Towards ‘serendipity engineering for seductive
hypermedia’ and ‘user analysis using socialnomics’:
The role of ecological cognition
Jonathan Bishop
Congress of Researchers and
Organisations for
Cybercommunity, E-Learning
and Socialnomics
Berkeley, England
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
9919-7602
Abstract— This paper investigates the long-established
ecological cognition framework and updates it to better account
for the advances in computational science computational
intelligence. To do this, two concepts are explored. The first,
‘serendipity engineering for seductive hypermedia,’ looks at how
to design information systems to account for the pleasant
occurrences that happen in offline environments studied by those
in sales and marketing where beneficial outcomes often occur by
chance encounters. The second, ‘user analysis using socialnomics’
looks at how a parametric user model based on the ecological
framework can be used to understand users of information
systems from the point of view of supporting a digital economy of
users. A number of additional equations are developed using
socialnomics that can be applied to digital transformation based
on the parametric user model, including to calculate probability of
seduction and probability of serendipity in an information system.
The parametric model presented has great applicability for
information and communications technology solution providers.
Keywords— Captology, Ecological cognition framework,
Seductive hypermedia, Serendipity engineering,
Socialnomics, User analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
An essential premise of ecological cognition is that the world
which we observe is socially constructed from how we perceive
it and we then construct an alternative reality, whether it be
called our unconscious or sub-conscious, that is more consistent
with the reality we would prefer to perceive [1-5]. Through
using these, how our reality is constructed can be described,
including by drawing on the dedicated multimedia studies
literature, such as that recommended elsewhere [6]. The most
recent ecological cognition framework is presented in Figure 1.
II. DEVISING A FRAMEWORK FOR COMPUTATIONAL
SCIENCE AND COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
The discipline of ecological cognition (EC) can be applied
through serendipity engineering for seductive hypermedia and
user analysis using socialnomics (SESH-UAUS). This can be
done by making use of the parametric user model, including to
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Mark M.H. Goode
Cardiff Business School
Cardiff University
Cardiff, Wales
GoodeM4@cardiff.ac.uk
produce k-scores for use with statistical packages like SPSS [7]
in order to advance computational science and computational
intelligence. The parametric user model in Equation 1 below
places phantasy construction as an esteem need and fantasy
construction as a deficit need. The equation assumes that
psychological nutritional intake (n) is half that (0.5) of what is
needed for an optimal cognitive state with consonance reflected
as a joinder (j) of 1. Therefore, for an optimal state, where Ob
is 48 and knol is 1, nutritional intake needs to be multiplied by
two to balance the two parts of the equation reflecting interval.
Equation 1 therefore shows all aspects of the parametric user
model as one equation for the calculation of knol (k), which is
the speed of memory access. This it could be argued, along with
the ecological cognition frameworks, is one of the main
conceptual frameworks contributed by this paper. This can be
seen as a progression of the earlier equations, where x1 has been
replaced with 𝑐𝑎𝑒𝑆 , y1 has been replaced with 𝑐𝑏𝑒𝑆 , z ̆ has been
replaced with 𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑆 and c with 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 .
Equation 1 provides an easy way to turn questionnaire-
based scales, or observational device-based scales into a
parametric user model for analysing and influencing human
behaviour. The construction of information systems that impact
on intervention (i), joinder (j) and nutrition (n) so as to influence
the neurotransmitters resulting behavioural consequences of
doing so could be an important part of situation ecological
cognition in a digital economy. This could happen in online
communities, where users’ behaviour can be analysed and
influenced using log data or other ways of attributing the values
of the parametric user model. Equally, it could happen in
organic communities, where actors sharing the same physical
space could have their different levels of wakefulness
accounted for by using physical sensors, including those based
on the Internet of Things, to analyse and influence their
behaviour. In order for this to be done, it is necessary to
understand how the parametric user model might operate in
large-scale virtual environments.
.

III. USING THE PARAMETRIC USER MODEL TO UNDERSTAND
SERENDIPITY AND SEDUCTION AMONG USERS OF LARGE-SCALE
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
A LSVE based on the parametric user model be used to
determine whether the group of users are likely to form part of
a successful online community where opportunities for genuine
serendipity could occur due to them being around fewer
disagreeable actors. This could be done by measuring the
standard deviation (SD) between the k-scores for each group
(MC) so that the lower the SD, the greater the chance that all the
actors within that community (NC) will have positive
relationships. This is the principle of empathism [8]. People
with empathism have a common way of thinking towards other
actors like them and often in opposition to actors unlike them
[8,9] and so using Equation 1 with Equation 2 could allow for
the selection of actors so that they form online communities of
like-minded people, regardless of whether those communities
are toxic [10].
Figure 1 The 8-Base ecological cognition framework
Equation 2 shows how one might compute the mean knol
for a specific online community of actors (M Ce) within a
community (NC). In this context the NC could refer to an online
community being analysed using a management information
system (MIS) with the purpose of seeing whether there is a
difference in k-scores between the six different communities.
The k-score would be calculated by applying the TIWWCHNT-
20 Scale [11] to a sample of actors and then assigning as y-
values all the statements in the factor they score highest in,
which would determine the community they belong to (NC).
The x value would be asking their position on the actor taking
on the role of PUA in a given situation (S) in terms of their
interest in them or detachment from them.
𝑘𝑎 =
̆
((𝑥𝐺𝑆2 +𝑐𝑎 ̆ ̆
𝑒𝑆 )∗(𝑦𝐺𝑆2 +𝑐𝑏𝑒𝑆 )−𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑆 )/(𝑖𝑆 +𝑗𝑆 ))𝑒 )
∑𝑀
𝑒=0(
𝑐𝑒𝑆
( )+𝐹
𝐶min 5
𝐸𝑆 ̆
̆
((𝑥𝐺𝑆2 +𝑐𝑎 ̆
𝑑𝑆 )+(𝑧𝐺𝑆4 +𝑐𝑏𝑑𝑆 )−𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑆 )∗2𝑛𝑆 )𝑑
𝐶max ∑𝐷
𝑑=0( )
2𝑐𝑑𝑆
+𝑂𝑏
2.5
{ }
( )
Equation 1 A parametric user model for calculating 'knol' for a given
actor (ka) using the ecological cognition framework (a theory of
ordinary memory)
𝑁𝐶
𝑘𝑆
𝑀𝐶𝑒 = ∑
𝑁𝐶
𝑆=1
Equation 2 Mean knol for an optimised (e) community (MC) based on
k-scores (ks) for that community (NC) in a given situation (S)
𝑀𝐶𝑘
Ŝ𝑘 =
0.98
Equation 3 Probability of Serendipity (Ŝk) based on Mean knol for
group (k=MCk) and serendipity threshold (k=0.98)
Equation 3 shows an alternative to standard deviation,
namely the probability of serendipity (Ŝk) occurring based on
dividing the Mean k-score for a given group by the serendipity
threshold (k=0.98). The further the Mean from the serendipity
threshold, the less likely serendipity is to occur. This is based
on the principle that on the one hand the more alike a
community is the lower their individual k-scores need to be as
a result of groupthink, meaning serendipity is less likely. On the
other hand the more different a community is the less likely
there are to be opportunities for serendipity to occur.
The serendipity threshold (k=0.98) in Equation 3 could be
replaced with the intellectualisation threshold of 1.118 or the
rationalisation threshold of 1.21, which in the case of the former
would mean if Mc was at the serendipity threshold (k=0.98) the
community would have a collective score of an average actor
(k=0.81) or in the case of the latter would mean they would be
exceeding their collective limits (k=1.14) as the optimal k-score
for the human race would be 1 if the human brain had evolved
to meet homomagnus equilibrium, but it is presently 0.81 in
most people because it usually meets the Nash equilibrium
where the remaining 0.19 accounts for factors like distrust and
inability to resolve competing interests.
Achieving a k-score of 1 would mean a person would in
effect be on auto-pilot and providing their cognitions are
configured to act in their own interests at the same time as
considering those of others then the homomagnus equilibrium
could be maintained. However, in most cases where an actor
experiences the homomagnus equilibrium of a knol of 1 it will 100
be short lived, such as being briefly experienced after a moment Šk 𝑎𝑔 = ( ) ∗ Š𝑘𝑜
(𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛(Ṡk 𝐶 ))
of serendipity, where knol is 0.98.
Equation 6 Computing an actor’s (a) higher order (g) Serendipity
(Šk) probability (Škag) towards an artefact (o) based on median of
Ŝk organic Serendipity (Šk) responses to an object (o) within a group (C)
Šk = ( )
𝑘𝑆𝑎
Equation 4 Probability of Seduction (Šk) for an actor (kSa) based on #x + 1 #x + 1
a[ 2 ] +a[ 2 ]
probability of Serendipity (Ŝk)
𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛(𝑎) =
2
Equation 4 presents an formula for measuring the
Equation 7 Equation for calculating median
probability of seduction (Šk) in a given situation for a given
actor (kSa) based on their k-score in that situation within the
community of which they are part, which is computed in Equation 6 is used along with Equation 7 to compute the
Equation 2 and Equation 3. The difference between seduction higher order thinking required to determine how able someone
and serendipity is that the former tried to generate the same is to take advantage of a serendipitous event. Figure 2 presents
experiences as the latter, but the latter occurs by chance the gamified flow of persuasion (GFP) model, which is used to
whereas the former occurs intentionally, usually by a party determine which choices that an actor will make depending on
other than the one experiencing serendipity. the level of intelligence they are exerting at a given time to a
given ongoing event. Many may think that intelligence, often
𝑘𝑆 measured in IQ is fixed, but it can be reduced based on factors
∑𝑁 𝐶
such as fatigue and substance consumption. The contrience
𝑆=1 𝑁𝐶
( ) (con) part of the model can be seen to be where execution/
Ŝt
evaluation and intellectualisation/rationalisation occur in the
Šk = Base-8 ecological cognition framework (Figure 1).
𝑘𝑆𝑎

( )

Equation 5 A model for supporting ‘serendipity engineering for

seductive hypermedia’ and ‘user analysis using socialnomics’

Equation 5 combines Equation 2 to Equation 4 for

calculating seduction (Šk) and introduces a new variable of
serendipity threshold (Ŝt), which can be either 0.98 or another
value as required, such as the intellectualisation threshold of
1.118 or the rationalisation threshold of 1.21. It can be seen that
the k-score value produced by the parametric user model Figure 2 Gamified Flow of Persuasion Model (Revised)
(Equation 1) is included twice. In the first instance as k S it is
included as part of the computation of the Mean k-scores for a Figure 3 presents the serendipity continuum. In this model each
given community (Nc) and on the second occasion as kSa it is circle represents a zone of regulation, in which a person is
included to refer to a specific actor being studied, such as a subject to an intervention that changes the course of their
specific online community member being investigated by a behaviour. The closer an actor is to the left of the continuum
clinical psychologist. Equation 5 could therefore be seen as a the more a change feels serendipitous. The further to the right
parametric user model in its own right. of the continuum an actor is the more they feel coerced into
Equation 5 computes the probability of a specific actor performing a given action.
being seduced into experiencing a feeling of serendipity, which
is intentional and not by chance and thus is not actual
serendipity even if it feels the same. Such information can be
useful, as it can assist in assessing the risk of a given actor being
drawn into situations that might feel desirable but would cause Figure 3 The serendipity continuum
them harm, including the development of compulsive
behaviours leading to digital addiction. To detect digital DISCUSSION
addiction one could use the TIWWCHNT-20 scale [11,12] for
This paper has investigated the role of the ecological
determining phantasies and the digital addiction checklist [13]
cognition framework for serendipity engineering and user
for determining fantasies. analysis using socialnomics. To achieve this, the ecological
cognition framework had to be revised from its penultimate 6-
Base version into a new 8-Base version. The 8-Base version
introduces two new cognitions – faiths and ardours. A faith is a Goal 0 Value 0 Rule 0 18.5 3.5
100% belief in something, and an ardour is a 100% against Goal 0 Belief 4 Meme 4 32 6.2
something. No amount of persuasion can get an actor to change Goal 0 Interes 0 Amity 0 45.5 8.9
a faith or ardour that they hold. Faiths and ardours are either t
present or they are not, meaning the scale consists of two items Goal 0 Detac 1 Enmity 1 27.5 5.3
hment
of Null and 1 in the case of the former and -1 and Null in the
case of the latter. Equally, two new binary opposition forces
were added to the previous 6. These were honour-shame and Table 2 is for converting plans and other cognitions into
pride-embarrassment. Human beings have a habit of feeling phantasies and fantasies. Plans run from -2 to 2, phantasies from
guilt and so these forces account for those personality traits -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning the conversion
where an actor may feel inclined to change their behaviour as a variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy. A plan that is
result of experiencing them, especially embarrassment where perceived as external to an actor is called a method.
they may lie and pride where they may try to mask it. Finally,
two additional stages and values were added being respectively Table 2 Compound identity – Converting plans and other cognitions
intellectualisation and rationalisation, and execution and into phantasies
evaluation. The first of two these is where higher order thinking
Signif Reduc Signif Reduc Signif Reduc Shifte Transf
occurs, such as through reflection and deinviduation. This is ier er icatio er ied er r ormer
where ab actor may engage in introspection to try to resolve Repre n Exter
cognitive dissonance or otherwise consolidate their sentati Intern nal
experiences. The last of these are where an actor will try to on al Repre
Repre sentati
reconstruct a situation in order to try to understand what sentati on
happened, where it might not always be obvious. Human on
memory can sometimes be patchy, so these accommodate for x / 𝑥4𝑆 x1 / y/ y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c/
the processes by which an actor will seek the truth from what ̆
𝐶𝑎 𝑒𝑆 𝑦2𝑎 ̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑑𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑐𝑒𝑆 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 /
2𝑐1𝑑𝑆
they have experienced. The 8-Base ecological cognition
Plan 3 Goal 0 Strate 0 23 4.4
framework presented in this paper, along with the finalised gy
parametric user model that works with it, should provide an Plan 3 Plan 3 Metho 3 13 2.4
enhanced basis for understanding information systems, d
especially those that are based on serendipity engineering, Plan 3 Value 0 Rule 0 10.5 1.9
seductive hypermedia, user analysis and socialnomics. Plan 3 Belief 4 Meme 4 18 3.4
Plan 3 Intere 0 Amity 0 25.5 4.9
st
Plan 3 Detac 1 Enmit 1 18 3.4
ANNEX I – TABLES FOR CALCULATING THE CONVERSION OF
hment y
COGNITIONS INTO PHANTASIES
This annex presents tables for calculating phantasies Table 3 is for converting values and other cognitions into
(pi), which are a core part of the parametric user model. phantasies and fantasies. Values run from 1 to 4, phantasies
from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning the
Table 1 is for converting goals and other cognitions conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy. A
into phantasies and fantasies. Goals run from 1 to 9, phantasies value that is perceived as external to an actor is called a rule.
from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning the
conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy. A Table 3 Compound identity – Converting values and other cognitions
goal that is perceived as external to an actor is called a strategy. into phantasies

Table 1 Compound identity – Converting goals and other cognitions Signifi Redu Signifi Redu Signifi Redu Shift Transf
into phantasies er cer cation cer ed cer er ormer
Repre Intern Extern
sentati al al
Signi Re Signifi Red Signified Reduc Shifter Transf
on Repres Repres
fier du cation ucer External er ormer
entatio entatio
Repr cer Interna Represe
n n
esent l ntation
x / 𝑥4𝑆 x1 / y / 𝑦2𝑎 y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c/
atSio Repres ̆ ̆ ̆ ̆
𝐶𝑎𝑒𝑆 𝐶𝑏 𝑒𝑆 𝐶𝑏 𝑑𝑆 𝐶𝑐𝑒𝑆 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 /
n entatio
2𝑐1𝑑𝑆
n
Value 0 Goal 0 Strate 0 18.5 3.5
x/ x1 y / 𝑦2𝑎 y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c/ gy
𝑥4𝑆 / ̆
𝐶𝑏𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑑𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑐𝑒𝑆 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 /
̆
𝐶𝑎 𝑒𝑆 2𝑐1𝑑𝑆 Value 0 Plan 3 Metho 3 10.5 1.9
Goal 0 Goal 0 Strateg 0 41 8 d
y
Goal 0 Plan 3 Method 3 23 4.4
 Value 0 Value 0 Rule 0 8.5 1.5 Table 5 is for converting interests and other cognitions into
phantasies and fantasies. Interests run from 1 to 10, phantasies
Value 0 Belief 4 Meme 4 14.5 2.7 from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning the
conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy. An
interest that is perceived as external to an actor is called an
Value 0 Interes 0 Amity 0 20.5 3.9 amity.
t

Value 0 Detac 1 Enmit 1 14.5 2.7 Table 5 Compound identity – Converting interests and other
hment y cognitions into phantasies
Value 0 Faith 1 Illusio 1 4.5 0.7
Signi Redu Signific Red Signifi Red Shifte Transf
n
fier cer ation ucer ed ucer r ormer
Repre Internal Extern
Value 0 Ardou 2 Delusi 2 4.5 0.7
sentat Represe al
r on
ion ntation Repres
entatio
n
Table 4 is for converting beliefs and other cognitions into x/ x1 / y / 𝑦2𝑎 y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c / 𝑐1𝑒𝑆
phantasies and fantasies. Beliefs run from -3 to +3, phantasies 𝑥4𝑆 ̆
𝐶𝑎 𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏𝑑𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑐𝑒𝑆 / 2𝑐1𝑑𝑆
from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning the
conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy. A Intere 0 Goal 0 Strateg 0 45.5 8.9
st y
belief that is perceived as external to an actor is called a meme.
Intere 0 Plan 3 Metho 3 25.5 4.9
Table 4 Compound identity – Converting beliefs and other cognitions st d
into phantasies
Intere 0 Value 0 Rule 0 20.5 3.9
st
Signif Red Signifi Redu Signifi Redu Shift Transf Intere 0 Belief 4 Meme 4 35.5 6.
ier ucer cation cer ed cer er ormer st
Repre Interna Extern
sentat l al Intere 0 Interest 0 Amity 0 50.5 9.9
ion Repres Repres st
entatio entatio Intere 0 Detach 1 Enmity 1 35.5 6.9
n n st ment
x/ x1 / y / 𝑦2𝑎 y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c / 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 Intere 0 Faith 1 Illusio 1 10.5 1.9
𝑥4𝑆 ̆
𝐶𝑎 𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑑𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑐𝑒𝑆 / 2𝑐1𝑑𝑆 st n
Intere 0 Ardour 2 Delusi 2 10.5 1.9
st on

Belief 4 Goal 0 Strateg 0 32 6.2 Table 6 is for converting detachments and other cognitions into
y phantasies and fantasies. Detachments run from 0 to 6,
phantasies from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning
Belief 4 Plan 3 Metho 3 18 3.4 the conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy.
d
A detachment that is perceived as external to an actor is called
Belief 4 Value 0 Rule 0 14.5 2.7 a enmity.

Table 6 Compound identity – Converting detachments and other

Belief 4 Belief 4 Meme 4 25 4.8 cognitions into phantasies

Signifie Red Signifi Reduc Signifi Redu Shifte Transfor

Belief 4 Interes 0 Amity 0 35.5 6.9
r ucer cation er ed cer r mer
t
Represe Interna Extern
ntation l al
Belief 4 Detach 1 Enmity 1 21.5 4.1 Repres Repres
ment entatio entatio
n n
Belief 4 Faith 1 Illusio 1 7.5 1.3 x / 𝑥4𝑆 x1 / y / 𝑦2𝑎 y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c / 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 /
n ̆
𝐶𝑎 ̆
𝐶𝑏 ̆
𝐶𝑏 ̆
𝐶𝑐 2𝑐1𝑑𝑆
𝑒𝑆 𝑒𝑆 𝑑𝑆 𝑒𝑆

Belief 4 Ardour 2 Delusi 2 7.5 1.3

on
Detach 1 Goal 0 Strateg 0 32 6.2
ment y
Detach 1 Plan 3 Metho 3 18 3.4
ment d
 Detach 1 Value 0 Rule 0 14.5 2.7 An ardour that is perceived as external to an actor is called a
ment delusion. A faith phantasy, however, runs from 0 to 5, and a
Detach 1 Belief 4 Meme 4 25 4.8
ment
faith fantasy from 0 to 2.5. A ardour phantasy runs from 0 to -
Detach 1 Interes 0 Amity 0 35.5 6.9 5 and a ardour fantasy from 0 to -2.5.
ment t
Detach 1 Detach 1 Enmity 1 25 4.8 Table 8 Compound identity – Converting ardours and other
ment ment
cognitions into phantasies
Detach 1 Faith 1 Illusio 1 7.5 1.3
ment n
Detach 1 Ardour 2 Delusi 2 7.5 1.3 Signifi Redu Signif Reduc Signif Reduc Shifte Transf
ment on er cer icatio er ied er r ormer
Repres n Exter
entatio Intern nal
n al Repre
Repre sentati
Table 7 is for converting faiths and other cognitions into sentati on
on
phantasies and fantasies. Faiths run from Null (0) to 5, x / 𝑥4𝑆 x1 / y/ y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c/
phantasies from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning ̆
𝐶𝑎𝑒𝑆 𝑦2𝑎 ̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑒𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑏 𝑑𝑆
̆
𝐶𝑐𝑒𝑆 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 /
the conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy. 2𝑐1𝑑𝑆
A faith that is perceived as external to an actor is called an Ardour 2 Goal 0 Strate 0 1 -3.4
gy
illusion.
Ardour 2 Plan 3 Metho 3 1 -1.8
Table 7 Compound identity – Converting faiths and other cognitions d
into phantasies
Ardour 2 Value 0 Rule 0 1 -1.4
Signi Red Signi Red Signifie Reduc Shifter Transf
fier ucer ficati ucer d er ormer
Repr on External Ardour Belief 4 Meme 4 1 -2.6
esent Inter Represe
ation nal ntation
Repr Ardour 2 Intere 0 Amity 0 1 -3.8
esent st
ation
x/ x1 / y/ y1 / z / 𝑧3𝑆 z2 / z̆/ c / 𝑐1𝑒𝑆 Ardour 2 Detac 1 Enmit 1 1 -2.6
𝑥4𝑆 ̆
𝐶𝑎 𝑦2𝑎 ̆ ̆ ̆
𝐶𝑐 / 2𝑐1𝑑𝑆 hment y
𝑒𝑆 𝐶𝑏𝑒𝑆 𝐶𝑏 𝑑𝑆 𝑒𝑆

Faith 1 Goal 0 Strategy 0 9.5 3.4 Ardour 2 Faith 1 Illusio 1 1 -0.6

n

Faith 1 Plan 3 Method 3 5.5 1.8 Ardour 2 Ardou 2 Delusi 2 1 -1

r on

Faith 1 Valu 0 Rule 0 4.5 1.4

e
REFERENCES
Faith 1 Belie 4 Meme 4 7.5 2.6
f
[1] Johansson Falck, M. (2018). From ecological
Faith 1 Intere 0 Amity 0 10.5 3.8 cognition to language: When and why do speakers use
st words metaphorically? Metaphor and Symbol
33(2):61-84.
Faith 1 Detac 1 Enmity 1 7.5 2.6
hmen
t [2] Jensen T.W. (2017). Doing Metaphor: An Ecological
Faith 1 Faith 1 Illusion 1 2.5 0.6 Perspective on Metaphoricity in Discourse. Metaphor:
Embodied cognition and discourse :257.
Faith 1 Ardo 2 Delusio 2 4.5 1 [3] Jensen T.W., Greve L. (2019). Ecological cognition
ur n
and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol; 34(1):1-16.

[4] Ecological cognition and cognitive ecology. (2000)

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Table 8 is for converting ardours and other cognitions into
Society Annual Meeting: SAGE Publications Sage
phantasies and fantasies. Ardours run from -1 to Null (0),
CA: Los Angeles, CA.
phantasies from -5 to +5 and fantasies from -2.5 to 2.5, meaning
the conversion variable for a phantasy is half that for a fantasy.
[5] Bishop J. (2007). Ecological Cognition: A New
Dynamic for Human-Computer Interaction. In:
Wallace B, Ross A, Davies J, Anderson T, editors. The
Mind, the Body and the World: Psychology after
Cognitivism Exeter, GB: Imprint Academic; p. 327-
345.
[6] Cunliffe D, Elliott G. (2005). Multimedia Computing.
Newcastle under Lyme: Lexden Publishing Ltd.
[7] Field A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
(Introducing Statistical Methods series). 2nd ed.
London, GB: Sage Publications Ltd.
[8] ‘The empathic psychopathy in public life (2013):
Towards an understanding of ‘autism’ and
‘empathism’ and ‘dopaminergic-serotonergic
asynchronicity.‘. Conference on The Implications of
Research on the Neuroscience of Affect, Attachment,
and Social Cognition London, GB: University College
London.
[9] Bolognini S. (1997). Empathy and ‘empathism’.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis;78(2):279-
293.
[10] Leavitt A.J. (2017). Combatting Toxic Online
Communities. 1st ed. New York, NY: The Rosen
Publishing Group, Inc..
[11] Bishop J. (2014) Dealing with Internet trolling in
political online communities: Towards the This Is
Why We Can’t Have Nice Things Scale. International
Journal of E-Politics; 5(4):1-20.
[12] Bishop J. (2017). Developing and Validating the “This
Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things Scale”:
Optimising Political Online Communities for Internet
Trolling. In: Ibrahim Y, editor. Politics, Protest, and
Empowerment in Digital Spaces Hershey, PA: IGI
Global; p. 153-177.
[13] Bishop J. (2015). Determining the risk of digital
addiction to adolescent targets of Internet trolling:
Implications for the UK legal system. In: Bishop J,
editor. Psychological and Social Implications
Surrounding Internet and Gaming Addiction Hershey,
PA: IGI Global; p. 31-42.