Surface-based binding assays are often influenced by the transport of analyte to the sensor surface. Using simulated data sets, we test a simple two-compartment model to see if its description of transport and binding is sufficient to accurately analyze BIACORE data. First we present a computer model that can generate realistic BIACORE data. This model calculates the laminar flow of analyte within the flow cell, its diffusion both perpendicular and parallel to the sensor surface, and the reversible chemical reaction between analyte and immobilized reactant. We use this computer model to generate binding data under a variety of conditions. An analysis of these data sets with the two-compartment model demonstrates that good estimates of the intrinsic reaction rate constants are recovered even when mass transport influences the binding reaction. We also discuss the conditions under which the two-compartment model can be used to determine the diffusion coefficient of the analyte. Our results illustrate that this model can significantly extend the range of association rate constants that can be accurately determined from BIACORE.

No abstract

Research has shown limited support for the notion that perceived effectiveness of collective action is a predictor of intentions to engage in collective action. One reason may be that effectiveness has been in terms of whether the action will influence key decision makers. We argue that the effectiveness of collective action might be judged by other criteria, such as whether it influences third parties, builds an oppositional movement, and expresses values. Two hundred and thirty one attendees at a rally rated the effectiveness of the rally and their intentions to engage in future collective action. For those participants who were not members of an organization, intentions were linked to the perceived effectiveness of the rally in expressing values and influencing the public. For those who were members of an organization, intentions were linked only to the effectiveness of the rally in building an oppositional movement.It is well documented that people's concerns about social and economic issues do not necessarily translate into collective action (Klandermans, 2002;Olson, 1968). For example, a 1983 Gallup poll (cited in Fox & Schofield, 1989 revealed that approximately 40% of people in the U.S. believed that it was likely that there would be nuclear war by 1998, and 70% believed that they would not survive a nuclear war. Despite this, surveys in the 1980s showed that only a very small minority of people engaged in collective

No abstract

A frequent suggestion to increase individuals' willingness to take action on climate change and to support relevant policies is to highlight its proximal consequences, that is, consequences that are close in space and time. However, previous studies that have tested this proximising approach have not revealed the expected positive effects on individual action and support for addressing climate change. We present three lines of psychological reasoning that provide compelling arguments as to why highlighting proximal impacts of climate change might not be as effective a way to increase individual mitigation and adaptation efforts as is often assumed. Our contextualisation of the proximising approach within established psychological research suggests that, depending on the particular theoretical perspective one takes to this issue, and on specific individual characteristics suggested by these perspectives, proximising can bring about the intended positive effects, can have no (visible) effect, or can even backfire. Thus, the effects of proximising are much more complex than is commonly assumed. Revealing this complexity contributes to a refined theoretical understanding of the role psychological distance plays in the context of climate change and opens up further avenues for future research and for interventions. KeywordsPsychological distance, personal experience, place attachment, threat, risk perception, defensiveness, mitigation, adaptation 3 Research on public perceptions of climate change often shows that people, at least in Western countries, typically perceive climate change as a distant threat, as something that affects strangers, and as something that happens in remote times and places, rather than in the here and now [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (for an exception, see ref. 8 ). This perception of climate change as a distant threat is problematic because it implies little personal relevance. Low levels of personal relevance in turn are problematic because individuals' perception of being personally at risk can be an important motivation to take action against the source of that risk 9-14 .Consistent with this analysis, it has repeatedly been suggested that highlighting the proximal consequences of climate change could be an important part of strategies to engage and mobilize publics around this issue 3,[15][16][17][18][19][20] . Although the assumed psychological mechanism of proximising is often not verbalised (see also ref. 21 , where the term is used to describe a discursive strategy in which the speaker presents physically and temporally distant events as close and directly relevant to the addressee), the rationale behind proximising climate change seems to be that this approach (a) decreases the psychological distance between the issue and individuals who could or should act 17,22 and, (b) makes the consequences of climate change easier to visualise 4,23 and more personally relevant 24,25 . Moreover, proximising climate change is believed to increase (emotional) concern 16,22,26,27 and the feeling o...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract