The role of ecological cognition for supporting

webometrics: Towards ‘Serendipity engineering for

seductive hypermedia’ and ‘user analysis using
socialnomics’
ABSTRACT
This chapter investigates the long-established ecological cognition framework and updates it to better account for the advances in
digital transformation. 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.
INTRODUCTION
It has been argued that one of the greatest challenges in intelligent systems design is to harness “technologies to verify and
apply longstanding theories from distributed AI, agent systems, and other areas of networked intelligent systems research”
(Willmott, 2004). It has been argued that intelligent systems research is required to “prevent users being overwhelmed by the
complexity of the systems with which they will be asked to interact” (Steventon & Wright, 2010). One approach to intelligent
systems research is to designing intelligent systems that think and act like humans (de Lope, 2007) is ecological cognition (Bishop
& Goode, 2021).
Ecological cognition
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 (Bishop, 2007; Hutchins, 2000; Jensen, Thomas W., 2017; Jensen, Thomas Wiben & Greve,
2019; Johansson Falck, 2018). 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 (Cunliffe & Elliott, 2005). The most recent ecological
cognition framework is presented in Figure 1 is associated with a parametric user model in Equation 8 (Bishop & Goode, 2021;
Bishop, Kommers, & Bechkoum, In Press), which provides an exemplary means to create intelligent systems even compared to
earlier embodiments (Bishop, 2013).
Figure 1 The 8-Base ecological cognition framework

Webometrics
Webometrics is a new field based on analysis of new forms of data; therefore, methods of data collection and processing have
been prominent in many studies (Thelwall, Vaughan, & Björneborn, 2005). Webometrics is an information science field
concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals
(Thelwall, 2009).
Socialnomics
In contrast with webometrics, socialnomics is designed for a range of social science goals. Equally it relates not only to the online
world, but events which occur offline also (Maina, 2017). Socialnomics is the value created and shared via social media and its
efficient influence on outcomes (Yao, 2016), so could be seen as a subset of webometrics.
Serendipity Engineering
It has been argued that Serendipity Engineering “builds upon randomness, interaction, chaos and complexity for innovative
aspects and directions to be identified and taken advantage in favour of the user. In this way, serendipity and unintended outcomes
can be manipulated to orchestrate pleasant surprises” (Lambropoulos, Fardoun, & Alghazzawi, 2016). Serendipity Engineering
builds upon randomness, interaction, chaos and complexity (Lambropoulos et al., 2016).
BACKGROUND
Ecological cognition can be used for information modelling from a socialnomics angle because it specifies the ontological entities
that can be used to categorise and classify elements of the world, which is a social environment in most cases. More were
developed over time as it became clear how relevant the ECF was to the design of information systems with an online community
element (Bishop, 2009).
Table 1 Types of socialeconomic artefact in ecological cognition

ECF# Cognition Signifier Range Range Source Description

4 Goal Strategy 1 to 9 (Brawley, A goal is an aim to carry out a given
Carron, & behaviour. Often it might be tied to
Widmeyer, Signifiers like Amities when
1993; Senécal,
Loughead, &
Bloom, 2008)
4 Plan Method -2 to +2 (Bamberg, A plan is like a goal but has more
2003) immediacy or certainty, taking the
form of a directed behaviour.
4 Value Rule 1 to 4 (Baron-Cohen, A value is a strong conviction about
Richler, Bisarya, something.
Gurunathan, &
Wheelwright,
2003; Mitchell,
1983)
4 Belief Meme -3 to +3 (Fishbein, A belief is an inclination to a
1967b; particular point of view.
Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1980)
5 Interest Amity 1 to 10 (Argyle, 1992; An interest is an attachment to
Argyle, 1994) another actor, a substance,
structure, etc.
6 Detachment Enmity 0 to 6 (Hansen, 1982) A detachment is a distancing from
another actor, substance, structure,
etc.

Table 1 shows the cognitions that link the unconscious mind with the conscious mind and the signifiers that like the external
world with the internal world we construct. The ECF# refers to the Base-4 one that jumped out of my mind months after
completing my MSc in E-Learning, the Base-5 one I presented at a conference (Bishop, 2005), in a journal (Bishop, 2007c) and in
a book (Bishop, 2007a), the Base-6 one that is in a book chapter (Bishop, 2019) and the Base-8 one that is introduced by this
chapter.
A goal as a cognition is very similar to a strategy as a signifier, especially when it comes to learning objectives (Saul, Becker,
Hofmann, & Pharow, 2011). A goal cognition refers to the degree to which someone aspires to do something, ranging from 1 to 9,
with 1 representing the lowest priority and 9 representing the highest priority. The scale was chosen based on selecting it from the
literature (Brawley et al., 1993; Senécal et al., 2008).
Methods as signifiers can be seen as the globalised equivalent to the plan cognition (Beetz & McDermott, 1992). A plan cognition
refers to the degree to which someone intends to do something, ranging from -2 to +2, with the lowest representing something
they do not want to do and the highest something they do want to do. The scale was chosen based on selecting it from the
literature (Bamberg, 2003).
The cognition, value, and the signifier, rule, are highly linked, especially with regards to online communities (Pentina, Prybutok,
& Zhang, 2008). A value cognition refers to the degree to which someone identifies with a particular way of being or
philosophical position, ranging from 1 to 4. The lower the score then the lower a person values the sentiment being measured as
being reflective of them. The scale was chosen based on selecting it from the literature(Baron-Cohen et al., 2003; Mitchell, 1983).
A belief cognition refers to the degree to which someone holds particular points of view, ranging from -3 if an actor does not
believe something at all to 3 if an actor beliefs something completely. The scale was chosen based on selecting it from the
literature (Fishbein, 1967a; Mowen & Minor, 2001). Memes have the same scale, but refer to an external representation in the
form of a belief or point of view that is often shared by members of a community.
An interest cognition is an internal representations that relates to how close someone is to someone else, ranging from 1 to 10.
Such cognitions can be brought into mind when a person with whom they know enters a space in which they are present, where
the interest would be closer to 10. For people they do not know, or whom do not look like people they are familiar with, interest
will be closer to 1. The scale was chosen based on selecting it from the literature (Argyle, 1992; Argyle, 1994). The signifier that
takes the form of a corresponding external representation to interest is amity. An amity is a person in the environment that an
actor has an affinity or close relationship with.
A detachment is a cognition (i.e. internal representation), ranging from 0 to 6, reflects how distant someone is from someone else.
If an actor does not have any negative impact on their life then they may rate that person as 0, or if an actor has a serious negative
impact on someone’s life then they may rate that person as 6. As with all cognitions, the higher the value the more cognitive load
on the person. In multi-actor environments an actor could be faced with managing multiple cognitions towards different people.
The signifier (external representation) equivalent of detachment is an enmity, reflecting the existence of such people an actor has
poor relations with.
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. 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 (Cunliffe & Elliott, 2005).
If one uses the work of Mantovani, especially his book ‘Exploring Borders’ (Mantovani, 2000) one can see that the cognitions and
signifiers referred to in Table 1 are what he called Objects. Cognitions in this context can be seen to be internal representations
and signifiers can be seen to be external representations. Signifiers, associated with the work of Don Norman (Norman, 2013),
often trigger internal cognitions which if part of a seductive hypermedia strategy based on captology can result in a target
behaviour, which may include feelings of serendipity (Fogg, 2002; Mbakwe & Cunliffe, 2002; Mbakwe & Cunliffe, 2007;
Mbakwe & Cunliffe, September 25 2003).
This chapter introduces two new cognitions with their associated signifiers to those mentioned earlier. The first cognition is faith,
which is associated with the signifier illusion. In terms of the scale it is either Null or 1. The second new cognition introduced by
this chapter is ardour, which is associated with the signifier, delusion. In terms of the scale it is either -1 or Null. In both case they
reflect the fact that for some cognitions and signifiers an actor will have an absolute opinion either for or against something or no
opinion at all and nothing could change that.
Table 2 Additional cognitions and ranges from the ecological cognition framework

ECF# Cognition Signifier Range Range SourceDescription

8 Faith Illusion Null to 1 Introduced by
A faith either exists or does not exist
this chapterand if it exists it has 100% certainty
(Icke, 2017).
and is unchangeable. It is usually
something someone wants to be
true, but it is not guaranteed it is.
8 Ardour Delusion -1 to Introduced by An ardour either exists or does not
Null this chapter exist and if it exists it has 100%
(Icke, 2017). certainty and is unchangeable. It will
make no difference to the person
whether or not their position is
based on fact or fiction.

Some have tried to distinguish between the unconscious preferred truth as being ‘subjective’ and the conscious accepted but
unwanted truth as ‘objective’ (Searle, 1996). In terms of the Base-8 ecological cognition framework, the former could be
‘ardours’ and the latter ‘faiths’ (Icke, 2017). It has been argued that there are institutional truths in that the existence of external
artefacts does not depend on any beliefs we may hold about those artefacts (Searle, 1996). In other words, in reality, a spade is a
spade because it has been designed for shovelling, not because one believes its colour matches the wheelbarrow one might have.
Importantly, however, just because this is a fact it does not mean a person will accept it as a fact if they values, beliefs, faiths and
ardours contradict that reality. It is important at this point to draw attention to the concept of affordances, whether those described
by Don Norman (Norman, 1999) or those described by JJ Gibson (Gibson, 1986). In terms of the latter, it was argued through
light directly affecting the brain it is possible to “pick up” how to use a previous unexperienced artefact (Gibson, 1986).
The cognitions of faith and ardour and their signifier equivalents of Illusion and delusion respectively, are unique to this chapter
in terms of the ECF and based on labels where religious people identify with the positive faith cognition and people with other
negative philosophical positions, including pseudo-religious Atheists, can identify with the ardour cognition (Icke, 2017). The
importance of adding these cognitions is to account for situations where it is not possible for an actor to have an opinion that is
anything other than black and white – they either agree with the position or have no interest in having an opinion on it. In terms of
the faith cognition some people will believe in God 100% (faith=1, phantasy=5) even if they have no proof and in the case of the
ardour cognition some scientists who are atheists will believe science at the time of writing is able to disprove the existence of
God with 100% devotion to that perspective (ardour=-1, phantasy=-5), even though no instruments or models exist to support it.
The main difference between the two new cognitions (Icke, 2017) and the six existing ones is that the existing ones relate to
matters that are not fixed in the actor’s mind and might change from moment to moment, whereas the new ones are fixed and are
unlikely to change with normal methods of persuasion. So, for instance, when an actor is completing a questionnaire, they may
give inconsistent answers when relying on the six fluid cognitions but will give the same answer each time for the two fixed
cognitions. When one of the six fluid cognitions are consistently at their maximum or minimum it might be that they are actually a
faith or ardour. Table 3 presents the binary-opposition forces developed across the Base-4 through to the Base-8 ecological
cognition frameworks, which can be used by clinical psychologists to find out what motivates their clients.
Table 3 Binary-opposition forces (Attention-driven recurrent needs)

# ECF Force Emoticon Description

#
1 4 Order An actor will post something pleasing to others in
|-)
order to support their own worldview.
2 6 Chaos An actor will seek to entertain others and bring
:-D
some entertainment to the community.
3 4 Vengeance An actor will seek to get justice if they feel they have
:@ been wronged in some way, such as being the victim
of “misinformation”.
4 6 Forgiveness An actor will have a presence of forgiveness if they
:-o are willing to let bygones be bygones, even if the
other parties are not of the same mindset.
5 4 Social An actor will be driven to socialise with others
:-) whether for the benefit of that individual,
themselves or both.
6 6 Anti-social An actor will be driven to express their
8o) dissatisfaction in a manner others might perceive as
anti-social.
7 4 Existential An actor will have certain bodily requirements that
will exist regardless of whether or not they want to
;-)
act on them. Some will act on them even if it is to
the disadvantage of others.
8 6 Thanatotic An actor will have feelings of despair when they are
:-(
not achieving their goals.
9 4 Creative An actor will want to express their ideas and other
8-)
information in a permanent form.
10 6 Destructive An actor will want to erase from record information
^o)
they find unsuitable
11 6 Surveillance An actor will seek out information on things that
:-#
interest them, specially to keep up-to-date.
12 6 Escape An actor will seek out information on others to
:-|
escape from their own concerns.
13 8 Honour An actor will feel pride in their creations even if they
:-"" did not work out as planned when responded to by
others.
14 8 Shame :-N An actor will seek to bring life to a community they
 otherwise think is left wanting.
15 8 Pride An highly thought of actor who will try to do all they
:-8
can to help others.
16 8 Embarrassment An actor will seek to put right the things that have
:-0 gone wrong for them due to misunderstandings of
others even if they fear them.

The forces of ‘Vengeance’ and ‘Forgiveness’ were in the original 4-Base mode (Bishop, July 04 2005) l in the case of the former
(Hardaker, 2010), before later becoming a binary opposition force with the addition of the latter (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson,
2013) in the 6-Base model (Bishop, 2019; Bishop, April 08 2006). The forces of ‘Social’ and ‘Anti-social’ were in the original 4-
Base model (Bishop, July 04 2005) in the case of the former (Rheingold, 1993; Rheingold, 2000) , before later becoming a binary
opposition force with the addition of the latter (Lubit, 2003) in the 6-Base Model (Bishop, 2019; Bishop, April 08 2006).
The forces of ‘Existential’ and ‘Thanatotic’ were in the original 4-Base model (Bishop, July 04 2005) in the case of the former
that drives ‘chatroom bobs’ (Jansen & James, 1995; Jansen, 2002), before later becoming a binary opposition force with the
addition of the latter (Sosnowska, 2013) in the 6-Base Model (Bishop, 2019; Bishop, April 08 2006). The forces of ‘Creative’ and
‘Destructive’ were in the original 4-Base model (Bishop, July 04 2005) in the case of the former (Muirhead, 2007) before later
becoming a binary opposition force with the addition of the latter (Shachaf & Hara, 2010) in the 6-Base Model (Bishop, 2019;
Bishop, April 08 2006).
The binary opposition forces of ‘Surveillance’ and ‘Escape’ were left out of the original ecological cognition framework (Bishop,
July 04 2005), because they were only considered to be drivers for the Net Generation (Leung, 2003). They were, however, added
to the 6-Base Model (Bishop, 2019; Bishop, April 08 2006).
The binary opposition forces of ‘Honour’ (Wanamaker, 1987) and ‘Shame’ (Wiher, 2002) as well as ‘Pride’ (Johnson, 2012) and
‘Embarrassment’ (Gilbert, 1998) have been added to the 8-Base ecological cognition framework by virtue of this chapter.
Table 4 The stages and values of the ecological cognition frameworks

ECF# Stage ECF 5 & 8 Stage ECF 6 & 8 Description

Value
5 1 Stimuli Opportunity A stimulus draws an actor’s attention to an
opportunity in the environment that might
enable them to achieve their goals.
4 2 Impetus Understanding An impetus is an understanding of a
perceived stimuli within the competencies of
the actor.
4 3 Intent Relevance An intent is a driver to act on a stimulus once
an actor is convinced of its relevance to their
goals.
8 4 Intellectualisation Rationalisation An intellectualisation is a driver for an actor
to make use of their personality to advance
their goals.
4 5 Neuro-Response Aspiration A neuro-response is an instruction on the
brain on how an actor can achieve an
aspiration towards a particular goal. More
often than not these are based on pre-
existing cognitions than new thinking.
4 6 Judgement Choice A judgement is an actor’s choice to either act
on a neuro-response or to dispose of it in
some way. Sometimes a situation moves so
fast their choice is based on prior experience
not present thinking.
5 7 Response Expression A response is an internal or external
expression of an actor’s judgement, which
 can include suppression or repression.
7 8 Execution Evaluation Through higher-order reflective thinking an
actor can evaluate themselves or others by
using their mind to mediate between the
stimuli that went into them and the
response that came out of them. In many
cases neither are directly planned by the
actor when executed following an
expression.

As has been discussed, the ecological cognition framework has gone through a number of iterations (Bishop, 2011; Bishop, 2019;
Bishop, April 08 2006; Bishop, July 04 2005; Bishop, September 08 2009). Table 4 shows the framework updated for the current
chapter where the framework is 8-Base, building on the previous 6-Base model (Bishop, 2019) . The main difference is that there
are two additional stages and values based on work on the original 6 stages (Bishop, 2011; Bishop, 2014; Bishop, 2017), which
has shown that actors will deinviduate to reflect on a situation in the case of the new stage 4 and reflect to develop higher order
thinking in terms of the new stage 8 (Norman, 1991; Vygotsky, 1930). It has been asserted that an actor will develop a plan
cognition after they acted on a goal cognition and not before they have done it (Suchman, 1987; Suchman, 2007). It has been
asserted that the normal innate and learned reactions between stimuli and response (Pavlov, 1927) can be changed through the use
of tools and signs (Vygotsky, 1930) , which if external are signifiers (Norman, 2004). It has been asserted that when fulfilling
their goals that actors will be limited by their competencies (Mantovani, 1996) and this will affect their target behaviours (Fogg,
2009) .

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 produce
k-scores for use with statistical packages like SPSS (Field, 2005) in order to advance computational science and computational
intelligence. The parametric user model in Equation 8 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 8
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
ca eS, y1 has been replaced with cb eS, z ̆ has been replaced with cc eS and c with c 1 eS.
PARAMETRIC USER MODELLING
Parametric user modelling when it comes to the World Wide Web (WWW) can be seen as an applied form of webometrics. One
of the objectives of this research study is to develop a parametric user model that can be used to analyse and influence behaviour
in information systems, particularly online communities. Figure 2 was an attempt to develop a parametric user model conceptually
as a starting basis for devising an equation (Bishop, 2002; Bishop & Goode, 2014). The various elements of this prototype
parametric user model are explained in Table 5.
Figure 2 A prototype parametric user model based on the ecological cognition framework

Table 5 A table explaining the prototype parametric user model

Trigger Parametric value Description

Disruption A Pression (P) is made up Antecedents (a), valued according to the stimuli being
Mechanism of phantasies (pe) external (x) to the actor trigger an internal (y) mental
consisting of antecedents state called a succedent (s). Both x (or a) and y (or s)
(a, x) and succedents (s, y) could be considered cognitions based on distributed
which have been cognition theory.
converted to a range of -5
to +5
Error (Part of Joinder (j) is the extent to A joinder, valued at 1 when an actor’s cognitions are
Disruption which external (a, x) or most consonant, affects the plasticity of the brain due
Mechanism) internal (s, x) cognitions to whether cognitions are connected and therefore
are consonant. facilitate an actor in achieving their goals. It is what
makes an actor feel alive or demotivated. A joinder
measures the link between an external
representation and an internal cognition.
Disturbance Intercedent (i) reflects the An intervention, valued from 0 to 1, interacts with the
(Part of extent to which joinder to either improve consonance or increase
Disruption interventions have on dissonance.
Mechanism) changing the degree of
consonance or dissonance
a person experiences.
Seduction The procedure of The seduction mechanism is the means by which an
Mechanism transferring from one state actor can be convinced to change from one state of
of mind to another based being into another, whether physical, mental, or a
on influences from other combination of the both.
actors or other
representations (i.e. x, a, i).
 Conversion (Part Conversion (c) is the A conversion is a value that transforms an actor’s
of Seduction instigator of an actor mental state from having the potential to perform an
Mechanism) moving from being aware action to either performing it or abandoning
something has happened performing it.
to deciding to change their
situation.
Capacity (Part of Capacity or Humanpower Capacity (X) is valued at 1 when an actor has their
Seduction (H) consists of fantasies (f d)
optimal level of bodily nutrition (2n), which might
Mechanism) which come as a result of include medication, affects the effectiveness by which
internal substances (z) a person is able to carry out their goals. It measures
acting in association withthe link between the same external representation (x,
external representations a) as joinder (j), but with an internal physiological
(x, a) as a succedent (s).element (z) in the form of a precedent (p) substances
producing fantasies (f) not a cognitive one (y, s)
producing phantasies (p).
Situated Action A situation (S) consists of A situated action is a deed performed by a user which
(Transformation) an Event (E) that has they might not be aware they have carried out until
Consequences (C). All the after they have reflected on the situation in which it
above form part of such an occurred. On this basis the actor’s plan to do
Event. something comes after they do it and not before.

Figure 3 shows how the ecological cognition framework could go from a simple theory about how online communities work
(Bishop, 2005; Bishop, 2007a; Bishop, 2007c) to being able to determine personality types that have application in pre-existing
clinical psychological frameworks. Future research would have to use methods like multiple linear regression to compute
intervention (i) and joinder (j). On the basis of Figure 3, it is possible that j is directly proportional to flow (Z) and i is directly
proportional to involvement. This is because joinder is the degree to which cognitions are consonant and the more consonant a
person’s cognitions the higher their state of flow (Z) and intervention is what enables or disables a person in achieving their goals
and so if involvement (I) is high then intervention (i) is likely to resemble more of a resisting force and if I is low then i is more
likely to resemble an enabling force.

Figure 3 The Personality Continuum

As dopamine is linked to flow (Zd) and serotonin is linked to Involvement (Is), it is also likely that glutamate is linked to flow
(Zg) and glutamine is linked to involvement (Ig) and all these impact on melatonin to produce Melatoninergic equilibrium (Me),
which k is also likely to co-vary with. That is, as knol goes up then melatonin goes down and as knol goes down melatonin goes
up. One’s Me depends firstly on the time of day – one should ideally be producing less knols at night when one is sleeping – and
one’s knol should be higher during the day when one is being productive.
Equation 1 presents a theory of general memory in the form of a model for calculating knol, which is the proposed speed for
memory access based on using the ecological cognition framework. It can be compared with Fogg’s behaviour model in that k
(knol) measures brain productivity, which can be used to measure whether a target behaviour has been achieved; P (Pression) is
cognitive, so can be seen to reflect motivation in Fogg’s behaviour model; H (Humanpower) reflects a person’s physical
competence to achieve their cognitive drives, so can be seen to reflect ability in Fogg’s model.
P
k=
H
Equation 1 A theory of general memory

It is called a ‘theory of general memory’ (TGM) because knol can calculate the speed at which the brain is accessing memories,
such as ‘phantasies’ and the cognitions which can be derived from them, but that its elements, Pression (P) and Humanpower (H),
have complex calculations that lead to them that would only need to be explained when developing systems to compute them. The
aim of every organism to exist is to achieve a knol of 1, which is done when P and H are equal. If humans ever achieved this at a
sustainable level, they would have reached the homomagnus equilibrium (Bishop, May 19 2013), leading to the Nash equilibrium
being disproven. One of the main elements of Pression (P) are memories stored as ‘phantasies’ (p) as can be seen from Equation
2. The values required in order to compute Equation 2 are in Annex I.
pe =(( ( x + x 1 )∗( y+ y 1) −z̆)/(i+ j) ¿e ¿ ¿ c)
Equation 2 Calculating a phantasy (pi) using external antecedents (x) and internal succedent (y) and converters x 1, x2, (z ̆, I, j, c)

If one thinks of the equation for general relativity (e=mc 2), e refers to energy measured in joules, m refers to mass measured in
kilograms and c refers to the speed of light. The variable knol (k) is the equivalent of speed of light in the brain, namely the speed
of human memory. Pression is like mass inversed, as it is the pressure on the brain to perform specific goals and other cognitions.
Humanpower is then obviously like energy, which is the capacity of the person concerned to achieve Pression, namely the
nutrition available to the brain and body to power a human actor.

( )
M

∑ ((( x + x1 )∗( y + y 1 )−z̆)/(i + j) ¿e¿ ¿ c)

e=0
P= +F
5
Equation 3 An equation for calculating 'Pression' taking into account ‘j’ and ‘j’

Equation 3 shows how to calculate Pression (P), which is the accumulation of all of an actor’s cognitions into their working
memory. It represents mentally what they want to achieve at a given point in time. Actors with conditions like mania, where they
have racing thoughts, are likely to have a higher Pression than say actors who are alcoholics or smoke cannabis recreationally,
who are likely to have a much lower Pression.

( )
M

∑ (( ( x + x 1)∗( y + y 1 ) −z̆)/(i+ j) ¿e ¿ ¿ c)
e=0
+F
5
k=
(F+ B)
Equation 4 An interim parametric user model for calculating 'knol' taking into account ‘j’ and ‘I’ but not ‘n’

Equation 5 is the first complete model for calculating knol prior to this chapter extending it with the parametric user model
(Equation 8, page 12). It was based on the Base-6 ecological cognition framework that introduced the detachment cognition. The
new cognitions of faith and ardour and their corresponding fantasies of hope and fear have also been added. Annex I presents
Table 7 to Table 14 presents the figures for using Equation 5 to convert cognitions into phantasies (p i) or fantasies (fi), which are
what (F + B) is partly composed of in Equation 8.
Equation 4 shows how to transform Pression into knol for two of the 8 representations and emphasises the fact the Humanpower
is most easily calculated by adding Force (F) to Baseline (B). Baseline (B) is the amount of hours an actor is able to work without
developing psychosis or neurosis in the form of a suboptimal amount of Humanpower (H). Force (F) is the maximum number of
hours an actor should be able to work in a week if they were at their peak performance, which is based on the hours in the
Working Time Directive, namely 48. Therefore i (i.e. intervention) will have to account for some of the variance of F + B. When
you add F and B together you get Humanpower (H). Equally, because the top half of the equation represents Pression – the
amount of pressure put on the brain by receiving a stimuli and problem solving to produce a response – then j (i.e. joinder) will
have to account for some of the variance of that value. A person who never lies to themself would have a j of 1, because their
cognitions would likely be completely consonant.
Mediating artefacts are reflected throughout the parametric user model in the form of external representations (antecedents like a
or x), internal representations (succedents like s, y or z) and those that mediate between them, like intercedents (i) and joinders (j).
Equation 5 shows how to calculate a fantasy, which is the physical equivalent of a phantasy (Equation 2). The values for
computing fantasy are in Annex I.
f d =(( ( x+ x 1 )∗( z + z1 ) −z̆)/2 n ¿d ¿ ¿2 c )
Equation 5 An equation for calculating a fantasy (fi)

( )
D

∑ ( (( x + x 1 )∗( z+ z 1 )−z̆ ) /2n ¿ d ¿ ¿ 2 c )

d=0
H= + Ob
2.5
Equation 6 An equation for calculating 'Humanpower' taking into account ‘i’ and ‘n’

As can be seen from Equation 6, Humanpower can be calculated in a similar way to Pression, but on a scale of -2.5 to +2.5 instead
of a scale of -5 to +5. In place of Force (F) is Object (Ob), which carries much the same meaning as it does in Activity Theory,
but not in the way it is used by Mantovani, which essentially refers to internal and external representations. Object (Ob) is the aim
of a particular course of action an actor wishes to take and the reason for their behaviour in transforming their environment to
achieve it and is measured in hours as Force (F) is. It’s value is thus not the same as Baseline (B), which is what a person can
actually achieve, but what they feel capable of achieving. The calculations inside the brackets of Equation 6 therefore calculate
what is limiting an actor from achieving their potential and is thus what contributes to psychosis and neurosis. Table 6 details the
variables that make up Equation 6.
Table 6 Other variables and their values which form part of the parametric user model

Variable Symbol Default Value(s) Description

Baseline B <=48 Baseline refers to the number of hours a person is actually
capable of working in a week.
Force F 48 Forces refers to the number of hours a person at their peak
will work if their operated at the homomagnus equilibrium.
Object Ob 42 Object refers to the number of hours a person is normally able
to work at their peak, which is below the homomagnus
equilibrium.
Pression P -5, 5 Pression refers to the amount of pressure placed on the brain
by phantasies and fantasies entering short-term and working
memory.
Phantasy p -5 to +5 Phantasy refers to two joined representations that are linked
to emotion.
Fantasy f -2.5 to 2.5 Fantasy refers to two joined representations that are linked to
lifestyle.

We can assume that with all other things being equal that when knol is equal to 0.81 that Ob is 42 and when Ob is equal to 48 then
knol is equal to 1. This means that with most people they feel capable of 6 hours less effort each week than they may be expected
to under working time rules. An amalgamation of Equation 3 and Equation 6 is presented in Equation 8.
 ( )
M

∑ (( ( x + x 1)∗( y + y 1 ) −z̆)/(i+ j) ¿e ¿ ¿ c)
e=0
+F
5
k=

( )
D

∑ ( (( x + x 1 )∗( z + z 1 )−z̆ ) /2n ¿ d ¿ ¿ 2 c )

d=0
+ Ob
2.5
Equation 7 An interim parametric user model for calculating 'knol' taking into account ‘j’, ‘I’ and ‘n’

Equation 8 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 (Bishop & Goode, 2021). 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.

{ ( )
}
M

∑ ( (( x GS 2+ ca˘eS )∗( y GS 2+ cb˘eS )− cc˘eS )/(iS + jS )¿ e¿¿ c eS )

e=0
Cmin +F
5
k a= E S

( )
D
Cmax ∑ (( ( x GS 2 +ca˘dS ) + ( zGS 4 + cb˘dS )−cc˘dS ) ¿ 2 n S ¿ d ¿¿ 2 c dS )
d =0
+ Ob
2.5
Equation 8 A parametric user model for calculating 'knol' for a given actor (k a) using the ecological cognition framework (a theory of ordinary
memory)

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 (M C) so
that the lower the SD, the greater the chance that all the actors within that community (N C) will have positive relationships. This is
the principle of empathism (Bishop, May 19 2013). People with empathism have a common way of thinking towards other actors
like them and often in opposition to actors unlike them (Bishop, May 19 2013; Bolognini, 1997) and so using Equation 8 with
Equation 9 could allow for the selection of actors so that they form online communities of like-minded people, regardless of
whether those communities are toxic (Leavitt, 2017).
Equation 9 shows how one might compute the mean knol for a specific online community of actors (M Ce) within a community
(NC) (Bishop & Goode, 2021). 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 (Bishop, 2014) 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.
NC
kS
M Ce=∑
S =1 NC
Equation 9 Mean knol for an optimised (e) community (MC) based on k-scores (ks) for that community (NC) in a given situation (S)

M Ck
Ŝk=
0.98
Equation 10 Probability of Serendipity (Ŝk) based on Mean knol for group (k=M Ck) and serendipity threshold (k=0.98)

Equation 10 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 of 0.98 (Bishop & Goode, 2021). 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 10 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 M c 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 be short lived, such as
being briefly experienced after a moment of serendipity, where knol is 0.98.

Šk= ( kŜk )
Sa

Equation 11 Probability of Seduction (Šk) for an actor (k Sa) based on probability of Serendipity (Ŝk)

Equation 11 presents an formula for measuring the probability of seduction (Šk) in a given situation for a given actor (k Sa) based
on their k-score in that situation within the community of which they are part, which is computed in Equation 9 and Equation 10
(Bishop & Goode, 2021). The difference between seduction and serendipity is that the former tried to generate the same
experiences as the latter, but the latter occurs by chance whereas the former occurs intentionally, usually by a party other than the
one experiencing serendipity.

(( ))
NC
k
∑
S=1 N
S

C
Ŝt
Šk=
k Sa

Equation 12 A model for supporting ‘serendipity engineering for seductive hypermedia’ and ‘user analysis using socialnomics’

Equation 12 combines Equation 9 to Equation 11 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 (Bishop & Goode, 2021). It can be seen that the k-score value produced by the parametric user
model (Equation 8) 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
given community (Nc) and on the second occasion as kSa it is included to refer to a specific actor being studied, such as a specific
online community member being investigated by a clinical psychologist. Equation 12 therefore computes the probability of a
specific actor 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. However, it has been argued that linking serendipity to chance is only part of
understanding it as a “plot” (De Rond, 2014). Such information can assist in assessing the risk of a given actor being drawn into
situations that might feel desirable but would cause them harm, including the development of compulsive behaviours leading to
 digital addiction. To detect digital addiction a clinical psychologist could use the TIWWCHNT-20 scale (Bishop, 2014; Bishop,
2017) for determining phantasies and the digital addiction checklist (Bishop, 2015) for determining fantasies. By assisting with a
diagnosis, a clinical psychologist can be of great assistance to an actor in managing their health (Fan, Lin, & Lin, 2015).

Š k ag=
( 100
( median ( Ṡk C ) ) ) ¿ Š ko

Equation 13 Computing an actor’s (a) higher order (g) Serendipity (Šk) probability (Škag) towards an artefact (o) based on median of organic
Serendipity (Šk) responses to an object (o) within a group (C)

Equation 14 Equation for calculating median (Courtesy: Wikimedia Foundation)

Equation 13 (Bishop & Goode, 2021) is used along with Equation 14 (Bishop & Goode, 2021) to compute the higher order
thinking required to determine how able someone is to take advantage of a serendipitous event.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
[]
DISCUSSION
This chapter expends the application of the ecological cognition framework to serendipity engineering, seductive hypermedia,
user analysis and socialnomics. It updates the theory to better account for the advances in computational science computational
intelligence. In terms of ‘serendipity engineering for seductive hypermedia,’ the chapter 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. In terms of ‘user analysis using socialnomics,’ it looks at how a parametric
user model based on the ecological framework can be used to understand users of information systems. To do this number of
socialnomics equations based on the parametric user model are explored, 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.
ANNEX I – TABLES FOR CALCULATING THE CONVERSION OF COGNITIONS INTO PHANTASIES
This annex presents tables for calculating phantasies (p i), which are a core part of the parametric user model (Bishop & Goode,
2021).

Table 7 is for converting goals and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Goals run from 1 to 9,
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. A
goal that is perceived as external to an actor is called a strategy.

Table 7 Compound identity – Converting goals and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Signification Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transfor

Represent Internal External mer
ation Representa Representa
tion tion

x / x4 S ˘
x1 / Ca y / y2 a ˘ eS
y1 / Cb z / z3S ˘ dS
z2 / Cb ˘
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS /
eS eS
2 c 1 dS
Goal 0 Goal 0 Strategy 0 41 8
Goal 0 Plan 3 Method 3 23 4.4

Goal 0 Value 0 Rule 0 18.5 3.5

Goal 0 Belief 4 Meme 4 32 6.2

Goal 0 Interest 0 Amity 0 45.5 8.9

Goal 0 Detachment 1 Enmity 1 27.5 5.3

Table 8 is for converting plans and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Plans run from -2 to 2,
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. A
plan that is perceived as external to an actor is called a method.

Table 8 Compound identity – Converting plans and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Significatio Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transforme

Representa n Internal External r
tion Representa Representa
tion tion

x / x4 S ˘
x1 / Ca y / y2a ˘ eS
y1 / Cb z / z3S ˘ dS
z2 / Cb ˘
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS /
eS eS
2 c 1 dS
Plan 3 Goal 0 Strategy 0 23 4.4
Plan 3 Plan 3 Method 3 13 2.4
Plan 3 Value 0 Rule 0 10.5 1.9
Plan 3 Belief 4 Meme 4 18 3.4
Plan 3 Interest 0 Amity 0 25.5 4.9
Plan 3 Detachmen 1 Enmity 1 18 3.4
t

Table 9 is for converting values and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Values run from 1 to
4, 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.
A value that is perceived as external to an actor is called a rule.

Table 9 Compound identity – Converting values and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reduce Significa Reduce Signified Reduce Shifter Transfor

Represe r tion r External r mer
ntation Internal Represe
Represe ntation
ntation
x / x4 S x1 / y / y2 a y1 / z / z3 S z2 / z ̆ / c / c 1 eS /
 Ca˘ eS Cb˘ eS Cb˘ dS Cc˘ eS 2 c 1 dS
Value 0 Goal 0 Strategy 0 18.5 3.5

Value 0 Plan 3 Method 3 10.5 1.9

Value 0 Value 0 Rule 0 8.5 1.5

Value 0 Belief 4 Meme 4 14.5 2.7

Value 0 Interest 0 Amity 0 20.5 3.9

Value 0 Detach 1 Enmity 1 14.5 2.7

ment
Value 0 Faith 1 Illusion 1 4.5 0.7

Value 0 Ardour 2 Delusion 2 4.5 0.7

Table 10 is for converting beliefs and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Beliefs run from -3
to +3, 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. A belief that is perceived as external to an actor is called a meme.

Table 10 Compound identity – Converting beliefs and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Signification Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transformer

Representa Internal External
tion Representati Representati
on on
x / x4 S ˘
x1 / Ca y / y2 a ˘
y1 / Cb z / z3 S ˘
z2 / Cb ˘
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS /
eS eS dS eS
2 c 1 dS

Belief 4 Goal 0 Strategy 0 32 6.2

Belief 4 Plan 3 Method 3 18 3.4

Belief 4 Value 0 Rule 0 14.5 2.7

Belief 4 Belief 4 Meme 4 25 4.8

Belief 4 Interest 0 Amity 0 35.5 6.9

Belief 4 Detachment 1 Enmity 1 21.5 4.1

Belief 4 Faith 1 Illusion 1 7.5 1.3

Belief 4 Ardour 2 Delusion 2 7.5 1.3

Table 11 is for converting interests and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Interests run from
1 to 10, 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. An interest that is perceived as external to an actor is called an amity.

Table 11 Compound identity – Converting interests and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Signification Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transformer

Represent Internal External
ation Representation Representati
on

x / x4 S ˘
x1 / Ca y / y2 a ˘
y1 / Cb z / z3 S ˘
z2 / Cb ˘
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS /
eS eS dS eS
2 c 1 dS
Interest 0 Goal 0 Strategy 0 45.5 8.9

Interest 0 Plan 3 Method 3 25.5 4.9

Interest 0 Value 0 Rule 0 20.5 3.9

Interest 0 Belief 4 Meme 4 35.5 6.

Interest 0 Interest 0 Amity 0 50.5 9.9

Interest 0 Detachment 1 Enmity 1 35.5 6.9
Interest 0 Faith 1 Illusion 1 10.5 1.9
Interest 0 Ardour 2 Delusion 2 10.5 1.9

Table 12 is for converting detachments and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Detachments
run from 0 to 6, 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. A detachment that is perceived as external to an actor is called a enmity.

Table 12 Compound identity – Converting detachments and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Signification Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transformer

Representatio Internal External
n Representa Representa
tion tion
x / x4 S ˘
x1 / Ca y / y2 a ˘
y1 / Cb z / z3 S ˘
z2 / Cb ˘
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS / 2 c 1 dS
eS eS dS eS

Detachment 1 Goal 0 Strategy 0 32 6.2

Detachment 1 Plan 3 Method 3 18 3.4
Detachment 1 Value 0 Rule 0 14.5 2.7
Detachment 1 Belief 4 Meme 4 25 4.8
Detachment 1 Interest 0 Amity 0 35.5 6.9
Detachment 1 Detachment 1 Enmity 1 25 4.8
Detachment 1 Faith 1 Illusion 1 7.5 1.3
Detachment 1 Ardour 2 Delusion 2 7.5 1.3
Table 13 is for converting faiths and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Faiths run from Null
(0) to 5, 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. A faith that is perceived as external to an actor is called an illusion.

Table 13 Compound identity – Converting faiths and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Significatio Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transformer

Represent n Internal External
ation Representa Representation
tion
x / x4 S ˘ eS
x1 / Ca y / y2a ˘ eS
y1 / Cb z / z3 S ˘ dS
z2 / Cb ˘ eS
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS /
2 c 1 dS
Faith 1 Goal 0 Strategy 0 9.5 3.4

Faith 1 Plan 3 Method 3 5.5 1.8

Faith 1 Value 0 Rule 0 4.5 1.4

Faith 1 Belief 4 Meme 4 7.5 2.6

Faith 1 Interest 0 Amity 0 10.5 3.8

Faith 1 Detachme 1 Enmity 1 7.5 2.6

nt
Faith 1 Faith 1 Illusion 1 2.5 0.6

Faith 1 Ardour 2 Delusion 2 4.5 1

Table 14 is for converting ardours and other cognitions into phantasies and fantasies (Bishop & Goode, 2021). Ardours run from -
1 to Null (0), 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. An ardour that is perceived as external to an actor is called a delusion. A faith phantasy, however, runs from 0 to 5,
and a faith fantasy from 0 to 2.5. A ardour phantasy runs from 0 to -5 and a ardour fantasy from 0 to -2.5.

Table 14 Compound identity – Converting ardours and other cognitions into phantasies

Signifier Reducer Signification Reducer Signified Reducer Shifter Transforme

Representa Internal External r
tion Representa Representa
tion tion
x / x4 S ˘
x1 / Ca y / y2 a ˘
y1 / Cb z / z3 S ˘
z2 / Cb ˘
z ̆ / Cc c / c 1 eS /
eS eS dS eS
2 c 1 dS
Ardour 2 Goal 0 Strategy 0 1 -3.4

Ardour 2 Plan 3 Method 3 1 -1.8

 Ardour 2 Value 0 Rule 0 1 -1.4

Ardour Belief 4 Meme 4 1 -2.6

Ardour 2 Interest 0 Amity 0 1 -3.8

Ardour 2 Detachmen 1 Enmity 1 1 -2.6

t
Ardour 2 Faith 1 Illusion 1 1 -0.6

Ardour 2 Ardour 2 Delusion 2 1 -1

References

Argyle, M. (1992). The social psychology of everyday life. London: Routledge.

Argyle, M. (1994). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. London, GB: Penguin Group.

Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an

old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21-32.

Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., & Wheelwright, S. (2003). The systemizing quotient: An investigation

of adults with asperger syndrome or high–functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society of London.Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 361-374.

Beetz, M., & McDermott, D. (1992). Declarative goals in reactive plans. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First

Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS'92), College Park, MD. pp. 3-12.

Bishop, J. (2007). Ecological cognition: A new dynamic for human-computer interaction. In B. Wallace, A. Ross, J. Davies & T.

Anderson (Eds.), The mind, the body and the world: Psychology after cognitivism (pp. 327-345). Exeter, GB: Imprint

Academic.
Bishop, J. (2009). Enhancing the understanding of genres of web-based communities: The role of the ecological cognition

framework. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 5(1), 4-17.

Bishop, J. (2011). The equatrics of intergenerational knowledge transformation in techno-cultures: Towards a model for

enhancing information management in virtual worlds. (MScEcon, Aberystwyth University).

Bishop, J. (2013). Assisting human interaction (US/20130095460 ed.). US: PCT/GB2011/050814/A1.

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.

Bishop, J. (2015). Determining the risk of digital addiction to adolescent targets of internet trolling: Implications for the UK legal

system. In J. Bishop (Ed.), Psychological and social implications surrounding internet and gaming addiction (pp. 31-42).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

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 Y. Ibrahim (Ed.), Politics, protest, and empowerment in digital spaces (pp. 153-177).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bishop, J. (2019). Quantifying participation in large-scale virtual environments: Encouraging opportunities for serendipity while

managing digital addiction. In B. Bozoglan (Ed.), Multifaceted approach to digital addiction and its treatment (pp. 177-

206). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bishop, J. (April 08 2006). Social change in organic and virtual communities: An exploratory study of bishop desires. University

of Winchester.

Bishop, J. (July 04 2005). A model for understanding and influencing behaviour in virtual communities. International Conference

on Postcognitivist Psychology, Glasgow, GB. pp. 5.

Bishop, J. (May 19 2013). ‘The empathic psychopathy in public life: 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.

Bishop, J. (September 08 2009). Increasing membership in online communities: The five principles of managing virtual club

economies. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internet Technologies and Applications - ITA09, Wrexham,

GB. pp. 12-20.

Bishop, J., & Goode, M. M. H. (2021). Towards ‘serendipity engineering for seductive hypermedia’ and ‘user analysis using

socialnomics’: The role of ecological cognition. The 8th International Conference on Computational Science &

Computational Intelligence (CSCI'21), Las Vegas, NV.

Bishop, J., Kommers, P. A. M., & Bechkoum, K. (In Press). Ecological cognition for measuring psi-hit and psi-miss online: Using

K-scores to understand anomalistic psychology in project management teams. International Journal of Innovation,

Management and Technology,

Bolognini, S. (1997). Empathy and ‘empathism’. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 78(2), 279-293.

Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of

group goal-related variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(3), 245-260.

Cassidy, W., Brown, K., & Jackson, M. (2013). Moving from cyber-bullying to cyber-kindness: What do students, educators and

parents say? In J. Bishop (Ed.), Examining the concepts, issues and implications of internet trolling (pp. 62-83). Hershey,

PA: IGI Global.

Cunliffe, D., & Elliott, G. (2005). Multimedia computing. Newcastle under Lyme: Lexden Publishing Ltd.

de Lope, J. (2007). Concepts and models for the future generation of emotional and intelligent systems. Paper presented at the

International Work-Conference on the Interplay between Natural and Artificial Computation, pp. 41-50.

De Rond, M. (2014). The structure of serendipity. Culture and Organization, 20(5), 342-358.

Fan, S., Lin, W., & Lin, I. (2015). Psychosocial care and the role of clinical psychologists in palliative care. American Journal of

Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, 32(8), 861-868.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (introducing statistical methods series) (2nd ed.). London, GB: Sage

Publications Ltd.
Fishbein, M. (1967a). A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the

object. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 389-400). Chichester, GB: John Wiley &

Sons Ltd.

Fishbein, M. (Ed.). (1967b). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. Chichester, GB: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan

Kaufmann.

Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International

Conference on Persuasive Technology, pp. 40.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gilbert, P. (1998). Laughter in a dark wood. Jewish Quarterly, 45(4), 11-12.

Hansen, G. L. (1982). Reactions to hypothetical, jealously producing events. Family Relations, , 513-518.

Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic

definitions. Journal of Politeness Research.Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(2), 215-242.

Hutchins, E. (2000). Ecological cognition and cognitive ecology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, , 44. (22) pp. 566-569.

Icke, D. (2017). Everything you need to know: But have never been told. Derby, GB: David Icke Books.

Jansen, E. (Ed.). (2002). NetLingo: The internet dictionary. Ojai, CA: Netlingo Inc.

Jansen, E., & James, V. (Eds.). (1995). NetLingo: The internet dictionary. Ojai, CA: Netlingo Inc.
Jensen, T. W. (2017). Doing metaphor: An ecological perspective on metaphoricity in discourse. Metaphor: Embodied Cognition

and Discourse, , 257.

Jensen, T. W., & Greve, L. (2019). Ecological cognition and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 1-16.

Johansson Falck, M. (2018). From ecological cognition to language: When and why do speakers use words metaphorically?

Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 61-84.

Johnson, A. J. (2012). The servant lord: A word of caution regarding the munus triplex in karl barth's theology and the church

today. Scottish Journal of Theology, 65(2), 159-173.

Lambropoulos, N., Fardoun, H. M., & Alghazzawi, D. M. (2016). Chrono-spatial intelligence in global systems science and social

media: Predictions for proactive political decision making. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social

Computing and Social Media, pp. 201-208.

Leavitt, A. J. (2017). Combatting toxic online communities (1st ed.). New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.

Leung, L. (2003). Impacts of net-generation attributes, seductive properties of the internet, and gratifications-obtained on internet

use. Telematics and Informatics, 20(2), 107-129.

Lubit, R. H. (2003). Coping with toxic managers, subordinates... and other difficult people: Using emotional intelligence to

survive and prosper FT Press.

Maina, G. M. (2017). Influence of organizational and technology factors on digital media integration in new product launch

projects.A case of unilever, kenya. (Doctoral degree, University of Nairobi).

Mantovani, G. (1996). New communication environments: From everyday to virtual. London, GB: Taylor & Francis.

Mantovani, G. (2000). Exploring borders: Understanding culture and psychology. Abinbton, GB: Routledge.

Mbakwe, C., & Cunliffe, D. (2002). Towards systematically engineered seductive hypermedia (Working Paper. Treforest, GB:

University of Glamorgan.
Mbakwe, C., & Cunliffe, D. (2007). Hypermedia seduction: Further exploration of the process of "seductive" online user

interaction. In B. Ganor, & K. von Knop (Eds.), Hypermedia seduction for terrorist recruiting (pp. 207). New York, NY:

IOS Press, Inc.

Mbakwe, C., & Cunliffe, D. (September 25 2003). Conceptualising the process of hypermedia seduction. The 1st International

Meeting of Science and Technology Design: Senses and Sensibility – Linking Tradition to Innovation through Design

(IADE'2003), Lisbon, Portugal. , 03. (011) pp. 81-93.

Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine american lifestyles: Who we are & where we are going. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co.,

Inc.

Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. S. (2001). Consumer behavior: A framework. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Muirhead, B. (2007). Integrating creativity into online university classes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 1-

13.

Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer

interface (pp. 17-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pentina, I., Prybutok, V. R., & Zhang, X. (2008). The role of virtual communities as shopping reference groups. Journal of

Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 114.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Finding commection in a computerized world (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-

Wesley Longman Publishing.

Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (2nd ed.). Cambridgs, MA: The MIT

Press.

Saul, C., Becker, M., Hofmann, P., & Pharow, P. (2011). Competency-based approach to support learning objectives in learning,

education and training. Paper presented at the E-Learning Fachtagung Informatik (DeLFI 2011), Dresden, DE.

Searle, J. R. (1996). The construction of social reality. London, GB: Penguin Books.

Senécal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team

goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 186-199.

Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 357-370.

Sosnowska, M. (2013). Necrophelia and the strange case of afterlife. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 48(2-3), 103-123.

Steventon, A., & Wright, S. (2010). Intelligent spaces: The application of pervasive ICT Springer Science & Business Media.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge

University Press.

Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University

Press.

Thelwall, M. (2009). Webometrics. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences, third edition (pp. 5634-5643) CRC Press.

Thelwall, M., Vaughan, L., & Björneborn, L. (2005). Webometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,

39(1), 81-135.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wanamaker, C. A. (1987). Philippians 2.6–11: Son of god or adamic christology? New Testament Studies, 33(2), 179-193.

Wiher, H. (2002). Understanding shame and guilt as a key to cross-cultural christian ministry. (Doctor of Philosophy,

Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christerlike Hoer Onderwys).

Willmott, S. (2004). Deploying intelligent systems on a global scale. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(5), 71-73.

Yao, L. (2016). Position the brand: Identify the role of social media for public accounting firms Liberty University.

Key Terms and Definitions

Captology
Ecological cognition framework
Seductive hypermedia
Serendipity engineering
Socialnomics
User analysis