Research Korner

Statement of Purpose for Graduate School Admission at Standford University

As for myself, I am always interested to explore useful discoveries that involves the world of analyzing orders and sequences of numbers although not all individuals are fascinated of the fact that statistics within business is a major function not just in marketing but also in manufacturing and pharmaceutical fields. I agree that the emergence of a reform movement in statistics education has influenced the teaching and learning of statistics over the past years. The teaching of statistics concepts and courses as well as the implementation of technology into the statistics classroom are important changes involved in the process. I have the desire to be an advocate with the effort to improve the teaching and learning of statistics. The matriculation of the computer and other uses of technology in the statistics classroom as well as new and innovative teaching strategies continue to offer teachers with many teaching alternatives since, the world is becoming more and more quantitative and data focused and such professions depend on numerical measurements to make decisions in the face of uncertainty and there is the use of quantitative abilities, statistical knowledge and communication skills to work on certain challenging problems such as the following:   Ø      Designing and analyzing studies to determine if new drugs and medical devices are safe and effective Ø      Analyzing consumer demand for products and services I wanted to pursue in applying mathematical and statistical knowledge to social, economic, political as well as ecological problems, work individually or as part of an interdisciplinary team as well as travel to consult with other professionals and continuing education activities and probably help in advancing the frontiers of statistics and mathematics through better education and research ways. Thus, job opportunities in statistics are projected to remain favorable in the future because of the fact that, the U.S. economy continues to produce jobs using quantitative literacy and analyses, increasing the numbers of statisticians duly required and sectors need the value of statistics in management, product quality, pharmaceutical research and data processing services, risk assessment and most in marketing. Another is that, reputable colleges and universities need statistical research and consulting. In passion and great aim to be able to mold my experiences, I am challenged to use data from designed trials to discover results about a particular problem in a variety of fields through combining technical training skills with the knowledge of the field within which they are working to produce valuable results.     I dreamed to achieve a good career in statistics-business related because I believe that in order to achieve success in the competitive world of business industry, statistics is used to quantify the extent of variation in customers' needs and wants by means of designing experiments for new products, conduct focus groups and sample surveys to gather consumer feedbacks and doing field experiments in test markets to determine product viability and marketability being used to analyze sales data and predict future trends. Moreover, I agree that language and communication skills are important for the realization of this goal and I am positive that I can exercise my function in the society at this prestigious University. Also, I want to develop my ability to explain such matters clearly and concisely that requires knowledge of grammar and comprehensive writing skills as colleges and universities will continue focus through the crucial presence of statistics in different areas of studies involved and that opportunities for advancement are competitive and reflect the current demand for statistics as a part of the real world today and in the futures to come.               Those who are engaged in developing and extending the theory and methodology of statistics, deeper knowledge of computing is sometimes an absolute requirement and always a useful skill. Many of the recent developments in statistics rely heavily on computing and work in those areas requires some understanding of the computational issues appropriately taught in statistics courses. It is convenient to provide an introduction to a statistical analysis package in a course and then go deeper into the usage of any software. I have never believed that courses in statistics that just cover packages have a place in the statistics curriculum. There is a need for such courses that cover packages and should not carry academic credit but neither should they carry the enormous fees of commercial enterprises. I am sometimes amazed at how relevant topics and the basic principles have changed and this indicates that the fundamentals are essential that helps in mastering and keeping them in proper place. In pursuing a graduate school major in statistics, there is really a need for me to continue to learn much of what integrates statistics in business regarding the worth impact for such study as this is effective throughout the course work.

Statement of Purpose for Graduate School Admission at Standford University

As for myself, I am always interested to explore useful discoveries that involves the world of analyzing orders and sequences of numbers a...

Sample Organizational Culture and Walmart Success Essay

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND WAL-MART SUCCESS   Introduction   The paper analyzes the corporate culture of Wal-Mart in the context of its establishment by its owners as well as its future changes due to operational needs (e.g. outsourcing marketing to external people).  The structure can be somewhat futuristic that will serve as a guide for companies that have adopted or will change their corporate culture.  The paper contains overview of Wal-Mart’s culture and related organizational culture theories while the latter part analyzes Enron scandal and Standard/  relating them to cultural issues related to Wal-Mart.  There is a conclusion to elaborate on findings and implicate results to current issues confronting Wal-Mart.        Overview of Wal-Mart   Generally, the culture of Wal-Mart is engraved in treating other people as one wants to treat itself.  This reflects how they create relationships with customers, associates and suppliers with an initiative to provide excellence to show their competence and upper hand from industry players.  The company’s official website has a dedicated icon that explains their culture.  Opening remarks before detailing them comes from the CEO who presents financial and operational performance of the firm.  Such design is strategic in order for website visitors and people to know that they have an effective corporate culture which results in positive outcome for the company and its customers and business partners.    There are three basic corporate beliefs; namely, respect to individual, service to customers and strive for excellence covering employee motivation, customer satisfaction and competitiveness.  On the other hand, top-management including shareholders and owners of the company engaged in ten rules in building the Wal-Mart business.  Such rules reveal how the profit-oriented individuals should balance their short-term goals with long-term ones by loving the business, sharing success to others, motivating all partners, managing open communication systems, showing appreciation, celebrating success, exceeding customer expectation, being competitive and adherence to continuous improvement.   With this general framework, Wal-Mart is doing business in ever-changing industry and economy.  Recently, it unveiled new ad agency portfolio wherein it aligned its marketing and merchandising businesses to selected advertising agencies.  The outsourcing of one of the most significant area of the business to outside parties can have changes or “shocks” in the present cultural structure of the company especially of its known low-pricing strategy.  Wal-Mart should be able to guard its business partner selection to maximize the strategy and prevent untoward occurrences.  This would not be done without strategic leaders who implement best practice in decision-making. Overview of Corporate Culture   Organizational culture is the personality of a firm which can be indicated by the feedbacks of the partners and third parties.  Culture is based on values and assumptions about organizational resources where some outcomes can be formed (e.g. new technology, innovative processes, and good manager).  In every culture, there is an evaluative element which involves social expectations based on certain standards.  A firm that is explicitly stating its culture should be able to represent them through symbols and actions in order for expectations to recognize them and include in evaluation process.  In this course, social interaction is the best medium to show how the company embodies and execute its culture.    According to Deal and Kennedy (1982), culture is the single most important measure of success of the organization where four dimensions are involved; namely, values, heroes, rites/ rituals and cultural network.  Peters and Waterman (1982) elaborated this citing link of organizational culture and business performance where culture can be seen as form of reward or sacrifice.  This suggests that culture is both a cause and also an effect which places an organization between a double-edged sword.  As such, this makes culture problems less exposed to evaluation and to determine strategic actions.            The tone of Wal-Mart about its culture is that it is innovative, thus, it requires adopting a culture of change.  However, tools to be able to run this strategy are demanding and challenging.  First, cultural change requires awareness of its consequences, leadership inclination in building strong cultures and ability to balance culture to some form of corporate formalities.  Culture is a unifying symbol that reflects the general processes of the organization.  In this view, the concept of culture can aid in making corporate changes or simply making a specific culture for an organization to follow.            Culture should be Ethical   In definition, “ethics is a set of principles of right conduct.  It is a moral philosophy that conforms to standards of what is right or just in behavior” (Questa Dictionary).  The irony is that it has number of definitions but in sense, no theory or philosophy had really elaborate its meaning because it is basically based in norms, customs, values, culture and laws of a certain society.  There can never be universality as countries and other ethnic groups have differences.  Suffice to hear the word right and just and leave to the various societies, perhaps the majority, judgment of the succeeding individual actions, corporate strategies, government policies or international events.   In private corporations, decision-making plays a very important role in strategies especially its implementation.  Company’s overall vision and mission is applied in most of its huge and crucial undertakings usually executed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) but lower-levels of management and their decision-making is the instrument used to spread and implement the goals of company.  There actions tend to affect the decision of CEO and as a whole, the fate of the company.   The case of the historic fall of Enron is a relevant example which is written by  in 2002.  CEO K. Lay was impressed to Schilling that he gave the latter the position to run one of its divisions.  No doubt Schilling is tough and innovative because of his major contribution to transform the company into one of America’s best performing corporations in history.  But then, ethical standards seemed to slip in his consideration as he focused too much of growth and prosperity.   He instituted a harsh review committee for employees that made them taught that “performance measure was the amount of profits they could produce.”  Since then, employee turnover rose as he (Schilling) hired the best employee in the business and replace the incapable to adopt and pass his policy.  This is started the “darker tone in the internal culture of the company.”  Further, Fasted, the man who handled the finances and financial records of the company, also displayed injurious decisions to the company by not disclosing its real financial standing.  In addition, it is also discovered that Anderson, both external and internal auditor, was closely linked with the firm’s “internal accountants and controllers as they were his former executives.”   These aspects of unethical practices of the top managers of Enron caused the eventual fall of the company.  There is no question of there actions and decisions as being unethical because they constitute unfair treatment to employees who are not “money-based” but cannot be judged as underperforming, to the company who is voluntarily accept their decisions in the hope of achieving its goal and finally, the society because they created fraud and hid transparency.   Ethical practices of a person definitely influence his decision-making for the company.  Since the shareholders and even the CEO cannot monitor certain actions of its operational managers (especially in big and multi-national corporations), the latter is given freedom of choice and decision.  With this, decision-making must take into account common good and not individual interests.  Decision making is ethical if it is rational and able to weigh the benefits and costs of a certain action not only in the context of a company but also its “well-being, justice and sustainability” ( 2005) that will effect individuals, groups, government or even other nations   It is an ethical decision if it quoted responsibility in it.           Factors to Consider in Business Partnerships   Culture of Standard   There are a number of positive corporate cultures this company has worthy of emulation of others.  A United Kingdom market leader in its industry, it adheres to open communication where employees tend to show trust with each other under friendly relationship, especially with managers.  Meetings are held informally to maintain freely flowing discussions regarding the operational issues.  Although there are disagreements, it is focused on issues not in employee personalities.  Further, its years in the business gave it pride and style.  Because of this, it did not allow the parent company’s manufacturing division interfere and impede its potential.  Such resistance resulted to the merger with the Homburg System.       On the contrary, on the darker side, the intention to merge was bind with the self-vested interests of its managers for managerial security and retain of power.  Also, the informal setting in the subsidiary made performance policies futile because of complacency of employees with penalties.  Poor performance was overlooked.  The managerial opportunism and incentive bias in favor of seniority led other employees transfer to faster and clearer career path.      Culture of Homburg   A German-owed subsidiary had reflected some characteristics of its famous dictator.  The business unit exercised closed- and one-way communication where employees wherein employees show formal and hierarchal approach to other its officers.  Meetings are held formally and discourage point-of-views of other employees.  Mechanical in nature, its advantage was prominent in its scientific approach to business with numerical and coordination prowess.  There also existed the presence of handbooks and “requirements” to foster professionalism and accountability.  Its unfamiliarity with the English market made it merge to the company.  It had the tools and knowledge but not the market.     In addition, the merger concentrated in power-creation as observed on how its executives managed the newly formed company.  Such manifestation is possible because it had experienced overseas operations but not in the United Kingdom.  Because of its conservative view of standards, it did not need inefficient employees and terminated them to maintain efficiency.  It tends to control employees and widen psychological distance between employees and officers.  But unlike standard, performance is silent to bias by age or position.    Sources of Differences   Inappropriate Pre-Merger Planning Team It is important to note that characteristics and the culture of the parent and the subsidiary are different.  At the merger process and implementation, some subsidiary cultures run counter to the parent company.  In the list, the parent company allowed its managers to be treated as inferior when Homburg discriminate their offices and the manner Homburg secretary’s converse to Standard’s managers.  Originally, Standard System was proud, aggressive and active.  This was likely the reason their company became the market leader.  On the other hand, the involvement of German managers in the merged company brought mechanical and stricter procedures than with local managers.   The key people who will manage the merged company were not undergone settlement of differences because the pre-merger process was executed by inappropriate people at an abrupt moment.  Because of this, Standard and Homburg's differences were not polished.  Corporate staff representatives were not a reliable framework as basis for corporate culture either of the two units.  Standard had an innovative and aggressive workforce while Homburg was adept with foreign experience and exposure.  Distortion of the two corporate atmospheres resulted when Standard was represented by its executives and Homburg's by German managers.     Being a competitor in the same industry, there was existed different strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the two units.  The problem was they were not able to tackle these because the pre-merger process was done by corporate staffs and executives not the units themselves.  Even though pre-merger meetings and acquaintances developed harmonious relationship within the parent companies, unit managers of both companies did not.  The result was to discover management differences upon implementation that created reasons for disbandment at management levels.  Appropriate and involved people should have been encouraged to participate in the process.  It should have been the time to create some bargaining agreement to settle disputes and differences as they were once fierce competitors.   Demanding but Weak Leadership    Standard was undoubtedly the more crucial unit between the two.  It held the highest position in the merged company because of its market presence locally.  It also carried a larger number of employees.  But allowing two Homburg's managers to occupy the key positions, it gave them the power to manipulate the larger and more crucial Standard.  This scenario resulted to rage of the hidden protests to express dismay in the dictatorial-type of management Homburg was doing.  As the new company chairman from Standard remained deaf and busy with other tasks, differences continued to penetrate the new company causing the turn-over of Standard managers.    On the other hand, as Standard’s official slept at his office, the Managing Directors and Commercial Director started to propagate their management style that most Standard employees, especially managers saw to be unfit with their culture.  No mitigation was done by ht chairman.  His company that used to be the more superior because of bigger size and local leadership and knowledge of market, became a doll.  As Standard unit was not used with the management style, they wanted to retain their dynamism and flexibility.    The management demanded compliance without hearing their side.  Standard’s pride was neglected and likely not to accept it.  The cultural conflict doubles as new procedure was implemented.  Since they were not used to closed communication, exit was the easiest way to breathe out.  The intention of the merger was not achieved, that is, to break the shackles of the mechanical approach to business of manufacturing division just like Homburg.    Communication Gap       The manner of how each unit exemplifies the features of communication was extremely different.  Standard was used to open communication while the strict compliance of rules was adopted by Homburg.  This resulted for Standard to resist the change Homburg was introducing.  It was aggravated by the persistence of the latter in what the former believed to be the source of their competitive advantage for many years.  Open communication stimulated employees creativity to launch effective marketing plan.  Standard did not want to be included under its manufacturing division because of the independence it looses in maximizing market potential.  As a result, they saw the merger as a mistake as it encompassed its biggest dictatorial nightmare.      Unmet Managerial Assumptions   Both subsidiaries had underlying expectation in the merger at the interest of individual rather corporate level.  Managers of Standard were aiming to secure their posts even increase their managerial powers while Homburg was obviously had its own thirst for supremacy.  The result was disappointment when failed to achieve.  As Standard managers hated how the Managing Director and his Commercial Director operated the merged company, Homburg returned the despised to the former.  The problem was unanswered because in the surface laid hindrance to achieve effectiveness and efficiency for the new company.     Employee Treatment Approach Workforce between the two units has differences in treating their employees.  Standard trusted their employees and treated them as a friend.  By doing so, resistance was hardly to emerge.  They were also not limited by strict and compulsory policies, unlike Homburg, that developed their flexibility as marketing agents.  Consequently, they struggled under the different treatment Homburg managers implemented.  They were not heard and the source of their competitive advantage, being independent and active, were gradually taken away from them.  To retaliate, they resisted or just withdrew.            Conclusion   Wal-Mart is undoubtedly one of the most successful global companies not only in its industry but taken all industries at ones.  However, its success is exposed to fast-phased environmental changes which can affect its corporate culture.  The case of Enron showed that unethical standards that can affect culture should be avoided by the owners and managers.  In this regard, the ten rules adhered by Wal-Mart owners should be kept in-tact.  The case of Standard/ Homburg showed that its partnership with external entities should be planned and framed within Wal-Mart’s evaluation of its culture.  Otherwise, integration difficulties will emerge and beneficiaries of marketing strategies will not full-appreciate marketing endeavors due to this incompatibilities.  Corporate culture is the heart of success because it reflects how people think about their jobs and cooperate towards corporate goals.  This is why Wal-Mart should guard its ethical consideration about its culture as well as partnership implications on it.

Sample Organizational Culture and Walmart Success Essay

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND WAL-MART SUCCESS Introduction The paper analyzes the corporate culture of Wal-Mart in the context o...

A Doll’s House Discussion

‘A woman cannot be herself in modern society.’ -        A Doll’s House   The above quotation is the underlying premise behind  A Doll’s House, one of the world’s most controversial, socially relevant and critically acclaimed plays. It apparently deals with motherhood and the context of marriage during the Victorian era, in which patriarchy is dominant in the society. The plot focuses on Torvald and Nora Helmer’s marriage while the controversy was centered when Nora decided to abandon her children and gain her freedom from his husband. Nora is the protagonist who served as the “doll” to Torvald’s “doll house” and was referred as his “squirrel” and little “starling”.             Speaking in relation to the era of the play, women are considered to be mere subordinates to men. Women are treated with restrictions due to the existing culture that time. As stated by Ibsen, ‘a women cannot be herself in contemporary society’ because all the existing and operating laws are made by men and applied in a masculine point of view. For instance, in Nora and Torvald’s case, the traditional view of marriage during those times is the basis of their relationship as husband and wife. Marriage is very sacred and is characterized by the man (Torvald) as the master of the house and the woman (Nora) was just a mere wife. It is the duty of the man to serve as the head of the family where all major decisions are created and implemented according to his orders while the woman is just a follower and ought to obey the man’s decisions. As Nora claimed: "I've been your doll-wife just as at home I was Papa's doll child" (191). Ibsen noted that during the Victorian era, women are subordinates. They are not free and liberated as the current women population. Again, this is attributed to the presence of laws of the land that were plotted by men and applied in their own patriarchal perspectives. As for the case of the Helmer’s, they did comply with the standards of society particularly on their setup in married life. However, Nora tried to seek liberty that prompted her to recognize her real situation as a “doll” that is trapped on a “doll’s house”. The couple did not change their marital setup because Torvald’s view was in congruence to the society they are mingling with. Still, Nora remained as the mere wife while Torvald, the master. Torvald believed that any act of female dominance is considered as “taboo” or a contradicting belief to the preexisting views. Ibsen’s play open up the mind of people to the concept of freedom and gender equality. With the exposition of this play, the idea of feminism came profusely to serve as the moderating agent. Issues on gender such as biases, discrimination, and equality have always existed ever since the early ages. The recognition of this issue flared up the debate and the battle of sexes. Centuries ago, it has been a fact that men and women are defined as two totally different existent beings. But today, with the advent of contemporary ideologies on gender issues, the position of man and woman on the current society are no longer the same as before. The dynamic and rapid phasing of contemporary days affects all the aspects of human existence. The traditional perspectives on things are also modified into more liberal and broadly acceptable practicability. People in today’s society are now more knowledgeable when it comes on dealing with serious issues especially those that are directly affecting their individual being. Perhaps, the existence of several factors like the emergence of globalization and intensified internationalization of thoughts, media and its several advocates, the academic world and other social institutions, and even the evolving family life are considerable factors that influence the views of people today. In significance, Plato’s view on sexism is evident to unconventional and modern societies such as the U.S., the Western, and other developed countries. Plato’s principle of equality of sexes is indeed evident. Plato, considered as the first feminist philosopher believed in the notion that the equality of sexes is carefully sculpted. However, there is inconsistence with his thinking that one class of people is superior of other classes because of the conditions of his time ( 1994). Now, people – both man and woman excel in various fields of specialization regardless of their gender. From the world of politics, economics, sociology, and even lifestyle, man and women play their own individual roles (2000). There is already justice in the treatment for women and recognition of their contribution to the development. When Aristotle said “The free-man rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female . . . for the slave have no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority” (1260 ;1999), it is only applicable during his time. It has been refuted by some feminist philosophers and advocators. At present, the struggle for the total egalitarian position of women in the society is also evident. A survey conducted among American women, they are more emotional, affectionate, talkative, patient and creative than men and men, otherwise are more aggressive, courageous, ambitious, and easygoing than women. However, this instance is related to the personality characteristics of every human being when it comes to view on men and women equality ( 2001). Ibsen’s claim and an issue of sexism is now becoming an ancient controversial argument. With the emergence of human, societal, scientific and technological advances and globalization (Horton and Patapan 2004), the great debate of sexism is contemplated on the role of every human being in building a better world. However in some traditional societies, sexism is a major factor to consider in defining the importance of women and men in the society. Still, it can be stated that there are still traces of Torvald in some circumstances. Although perhaps, the movement for gender equality gradually evolved in the late 19th century and was fuelled by women movements in the 20th century; the mild, moderate and radical feminist groups mustered their organizing influence to slowly inflict change in the society (2000). Sexual difference is not a matter of pre-existing categories with set contents, but is an interval or gap – a radical difference – between the sexes' experiences and knowledge’s. It does not fit clearly into the dualism of nature and culture (1994). As for the women, they hold a defined and significant position in the society. Gone are the days that they are left inside the house to do the cooking and other household chores, instead they are now out of the world to do and excel in our specialized departments in order to make a difference. They are created in order to complement with man and not to be a method to describe on the basis of importance, strengths and worth of existence. Hence, Plato’s feminist principle is still ideally and palpably applied today but identified in different setting and circumstance of time. Meanwhile, the traditional characterizations of women are no longer relevant to the standards of current society and means of living. As likened to a trend, the old-fashioned descriptions towards women are obsolete and irrelevant. The views about women during this generation are strongly influential and definitive to the concept of worldwide gender equality and eventual social acceptance. As recorded in the history, the ultimate battle of sexes – of man over the woman, is already outdated and concluded. Such ancient views on women as the weaker sex and just bounded in the house as a wife and a mother per se are no longer propagated in several areas of human life. With this fact, the women in the society at present are more sophisticated and competitive as seen in different fields of expertise and other relative specializations. Thus, all people are unique. It is the law of nature and the universe that every person is created differently in order to have a sense of identity. When one realizes that he/she differs from another, it only means that each living and thinking individual is one-of-a-kind and totally exceptional. The only thing that each one can do is to acknowledge such differences in a manner that will not discriminate or show arrogance against the other. Respect is the name of the game. If only people possess this trait, this world would be better and in harmony and peace with each other – regardless of race, religion, and gender. Also, there will be no Nora and Torvald ever existed in the history.

A Doll’s House Discussion

‘A woman cannot be herself in modern society.’ - A Doll’s House The above quotation is the underlying premise behind ...

PASTORAL CARE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

A pastoral letter by three high-level German bishops reopened the debate on pastoral care for those who have been divorced and then remarried. The status of these people conflicts with the principles of pastoral care since they are considered adulterers or at least living in sin and the current papal doctrine gives them only inadequate options based on the assumption that if the Church failed to support the indissolubility of marriage then people would not seek it. The pastoral letter suggests that pastoral care decisions would be better made on the local level as opposed to by Rome. The letter stated that a pastoral dialogue was needed to determine whether the "generally valid" prohibition against the remarried receiving the Eucharist "applies also in a given situation." The presumption behind these pastoral options was that those whose marriages were invalid due to the existence of a prior bond of marriage were living in a sinful situation, an adulterous union. Their lives together placed them in the proximate occasion of serious sin, thus endangering their salvation. Moreover, it was intolerable because it could be a source of scandal to the faithful. The Church's marriage tribunals functioned ponderously and declarations of nullity were slow and very few. The tribunals could respond to only a tiny fraction of the pastoral need. Often couples could not separate, since their obligations to their children, their dependence on one another, or their economic condition simply did not permit it. Living together as brother and sister was an arrangement "full of dangers" and to be suggested only in the rarest of cases.   The work of the NCCB Committee came to naught; no guidelines were ever issued. Pastoral practice regarding access to the sacraments by the divorced and remarried continued to be and still remains diverse in the U.S. During the 1980 International Synod on the Family there was concern expressed to improve pastoral care toward the divorced and remarried. At the time there was criticism of the synod's final text for failing to catch the nuances of the discussion, i.e. not consistently distinguishing between conflict and hardship cases, and within the hardship category ignoring the difference between those who were abandoned and people in other situations. Overall, the tone of the synod discussions and the declared desire to provide a positive program of pastoral care was a big step forward in the Church's ministry to those in irregular unions. In 1981, John Paul II issued his apostolic exhortation provided his thoughts on the synod topic. In paragraph 84 he addressed the situation of the divorced and remarried. There he made distinctions not found in the synod statement. The distinctions, however, did not make any practical difference in pastoral care - all divorced and remarried are to be extended pastoral care and all are to be excluded from the Eucharist. While gracious in tone and strong in his affirmation of the place of the divorced and remarried within the Catholic community, the pope repeated the synod's reasons for Eucharistic exclusion - namely, a contradiction between the objective state of those in irregular unions and the unity which the Eucharist signifies.     They note that with regard to pastoral care "the church is not simply free," for the standard of the Church must be "the word, will and example of Jesus" their conclusion makes two points. "The church cannot assume the right to disregard the word of Jesus regarding the permanence of marriage; but equally it cannot shut its eyes to the failure of many marriages. For wherever people fall short of the reality of redemption Jesus meets them in mercy with understanding for their situation." Emphasizing that the Church "cannot serve human needs without first serving the truth about the human person," Stafford stated that the Church's position on divorce and remarriage is not of its own making but "comes directly from the words of Christ." To violate that teaching is to rupture a sacramental covenant. Since the "Eucharist is the defining act, the central celebration of Christian unity and community," those who participate must not be living a life which violates the sacramental unity. One cannot simply exalt the individual's conscience over the Church's teaching, especially on a matter so central to the Church's life as marriage. The divorced remarried person is excluded from the Eucharist since adultery is a sin. (3) Adultery "exists exclusively in sexual communion. Thus, nothing stands in the way of admission to the sacraments if the partners of the new marriage reject sexual union, even if they live together in personal community."       The issue of sin arises not only in regard to adultery. Kaiser makes the point that "not only the remarriage, but the divorce is an offense against God's command." Whether this offense is a sin must be judged not only by the objective situation but by personal culpability, for the present pope has "expressly acknowledged that not every divorced spouse lives in mortal sin." Each case must be examined. Some may not be sinfully culpable for their divorce, e.g. the abandoned. Yet other spouses may well have "destroyed the personal living and loving community of a marriage in a mortally sinful way." Such persons must earnestly undergo an examination of their actions and in "true repentance turn from sin" through the sacrament of penance. Such individuals are not excluded from the Eucharist, even if the divorce remains in effect, since reestablishment of the loving communion of the first marriage may no longer be possible. Divorced persons in this situation are free to receive the sacraments, although they were culpable in a serious way for the break-up of the marriage and their divorced state is not altered. Divorce, objectively violates God's will for married life. In many cases sinful culpability is present when a marriage dies. Just as the divorced person may repent yet persist in the "objectively wrong" status of being divorced, so the remarried may honestly pursue a path of repentance and sacramental forgiveness yet remain in a canonically invalid second union. The Church acknowledges this to be so since it encourages a couple to live up to the obligations, both human and Christian, that derives from the new marriage.   The Church cannot tell a couple that their present state in life is their duty while at the same time tells them that their present state of life entails persisting in sin. True, the official teaching presently maintains that the couple meets their obligations while living as brother and sister. But since, as has already been argued, no rights of former spouses are violated by the sexual sharing present in the new marriage, because no such right exists, the full intimacy of marriage at all levels can and should occur in the second marriage. Thus, provided the divorced and remarried honestly seek to build a life of personal self-giving and loving communion, their participation in the Eucharist should be permitted when they approach the table, irrespective of the canonical status of their marriage. The early Church in developing its Eucharistic discipline appealed to both the Matthean text, "do not give to dogs what is holy" ( ) and the Pauline warning to the Corinthians not to receive the body and blood of the Lord unworthily ( ). Paul called upon believers to examine themselves "and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." This attitude has fostered the presumption that if persons present themselves to the minister, the Eucharist should not be refused.         The Church does not believe there must be no original sin before baptism, nor no mortal sin before penance. Rather, these sacraments bring about what they celebrate, the forgiveness of sin. Must the sacrament of the Eucharist presume unity in order to celebrate it? Or may it be the means whereby unity is effectively created? Because the present church discipline does not give sufficient weight to the concern expressed in the second question we do not appear to have a balanced view of sacramental effectiveness. One can argue that because such a sacramental marriage should witness to Christ's love it needs to embody a faithful and permanent bond of love which does not end. That is to draw a reasonable implication, namely, that if marriage is to be sign of Christ's love, then a couple should imitate the qualities of Christ's love. But to conclude that because Christ's love for the Church cannot end, then this couple's love for each other cannot end, is doing something more. In the first case we are drawing out moral implications, in the second we are making an ontological claim.() To state that indissolubility is a moral ideal, an ethical obligation, is a justifiable conclusion from the prior claim that sacramental marriage is meant to be sign of Christ's love.         For one thing, quite apart from the Church's teaching, people earnestly desire their marriages to be permanent and faithful. In reports from those regularly engaged in premarital-preparation programs there is little reason to conclude that couples enter into marriage indifferent to the ideals of permanence and fidelity. Every couple wants its marriage to be a success. Even as they admit that marriages often do not succeed, they want theirs to succeed. That is why divorce is a tragedy and many people who know nothing of Catholicism see it exactly that way. The actual legal decree of divorce may not be experienced by all as a tragedy since for some it is a relief, an end to wrangling, fear, and anger. But the existential process of the breakdown of a marriage leading to the legal judgment is deeply painful for all.   Pastoral Care/Pastoral Solutions One of the positive developments within the Church in recent decades has been the growing sensitivity to divorced and remarried Catholics. No longer is the language of bigamy or excommunication found in formal teaching. The Church has now reached out in a wide variety of ways to those who have suffered the break-up of a marriage, e.g. better tribunal practice, parish-based support groups, weekend retreat programs, welcoming attitudes among parish staff and congregations. The official teaching of the Church has encouraged such developments agree that many things can be done to support those who are divorced, whether single or remarried. People whose marriages have failed are still members of the Church and are entitled to pastoral care appropriate to their situation. In providing such care ministers ought not make the mistake of equating it only with the celebration of the sacraments. Even without admission to the Eucharist, much can and should be done for the divorced and remarried by pastoral leaders. The language of pastoral care can obscure the true nature of what is involved. For example, describing the outcome of a discernment process as a "good faith" solution is, in our opinion, unsatisfactory. There is a tendency to link "good faith" with invincible ignorance and the pastoral practice of dissimulation. However, many couples are fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding indissolubility and marriage. In any number of instances people simply do not see why the ban on Eucharistic participation must be absolute when it comes to those in canonically irregular marriages. When this moral framework is employed and the couple maintains that the new marriage exists, then three pastoral options are possible: (1) convalidate their present marriage after seeking annulment or dissolution of the first marriage; (2) leave the couple in good faith, dissimulate; (3) admit them to penance and Eucharist, without any formal judgment about the first union. Separation is most often impossible, economically and morally, and may be inadvisable. As we have already suggested, the brother/sister arrangement should not be proposed. In following this approach a priest's intervention does not seem to be essential. It is an exercise of moral discernment, and a morally sensitive third party is advisable to assist in the honest formation of conscience.   Families teach the first lessons of relationships among persons, some of which are essential not only to private life but to public life as well. Within the family, one learns to act upon others and to be acted upon. It is in the family that we learn to identify ourselves with others or fail to learn to love. It is in the family that we learn to give and take with others - or fail to learn to be reciprocal. It is in the family that we learn to trust others as we depend on them or learn to distrust them. We learn to form expectations of the others and to hold them accountable. We also learn to hold ourselves accountable. These lessons of reciprocity, trust, discipline and self-restraint are important to the forming of relationships in public life. This family is not an isolated unit but very much a social institution, nested in a wider context that either helps to sustain parental commitment and accomplishment or puts negative pressure on fathers and mothers. That pressure obviously takes many forms, and I have mentioned just a few. Being a parent isn't just another "lifestyle choice." It is an ethical vocation. Communities, including churches, should lighten the burden and smooth the path for parents so that the complex joys of family life might rise to the surface and the undeniable burdens of family responsibility might be more openheartedly borne. Children lost to society in increasing numbers may be a growing phenomenon, and it is one that we must call what it is: a loss, a crying shame. Protecting, preserving, and strengthening family autonomy and the well-being of mothers and fathers is a way of affirming our commitment to the individual and to that democratic society that best speaks to the aspirations of individuals. The rights of persons are fundamentally social. What is at stake in the family debate and our response to it is nothing less than our capacity for human sociality. If kids are involved, so the saying goes, there is no such thing as divorce. Sure, you can get a piece of paper saying your marriage is over, but don't expect to be able to make a clean break. As long as you're co-parenting children, especially young children, you will need to be in continual contact, and you'll inevitably hear a great deal about what's happening in your ex-partner's life, whether you want to or not. The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife? They were testing Him. He said to them in reply, what did Moses command you? They replied, Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her. But Jesus told them; because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate. In the house the disciples again questioned Him about this. He said to them, whoever divorces his wife and marries another will commit adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery and people were bringing children to Him that He might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.     When Jesus saw this He became indignant and said to them, let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it. Then He embraced them and blessed them, placing His hands on them. Most people would agree that divorce is always a tragedy. When a marriage breaks down, at least one of the spouses will need years to recover from the trauma. After having invested years in a relationship, one can hardly throw in the towel without a wrenching sense of failure. There is the fact that Jesus condemns divorce absolutely and unequivocally. In His words there are no ifs and buts. ( and ). Such a commitment will inspire the couple to communicate deeply, to face their difficulties as they emerge, to do the maintenance work required for the preservation of any relationship. Such a marriage will not end in divorce, because ultimately it is built on an act of faith in Christ’s vision of marriage as being the only healthy one. True, in extreme cases the apostle Paul accepts the idea of separation (), but even then no divorce is contemplated, and the separated spouses must remain single. There exists no evidence that suggests Jesus ever discussed same-sex anything, publicly or privately, during his ministry. However, Christ, the bedrock of modern-day Christianity, did publicly condemn religious leaders of his age for granting bills of divorcement. But wading through all the hype in the media these days one might just conclude the opposite.       I've never witnessed a broadcast describing someone being dragged out into the middle of nowhere, hog-tied to a fence, and then beaten to a bloody pulp just because he or she once divorced and then remarried. Nor have I ever read an article in which America's religious community demanded a legislative amendment to the United States Constitution to halt divorced people from having the right to ever remarry. Nor have I heard of any type of social reprisal aimed at halting their equal access to benefits already afforded married couples with no reason to locate a divorce attorney. Granted, in many Christian churches today divorce is heavily frowned upon. Yet, its leadership instructs that heterosexual individuals that do divorce and then remarry can receive unconditional forgiveness, grace, mercy, love and acceptance from God and also from their congregations. Moreover, most divorced believers are permitted to take on active pastoral and other leadership roles in mainstream Christian churches. Relaxed, attractive atmospheres are even created that foster new, Christ-centered relationships between divorced individuals and other church members, not being the divorced person's initial spouse. They bless and spiritually consecrate these new unions in the eyes of God although one or both of the newlyweds’ former spouses still live, and are at times active members in the same congregation. But this is categorically contrary to the teachings of Christ. In the New Testament, Jesus was quoted as teaching, "It has been said and anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But Jesus tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."     Furthermore, the penalty connected to the act of adultery is synonymous with the penalty attached to the supposed sin of homosexuality. The Old Testament reads, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress [like those who commit same-sex acts] must be put to death." Could it be that since so many spirit-filled pastors and other Christian leaders are themselves the continual perpetrators of repetitious unions, this blatant infraction of God s law and Christ's teachings is so ardently disregarded nowadays? Or could it be that many of today s clergy have manipulated God's law to make it conform to their social traditions, and in effect, nullifying God's law by changing it? Does this sound familiar? Any well-versed Christian will confess that Jesus, himself, accused the ancient church of similar acts of aggression against God's established predicts. One writer of the New Testament, Apostle Paul, commented on similar types of gatekeepers of religious law on this wise: "Now you if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark -- you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? as it is written: God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."     The infamous apostle should have also prophesied that on the account of the Christians alive in the year 2004, God's name will be held in contempt among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, and others who have not come to know God as God. Finally, is it considered an act of unconditional grace to say that the immeasurable, unmerited grace available from God stops only at the sin of adultery? Does God's amazing grace cover only those sins of Old Testament law that are socially comfortable by today's standards? Let me put it another way: Is divorce (absent of unfaithfulness) a sin? Many Christians might respond, yes, of course, and there's plenty of scripture to back that up. Then will God consider the bed of that remarried person defiled? Most would probably respond, No, absolutely not, because of the New Testament law of grace, and there's plenty of scripture to support this. Then, should not the same amazing grace, religious acceptance and social approval available to divorced people who remain remarried be extended to gays and lesbians who remain gay and lesbian? These are but a few of the more puzzling questions that remain avoided in arrogant-laced pulpits, as mainstream Christian leadership continues its one-sided, seemingly hypocritical onslaught against the social and spiritual validity of same-gender-attracted humanity.       In today's gospel, Jesus puts into perspective Moses' decision to allow divorce: "Because of the hardness of your hearts He wrote you this commandment" (). Then He proceeds to remind them of God's original intent when He created man and woman and blessed their union (;  ). Jesus thus curtails the excessive privileges of man and genuinely protects the woman. A husband cannot throw his wife out of the house for a flimsy reason. No more. Marriage is an indissoluble union that places husband and wife on equal footing. Either of them could be charged with adultery. By saying that a divorced person commits adultery by marrying another, Jesus hinders remarriage and leaves them door open for reconciliation between the estranged couple. In this respect, Jesus goes beyond Jewish and pagan conceptions, giving marriage a position of highest dignity. Divorce is a delicate and sensitive issue. Moses compromised in view of human weakness. But Jesus reinstates the original order of creation. No one says it is easy to make a marriage work. Clashing personalities and temperaments can indeed be a deterrent to harmony. For married couples, the challenge of discipleship is to help each other grow and mature and to be faithful to one another, till death do them part, as they have sworn before God and the community of believers.       Matthew 19:3-12 Some Pharisees approached Jesus, and tested Him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." They said to Him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. His disciples said to Him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." After upholding the ideal of marital fidelity, Jesus offers another ideal on the occasion of the disciple's naive judgment that the single state is to be preferred over an indissoluble marriage. The unmarried state can be preferable, but only for some. Some people have lived without marrying not out of choice but because of physical defects. But for some who have received a special gift from God, celibacy can be a matter of choice and personal commitment. In the same way that the profound meaning of marriage is to be understood from the original plan of the Creator, so must the real meaning of celibacy be understood in view of God's plan: the future kingdom, which we begin to experience in the here and now? Throughout Jewish history the Torah has been hailed as Israel's supreme and most precious gift, given by God as His own special benefaction to His people. In the Midrash the Torah is said to have been created before the creation of the world, God using the Torah as the architect uses his blueprint. When God wished to give the Torah to Israel, the Midrash observes, the angels objected, wishing to retain the Torah for them. Moses managed to convince the angels that the Torah, containing as it does such teachings as ‘Thou shalt not steal’; ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’; ‘Thou shalt not kill’, could only have meaning for creatures of flesh and blood who are sorely tempted by envy, lust, and hatred. In this vein, the Talmudic Rabbis declare that the Torah does not make too heavy demands on humans since ‘The Torah was not given to the ministering angels’. In many a psalm the praises of the Torah are sung. The first Psalm praises the man who avoids the counsel of the wicked for whom the Torah is his delight. In Psalm 19 () the Torah of the Lord is said to be perfect, renewing life. The whole of Psalm 119, the Pharisaic Psalm, as this has been called by Christian scholars, utilizes each letter of the alphabet eight times in praise of the Torah: ‘Oh, how I love Thy Torah! All day long it is my study’ ()     God alone is to be worshipped, the Torah being the means of coming to God. The usual expression in Jewish piety is ‘love of the Torah and the fear of Heaven’. The term ‘fear’, denoting worship, is never applied to the Torah. Some authorities even object to bowing to the Torah since this might suggest that the Torah is being worshipped. The custom, however, is to bow to the Torah just as one bows to a person one wishes to honor without the slightest suggestion that he is being worshipped. This implies that this Torah of Moses will not be abrogated and that no other Torah will come from before God. Nothing is to be added to it nor taken away from it, neither in the Written Torah nor in the Oral Torah, as it is said: “Thou shalt not add to it nor diminish from it” []. The first is that God who gave the Torah does not change and it should follow that the Torah which stems from God does not change. Secondly, the Torah was given to the whole people of Israel and, unlike an individual, a people does not change. Thirdly, since the Torah is truth it cannot suffer change, for truth is eternal. If it is true, for instance, that there is only One God it is inconceivable that there should come a time when this will no longer be true and there will be many gods. Moreover there are examples in the Torah itself of a divine law being changed. Adam was only permitted vegetable food (), Noah was permitted animal food (). Abraham was given the additional precept of circumcision and many new precepts were revealed to Moses.     Although there existed a complete interpretation of the Torah and its commands there is no generation in which something new is not added and which is without its own legal problems. Do not contradict me by pointing to the Rabbinic saying that God showed Moses the minutiae of the Torah and the minutiae of the Scribes and the innovations that would be introduced by the Scribes, for I say that this was not handed down by Moses to anyone else. A careful examination of the Rabbinic saying shows that they spoke of God “showing” Moses, not “teaching” or “handing down” … By using the word “showing” they meant that these teachings were revealed to Moses but not “given” to him, like a man who “shows” his friend an object but does not give it to him.’ The problem of Jewish divorce has proven to be extremely difficult in the modern world, especially in Israel where all Jewish divorces are in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate and its rabbinical courts. The protests led by Orthodox and haredi women have reached such proportions that their plight cannot be ignored. The core of the difficulty lies in the Torah's definition of marriage as a state in which "a man acquires a wife" and divorce as "he writes her a bill of divorcement" (). Even if this "acquiring" requires the consent of the woman, once the marriage has taken place, she is, in a sense, his "possession" and only he can free her from that position. Needless to say, this does not mean that he can abuse her. On the contrary, the Torah envisions a loving and respectful marital relationship.         Matthew 27-32 JESUS said to His disciples, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.'' "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.' But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.'' Jesus here deepens the understanding of the commandment forbidding adultery. He begins by declaring that His disciples know the law. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery''' (). In Jewish patriarchal society, the law states that a married woman is guilty of committing adultery if she were unfaithful to her husband. In contrast, a man, whether married or not, is guilty of adultery only if his partner is another man's wife. If she were, he is said to have violated that man's property rights. Here, Jesus teaches that it is not enough to refrain from committing adultery, for one must not even look lustfully at a woman (). It is lust that causes one to treat another as a mere object rather than as a living person who is precious in God's eyes. Lust degrades more the offender than his object. Speaking against divorce, a concession under the Law of Moses, Jesus points out that marriage should be a permanent commitment of the spouses, not a mere temporary contract. His radical words stress the seriousness with which marriage should be undertaken and maintained. In general, His stance checks the propensity of men to degrade themselves or others and raises the lower (property) status of women. In His eyes, men and women are equal partners, both deserving respect. Mark 10:1-12 JESUS set out from Capernaum and went into the district of Judea [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around Him and, as was His custom, He again taught them. The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing Him. He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?" They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her." But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts He wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." In the house the disciples again questioned Him about this. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."  Having completed His ministry in Galilee (), Jesus enters Judea on His way to Jerusalem. He continues to preach His demanding and radical message. Here, He speaks on marriage and divorce, a common topic in rabbinical debates. To test Jesus, the Pharisees ask whether it is lawful for a husband to divorce his wife. Claiming Moses' permission, Jewish teachers have allowed men to put their wives aside for a number of supposedly valid reasons, as a result of which male divorce of women was easy and prevalent. Jesus reminds the Jews that Moses tolerated divorce only because of the people's hardness of heart. Going beyond the Mosaic concession, Jesus appeals to the beginnings, the original ideal state designed by God Himself. Jesus cites the book of Genesis (well within the authoritative Torah) and insists on the basic principle that "what God has joined together, no human being must separate." God wills that man and woman be united in an indestructible union of love for the duration of their life. The disciples of Jesus are thus surprised at this hard teaching and question Him for clarification. Jesus reiterates that marriage is indissoluble. If a man and a woman have been validly married, they cannot divorce and remarry without committing adultery. In God's sight, the indissolubility of marriage is nonnegotiable and should never be compromised.           According to the , marriage is a state instituted by God because ‘it is not good that the man should be alone’ (). Although various biblical figures (such as Jacob, Saul, David, etc.) had more than one wife, monogamy seems to have been the general rule, and the prophets used marriage as an illustration of God's relationship with Israel. Certain marriages, particularly between close relatives, were forbidden, and marriage between Jew and idolater was strongly condemned. Although a continuing marriage was much to be desired, divorce was permitted (). Although divorce is a matter of great regret, it is possible. According to , if both husband and wife agree, a husband may give a get (‘bill of divorce’) to his wife. Both husband and wife can demand a divorce if the spouse has a physical defect, or because of unsatisfactory conduct. It is, however, in a post ghetto society notoriously difficult for the community to compel a husband to give a divorce, and if he refuses, the wife is tied; she cannot marry again, and any subsequent children.

PASTORAL CARE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

A pastoral letter by three high-level German bishops reopened the debate on pastoral care for those who have been divorced and then remarr...

Final Exam in Research 1

Final Exam in Research 1     Article Title: The Perception of the Other in International Relations:  Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity   Authors:     Abstract: In an international relations context, the mutual images held by actors affect6 their mutual expectations about the Other’s behavior and guide the interpretation of the Other’s actions. Here it is argued that the effect of these images is moderated by the degree of entitativity of the Other – that is, the extent to which it is perceived as a real entity. Two studies tested this hypothesis by manipulating the entitativity of the European Union (EU) among US citizens whose images of the EU varied among the enemy/ally dimension. Results of these studies yielded converging evidence in support of the hypothesized moderating effect of entitativity. Specifically, entitativity showed a polarizing effect on the relationship between the image of the EU and judgements of harmfulness of actions carried out by the EU.   Key Words: entitativity, agency, polarization, image, intergroup relations, international relations       Underlined Words: <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Hypotheses or hypothesis – refers to a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories (2002). Hypotheses are causal explanations or propositions that have at least one independent and one dependant variable but have yet to be tested ( 2003). </li>   In the case of the research article at hand, the authors identified two hypotheses that set out the research activity based on the psychology and communication theories such as schema, image, and entitativity.  The hypotheses are: (1) increasing the entitativity of an enemy country leads to a perception of increased harmfulness, and (2) increasing the entitativity of an ally country leads to a perception of increased friendliness.  The identified hypotheses in the study served as main guidelines or framework in conducting the research activity following the scientific method under the empirical research design. By testing the truthfulness, validity and reliability of the hypotheses under a defined context, the authors were able to answer the presented research problem which concludes the entire research activity.            <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Outgroup – is a set of individuals that are perceived to share common characteristics which relatively differ in some degrees to the perceived characteristics of one’s own affiliation or membership to his or her ingroup (1998). Researchers have focused their attention on questions focusing on the subjective perceptions that people hold in defining groups as groups which led to a bulk of academic materials highlighting a variety of qualitative and quantitative investigations on perceptual reality of social groups ( 2003). Specifically,   (1967) criteria for entitativity is to think of them as theories that individual perceivers hold about specific social groups and that endow the groups with social meaning and predictive value (1985;  1995) hence differentiating further the outgroup from the ingroup. </li>   Entitativity can be defined as a theory of common origin underlying expected similarities of attitude or behavior on the part of group members in which groups are seen as “real” groups because some aspects of member behavior are believed to arise from some common source (2003). Moreover, the roots of group entitativity can be further divided into “causes” (distal or proximal) and “reasons” (1999). In the selected research study, the American students served as participants and they constitute as members of the ingroup which is America. The outgroup was the European Union (EU) whose entitativity was manipulated and determined based on the different perceptions of the students in the conducted experiments.  Because the EU is becoming an important actor in the international arena, investigations of the relations of the United States (ingroup) and the EU (outgroup) became the interest of the study. Since EU is a group which the participants (students) had little knowledge, the implemented entitativity manipulation became convenient.         <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Manipulation – is the act of controlling or operating upon a person or group by unfair means to one's own advantage. In a psychological context, manipulation means to influence a person or a group of people in such a way that the manipulator tries to get what he or she wants or makes a person believe something in a calculating, indirect and somewhat dishonest way (1981). Experiments involve the deliberate manipulation of one or more independent variables in which variations or treatments are made in order to determine if the induced treatment/s will affect the reaction of the group or individual being experimented upon (2004; 1961). Manipulation is utilized by researchers in an experiment in order to test the hypotheses presented. Checks on whether participants understood the manipulation instructions called manipulation checks are used in research to ensure that what is intended to be manipulated in  an experiment is indeed manipulated (2004).</li>   In the article, the researchers identified that there are multiple roots of entitativity and so decided to test their hypothesis using two different manipulations of entitativity in order to ensure that entitativity, and not one of its components only, was responsible for the differing perceptions of the participants. The entitativity was manipulated using perceptual cues and was measured by utilizing a shorter version of the entitativity scale developed by  (1999). The scale includes (a) common fate, (b) similarity, and (c) distinctiveness. The manipulation conducted for the purpose of the experiment focused on the interaction between the image of the EU held by the participants and the different measures of entitativity induced. Through the initiated manipulations during the data collection procedures, the authors presented their predictions or expectations from the research activity. These include:   <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Only those participants who viewed the EU as an enemy of the United States to judge the actions of the EU as more harmful to the United States in the high-entitativity condition than in the low-entitativity condition.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> For those participants who viewed the EU as an ally, its higher entitativity should have led to the perception of the EU as less harmful.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">  A stronger relationship between the image of the EU and perceived harmfulness of the actions of the EU among participants in the high-entitativity condition compared to those in the low-entitativity condition.</li>     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Randomly or random – a concept used to express lack of purpose, cause, order, or predictability in non-scientific parlance. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution. The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation (1986; 1998). Random selection or distribution techniques are used in research activity in order to ensure the represenativeness of the participants of the study which supports validity and reliability of the data based on the number or quantity of the participants while keeping equal opportunity for representation ( 2001). This is one way to avoid research biases that can influence the answers of the participants which will invalidate the results of the study.</li>   The researchers in the article asked the participation of fifty-seven students for the experiment who are enrolled in an introductory psychology course in exchange for course credits. As the participants arrive at the lab in groups of four, they were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (high vs. low entitativity). Aside from the random distribution of the participants in the different treatments induced by the researchers, they likewise sat in separate cubicles and were unable to communicate with each other for the entirety of the experiment. They were asked to respond to four statements aimed at assessing the image of the EU in which two of the questions assess the EU as an “ally”, while the remaining two to assess the EU as an “enemy”. The proceeding conditions presented to the participants were likewise conducted under the concept of random distribution. This enabled the researchers to collect data and information that are free from research biases that can spoil the entire research endeavor.       <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> M = 3.97 (mean) – is an estimate of the "center" of a distribution of values. It is the distribution or summary of the number of occurrence of individual values or ranges of values for a variable (2000). To compute the mean all the values are added up and divide by the number of values (2002). For the quantitative data analysis of the variables of the study, descriptive statistics were primarily used so as to present descriptions in manageable forms. As such, univariate analysis which involves the evaluation of different cases of a specific variable for a specific period of time (2003) was incorporated through statistical tools in the form of the frequency distribution. For a real-valued random variable X, the mean is the expectation of X. If the expectation does not exist, then the random variable has no mean (1986). For a data set, the mean is just the sum of all the observations divided by the number of observations (1999). An alternative measure of dispersion is the mean deviation, equivalent to the average absolute deviation from the mean. It is less sensitive to outliers, but less tractable when combining data sets (1969). The weighted mean is used, if one wants to combine average values from samples of the same population with different sample sizes.</li>   In the article, the re researches used the mean to denote a general characteristic of the participants regarding the entitativy of the EU. The researchers assessed the effectiveness of the entitativity manipulation by creating a composite score (M=3.97, SD=1.21) averaging the three items measuring entitativity. The mean served as the standard measure of the general perception of the participants to which the subgroups of the experiments were compared in order to illustrate the variance of their answers or the difference of perception compared to the standard entitativity perception of all the participants (regardless of whether their responses resulted to high or low perceived entitativity). This enabled the researcher to determine the general perceived entativity of all the participants of the study as well as the degree of difference of the participants who were categorized with high perceived entitativity and the participants with low entitativity perception toward the EU. Furthermore, the indicated mean perceived entitativity of the participants were also used as reference data for the succeeding results of other implemented statistical measures in order to strengthen the claims that were presented by the researchers and the quantitative results of the entire study.  The value M=3.97 describes the average degree of entitativity of the EU based on the responses of the participants of the study.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> SD = 1.21 (standard deviation) – is the square root of the average of squared deviations from the mean which describes how the observations differ. The standard deviation of a probability distribution, random variable, or population or multiset of values is defined as the square root of the variance (2003). Standard deviation is the most common measure of statistical dispersion, measuring how spread out the values in a data set is. If the data points are all close to the mean, then the standard deviation is close to zero. If many data points are far from the mean, then the standard deviation is far from zero. If all the data values are equal, then the standard deviation is zero. The standard deviation (σ) of a population can be estimated by a modified standard deviation (s) of a sample ( 1999). </li>   Since the mean is the unique value about which the sum of squared deviations is a minimum, calculating the sum of squared deviations from any other measure of central tendency, it will be larger than for the mean (1999). This explains why the standard deviation and the mean are usually cited together in statistical reports.   In the article, the researchers assessed the effectiveness of the entitativity manipulation by creating a composite score (M=3.97, SD=1.21) averaging the three items measuring entitativity. As was implied in the earlier discussion on mean, the mean is not much of use if it was only computed for the general perceived entitativity of all the participants of the study since the set out research problem and objectives of the researchers do not only entail mere description of ordinal quantitative data. Despite being designed in the empirical research paradigm, the study was also geared towards the understanding of the different intervening and confounding variables that affect the perceived entitativity of the participants, be it high or low. This was made possible by the concept of standard deviation which enabled the comparison of the different levels or degrees of perceived entitativity of the participants toward the EU. The value SD=1.21 denotes the standard variation or average difference in the levels or degrees of perceived entitativity of the participants toward the EU.       <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Cronbach’s α = .77 (Cronbach’s α) – has an important use as a measure of the reliability of a psychometric instrument. It indicates the extent to which a set of test items can be treated as measuring a single latent variable. It was first named as alpha by Cronbach (1951), as he had intended to continue with further instruments. It is the extension of an earlier version, the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (often shortened to KR-20), which is the equivalent for dichotomous items, and (1945) developed the same quantity under the name lambda-2. Alpha is an unbiased estimator of reliability when the components are all parallel which can take values between minus infinity and 1. As a rule of thumb, it is required that a reliability of 0.70 or higher be obtained on a substantial sample before using an instrument. Cronbach’s α operates under the classical test theory which claims that the reliability of test scores can be expressed as the ratio of the true score and total score error and true score variances (2002). </li>   The researchers in the article stated that they were able to assess the effectiveness of the of the entitativity manipulation by creating a composite score (M=3.97, SD=1.21) averaging the three items measuring entitativity using Cronbach’s α to test the reliability of the constructed research instrument. The research instrument in particular is the statements which were answered by the participants to measure their average entitativity perception towards the EU. But before being able to claim that the answers of the participants are reliable, the question set or the questionnaire used by the researcher should be first tested for reliability. In this case, the researchers utilized Cronbach’s α test. As was mentioned earlier, α can take values between minus infinity and 1 as measures of reliability. But the test makes sense only if the resulting value is positive indicating that the research instrument is reliable and can be used as a statistically accurate means of measuring a particular variable. The researchers reported that the composite score (M=3.97, SD=1.21) were calculated based on the positive result of the reliability test for the utilized research instrument. The research instrument was statistically reliable at Cronbach’s α = .77 indicating further that the computed results of the responses of the participants are likewise reliable.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> t test – is a statistical computation in order to predict the correctness of the hypothesis. Unlike the z score, the t test can determine the standard degree of error of the hypothesis being tested using the sample data. the t test operates under the notion that (1) the sample mean is expected more or less to approximate the population mean or its value which permits hypothesis testing using the sample mean; (2) the standard error can provide a measure of how well a sample mean approximates the population mean, and (3) quantifying the inferences about the population is possible by converting each sample mean to a z score. Thus, knowing the value of the population standard deviation is needed to compute the standard error (1999).     </li>   In the study of the entitatitvity of the EU, the composite score mentioned earlier served as the mean and standard deviation based on all the responses of the participants. The experiment, in order to answer the problem posted by the study, was designed by comparing two sub-populations categorized as the participants in the high entitativity condition and those classified in the low entitativity condition. Using the t test, the researchers were able to quantify the degree or magnitude of the difference between the high and the low entitativity sub-populations from the standard perception of the entire population or of all the participants. Following the logic of the t-test, the researcher were able to determine the difference in terms of the standard entitativity of the EU (M=3.97, SD=1.21) based on the responses of the entire study population with the sample population in the high entitativity condition which indicated M=4.21 and with the sample population in the low entitativity condition which indicated M=3.71. These results supported the first two hypotheses presented by the researchers.  Comparing the sample means of the high entitativity samples with those of the low entitativity samples further confirmed the tendency of the third hypothesis of the research study. Furthermore, the t test was able to measure the amount or degree of the effect of the manipulations induced during the experiment.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> t (55) = 1.58 – interpretation of the t score can only be made logical by identifying the critical region in the standard distribution of the entire study population. Imagining the bell-curve standard distribution, researchers locate the average or mean result of the population’s responses in the highest point of the bell curve slope. The t score indicates the approximated magnitude or amount of that limits the average of the population which will serve as the standard reference to interpret the deviation of a sample or sub-populations being tested (1999).</li>   The statistical figure t (55) = 1.58 indicates that the critical region for the population of 55 participants in the experiment is at 1.58. Beyond this region or limit, null hypotheses regarding the experiment are rejected or otherwise depending on the whether the score computed is within the said limit. This statistical result made possible the comparisons of variance or differences between the population and the sub-population that were condition under a particular controlled environment. Interpreting further this t score indicates that there are significant variations or deviations from the standard or average perception of the entire study population regarding the entitativity of the EU as influenced, dictated or effect of the induced manipulations during the experiment that randomly classified the participants into the high and low entitativity experiment groups.             <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> p < .05 – upon computing the t score, the score should be evaluated further in terms of significance in order to determine if the ratio is large enough to say that the difference between the groups or subpopulations is not likely to have been a chance finding. As such, researchers need to set a risk level (called the alpha level). In most social research, the "rule of thumb" is to set the alpha level at .05 which means that five times out of a hundred you would find a statistically significant difference between the means. The degrees of freedom (df) for the test should likewise be computed which is the sum of the participants or total number of the entire population minus 2. This statistical procedure enables researcher to identify the significant changes as induced by manipulations in the study ( 1999).  </li>   Given the alpha level, the df, and the t-value, researchers are able to determine whether the t-value is large enough to be significant. If it is, researchers can conclude that the difference between the means for the two groups is different. In the case of the research article, the researchers decided to set the limit of significance of the deviation scores in testing the hypotheses at 95%. This means that the results calculated, particularly the differences in scores of the subpopulations should fall into a minimum of 5% error. This is necessary in the function of entitativity of the EU being investigated in order to verify the statistical validity of the results of the study. This contributed in strengthening the claims made by the researchers particularly their assumptions and scientific prediction regarding the outcome of the conducted and facilitated experiment.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> One-tailed tests – are directional hypothesis tests in which the critical region can only be located in one tail of the standard bell curve distribution.  In these tests, the statistical hypotheses specify either an increase or a decrease in the population mean score. Unlike two-tailed tests, one-tailed or directional hypothesis test is conducted using the alternative hypothesis instead of the null hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is evaluated by determining whether it should be rejected or otherwise. The critical region is likewise located by looking at all the possible results that could be obtained if the null hypothesis is true. The z score is then calculated from which the statistical decision is made. The critical factor in this decision is the size of difference between treated sample and the original study population. A large evidence is evidence that the treatment worked, a small difference is not sufficient to say that the treatment has no effect at all (1999). </li>      A one-tailed test allows researchers to reject the null hypothesis when the difference between the sample and population is relatively small, on the other hand, requires a relatively large difference independent of direction. One of the main disadvantages of using the one-tailed tests is the high tendency of committing the Type I error since they require a strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis and thus provides a convincing demonstration that a treatment effect has occurred. Among the advantages of one-tailed tests are their sensitivity to detect treatment effects. As such researchers use one-tailed tests in situations where they do not want to overlook any possible significant outcome and where a Type I error is not very damaging (1999).   Since the article being studied is exploratory in its approach to investigate the entitativity of the EU which is likewise geared toward generating new research possibilities, the one-tailed hypothesis test was used in order to detect if there is significant effect induced by the different conditions in the experiment.           <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> r  = .91 (Pearson r correlation) – measures the degree and direction of linear relation between two variables in which a perfect linear relation assumes that every change in X variable is accompanied by a corresponding change in the Y variable.  With X and Y always varying together, the covariability of X and Y together is identical to the variability of X and Y separately which produces or results to a correlation of 1.00. Correlation simply describes a relationship between two variables. It does not explain why the two variables are related and should not and can not be interpreted as proof of a cause-effect relation between the two variables. Moreover, the value of a correlation can be affected greatly by the range of scores represented in the data. Furthermore, correlation should mot be interpreted as a proportion by using the numerical value to judge “how good” the relation is. The squared correlation (r²) measures the gain in accuracy that is obtained from using the correlation for prediction instead of just guessing (1999).</li>   In the article, the researchers used Pearson r correlation to test the relation of the high entitativity measures they utilized to gauge the image of the EU based on the responses of the participants. The value .91 means that the variable measured were highly correlated thus emphasizing that the measures utilized by the researchers to vary the experimental condition of the study is accurate for its purposes. Having proven that the measures classified to induce high entitativity to some of the participants in the study further indicates that the researchers were able to provide validation and reliability to the succeeding utilization of the measures or variables being tested. This enabled the researchers to define the different set of sample population of sub-population used in the experiment in order to emphasize the effect of high entitativity perceptions against the perceptions made by the participant in the low entitaitvity subpopulation.             <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> p < .001 – as was discussed earlier, researchers need to set a risk level (called the alpha level). In most social research, the "rule of thumb" is to set the alpha level at .05 which means that five times out of a hundred you would find a statistically significant difference between the means. The degrees of freedom (df) for the test should likewise be computed which is the sum of the participants or total number of the entire population minus 2. This statistical procedure enables researcher to identify the significant changes as induced by manipulations in the study (1999).  </li>   But this time the margin of error for the correlation test applied by the researcher is stricter compared when the hypotheses were evaluated for significance. Instead of the rule of thumb of using the .05 percentage of error, the researchers decided to use .001ratio. This means that the result generated by the test is only allowed to make an illogical one mistake per 100 cases studied. This was due to the nature of investigation being carried out in particular. The researchers make it a point to show significantly that the two variables being measured are correlated with each other. These variables are those used in the researchers to measure the high entitativity values particularly the measures that reflect the harmfulness of the EU which likewise serve as treatments to vary the condition in the conducted experiment.      <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> β  = - .68** (regression)  - when there is a general linear relation between two variables X and Y, it is possible to construct a linear equation that allows to predict the Y value corresponding to any known value of X. The technique for determining this equation is called regression. The best fitting line is achieved by using the least-squares method to minimize the error between the predicted Y values. The regression equation can be used to compute a predicted Y value for any value of X. The accuracy of the prediction is measured by the standard error of estimate which provides a measure of the average distance (or error) between the predicted Y value on the line and the actual data point ( 1999). </li>   Having been measured that the correlation of the variables used to indicate high entitaitvity of the EU is at .91, the researchers used regression analysis to more accurately predict the effect of each of the variables to the responses and perceptions of the participants of the study. Using regression analysis particularly the hierarchical multiple regression, the impact of entitativity and their interaction with the perceived harmfulness was measured entering the two main effects in the first step and the interaction terms in the second step. The image of the EU was centered as the mean variable was subtracted by each score resulting to a value of -.68. This indicated that although the image of the EU is a reliable predictor of harmfulness, entitaitvity is not. The more EU is perceived as an ally the less it was perceived as harmful to the United States in which the interaction between these variables was noted significant. In this light, the researchers were able to identify the specific variable or factor the highly affect the perception of the participants toward the EU testing and eliminating assumed variables and factors that are seemingly significant in the study.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> β = -.34 – It was earlier discussed that it is possible to construct a linear equation that allows to predict the Y value corresponding to any known value of X Since the regression equation can be used to compute a predicted Y value for any value of X, the accuracy of the prediction is measured by the standard error of estimate which provides a measure of the average distance (or error) between the predicted Y value on the line and the actual data point (1999). </li>   Although the image of the EU was a reliable predictor of harmfulness, entitaitvity was not. The more EU is perceived as an ally the less it was perceived as harmful to the United States. However, the interaction between these variables was noted significant. Following (2003), the interaction between the image of the EU and the entitativity was decomposed in two ways by using one standard deviation above (ally) and one standard deviation below (enemy). The results indicated that for an ally image, high entitativity triggered the perception of less harmfulness at β = -.34.  This data was compared to the figure t (53) = -2.02 at .05 percentage of error as the standard or mean data for comparing the significance of variation between the high entitativity for the EU as an ally resulting to less harmful perception. The comparison of the figures emphasizes that relation of high entitativity of the respondents to the EU and its degree or level of harmfulness to the United States depending on whether the participant consider EU as an ally or as an enemy.       <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> t (53) = 3.38 – again, It was earlier discussed that it is possible to construct a linear equation that allows to predict the Y value corresponding to any known value of X Since the regression equation can be used to compute a predicted Y value for any value of X, the accuracy of the prediction is measured by the standard error of estimate which provides a measure of the average distance (or error) between the predicted Y value on the line and the actual data point (1999). </li>   Since the interaction between the image of the EU and the entitativity of the EU according to the manipulated perception of the participants is significant, the relation was decomposed. The previous number presented the first of the two decomposition made by researchers to further give light on the issue at hand by detailing the results of the experiment through regression. It was found out that for the participants at the high entitaitvity subpopulation who perceived the EU as an enemy, the results indicated that the EU is harmful to the United States at  β = .55. such interpretation was realized by comparing the mentioned data to the standard deviation of the variable at t (53) = 3.38.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> p < .005 – as was discussed earlier, researchers need to set a risk level (called the alpha level). In most social research, the "rule of thumb" is to set the alpha level at .05 which means that five times out of a hundred you would find a statistically significant difference between the means. The degrees of freedom (df) for the test should likewise be computed which is the sum of the participants or total number of the entire population minus 2. This statistical procedure enables researcher to identify the significant changes as induced by manipulations in the study (1999).  </li>   But this time the margin of error for the correlation test applied by the researcher is stricter compared when the hypotheses were evaluated for significance. Instead of the rule of thumb of using the .05 percentage of error, the researchers decided to use .005 ratio. This means that the result generated by the test is only allowed to make an illogical .05 mistake per 100 cases studied. This was due to the nature of investigation being carried out in particular. The researchers make it a point to show significantly that the two variables being measured are correlated with each other.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Dependent variable – also known as response variable or regressand is a factor whose values in different treatment conditions are compared. The value of the dependent variable varies when the values of another variable – the independent variable – are varied. The independent variable is said to cause an apparent change in, or simply affect, the dependent variable. Researchers usually want to explain why the dependent variable has a given value ( 1981; 1973). </li>   Perceived harmfulness of the participants toward the EU as an ally or as an enemy at high entitativity condition is the dependent variable of the study. The dependent variables which the study recognized are the conditions of high and low entitativity of the respondents as well as their perception of the EU as an ally or as an enemy. These independent variables are said to dictate, direct, influence and predict the perceived harmfulness of the EU as the dependent variable. As such, changes on the independent variables will signi9fy corresponding changes in the dependent variable. As was repeatedly mentioned by the researchers, relationships between the independent variables and the resulting dependent variable synthesizes the core interest of the research activity. In this case, the hypotheses presented by the researchers are the clear statements on the assumed relations of the independent and dependent variables. And as was proven by the research study, participants who believe EU as an enemy at high entitativitty condition resulted to high perception of harmfulness to the United States. For the participants who believe that the EU is an ally at high entitaitvity condition resulted to lower level or degree of perceived harmfulness to the United States.            <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Control – used in scientific experiments to prevent factors other than those being studied from affecting the outcome. Controls are needed to eliminate alternate explanations of experimental results. In other cases, an experimental control is used to prevent the effects of one variable from being drowned out by the known, greater effects of other variables (1981; 1973). In a designed experiment, researchers make it a point to differentiate the control group from the experimental group. The control group serves as the benchmark of the study since the participants classified under this category are not induced with manipulation that will directly affect their responses to the experiment being conducted. On the other hand, the experimental group includes the participants of the study that were manipulated by the researchers to some extent in or5der fro them to behave and portray the different responses as the effect of the manipulation ( 1999).</li>   The participants in the research article being analyzed did not belong to any control group. All of them were manipulated to conditions of low and high entitativity. The design of the experiment consisted of two experimental groups which were defined with low and high entitativity. Moreover, they were likewise assessed regarding their perception of the image of the EU as to whether they view the organization as an ally or asn enemy. Despite interesting results that the researchers were able to come up with, the study however lacks the design to find out the image of the EU at varying levels or degrees of entitaitivity as well as percieved image of the EU to individuals that are not manipulated at all. In this light, the researchers proceed to the second phase of the experiment in order to support their claim on the polarizing effect of entitativity by using a control group in the experiment.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) - identifies sources of variability from one or more potential sources, sometimes referred to as “treatments” or “factors’”, widely used to determine the source of potential problems ( 2000;  2002). As such, this tool is helpful in tracing as well as measuring the causes of variations between and among the variables of the study. Most commonly variance statistics are employed (a) for developing taxonomies or systems of classification, (b) to investigate useful ways to conceptualize or group items, (c) to generate hypotheses, and (d) to test hypotheses (1981;1973). </li>   According to  (1999), the single-factor independent measures ANOVA uses data from two or more separate samples to test a hypothesis about two or more population means. The null hypothesis states that there are no differences among the population means. In the case of two-factor independent measures ANOVA hypothesis testing about means differences with data from an experiment with two independent variables is conducted The independent variables were identified as factors A and B, and the ANOVA evaluates these three separate hypotheses:   1.    there are no mean differences among the levels of  factor A; 2.    there are no mean differences between the levels of factors B; and 3.    there is no interaction between factors A and B in which the effect of either factor does not depend on the levels of the other factor.   The two-factor ANOVA uses much of the same notation as the single-factor ANOVA.  In the case of the experiment conducted by the researchers in the experiment, two sets of single-factor ANOVA was used to further the details of the conducted study using high entitativity group, the control group, and the low entitativity group as the between-participants factor. The ANOVA indicated significant results that support the hypotheses and predictions stated by the researchers regarding the differing perceptions of the participants toward the EU. The ANOVA was conducted by the researchers in order to support their claim on the polarizing effect of entitativity which is a factor that may differ or not the perceptions toward the EU.       <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Significant – in statistical tests, the term indicates that the result is different from what would be expected by chance. A significant result means that the null hypothesis has been rejected, that is, the data are in the critical region in the bell curve distribution and not what would have expected to obtain if the bull hypothesis is true (1999). </li>   As practiced in the academic researches, the significance levels of experiments and other statistical analysis varies according to the number of population or participants used in the study as well as the design of the test being conducted. The researchers employ risk levels to take into account the percentage of error that could be likely committed while doing the statistical analyses of the collected data. This serve as precautionary as well as validity and reliability assurance that the results of the study are legitimate and were a result of logical and systematic investigations that are free of unintentional biases. Defini9ng the significant level adds credibility to the results of the statistical tests that supports the claims and arguments being presented by the researchers.      <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> F (2, 114) = 10.45 – this statistical result identifies sources of variability from one or more potential sources, sometimes referred to as treatments measuring the causes of variations between and among the variables of the study (2000; 2002). The null hypothesis states that there are no differences among the population means and ANOVA uses data from two or more separate samples to test a hypothesis about two or more population means (1999).</li>   The statistical result F (2, 114) = 10.45 supports the predictions and hypotheses of the researchers regarding the variability that will be indicated by the responses of the participants belonging to the different experiment al and control groups in the experiment, thus strengthening the polarizing effect of entitativity towards the participants’ perception to the EU. As expected, in the high entitativity condition, participants judged the EU as more entitative (M =4.94, SD = .67) than in the control condition (M = 4.66, SD = .65), which in turn, scored higher than the low entitativity condition (M =4.24, SD = .69). These results were significant for all the treatment groups (high and low) as well as to the control group at p < .03 or less, one-tailed).     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> N = 39 (population number) – is the entire group of individuals that the researcher wishes to study. The entire group, literally mean every single individual that participated in the research activity from whom data are being collected. A sample, on the other hand, is a portion of the population that is selected for observation. A parameter is used as a measurement that describes the characteristics of the population, such as a population average. A statistic describes characteristics of sample. Descriptive statistical methods summarize, organize, and simplify data while inferential statistics consist of techniques allow us to study samples and then make generalizations about the population from which they were selected. In random selection, every individual in the population has the same chance of being selected for the sample (1999).  </li>   The statistical figure N = 39 denotes the number of samples in the experimental group characterized with high entitativity. From this number, generalizations of the study are given scope and limitations particularly on the generalizations that the researchers will present at the end of the experiment. As the basic characteristic of a study group and in this case of a experimental group, succeeding assumptions and conclusions of the researchers are either directly and indirectly affected by this number. Since the figure N = 39 pertains to the experimental samples or individuals that were manipulated in the high entitaitvity condition, their number will likewise dictate the statistical significance as well as risk of the experiment results derived from their answers. This is the reason why it is always necessary to indicate the number of individuals or participants involved in the group to ascertain the readers of the validity and reliability of the claims of the researchers.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">  p  < .03 – Researchers need to set a risk level (called the alpha level). In most social research, the "rule of thumb" is to set the alpha level at .05 which means that five times out of a hundred you would find a statistically significant difference between the means. The degrees of freedom (df) for the test should likewise be computed which is the sum of the participants or total number of the entire population minus 2. This statistical procedure enables researcher to identify the significant changes as induced by manipulations in the study ( 1999).  </li>   This is the conventional way of stating that and specifying the alpha level used to test the variables that are being investigated in a particular statistical test. In this case the test is ANOVA. The figure states that that result of the experiment would occur by chance with a probability that is less than .03. Since the result of the ANOVA is highly significant which was carried out at this risk level, the claims of the stuffy regarding the variability between the high entitaivity group, the control group, and the low entitaitvity group is within the predicted values with only .03 chance of it occurring by chance. The differences support the claims stated by the researchers regarding entitativity as a factor with polarizing effect towards perception to the EU.      <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> [F (2, 114) = 2.10, n.s.] – Again, this statistical result identifies sources of variability from one or more potential sources, sometimes referred to as treatments measuring the causes of variations between and among the variables of the study (2000; 2002). The null hypothesis states that there are no differences among the population means and ANOVA uses data from two or more separate samples to test a hypothesis about two or more population means (1999).</li>   But in this case, the analysis of variance statistical test utilize3d to determine the variability of the image of the EU and its relation with the measurable concept of entitativity is not significant. This was interpreted using the mean average of the variables being investigated to come up with a composite score indicating the sample mean and standard deviation of the image of the EU and entitativity. Comparing the statistical results, namely: the sample mean, the sample standard deviation, and the ratio of variance, indicated a not significant finding. This means that the manipulation of the entitativity conditions (high and low) of the experimental groups were not factors that influenced or dictated the responses of the participants of the study. In effect, the different degrees or levels of enttiativity are negligible when it comes to its influence to the perceived image of the EU.   In this light, the polarizing effect of entitativity as a considered variable affecting the perception of the participants to the EU was not justified. As such, the earlier claims made by the researchers pertaining to the polarizing effect of entitativity failed the statistical testing conducted. This reflects a lot on the overall result of the experiment since the most important hypothesis of the researchers were rejected. However, the statistical credibility of the researchers for truthfully publishing the results of the research activity is more than enough to be worthy of high distinction and merits in the academic discipline.               <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Hierarchical multiple regression – Multiple regression is used to account for (predict) the variance in an interval dependent, based on linear combinations of interval or dichotomous independent variables. This can establish that a set of independent variables explains a proportion of the variance in a dependent variable at a significant level, and can establish the relative predictive importance of the independent variables. Power terms can be added as independent variables to explore curvilinear effects while cross-product terms can be added as independent variables to explore interaction effects (1993; 1997).</li>   The level-importance is the b coefficient times the mean for the corresponding independent variable. The sum of the level importance contributions for all the independents, plus the constant, equals the mean of the dependent variable.  (1982) notes that the b coefficient may be conceived as the "potential influence" of the independent on the dependent, while level importance may be conceived as the "actual influence." Meanwhile, the beta weights are the regression (b) coefficients for standardized data. Beta is the average amount the dependent increases when the independent increases one standard deviation and other independent variables are held constant (1999).   In the article, the researchers averaged the answers of the participants to the perceived harmfulness items for the commercial treaty and army issues into a single perceived-harmfulness index (M = 3.66, SD = 1.28). This served as the criterion fro the hierarchical multiple regression implemented in the data. The levels of entitaitivity were recorded into two variables X1 and X2 and multiplied each with the variable image of the EU to come up with another two variables. The results of the test indicated that the levels of entitaitivity are not predictors of perceived harmfulness of the EU. It was the image of the EU held by the participants that influenced the perceived harmfulness of the said organization to the United States. The use of hierarchical multiple regression at this stage of the study reflects the researchers focus on identifying and validating the existence of the polarizing effect of the entitativity variable to the perceived harmfulness of the EU.         <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Two variables – variables are measurements of behavior that provide data that are composed of numerical values. These numbers form the basis of the computations that are done for statistical analyses. Making observations of a dependent variable in a study will typically yield values or scores for each subject. While the raw scores are the original, unchanged set of scores obtained in the study, scores for a particular variable are represented by the letter X. When observations are made of two variables, there will be two scores for each subject, X and Y. the hypothetical concepts or constructs used in theories to describe the mechanisms of the behavior are defined into observable and measurable terms called variables (1999). </li>   In the study at hand, the researchers made it a point to further the interpretation and analysis of the data collected from the stage 2 of the experiment by creating another set of variables from the existing variables being studied. The hierarchical multiple regression called for the need to combine the levels of entitativity defined in the experimental groups with the image of the EU which resulted to a two new recorded variables. The result of the regression analysis validated the initial finding that entitativity is not a significant factor that affect the perception of the participants towards the harmfulness of the EU to the United States.           <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Although X2 did not interact significantly with IEU – in using undertaking the hierarchical multiple regression, the researchers were able to come up with new sets of variables. This widened the analysis of the study through different manipulations of the available variables of the study. As such the researchers were able to identify and validate the variables that are significant to the results of the study. </li>   In this case however, X2 as a product of multiplying entitativity variables and image of the EU was found to be an insignificant factor that affected the perceptions of the participants of the study. The phrase “did not interact significantly with IEU” or image of the EU means that the original variables that made up X2 has little, negligible or no effect at all to the resulting perceptions of the participants on the harmfulness of the Eu to the United States.     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> linear effect – since the goal of regression is to make the process of prediction simpler and more precise, the regression is set to provide a simplified description of the relation between X and Y. This line identifies the center or central tendency of the relation just as the mean describes central tendency for a set of scores. The line does not have to be drawn in a graph; it can be presented in a simple equation. The advantage of a linear equation is that whenever you have a specific value for X, you can compute the precise value for Y without sketching the graph (1999).  </li>   The linear effect referred to in the experiment is the other result of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted by the researchers. Even though X2 did not illustrate significant effect to the perceived harmfulness of the EU based on the responses of the participants, X! did in a linear fashion. In this case, the changes made in X1 during manipulation resulted to a significant and similar effect to the value of Y. As such, the researchers furthered their analysis on X1.the completion of these statistical tests defined the path being threaded by the researchers in their investigation on the polarizing effect of entitativity to the perceived harmfulness of the EU as a threat to the United States.         <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> One standard deviation above the mean (ally) – since X1 resulted to significant effect on the perceptions of the participants of the study, the researchers geared towards the exploration of the additionally found statistical result. The hypotheses presented by the researcher likewise served as a basis for deciding on the mean variance or standard deviation of the samples. As such, the effect of X1 on harmfulness was computed for two single values, one of which is the one standard deviation above the mean for those who perceived the EU as an ally.  The result of the study supported the claims made by the researchers at the fist phase of the research activity. When the image of the EU was that of an ally, higher levels of entitativity resulted to the perception of less harmfulness. </li>     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> One standard deviation below the mean (enemy) – meanwhile, the other effect of X1 on harmfulness was computed using one standard deviation below the mean for the participants who perceived the EU as an enemy to the United States.  Like the first measure on the significant value of X1, the result of the statistical test for the participants who perceived the EU as an enemy to the United States indicated that at higher levels or degrees of entitativity, the EU was perceived as harmful. </li>     <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Simple slopes – since the goal of regression is to make the process of prediction simpler and more precise, the regression is set to provide a simplified description of the relation between X and Y. This line identifies the center or central tendency of the relation just as the mean describes central tendency for a set of scores (1999).</li>   In this case, the regression analysis undertaken by the researchers resulted to simple slopes that support the logic of regression and distribution. In the general linear equation, the value of b is called the slope while the value of a is the Y-intercept because it determines the value of Y when X is 0. The slope determines how much the Y variables will change when X is increased by one point (1999). As such, the image of EU predicted harmfulness for the three levels of entitaitvity resulting to linear relationships between the variables investigated.         <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Ordinal variable – in statistics, there are four scales of measurements: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. A nominal scale of measurement labels observations so that they can fall into different categories. In a nominal scale of measurement, observations are labeled and organized. In an ordinal scale of measurement, observations are ranked in terms of size or magnitude. As the word ordinal implies, the investigator simply arranges the observations in rank order. In an interval scale of measurement, intervals between numbers reflect differences in magnitude. That is, it allows the investigator to measure differences in the size or amount of events. A ratio scale of measurement has a meaningful zero point, and thus ratios are numbers on the scale do reflect ratios of magnitude ( 1999).</li>     The ordinal variable being referred to in the article is the levels or degrees of entitaitvity. It specifically signifies the high, low and the absence of the concept of entitativity during the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. As it is obvious, the high, low and condition in the control group are the rank or the size and magnitude of the variable entitaitvity. This iteration helped the researchers in providing explanations and testing different levels of entitaitvity.      <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> β - .32 * - It was earlier discussed that it is possible to construct a linear equation that allows to predict the Y value corresponding to any known value of X Since the regression equation can be used to compute a predicted Y value for any value of X, the accuracy of the prediction is measured by the standard error of estimate which provides a measure of the average distance (or error) between the predicted Y value on the line and the actual data point (1999).</li>   The value -.32 served as the standard measure or limits of determining the accuracy of the prediction. In this case, the presented numerical value highlights and further emphasizes that the image of the EU was a reliable predictor of harmfulness. As such, at higher entitativity, the participants who believe RU as an enemy indicated higher perception of harmfulness.

Final Exam in Research 1

Final Exam in Research 1 Article Title: The Perception of the Other in International Relations: Evidence for the Polarizing Ef...