Do consumers buy own labels differently from the branded goods of manufacturers? Contrary to some of the beliefs currently held in the trade, own labels are found to be bought much like brands, and loyalty is only slightly above average. Usually, own labels are just one item in a repertoire: consumers will buy other brands, they will buy at other stores, and they will buy the own labels of other stores.
Scene gist, a viewer's holistic representation of a scene from a single eye fixation, has been extensively studied for terrestrial views, but not for aerial views. We compared rapid scene categorization of both views in three experiments to determine the degree to which diagnostic information is view dependent versus view independent.We found large differences in observers' ability to rapidly categorize aerial and terrestrial scene views, consistent with the idea that scene gist recognition is viewpoint dependent.In addition, computational modeling showed that training models on one view (aerial or terrestrial) led to poor performance on the other view, thereby providing further evidence of viewpoint dependence as a function of available information. Importantly, we found that rapid categorization of terrestrial views (but not aerial views) was strongly interfered with by image rotation, further suggesting that terrestrial-view scene gist recognition is viewpoint dependent, with aerial-view scene recognition being viewpoint independent. Furthermore, rotation-invariant texture images synthesized from aerial views of scenes were twice as recognizable as those synthesized from terrestrial views of scenes (which were at chance), providing further evidence that diagnostic information for rapid scene categorization of aerial views is viewpoint invariant. We discuss the results within a perceptual-expertise framework that distinguishes between configural and featural processing, where terrestrial views are more effectively processed due to their predictable view-dependent configurations whereas aerial views are processed less effectively due to reliance on view-independent features.
HIV testing is recommended for most adults regardless of risk. Unfortunately, the high sensitivity and specificity of home HIV tests may often be misinterpreted. Here, we assessed risk comprehension in a sample of young adults who received the manufacture's home HIV test brochure. Results indicated that most participants accurately answered some risk-relevant questions (e.g., what is the test sensitivity?). Individual differences in numeracy predicted more thorough review of relevant risk information and were associated with some superior inferences (i.e., estimating false negative rates). However, regardless of numeracy, participants tended to dramatically overestimate the probability that a positive test result was a true positive (i.e., the positive predictive value), showing marked overconfidence in their incorrect interpretations. Results highlight current strengths and limits of the standard informational brochure. Implications and opportunities for improving risk communication in Home HIV testing are briefly discussed.
Revised Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations on HIV testing now promote testing of most risk groups. However, positive results for low-risk individuals are more likely to be false positives than for high-risk individuals, making clear communication of test results even more imperative. In a study, we evaluated current counseling of low-risk test recipients via a sample of 29 HIV hotline counselors from U.S. state and national hotlines. 100% of counselors interviewed failed to provide an accurate conditional HIV risk for low-risk women, but were more likely than a 1998 German sample to report that false positives could occur. In a second study, undergraduates read idealized transcripts of interviews with HIV counselors and computed conditional risk for a low-risk individual. The natural frequency format offered a small but significant improvement in conditional reasoning, comparable to the effect of numerical literacy. Applications for ecologically valid numerical presentations of risk and implications for numeracy are discussed.
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.