Hypocrisy: the attitude-behaviour discrepancy

Hypocrisy the locating-behaviour discrepancyThere are possibly no better examples of attitude-behaviour paradoxes than those of British government Diane Abbot, a Labour MP and avid socialist campaigner (who criticized Harriet Harman and Tony Blair for sending their children to selective state schools), created controversy when she sent her son to the semiprivate City of capital of the United Kingdom School (Swift, 2003). Her actions did not correspond with her express attitudes Diane was acting hypocritically.In general an attitude is defined as an overall evaluation of an object that is based on cognitive, affective and behavioural information (Maio Haddock, 2010, p. 4). Such attitudes can relate to abstract concepts (such as collectivism) or concrete objects. An attitude is constructed of three distinct components judgements of a cognitive, behavioural and affective nature (Breckler, 1984).Attitudes play a significant role in human cognition particularly in attention (Holbroo k, Berent, Krosnick, Visser, Boninger, 2005 Roskos-Ewoldsen Fazio, 1992), interpretation (Vallone, Ross, Lepper, 1985) and memory (Eagly, Chen, Chaiken, Shaw-Barnes, 1999). Attitudes persuade information processing and therefore manipulate our subjective construct of reality. With attitudes conveying such charm over cognition we would expect their effects to be expressed behaviourally.However, despite such cognitive influences, attitudes are not always congruent with behaviour. A clear example of this was illustrated by Richard LaPiere (1934) Whilst travelling America with two Chinese individuals, in a time of heightened racial prejudice against Asians, LaPiere noted all 251 establishments they visited. Despite the current prejudice against Asians only 1 of 251 (0.004%) establishments refused service. However, six months later, when LaPiere sent questionnaires to the establishments 91% of 128 respondents claimed they would not accept Chinese patrons. The symbolic attitudes ex pressed in the questionnaire did not reflect the concrete behavioural actions.Such a counter-intuitive result prompted research in this area in a review of 33 studies Wicker (1969) found the average attitude-behaviour correlations to be .15 (rarely exceeding .30, accounting for just 10% of variance). Such a low correlation led Wicker to suggest the rejection of the attitude concept.Yet for certain behaviours a strong attitude-behaviour link can be conventional. For example, Fazio and Williams (1986) found a strong correlation (r(121) = .782) in predicting individuals voting behaviour. In a to a greater extent than recent review, Sheeran and Taylor (1999) found a strong attitude-behaviour correlation (r+ = .45) in relation to arctic usage far exceeding Wickers (1969) analysis. Such inconsistencies illustrate the numerous complex processes that mediate the attitude-behaviour link. Subsequently, research turned to explaining under what conditions attitudes become action.Individual Di fferencesOur behaviour is doubtless the product of thought and our thought processes can differ phenomenally from person to person (Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, Rodriguez, 1986). Thus, individual and cultural differences overhear been offered as an explanation to attitude-behaviour inconsistencies.Schwartz (1973) investigated the role of self-responsibility on the mediation of the attitude-behaviour link. The participants were measured for both their attitudes and the degree to which they assigned responsibility to themselves (to donate bone marrow). Schwartz (1973) found those high in self-responsibility ascription acted far more attitude consistently (r=.44) than those of low responsibility (r=.01) a significant contrast (p The degree to which an individual self-monitors has also been proposed as an attitude-behaviour moderator (Snyder Tanke, 1976). Those high in self-monitoring are more behaviourally versatile across situations, as they are more aware of their expected character in a given social con school text, so attitudes are often overridden by social norms. Low self-monitors remain stable across situations, relatively unaware of the social context, acting in line with their attitudes. In an experiment where participants were requested to carry through counter-attitudinal essays (Snyder Tanke, 1976) low self-monitors were found to have high attitude-behaviour correlations (r(10) = +.65, p A further individual difference in attitude-behaviour congruity is cognitive processing weather individuals tie in effortful issue-relevant cognition or not (Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, Rodriguez, 1986). Cacioppo et al (1986), in relation to a presidential election, found high-cognition individuals to have stronger attitude behaviour understanding (r(40)=.86) than those of low-cognition (r(41)=.41) such a comparison was significant (Z = 3.71, p Weather it is due to cognitive preference, the degree of self-monitoring or responsibility ascription individual differences in attitude-behaviour congruence are clear. Individual preference for attitude inaction can account for some variation, yet the situation itself can also provide a bias.Situations fascinateThe power of the situation has been illustrated by legion(predicate) studies (for example Asch, 1955 Milgram, 1963), it is therefore unsurprising that the situation can exert influence over attitude-behaviour congruency.The public or private nature of an attitude can influence overt behaviour. Public behaviour, due to increased salience of social norms, will involve more normative influence than private behaviour. Froming, Walker and Lopyan (1982) investigated the role of self attitude salience (using a reflect) or public salience (using an audience) on the attitude-behaviour link. Participants were selected based on their negative views of penalty and subject to an electrical shock teacher/learner task (similar to that of Milgram, 1963). The experimenter manipulated self salience against public salience whilst measuring what level of shock the teachers administered to the learners. Those in the mirror condition (attitude consistent) shocked far less than the participants in the evaluative audience condition (attitude inconsistent) t(23) = 3.64, p The reality of an attitude can effect behavioural outcomes a bias to act unrealistically in hypothetical situations (Brown, Ajzen, Hrubes, 2003). In a contingent valuation scenario Brown et al (2003) found participants to be 48% more likely to donate $8 in a hypothetical senario in comparison to a realistic situation indicating that more spectacular beliefs are touch off by concrete situations than by hypothetical situations. Aditionally, Ajzen, Brown, and Carvajal (2004) illustrated that hypothetical intension correlate more so (r(120) = .51) than real situations (r(120) = .39). Such a bias could apply to socialism (being a theoretical construct) yet not to a childs education (a concrete action).The salience of attitudes and the salience of situational norms can influence attitude-behaviour congruence. In a court subject field scenario Snyder and Swann (1976) found that if attitudes were not made salient there was very little correspondence (r(56) = .06 .07, ns), yet if attitudes were made salient (with a short paragraph of text highlighting the importance of ones own view) attitudes did significantly correspond with behaviour, r(28) = .58, p The role of affective (the emotions associated with an attitude) and cognitive (attributes and beliefs associated with an attitude) control on behavioural action varies between situations. These two categories can be activated separately, by making a category salient. Millar Tesser (1986) successfully manipulated behaviour by making affective or cognitive controls salient those made cognitively salient enacted more instrumental behaviour, whereas those made affectively salient enacted consumatory behaviour, F(1,59) = 8.85, p Another emotive motivator is that of vested interest. Vested interest essentially means that the event of a decision will personally affect an individual. The more than an issue directly effects an individual, the more logical processing that will take bulge out and the higher attitude-behaviour congruence will be (Sivacek Crano, 1982). Sivacek and Crano (1982) analysed attitude-behaviour congruence in relation to vested interest of a proposed alcohol drinking age limit. Unsurprisingly, those most affected by the change were more attitude consistent (r(39) = .30) and those unaffected were most inconsistent (r(18) = .16). As the future of your child is somewhat determined by education, parents would likely have significant vested interest in this decision. Therefore, behaviour should be attitude consistent.The influences of the situation are huge be it through the nature of the situation (its publicity, reality, potential affects or emotionality) or the salience of attitudes activated, it undoubtedly plays a role in mediating attitude-behaviour correspondence.Modelling attitude-behaviour congruenceWith the legion(predicate) factors that influence attitude-behaviour congruence a unified model seems doubtful. However, Ajzens (1991) possible action of planned behaviour has found significant empirical support. The model focuses on the behavioural intention as a mediator between attitudes, subjective norms and sensed behavioural control (see figure 1). The model claims an attitude is the action between the individuals expectation of a behavioural outcome and its desir talent. The subjective norms component refers to the normative beliefs closely a given behaviour, in interaction with the motivation (i.e. high/low self monitors) to comply with these norms. The final component, perceived behavioural control, refers to the individuals judgement of their own ability to perform the behavioural action. Ajzen, Brown, Carvajal (2004) have shown that intentions correlate strongly with behaviour (r=.57) , as do attitudes (r=.31), subjective norms (r=.27) and perceived behavioural control (r=.45).Since LaPiere (1934) and Wicker (1969) suggested the rejection of attitudes, research has established specifically when attitudes do lead to action. When facing the problem Why a socialist parent would send their child to a private school? many of the situational and individual variables mentioned could apply. For example, deciding a childs future is likely to be classed as a private behaviour and so should be less biased by social norms and more attitude dependent (Froming, Walker, Lopyan, 1982). Incongruously, the reality of such a situation is likely to dampen behavioural expression of attitudes (Ajzen, T. Brown, Carvajal, 2004 T. Brown, Ajzen, Hrubes, 2003).It is impossible to isolate why any behaviour is enacted as there are too many conflicting variables behaviour is the sum of these many variables. Perhaps the principle of aggregation is more suitable for linking attitudes to beha viour As any given behaviour is unlikely to relate to a single attitude rather many attitudes, situations factors and individual differences interact to produce behavioural action (Ajzen, 1991 Fishbein Ajzen, 1974). The human mind subconsciously factors a huge number of variables producing a seamlessly effortless conclusion far too many variables to consciously disentangle.FiguresFigure 1 Reproduced from Ajzen (1991) p.182

Difficulties Of Rene Descartes Cogito

Difficulties Of Rene Descartes CogitoThe most important contribution of Ren Descartes in the history of Philosophy is his cogito. In the same way, however, the cogito has also been the most critical problem of his philosophy. This essay will focus more on the difficulties of the cogito.But first, on the side of the cogito one grandeur of the cogito is that it is the byproduct of the Method, which is a nonher contribution of Descartes not unless in modern philosophy, but also in the field of science. The origination of the cogito from the Methodic Doubt is quite evaluate exclusively prior knowledge and truths must(prenominal) be erased, unless they are indubitable. In opposite words, all knowledge and opinions are subjected to examination, whether they foundation survive the test of doubt. Descartes, having rig the item (or act) of his doubting indubitable, hence maintains the fact that his being enables his doubting (or thinking) as a clear and distinct idea, and thus the cobblers last Cogito, ergo sum I think, therefore I am. We understand therefore that the cogito is a product of deduction or inference. However, as I have said, the cogito is quite anticipated. This is because the rules of his Method lay flock an algorithm that has a quite predictable reticuloendothelial systemult, as if laying down a theoretical step-by-step means to prove something that is already true. The cogito is also considered a product of intuition and not of deduction. However, as far as methods of analysis are concerned, Descartess Method and cogito are valid.Moreover, insofar as the solipsistic argument, the cogito is a rather second-rate argument. By this, I mean that the cogito is a solipsistic truth, or a belief in the self as only reality or basis of reality. When Descartes has proposed that all knowledge and opinions must be cleared off the mind (or must be brought into doubt), there is unagitated in Descartes the belief that the only thing he can be sure of is t hat he exists. He cannot deny the fact that he exists, even if the very idea of his being is most accessible via roll in the hay (hence, this he must doubt also). Thus if Descartes denies his being in the first place, his cogito will never materialize as a basis for truth. But since Descartes adopts a solipsistic view, he is safe from committing contradiction. To put simply insofar as the I is concerned (the I, which thinks and doubts), the I exists.Nevertheless, Descartes paradox, which is the cogito itself, is not an absolute oxymoron. By the cogito being a paradox, I mean the self-contradictory problem of the cogito that is, the problem of which came first the cogito or the sum. Using the Method of Doubt, the cogito seems to go before the sum, since it is the act of doubting/thinking that came before the conclusion for the act of existence. But in the context of Descartes, it is implied that thinking is actually in the context of being. Now the strength of the cogito argument is that it is a closed argument, relying only on the idea that existence constitutes thinking and thinking reflects existence.It is in these strengths of the cogito, however, that it is also problematic. First is on the solipsistic view. The very problem of the cogito here is the question of reality outside the I. Since Descartes uses himself and only himself in his basis for truth, anything outside himself can be doubtful or false, and thus cannot be a basis for truth. Only the thinking I, thus the kind person, can prove and claim ones existence. Thus, the other for the thinking I is doubtful, insofar as the I is concerned. The problem is that Descartes is as if denying the existence of animals, plants and other things, since these things do not and cannot think. Moreover, after proving that he is a thinking thing, the next question that arises is now how do we establish an edifice of knowledge? Descartes takes emphasis on putting a foundation for knowledge by first using the Metho d, but forgets how to formulate the next set of algorithm once the Method has been applied. The problem of the solipsistic argument of the cogito is that postal code more exists outside the selfs being a thinking thing. It only proves the existence of oneself insofar as the thinking I is concerned, and does not prove the idea and the existence of other things other than the self. Besides, other Is can think of me a mere fiction.In the problem of the solipsistic argument of the cogito, however, the idea of a Perfect Being other than the thinking self exists. Descartes said that since he is cogito (thinking/doubting thing), he is therefore an imperfect being. But since he is imperfect, he has an idea of a perfect thing, which can come only from a Perfect Being, which is God. Nevertheless, nothing more exists outside the thinking self aside from the self itself and God.Now the second weakness of the cogito is in its contradictory problem. Although the cogito (cogito-sum relationship) i s a closed argument (like Spinozas freedom-necessity concept) one cannot ignore to question the validity of its argument. In this argument, whether the cogito conditions the sum or the sum conditions the cogito, the idea of existence is still in danger, because it is subject to doubt. The sum (I am) only works for the thinking I, but existence alone cannot prove thinking. Thus what seemed to be a safe closed argument is not free of loopholes at all, because existence in general is not enough to prove thought. Nevertheless, the cogito is concerned for the existence of ones being a res cogitans or thinking thing only.Moreover, that material objects exist because of God is another argument that branched out from the cogito. After concluding that the Supreme Being cannot deceive, Descartes riposte to concluding that material objects thus also exist. However, this only results to another circular argument cogito presupposes God, which tells the res cogitans that its ideas come from exte rnal objects but then it is from these external objects that the cogito must doubt first before it realizes that it is a res cogitans, then assume the existence of a Perfect Being.Generally, we find Descartess Method of Doubt and cogito weak. The main antecede that we cannot distinguish reality from dream is not even strong enough to be a basis for truth. Although Descartes skepticism is optimistic at finding a certain knowledge that we can know of, still it is rather destructive of the foundation of knowledge that is the objective of his skepticism in the first place. The problem is that Descartes proposes arguments for wherefore everything can be subjected to doubt, such as the dream argument, the deceiving God argument, and the evil demon argument. It is difficult to follow Descartess advice because it is more difficult to prove a negation than proving otherwise (in the case of Descartes proving the negation of knowledge to prove the opposite), since if we convince ourselves w ith these arguments of Descartes, then we must act and think as if we are experiencing illusions and hallucinations all the time. This is of course difficult for us. In fact one example where we can prove Descartes could probably be right all along that an evil demon is deceiving us (e.g., dwhen something defies the laws of physics) is when we experience a Criss holy man trick.Perhaps we can say that the main problem of Descartess philosophy is both its extreme rationalist and non-rationalist approach. Descratess philosophy is rationalist because it proclaims reason as the only valid criterion for certain knowledge and thus truth. It is non-rationalist, however, in the sense that it somehow forgets other valid functions of the human mind or reason that is reason as the faculty of mans sentient soul, can, aside from thinking and doubting, imagine, sense and feel.

The effects of positive illusions on relationship quality

The effects of prescribed illusions on family birth caseA general presumption in the study of interpersonal relationships is that closeness is a significant, desired, and requisite char subr emergeineeristic of relationship cheer (Berscheid, Snyder, Omoto, 1989). According to Berscheid et al. (1989) partners physical proximity is a requirement for closeness and relationship satisfaction. However there is mixed evidence regarding inform levels of satisfaction in relationships where partners be physically separate (i.e. long distance romantic relationships, LDRRs). Because partners in LDRRs presumably have less face-to-face (FtF) fundamental interaction than partners in close proximal romantic relationships (CPRRs), the literature infers that partners in LDRRs should report pitifuler levels of satisfaction than partners in CPRRs. Indeed, some question suggests that partners in LDRRs report lower levels of satisfaction than partners in CPRRs (Van Horn, Arnone, Nesbitt, Desile ts, Sears, Giffin, Brudi, 1997). Counterintuitively, Guldner and Swenson (1995) open up no differences in levels of satisfaction, intimacy and trust between LDRRs and CPRRs. Limited amounts of explore addresses these divergent findings with regards to relationship fiber measures (i.e. satisfaction, optimism, intimacy) in LDRRs and CPRRs. The face explore suggests that dictatorial illusions, defined broadly as make cognitive construal processes, help to elucidate these conflicting findings. Recent research shows that positive illusions atomic number 18 more unmistakable in LDRRs than in CPRRs (Stafford Merolla, 2007). Because Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996a) propose that positive illusions decrease relational uncertainty, the present study suggests that partners in LDRRs use positive illusions more than partners in CDRRs because their deprivation of FtF interaction heightens relationship uncertainty.Positive IllusionsAccording to Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996b pp ), positive illusions argon qualities that hoi polloi see in their partners that their partners do not see in themselves. They atomic number 18 the result of motivated cognitive processes whereby bulk exaggerate the qualities and traits of their partner and understate their weaknesses in the face of relationship doubt and uncertainty (Murray et al. 1996a). Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996a) argue that slew develop positive illusions of their romantic partners organically through the development of their relationship. They claim that developing romantic relationships are replete with uncertainty. In the beginning of a relationship, people are learning to understand and predict their partners behavior. In order to maintain security in and certainty of the relationship, people adjust their cognitions astir(predicate) their partner, focusing on their virtues. Building on past literature regarding self-fulfilling effects of perceptions, they argue that by focusing on the positive a spects of their partner, people leave alone tend to have positive interactions with their partner that contribute to a favorable view of their partner as the right person (e.g. Snyder, Tanke, Berscheid, 1977).As relationships develop, partners become more interdependent and their investments increase (e.g., Levinger, 1983). Furthermore, everyplace time, partners become more aware of each others inherent shortcomings threatening their beliefs and idealizations that their partner is the right person. According to Murray and colleagues (1996a), as these realities grow more unming take, people become motivated to maintain confidence in their relationship and their partner provoking the idealization process.Research has shown that positive illusions have self-fulfilling effects. Specifically, intimates who idealise their partner experience greater decreases in relationship doubt and relationship conflict as well as greater increases in relationship satisfaction than intimates who do not view their partners (Murray et al., 1996a, 1996b). Murray and Holmes (1997) found that partners in both dating and married relationships who idealise each other experienced greater love, greater trust and less ambivalence in their relationships than those intimates who did not idealize each other. In a longitudinal follow-up study the authors found that among dating couples, those people that held stronger illusions round their partner (i.e. more idealistic perceptions of their partner) ab initio were less likely to terminate the relationship than those individuals who held less idealistic illusions about their partners.Given that positive illusions fend off relational uncertainty (Murray et al., 1996a), the present research pull up stakes examine whether associations between relational uncertainty and positive illusions are moderated by relationship type (i.e. LDRRs vs. CPRRs). Specifically, this study will address whether relationships marked by greater uncertainty (i.e. LDRRs) are likely to engender the use of positive illusions.Recent research suggests that couples in LDRRs are more likely to use positive illusions than couples in CPRRs (Stafford Merolla, 2007). They suggest a possible reason for this phenomenon. Idealizations stem from a lack of FtF interaction, a hallmark of LDRRs. Indeed they found that idealizations in LDRRs were a) more apparent than in CPRRs, b) think to a lack of FtF communication, and c) related to increased optimism about the future of the relationship. Although initial evidence supports the idea that positive illusions are used as a way to cope with the lack of FtF interaction in LDRRs, there are a number of limitations that need to be addressed (small sample size, misfortune of other mediated channels of communication). upcoming research should address these limitations and offer alternative explanations for why positive illusions are more apparent in LDRRs than in CPRRs. This is because the divergences between the tw o relationship types are presumably not limited to quantity of FtF interaction, but having substantive qualitative differencesBecause Murray, et al. (1996a) suggests that positive illusions decrease relational uncertainty, the present study suggests that partners in LDRRs use positive illusions more than partners in CDRRs because they face greater relational uncertainty. Supporting this idea, Sahlstein (2004) interviewed partners in LDRRs and found that approximately 12% of couples interviewed describe that time apart creates uncertainty and unknowns because partners are not sharing experiences. In addition, Sahlstein (1996) found that partners in LDRRs and CPRRs who were more certain of interaction rituals (i.e., interaction that occurs in a fixed manner at a fixed time) were more likely to report higher relationship satisfaction than partners who were not certain of interaction rituals.relational UncertaintyAccording to Knobloch and Solomon (2002b), romantic relationships are pri me contexts for experiencing uncertainty. Relational uncertainty is the degree of confidence that people have in their perceptions of involvement within interpersonal associations (Knobloch Solomon, 1999).There are three main sources of relational uncertainty that arise in romantic relationships self uncertainty, partner uncertainty, and relationship uncertainty (Knobloch Solomon, 1999 Knobloch, Solomon, Cruz, 2001). Self uncertainty includes partners reservations about their own involvement in the romantic relationship. Partner uncertainty involves peoples doubts about their partners participation in the relationship. Relationship uncertainty constitutes doubts about the relationship itself.During relationship development, people are learning to navigate, understand, and predict their partners behavior. People experience uncertainty about their own and their partners designs, beliefs, perceptional states, etc. (Berger, 1995). Because relational uncertainty is a negative aversi ve state, partners are motivated to reduce this aspecting, especially if they want to remain committed to their partner and their relationship. Prior research has found that relational uncertainty is positively related to negative relationship outcomes much(prenominal) as jealousy (Knobloch, Solomon, Cruz, 2001) and negatively related to positive relationship outcomes such as intimacy (Knobloch Solomon, 2002 Thesis Solomon, 2008). Because LDRRs are characterized by relational uncertainty (Cameron Ross, 2007 Shalstein, 2004) and experienced uncertainty is linked to negative relational outcomes (decreases in intimacy, increase in jealousy), the present study will investigate the chair effects of relationship type (LDRR or CPRR) on the relationship between relational uncertainty and positive illusions, as well as relationship quality measures (i.e., satisfaction, intimacy, optimism).Outline of proposed study and hypothesesThe present study contributes to the growing literature on LDRRs by investigating a mediation model of relationship satisfaction moderated by relationship type (LDRR or CPRR) in order to explain how and why partners in LDRRs differ from partners in CPRRs in reports of relationship quality measures (i.e. satisfaction, intimacy, optimism). Within such parameters, this manoeuver focuses on positive illusions as a possible mediator of the relationship between relational uncertainty and relationship quality (i.e. satisfaction, closeness and optimism). In addition, the current study suggests that relationship type (LDRRs or CPRRs) will moderate the relationship between relational uncertainty and positive illusions (mediator variable) such that relational uncertainty will be associated with greater positive illusions for partner in LDRRs than partners in CPRRs. This study is a 2 (relationship type LDRR vs. CPRR) x 2 (relational certainty low vs. high) x 2 (positive illusions low vs. high) between groups factorial design. The dependent measures are relationship satisfaction, intimacy, and optimism.HypothesesPrior research indicates that relational uncertainty is associated with jealousy (Knobloch et al, 2001), negative emotion (Aune et al., 1994), and decreased liking for a romantic partner (Kellerman Reynolds). Additionally, research suggests that uncertainty reduction fosters feelings of intimacy (Knobloch Solomon Theiss Solomon, 2008). In line with this research, the present study proposesH1 People who are uncertain about their relationship will report lower levels of satisfaction and intimacy in their relationship than people who are certain about their relationship.Murray et al (1996a) argue that positive illusions develop naturally through relationship progression. According to them, partners idealize their partners exaggerating their qualities and understating their weaknesses in the face of relational uncertainty. In addition, Stafford and Merolla (2007) suggest that lack of FtF interaction leads partners in LDRRs to idealize their partners more than partners in CPRRs. They also found that positive illusions in LDRRs were related to feelings of optimism about the future of their relationship. These findings, taken together, suggest that positive illusions act as a coping mechanism for partners who face relational uncertainty. Formally statedH2 People who are uncertain about their relationship will idealize their partners more than those people who are certain about their relationship.H3 People who idealize their partner will be more satisfied with and optimistic about their relationship than people who do not idealize their partner.H4 People who are in LDRRs will be more likely to idealize their partner than people who are in CPRRs.Even though some research suggests otherwise (Van Horn, Arnone, Nesbitt, Desilets, Sears, Giffin, Brudi, 1997 Helgeson, 1994a), partners in LDRRs have been found to report akin levels of satisfaction, trust, and intimacy as partners in CPRRs (Guldner Swens on, 1995). Counterintuitively, these divergent findings suggest that partners in LDRRs and CPRRs do not significantly differ on their reports of satisfaction. Formally statedH5 People who are in LDRRs will report similar levels of relationship satisfaction as people in CPRRs.Proposed StudyTwo hundred (25 people per cell) partners who are currently in a LDRR or a CPRR will be asked to participate in the present study (the interest in this study is with individual responses not that of the dyad). Participants will be asked to fill out an informed consent form. Then a questionnaire will be given to each participant. This questionnaire will include a question about relationship status, as well as measures of relational uncertainty, positive illusions, satisfaction, intimacy, and optimism. In addition, participants will be asked to fill out a demographic questionnaire (age, length of relationship, attachment style, etc.)ResultsOverview of Analytic dodgeGiven that couples in contrast to individuals served as participants, partners responses will likely be interdependent. Advised by Kenney (1988), couples will serve as the unit of analysis. guesswork 1 predicts that people who are certain about their relationship will report lower levels of satisfaction and intimacy than people who are certain about their relationships. A MANOVA will be conducted with ride as the within-dyad factor and relational certainty (low or high) as the between subjects factor. Hypothesis 2 predicts that uncertain people will idealize their partners more than those people who are certain. A MANOVA will be conducted with sex as the within-dyad factor and relational certainty as the between subjects factor. Hypothesis 3 predicts that people who idealize their partner more will be more satisfied than people who do not idealize their partner. A MANOVA will be conducted with sex as the within-dyad factor and positive illusions (high or low) as the between subjects factor. Hypotheses 4 and 5 pred ict that people in LDRRs will idealize their partner more than people in CPRRS but that both partners in LDRRs and in CPRRs will report similar levels of satisfaction. A MANOVA will be conducted with sex as the within-dyad factor and relationship type (LDRR or CPRR) as the between subjects factor.DiscussionThe purpose of the current research is to add to the burgeoning literature on LDRRs. Specifically, the goal is to show that positive illusions mediate the relationship between relational uncertainty and relationship quality measures. In addition, the present study suggests that relationship type moderates the relationship between relational uncertainty and positive illusions. If the proposed hypotheses are supported, there will be implications for future research focused on positive illusions and LDRRs. Specifically, the results of this study could be applied to a therapeutic setting. If positive illusions are found to be related to positive relationship outcomes then therapists c ould teach couples to use this coping technique as a way to deal with the stress of maintaining a LDRR.One limitation of the proposed study is that the variables of interest are measured not manipulated. If the present results are supported, future research should attempt to manipulate relational uncertainty to determine if there is a causal relationship between uncertainty, positive illusions, and relationship quality measures. Although to date there are no relational uncertainty manipulations, future research should modify the self uncertainty priming procedure discussed in Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner, and MoYtt (2007) for this purpose. In addition to conducting experiments, future research should also study other possible moderators of the proposed model. For example, attachment style as a moderator, do insecurely attached partners feel even more uncertain in LDRR than securely attached partners? If so, would they be even more or less likely to use positive illusions. Fu ture research should address these intriguing questions.The present study also brings up a number of conceptual issues and questions. For example, although positive illusions counteract doubts people hold about the realities of their partners imperfections and relationship problems, are there some more severe relationship problems that should not be construed and instead be directly addressed? Recent research suggests that these cognitive construal processes are maladaptive for partners who face more severe or frequent relationship problems (McNulty, OMara Karney, 2008). In a longitudinal study, McNulty et al. (2008) found that although positive illusions led to greater marital satisfaction in healthy marriages (i.e., less relationship problems and observed negative behavior), these cognitive processes also led to a decrease in marital satisfaction for those partners in troubled marriages. The authors suggest that partners who face mild marital problems may benefit from using posit ive illusions rather than facing potential conflict in addressing these problems. However, employing positive illusions to cope with relationships marked by more sever marital problems (physical or psychological abuse) may just exacerbate these problems everywhere time. In relation to LDRRs, perhaps partners should not employ positive illusions over long periods of time and instead directly address problems associated with negotiating time apart if they want to ensure the future of their relationship.Another interesting issue that arises deals with how partners in LDRRs that idealize their partner fair when they make a transition from LDRR to CPRR. Recent work by Stafford and Merolla (2007) found that upon transitioning to a CPRR, people formerly in LDRRs who idealized their partner were more likely to terminate their relationship than people formerly in LDRRs who idealized their partner less. This suggests that although positive illusions might act as a coping strategy for partne rs who deal with high relational uncertainty, this strategy does not seem to work when the relationship type changes.

The Minor Post Exilic Prophets Essay -- essays research papers fc

Before the Babylonian exile, Biblical prophesy reached its highest point. Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel changed and molded the scope of Israelite religion. Their writings were intelligent, insightful, well developed, and contained a great spiritual meaning. Following the Babylonian exile, however, prophesy took a depressing downward turn. There are many post exilic prophets, yet their writings are usually short, mostly irrelevant, repetitive, and, for the most part, anonymous.Though this is the case for many of these prophets, their works cannot be overlooked. Haggai and Zechariah were leaders in the cultic reform of the Israelite people. Malachai calmed their fears, and aware them of Gods love. Still other prophets told of a new, Messianic time when the word of the overlord would be held in its former glory. These were the most important works, as post exilic Israel needed not only protection, but spiritual guidance to sustain their society.The prophet Haggai was in int egral figure in uniting the Israelite people. Upon return to their homeland, the Israelites engraft most of the infrastructure in a state of disrepair, with the people uncaring for their moral and social responsibilities, to say nothing for their religious practices. (OVC) Even the temple of the Lord had been destroyed. Haggai emphasized the return to a more cultic society. Through Haggai, God explained the plight of the Israelite people, as in Haggai 16 "You have sown much, but harvested itty-bitty you eat, but there is not enough to be satisfied you put on clothing, but no one is warm enough...Why? Because of My house which lies desolate fleck each of you runs to his own house." (Haggai 19) The word of Haggai is accepted as the word of God, and the temple is rebuilt in less than four years. "I am with you," said the Lord,in Haggai 113 when the temple was finally built. (EIB)The prophesy of Haggai did not end with the building of the Lords temple. He offered a me ssage of hope to the people of Israel. Haggai said that the promises made by God would be kept, now that He had a dwelling place within the city. God inspired the people of the newly reformed city, saying "Who is left hand among you who saw this temple in its former glory?...Does it not seem to you like nothing in comparison? The latter glory of this house impart be grea... ...he post-exilic period have lasted in Israel for hundreds of years. I found it ironic, however, that after the nation healed itself, it immediatly began to discuss plans for war with other nations. Throughout the Bible, there are discussions of prosperity and pease, but does it have to come at the expense of other nations? It would have been more economical for the Israelites to at least establish a satisfying medium for trade, and a constant source of manpower and funds before they began to wage war on other cities. In researching this paper, I found the OVC to be especially helpful. It contained a ver se by verse breakdown of the entire book, as well as historical backgrounds. Scripture quotations are from my New American Standard Bible.Works CitedCarstensen, Roger N. The Book of Zechariah. From The Interpreters One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon Press, 1971.Achtemeier, Paul J. Harpers Bible Dictionary. Harper and Row, 1985.Carey, Gary. Cliffs Notes on Old Testament. Cliffs Notes, Inc, 1995.Barker, William P. Everyone in the Bible. Fleming H. Revell, 1966.Brownrigg, Ronald and Comay, Joan. Whos Who in the Bible. passPublishers, Inc, 1946 and 1952.

Comparing the Poetry of Gary Snyder and Ruth Stone Essay -- Comparison

Comparing the Poetry of Gary Snyder and Ruth StoneGary Snyder is not only a poet, but a preacher of sorts. His poems carry powerful messages slightly getting back to your roots. His poems operate strong themes of anti-consumerism and spirituality. Facts is a short piece consisting of facts on consumerism in America. This piece warns of the dangers of over consumption and lack of moderation. In most cases, however, Snyder does appear far too extreme in his views, care in By Frazier Creek Falls where is says We could live on this Earth / Without clothes or tools. This theme of primitivism is a common theme in Snyders poetry. Many of his poems are about nature and the uncivilized world. the settings of his poems are often woods, lakes, mountain trails, or other similar uninhabited uncultivated areas. Snyders poetry is sometimes political activism in disguise. Four Changes is less like a poem and more like an environmental extremists manifesto. Each of the convinces cl oses with a suggestion of what type of social or political action to take in order to make the aforementioned change occur.Loss is a major theme in Ruth Stones poetry, although her poems are rarely depressing as one might expect from loss poems. Instead, her poems contain a bitter yet sharp tone of humor. She writes about the loss of her husband, old lovers, her mother, and the past. Stone also writes about the dangers of getting too caught up in the modern world and losing touch with our roots. In The Solution she refers to My friend the Supermarket which brings her gratification in several ways. In Lullaby she writes about babies who kiss their computer goodnight and tells how they platform computers after putting on thei... ...aired Mother and writes many poems about mothers.Both Snyder and Stone make use of strong concrete images in their poems. In The vat Snyder appeals to almost all of the senses by talking about the crackle of waterdrops and the scent of cedar and h is wife entering the sauna, letting in cool air. In rest Stones intense use of adjectives and figurative language creates strong images in the readers mind. She describes her surroundings as wrinkled skin on a cup of boiled milk an describes the waters muscular flow.The writings of both poets can be described as both transparent and complex at the same time, just like the world theyre writing about. While on a purely literal level you may be reading about loss, family, traveling, or nature, all of the poems have a deeper meaning about these topics that the poet leaves the reader to discover.

Literacy In America Essay -- Illiteracy In America

At least 40 million American adults need stronger literacy skills to take advantage of more lifelong learning opportunities (Knowles 12). first base literacy limits life chances, regardless of how it is defined or measured. According to The Random House Dictionary literacy is defined as the quality or state of being literate person, esp. the capacity to rent and write. Another breakdown of the word, from the same source is possession of education. Basic skills and literacy abilities are widely viewed as necessities for lifelong learning and the development of success among individuals, families, communities, and charge nations. Better knowledge about literacy is an essential condition for improving it. Helping children improve their literacy skills can help them develop the capacity for lifelong learning, keep measure with changing educational expectations and rapid technological change, and achieve their life goals. Today in society there are many adults with poor literacy s kills who lack the stem they need to find and keep decent jobs, to support their childrens education and help them mold a literate future. I have taken one and only(a) small step towards this difficulty by tutoring at two schools. The more time people put towards helping the youth of America is the more literate our population can become. Every small action can help, even if it is just tutoring at local middle and junior high schools.To determine the literacy skills of American adults, the 1992 National mature Literacy Survey (NALS) used test items that resembled everyday life tasks. The NALS classified the results into five levels that are now commonly used to describe adults literacy skills. In Level 1 almost all of the adults can read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child. Adults in Level 2 ordinarily can perform more complex tasks much(prenominal) as comparing, contrasting, or integrating pieces of inf ormation but usually not higher-level reading and problem-solving skills. Adults in levels 3 through 5 usually can perform the same types of more complex tasks with increasing length and subject matter (Knox 37). Very few adults are completely illiterate they hardly fall into the lower levels of literacy. Between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population or approximately 44 million people, according to the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS... ...lar choice of activity and I feel this project helps our community run in an unending circle of assistance.Through volunteer work such as the activities that I have participated in the past semesters, I foresee the solution of the illiteracy problem in the country. There is hope for the future of this problem because people like myself work for this cause. If others get involved, illiteracy will continue to be reduced. Literacy is at the heart of a nations future . . . and the family is at the heart of literacy. The home is a childs fir st school . . . a parent is a childs first teacher . . . and spoken communication is a childs first subject.-UnknownWorks CitedKlevins, Chester. Materials & Methods-In Adult and Continuing Education. Los Angeles Klevens Publication Inc., 1987.Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Chicago Follett Publishing Company. 1980.Knox, Alan B. Helping Adults Learn. San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1986.Merriam, Sharan B. An modify on Adult Learning Theory. San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.Stein, Jess. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. New York Random House, 1966.

Fire-Starter :: Essays Papers

Fire-StarterCharacter Review Protagonist- Charlie McGee is a girl with pyrokinesis (a top executive in which someone can light fires with a glance). She is 8 years old. She is short, has blond hair, and dark-brown eyes. She doesnt like her power very much because she cant reassure it. When she was about 5 years old, she was in the kitchen with her pargonnts when they were trying to help her control her power. They gave her a test on a piece of toast, she burnt it to a crisp, and then she accidentally burnt her mothers hands. The next day, when her dad came class from work, Charlie and her mother were nowhere to be found. Her father, Andy McGee, found his wife, dead in a closet. Charlie was still missing the shop had killed her mother and kidnapped her. Both Andy and Charlies mother had telekinesis, (a power in which, someone can make a person think that something is what its not, or make them think what that person is thinking). Andy drove to a neighbors house, and use d his power on the two agents that had kidnapped Charlie. He and Charlie drove of and were in search of for a few years. Charlie cant stand people that are after her, or mean, or especially lie to her. Charlies whole life is included in this book. The book revolves around Charlies power. Its so powerful, that her parents cant even try to control it.Charlies main weakness is trusting too many people. She trusts to many strangers, which could lead to danger. Her basic problem is trying not to get caught by the shop (a secret government agency that wants to investigate her power). They have been after her since she was born. Since both of her parents had telekinesis, she was born with a disparate set of DNA, which gave her the power of pyrokinesis. I really like Charlie. I like the way she wants to control her power, and I like how she has a lot of confidence, its like she knows whats going to happen, and that everything is going to be fine.The thing that I specifically a dmire is the way she copes with the way she was brought up. She was brought up, to learn to use her power when she could to get money or food, or whatever she needed, but she knows that it isnt right to steal, and it isnt right to use a power that nobody else has to get something that you actually dont deserve.