Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach

Development of a Japanese version of the Awe... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515" }, "headline": "Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach", "datePublished": "2023-05-18T13:29:46", "dateModified": "2023-10-13T16:06:40", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ryota Takano" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Akiko Matsuo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kazuaki Kawano" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Background: Awe, a complex emotion, arises in response to perceptually and conceptually vast stimuli that transcend one’s current frames of reference, which is associated with subjective psychological phenomena, such as a sense of self and consciousness. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S), a widely used questionnaire that robustly measured the state of awe, and simultaneously investigated how the multiple facets of awe related to the narrative representations of awe experiences. Methods: The Japanese AWE-S was created via back-translation and its factor structure and validity was investigated through an online survey in Japan. Results: The results revealed that the Japanese AWE-S consisted of the same six factors as the original (i.e., time, self-loss, connectedness, vastness, physiological, and accommodation) and had sufficient internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and also Japan-specific characteristics. The structured topic modeling generated seven potential topics of the descriptions of awe experiences, which were differently associated with each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. Conclusions: Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of awe and reveal the constructs of awe in Japan through cross-cultural comparisons. Furthermore, this study provides conceptual and methodological implications regarding studies on awe." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2", "name": "Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S):..." } } ] } Home Browse Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S):... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Takano R, Matsuo A and Kawano K. Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Ryota Takano https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1077-2322 1,2 , Akiko Matsuo 3 , Kazuaki Kawano 4 Ryota Takano https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1077-2322 1,2 , Akiko Matsuo 3 , Kazuaki Kawano 4 PUBLISHED 13 Oct 2023 Author details Author details 1 Kojimachi Business Center Building, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, 102-0083, Japan 2 Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan 3 Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo, 153-8904, Japan 4 Department of Psychology, Tokai Gakuen University, Nagoya, Aichi, 468-8514, Japan Ryota Takano Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Akiko Matsuo Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Kazuaki Kawano Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Japan Institutional Gateway gateway. Abstract Background: Awe, a complex emotion, arises in response to perceptually and conceptually vast stimuli that transcend one’s current frames of reference, which is associated with subjective psychological phenomena, such as a sense of self and consciousness. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S), a widely used questionnaire that robustly measured the state of awe, and simultaneously investigated how the multiple facets of awe related to the narrative representations of awe experiences. Methods: The Japanese AWE-S was created via back-translation and its factor structure and validity was investigated through an online survey in Japan. Results: The results revealed that the Japanese AWE-S consisted of the same six factors as the original (i.e., time, self-loss, connectedness, vastness, physiological, and accommodation) and had sufficient internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and also Japan-specific characteristics. The structured topic modeling generated seven potential topics of the descriptions of awe experiences, which were differently associated with each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. Conclusions: Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of awe and reveal the constructs of awe in Japan through cross-cultural comparisons. Furthermore, this study provides conceptual and methodological implications regarding studies on awe. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords awe, emotion, scale, text-mining, narrative, topic modeling, culture, questionnaire Corresponding Author(s) Ryota Takano ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Ryota Takano Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (22J00783). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2023 Takano R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Takano R, Matsuo A and Kawano K. Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.2 ) First published: 18 May 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.1 ) Latest published: 13 Oct 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 Based on the reviewers' comments, major and minor changes were made to improve clarity and accuracy. We have provided a clear delineation of the role of the DPES in the Introduction within the context of this study. Furthermore, we incorporated the interpretations of the results of Expected Topic Proportions for STM into our discussion. We have compiled participants’ demographic characteristics from both the main and the pilot studies, along with details regarding the specific statistical analyses conducted, in Table 1. Based on the reviewers' comments, major and minor changes were made to improve clarity and accuracy. We have provided a clear delineation of the role of the DPES in the Introduction within the context of this study. Furthermore, we incorporated the interpretations of the results of Expected Topic Proportions for STM into our discussion. We have compiled participants’ demographic characteristics from both the main and the pilot studies, along with details regarding the specific statistical analyses conducted, in Table 1. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Hidefumi Hitokoto See the authors' detailed response to the review by William L. D. Krenzer READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Awe is an emotional response to perceptually and conceptually vast stimuli that transcend one’s current frames of reference ( Keltner & Haidt, 2003 ). It has been studied in various fields, such as psychology, economics, neuroscience, immunology, and public health ( Guan et al. , 2018 ; Ibanez et al. , 2017 ; Monroy & Keltner, 2022 ; Piff et al. , 2015 ; Sawada & Nomura, 2020 ; Stellar et al. , 2015 ; Sun et al. , 2021 ; Takano & Nomura, 2022b ; van Elk et al. , 2019 ). Previous studies have shown that awe is associated with subjective psychological phenomena, such as a sense of self and consciousness, which highlights the need for a standardized questionnaire to assess the various dimensions of awe experiences ( Bai et al. , 2017 ; Rudd et al. , 2012 ; Takano & Nomura, 2021 ). The Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S), a widely used questionnaire that robustly measures the state of awe ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ), has been translated into several languages ( Landrum et al. , 2022 ; Ling-xiao et al. , 2022 ; Rodrigues et al. , 2022 ; van Houwelingen-Snippe et al. , 2020 ). However, how the multiple facets of awe measured by the AWE-S relate to the representations of awe experiences in different cultural contexts remains unclear. Simultaneously, there is no reliable and valid standardized Japanese version of the AWE-S. Therefore, it is important to develop a standardized Japanese AWE-S and investigate its narrative dimensions not only for a deeper understanding of the complex emotion of awe and revealing the construct of awe in Japan through cross-cultural comparisons, but also for investigating the psychological mechanisms underlying the various effects of awe on mental health and social behavior ( Bai et al. , 2021 ; Liu et al. , 2023 ; Piff et al. , 2015 ; Stellar et al. , 2018 ; Sturm et al. , 2022 ; Takano & Nomura, 2021 ). The AWE-S questionnaire comprises six factors: time, self-loss, connectedness, vastness, physiological, and accommodation ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ). Time captures the perception of time expansion in awe experiences, which may indicate a shift in mental state towards a further mindful, moment-to-moment awareness, such as here and now ( Gregory et al. , 2023 ; Kramer et al. , 2013 ; Rudd et al. , 2012 ; Yaden et al. , 2019 ). Self-loss reflects the phenomenon where awe can diminish one’s sense of self, leading to feelings of insignificance ( Bai et al. , 2017 ; Piff et al. , 2015 ; Takano & Nomura, 2021 ). Connectedness indicates that awe experiences can create a greater sense of connection between individuals and their surroundings, which includes the supernatural, such as God(s) ( Liu et al. , 2023 ; Van Cappellen & Saroglou, 2012 ). Vastness pertains to the perception of vastness vis-à-vis the self, where individuals encounter physically or conceptually enormous stimuli ( Keltner & Haidt, 2003 ; Landrum et al. , 2022 ). Physiological captures awe-related physiological phenomena, such as goosebumps ( Quesnel & Riecke, 2018 ; Williams et al. , 2022 ). Accommodation reflects the process of needing to adjust one’s understanding or cognitive framework to comprehend new information or experiences, such as those often experienced during awe-inspiring situations ( Keltner & Haidt, 2003 ; Taylor & Uchida, 2019 ; Valdesolo et al. , 2016 ). Yaden et al. (2019) showed that the AWE-S, measured after one recalled and described their experience of awe, was positively associated with trait measures of tendency to experience awe, which was salient for the factors of time, connectedness, vastness, and physiological. This suggested that the state measure of awe had enough convergent and divergent validity. Due to its robustness and usefulness, the AWE-S has been validated in several countries and cultures via translation into other languages, such as Chinese, Portuguese, and Dutch ( Landrum et al. , 2022 ; Li & Qian, 2022 ; Ling-xiao et al. , 2022 ; Rodrigues et al. , 2022 ; van Houwelingen-Snippe et al. , 2020 ). Universal components and cultural variations of awe-related phenomena have been identified via this scale. However, despite the creation and development of other scales to measure awe in Japan, the AWE-S has not yet been translated into the Japanese language ( Nakayama et al. , 2020 ; Sawada & Nomura, 2023 ). To facilitate further comprehensive cross-cultural comparisons, development of a Japanese version of the AWE-S, which can provide a deeper understanding of awe, is necessary. Previous studies suggested that cultural similarities and differences in awe experiences were important perspectives to understand its generality and heterogeneity ( Bai et al. , 2017 ; Nakayama et al. , 2020 ; Nakayama & Uchida, 2020 ; Razavi et al. , 2016 ; Sawada & Nomura, 2023 ). Specifically, it was necessary to consider how awe altered the sense of self and differed across cultures, although the small self-effect was a general and robust phenomenon ( Bai et al. , 2017 ; Nomura et al. , 2021 ; Takano & Nomura, 2021 ). Awe could manifest differently among individuals from East Asian cultures, such as Japan, compared to those from Western cultures according to their culturally, historically, and religiously cultivated views of the self. Particularly, the self is represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds. Meanwhile, it is represented as separated and continuous concepts by others in Western cultures ( Nomura et al. , 2021 ; Sugimoto, 2020 ; Takano & Nomura, 2019 , 2022a ). Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) advocated independent and interdependent self-construals. Independent self-construals, more widespread in North American and Western European cultures, prioritize an individual’s needs, whereas interdependent self-construals, more common in Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, prioritize one’s social interactions. Thus, a Japanese AWE-S could reveal culture-specific patterns, especially regarding sense of self. From the perspective of state awe, it is important to address how people narrate their awe experiences in their cultural context for a deeper understanding ( Nakayama & Uchida, 2020 ). Since the AWE-S is measured after participants recall and describe (i.e., write) their awe experiences ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ), their contents may have a role manifesting the responses to the AWE-S. Studies revealed that ratings on the AWE-S varied based on the elicitors of awe experiences ( Graziosi & Yaden, 2021 ; Yaden et al. , 2019 ). However, the aspects of narrated experience (i.e., the “potential topics”) associated with each factor of the AWE-S have not been investigated beyond the typology of awe experience. For example, looking up at the night sky or touching a grand theory are different types of experiences. However, both could be accompanied with common potential topic of “universe.” Similarly, different awe experiences narrated through the same elicitor could involve distinct potential topics, which could lead to the AWE-S being rated differently. This study aimed to develop a standardized Japanese AWE-S as well as investigate its relationships with linguistic generative processes underlying the expression of awe experiences. First, we created a Japanese version of the AWE-S via back-translation and confirmed its factor structure and test-retest reliability compared to the original AWE-S. Furthermore, its convergent and divergent validities were examined regarding its relation to the trait-awe (dispositional awe) questionnaire. We used the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) since previous studies demonstrated that awe-related phenomena observed via the DPES could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe ( Bai et al. , 2017 ; Piff et al. , 2015 ; Stellar et al. , 2018 ). We controlled other positive emotions to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. Second, we used a structural topic model (STM) and exploratorily examined whether and how each factor of AWE-S was associated with topics that underlie the narrative of awe experiences ( Roberts et al. , 2014 ). Using this model, we can focus not only on the type of experience, but also on the generative process of potential topics underlying how people feel in that experience and express it in natural language. Methods Study design and participants This study recruited Japanese participants through Qualtrics ( http://www.qualtrics.com ) via a Japanese crowdsourcing service, Crowd Works ( https://crowdworks.jp/ ). Participants were required to meet the a priori criterion that they were native Japanese speakers. For the main study, 358 responses were collected in November 2022. After 43 participants with incorrect answers for attention checks or duplicated IP addresses were excluded, 315 respondents were included (156 males, 156 females, and three others, M age = 42.64 years, SD = 10.08, Range : 20–79 years). Our target sample size was determined via a priori power analysis (G*Power) ( Faul et al. , 2007 ). To achieve 0.90 power at an α level of 0.05 for an effect size of r = .20, a medium effect of some explanatory and practical use even in the short run, a sample of 255 participants was required ( Funder & Ozer, 2019 ). To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the Japanese AWE-S, we requested participants to complete the same questionnaire again approximately one week later ( N = 91, 42 males, 48 females, and one other, M age = 43.37 years, SD = 9.86, Range : 24–71 years). Additionally, before data were collected for the main study, we conducted a separate pilot survey to assess the mean and variance of each item in the Japanese version of the AWE-S ( N = 137, 66 males, 70 females, and one other, M age = 42.26 years, SD = 8.78, Range : 22–64 years). Since the items used in the pilot survey were identical to those in the main study, we conducted factor analyses of the Japanese version of the AWE-S and text analyses via a combined sample of participants from both the pilot and main study ( N = 452). The questionnaires took approximately 15–20 minutes to answer and participants were paid 200 yen for their time (regarding the additional survey for the test-retest reliability, we paid 50 yen for 5 minutes). Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic information in the main and pilot studies as well as the statistical analyses. Table 1. Participants’ demographic information and applied statistical analyses in the main and pilot studies. Main study Pilot study N 315 137 Gender Males 156 66 Females 156 70 Others 3 1 Mean age 42.64 years 42.26 years Statistical analysis Factor analysis of the AWE-S X X Factor analysis of the DPES X Test re-test reliability X ( N = 91) T -test X X Correlation and regression analysis X Text analysis X X The study conformed to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki and its future amendments. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokaigakuen University (Ref-No. 2022-11). Written informed consent was obtained from all the study participants at the start of the survey. Participants had the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time without providing a reason. They were also explained to them that their responses would not be tied to them personally. This study was partly preregistered at https://aspredicted.org/n6ga7.pdf . Data and analysis codes are available under Underlying data ( Takano & Matsuo, 2023b ). Measures The following measures were used (we assessed other questionnaires for other related investigations), and participants’ demographic information (gender, age, and nationality) were enquired. Japanese versions of the Awe Experience Scale We translated the instructions and items of the AWE-S into Japanese with permission from the original authors. Subsequently, we used a translation service (NAI Inc.; https://www.nai.co.jp/ ) to back-translate the provisional Japanese version. Specific instructions in Japanese are available under Extended data ( Takano & Matsuo, 2023b ). As per Yaden et al. ’s study (2019), participants were instructed to recall a recent and intense awe experience and write it. Specifically, the instructions asked participants to reflect on a specific moment in time when they felt intense awe, and describe that experience in approximately two paragraphs in a designated text box. The instructions emphasized that participants should focus on the experience itself rather than what led up to it, what happened afterwards, or their interpretation. In addition, they were required to be as descriptive and specific as possible. Subsequently, participants responded to 30 items on the aspects of their awe experience. Each item was rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree , 7 = Strongly Agree ). To prevent the effects of recalling an awe experience on responses to other questionnaires, participants completed the AWE-S after all the other questionnaires. Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) The Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES), a trait-based assessment tool that measured an individual’s tendency to experience various positive emotions in daily life, was used to examine the construct validity of the Japanese version of the AWE-S. The scale consisted of 38 items that included several subscales, which included joy (six items, α = .86), amusement (five items, α = .78), awe (six items, α = .80), contentment (five items, α = .95), love (six items, α = .86), pride (five items, α = .81), and compassion (five items, α = .83). The original version of this scale was developed by Shiota et al. (2006) . We used the Japanese version developed by Nomura et al. (2021) . Statistical analyses Data analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.2.2 [2022-10-31]). First, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses for the DPES and Japanese AWE-S via lavaan SEM package ( Rosseel, 2012 ). Second, to examine the test-retest reliability of the Japanese AWE-S, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficients between the first and second responses for each factor using the irr package ( Gamer et al. , 2012 ). Third, we used an independent t -test to compare the means of the Japanese AWE-S factors with those of the original AWE-S factors ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ). Fourth, zero-order correlation analyses were conducted to assess the relationships among the subfactors of these scales. Fifth, linear regression analyses were performed with a robust estimation method to investigate whether the Japanese AWE-S were associated with the DPES awe factor, controlled for other DPES factors, using the ‘lm_robust’ function in the estimatr package ( Blair et al. , 2021 ). For the regression analyses, all (in) dependent variables were standardized. For the text analyses, participants’ descriptions of their awe experiences were analyzed via the stm package to estimate a Structural Topic Model ( Roberts et al. , 2019 , 2014 ). We investigated how the AWE-S was associated with their awe narratives (note that these analyses were exploratory and not pre-registered). This method considered additional information regarding the data structure (i.e., the AWE-S in this study), which was incorporated into the model to help identify and extract more meaningful and interpretable topics. We added six factors of the AWE-S as covariates to examine how the prevalence of each topic changed when each factor rating increased or decreased and whether the change was significant. Descriptions of the awe experiences underwent tokenization and pre-processing based on Roberts et al. ’s study (2014) ( N = 452). We regarded each participant’s description as one document. Tokens were limited to adjectives, verbs, and nouns that occurred at least three times across all the participants. Additionally, we used the ‘prepDocuments’ function in the stm package and eliminated numbers, common punctuation, and stop-words considered semantically meaningless. The number of topics ( K ) was determined using the ‘search K ’ function by generating models based on potential K s that ranged from 2 to 50. The model with K = 7 had a sufficient held-out log-likelihood and average semantic coherence across topics, whereas these indices dropped drastically when K s were over 20. Therefore, we selected K = 7. After the STM was estimated, each author independently assigned labels based on the most frequent words listed in each topic. We discussed these until a consensus was reached on a label for the topic ( Idler et al. , 2022 ; Sterling et al. , 2019 ). Results A total of 452 participants (222 males, 226 females, and four others, M age = 42.52 years, SD = 9.69, Range : 20–79 years) were included in the factor analysis, t -tests, and the STM for the Japanese AWE-S ( Table 1 ). Of these, 91 participants (42 males, 48 females, and one other, M age = 43.37 years, SD = 9.86, Range : 24–71 years) were included in the intra-class correlation analyses to examine the test-retest reliability. In addition, 315 participants (156 males, 156 females, and three others, M age = 42.64 years, SD = 10.08, Range : 20–79 years) were included in the factor analysis for the DPES, correlation analyses, and multiple regression analyses. The full dataset can be found under Underlying data ( Takano & Matsuo, 2023b ). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the factor structure of the Japanese AWE-S ( Table 2 ) and DPES. The results showed that the six-factor model provided an adequate fit to the data for the Japanese AWE-S, chi-squared (χ 2 ) (390) = 1070.31, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .905, Goodness Fit Index (GFI) = .854, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .062 [90% lower = .058], and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.068. In addition, the seven-factor model of the DPES fitted well as in previous studies, χ 2 (644) = 1728.55, CFI = .860, GFI = .763, RMSEA = .073 [90% lower = .069], and SRMR = .064 ( Nomura et al. , 2021 ; Shiota et al. , 2006 ; Sugawara et al. , 2020 ). To examine the internal consistency of the Japanese AWE-S, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each subscale ( Table 2 ). Sufficient internal consistency was confirmed, which was consistent with the results of previous studies ( Ling-xiao et al. , 2022 ; Yaden et al. , 2019 ). In addition, the intraclass correlations analyses for each subscale of AWE-S showed sufficient and good test-retest reliability (ρs > .60, p < .001, Table 2 ). Table 2. Items in the Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale and results of the confirmatory factor analysis. Items Factor Loadings Mean SD Time (α = .88, ρ = .76, M = 4.83, M Yaden et al. (2019) = 4.83) 1 I sensed things momentarily slow down. .80 4.54 1.63 その瞬間、あらゆるものがゆっくりと動いているように感じた。 2 I noticed time slowing. .81 4.58 1.53 気がつくと時間がゆっくり進んでいた。 3 I felt my sense of time change. .77 4.69 1.55 時間の感覚が変化しているように感じた。 4 I experienced the passage of time differently. .76 5.37 1.38 普段とちがう時間の流れを経験した。 5 I had the sense that a moment lasted longer than usual. .75 4.98 1.48 普段よりも一瞬が長く感じられた。 Self-loss (α = .83, ρ = .72, M = 4.76, M Yaden et al. (2019) = 4.35) 6 I felt that my sense of self was diminished. .72 4.37 1.52 自分という感覚が薄れていくように感じた。 7 I felt my sense of self shrink. .75 4.62 1.52 自分という感覚が縮むように感じた。 8 I experienced a reduced sense of self. .70 4.26 1.56 自分という感覚が低下するように感じた。 9 I felt my sense of self become somehow smaller. .72 5.11 1.47 自分という感覚がなにか小さくなっていくように感じた。 10 I felt small compared to everything else. .63 5.42 1.47 他のすべてのものと比べて自分を小さく感じた。 Connectedness (α = .92, ρ = .79, M = 3.96, M Yaden et al. (2019) = 4.99) 11 I had the sense of being connected to everything. .85 4.20 1.66 すべてのものと繋がっているように感じた。 12 I felt a sense of communion with all living things. .83 3.71 1.66 あらゆる生き物と一体になっている感覚があった。 13 I experienced a sense of oneness with all things. .86 4.05 1.65 すべてのものとの一体感を経験した。 14 I felt closely connected to humanity. .76 3.85 1.72 人類全体と密接に繋がっているように感じた。 15 I had a sense of complete connectedness. .83 3.97 1.62 完全に繋がっている感覚があった。 Vastness (α = .87, ρ = .65, M = 5.97, M Yaden et al. (2019) = 5.63) 16 I felt that I was in the presence of something grand. .78 5.93 1.23 何か雄大な存在を目の当たりにしているように感じた。 17 I experienced something greater than myself. .83 6.01 1.26 自分よりも広大な存在を経験した。 18 I felt in the presence of greatness. .66 5.84 1.30 偉大なものの存在を感じた。 19 I perceived something that was much larger than me. .78 6.21 1.13 自分よりはるかに大きな存在を感じた。 20 I perceived vastness. .74 5.87 1.44 広大さを感じた。 Physiological (α = .81, ρ = .60, M = 4.85, M Yaden et al. (2019) = 5.02) 21 I felt my jaw drop. .69 4.61 1.61 思わず口が開いてしまうのを感じた。 22 I had goosebumps. .76 4.65 1.66 鳥肌がたった。 23 I gasped. .68 5.43 1.34 息を呑んだ。 24 I had chills. .67 4.66 1.70 背筋がゾクゾクするような感覚があった。 25 I felt my eyes widen. .61 4.91 1.54 目が見開くのを感じた。 Accommodation (α = .82, ρ = .67, M = 4.29, M Yaden et al. (2019) = 4.76) 26 I felt challenged to mentally process what I was experiencing. .79 4.24 1.57 自分が経験していることを頭の中で処理できないように感じた。 27 I found it hard to comprehend the experience in full. .81 4.32 1.62 自分が経験していることを完全に理解することは難しいと思った。 28 I felt challenged to understand the experience. .81 3.92 1.66 その経験を理解することは難しいと感じた。 29 I struggled to take in all that I was experiencing at once. .73 4.12 1.52 自分が経験していることを一度にすべて受けとめることがなかなかできなかった。 30 I tried to understand the magnitude of what I was experiencing. .31 4.85 1.37 自分が経験していることの大きさを理解しようとした。 There were differences in the means of some factors of the AWE-S between the Japanese and original versions, as shown in Table 2 . Independent t -tests indicated that the mean scores for the self-loss and vastness factors were higher in the Japanese version than in the original. In contrast, those for the connectedness, physiological and accommodation factors were lower in the Japanese version than in the original (self-loss: t (1086) = 4.90, p < .001, vastness: t (1086) = 4.97, p < .001, connectedness: t (1086) = -11.66, p < .001, and physiological: t (1086) = -2.20, p = .028, accommodation: t (1086) = -5.99, p < .001). Correlation analyses between the subscales of the Japanese AWE-S and DPES were conducted to examine construct validity. Time, connectedness, vastness, and physiological factors were significantly positively correlated with awe ( r = .12–.36, p < .038) and other factors of the DPES; however, self-loss and accommodation were not ( Table 3 ). In addition, while the inter-factor correlations coefficients of the Japanese AWE-S ranged from moderate to large, those of the DPES were large (AWE-S: r = .26–.47, p < .001, DPES: r = .44–.83, p < .001). Table 3. Results of the correlation and linear regression analyses with a robust estimation predicting each factor of the Japanese version of Awe Experience Scale from that of the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale. Japanese version of the AWE-S Time Self-loss Connectedness Vastness Physiological Accommodation r β r β r β r β r β r β DPES Awe .34 * .21 * .08 .07 .36 * .23 * .12 * -.02 .18 * .04 .07 -.03 Amusement .25 * .00 .04 .02 .24 * -.03 .04 -.18 * .16 * .02 .08 .04 Joy .32 * .16 .02 -.13 .32 * .10 .20 * .37 * .21 * .30 * .08 .02 Compassion .27 * .08 .11 .10 .30 * .11 .19 * .12 .22 * .12 .16 * .15 Love .25 * -.02 .08 .08 .25 * -.07 .10 -.12 .14 * -.02 .10 .04 Pride .26 * -.00 .06 .09 .32 * .20 * .17 * .14 .13 * -.01 .09 .07 Contentment .27 * .00 .01 -.11 .26 * -.10 .12 * -.14 .10 -.22 .04 -.14 * = p < .05. Linear regression analyses with a robust estimation method showed that the time and connectedness factors were significantly positively associated with awe factor of the DPES, controlled for other positive emotions (β = .21–.23, p < .013). This indicated that these factors of the AWE-S were specifically associated with dispositional awe. These results did not change when controlled for participants’ age and gender. Furthermore, seven topics were generated by the STM and labeled: “Spirituality,” “Threat,” “Spatiality,” “Universe,” “Scenery,” “Humanity,” and “Aesthetics” (see Figure 1 ). The top 20 highest probability words are listed in Table 4 . In particular, “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics that emerged in all the responses. Regarding the Japanese AWE-S, participants with higher scores on the time factor were more likely to use words related to “Spatiality” and “Scenery” ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, they were less likely to use words of “Humanity.” Similarly, positive associations were found between the connectedness factor and “Spirituality” and “Aesthetics” ( Figure 1C ), vastness factor and “Universe” and “Scenery” ( Figure 1D ), physiological factor and “Threat” and “Scenery” ( Figure 1E ), and accommodation factor and “Spirituality” and “Threat” ( Figure 1F ). In addition, negative associations were found between the connectedness factor and “Threat” and “Scenery” ( Figure 1C ), vastness factor and “Spirituality,” “Threat,” and “Humanity” ( Figure 1D ), physiological factor and “Universe” ( Figure 1E ), and accommodation factor and “Scenery” and “Aesthetics” ( Figure 1F ). Self-loss was not significantly associated with any topic ( Figure 1B ). Figure 1. Parameter estimate of the effect of each factor of the Japanese Awe Experience Scale on the seven topics. Note. Effects computed via a structural topic model. Parameter estimates are shown as dots. Expected topic proportions, proportion of the total documents (responses) falling into each topic, are depicted by dot size. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval. Table 4. Top words for Awe-Experience topics. Topic Top 20 highest probability word list Spirituality self, can, feelings, being, shrine, now, mind, wonder, living, atmosphere, place, understanding, Japan, world, temple, opportunity, know, sense, time, body 自分, できる, 気持ち, 存在, 神社, 今, 心, 不思議, 生きる, 感じ, 場所, わかる, 日本, 世界, お寺, 機会, 知る, 感覚, 時間, 体 Threat ifu , strong, earthquake, typhoon, fear, afraid, home, force, experience, before, can, river, near, disaster, this year, scary, wind, big, news, region 畏怖, 強い, 地震, 台風, 恐怖, 怖い, 家, 力, 経験, 前, できる, 川, 近く, 災害, 今年, 恐ろしい, 風, 大きい, ニュース, 地域 Spatiality seeing, sky, stars, trees, looking up, big, starry sky, clouds, vast, eyes, senses, air, night, view, spreading, beautiful, experience, moment, self, mountain top 見える, 空, 星, 木, 見上げる, 大きい, 星空, 雲, 広い, 目, 感覚, 空気, 夜, 様子, 広がる, 綺麗, 体験, 瞬間, 自分, 山頂 Universe moon, cosmos, lunar eclipse, total, earth, can, mysterious, other day, celestial, usual, vast, wane, different, human, Uranus, planet, observe, outside, inspiring, happening 月, 宇宙, 月食, 皆既, 地球, できる, 神秘, 先日, 天体, 普段, 壮大, 欠ける, 違う, 人間, 天王星, 惑星, 観察, 外, 感動, 起こる Scenery going, landscape, mountain, sea, travel, waterfall, front, walking, climbing, small, self, inspiring, overwhelming, strong, top, magnificent, place, climbing, can, being 行く, 景色, 山, 海, 旅行, 滝, 前, 歩く, 登山, 小さい, 自分, 感動, 圧倒, 強い, 頂上, 雄大, 場所, 登る, できる, 存在 Humanity human, thinking, being, self, sense, having, die, great, oneself, born, age, can, know, feet, video, children, appearance, respect, coming, atmosphere 人, 思う, いる, 自分, 念, 持つ, 亡くなる, すごい, 自身, 生まれる, 時代, できる, 知る, 足, 動画, 子ども, 姿, 尊敬, 来る, 気 Aesthetics sense, beautiful, human, remember, out, have, light, trees, sun, life, great, circumstances, other day, early, autumn leaves, walk, wonderful, mood, morning, run 念, 美しい, 人間, 覚える, 出る, 抱く, 光, 木々, 太陽, 命, 偉大, 状況, 先日, 早い, 紅葉, 散歩, 素晴らしい, 気分, 朝, 走る Discussion This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the AWE-S, a robust questionnaire that measured the subjective state in awe experiences, and investigate its relations to the representations of awe experiences in natural language. We examined the validity of the Japanese AWE-S and explored how each factor of the AWE-S was related to topics that underlie the narrative of awe experiences via a structural topic model. The results showed that the six-factor model of the original AWE-S sufficiently fit the data for the Japanese AWE-S. Furthermore, the mean scores for the self-loss and vastness factors were higher in the Japanese version than in the original. In contrast, the connectedness, physiological and accommodation factors were lower in the Japanese version. In addition, the time, connectedness, vastness, and physiological factors were positively associated with trait-awe (dispositional awe). The relationships with the time and connectedness factors remained constant, even when controlled for other positive emotions, age, and gender. The STM generated seven potential topics, which were differently associated with each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the Japanese AWE-S conformed to the six-factor model of the original ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ). In addition, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and intraclass correlations showed that this scale had sufficient internal consistency and test-retest reliability, respectively. Therefore, our results suggest that the structure and reliability of the Japanese AWE-S are comparable to those of the original version, which rendered it suitable for international comparisons. The time, connectedness, vastness, and physiological factors of the Japanese AWE-S were positively associated with trait measures of tendency to experience awe (i.e., dispositional awe). These results were consistent with Yaden et al. ’s results (2019), which suggested that the Japanese version had similar construct validity to the original. Furthermore, we used linear regression analyses and revealed that the time and connectedness factors were specifically related to trait-awe, controlled for other positive emotions. Previous studies suggested that the dispositional awe questionnaire mainly focused on the positivity, beauty, and mindful aspects of awe (example: “I see beauty all around me” ( Shiota et al. , 2006 ). Therefore, our results suggested that the AWE-S was a state scale that could capture the other aspects of awe. Regarding the culturally specific perspectives, the mean scores for the self-loss and vastness factors were higher, while those for the connectedness, physiological and accommodation factors were lower in the Japanese version than in the original. Previous research suggested that the sense of the self was mainly characterized by being non-substantial, denied, and embedded as default in Japan with its Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds, while it is represented as separated and continuous concepts by others in Western cultures ( Nomura et al. , 2021 ; Sugimoto, 2020 ; Takano & Nomura, 2021 , 2022a ). Consistent with this perspective, Takano and Nomura (2021) revealed that experimentally induced awe reduced one’s sense of self-size and also blurred the sense of boundary of the self. Hence, Japanese people might be more and less likely to respond to self-reductive (i.e., self-loss and vastness) and self-expansive aspects during awe experiences (i.e., connectedness, physiological, and accommodation), respectively. Regarding the narrative aspect of awe, the STM revealed that each factor of the AWE-S was related to seven topics of descriptions of awe experiences. There were positive (negative) associations between the time factor and “Scenery” and “Spatiality” (“Humanity”), connectedness factor and “Spirituality” and “Aesthetics” (“Threat” and “Scenery”), vastness factor and “Universe” and “Scenery” (“Spirituality,” “Threat,” and “Humanity”), physiological factor and “Threat” and “Scenery” (“Universe”), and accommodation factor and “Spirituality” and “Threat” (“Scenery” and “Aesthetics”). These results were consistent with the characteristics of each factor of the original AWE-S ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ). Previous studies also demonstrated that the elicitors of awe experiences had different roles in manifesting responses to the AWE-S ( Graziosi & Yaden, 2021 ; Yaden et al. , 2019 ). Therefore, beyond the typology, this was the first study to reveal that the various psychological elements of awe emerged differently based on the potential topics of the narratives. It should be also noted that “Scenery” was the most common topic, which was positively related to the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. This topic mainly consisted of nature-related words, such as “landscape,” “mountain,” and “sea.” Previous studies have demonstrated that many Japanese people are familiar with nature worship, a belief that the self is a part of deified nature that is cultivated under the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism ( Sugimoto, 2020 ; Takano & Nomura, 2022a ). Therefore, these results might reflect the Japanese view of the self in relation to nature worship (i.e., non-substantial, denial, embedded). Interestingly, “Threat,” the second common topic, might be associated with negative aspects of awe (i.e., threat-awe), which is in line with the fact that natural disasters occur frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Previous studies suggested that feelings of awe that are triggered by threatening stimuli such as natural disasters could be tinged with the perception of threat ( Takano & Nomura, 2022b ). Given that even the recollection of awe experiences based on examples that do not include negative elements (e.g., seeing aurora) evokes the feelings of ifu , negative awe in Japanese ( Takano & Nomura, 2023a ), Japanese people might be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to Japan’s geographic and historical background. This study has some limitations and directions for future research. First, along with the original version, the effect sizes of the correlations between some of the factors of the AWE-S and trait-awe were relatively low ( Yaden et al. , 2019 ). This may have been caused by ceiling effects, which should be investigated in future studies. Second, when writing regarding previous experiences, it was possible that the participants’ ratings were influenced by their memory of the event and not the actual experience of awe. The recollection method allowed us to investigate the narrative dimensions of the AWE-S. As in a previous study ( Bai et al. , 2017 ; Valdesolo & Graham, 2014 ; Van Cappellen & Saroglou, 2012 ), other manipulation methods (e.g., video stimuli) should be used to confirm the generalizability of our results. Third, this study investigated the relationship between the Japanese AWE-S and self-reported measures to reveal its construct validity. Given that the advantage of the AWE-S was that it revealed psychological processes that could only be captured subjectively, further studies should investigate whether and how this scale was associated with other behavioral, physiological, and neural measures. In summary, this study is the first to develop a Japanese version of the AWE-S, confirm its convergent and divergent validities, and investigate its narrative dimensions during awe experiences. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of awe and revealing its construct in Japan through cross-cultural comparisons. Furthermore, this study provides conceptual and methodological implications regarding studies on awe. Data availability Underlying data OSF: Japanese ver. of AWE-S and Purity. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8CSR4 ( Takano & Matsuo, 2023b ). This project contains the following underlying data: - data_cleaned.csv (dataset for the main study) - data_pilot_cleaned.csv (dataset for the pilot study) - data_testretest.csv (dataset for the test-retest validity) - instructionsforJverAWE-S.docx (specific instructions for the Japanese AWE-S) - main_script.R (analysis code) Extended data OSF: Japanese ver. of AWE-S and Purity. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8CSR4 ( Takano & Matsuo, 2023b ). This project contains the following extended data: - questionnaire_in_Japanese.pdf Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) . References Bai Y, Maruskin LA, Chen S, et al. : Awe, the diminished self, and collective engagement: Universals and cultural variations in the small self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2017; 113 (2): 185–209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Bai Y, Ocampo J, Jin G, et al. : Awe, daily stress, and elevated life satisfaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2021; 120 (4): 837–860. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Blair G, Cooper J, Coppock A, et al. : estimatr: Fast estimators for design-based inference. 2021. Reference Source Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, et al. : G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods. 2007; 39 (2): 175–191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Funder DC, Ozer DJ: Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2019; 2 (2): 156–168. Publisher Full Text Gamer M, Lemon J, Gamer MM, et al. : Package ‘irr’: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. 2012. Reference Source Graziosi M, Yaden D: Interpersonal awe: Exploring the social domain of awe elicitors. J. Posit. Psychol. 2021; 16 (2): 263–271. Publisher Full Text Gregory AL, Quoidbach J, Haase CM, et al. : Be here now: Perceptions of uncertainty enhance savoring. Emotion. 2023; 23 (1): 30–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Guan F, Xiang Y, Chen O, et al. : Neural basis of dispositional awe. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018; 12 : 209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ibanez L, Moureau N, Roussel S: How do incidental emotions impact pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from the dictator game. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2017; 66 : 150–155. Publisher Full Text Idler E, Bernau JA, Zaras D: Narratives and counter-narratives in religious responses to COVID-19: A computational text analysis. PLoS One. 2022; 17 (2): e0262905. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Keltner D, Haidt J: Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognit. Emot. 2003; 17 (2): 297–314. Publisher Full Text Kramer RSS, Weger UW, Sharma D: The effect of mindfulness meditation on time perception. Conscious. Cogn. 2013; 22 (3): 846–852. Publisher Full Text Landrum AR, Janét K, Opat K, et al. : When science journalism is awesome: Measuring audiences’ experiences of awe from reading science stories. Journal. Pract. 2022. Publisher Full Text Li O, Qian D: An analysis of the relationship between risk perceptions and willingness-to-pay for commodities during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Consum. Aff. 2022; 56 (1): 257–275. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ling-xiao Z, Shan-yin LI, Kai-ping P, et al. : Revision the Chinese version of the Awe Experience Scale. Chin. J. Clin. Psych. 2022; 30 (5): 1138–1148. Publisher Full Text Liu J, Huo Y, Wang J, et al. : Awe of nature and well-being: Roles of nature connectedness and powerlessness. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023; 201 : 111946. Publisher Full Text Markus HR, Kitayama S: Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1991; 98 (2): 224–253. Publisher Full Text Monroy M, Keltner D: Awe as a pathway to mental and physical health. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2022; 18 (2): 309–320. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Nakayama M, Nozaki Y, Taylor PM, et al. : Individual and cultural differences in predispositions to feel positive and negative aspects of awe. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2020; 51 (10): 771–793. Publisher Full Text Nakayama M, Uchida Y: Meaning of awe in Japanese (con) text: Beyond fear and respect. Psychologia. 2020; 62 (1): 46–62. Publisher Full Text Nomura M, Tsuda A, Rappleye J: How awe works in humanitarian setting in East Asia: Cultural differences in describing the experience of awe.Chiao J, Li S-C, Seligman R, et al. , editors. Oxford Handbook of Cultural Neuroscience and Global Mental Health. Oxford University Press; 2021; (pp. 221–232). Piff PK, Dietze P, Feinberg M, et al. : Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015; 108 (6): 883–899. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Quesnel D, Riecke BE: Are you awed yet? How virtual reality gives us awe and goose bumps. Front. Psychol. 2018; 9 : 2158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Razavi P, Zhang JW, Hekiert D, et al. : Cross-cultural similarities and differences in the experience of awe. Emotion. 2016; 16 (8): 1097–1101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Roberts ME, Stewart BM, Tingley D: stm: An R package for structural topic models. J. Stat. Softw. 2019; 91 : 1–40. Publisher Full Text Roberts ME, Stewart BM, Tingley D, et al. : Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2014; 58 (4): 1064–1082. Publisher Full Text Rodrigues Á, Loureiro SMC, Prayag G: The wow effect and behavioral intentions of tourists to astrotourism experiences: Mediating effects of satisfaction. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2022; 24 (3): 362–375. Publisher Full Text Rosseel Y: lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012; 48 : 1–36. Publisher Full Text Rudd M, Vohs KD, Aaker J: Awe expands people’s perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances well-being. Psychol. Sci. 2012; 23 (10): 1130–1136. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Sawada K, Nomura M: Influence of positive and threatened awe on the attitude toward norm violations. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11 : 148. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Sawada K, Nomura M: Developing and validating the Japanese version of the situational Awe scale (SAS-J). Curr. Psychol. 2023; 42 : 15307–15322. Publisher Full Text Shiota MN, Keltner D, John OP: Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. J. Posit. Psychol. 2006; 1 (2): 61–71. Publisher Full Text Stellar JE, Gordon A, Anderson CL, et al. : Awe and humility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2018; 114 (2): 258–269. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Stellar JE, John-Henderson N, Anderson CL, et al. : Positive affect and markers of inflammation: discrete positive emotions predict lower levels of inflammatory cytokines. Emotion. 2015; 15 (2): 129–133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Sterling J, Jost JT, Hardin CD: Liberal and conservative representations of the good society: A (social) structural topic modeling approach. SAGE Open. 2019; 9 (2): 215824401984621. Publisher Full Text Sturm VE, Datta S, Roy ARK, et al. : Big smile, small self: Awe walks promote prosocial positive emotions in older adults. Emotion. 2022; 22 (5): 1044–1058. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Sugawara D, Arimitsu K, Sugie M: Development of the Japanese version of Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales. J. Health Psychol. Res. 2020; 33 (1): 57–65. Publisher Full Text Sugimoto Y: An introduction to Japanese society. Cambridge University Press; 2020. Sun X, Su W, Guo X, et al. : The Impact of Awe Induced by COVID-19 Pandemic on Green Consumption Behavior in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 (2). Publisher Full Text Takano R, Nomura M: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the right temporoparietal junction enhances the self-effacing bias in Japanese individuals. Culture and Brain. 2019; 7 (1): 80–91. Publisher Full Text Takano R, Nomura M: Awe liberates the feeling that “my body is mine.”. Cognit. Emot. 2021; 35 (4): 738–744. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Takano R, Nomura M: Relationships between right-wing authoritarianism and spirituality in Japan. Psychol. Relig. Spiritual. 2022a. Publisher Full Text Takano R, Nomura M: Neural representations of awe: Distinguishing common and distinct neural mechanisms. Emotion. 2022b; 22 (4): 669–677. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Takano R, Nomura M: Strengthened social ties in disasters: Threat-awe encourages interdependent worldviews via powerlessness. PLoS One. 2023a; 18 (4): e0285049. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Takano R, Matsuo A: Japanese ver. of AWE-S and Purity.2023b, May 6. Publisher Full Text Taylor PM, Uchida Y: Awe or horror: differentiating two emotional responses to schema incongruence. Cognit. Emot. 2019; 33 (8): 1548–1561. Publisher Full Text Valdesolo P, Graham J: Awe, uncertainty, and agency detection. Psychol. Sci. 2014; 25 (1): 170–178. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Valdesolo P, Park J, Gottlieb S: Awe and scientific explanation. Emotion. 2016; 16 (7): 937–940. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Van Cappellen P, Saroglou V: Awe activates religious and spiritual feelings and behavioral intentions. Psychol. Relig. Spiritual. 2012; 4 (3): 223–236. Publisher Full Text van Elk M , Arciniegas Gomez MA, van der Zwaag W , et al. : The neural correlates of the awe experience: Reduced default mode network activity during feelings of awe. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2019; 40 (12): 3561–3574. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text van Houwelingen-Snippe J , van Rompay TJL , de Jong MDT , et al. : Does digital nature enhance social aspirations? An experimental study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 (4): 1454. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Williams PG, Johnson KT, Bride DL, et al. : Individual differences in aesthetic engagement and proneness to aesthetic chill: Associations with awe. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2022. Publisher Full Text Yaden DB, Kaufman SB, Hyde E, et al. : The development of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A multifactorial measure for a complex emotion. J. Posit. Psychol. 2019; 14 (4): 474–488. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 May 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Kojimachi Business Center Building, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, 102-0083, Japan 2 Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan 3 Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo, 153-8904, Japan 4 Department of Psychology, Tokai Gakuen University, Nagoya, Aichi, 468-8514, Japan Ryota Takano Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Akiko Matsuo Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Kazuaki Kawano Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (22J00783). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 13 Oct 2023, 12:515 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.2 version 1 Published: 18 May 2023, 12:515 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.1 Copyright © 2023 Takano R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Takano R, Matsuo A and Kawano K. Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.134275.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Oct 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hitokoto H. Reviewer Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157333.r215152 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2#referee-response-215152 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Oct 2023 Hidefumi Hitokoto , School & Graduate School of Humanities, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157333.r215152 Thank you for your thorough response and/or explanation. Since all of my previous concerns have been addressed, I agree to accept the manuscript as lastly submitted. With these details, I'm sure the J-AWE-S is initially validated, and ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for your thorough response and/or explanation. Since all of my previous concerns have been addressed, I agree to accept the manuscript as lastly submitted. With these details, I'm sure the J-AWE-S is initially validated, and I hope the best for the authors to further strengthen the scale validity in their following studies, across cultures. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hitokoto H. Reviewer Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157333.r215152 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2#referee-response-215152 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 18 May 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Krenzer WLD. Reviewer Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r207846 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v1#referee-response-207846 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Sep 2023 William L. D. Krenzer , Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r207846 The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample (N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. I think that this manuscript will be a great addition to the awe literature and psychology as a whole. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Research integrity, open science practices, awe, facial recognition I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Krenzer WLD. Reviewer Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r207846 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v1#referee-response-207846 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Oct 2023 Ryota Takano , Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0033, Japan 13 Oct 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. Reply : Thank you for taking the time and effort to check our manuscript. We appreciate your helpful comment. We incorporated all your comments in the manuscript. Point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text are provided below. Comment 1. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample ( N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. Reply : Thank you for your suggestion. According to your comment, we have summarized the demographic information of samples in the main and pilot study, along with the respective statistical analyses applied, in Table 1. Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. Reply : Thank you for taking the time and effort to check our manuscript. We appreciate your helpful comment. We incorporated all your comments in the manuscript. Point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text are provided below. Comment 1. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample ( N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. Reply : Thank you for your suggestion. According to your comment, we have summarized the demographic information of samples in the main and pilot study, along with the respective statistical analyses applied, in Table 1. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Oct 2023 Ryota Takano , Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0033, Japan 13 Oct 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. Reply : Thank you for taking the time and effort to check our manuscript. We appreciate your helpful comment. We incorporated all your comments in the manuscript. Point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text are provided below. Comment 1. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample ( N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. Reply : Thank you for your suggestion. According to your comment, we have summarized the demographic information of samples in the main and pilot study, along with the respective statistical analyses applied, in Table 1. Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. Reply : Thank you for taking the time and effort to check our manuscript. We appreciate your helpful comment. We incorporated all your comments in the manuscript. Point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text are provided below. Comment 1. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample ( N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. Reply : Thank you for your suggestion. According to your comment, we have summarized the demographic information of samples in the main and pilot study, along with the respective statistical analyses applied, in Table 1. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hitokoto H. Reviewer Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r174203 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v1#referee-response-174203 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Jun 2023 Hidefumi Hitokoto , School & Graduate School of Humanities, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r174203 I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the ... Continue reading READ ALL I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Typo: P5: internal consistent Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Markus H, Kitayama S: Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review . 1991; 98 (2): 224-253 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Cross-cultural psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hitokoto H. Reviewer Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r174203 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v1#referee-response-174203 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Oct 2023 Ryota Takano , Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0033, Japan 13 Oct 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. Reply : Thank you so much for your valuable comments and queries. We have incorporated all your comments and revised the manuscript. Please find the point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text below. Comment 1. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Reply : Thank you for your comment. Since no previous studies have longitudinally examined the relationship between the trait and state aspects of awe, it is unclear how the tendency to feel awe on a daily basis (awe factor of the DPES) is associated with state responses to experiencing actual awe (AWE-S). However, several studies have shown that awe-related phenomena observed via the awe factor of the DPES (dispositional awe) could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe (Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). Hence, we investigated the relationships between the DPES and Japanese AWE-S to verify its construct validity. In addition, we controlled other positive emotions of the DPES to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. We have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. (Added sentences) We used the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) since previous studies demonstrated that awe-related phenomena observed via the DPES could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe ( Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). We controlled other positive emotions to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S Comment 2. Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? Reply: When item 30 was removed from the factor analysis, goodness-of-fit was slightly improved. With item 30: χ 2 (390) = 1070.31, CFI = .905, GFI = .854, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = 0.068 Without item 30: χ 2 (362) = 931.34, CFI = .919, GFI = .867, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = 0.053 Thus, we did not remove it to make international comparisons using the AWE-S easier. Comment 3. DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? Reply : The goodness-of-fit of the DPES in this study fitted well as those in previous studies, such as Sugawara et al.’s study (2020). This study: χ 2 (644) = 1728.55, CFI = .860, RMSEA = .073 Sugawara et al.'s study (2020): χ 2 （644）＝ 4171.89, CFI＝.851, RMSEA＝.081 With the exception of one item, 38, whose item loading was below .40, the results were significantly unchanged (χ 2 (608) = 1650.09, CFI = .864, GFI = .769, RMSEA = .074, SRMR = .063). In addition, correlation analysis with each of the awe factors yielded similar results. DPES item 4: I feel wonder almost every day (私はほとんど毎日驚嘆の念を感じる) Time: r = .18*, Self-loss: r = .01, Connectedness: r = .30*, Vastness: r = -.04, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .10 DPES item 16: I often feel awe (私はよく畏敬の念を感じる) Time: r = .28*, Self-loss: r = .06, Connectedness: r = .27*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .14*, Accommodation: r = .04 DPES item 17: I seek out experiences that challenge my understanding of the world (私は世界を自分なりに理解するための経験を探し求めている) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .09, Connectedness: r = .26*, Vastness: r = .14*, Physiological: r = .16*, Accommodation: r = .11 DPES item 22: I see beauty all around me (私は自然の美しさを見る機会が多い) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .21*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .05, Accommodation: r = -.10 DPES item 31: I often look for patterns in the objects around me (私はしばしば自分の周りのものの中にパターンを探す) Time: r = .19*, Self-loss: r = .17*, Connectedness: r = .16*, Vastness: r = .13*, Physiological: r = .13*, Accommodation: r = .14* DPES item 36: I have many opportunities to see the beauty of nature (私は自分の周りのすべてに美しさを見出す) Time: r = .25*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .35*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .02 Thus, even if there were problems with the factor structure of the DPES, our conclusions would not change. Comment 4. As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. Reply : At first, we did not plan to perform a Structural Topic Modeling (STM). As mentioned in the Method section, the STM were exploratory and not pre-registered. After data were collected, improvement in the first authors’ statistical knowledge and skills enabled us to conduct the STM. Therefore, it was difficult to discuss any predictions of the textual analysis a-priori in the Introduction section. However, as pointed out in Comment 5, the findings that “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics were interesting regarding the cultural characteristics of the awe experience in Japan. It would be important to discuss these results. The narrative of the awe experiences included many elements of “Scenery” (landscapes, mountain, sea), which was associated with the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. These results were consistent with the Japanese view of the self (non-substantial, denial, embedded), which was thought to be related to nature worship prevalent among Japanese people (recognition of the self as a part of deified nature). In addition, the high proportion of “Threat” ( ifu , earthquake, typhoon) was thought to be associated with negative aspects of awe, threat-awe, which was in line with the fact that natural disasters occurred frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Since even a positive awe manipulation (recall and describe their experiences of positive awe) evoked the feelings of ifu , negative awe in Japanese, sufficiently (Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people could be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to geographic and historical background in Japan. Thus, we have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the Discussion section. (Added paragraphs) It should be also noted that “ Scenery” was the most common topic, which was positively related to the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. This topic mainly consisted of nature-related words, such as “landscape,” “mountain,” and “sea.” Previous studies have demonstrated that many Japanese people are familiar with nature worship, a belief that the self is a part of deified nature that is cultivated under the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism ( Sugimoto, 2020; Takano & Nomura, 2022a). Therefore, these results might reflect the Japanese view of the self in relation to nature worship (i.e., non-substantial, denial, embedded). Interestingly, “Threat,” the second common topic, might be associated with negative aspects of awe (i.e., threat-awe), which is in line with the fact that natural disasters occur frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Previous studies suggested that feelings of awe that are triggered by threatening stimuli such as natural disasters could be tinged with the perception of threat ( Takano & Nomura, 2022b). Given that even the recollection of awe experiences based on examples that do not include negative elements (e.g., seeing aurora) evokes the feelings of ifu, negative awe in Japanese ( Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people might be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to Japan’s geographic and historical background. Comment 5. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Reply : Thank you for your comment. The expected topic proportion represents what proportion of the total documents (responses) fall into each topic. For example, the value “0.20” indicates that approximately 20% of the responses fell into the topic of “Scenery,” regardless of their association with each of the AWE-S factors. We have incorporated this comment by adding statements in Note of Figure 1 as below in italic. (Added sentences) Expected topic proportions, proportion of the total documents (responses) falling into each topic , are depicted by dot size. In addition, these results themselves would provide meaningful insight regarding the cultural characteristics of awe experiences in Japan. Therefore, we modified the Results section by adding some results as shown below in italic, which were also discussed in the Discussion section (for details, please see the Reply to Comment 4). (Added sentences) Furthermore, seven topics were generated by the STM and labeled: “Spirituality,” “Threat,” “Spatiality,” “Universe,” “Scenery,” “Humanity,” and “Aesthetics” (see Figure 1). The top 20 highest probability words are listed in Table 3. In particular, “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics that emerged in all the responses. Regarding the Japanese AWE-S, participants with higher scores on the time factor were more likely to use words related to “Spatiality” and “Scenery.” Comment 6. Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? Reply : The word “de-ki-ru” written in the Chinese character was owing to conversion errors when Table 4 was created. We have corrected all the mistakes to “de-ki-ru” in Hiragana (please see Table 4). Comment 7. I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Reply : Nomura et al. (2020) stated that these characteristics of the sense of self based on Japanese religious and historical backgrounds were consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory in cultural psychology. To attract a wider range of readers, we have added the following sentences in the Introduction section. (Added sentences) Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) advocated independent and interdependent self-construals. Independent self-construals, more widespread in North American and Western European cultures, prioritize an individual’s needs, whereas interdependent self-construals, more common in Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, prioritize one’s social interactions. Comment 8. Typo P5: internal consistent Reply : Thank you for your feedback. We have modified the words accordingly. Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. Reply : Thank you so much for your valuable comments and queries. We have incorporated all your comments and revised the manuscript. Please find the point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text below. Comment 1. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Reply : Thank you for your comment. Since no previous studies have longitudinally examined the relationship between the trait and state aspects of awe, it is unclear how the tendency to feel awe on a daily basis (awe factor of the DPES) is associated with state responses to experiencing actual awe (AWE-S). However, several studies have shown that awe-related phenomena observed via the awe factor of the DPES (dispositional awe) could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe (Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). Hence, we investigated the relationships between the DPES and Japanese AWE-S to verify its construct validity. In addition, we controlled other positive emotions of the DPES to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. We have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. (Added sentences) We used the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) since previous studies demonstrated that awe-related phenomena observed via the DPES could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe ( Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). We controlled other positive emotions to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S Comment 2. Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? Reply: When item 30 was removed from the factor analysis, goodness-of-fit was slightly improved. With item 30: χ 2 (390) = 1070.31, CFI = .905, GFI = .854, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = 0.068 Without item 30: χ 2 (362) = 931.34, CFI = .919, GFI = .867, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = 0.053 Thus, we did not remove it to make international comparisons using the AWE-S easier. Comment 3. DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? Reply : The goodness-of-fit of the DPES in this study fitted well as those in previous studies, such as Sugawara et al.’s study (2020). This study: χ 2 (644) = 1728.55, CFI = .860, RMSEA = .073 Sugawara et al.'s study (2020): χ 2 （644）＝ 4171.89, CFI＝.851, RMSEA＝.081 With the exception of one item, 38, whose item loading was below .40, the results were significantly unchanged (χ 2 (608) = 1650.09, CFI = .864, GFI = .769, RMSEA = .074, SRMR = .063). In addition, correlation analysis with each of the awe factors yielded similar results. DPES item 4: I feel wonder almost every day (私はほとんど毎日驚嘆の念を感じる) Time: r = .18*, Self-loss: r = .01, Connectedness: r = .30*, Vastness: r = -.04, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .10 DPES item 16: I often feel awe (私はよく畏敬の念を感じる) Time: r = .28*, Self-loss: r = .06, Connectedness: r = .27*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .14*, Accommodation: r = .04 DPES item 17: I seek out experiences that challenge my understanding of the world (私は世界を自分なりに理解するための経験を探し求めている) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .09, Connectedness: r = .26*, Vastness: r = .14*, Physiological: r = .16*, Accommodation: r = .11 DPES item 22: I see beauty all around me (私は自然の美しさを見る機会が多い) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .21*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .05, Accommodation: r = -.10 DPES item 31: I often look for patterns in the objects around me (私はしばしば自分の周りのものの中にパターンを探す) Time: r = .19*, Self-loss: r = .17*, Connectedness: r = .16*, Vastness: r = .13*, Physiological: r = .13*, Accommodation: r = .14* DPES item 36: I have many opportunities to see the beauty of nature (私は自分の周りのすべてに美しさを見出す) Time: r = .25*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .35*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .02 Thus, even if there were problems with the factor structure of the DPES, our conclusions would not change. Comment 4. As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. Reply : At first, we did not plan to perform a Structural Topic Modeling (STM). As mentioned in the Method section, the STM were exploratory and not pre-registered. After data were collected, improvement in the first authors’ statistical knowledge and skills enabled us to conduct the STM. Therefore, it was difficult to discuss any predictions of the textual analysis a-priori in the Introduction section. However, as pointed out in Comment 5, the findings that “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics were interesting regarding the cultural characteristics of the awe experience in Japan. It would be important to discuss these results. The narrative of the awe experiences included many elements of “Scenery” (landscapes, mountain, sea), which was associated with the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. These results were consistent with the Japanese view of the self (non-substantial, denial, embedded), which was thought to be related to nature worship prevalent among Japanese people (recognition of the self as a part of deified nature). In addition, the high proportion of “Threat” ( ifu , earthquake, typhoon) was thought to be associated with negative aspects of awe, threat-awe, which was in line with the fact that natural disasters occurred frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Since even a positive awe manipulation (recall and describe their experiences of positive awe) evoked the feelings of ifu , negative awe in Japanese, sufficiently (Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people could be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to geographic and historical background in Japan. Thus, we have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the Discussion section. (Added paragraphs) It should be also noted that “ Scenery” was the most common topic, which was positively related to the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. This topic mainly consisted of nature-related words, such as “landscape,” “mountain,” and “sea.” Previous studies have demonstrated that many Japanese people are familiar with nature worship, a belief that the self is a part of deified nature that is cultivated under the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism ( Sugimoto, 2020; Takano & Nomura, 2022a). Therefore, these results might reflect the Japanese view of the self in relation to nature worship (i.e., non-substantial, denial, embedded). Interestingly, “Threat,” the second common topic, might be associated with negative aspects of awe (i.e., threat-awe), which is in line with the fact that natural disasters occur frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Previous studies suggested that feelings of awe that are triggered by threatening stimuli such as natural disasters could be tinged with the perception of threat ( Takano & Nomura, 2022b). Given that even the recollection of awe experiences based on examples that do not include negative elements (e.g., seeing aurora) evokes the feelings of ifu, negative awe in Japanese ( Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people might be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to Japan’s geographic and historical background. Comment 5. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Reply : Thank you for your comment. The expected topic proportion represents what proportion of the total documents (responses) fall into each topic. For example, the value “0.20” indicates that approximately 20% of the responses fell into the topic of “Scenery,” regardless of their association with each of the AWE-S factors. We have incorporated this comment by adding statements in Note of Figure 1 as below in italic. (Added sentences) Expected topic proportions, proportion of the total documents (responses) falling into each topic , are depicted by dot size. In addition, these results themselves would provide meaningful insight regarding the cultural characteristics of awe experiences in Japan. Therefore, we modified the Results section by adding some results as shown below in italic, which were also discussed in the Discussion section (for details, please see the Reply to Comment 4). (Added sentences) Furthermore, seven topics were generated by the STM and labeled: “Spirituality,” “Threat,” “Spatiality,” “Universe,” “Scenery,” “Humanity,” and “Aesthetics” (see Figure 1). The top 20 highest probability words are listed in Table 3. In particular, “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics that emerged in all the responses. Regarding the Japanese AWE-S, participants with higher scores on the time factor were more likely to use words related to “Spatiality” and “Scenery.” Comment 6. Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? Reply : The word “de-ki-ru” written in the Chinese character was owing to conversion errors when Table 4 was created. We have corrected all the mistakes to “de-ki-ru” in Hiragana (please see Table 4). Comment 7. I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Reply : Nomura et al. (2020) stated that these characteristics of the sense of self based on Japanese religious and historical backgrounds were consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory in cultural psychology. To attract a wider range of readers, we have added the following sentences in the Introduction section. (Added sentences) Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) advocated independent and interdependent self-construals. Independent self-construals, more widespread in North American and Western European cultures, prioritize an individual’s needs, whereas interdependent self-construals, more common in Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, prioritize one’s social interactions. Comment 8. Typo P5: internal consistent Reply : Thank you for your feedback. We have modified the words accordingly. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Oct 2023 Ryota Takano , Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0033, Japan 13 Oct 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. Reply : Thank you so much for your valuable comments and queries. We have incorporated all your comments and revised the manuscript. Please find the point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text below. Comment 1. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Reply : Thank you for your comment. Since no previous studies have longitudinally examined the relationship between the trait and state aspects of awe, it is unclear how the tendency to feel awe on a daily basis (awe factor of the DPES) is associated with state responses to experiencing actual awe (AWE-S). However, several studies have shown that awe-related phenomena observed via the awe factor of the DPES (dispositional awe) could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe (Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). Hence, we investigated the relationships between the DPES and Japanese AWE-S to verify its construct validity. In addition, we controlled other positive emotions of the DPES to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. We have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. (Added sentences) We used the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) since previous studies demonstrated that awe-related phenomena observed via the DPES could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe ( Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). We controlled other positive emotions to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S Comment 2. Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? Reply: When item 30 was removed from the factor analysis, goodness-of-fit was slightly improved. With item 30: χ 2 (390) = 1070.31, CFI = .905, GFI = .854, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = 0.068 Without item 30: χ 2 (362) = 931.34, CFI = .919, GFI = .867, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = 0.053 Thus, we did not remove it to make international comparisons using the AWE-S easier. Comment 3. DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? Reply : The goodness-of-fit of the DPES in this study fitted well as those in previous studies, such as Sugawara et al.’s study (2020). This study: χ 2 (644) = 1728.55, CFI = .860, RMSEA = .073 Sugawara et al.'s study (2020): χ 2 （644）＝ 4171.89, CFI＝.851, RMSEA＝.081 With the exception of one item, 38, whose item loading was below .40, the results were significantly unchanged (χ 2 (608) = 1650.09, CFI = .864, GFI = .769, RMSEA = .074, SRMR = .063). In addition, correlation analysis with each of the awe factors yielded similar results. DPES item 4: I feel wonder almost every day (私はほとんど毎日驚嘆の念を感じる) Time: r = .18*, Self-loss: r = .01, Connectedness: r = .30*, Vastness: r = -.04, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .10 DPES item 16: I often feel awe (私はよく畏敬の念を感じる) Time: r = .28*, Self-loss: r = .06, Connectedness: r = .27*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .14*, Accommodation: r = .04 DPES item 17: I seek out experiences that challenge my understanding of the world (私は世界を自分なりに理解するための経験を探し求めている) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .09, Connectedness: r = .26*, Vastness: r = .14*, Physiological: r = .16*, Accommodation: r = .11 DPES item 22: I see beauty all around me (私は自然の美しさを見る機会が多い) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .21*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .05, Accommodation: r = -.10 DPES item 31: I often look for patterns in the objects around me (私はしばしば自分の周りのものの中にパターンを探す) Time: r = .19*, Self-loss: r = .17*, Connectedness: r = .16*, Vastness: r = .13*, Physiological: r = .13*, Accommodation: r = .14* DPES item 36: I have many opportunities to see the beauty of nature (私は自分の周りのすべてに美しさを見出す) Time: r = .25*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .35*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .02 Thus, even if there were problems with the factor structure of the DPES, our conclusions would not change. Comment 4. As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. Reply : At first, we did not plan to perform a Structural Topic Modeling (STM). As mentioned in the Method section, the STM were exploratory and not pre-registered. After data were collected, improvement in the first authors’ statistical knowledge and skills enabled us to conduct the STM. Therefore, it was difficult to discuss any predictions of the textual analysis a-priori in the Introduction section. However, as pointed out in Comment 5, the findings that “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics were interesting regarding the cultural characteristics of the awe experience in Japan. It would be important to discuss these results. The narrative of the awe experiences included many elements of “Scenery” (landscapes, mountain, sea), which was associated with the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. These results were consistent with the Japanese view of the self (non-substantial, denial, embedded), which was thought to be related to nature worship prevalent among Japanese people (recognition of the self as a part of deified nature). In addition, the high proportion of “Threat” ( ifu , earthquake, typhoon) was thought to be associated with negative aspects of awe, threat-awe, which was in line with the fact that natural disasters occurred frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Since even a positive awe manipulation (recall and describe their experiences of positive awe) evoked the feelings of ifu , negative awe in Japanese, sufficiently (Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people could be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to geographic and historical background in Japan. Thus, we have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the Discussion section. (Added paragraphs) It should be also noted that “ Scenery” was the most common topic, which was positively related to the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. This topic mainly consisted of nature-related words, such as “landscape,” “mountain,” and “sea.” Previous studies have demonstrated that many Japanese people are familiar with nature worship, a belief that the self is a part of deified nature that is cultivated under the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism ( Sugimoto, 2020; Takano & Nomura, 2022a). Therefore, these results might reflect the Japanese view of the self in relation to nature worship (i.e., non-substantial, denial, embedded). Interestingly, “Threat,” the second common topic, might be associated with negative aspects of awe (i.e., threat-awe), which is in line with the fact that natural disasters occur frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Previous studies suggested that feelings of awe that are triggered by threatening stimuli such as natural disasters could be tinged with the perception of threat ( Takano & Nomura, 2022b). Given that even the recollection of awe experiences based on examples that do not include negative elements (e.g., seeing aurora) evokes the feelings of ifu, negative awe in Japanese ( Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people might be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to Japan’s geographic and historical background. Comment 5. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Reply : Thank you for your comment. The expected topic proportion represents what proportion of the total documents (responses) fall into each topic. For example, the value “0.20” indicates that approximately 20% of the responses fell into the topic of “Scenery,” regardless of their association with each of the AWE-S factors. We have incorporated this comment by adding statements in Note of Figure 1 as below in italic. (Added sentences) Expected topic proportions, proportion of the total documents (responses) falling into each topic , are depicted by dot size. In addition, these results themselves would provide meaningful insight regarding the cultural characteristics of awe experiences in Japan. Therefore, we modified the Results section by adding some results as shown below in italic, which were also discussed in the Discussion section (for details, please see the Reply to Comment 4). (Added sentences) Furthermore, seven topics were generated by the STM and labeled: “Spirituality,” “Threat,” “Spatiality,” “Universe,” “Scenery,” “Humanity,” and “Aesthetics” (see Figure 1). The top 20 highest probability words are listed in Table 3. In particular, “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics that emerged in all the responses. Regarding the Japanese AWE-S, participants with higher scores on the time factor were more likely to use words related to “Spatiality” and “Scenery.” Comment 6. Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? Reply : The word “de-ki-ru” written in the Chinese character was owing to conversion errors when Table 4 was created. We have corrected all the mistakes to “de-ki-ru” in Hiragana (please see Table 4). Comment 7. I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Reply : Nomura et al. (2020) stated that these characteristics of the sense of self based on Japanese religious and historical backgrounds were consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory in cultural psychology. To attract a wider range of readers, we have added the following sentences in the Introduction section. (Added sentences) Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) advocated independent and interdependent self-construals. Independent self-construals, more widespread in North American and Western European cultures, prioritize an individual’s needs, whereas interdependent self-construals, more common in Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, prioritize one’s social interactions. Comment 8. Typo P5: internal consistent Reply : Thank you for your feedback. We have modified the words accordingly. Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. Reply : Thank you so much for your valuable comments and queries. We have incorporated all your comments and revised the manuscript. Please find the point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text below. Comment 1. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Reply : Thank you for your comment. Since no previous studies have longitudinally examined the relationship between the trait and state aspects of awe, it is unclear how the tendency to feel awe on a daily basis (awe factor of the DPES) is associated with state responses to experiencing actual awe (AWE-S). However, several studies have shown that awe-related phenomena observed via the awe factor of the DPES (dispositional awe) could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe (Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). Hence, we investigated the relationships between the DPES and Japanese AWE-S to verify its construct validity. In addition, we controlled other positive emotions of the DPES to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. We have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. (Added sentences) We used the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) since previous studies demonstrated that awe-related phenomena observed via the DPES could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe ( Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). We controlled other positive emotions to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S Comment 2. Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? Reply: When item 30 was removed from the factor analysis, goodness-of-fit was slightly improved. With item 30: χ 2 (390) = 1070.31, CFI = .905, GFI = .854, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = 0.068 Without item 30: χ 2 (362) = 931.34, CFI = .919, GFI = .867, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = 0.053 Thus, we did not remove it to make international comparisons using the AWE-S easier. Comment 3. DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? Reply : The goodness-of-fit of the DPES in this study fitted well as those in previous studies, such as Sugawara et al.’s study (2020). This study: χ 2 (644) = 1728.55, CFI = .860, RMSEA = .073 Sugawara et al.'s study (2020): χ 2 （644）＝ 4171.89, CFI＝.851, RMSEA＝.081 With the exception of one item, 38, whose item loading was below .40, the results were significantly unchanged (χ 2 (608) = 1650.09, CFI = .864, GFI = .769, RMSEA = .074, SRMR = .063). In addition, correlation analysis with each of the awe factors yielded similar results. DPES item 4: I feel wonder almost every day (私はほとんど毎日驚嘆の念を感じる) Time: r = .18*, Self-loss: r = .01, Connectedness: r = .30*, Vastness: r = -.04, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .10 DPES item 16: I often feel awe (私はよく畏敬の念を感じる) Time: r = .28*, Self-loss: r = .06, Connectedness: r = .27*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .14*, Accommodation: r = .04 DPES item 17: I seek out experiences that challenge my understanding of the world (私は世界を自分なりに理解するための経験を探し求めている) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .09, Connectedness: r = .26*, Vastness: r = .14*, Physiological: r = .16*, Accommodation: r = .11 DPES item 22: I see beauty all around me (私は自然の美しさを見る機会が多い) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .21*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .05, Accommodation: r = -.10 DPES item 31: I often look for patterns in the objects around me (私はしばしば自分の周りのものの中にパターンを探す) Time: r = .19*, Self-loss: r = .17*, Connectedness: r = .16*, Vastness: r = .13*, Physiological: r = .13*, Accommodation: r = .14* DPES item 36: I have many opportunities to see the beauty of nature (私は自分の周りのすべてに美しさを見出す) Time: r = .25*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .35*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .02 Thus, even if there were problems with the factor structure of the DPES, our conclusions would not change. Comment 4. As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. Reply : At first, we did not plan to perform a Structural Topic Modeling (STM). As mentioned in the Method section, the STM were exploratory and not pre-registered. After data were collected, improvement in the first authors’ statistical knowledge and skills enabled us to conduct the STM. Therefore, it was difficult to discuss any predictions of the textual analysis a-priori in the Introduction section. However, as pointed out in Comment 5, the findings that “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics were interesting regarding the cultural characteristics of the awe experience in Japan. It would be important to discuss these results. The narrative of the awe experiences included many elements of “Scenery” (landscapes, mountain, sea), which was associated with the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. These results were consistent with the Japanese view of the self (non-substantial, denial, embedded), which was thought to be related to nature worship prevalent among Japanese people (recognition of the self as a part of deified nature). In addition, the high proportion of “Threat” ( ifu , earthquake, typhoon) was thought to be associated with negative aspects of awe, threat-awe, which was in line with the fact that natural disasters occurred frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Since even a positive awe manipulation (recall and describe their experiences of positive awe) evoked the feelings of ifu , negative awe in Japanese, sufficiently (Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people could be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to geographic and historical background in Japan. Thus, we have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the Discussion section. (Added paragraphs) It should be also noted that “ Scenery” was the most common topic, which was positively related to the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. This topic mainly consisted of nature-related words, such as “landscape,” “mountain,” and “sea.” Previous studies have demonstrated that many Japanese people are familiar with nature worship, a belief that the self is a part of deified nature that is cultivated under the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism ( Sugimoto, 2020; Takano & Nomura, 2022a). Therefore, these results might reflect the Japanese view of the self in relation to nature worship (i.e., non-substantial, denial, embedded). Interestingly, “Threat,” the second common topic, might be associated with negative aspects of awe (i.e., threat-awe), which is in line with the fact that natural disasters occur frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Previous studies suggested that feelings of awe that are triggered by threatening stimuli such as natural disasters could be tinged with the perception of threat ( Takano & Nomura, 2022b). Given that even the recollection of awe experiences based on examples that do not include negative elements (e.g., seeing aurora) evokes the feelings of ifu, negative awe in Japanese ( Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people might be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to Japan’s geographic and historical background. Comment 5. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Reply : Thank you for your comment. The expected topic proportion represents what proportion of the total documents (responses) fall into each topic. For example, the value “0.20” indicates that approximately 20% of the responses fell into the topic of “Scenery,” regardless of their association with each of the AWE-S factors. We have incorporated this comment by adding statements in Note of Figure 1 as below in italic. (Added sentences) Expected topic proportions, proportion of the total documents (responses) falling into each topic , are depicted by dot size. In addition, these results themselves would provide meaningful insight regarding the cultural characteristics of awe experiences in Japan. Therefore, we modified the Results section by adding some results as shown below in italic, which were also discussed in the Discussion section (for details, please see the Reply to Comment 4). (Added sentences) Furthermore, seven topics were generated by the STM and labeled: “Spirituality,” “Threat,” “Spatiality,” “Universe,” “Scenery,” “Humanity,” and “Aesthetics” (see Figure 1). The top 20 highest probability words are listed in Table 3. In particular, “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics that emerged in all the responses. Regarding the Japanese AWE-S, participants with higher scores on the time factor were more likely to use words related to “Spatiality” and “Scenery.” Comment 6. Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? Reply : The word “de-ki-ru” written in the Chinese character was owing to conversion errors when Table 4 was created. We have corrected all the mistakes to “de-ki-ru” in Hiragana (please see Table 4). Comment 7. I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Reply : Nomura et al. (2020) stated that these characteristics of the sense of self based on Japanese religious and historical backgrounds were consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory in cultural psychology. To attract a wider range of readers, we have added the following sentences in the Introduction section. (Added sentences) Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) advocated independent and interdependent self-construals. Independent self-construals, more widespread in North American and Western European cultures, prioritize an individual’s needs, whereas interdependent self-construals, more common in Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, prioritize one’s social interactions. Comment 8. Typo P5: internal consistent Reply : Thank you for your feedback. We have modified the words accordingly. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 May 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 13 Oct 23 read Version 1 18 May 23 read read Hidefumi Hitokoto , Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan William L. D. Krenzer , Duke University, Durham, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Hitokoto H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 Hidefumi Hitokoto , School & Graduate School of Humanities, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan 0 Views copyright © 2023 Hitokoto H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for your thorough response and/or explanation. Since all of my previous concerns have been addressed, I agree to accept the manuscript as lastly submitted. With these details, I'm sure the J-AWE-S is initially validated, and I hope the best for the authors to further strengthen the scale validity in their following studies, across cultures. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Hitokoto H. Peer Review Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157333.r215152) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2#referee-response-215152 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Krenzer W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Sep 2023 | for Version 1 William L. D. Krenzer , Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA 0 Views copyright © 2023 Krenzer W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample (N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. I think that this manuscript will be a great addition to the awe literature and psychology as a whole. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Research integrity, open science practices, awe, facial recognition I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Oct 2023 Ryota Takano, Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0033, Japan Response to Reviewer #2: The authors for this paper set out to create a Japanese version of the AWE-S scale previously published (Yaden et al., 2019). Following the steps of previous researcher translating AWE-S, the researchers in this article went forward with translating the AWE-S into Japanese and getting the appropriate population to complete the survey in order to validate the translation. The researchers conducted a fairly conservative power analysis for determining the proper sample size needed, as well as setting an a prori criteria for including participants. Overall, i think that the researchers did a great job with this manuscript and conducting this study. I think that they have all the relevant citations, the study design is sound, and the researchers did a great job with addressing the findings that were specific to their Japanese participants. Reply : Thank you for taking the time and effort to check our manuscript. We appreciate your helpful comment. We incorporated all your comments in the manuscript. Point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text are provided below. Comment 1. There is one main recommendation to the researchers to enhance the clarity of the paper: In the study design and participant section they do a great job of describing the main sample ( N = 315) but rush through the other two samples that they use, and it makes it hard to really understand who these people are and why exactly they are being used and how they are different. Reply : Thank you for your suggestion. According to your comment, we have summarized the demographic information of samples in the main and pilot study, along with the respective statistical analyses applied, in Table 1. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Krenzer WLD. Peer Review Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r207846) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v1#referee-response-207846 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Hitokoto H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Hidefumi Hitokoto , School & Graduate School of Humanities, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan 0 Views copyright © 2023 Hitokoto H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Typo: P5: internal consistent Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Markus H, Kitayama S: Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review . 1991; 98 (2): 224-253 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Cross-cultural psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Oct 2023 Ryota Takano, Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0033, Japan Response to Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading the manuscript a lot. As it is deals with the cultural generalization of the AWE experience measure, especially in a culture where previous studies showed some interesting cultural differences between the West (Nakayama et al., 2020), the scale standardization should contribute to the test of universality of the emotion. My comments are listed below. They are mostly on the logic building up to the interpretation of the main results. Reply : Thank you so much for your valuable comments and queries. We have incorporated all your comments and revised the manuscript. Please find the point-by-point responses and the corresponding revised text below. Comment 1. I understand the authors are trying to make the case that the newly translated J-AWE-S has reliability and validity, including factorial and criterion-related. However, the current unfolding seems to make an impression that the correlations with DPES are given post-hoc interpretations. In other words, how can the validity correlations with DPES (or the lack thereof with self-loss and accommodation) be understood as supporting the validity of the J-AWE-S? Similarly, what was the logic behind controlling other positive emotions of DPES to arrive at the regression result of selected positive emotions explaining seemingly different aspects of J-AWE-S as in Table 2? Reply : Thank you for your comment. Since no previous studies have longitudinally examined the relationship between the trait and state aspects of awe, it is unclear how the tendency to feel awe on a daily basis (awe factor of the DPES) is associated with state responses to experiencing actual awe (AWE-S). However, several studies have shown that awe-related phenomena observed via the awe factor of the DPES (dispositional awe) could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe (Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). Hence, we investigated the relationships between the DPES and Japanese AWE-S to verify its construct validity. In addition, we controlled other positive emotions of the DPES to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S. We have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. (Added sentences) We used the Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale (DPES) since previous studies demonstrated that awe-related phenomena observed via the DPES could also be seen through the measurement of state-awe ( Bai et al., 2017; Piff et al., 2015; Stellar et al., 2018). We controlled other positive emotions to examine specific relationships between dispositional awe and each factor of the Japanese AWE-S Comment 2. Regarding J-AWE-S, Item 30 seems to show low factor loading. Would removing it contribute to the improvement of the fit? Reply: When item 30 was removed from the factor analysis, goodness-of-fit was slightly improved. With item 30: χ 2 (390) = 1070.31, CFI = .905, GFI = .854, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = 0.068 Without item 30: χ 2 (362) = 931.34, CFI = .919, GFI = .867, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = 0.053 Thus, we did not remove it to make international comparisons using the AWE-S easier. Comment 3. DPES seems to show a marginal fit. Does it reliably measure the 7 positive emotions? Or, removing some items/emotions increases the overall reliability, and that makes a better test? Reply : The goodness-of-fit of the DPES in this study fitted well as those in previous studies, such as Sugawara et al.’s study (2020). This study: χ 2 (644) = 1728.55, CFI = .860, RMSEA = .073 Sugawara et al.'s study (2020): χ 2 （644）＝ 4171.89, CFI＝.851, RMSEA＝.081 With the exception of one item, 38, whose item loading was below .40, the results were significantly unchanged (χ 2 (608) = 1650.09, CFI = .864, GFI = .769, RMSEA = .074, SRMR = .063). In addition, correlation analysis with each of the awe factors yielded similar results. DPES item 4: I feel wonder almost every day (私はほとんど毎日驚嘆の念を感じる) Time: r = .18*, Self-loss: r = .01, Connectedness: r = .30*, Vastness: r = -.04, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .10 DPES item 16: I often feel awe (私はよく畏敬の念を感じる) Time: r = .28*, Self-loss: r = .06, Connectedness: r = .27*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .14*, Accommodation: r = .04 DPES item 17: I seek out experiences that challenge my understanding of the world (私は世界を自分なりに理解するための経験を探し求めている) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .09, Connectedness: r = .26*, Vastness: r = .14*, Physiological: r = .16*, Accommodation: r = .11 DPES item 22: I see beauty all around me (私は自然の美しさを見る機会が多い) Time: r = .27*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .21*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .05, Accommodation: r = -.10 DPES item 31: I often look for patterns in the objects around me (私はしばしば自分の周りのものの中にパターンを探す) Time: r = .19*, Self-loss: r = .17*, Connectedness: r = .16*, Vastness: r = .13*, Physiological: r = .13*, Accommodation: r = .14* DPES item 36: I have many opportunities to see the beauty of nature (私は自分の周りのすべてに美しさを見出す) Time: r = .25*, Self-loss: r = .02, Connectedness: r = .35*, Vastness: r = .09, Physiological: r = .15*, Accommodation: r = .02 Thus, even if there were problems with the factor structure of the DPES, our conclusions would not change. Comment 4. As the text analysis of the experience topic and its correspondence with J-AWE-S response is so interesting, if the main aim of the study is to validate the scale in conjunction with the former, authors may present some expected findings given the nature of the J-AWE-S. This seemed possible a-pri-ori, when authors argued that awe involves vastness in scenes or has cultural roots of selfhood. Reply : At first, we did not plan to perform a Structural Topic Modeling (STM). As mentioned in the Method section, the STM were exploratory and not pre-registered. After data were collected, improvement in the first authors’ statistical knowledge and skills enabled us to conduct the STM. Therefore, it was difficult to discuss any predictions of the textual analysis a-priori in the Introduction section. However, as pointed out in Comment 5, the findings that “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics were interesting regarding the cultural characteristics of the awe experience in Japan. It would be important to discuss these results. The narrative of the awe experiences included many elements of “Scenery” (landscapes, mountain, sea), which was associated with the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. These results were consistent with the Japanese view of the self (non-substantial, denial, embedded), which was thought to be related to nature worship prevalent among Japanese people (recognition of the self as a part of deified nature). In addition, the high proportion of “Threat” ( ifu , earthquake, typhoon) was thought to be associated with negative aspects of awe, threat-awe, which was in line with the fact that natural disasters occurred frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Since even a positive awe manipulation (recall and describe their experiences of positive awe) evoked the feelings of ifu , negative awe in Japanese, sufficiently (Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people could be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to geographic and historical background in Japan. Thus, we have incorporated your comment by adding the following sentences in the Discussion section. (Added paragraphs) It should be also noted that “ Scenery” was the most common topic, which was positively related to the vastness factor of the Japanese AWE-S. This topic mainly consisted of nature-related words, such as “landscape,” “mountain,” and “sea.” Previous studies have demonstrated that many Japanese people are familiar with nature worship, a belief that the self is a part of deified nature that is cultivated under the syncretism of Shinto and Buddhism ( Sugimoto, 2020; Takano & Nomura, 2022a). Therefore, these results might reflect the Japanese view of the self in relation to nature worship (i.e., non-substantial, denial, embedded). Interestingly, “Threat,” the second common topic, might be associated with negative aspects of awe (i.e., threat-awe), which is in line with the fact that natural disasters occur frequently in Japan due to its climate and topography. Previous studies suggested that feelings of awe that are triggered by threatening stimuli such as natural disasters could be tinged with the perception of threat ( Takano & Nomura, 2022b). Given that even the recollection of awe experiences based on examples that do not include negative elements (e.g., seeing aurora) evokes the feelings of ifu, negative awe in Japanese ( Takano & Nomura, 2023), Japanese people might be more likely to feel threatened during awe experiences due to Japan’s geographic and historical background. Comment 5. How do we make of the "Expected Topic Proportion" presented in Fig1? The value "0.20" seems the largest level presented, but would that mean, for example, a response "Vastness" occupied approximately 20% of the case when the "Scenery" was described as the eliciting situation? Reply : Thank you for your comment. The expected topic proportion represents what proportion of the total documents (responses) fall into each topic. For example, the value “0.20” indicates that approximately 20% of the responses fell into the topic of “Scenery,” regardless of their association with each of the AWE-S factors. We have incorporated this comment by adding statements in Note of Figure 1 as below in italic. (Added sentences) Expected topic proportions, proportion of the total documents (responses) falling into each topic , are depicted by dot size. In addition, these results themselves would provide meaningful insight regarding the cultural characteristics of awe experiences in Japan. Therefore, we modified the Results section by adding some results as shown below in italic, which were also discussed in the Discussion section (for details, please see the Reply to Comment 4). (Added sentences) Furthermore, seven topics were generated by the STM and labeled: “Spirituality,” “Threat,” “Spatiality,” “Universe,” “Scenery,” “Humanity,” and “Aesthetics” (see Figure 1). The top 20 highest probability words are listed in Table 3. In particular, “Scenery” and “Threat” were the two most common topics that emerged in all the responses. Regarding the Japanese AWE-S, participants with higher scores on the time factor were more likely to use words related to “Spatiality” and “Scenery.” Comment 6. Just a check: on Table 3, there seem to be multiple "can(de-ki-ru)"s observed across topics, and in some cases, its Chinese character version is present with the same English counterpart (at Humanity). Is this normal for this technique? Reply : The word “de-ki-ru” written in the Chinese character was owing to conversion errors when Table 4 was created. We have corrected all the mistakes to “de-ki-ru” in Hiragana (please see Table 4). Comment 7. I was wondering to what extent "the self (as) represented as being non-substantial, denial, and embedded as default in Japan, a country with Buddhist and Shinto backgrounds (p3)" is related to the interdependent views of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). When the self is understood as socially conferred, it may render non-substantial in order to preserve harmony in one's in-group, denied so as to catch up with the group-held norm, and embedded in the group in which one should be a part. Reply : Nomura et al. (2020) stated that these characteristics of the sense of self based on Japanese religious and historical backgrounds were consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory in cultural psychology. To attract a wider range of readers, we have added the following sentences in the Introduction section. (Added sentences) Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) advocated independent and interdependent self-construals. Independent self-construals, more widespread in North American and Western European cultures, prioritize an individual’s needs, whereas interdependent self-construals, more common in Asian, Latin American, and African cultures, prioritize one’s social interactions. Comment 8. Typo P5: internal consistent Reply : Thank you for your feedback. We have modified the words accordingly. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Hitokoto H. Peer Review Report For: Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale (AWE-S): A structural topic modeling approach [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2023, 12 :515 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.147318.r174203) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v1#referee-response-174203 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Development of a Japanese version of the...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Takano R et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515", templates : { twitter : "Development of a Japanese version of the Awe Experience Scale.... Takano R et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-515/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/134275/157333") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "157333"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "180818": 0, "180819": 0, "178192": 0, "207835": 0, "207839": 0, "207837": 0, "207843": 0, "207841": 0, "207846": 35, "207850": 0, "207848": 0, "197999": 0, "183918": 0, "215151": 0, "197998": 0, "183919": 0, "197997": 0, "183916": 0, "183917": 0, "207852": 0, "198003": 0, "198002": 0, "198001": 0, "198000": 0, "215152": 18, "193590": 0, "175991": 0, "198005": 0, "198004": 0, "193589": 0, "174202": 0, "174203": 36, "179704": 0, "174201": 0, "174204": 0, "174205": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "fb4bb220-8f58-42b8-a1e4-80260b9edaef"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });