Kent Data Repository
Not a member yet
117 research outputs found
Sort by
Georgios Kyriakakis - Additional Material for PhD: Terpsichore: A Software Music Interface for People with Mental Disabilities on the Autism Spectrum
No full textIncludes Datasets in Microsoft Excel, IBM SPSS and NVivo
The trabecular organization of the proximal femoral end in Paranthropus robustus: Implications for the assessment of the australopith hip joint loading conditions - Supporting data
No full textDeviant Ingroup Protection Effect Study 6 2020
No full textThis is Study 6 reported in a paper by Abrams, Travaglino et al. on the Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Participants
Participants were one hundred fifty-five introductory psychology students at a UK University
Design
Participants were presented with a superordinate in-category or out-category profile in which one of the groups occupied an anti-normative (attenuator), one occupied a pro-normative (accentuator) and the rest occupied normative (consolidator) positions. When out-category groups were presented the occupation of these positions was not linked with particular group names. However, when in-category groups were presented we explicitly described the in-group as occupying either the attenuator, consolidator or accentuator position. To summarize, participants were randomly assigned to condition in a 4 (Condition: In-group Attenuator vs In-group Consolidator vs In-group Accentuator vs. Out-group) x 3 (Position: Attenuator, Consolidator, Accentuator) mixed factorial design with repeated measures on the Position factor.
Summary of Method:
Participants viewed how the six groups in the category, labeled A to F, had responded to 10 attitude items. They were also shown each group’s specific recommendations about the percentage change in numbers that should be granted asylum. In the In-Category condition, the groups listed, which included Psychologists, were all from the social-humanitarian category. In the Out-Category condition they were all from the authority-governance category and the list included the (fictitious) British Association of Immigration and Customs Officers (BAICO). Psychology and BAICO were the two groups that had been used as the in-group and out-group in Abrams et al. (2000), and in subsequent experiments in the present research.
Groups’ average attitude responses were represented on 21-point bipolar scales, which allowed precise manipulation of deviance. Across the 10 items, each group’s attitudes did not vary by more than +/- 1 from its overall position. Four groups (A, C, D, F) were depicted as holding normative attitudes for their category (consolidators). Group B was extreme pro-normative (accentuating) and E was anti-normative (attenuating) (see Figure 1). In absolute terms, the accentuating and attenuating groups were equally divergent from the normative group mean, and their attitudes fell outside of the range expressed by consolidating groups. In the Social-Humanitarian (In-Category) condition, the 4 consolidating groups’ positions corresponded to the attitudinal positions of psychology students observed in previous research (e.g. Abrams et al., 2000). These attitude positions each averaged 11, with a range from 10 to 12 across the attitude items. The recommended percentage change in people granted asylum averaged 0% across the consolidator groups, with a range from -5% to +5%.
The accentuator (group B) attitude averaged 8 (range 7-9) on the 21 point scales, and it recommended an increase (+15%) in the numbers granted asylum. The attenuator (group E) averaged 14 (range 13-15) on the 21 point scales, and recommended a reduction (-15%) in the numbers granted asylum. These were determined so that they fell outside the 95% confidence interval (and differed significantly) relative to attitudes held by consolidator groups.
In the Out-Category condition, the 4 consolidator groups each averaged 17 on the attitude scales, with a range of 16-18 across the items. The recommended percentage change in people to be granted asylum averaged -30% across the consolidator groups, with a range from -25% to -35%. The accentuator averaged 20 (range 19-21) on the attitude items, and recommended a large decrease in the numbers granted asylum (-45%). The attenuator group averaged 14 (range 13-15) and recommended a smaller reduction in the numbers granted asylum (-15%). Thus, the average position of the attenuator groups the In-Category and Out-Category conditions was identical.
Summary of measures:
Category Evaluations
After reading the general introduction, participants evaluated Social-Humanitarian occupations and Authority-Governance occupations by responding to the question: “How favorable do you feel towards [Social-Humanitarian occupations; Authority-Governance occupations” (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).
Policy orientation check.
Participants were then asked to report the policy orientation of groups A to F by asking “to what extent does each occupational group support a more open or a more closed policy towards asylum seekers” (1 = more open, 7 = more closed). This was to ensure that they accurately perceived the magnitude of differences among the groups.
Evaluations of groups. To measure evaluations of groups, participants then rated how favorable they felt towards each group. Groups labeled A to F were presented in rows in a matrix table and participants were asked: “Please, indicate how favorable you feel towards each group [A to F] in the Social Humanitarian [Authority-Governance] category (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).
Category Subjective Validity.
Two sets of items (one for Social-Humanitarian category, another for the Authority-Governance category) asked participants to rate (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely): “To what extent do you think the [category’s] views are reasonable, fair, and valid (3 items).
In-category identification.
This was measured using the items “I am pleased to think of myself as being from the Social-Humanitarian set of occupations”, “I am glad I am from the Social-Humanitarian set of occupations” and in-group identification was measured using the items “I identify with psychologists as a group”, “I am pleased to think of myself as a psychology student”, “I am glad I am a psychology student”. Responses were recorded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
Dataset for study: Cleaning up our acts: Psychological interventions to reduce engine idling and improve air quality
No full textList and descriptions of the variables included (the same information appears to tab2 of the Excel document)
Observation - observations numbered
Condition - "experimental condition: 0 = baseline, 1 = social norm, 2 = outcome efficacy, 3 = private self-focus"
simple_baseline - dummy contrast code used to assess the effect of Number of vehicles in the Baseline condition
simple_norm - dummy contrast code used to assess the effect of Number of vehicles in the Social Norm condition
simple_efficacy - dummy contrast code used to assess the effect of Number of vehicles in the Outcome Efficacy condition
simple_selffocus - dummy contrast code used to assess the effect of Number of vehicles in the Private Self-Focus condition
Location - location at which data were collected, 1 = Location 1, 2 = Location 2
Date - date of observation (MM/DD/YYYY)
Date_num - date of observation numbered from 1 (1st observation day) to 17 (last observation day)
Session - represents one barrier drop, numbered from 1 for each observation day (used for multilevel grouping)
Vehicle_type - type of vehicle, 1 = car, 2 = bus, 3 = lorry, 4 = motorbike, 5 = service vehicle, 6 = van, 7 = taxi
Number_vehicles - number of vehicles queuing at one location, for each barrier drop (session)
temperature - average temperature measured for the duration of the barrier drop
humidity - average humidity measured for the duration of the barrier drop
NO2 - average NO2 concentration level measured for the duration of the barrier drop
O3 - average O3 concentration level measured for the duration of the barrier drop
PM25 - average PM2.5 concentration level measured for the duration of the barrier drop
logNO2 - logarithmic transformation of NO2
logO3 - logarithmic transformation of O3
logPM25 - logarithmic transformation of PM25
Engine_off - whether engine is on or off, 0 = engine on, 1 = engine of
The position of Australopithecus sediba within fossil hominin hand use diversity
Full text linkThis data is the relative trabecular volume fraction, measured at each subchondral landmark of the metacarpal heads and first metacarpal base, in individuals of all great ape species including humans. It also includes the ratios of cross-sectional geometry variables of the same sample
Gender, Hidden Profiles and the Individual Preference Effect: Meta Essentials Workbooks
No full textA collection of excel workbooks (Meta-Essentials) supporting the meta-analytic findings in the paper "Gender, Hidden Profiles and the Individual Preference Effect". The meta-analyses effect sizes were calculated using ‘Meta-Essentials’ (version 1.1) [Excel spreadsheet] (Suurmond, van Rhee, & Hak, 2017). This is a set of Excel spreadsheet workbooks which is free to use and which can be downloaded from an accompanying website (www.meta-essentials.com) together with an accompanying user manual (Van Rhee, Suurmond, & Hak, 2015). Both the workbooks and the manual are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect Study 2
No full textThis is Study 2 reported in a paper by Abrams, Travaglino et al. on the Deviant Ingroup Protection Effect, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Methods complied with APA ethical standards and were approved by the University of Kent’s Psychology ethics board (ID 2011855) The data are in an SPSS .sav file called DIP_Study2_Tax
Design
Participants viewed and evaluated either six In-Category or six Out-Category groups. Measures for the four 'consolidator'groups were averaged so that data were analysed in a 2 (Category: In-Category vs Out-Category) x 3 (Group: accentuator, consolidator, attenuator) design with repeated measures on the Group factor.
Participants
One-hundred-and-sixty-five US residents were recruited from the crowdsourcing platform Academic Prolific. To ensure there were equal numbers of participants in our Norm Validity factor (In-Category Valid vs. Out-Category Valid), participants were first pre-screened and answered the subjective validity measures from Experiment 1 to assess whether they thought US or EU norms on taxation were more valid. Participants were classified as belonging to the in-category valid condition if their mean score on the US subjective validity measure was greater than their score on the EU subjective validity measure. There were 80 participants in the in-category valid condition and 85 in the out-category condition. Participants were then randomly assigned to condition (85 in the In-Category condition, 80 in the Out-Category condition). Group Position (Attenuator, Consolidator, Accentuator) was the within participants factor. There were 94 males, 67 females, and four participants who identified as other.
Procedure
Participants read a short article on previous survey research on personal income tax that set out the views of the US and EU. The US was positioned as adopting a more liberal perspective on taxation, which gave citizens the right to spend their money as they pleased and limited the amount taken by Government. The EU was positioned as placing higher levels of taxation on citizens, which limited personal freedom but provided wider access to public services. Participants were informed that among a survey of American states, Americans generally supported low taxes and preferred reductions in tax levels. Among a survey of European Union countries, Europeans were comfortable with higher taxes and supported increases in taxation levels.
To manipulate the norm within each category, participants were displayed a color chart which ranged from 0% tax (labeled as Very Low Taxation and colored Yellow) to 14% tax (Medium Taxation: Red) to 28% (Very High Taxation: Blue). In the in-category condition, each group was labeled as 1-6, with state 2 as the accentuator group (0% taxation) and state 5 as the attenuator group (14% taxation). The consolidator groups (states 1, 3, 4, and 6) ranged from 6-8% taxation levels, with the mean as 7%. In the out-category condition, each group was labeled as country 1-6, with country 2 as the accentuator group (28% taxation) and country 5 as the attenuator group (14% taxation). The consolidator groups (countries 1, 3, 4, and 6) ranged from 20-22% taxation, with the mean as 21%. As with Experiment 1, the attenuator group for both the in-category and out-category condition adopted the same position.
Summary of measures:
Category Evaluations
After reading the general introduction, participants evaluated US and EU by responding to the question: “How favorable do you feel towards [States in the US; Countries in the EU” (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).
Policy orientation check.
Participants were then asked to report the policy orientation of groups A to F by asking “to what extent does each group support a lower or a higher taxation policy (1 = lower, 7 = higher). This was to ensure that they accurately perceived the magnitude of differences among the groups.
Evaluations of groups. To measure evaluations of groups, participants then rated how favorable they felt towards each group. Groups labeled A to F were presented in rows in a matrix table and participants were asked: “Please, indicate how favorable you feel towards each group [A to F] in the US [EU] category (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).
Category Subjective Validity.
Two sets of items (one for US, another for the EU) asked participants to rate (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely): “To what extent do you think the [category’s] views are reasonable, fair, and valid (3 items)
The Lady's Magazine Index
No full textA fully annotated index to the just over 15000 text items in the Lady’s Magazine; or, Entertaining Companion for the Fair Sex from its first series (1770 to 1818)
Data used in Langhammer et al. 2024. The Positive Impact of Conservation Action. Science
No full textData used in Langhammer et al, which is a meta-analysis by authors: Penny F. Langhammer, Joseph W. Bull, Jake E. Bicknell, Joseph L. Oakley, Mary H. Brown, Michael W. Bruford, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Jamie A. Carr, Don Church, Rosie Cooney, Simone Cutajar, Wendy Foden, Matthew N. Foster, Claude Gascon, Jonas Geldmann, Piero Genovesi, Michael Hoffmann, Jo Howard-McCombe, Tiffany Lewis, Nicholas B.W. Macfarlane, Zoe E. Melvin, Rossana G. Merizalde, Meredith G. Morehouse, Shyama Pagad, Beth Polidoro, Wes Sechrest, Gernot Segelbacher, Kevin G. Smith, Janna Steadman, Kyle Strongin, Jake Williams, Stephen Woodley, Thomas M. Brook
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Kent Data Repository? Access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard!