Category: Uncategorized

Conformity Study

Student Name

Institution affiliation

MethodsParticipants

           For the study, 140 participants among them Florida University students who were not taking the psychology class either in the Fall 2019 or the Spring 2020 were randomly selected. Of the 140 participants, 51.4% (n=72) were male and 48.6% (n=68) were female. Ages of the participants ranged from 18 years to 29 years with an average of 22.16 years (SD=3). The sample population consisted of 45.7% Hispanic (n=64), 25.7% Caucasians (n=36), 20.7%African-Americans (n=29), 5.7%Asian –American (n=8) and 2.1%Native Indians (n=3). (See Appendix 1.)

Materials and Procedures

The participants were informed of the study itself, the risks and benefits that it carried for the students, an overview of the information required and the time required as stipulated in the standardized guidelines for informed consent. The participants had to give their consent verbally after which they were given one of the three research study documents that contained both the primary independent and dependent variables for the study. The document also consisted of five parts, the first part had the Abigail Foster Facebook post, unfortunately the professor while handling the question paper to Abigail he also gave her the answer key and Abigail who was certain she was going to work in spite of working hard used the answers. After she did very well the professor who was to curve the results because most students had not done well changed his mind, the dilemma was with Abigail who was not sure what she should do hence, in search for advice she posted on Facebook. Among the three documents in spite of them having the same scenario the condition under each of them is different, the conditions are; support, oppose and mixed which are various reactions to Abigail’s post.

For the support condition, it outlined eight comments by people who believed that Abigail had done nothing wrong and should accept the grade while putting the blame on the professor who could have been more careful. The second condition oppose, also has eight comments from students who believed that Abigail should admit to her wrongdoing by putting herself in the other students’ shoes. Lastly, the mixed condition has no consensus since among the eight responses some people opposed her actions while others gave her support. 

           After having read the scenario the participants were then required to proceed with part two of the questionnaire where they were required to rate Abigail’s behavior based on some statements by either agreeing or disagreeing. They were to use an interval scale of 1(strongly disagree) to 6(strongly agree). The statements that participants were to evaluate on Abigail’s behavior included, Abigail’s behavior was wrong, Abigail’s behavior was understandable, Abigail’s behavior was reasonable, Abigail’s behavior was unethical, Abigail’s behavior was immoral, Abigail’s behavior was appropriate, and Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable. (See Appendix 2) 

In the third part the participant was to rate various statements on what advice they would offer Abigail, their response if they were in the same situation and their general Abigail’s impression. In regards to the advice, there were three statements, I would advise Abigail to keep silent, I would try to comfort Abigail and I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her. For the other two parts of the sections on the response and impressions the participants have in regards to Abigail’s behavior and their own, the interval scale of 1 (strongly disagree) or 6 (strongly agree) was used. In response to what they would do the participant was given two statements on whether they would confess or keep silent and on Abigail’s impressions it was either she seems warm, moral, sincere, competent, confident, competitive or good-natured. Additionally, the fourth part of the questions contained demographic questions that the participant had the choice of not answering if he or she deemed them private. The questions included gender, age, race, relationship status, whether they were FIU students and whether English was their first language. Lastly, in the fifth part the participant was supposed to give their feedback on whether the advice Abigail was given was either in support of her behavior, opposing it or was more of the both of them, they filled their response by marking an X.

           While the study has both dependent and independent variables, our focus was on the dependent variables which are warm-cold scale, either accepting or rejecting what she did and the self-ratings. The main variable was accepting or rejecting that was reliant on the responses the people wrote in relation to her post and the influence they would have on her. We hypothesized that the participants who read the support response were most likely to support her in that she should keep it to herself and take the win, for those who read the opposing comments were most likely to find her guilty and condemn her actions.

Results

           Under the survey conditions (support vs. oppose vs. mixed) which were our independent variables and while focusing on the participant’s assessment on Abigail’s behavior based on the responses in their scenarios, we arrived as various results. Those who had the suppose response were 46 which was 32.9%, oppose 45 which was 32.1% and mixed were 49 which was 35%. Just like predicted the participant who had the support responses described Abigail competent, moral, confident, warm and good-natured person. They believed that she deserved her grade hence she did not have to report it to the professor, they also termed her response after she was given the answer key to be appropriate and reasonable hence if there was a person to blame it would have to be the professor. However, those who read the opposing notions on the scenarios termed what Abigail had done to be wrong and that she should have reported, they went ahead to describe her as immoral and unacceptable and unethical of what she had done. They also referred her behavior in a not good way disagreeing with all notions in part three of the question. Those who had missed reactions assessment on Abigail tended to balance with a few agreeing while the others disagreed.

           In addition, for the ANOVA test which was our main analysis there was a significant difference in whether our dependent variable on accepting or rejecting Abigail’s behavior had been wrong in relation to the support, oppose and mixed independent valuables, F (2,137) = 4.537, p= .021. The test confirmed that the participant’s assessment would be affected by the response scenario they read. Lastly, the Post Hoc Tests analysis is used to show a significant difference among various groups. From the table, it is evident that there is a statistically significant difference between the reactions by those people who had both suppose and oppose response and those with suppose and mixed response which is (p=0.021) and (p=0.035) respectively while there was no difference with those with oppose and mixed response(p=0.969). Also, this test supported the hypothesis that participants were likely to support Abigail in the support condition (M = 4.2, SD = 0.773), the oppose condition was (M = 3.4 SD = 0.986, and the mixed condition (M = 3.816 SD = 0.727). (See Appendix 3)

Discussion

           As earlier predicted that depending on the response the participants read they would influence their view and eventually on how they would make inferences on Abigail have been proved. Participants who read the positive response were in support of Abigail’s actions and termed her behavior as appropriate, these same people too while asked of what they would have done they supported that they would keep quiet. Similarly, those participants who read the opposing responses arrived at the conclusion that Abigail did the wrong thing and that for the sake of her integrity she should have reported the matter. Lastly, there was no major difference in those who got both responses since just as predicted some opposed while others supported Abigail’s decision. However, it is clear that the difference in all those scenarios assessment by the participants was not major this could have been the fact that the participants all have an experience of how some classes can be tough and in the event, they find themselves in such a situation they are bound to make the same decision. Frankly, if the same situations were to happen to those people who opposed Abigail’s decision they are likely to just act the same way because until one faced a similar issue can their real intentions be revealed.

Appendix 1

Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 72 51.4 51.4 51.4

Female 68 48.6 48.6 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0 Race

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Caucasian 36 25.7 25.7 25.7

Hispanic 64 45.7 45.7 71.4

Native Indian 3 2.1 2.1 73.6

African American 29 20.7 20.7 94.3

Asian American 8 5.7 5.7 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0 Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 17.00 2 1.4 1.4 1.4

18.00 22 15.7 15.7 17.1

19.00 7 5.0 5.0 22.1

20.00 6 4.3 4.3 26.4

21.00 28 20.0 20.0 46.4

22.00 13 9.3 9.3 55.7

23.00 21 15.0 15.0 70.7

24.00 3 2.1 2.1 72.9

25.00 21 15.0 15.0 87.9

26.00 2 1.4 1.4 89.3

27.00 10 7.1 7.1 96.4

28.00 1 .7 .7 97.1

29.00 4 2.9 2.9 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0 Frequency Table

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Support 46 32.9 32.9 32.9

Oppose 45 32.1 32.1 65.0

Mixed 49 35.0 35.0 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0 Appendix 2

Crosstab and Chi Square

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 28 14 1 46

Oppose 7 6 23 9 45

Mixed 4 16 19 10 49

Total 14 50 56 20 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 26.198a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 29.031 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 5.884 1 .015

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was understandable

Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was understandable Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 1 6 19 20 46

Oppose 9 16 13 7 45

Mixed 1 15 25 8 49

Total 11 37 57 35 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 29.497a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 28.563 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 5.492 1 .019

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was reasonable

Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was reasonable Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 8 20 15 46

Oppose 10 14 14 7 45

Mixed 1 15 25 8 49

Total 14 37 59 30 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 18.740a 6 .005

Likelihood Ratio 18.576 6 .005

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.097 1 .295

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was unethical

Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was unethical Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 5 22 15 4 46

Oppose 3 10 21 11 45

Mixed 2 17 22 8 49

Total 10 49 58 23 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 10.553a 6 .103

Likelihood Ratio 10.811 6 .094

Linear-by-Linear Association 3.862 1 .049

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was immoral

Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was immoral Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 20 19 4 46

Oppose 3 10 23 9 45

Mixed 2 12 27 8 49

Total 8 42 69 21 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 7.529a 6 .275

Likelihood Ratio 7.498 6 .277

Linear-by-Linear Association 3.760 1 .053

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was appropriate

Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was appropriate Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 4 17 14 11 46

Oppose 8 17 13 7 45

Mixed 9 21 15 4 49

Total 21 55 42 22 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.843a 6 .441

Likelihood Ratio 6.131 6 .409

Linear-by-Linear Association 4.557 1 .033

N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab

Count

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 8 23 13 2 46

Oppose 7 15 16 7 45

Mixed 6 19 19 5 49

Total 21 57 48 14 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.711a 6 .456

Likelihood Ratio 5.908 6 .434

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.328 1 .127

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: I would advise Abigail to keep quiet

Crosstab

Count

Part III: I would advise Abigail to keep quiet Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 5 6 19 16 46

Oppose 3 22 15 5 45

Mixed 2 17 24 6 49

Total 10 45 58 27 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 20.731a 6 .002

Likelihood Ratio 21.079 6 .002

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.898 1 .089

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: I would try to comfort Abigail

Crosstab

Count

Part III: I would try to comfort Abigail Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 0 7 23 16 46

Oppose 2 13 20 10 45

Mixed 0 8 26 15 49

Total 2 28 69 41 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 8.488a 6 .204

Likelihood Ratio 8.705 6 .191

Linear-by-Linear Association .092 1 .761

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her

Crosstab

Count

Part III: I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 2 4 24 16

Oppose 3 5 20 17

Mixed 1 10 27 11

Total 6 19 71 44

Crosstab

Count

Total

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 46

Oppose 45

Mixed 49

Total 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 6.419a 6 .378

Likelihood Ratio 6.485 6 .371

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.469 1 .225

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: If I received the answers, I would keep silent

Crosstab

Count

Part III: If I received the answers, I would keep silent Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 11 4 14 17 46

Oppose 18 9 14 4 45

Mixed 14 3 17 15 49

Total 43 16 45 36 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 14.258a 6 .027

Likelihood Ratio 15.338 6 .018

Linear-by-Linear Association .237 1 .627

N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab

Count

Part III: If I received the answers, I would confess Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 21 10 8 7 46

Oppose 11 10 6 18 45

Mixed 22 9 5 13 49

Total 54 29 19 38 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 9.701a 6 .138

Likelihood Ratio 10.103 6 .120

Linear-by-Linear Association .349 1 .555

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems warm

Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems warm Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 5 21 17 46

Oppose 9 7 10 19 45

Mixed 6 3 20 20 49

Total 18 15 51 56 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 9.182a 6 .164

Likelihood Ratio 9.616 6 .142

Linear-by-Linear Association .013 1 .911

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems good-natured

Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems good-natured Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 0 6 24 16 46

Oppose 6 10 12 17 45

Mixed 1 6 23 19 49

Total 7 22 59 52 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 15.237a 6 .018

Likelihood Ratio 16.012 6 .014

Linear-by-Linear Association .006 1 .937

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems confident

Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems confident Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 22 9 9 6 46

Oppose 28 10 4 3 45

Mixed 32 9 4 4 49

Total 82 28 17 13 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.786a 6 .448

Likelihood Ratio 5.586 6 .471

Linear-by-Linear Association 3.447 1 .063

N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems competitive Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 5 4 19 18 46

Oppose 12 4 13 16 45

Mixed 4 3 22 20 49

Total 21 11 54 54 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 8.288a 6 .218

Likelihood Ratio 7.966 6 .241

Linear-by-Linear Association .244 1 .622

N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems sincere Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 0 0 15 31 46

Oppose 1 2 11 31 45

Mixed 7 5 13 24 49

Total 8 7 39 86 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 17.373a 6 .008

Likelihood Ratio 20.162 6 .003

Linear-by-Linear Association 11.332 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems moral

Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems moral Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 10 7 14 15 46

Oppose 25 12 8 0 45

Mixed 24 8 14 3 49

Total 59 27 36 18 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 32.026a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 34.821 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 12.940 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems competent

Crosstab

Count

Part III: Abigail seems competent Total

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 24 9 7 6 46

Oppose 29 8 6 2 45

Mixed 32 10 4 3 49

Total 85 27 17 11 140

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.392a 6 .624

Likelihood Ratio 4.347 6 .630

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.869 1 .090

N of Valid Cases 140 Appendix 3

Descriptive

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Support 46 3.2826 .62050 .09149 3.0983 3.4669

Oppose 45 3.7556 .95716 .14269 3.4680 4.0431

Mixed 49 3.7143 .88976 .12711 3.4587 3.9699

Total 140 3.5857 .85651 .07239 3.4426 3.7288

Descriptive

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Minimum Maximum

Support 2.00 5.00

Oppose 2.00 5.00

Mixed 2.00 5.00

Total 2.00 5.00

ANOVA

Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.334 2 3.167 4.537 .012

Within Groups 95.637 137 .698 Total 101.971 139 Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) (J) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Support Oppose -.47295* .17518 .021

Mixed -.43168* .17153 .035

Oppose Support .47295* .17518 .021

Mixed .04127 .17251 .969

Mixed Support .43168* .17153 .035

Oppose -.04127 .17251 .969

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) (J) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Support Oppose -.8880 -.0579

Mixed -.8381 -.0252

Oppose Support .0579 .8880

Mixed -.3675 .4500

Mixed Support .0252 .8381

Oppose -.4500 .3675

Descriptive

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum

Lower Bound Upper Bound Part II: Abigail’s behavior was understandable Support 46 4.2609 .77272 .11393 4.0314 4.4903 2.00 5.00

Oppose 45 3.4000 .98627 .14702 3.1037 3.6963 2.00 5.00

Mixed 49 3.8163 .72668 .10381 3.6076 4.0251 2.00 5.00

Total 140 3.8286 .89718 .07583 3.6787 3.9785 2.00 5.00

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) (J) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Support Oppose -.47295* .17518 .021

Mixed -.43168* .17153 .035

Oppose Support .47295* .17518 .021

Mixed .04127 .17251 .969

Mixed Support .43168* .17153 .035

Oppose -.04127 .17251 .969

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong

Tukey HSD

(I) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) (J) Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Support Oppose -.8880 -.0579

Mixed -.8381 -.0252

Oppose Support .0579 .8880

Mixed -.3675 .4500

Mixed Support .0252 .8381

Oppose -.4500 .3675

Tukey HSDa,b

Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3

Oppose 45 3.4000 Mixed 49 3.8163 Support 46 4.2609

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Student’s Name

Professor

Institution

Course

Date

Major cause of Cold War

The cold war occurred because of three major reasons. There were differences in global ideologies, political structures and geopolitics, and the acceptable economic arrangements. Ideologically, the West and East fought over superiority, governance and progress the struggle centred on the concept of ‘superpower’. The struggle between the European countries and the Eastern bloc over the control of the world was a major cause of the cold war. The Europeans countries believed that they were progressive countries with better governance and could not be controlled by the Russians and Japanese. The blocs used the political, religious, economic, cultural powers and sometimes force to continue the antagonism. Throughout the period, the world underwent major changes. The English laws became accepted, and property ownership laws passed. The French had the Nobles who attempted to assert their power and control the state. The era also saw rapid changes in transportation, population growth and modern agriculture. The European powers such as Germany, Britain and France lost their global dominance. There was also growing nationalism and national conscience that led to show-of-might and pride in sports such as the Munich Olympics.

These divergent views were pushed by the USA under Roosevelt and the Soviet Union under Stalin. The superpowers clashed over politics of Eastern Europe such as the situation in Poland and the Korean Wars. On the geopolitics front, the actions to be taken against Germany and the country’s future dominate the conflicts.

The Russo-America hatred acted as the major cause of Cold War. The struggle emanated from differences over what action to take against Germany for causing World War. The antagonism occurred differences occurred over disagreements on the system of government for German and how to handle the reparations from Germany’s production. The United States antagonistic attitude toward the Soviet caused tension. While the soviet pushed for the Eastern Europe bloc, the US pushed for the creation of the United Nations.

Cold War occurred because of the economic struggles. The bourgeois elites of Western Europe hold the conventional wisdom after the World War II and this assisted in sustaining parliamentary leadership as well as preserving the essence of market-oriented economies. These two world wars resulted in democracy in Britain that broadened economic transformation in France. Different forces did not possess the mandatory economic skills and reasonable vision for reinstating the shattered economies nationally to productivity. The managerial talent was monopolized by the Christian Democratic parties who turned out as catch-all groupings that involved everybody in the political class such as the old elites. Besides, revolution was rejected by majority of people and peasants well as workers who given the choice to adhere to the benefits of bourgeois society instead of destroying it. The moderate Left from the Communist leadership felt alienated by the threat of Soviet imperialism. The situationcontributed to a mixture of humanitarian, security and commercial motives in United States, and underwriting of European construction during the crucial time.

Bibliography

Alfred von Tirpitz and Bernhard von Bülow. 1st and 2nd Moroccan crises: origins of

world war 1

Charles S. Maier. “The Two Post-war Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth-

Century Western Europe,” The American Historical Review, 86. 2 (1981): 327-352

Stephen A. Schuker and Charles P. Kindleberger .The Two Postwar Eras: American

Historical Review, 86, (1981): 327-367.

THE NATURE OF POWER (SUMMARY)

Born to Command

Name:

Affiliation:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:

Born to Command

A. Briefly describe ONE perspective about politics in the 1830s expressed in the image. The perspective of 1830 politics expressed in Andrew Jackson’s cartoon holds that he was not interested in the United States’ institutions and overlooked American policies. Andrew Jackson exercised his veto power and indeed ended up treating the presidency as a monarchy.

B.  Briefly explain ONE specific event or development that led to the perspective

expressed in the image. The image came following Andrew Jackson withdrawing all of the money from the national bank and gave it the states’ “pet banks” since he disliked the national bank.

C.  Briefly explain ONE specific effect of the political developments referenced by the

image. The panic of 1937 is one specific political development event since Andrew Jackson needed people’s support to use species to purchase government land. However, the matter was unmanageable based on the fact that people wanted to purchase land, bank liquidation went into chaos, and the result was a depression in the United States.

A SUMMARY OF A STUDY ON ANTI-SOCIAL ROAD RAGE

The paper is about the a study on social demarketing campaigns that are needed to be carried out amongst the people of America in order to help curb some anti social behavior that may harm the lives of the people or the environment. In essence the paper tires to explore how people from different perspectives do handle these anti social behaviors. It tries to examine the reasons why people, who engage in antisocial behavior, should continue blaming others while they also do the same mistakes. The study tries to compare different opinions and, activities and interests of the people of antisocial behavior and how bet to design the way forward for effective program that would help reduce the happenings of such behaviors in people. It therefore focuses on data that has been surveyed in examining how to help the antisocial behavior in the human beings. It tries to describe the demography as well as the interests, opinions and attitudes of the people. It also covers the use of media in propelling or rectifying the antisocial behavior in the people under study. Generally the study is based on the theory of EFB. This study found out that giving fingers by the motorists while driving directly relates to the annual income of the people and the relationship that exists between them, whether full or part-time workers.

On the method that was used, this paper basically concentrated on surveys that were available in DDB life Style Study of 1997 and 1998. It also banked on the surveys of the market facts of DDB Needham agency which uses stratified sampling procedures in their surveys.

The research also found out that the number of people who participate in the antisocial behaviors are almost half of the total population and that almost in almost three quarter of the people involved in the survey do not participate in the anti social behavior. It also found out that the number of males and females that do engage in the antisocial behavior is almost equal in the groups of people who have the almost the same income. That it is only in the people who are of high income, where the number of males who have the chronic finger giver out weighs that of females. The same also applies to the people with high education levels.Reference:

Arch W. (2007) Anti-social behavior: profiling the lives behind road rage Department of Marketing, Carroll School of Management, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA

Name

Professor

Course

Date

Born to Serve.

Texas Southern University(TSU) was established to educate African Americans in 1947, in an attempt to curb the integration of universities in the state of Texas. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, are mainly characterised with struggles, in their aim to establish top tier universities. Born to Serve is a book that tells a full history of TSU, its struggles, experiences and growth. Merline Pitre illustrates TSUs history on the basis of higher education for African American in Texas. The foundation of the school begun through the reconstruction of lawsuit Sweatt versus Painter. The book highlights the contribution of major players in the growth of the university, that enabled it to become a first rate university.

TSU is currently a top tier metropolitan University that serves students of all races. However, in its early years, the university was underfunded and it faced threats of merger. In 1955 Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit was appointed the President of the institution; this will see him become the second president of the institution. Dr. Nabrit fought to retain the school of law, however it ended being phased out. Merline Pitre states, “Despite the plea from president Nabrit, in 1964 by a vote of 11-12 the Texas Commission of Higher Education agreed to phase out the law school (Pitre)”. The commission had agreed to commence the phase out in 1966, and in turn reprieve the school of Pharmacy. However, with major struggles and strides the school of law was approved by the American Bar Association and the State Board of Law Examiners. The school of pharmacy was able to gain accreditation from the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education.

The road towards attaining first-class status was without a doubt quite challenging. During president Nabrits term, the then governor of Texas Allan Shivers had become quite popular and powerful in the state. Governor Allan had influence in the state courts. As Merline states “His election in 195 brought about a new twist to Texas politics” (Pitre). In his campaigns he advocated for segregation, claiming that it was better to stick to systems they’re quite familiar with. During Nabrits inauguration NAACP supporters protested the remarks of Governor Allan. With the merge of schools at hand Nabrit argued that if provided the necessary resources TSU would emerge as a first class institution. In the book born to serve Nabrit challenges the approach of students, when it comes to course selection, “Many students select programmes, because they are influenced by people they know (Pitre)”. TSU students also participated in civil rights movements, the students joining and participating in the movement did not come as a surprise. As a matter of fat the president lauded and justified the students. Claiming that there would be something wrong with the institutions teaching, if TSU students did not find segregation morally wrong. The institution also encouraged its student to fight for their rights, such as the sit-down demonstrations witnessed in Houston. TSU also underwent various changes, such as the dropping of the race description in its admission form. Merline further emphasizes,” In a distinct way, TSU moved towards an inclusive community.” With the growth of the institution being imminent, they began receiving grants, such as the ford foundation grant. This enabled to retain and upgrade faculty.

The university has witnessed enormous growth, in various dockets, thanks to the toil of alumni’s, former faculty members and staff. Their resilience has enabled TSU to strive to attain higher potential, through technological advancements and other academic opportunities. TSU is able to boast of its outstanding leadership, rich history, scholastic achievements, qualified faculty and good infrastructure.

Works Cited

Orphan, Cecilia M. “Born to Serve: A History of Texas Southern University by Merline Pitre.” Journal of Southern History 85.2 (2019): 499-500.

A SUMMARY OF ANTI-SOCIAL ROAD RAGE

Name:

Course:

Tutor

Date: 6th December, 2011

A SUMMARY OF A STUDY ON ANTI-SOCIAL ROAD RAGE

The paper is about the a study on social demarketing campaigns that are needed to be carried out amongst the people of America in order to help curb some anti social behavior that may harm the lives of the people or the environment. In essence the paper tires to explore how people from different perspectives do handle these anti social behaviors. It tries to examine the reasons why people, who engage in antisocial behavior, should continue blaming others while they also do the same mistakes. The study tries to compare different opinions and, activities and interests of the people of antisocial behavior and how bet to design the way forward for effective program t5hat would help reduce the happenings of such behaviors in people. It therefore focuses on data that has been surveyed in examining how to help the antisocial behavior in the human beings. It tries to describe the demography as well as the interests, opinions and attitudes of the people. It also covers the use of media in propelling or rectifying the antisocial behavior in the people under study. Generally the study is based on the theory of EFB. This study found out that giving fingers by the motorists while driving directly relates to the annual income of the people and the relationship that exists between them, whether full or part-time workers.

On the method that was used, this paper basically concentrated on surveys that were available in DDB life Style Study of 1997 and 1998. It also banked on the surveys of the market facts of DDB Needham agency which uses stratified sampling procedures in their surveys.

The research also found out that the number of people who participate in the antisocial behaviors are almost half of the total population and that almost in almost three quarter of the people involved in the survey do not participate in the anti social behavior. It also found out that the number of males and females that do engage in the antisocial behavior is almost equal in the groups of people who have the almost the same income. That it is only in the people who are of high income, where the number of males who have the chronic finger giver out weighs that of females. The same also applies to the people with high education levels.

Reference:

Arch W. (2007) Anti-social behavior: profiling the lives behind road rage Department of Marketing, Carroll School of Management, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Major Changes in United States Military: 1840-1898

Pivoting To the PacificDuring the Indian-American War of 1898, the United States changed to a Critical Generator of Asia Pacific region. The United States military changed from a federal military to an international military. It was during this time that the US army noted the importance of having its troops around the world for easy coordination of wars and other logistical supports (Musicant 12). The United States Department of Defense started recruiting more individuals to the military so that they could have a number to send all over the world. At a glance, the United States played a pivotal role in the pacific maintaining its superpower dominance. With soldiers all over the world, United States military changes and separation of arms of the Military was undertaken. The Navy divided into The Marines and the Navy while the Infantry Unit divided into two, the Artillery and Tank battalions.A Broader Mission SetIn the late 1890s, the United States military; (The Navy) made a major transition that focused on counterinsurgency and assisting and advising so that it could be able to undertake fuller range of potential missions. The country has already started fighting the issue of terrorism but during this moment its level of limited as compared to today’s terrorism levels. The Navy made territorial ties and treaties to other states or countries Navy to offer them insurgency and terrorism information available. The evolution of the partnership that United States made with other countries was a step towards defending its territory as well as conquer other states. The Navy at this time also come up with a unique idea of preserving and recruiting skillful and knowledgeable individuals in the military (Weigley 27).The military developed strategies in order to build a stronger relationship with third world countries so that they could get reliable and skillful manpower to enlist into their military. The United States military composed a military equipped with knowledgeable and skillful personnel. It from these changes that the country has the most innovative and professional military to date. Shaping the skill and knowledge base among the personnel have United States a chance to win wars and battles as it composed of all types of professionals on board. From doctors to Weapon Specialties.Preventing, Shaping, and WinningThe period 1846-1848, was a time when the United States and Mexico’s war the army designed its better future given the constraints that United States was facing during that time. The United States during that time increasingly focused on shaping its security environment with Mexico. This meant maintaining a force of sufficient capacity and size to compel capitalization when necessary. In addition, the military maintained vigorous presence internationally reassuring the political body that it had the will and power of fighting against Mexico’s drug and border issue (Weigley 23).The United States military shifted from active involvement in key combat areas or operations with an emphasis addressed at depending their relationship with other nations and states as well as showing commitment to international security. Ideally, the military focused in shaping and prevention in a conflict situation rather than undertaking attacks to gain fame and to conquer colonies. From attrition military, the United States military changed its war tactics to diplomatic tactics and later to maneuver warfare. The war against Mexico is attributed to significant victor of the changes in the military.

Works Cited

Musicant, Ivan. The banana wars: a history of United States military intervention in Latin America from the Spanish-American War to the invasion of Panama. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Weigley, Russell Frank. History of the United States army. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.

Methods/Research Design

Natalie Rivero

Research Methods in HDEV 311

Rachel Stryker

11/13/2023

Methods/Research Design

Variables and Data

My proposed study will use qualitative data to address the research question, How does narcissism contribute to antisocial behavior in men? So far, scholars have established that there is a significant positive relationship between narcissism and antisocial behaviors (Alexander et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2017; March et al., 2020). This study will further these researches by exploring different qualities of narcissistic personality which lead men to become antisocial. The variables of this study will include narcissism and antisocial behaviors. In the proposed study, narcissism will be measured in terms of the four renowned qualities of a narcissistic personality: an individual’s inability to handle criticism, excessive need for admiration, sense of entitlement, and disregard for other people’s feelings.

Antisocial behavior is an action that violates societal norms and other people’s rights (Mezquita et al., 2021). Therefore, since antisocial behavior will be one of the variables in the study, it will be defined in terms of the signs of antisocial personality disorder (APD), including disregard for wrong and right, persistent deceit to exploit others, being cynical, callous, and disrespectful to others, repeatedly violating other people’s rights through dishonesty and manipulation, abusive relationships, arrogance, increased problem with the law, and lack of empathy for other people (Howard & Duggan, 2022).

I will conduct semi-structured interviews to explore how narcissism contributes to antisocial behaviors. Interview questions will be self-constructed to ensure sufficient data is collected to address the research questions. Research subjects will be required to explain how various qualities of narcissism contribute to any of the signs mentioned above of APD. For instance, one of the interview questions will seek to determine how disregard for other people’s feelings leads to the violation of other people’s rights. The interview responses will produce nominal data.

Subjects/Sampling

The target population for my proposed study will be male students in a US-based public university who are above the age of 18 years. These subjects will be considered because the study aims to uncover how narcissism contributes to antisocial behavior in men. The sample frame I will select these subjects from will be a public university in the US. I have chosen this sample frame because I am a student from the same public university that I intend to use. Therefore, this will make it easy for me to identify potential participants in the study. The sample size for my proposed study will be 15 respondents (n=15). Vasileiou et al. (2018) urge that a minimum of 12 respondents are required for a qualitative study to achieve data saturation. Based on this recommendation, 15 respondents will be deemed sufficient for this study.

I will use a non-probability sampling technique for the proposed study. Specifically, purposive sampling will be utilized. Usually, the purposive sampling technique necessitates that researchers select a sample size based on their judgment and keeping in mind the goals and objectives of the research (Etikan et al., 2016). For this study, purposeful sampling will be preferred for several reasons. First and foremost, it will be suitable for the proposed study since it will allow me to select available, willing, and knowledgeable participants to inform the study. According to Etikan et al. (2016), respondents are selected for purposive sampling based on their ability to offer the pertinent information needed to answer the research questions. I will also consider using purposive sampling for my proposed study because it has been shown to be both simple and cost-saving by other researchers (Alvi, 2016). Also, since public universities have more male and female students, as well as male students below the age of 18 who might be willing to participate in this study, using purposive sampling will eliminate the chances of selecting these subjects.

Instrument and Procedures

This study will adopt a qualitative research design. According to Leppink (2017), a qualitative method is an exploratory approach that aids in examining a research problem through the opinions, perceptions, and lived experiences of those who are knowledgeable about or impacted by it. Therefore, I have chosen this research design because I believe it will be appropriate to explore the issue of narcissism and antisocial behaviors from the views, opinions, and lived experiences of knowledgeable participants about this problem. I will utilize semi-structured interviews to collect data for my proposed study. Since I will recruit respondents from the same school where I study, I will perform face-to-face interviews. I will interview one respondent at a time, and each session will take about 30-45 minutes. Interview sessions will be recorded using a mobile phone. Interviews will be conducted from the school compound. I believe conducting the interviews from the school compound will allow respondents to be more comfortable during the interview session. Consequently, this will allow them to provide detailed information to inform my study.

The term least harm is the minimum injury to the safety, rights, or welfare of research participants that may entail social, physical, financial, psychological, or economic aspects. Usually, it is the role of the researcher to prevent or minimize harm to research subjects. My proposed study does not have any potential harm to the participants. However, as the researcher, I will ensure to uphold ethical standards to protect participants’ dignity, integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. Firstly, I will ensure that all respondents sign an informed consent form before taking part in the study. The consent form will outline the research purpose, the duration of research, and what is expected from respondents; a clear statement that respondents will be willing to withdraw from the research at any given time without being asked a brief description of the benefits of taking part in the study, and a detailed description of how participants’ confidentiality will be maintained. To ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents, no identifiable data such as names, addresses, and phone numbers will be recorded during the interviews. Also, pseudonyms will be used to identify participants. Furthermore, I will maintain the three principles of ethical research: justice, respect, and beneficence. Lastly, I will be the only person with access to the collected data.

Validity

Validity refers to the degree to which conclusions drawn from a study accurately reflect the phenomenon being measured. Internal validity examines if the study’s planning, execution, and analysis provide unbiased answers to the research objectives. Two examples of internal validity include content validity and construct validity. Content validity assesses whether a research method is suitable for the study. To achieve this type of validity in my proposed study, I will ensure my supervisor, who is an expert in this field of study, approves the suitability of my research method. On the other hand, construct validity focuses on examining if the test measured what it was intended to measure. To achieve construct validity, I will utilize relevant existing knowledge to develop my interview questions.

External validity assesses whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other contexts. Two examples of external validity include ecological validity and population validity. Population validity examines how best the study findings from the research participants can be generalized to a wider group of people. To ensure this, I will collect data from students in a public university. Usually, students in a university are from diverse backgrounds. Ecological validity entails how well study results can be applied to real-life situations. To ensure the applicability of the study in real-life situations, I will use men as the study’s participants as the study is specific on how narcissism contributes to antisocial behavior in men.

A confounding variable is an unmeasured variable that affects the dependent and independent variables in a study. One example of a confound that may be associated with my proposed study is history confounds. Also, time of study confounds may be associated with my proposed study. I will adhere to the provided time deadlines for the submission of each part of my study to ensure that I do not lose track of time during my study.

References

Alexander, M. B., Gore, J., & Estep, C. (2021). How need for power explains why narcissists are antisocial. Psychological reports, 124(3), 1335-1352.

Alvi, M. (2016). A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5, 1-4. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Howard, R., & Duggan, C. (2022). Antisocial Personality: Theory, Research, Treatment. Cambridge University Press.

Jones, B. D., Woodman, T., Barlow, M., & Roberts, R. (2017). The darker side of personality: Narcissism predicts moral disengagement and antisocial behavior in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 31(2), 109-116.

March, E., Grieve, R., Wagstaff, D., & Slocum, A. (2020). Exploring anger as a moderator of narcissism and antisocial behaviour on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 161, 109961.

Maxwell, J. A. (2019). Distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research: a response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1-6. doi:10.1177/1558689819828255

Mezquita, L., Bravo, A. J., Pilatti, A., Ortet, G., Ibáñez, M. I., & Cross-Cultural Addictions Study Team. (2021). Preliminary validity and reliability evidence of the Brief Antisocial Behavior Scale (B-ABS) in young adults from four countries. PloS one, 16(2), e0247528. https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0247528Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S. & Young, T. (2018). Characterizing and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), pp.1-18.

HDEV 302: Research Methods in Human Development

Dr. Rachael Stryker

METHODS/RESEARCH DESIGN SECTION GUIDELINES

Instructions

The second draft section of your Research Proposal to complete this semester is the Methods/Research Design section. It is due on Sunday, November 13th by 11:55 pm. Please be sure to completely read the Course Skills Notes for Weeks 11 and 12 before you begin this assignment. The Methods/Research Design section for a Research Proposal should be about three to five pages, typed and double-spaced. Please use a 12- point font and provide the assignment with the heading titled, Methods/Research Design.

Rubric

The assignment must include the following four subsections (and content within each subsection) to be considered for full credit:

1. Variables and Data [suggested length: approx. one to one-and-a-half pages] In this subsection, please be sure that you do the following: Clearly state once more, your proposed research question, and, if you have one, your hypothesis for the proposed study. And please restate what each of your variables are in the study. Then provide details about how you might propose to operationalize [define in a way that is measurable] each of your variables. Again, what this usually means is, how do you propose to measure each variable (for example, stress can be measured by taking someone’s blood pressure, and so one can thus define “stress” as blood pressure; or one can ask participants to self-report about stress or rank their stress level, and so one can simply define stress as self-report measurements). Please also provide details about the kind(s) of data [N, O, I, and/or R] that each operationalization will produce. You can name and briefly discuss more than one type of data in this paragraph. Also, please remember, if you are going to propose to try to examine or prove a relationship between variables for your proposed study, then you will, in fact, have both independent variables (factors that you think influence the other factors in the study] and dependent variables [factors that you think may be influenced by the independent variable(s)] in the project]. If this is the case for you, then please state which variables in your proposed project are independent [the one that is influential] and dependent [the one that is likely to be influenced] and why. If you will not propose to have independent/dependent variables in your study, then please clearly state the reasons why you do not have these types of variables in the study and what outcomes you hope to achieve instead in terms of intellectual pursuit.

2. Subjects/Sampling: [suggested length: approx. one to one-and-a-half-pages] In this subsection, please be sure that you answer the following questions: What are you proposing your subject criteria be (in other words, who, exactly, is allowed in your study [are you soliciting by gender, age, religion, student status, etc)? From what specific sampling frame do you propose to try to draw all of your subjects from, and why? What sample size (sample size is represented by N, as in, N=10 if you will have ten participants) will you propose, and why? And are you proposing to conduct probability or non-probability sampling for the study, and why?

3. Instruments and Procedures: [suggested length: approx. half to one page] In this subsection, please be sure that you answer the following questions: Are you conducting an experiment? If not, what type of the other common types of research designs that we’ve covered this term are you proposing to conduct – qualitative and/or descriptive (quantitative), and why? How do you propose to administer it? Where would you administer it? If yes, why do you feel this is the best type of research design to propose? What is your test group? What is your control group? What is your intervention (the independent variable)? How will you administer it? Where will you administer it? Then please provide details about whether you will be collecting your data using any of the following common instruments and why: via a pre-existing data set; via survey or questionnaire; via interviews; via observation. If you are not using any of these instruments, what others (for example, participant journals, social media content, or something else) are you proposing to use and why? And if you are using surveys/questionnaires, will you use any scales? Why or why not? Finally, please explain what the term “least harm” means [this is from the Week 13 course materials]. What is an example of “harm”, if any, that could come to your participants during your particular proposed research, and what are two ways that you might attempt to do “least harm” to your participants while administering this instrument? Even if you are not working directly with human subjects in your proposed research, you do need to discuss any ethical issues that can come up in your proposed research project.

4. Validity [suggested length: approx. half to one page] In this subsection, please be sure that you answer the following questions: What is the validity of a study? What is internal validity? Please list two types, and briefly discuss at least two ways that you would propose to attempt to achieve it in your research project. What is external validity? Please introduce two types and briefly discuss two ways that you would attempt to achieve it in your research project. Finally, please be sure to define what a confound is, and name and define two kinds of confounds that may be associated with your specific proposed project. Then speculate how you, as a researcher, might be able to plan your research in such a way as to prevent them from influencing the outcomes of your proposed research.

**************************

Please remember: You can always post questions about this assignment to the “Questions for the Professor” thread on our Blackboard course Discussion Board or email the professor at: rachael.stryker@csueastbay.edu Also, please be sure to be reading the professor’s feedback on your RCR for Weeks 10 through 12 assignments, as there will be helpful feedback and clarifications there that will help you draft this section of your Research Proposal.

Name

Instructor

Subject

Date

Death of a salesman

1. Major Characters in the Book Death of Salesman

These characters include; Willy Loman, Biff Loman, Happy loman, Linda loman, Charley, Benard and Howard Wegner (Miller 6-11).

Willy Loman: He is a self-deluded, an insecure traveling salesman. Willy believes fully in the American dream of easy success and wealth acquisition. He has not changed or grown.

Biff Loman: He led enchanted life in high school as a footballer star full of scholarship chances, flattering female friends alongside good male friends. He failed in math and later never graduated (Miller 20-99). He later changed his life after visiting Belly Oliver’s office that made him break free from lies and decided to begin his life afresh. He later chose living in reality. He, therefore, shown some changes in the play.

Linda Loman: Even though she occasionally shares Willy’s self-delude hopes for future glory and success, more often than not, she seems more realistic and less fragile than Willy. She has tried to nurture her family amidst Willy’s misleading attempts to success. Her stronger emotional strength made her grow and change in the play.

Happy Loman: Although he works as an assistant to an assistant buyer, he always represents himself as supremely important being. He never grew up because he practiced bad business practices and constantly had sex with girlfriends of his seniors.

2. What is revealed about the characters through dialogue?

Miller while writing his book chooses not to rely on spoken images, but rather creates them practically on the stage. Instead of merely leaving a character to tell the story, he decided to show it to readers (Miller 100-115). Dialogue has been significantly used in this book to show the images of characters. Dialogue has clearly shown to readers Willy’s insanity. Without dialogue, the readers would not have seen clearly how Willy’s broken speech and his constant up and down movement indicating how shattered he is.

3. Verbal irony, dramatic irony, how irony has been conveyed in the book and importance of irony.

Yes, the play includes both verbal and dramatic irony. Verbal irony is depicted on Willy’s last name ‘’Loman’’pronounced Low- Man, suggesting his low place in the society even though he insist the opposite.

Dramatic irony comes out clearly in Linder’s line in the play ‘’we’re free’’. It’s ironical because they think that they are finally free to pay off all the debts and any burden, only to find that Willy is taking his life because of the insurance money (Miller 140-142).

4. How irony is conveyed

What seems very ironical in this book is that Willy Loman is a loser in life, but he constantly advises his children on how to become successful in life (Miller 40-45). He was advising his sons how to become success as early as they were in school, and he still continues advising then on how to be success when they reached their thirties. This is happening as Willy is getting old and old and worn out. Willy himself does not know how to succeed in life. In his imaginations, he keeps on asking his brother Ben the secrets of success that give a clear indication that Willy does not know the secrets of success and yet he insists on teaching his sons.

5. What is revealed about characters through their actions?

Willy Loman’s actions reveal that he is a man of big dreams, precisely, American Dream (Miller 20-22). He wants greater things in life and trust that for him to advance great to opportunities and move the ladder of success he must be liked and known by the big and wealthy people in the society.

Linder’s action has portrayed her as loving and devoted wife. She seems to be an easy going woman. She always goes with the flow and always tries to calm Willy whenever he is upset.

Charly’s action has proven that he is a true friend. Despite being mocked by Willy and his sons, Charley still goes ahead to help them in their financial problems.

Bliff: despite too much pressure to bring success home, he repents the reflection of true life as what his father wanted never to come true despite being forced to follow his own dreams in life.

Happy’s characters depict him as a happy man. The fact that Willy does not expect a lot as opposed to his brother Bliff, he lives a free life making him to have ample time to make friendships both with male and females.

Reference

Miller, A. (1994). Death of a salesman. Oxford: Heinemann.