p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 7.0px 72.0px; text-indent: -72.0px; line-height: 21.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; background-color: #ffffff}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none; color: #ff2600; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #ff2600}
span.s3 {font-kerning: none; color: #0433ff; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #0433ff}

In reflection of the Wiech et al., (2008) journal article, it is clear from both secondary source articles ‘Religious Belief and Pain Relief’ NHS Choices, (2008) and ‘Faith In God Eases Pain’ The Express, (2008) that the mood and perception of pain was dramatically different of a religious volunteer to those of whom do not hold a belief. This was evident as when presented with a picture of the Virgin Mary, the Catholic group perceived notably less pain from the noxious stimulant than that of the non-religious image. Conversely, volunteers of no belief had an equally high level of pain rating with both images displayed. The mood rating effecting pain perception differed greatly between the two groups. The Catholic group presented with a positive mood when shown an image of the Virgin Mary which is believed to have helped elevate their pain perception. Similarly, the group of non-believers were perceived to be in a positive mood when shown an image unrelated to religion. However, the Catholic group reported significantly less pain when in a positive mental state yet the positive mood of the group of non-believers had no effect on pain perception and did not reduce the pain perceived NHS Choices, (2008). 
There was no clear difference found in pain related activity in the brain between the two groups when presented with religious and non-religious images. However, fMRI imaging did show an increase of activity in the Catholic group, in the right ventrolateral cortex which Is thought to have an influence on modifying pain. Dissimilarly, there was no evidence of an increase in activity in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in the non-religious group. This could explain the overall conclusion reached by both secondary sources, that showing a religious image will allow believing participants to suppress the level of pain perceived from a stimulus that causes discomfort NHS Choices, (2008).
The differing purposes of the two secondary sources affected the quality of information obtained as the article ‘Religious Belief and Pain Relief’ was significantly more informative than the ‘Faith In God Eases Pain’ The Express, (2008) article.’ As a newspaper article ‘Faith In God Eases Pain’ The Express, (2008) has been written for an audience of readers whom pay for fad headlines to provide entertainment. This article gave no scientific reference and did not analyse the original article which then conveyed inaccurate information to the reader. The quality of information relayed varied vastly between the two secondary sources however, It was possible to gain a reasonable understanding of the effects that religious imagery can have on pain perception predominantly from reading ‘Religious Belief and Pain Relief’ NHS Choices, (2008) which was written as an informative educational piece of text for readers of all backgrounds.