Natural encounter experience study
This proposed Lovefield study asks what people report feeling during ordinary encounters with Denis Pingin: whether they notice a change, how strong it feels and what was happening around them.
Voluntary descriptions and numerical ratings would document emotional and bodily experiences in everyday settings. The study is in preparation.
The question
People sometimes describe changes in how they feel during an encounter with Denis. The study would document those accounts using a procedure established before research contributions are collected.
The main measure would be the strength of the change people report. Their written descriptions would help explain what the ratings mean in their own experience. Every response contributes to understanding the range of experiences, including when someone reports feeling the same throughout.
The findings would describe participants’ own recollections of change, gathered after an encounter together with its surrounding context. Ratings and written accounts let us examine how people describe the same experience in different ways.
What taking part would involve
The intended setting is Denis's ordinary participation in places such as events, dance floors, and public outdoor spaces. A visible invitation, for example on a wearable item or a card, would let interested people find the study themselves. Denis may also invite selected people personally.
People who choose to take part would read the study information, consent, and describe their encounter through a dedicated online form. The aim is to gather accounts close to the time of the experience, using the agreed collection window.
The proposed form would first save the person's own account and fixed ratings. It could then offer up to two optional clarifying questions, one at a time, during the same session. AI would help select a neutral question from a defined set when clarification is useful. The person could answer, skip a question, or finish.
Participation would take place in one online session following an ordinary encounter. Participants would choose how much to share and could finish after the initial account and ratings. An invitation to any later study would explain that study and ask for fresh consent.
How the study would work
The study combines numerical ratings with written accounts. Ratings describe the distribution of reported change strength. The accounts show what people mean by those changes and how they describe the encounter.
Researchers would examine the descriptions systematically, record how they group and interpret them, and relate those themes to the numerical summaries and available context. Independent examination of a defined selection of accounts would help check the interpretation and identify disagreements.
The findings would describe the people who choose to take part. Recording the invitation settings and how responses were gathered makes clear whose experiences are represented.
The protocol would specify eligibility, consent, the timing of reports, handling of repeated encounters, analysis, and data responsibilities before the main collection. The research team remains responsible for the methods and interpretation, including where software assists the work.
Preparation and a first feasibility test
Preparing the study means agreeing the protocol and research responsibilities, developing the invitation, questions and collection system, and arranging ethics review and data handling. We would also check whether people understand the questions as intended before opening research collection.
A small pilot would then test whether people can find the study, give informed consent, complete the form, and provide usable accounts in the intended settings. It would also help estimate how many eligible first reports the planned attendance can produce.
The pilot would guide the decision about whether and how to proceed with main collection. That review would settle a workable procedure, collection target and calendar, including any changes to the proposed scope.
The encounter-study initiative describes the budget for preparation, the pilot, main collection, analysis, reporting and data custody.
What the study would produce
The intended outputs are a clear description of the procedure, an analysis of the ratings and written accounts, a summary understandable to participants, and a manuscript prepared for publication. Data and supporting material would be shared or held under the agreed consent, privacy, and access arrangements.
The report would bring the full range of accounts into view and explain how the methods and participant group shape their interpretation. Completing the agreed research and reporting produces a body of work that others can examine and learn from.
The results could identify experiences worth understanding more closely, improve the questions used in later work, and inform practical and educational development.
Help develop the study
We welcome research and technical collaborators who can help refine the design and carry out defined parts of the work, as well as people who can help fund the study. Relevant contributions include questionnaire design, analysis of written accounts, statistics, independent methods review, participant and data responsibilities, and the technical collection flow.
Contact us about collaboration or funding for the natural encounter experience study. Please name the natural encounter experience study in your message and describe the contribution you have in mind.
If you would like to describe an experience now, the private feedback page gives you a way to share it with the project. Project updates will follow the study's preparation and announce when participation opens.