosen as an appropriate analysis for testing the research hypotheses. The relationships between choice satisfaction, confidence, and anticipated regret were also investigated. The data were checked for the assumption of linearity. The data on satisfaction seems to be positively skewed similarly to the data on confidence and regret. However, the data appear not to be linear nor homoscedastic. Therefore, Spearman’s correlation was chosen as an adequate analysis for this type of data. The short responses to the qualitative question “Why did you decide on that option?” was analysed using template analysis (King & Brooks, 2017). Template analysis is a flexible type of thematic analysis that can be used to analyse written responses to an open-ended question on a questionnaire (Brooks et al., 2015; King & Brooks, 2017). The question about the participants’ rationale behind their choice used in the current study was open-ended. Participants were asked to give a short written answer. Because the data result from an open-ended question and the flexibility of template analysis, template analysis was chosen to analyse the quantitative data. The final template is presented below in Figure 5 in the results section. In the beginning, all data was put together in one document. Next, the participants’ answers were coded line by line. Then the line coding was used to identify themes. The second level of themes was generated from the first level themes. Because the answers consist of short sentences with a maximum of short paragraphs, two levels of themes were used in the analysis. The template was developed from the two levels of codes. The template checked whether it fits all the recorded answers ensuring the template accuracy. Then the template was reviewed and concluded, referring to the sixth research question.
Three hundred and fifty-seven subjects (114 males, mean age = 25.2, SD = 5.8; 227 females, mean age = 25.0, SD = 6.3; 10 non-binary, mean age = 23.6, SD = 8.93) were recruited to complete an online survey test delivered on www.qualtrics.com. The responses of subjects who started but did not complete the online survey were eliminated to avoid distorting the research results. We used computer-synthesised facial images in this research as fake faces, mixed with real faces to examine people’s ability to detect fake faces and perceptual differences of trustworthiness between real/fake faces. Subjects did not get rewards for their participation, though they could see the test score of their performances at the end of the survey. The Qualtrics survey was based on a within-subjects design in which all subjects viewed the same two sets of adult facial images and completed each of the two tasks. To eliminate the effect of between-sets difference, the use of each image sets was counterbalanced in the individual test for each subject. Before the survey started, all subjects provided informed consent and completed a demographic questionnaire about their age, gender, ethnicity. In terms of the experimental power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05, with a small effect, the power calculation indicated that the study needed at least 198 subjects. Stimuli A total of thirty-two human facial images (1024×1024 resolution), including 16 real and 16 synthetic faces, were used as stimuli in the survey. All real faces were taken from a publicly available dataset for high-quality human facial images, Flickr-Faces-HQ (FFHQ), which is created as a benchmark for GAN (see https://github.com/NVlabs/ffhq-dataset), and all synthetic faces were gained from the dataset of the generative image modeling, StyleGAN2 (see https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan2). To ensure a diverse dataset, in each of the two sets of faces, there were 4 Black, 4 East Asian, 4 South Asian, 4 White, and 2 males and 2 females for each ethnicity. Among the sixteen faces of each set, half of them were real and half were synthetic, but this was unknown to subjects.
Examining the Effect of Anxiety on the Development of False Memory
memory, generalized anxiety disorder, confidence-accuracy calibration
Up till the late 70s, people believed their memory worked in similar to a video-recorder, accurately collecting and storing every information seen and heard. This belief was brought to question after researchers started thorough investigation on memory, and found that in actuality memory is highly impressionable and prone to numerous errors such as the formation of false memories. There now appears to have been found many causes for the formation of false memories. However, limited to no research exists on the effect of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) on formation of false memories. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of GAD on the development of false memories by using the misinformation effect paradigm. Confidence-accuracy calibration (CAC) was assessed as a secondary analysis. Participants (N = 100) were recruited through online means and took part in a 15-45-minute-long experiment involving neutral stimuli. The experiment consisted of a video of an event and were subsequently asked to read a text description with misinformation after partaking in filler tasks. Afterwards their memory of the original event was tested. Results demonstrate that GAD and false memory are not significantly associated. CAC analysis revealed that participants were relatively aware of when their memory had been distorted by providing low confidence ratings to more inaccurate items and higher confidence ratings to accurately recalled answers. Additionally, false memories created due to misinformation was significantly observed, though GAD did have any influence over this. To conclude, GAD does not contribute to the formation of false memories.
A total of 100 participants were recruited and provided with an online link through social media sites, ages ranging from 18-50. Out of the recruited participants, 66 identified as females, 31 as males, two as non-binary and, one preferred not to say. The link begins with the consent sheet, and once the participants click to agree, they were then redirected to the start of the experiment. Participant’s anxiety was tested by administering a standardized and validated tool, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7) (Spitzer et al., 2006), (see Appendix B). GAD7 has seven rating scale questions, and the participant’s anxiety was calculated by assigning scores of zero (not at all), one (several days), two (more than half the days), and three (nearly every day). Samples questions include “worrying too much about different things?” and “becoming easily annoyed or irritable?”. For scores ten and above, GAD-7 has a specificity of 82% and sensitivity of 89% (Kroenke et al., 2007). Cut-off points for the scores are a score of five for mild anxiety, ten for moderate anxiety, and 15 for severe anxiety. For the present study, participants who scored nine and below were grouped under “low” anxiety, and participants who scored ten and above were grouped under “high” anxiety. The stimulus set developed by Okado and Start (2005) were used for this study. Two neutral stimuli were obtained, and each stimulus consisted of 50 coloured digital images. These were compiled into a short video, with each image displayed for 300ms, and the whole video lasting 150s. Out of the 50 slides, 12 of them were critical, meaning these slides consisted of an item that would later be altered in the text description of the event, hence providing the misinformation. The two stimuli are summarized below. Stimulus One is about a female named Rachel who was doing her work at home, then feels hungry and checks her refrigerator for food, sees that there is not much at hand, and so goes grocery shopping. She was seen viewing different aisles for grocery and sees a friend in there as well. She then pays the bill and takes the elevator back home and stores the food away. (See Appendix C for the critical images) Stimulus Two is about a male student named Nicholas who was just seen leaving his classroom to go sit on a bench in the hallway, studying between classes and runs into three friends: a male (Henry) who displays his new shirt, another male (Frank) who wanted to know when an exam was scheduled, and a female (Stephanie) whose conversation was interrupted by a phone call. (See Appendix F for the critical images) Text descriptions derived from Okado and Stark’s (2005) stimulus set were used for the present study. For both Stimulus One and Stimulus Two, 12 critical details from the original event were altered in the text description, with every other detail remaining true to the original event. To give an example of a critical detail, in stimulus One’s original event a woman was seen picking up two bananas, whereas in the text description it was written, “She started with the healthy items and picked up five bananas.” (See Appendix D and G). Recognition test involving three choice options derived from Okado and Stark (2005) were used for the present study. The test was composed of 18 detailed questions concerning the video presented at the beginning (the original event phase). Out of the 18 questions, 12 were critical questions (i.e., regarding the events that were changed in the text description), and six were control questions (i.e., regarding events that were consistent throughout the video and text description). After each question participants reported their confidence in their response on a scale of 0-100, where zero indicated not at all confident and 100 indicated extremely confident. A sample critical question was, “In the fruits section, how many bananas did Rachel pick up?” Participants were required to choose one answer out of the three: (1) one banana (filler option), (2) two bananas (as seen from the original event’s video), and (3) five bananas (altered detail presented in the text description). Control questions were also akin to critical questions, e.g., “Where does Rachel put her shopping bags in the kitchen?” For answers: (1) on the counter (as seen from the original event’s video), (2) on the floor (filler option), (3) on the table (filler option). (See Appendix E and H). The current research was designed as a 2x2x2 mixed factorial study. All participants had to complete all aspects of the experiment; henceforth, the memory accuracy for control and critical items were within-subject factors. The levels of anxiety (high and low) and stimulus (one and two), were between-subject factors. Participants were tested individually online and were informed they are partaking in a study concerning memory and mood. The experiment was created online in Qualtrics, and upon viewing, participants are first required to consent. The consent sheet had also explained that the study is completely voluntary and participants can withdraw at any point. Subsequently, participants were to either watch stimulus One or Two (the two videos were set to view randomly), and a timer was set to ensure no skipping was allowed. Immediately afterwards, participants had to fill in few demographic questions pertaining to their age, education, and employment (see Appendix A). Afterwards, they were required to complete the GAD-7. These two questionnaires served as a filler task to ensure sufficient time to allow some memory decay between watching the video of the event and reading the text description of the event. Next, participants read the altered text descriptions of the original event shown in the video. Participants were unaware of the changes brought and were told to read the text descriptions which had described the events from the original video. Akin to the video, a two-minute timer was set to ensure participants do not skip the text descriptions. Thereupon, participants were diverted to a game of sudoku, where they would spend at least five minutes playing it. They were instructed that we were interested in knowing how individuals play games and so were not aware of the true nature of the game, which was to serve as a second filler task. Lastly, participants completed the recognition memory test, where they had to choose the correct answer out of the three response options and to indicate their confidence for each answer to assess the C-A relationship. CAC layout is relatively simple by computing the accuracy for each level of confidence. When perfect calibration occurs, it is a straight line with the decisions being made at each level of confidence are all correct. Once completed, participants were thanked for their time spent on the experiment and presented with the debrief sheet explaining the true nature of the study The debrief sheet was provided with international and local numbers for people from different continents should they need to seek immediate assistance. Participants spent around an estimate of 15-45 minutes to complete the experiment.
Comparison of Ethical Decision-Making in Emergency Service Workers and Laypeople
Trolley Problem, ethical dilemmas, time pressure, emergency service workers, decision-making.
The Trolley Problem is a theoretical ethical dilemma in which it is asked whether it is morally acceptable to actively kill one person to save five (Thomson, 1976). Emergency service workers (ESW) are often presented with ethical dilemmas, such as whether to resuscitate someone who does not want to be resuscitated (Guru et al., 1999). The present study investigated the differences in decisions made when faced with variations of the Trolley Problem between laypeople (non-ESW) and ESW. The effect of time pressure on making these decisions was also investigated, measured through response time. 99 participants were tested, 47 laypeople and 52 ESW. Participants were presented with five different Trolley Problem dilemmas wherein they could passively allow five people to die, or to make an active decision to sacrifice one person to save the others. These dilemmas had distinct variations, such as the one person being a co-worker, or where participants had to physically push and kill a large man. Half the participants were placed into a time pressure condition, and were told that they had a time limit in which to respond, when no time limit existed. Results showed that neither occupation nor time pressure significantly affected response time or participant choice. Further analysis suggested some interaction effects between occupation, time pressure, and specific dilemma types. Implications such as suggested training practices for ESW will be discussed. Criticisms of the methodology and recommendations for future research will also be discussed.
Method Sample This project aimed to use a total of 112 participants, with 56 of these being ESW, and 56 being laypeople. This number was calculated using the G*Power software, using an alpha of .05, power of .8, and a medium expected effect size of .35, using five levels of measurement. In total, 99 participants were gathered for the present study. 47 of the sample were laypeople, whilst the other 52 were ESW. Of these, 22 were police officers, and 30 were ambulance crewmembers. Overall, ESW had an average of 7.7 years of experience (SD = 8.29), with ambulance staff having an average of 10.14 years (SD = 9.89), and police having an average of 4.52 years (SD = 4.17). Unfortunately, no other emergency service branches such as coast guard or firefighters completed the study. A gender split of 47 males to 48 females was gathered, along with an average age of 35.65 years old (SD = 12.98). Three participants declined to disclose their gender, and one participant identified as agender. Ethical Approval and Pre-Registration This study gained ethical approval on 13/04/2021, from members of the Psychology department at Lancaster University. This study was also pre-registered on the Open Science Frameworks website on 17/05/2021. This can be found at the following link: https://osf.io/4ecjg/?view_only=95615bd16f2c4a9db88dd77543780ec2 Materials Survey The present study was delivered through a Qualtrics survey file, created fully by the researcher. The survey contains standard psychological research documents, such as an information page, consent form, demographic information page, and debriefing. The survey also contains two sets of five vignettes describing ethical dilemmas for each condition of the experiment. Demographics Participants are asked to provide some demographic information: age, gender, and occupation. Participants are given options for occupation, including police, fire, or ambulance, as well as an option for ‘other’ emergency services, where a free typing box is presented. This is to cover occupations outside of the main three emergency services, such as coastguard or mountain rescue. If participants are not ESW, they have the option to say they are not a member of the emergency services. Ethical Dilemmas The present study tests a set of five ethical dilemma vignettes. To read each dilemma, see Appendix A. Each vignette describes a version of the Trolley Problem, where there is an out-of-control trolley (the word “tram” is used to make it clearer to British participants) speeding down the tracks towards a group of five people. For each dilemma, there is an active choice, or a passive choice, which entails sacrificing one life to save five, or allowing five people to die to avoid killing one person. Each dilemma presents a different single person who could be placed in danger, these are: a non-descript person, an elderly person, a co-worker, a large man, and the “culprit”. Non-Descript Person. This dilemma is a traditional retelling of the Trolley Problem. Participants are told that there is an out-of-control trolley speeding down the tracks, towards five people who are stranded. Participants are told that they have the choice to pull a lever and divert the trolley onto a different track, however there is one person stranded on those tracks. The decision participants are faced with here is whether to make an active choice or a passive choice. The active choice is to pull the lever, diverting the trolley and saving the five, whilst sacrificing the individual. The passive choice is to not pull the lever, allowing the trolley to hit the five people, whilst saving the individual. It is often found that people sacrifice one person to save five in this dilemma (Thomson, 1976; Greene, 2016). Responses to this condition demonstrate how people weigh up lives on a strictly numerical basis, knowing nothing about the traits of the person. By having a condition in which participants know nothing about the person on the tracks, this can be compared to responses when it is an elderly person or a co-worker on the tracks. Elderly Person. This dilemma is the same as the non-descript person dilemma, however participants are told that the person on the tracks is elderly. This condition has been found to affect how people respond to the Trolley Problem, with people being more likely to sacrifice the elderly person over any other ages (Kawai et al., 2014). This is interesting in the study of moral psychology, as it shows how people weigh up the worth of lives based on certain attributes, such as age. This can also be compared to how people respond when they know nothing about the person on the tracks. This is also important to investigate in an ESW context, as elderly people are more likely to be admitted to hospital (Burns, 2001), leading ambulance crews to encounter them more often. Co-Worker. This dilemma is the same as the non-descript person dilemma, however participants are told that the person on the tracks is one of their co-workers. This dilemma was chosen based on past research suggesting that participants are less likely to sacrifice people they perceive to be part of their identity in-group (Swann Jr et al., 2010). This is a relevant factor to investigate as part of a study into ESW, a group who develop strong in-group feelings, including having better self-care and social support (Shakespeare-Finch et al., 2002). This is also interesting when investigating ESW populations such as firefighters or police, who may be placed into situations where a co-worker is in danger whilst trying to save members of the public. This dilemma demonstrates how ESW weigh up the lives of their co-workers compared to strangers. Large Man. In this dilemma, participants are told that there are five people on the tracks, and stood next to them is a large man. Participants are told that if they push the large man into the tracks, that would stop the trolley and the five people would be saved. The decision participants are faced with here is whether to make an active choice and push the large man onto the tracks, stopping the trolley and saving the five, or to make a passive choice and allow the trolley to hit the five people. This is a version of the “Footbridge Dilemma”, in which it is found participants are typically less willing to make the active decision and push the man (Nichols & Mallon, 2006). It is an interesting take on the Trolley Problem dilemma, as it forces participants to make a more physical decision through pushing and directly causing a person’s death, as opposed to pulling a switch which then indirectly leads to someone’s death. This is also relevant in the study of ESW, who tend to work directly and physically with people as opposed to making indirect decisions. Culprit. This dilemma is the same as the Large Man dilemma, however rather than a large man, participants are told that stood next to them is the “culprit”. The “culprit” is explained to participants as the person who stranded the other five people on the tracks. This dilemma was chosen as it tests how people respond to the same physical pushing decision as the Large Man condition, however when the person they can push is not an innocent bystander, and instead is someone who is trying to end the lives of others. This allows for the investigation of how people weigh the lives of criminals compared to innocent people. This is also interesting in the study of ESW, especially when regarding police, since their occupation involves apprehending criminals so they can then be sentenced, not choosing the punishment based on their own moral reasoning. Time Pressure Participants who are assigned to the Time Pressure condition are told both during instructions and above each dilemma that they only have a limited amount of time to make their decision. They are told that after that time has passed, they may not be able to provide a response. This is not true, there are no time limits on any question. This is to attempt to simulate time pressure, by making participants feel they have limited time to react. Overall, 52 participants were assigned to the Time Pressure condition, and 47 were assigned to No Time Pressure. A more equal split was aimed for, however was not possible due to the number of incomplete responses interfering with the equal randomisation of conditions. Response Time The decision-making speed is automatically recorded by Qualtrics, determining how long it took participants to finalise their decision. This is taken as the time from when participants opened a vignette, until they submitted their response. It was decided that the response time would be taken at the point the choice is submitted, as opposed to the last button press participants made. This is as it cannot be certain at what point participants have finished considering their response. They may still be thinking about their answer after selecting the option, but before submitting. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the final button press was the end of their decision-making. Justification After each decision, participants are asked to briefly explain why they made the decision they did, imagining they are speaking to a close friend. This ensures participants think deeper into the decision they make, as they know they will have to defend it. This is presented to participants as a free entry text box, shown after each dilemma they respond to. Pilot Study The present study was first piloted on an ESW member, in this case a senior paramedic, to test for validity of the ethical dilemmas as well as any other issues with the survey. The only negative feedback received was that some of the dilemmas looked visually similar on the page, and could be mistaken for being the same as the dilemma before. To resolve this, a section reminding participants to read carefully since every dilemma was different was added, as well as formatting changes such as boldening the critical sections of text to make them more obviously different. Procedure Participants were recruited via social media, ESW were gathered via the Our Blue Light ESW charity’s social media pages, as well as being sent around stations via the researcher’s contacts. Laypeople were also gathered through social media, with some being recruited from the Our Blue Light pages, as well as through friends and family of the researcher. Participants had access to the study through a link, which took them to the introduction page of the present study. After reading this and giving consent, the study began. Participants were randomly assigned by the Qualtrics software to either the Time Pressure or No Time Pressure condition. This affected which set of instructions they saw. Participants were all shown each of the five dilemmas, presented one by one on their screen. The dilemmas were presented in a randomised order for each participant, to avoid any order effects. Following each dilemma, participants were presented with the justification question and free entry text box. After repeating this for each dilemma, participants were presented with a debrief page, and the study concluded. Data Analysis To examine the choices ESW made compared to laypeople, a 2x2 chi square test will be conducted. A 2x2 chi square test will also be conducted to examine the choices made by those in the time pressure condition against those who were not. Descriptive statistics will also be presented, including the counts of each choice made separated into groups, along with means and standard deviations of response time. In order to analyse the impact of Occupation, Time Pressure, and Type of Ethical Dilemma on the decisions participants make, a generalised linear mixed-effects model will be used (Baayen et al., 2008). The statistical family used for this model will be binomial. This test was chosen as the dependent variable here, participant choice, is a categorical variable with two options (push or no push). There are also three categorical independent variables, two of which are between-subjects factors (ESW v Layperson, Time Pressure v No Time Pressure), and one within-subjects factor (Type of Ethical Dilemma). The only random effect to be used in the model is individual subjects, as each independent variable is critical to the present study, and so will be treated as fixed effects. To compare the response time between ESW and laypeople, as well as time pressured participants and participants with no time pressure, two one-way ANOVAs will be conducted. This was chosen as the intention here is to compare performance between two independent groups. A 2x2 ANOVA on sum scores was considered, however was not possible due to participants having simultaneous membership of two groups (e.g. ESW + Time Pressure, ESW + No time pressure). To further analyse participant response times to the ethical dilemmas, a 2x2x5 Mixed ANOVA will be conducted. This was chosen as the method of analysis as one aim of the present study is to compare variance between ESW and laypeople, as well as participants being under time pressure or not. There is also the factor of ethical dilemma, which has five levels due to there being five different dilemmas.
Main Data_35645845/Excel.csv , 35645845 Occupation Response Time Sum Scores/Excel.csv , 35645845 Time Pressure Response Time Sum Scores/Excel.csv, 35645845_RStudio Code/RStudio.R
The effects of screen exposure on developmental skills among children at two and three years of age.
Previous research into the topic of children’s development has tended to take place in Western nations (Kuta, 2017; Martinot, 2021). One aspect of development is language development, and one aspect of research on that matter is the use of electronic devices, with the potential for consequent effects on children’s language abilities. This paper reviews and builds upon the scope of the available research, with its disparate findings, by offering research from the context of Kuwait, a non-western nation where parents tend to be in favour of their children having access to new technologies regardless of their age (Dashti & Yateem, 2018). The increasing number of children being exposed to electronic devices of various descriptions raises concerns regarding the possible adverse effects of screen exposure on their development, particularly through displacement of educationally enriching activities, which provides the motivation here (Haughton, Aiken & Cheevers 2015). Based on a review of the existing literature, the present research starts from the hypothesis that language development will be negatively correlated with media exposure. Valid data relating to 96 children of 24 to 36 months of age were collected using two questionnaires, one relating to the child’s knowledge of Arabic words on various topics (voices of animals, names of animals, vehicles, toys, food and drink, etc.) and the other quantifying the child’s daily screen time. Ordinary least squares analysis was performed using SPSS, version 26. While a statistically significant positive moderate correlation between language expression score and age was found – an increase in age was associated with an increase in language expression or the number of words understood and expressed – no significant effect of screen time on language expression was found after adjusting for age. This indicates, therefore, the value of employing non-western populations in research into cognitive development, and suggests the need for further research in order to attain generalisable findings.
The parents of a total of 100 participant children) took part in a questionnaire survey. The reports of 4 parents were excluded because their child’s age exceeded 36 months and the inclusion criteria for the study were set at 24 to 36 months. Participants were selected by means of opportunity sampling. An announcement was sent via WhatsApp to those of my contacts who had children of an age appropriate for inclusion in the study. Parents were recruited by sending a link to the survey through WhatsApp. Family and friends were then asked to deliver the WhatsApp number to those who they knew who had children within the set age range. Parents read information about the study and their informed consent to participate in the questionnaire survey was obtained via Qualtrics. The Lancaster University Psychology Department gave ethical approval for the present study. Procedure The data for the present work were gathered by means of an online questionnaire via Qualtrics between 7 June 2021 and 22 June 2021. During this time, participants submitted answers to two questionnaires: a) the Arabic CDI, which measures Arabic words arranged according to groups (for example voices of animals, names of animals, vehicles, toys, food and drink, etc.) to measure the child’s knowledge of the Arabic language (Abdel Wahab, 2020) and b) a questionnaire related to the number of hours the child spent in front of the screen , and their opinion of the appropriate amount of screen time which children can spend at their screens, as well as their control over their children’s viewing of the screens, and whether or not they are allowed to watch while sleeping and eating. The survey instruments were designed to measure the extent to which screen viewing is related to the language development of Kuwaiti children aged between two and three years. Materials CDI: The Arabic CDI language scale developed by Abdel Wahab (2020) is a questionnaire comprising a set of categories containing checklists for identifying variety and number of words. In front of each word there are three options (‘knows it’, ‘knows it and says it’, ‘does not know it’) and parents are asked to respond to each item according to their children’s knowledge of these words. The Arabic CDI questionnaire contains 100 words divided into the following categories: voices of animals, names of animals, transport, toys, food and drink, clothes, parts of body, home furniture, little things inside the house, things and places outside the home, people, games and daily routine, actions, time-related words, adjectives, pronouns, question words, prepositions, and number formulas. Media exposure questionnaire: Following the language questionnaire, parents completed a second survey measuring their children’s screen viewing, stating how many hours per day they spent watching a screen. Parents were asked to report frequency of screen use by choosing among the following six options: None, 0 to 1 hour, 1 to 2 hours, 3 to 4 hours, 5 to 6 hours, and > 6 hours. Participating parents were then asked to state what length of time they would consider it appropriate for their children to watch a screen, with the same set of responses available to them. There was then an item asking the parents whether they were making any efforts to reduce their children’s screen time, such as setting specific days or times for viewing or preventing them from viewing their screens while eating or in the bedroom, for example.
Do foetuses have the ability to retrieve and retain information presented by both the mother-to-be and partner?
language, foetus, mother-to-be, partner, retention
The complex phenomenon of language development is a vital criterion for communication and for the strengthening of the attachment bond between caregiver and baby (Chew & Ng, 2021). The period in which humans begin to process speech is difficult to define; previous research has identified that foetuses that have the capacity to retain linguistic information presented to them over six weeks by their mother-to-be show a preference for this information postnatally (DeCasper and Spence, 1986). However, the language environment of the foetus also likely incorporates that of the secondary carer role and very little research has investigated the role of the partner in influencing language retention. This study aims to investigate the extent to which foetuses have the ability to retrieve and retain linguistic input presented to them by both their mother-to-be and their partner. A within-measures design with two participant pairs who were recruited via opportunistic sampling through Lancaster University’s Babylab was conducted. Participants were asked to record themselves reading “The Cat in the Hat” and play both of the recordings to the foetus every day for two weeks. During these sessions, the mother-to-be was required to count the frequency of kicks and the movement intensity per session. The findings concluded that foetuses can retrieve and retain language that is presented over a two-week period at only 32 weeks’ gestation. Foetal kicking decreased significantly as exposure to recordings increased. This provides evidence of online processing of linguistics at 32 weeks’ gestation, implying that the full six-week exposure, as previous research indicated, is not necessary thus providing evidence of an innate processing of language. Although there is scope of environmental influence on this. No significant impact of parent recording on foetal ability to process language was found. This suggests that humans have an innate ability to process linguistic information which is despite levels of exposure to voice. However, this conclusion is based on a null hypothesis in an underpowered study; it would be very beneficial for further research to use a larger sample size to increase statistical power and be more representative of the general public.
Methods: Ethics Statement: Ethical approval was granted by Lancaster University Psychology Department on the 12th of April 2021 before any data collection was completed. Participants were provided with information for review and asked to complete an informed consent form online before participating within this experiment and were given the option to withdraw at any point of the study. Participants: Three mothers-to-be and their partners were recruited via opportunistic sampling through Lancaster University BabyLab social media (http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/babylab/) and word of mouth in exchange for a £5 book voucher from Waterstones. In order to take part in this research mothers-to-be must live with a partner and also have a foetal gestation age of between 32-34 weeks. If any participants were bilingual, they were asked to record the story in English to ensure reliability. Materials and Measures: Due to current restrictions because of COVID-19, this experiment took place online. Participants were sent an email containing a link to a Qualtrics survey. Qualtrics is a software that allows participants to access surveys and questionnaires on all digital devices at any point of time to help aid easy distribution. Qualtrics Survey: To complete this survey, participants were required to have access to a mobile device or computer. The Survey contained the information sheet, consent form, instructions, and demographic questions. The questionnaire consisted of questions asking the mother-to-be to rate the intensity of movements and state the frequency of kicking per session (see Appendix A). The intensity of kicks were recorded using a scale bar where mothers-to-be could rate the intensity of the kicking per session (0-100). Recording “The Cat in the Hat”: Participants were given a copy of an extract from “The Cat in the Hat” and both the mother- to-be and their Partner were asked to record themselves reading the story aloud using a device that they were then able to play the recording on every day for two weeks. This was estimated to take between five and ten minutes depending on reading speed per participant. To control the decibel of their recordings, parents were advised to download the “Decibel X” app which can monitor sound level in order to keep it at the recommended 90db (Luu, T, 2011). Also, to help mothers track their foetal kicks, they were also advised to download the NHS “kicks count” app which helped mothers-to-be accurately count the frequency of kicks per story session. At the end of the survey and after completion of the study, participants were given a debrief sheet which contained the aims of the research study and any contact information they might need for further questions. Design: This research study used a within-measures design as all participants took part in all sections of the experiment. The independent variables in the study were the parent reading the story which has two levels; the mother-to-be or their partner. The second independent variable related to the time point from day one until the end of the two weeks. The dependent variables were the frequency and intensity of foetal kicking during the exposure to both the mother-to- be and their partners recording of “The Cat in the Hat”. This was measured by the mother-to- be. Procedure: Once they had consented, the mother to be and partner were given an extract from the story “The Cat in the Hat” via the Qualtrics survey and were asked to record themselves individually reading the story on a device that they were able to play back on several occasions. Once the story had been recorded by both the mother-to-be and their partner, they were asked to play the story to the foetus every day for two weeks. The order of presentation was counterbalanced. While the study was being recorded, the mother was required to monitor the intensity and frequency of kicks that occurred for the duration of the auditory exposure. The mother-to- be was told to do this for both the duration of exposure to the recordings every day and then upload the outcomes for each session using the original Qualtrics survey link. Analysis: Rstudio is a professional software that allows for programming statistical analysis, production of graphs and tables that were used to analyse that data collected. Linear mixed effects model was conducted for analysis.