Taboo words are defined and sanctioned by institutions of power (e.g., religion, media), and prohibitions are reiterated in child-rearing practices. Native speakers acquire folk knowledge of taboo words, but it lacks the complexity that psychological science requires for an understanding of swearing. Misperceptions persist in psychological science and in society at large about how frequently people swear or what it means when they do. Public recordings of taboo words establish the commonplace occurrence of swearing (ubiquity), although frequency data are not always appreciated in laboratory research. A set of 10 words that has remained stable over the past 20 years accounts for 80% of public swearing. Swearing is positively correlated with extraversion and Type A hostility but negatively correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, religiosity, and sexual anxiety. The uniquely human facility for swearing evolved and persists because taboo words can communicate emotion information (anger, frustration) more readily than nontaboo words, allowing speakers to achieve a variety of personal and social goals with them (utility). A neuro-psycho-social framework is offered to unify taboo word research. Suggestions for future research are offered.

No abstract

In this paper we show how audience expectations towards what is presented on public displays can correlate with their attention towards these displays. Similar to the effect of Banner Blindness on the Web, displays for which users expect uninteresting content (e.g. advertisements) are often ignored. We investigate this effect in two studies. In the first, interviews with 91 users at 11 different public displays revealed that for most public displays, the audience expects boring advertisements and so ignores the displays. This was exemplified by the inclusion of two of our own displays. One, the iDisplay, which showed information for students, was looked at more often than the other (MobiDiC) which showed coupons for shops. In a second study, we conducted repertory grid interviews with 17 users to identify the dimensions that users believe to influence whether they look at public displays. We propose possible solutions to overcome this "Display Blindness" and increase audience attention towards public displays.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

People remember emotional and taboo words better than neutral words. It is well known that words that are processed at a deep (i.e., semantic) level are recalled better than words processed at a shallow (i.e., purely visual) level. To determine how depth of processing influences recall of emotional and taboo words, a levels of processing paradigm was used. Whether this effect holds for emotional and taboo words has not been previously investigated. Two experiments demonstrated that taboo and emotional words benefit less from deep processing than do neutral words. This is consistent with the proposal that memories for taboo and emotional words are a function of the arousal level they evoke, even under shallow encoding conditions. Recall was higher for taboo words, even when taboo words were cued to be recalled after neutral and emotional words. The superiority of taboo word recall is consistent with cognitive neuroscience and brain imaging research.

This article focuses on parents' experiences and practices supporting children's mathematics learning. We employ a conceptual framework that makes a distinction between school-centered and parent-centered approaches to parental involvement in children's learning. We review literature showing that aspects of both school-centered and parent-centered approaches can be problematic, and explore this further in a group interview study. Group interviews were conducted with parents of children in 16 primary schools in a city in the southwest of England. Topics of discussion included parents' level of confidence and perceived ability in mathematics, their experience of doing mathematics with their children out-ofschool, and their interactions with school about mathematics. Findings revealed some specific negative effects of schoolcentered approaches, and suggested that school-centered approaches may in fact restrict parents' understanding of how they can support mathematics learning in the home. However, the analysis also adds useful depth to our understanding of opportunities associated with a parent-centered approach to parental involvement in mathematics learning.