Discussion Dissertation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Discussion - Dissertation Example However, most of the research studies have their own limitations and therefore there is a long way to go before Cyber crime can be completely controlled and eliminated altogether. The reasons that make us more vulnerable to cyber crime are that the larger population has become totally dependent on the Internet and are prone to divulge personal details, confidential matter, sensitive data and such information that in turn becomes harmful to members and the society if it reaches the wrong hands. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) cyber-crime involves and encourages piracy and intellectual theft and impacts upon the economy of the country in many different ways. From this discussion, I have learned a lot and realize the enormity and dangers involved in Cyber Crime. I also strongly feel that the Government should take stringent action against people involved in cyber-crime. Creating awareness among the general public about the nature and execution of cyber-crime would help them to become more alert and careful when making use of the internet.

REFLECTION paper on Bilingualism, American Style (will fax chapter) Essay

REFLECTION paper on Bilingualism, American Style (will fax chapter) - Essay Example da who were already fluent in English; now immigration has steadily increased to include many diverse countries in which English may not be spoken at all. Data shows that in successive generation of non-English speaking immigrants, the tendency to embrace English as the primary language used has increased. Several factors are cited for this trend, including the fact that society has placed a stigma on the use of any language except for English; this is only combated when immigrant families maintain their heritage language at home and when specific cultural groups occupy their own neighborhoods (for example, Chinatowns). Where a few decades ago schools in the United States did not have any real need to include secondary English language classes or primary foreign language classes into their curriculum, now 1 in 5 students in America is either a foreign-language immigrant or the child of one. This means that the call for updated language classes is much more demanding, particularly when English remains the only official language used in the United States. In 1968 the Bilingual Education Act focused on Native American groups and other minority language groups like the Chinese; these reforms were minimal, however, and the modern classroom finds them very lacking. Half of the country’s population growth in the 1990’s came from non-English speaking immigrants or their children, and while such groups traditionally have held onto their cultural and language differences while living in America, now we are seeing that more and more of them feel the need to take on English as the functional language of their country of business. While non-English speaking immigrants and Native groups that reside in rural areas of the United States tend to hold onto their own languages more stubbornly that their counterparts in urban areas and cities, all of them have increasingly made an effort to integrate in terms of language. According to demographic and linguistic data

Polar Bears Essay Example for Free

Polar Bears Essay Class: Ursidae. 9bPhysical characteristics: Bears have big heads, round ears, small eyes that face forward, very short tails, and stocky legs. They are plantigrade, walking on the heels and soles of their feet like humans do. Each paw has five curved claws that are not retractable, or cannot be pulled back. Habitat: The polar bear habitats encompass the entire Arctic region. Polar bears have adapted to be able to live in the water and on land. Unlike other bear species, the polar bear are excellent swimmers, and have been spotted more than 100 miles away from land or ice. The polar bear habitat is that of the entire Arctic region. Life cycle: Female polar bears reach sexual maturity at about four to five years. Male polar bears reach sexual maturity at about six years. Breeding takes place from March to June on the sea ice, but most occurs during April and May. During the breeding season, males and females find each other by congregating in the best seal-hunting habitats. Male polar bears have been seen following the tracks of breeding female polar bears for more than 100 km Competition for females is intense. Females breed about once every three years; therefore, there are about three adult males to every breeding female. Before mating, a female polar bear may be accompanied by several males. The males fight fiercely among themselves until the strongest or largest male succeeds in chasing the others away. Dominant males may succeed in mating with several females in a season. Females have babies in the den while hibernating. Polar bears life span is about 15-18 years. Prey: The Polar bear’s main prey is the Arctic seal which is a rich source of high-fat blubber. They have a very interesting way of catching their prey. A Polar bear would make a breathing hole somewhere in the middle of a vast ice expanse. Seals would often come out of these holes to breath. The Polar bear would patiently lie on its stomach with its mouth near the hole, waiting for any unfortunate seal to appear. This wait could sometimes last for several hours before a Polar bear could have his meal. Polar bears also prey on bearded seals and harp seals. When this prey is difficult to find, Polar bears would attack young walrus, narwhal, fish, seabirds and eggs. Species status: Polar bears were added to the list of threatened species because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat. Hunting of polar bears as a food source by certain native people and trade in native handicrafts made from polar bears will also continue. However, importing polar bear products from Canada (where trophy hunting is legal) will be banned. Pollution from man-made kills polar bears also Use for humans past and present- pas was they were hunted for food and fur. Present still hunted but also hunted for trophies but that has been banned Interesting facts: Polar bear cubs learn to freeze and remain still while their mother hunts. If they move, the mother disciples them, with a whack to the head. A polar bears fur is not white!! It is hollow. The fur reflects light. The hollow fur also traps the suns heat to help keep the polar bear warm. Known as the king of the artic.

An investigation in the phenomenon of humour

An investigation in the phenomenon of humour Humor is a universal phenomenon which shows in the tribal and industrialized societies (Apte, 1985). In the Oxford English Dictionary, humor is defined as that quality of actions, speech, or writing which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun (Simpson Weiner, 1989). From the psychology perspective, humor is stated as a cognitive, emotional and motivational stance toward incongruity, as inherent in funny artifacts, but also in inadvertently amusing situation, our fellow behaviour and attitudes, in fate and life and human nature and existence in general (Ruch, 2002). The term sense of humor will be more specific which refer to a personality trait or individual-differences variable (Ruch, 1998). In addition, Schmidt-Hidding (1963) and Ruch (1998) pointed out that humor has changed rapidly throughout history and during different epochs which has been viewed as predominant mood, talent virtue, style, philosophical attitude or world view. According to Marti n, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray and Weir (2003), the different facets of sense of humour lend themselves to different measurement approaches, including maximal performance tests (eg. Humour as cognitive ability), funniest ratings (eg. Humour as aesthetic response), observer ratings and self-reported scale. Furthermore, Tamaoka Takashima (1994) stated that humor actually is grounded in a cultural and social context as understanding humor should requires some knowledge of the language which humor was written. From past research, humor is often to be tested in different dimensions which include how it deals with stress and depression (Thornson, Powell, Sarmany-Schuller Hampes, 1997). Lefcourt (2001) stated that people with great sense of humor are easily get well with others, have better ability to cope with stress and also have a better mental and physical health. Martin (2000) explained that humor has become a broad and multi-faceted construct in current psychological research which refers to mental processing in creating, perceiving, understanding and appreciating humor, to characteristics of a stimulus or to the responses of the individual. Nowadays, there are lots of approaches to measure humor, which includes the self-report scales, ability tests, behavioural observation techniques and human appreciation measures. Among all the measurements, there are a few well-known measurements which are frequently used by researchers in their studies. These measurements include Coping Humor Scale (CHS; Matin Lefcourt, 1983), Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ; Matin Lefcourt, 1984), The Sense of Humor Questionnaire (SHQ; Svebak, 1974), Multidimensional Sense of Humor (MHSH; Thorson Powell, 1993), and Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Gray Weir, 2003). Coping Humor Scale was a 7 items scale which designed to report individuals on the humor in coping with stress and the association between sense of humor and both mental and physical health. Besides that, Coping Humour Scale inquires participants used humour to alter difficult situation (Ruch, 1998). Following that, Situational Humor Response Questionnaire was a 21 items scale which has been used in research on sense of humor as a stress-moderator and also the association between sense of humor and both mental and physical health. Thorson (1990) critic SHRQ is a measurement that defines sense of humor purely in terms of laughter frequency. Kuiper and Martin (1993) stated that individuals who score higher marks in both the Coping humour Scale and Situational Humour Response Questionnaire had higher level of self esteem, less discrepancy between their actual and ideal self-concepts, and greater stability in their self concepts over time. Sense of Humor Questionnaire was a 21 items measured with 3 dimensions (Metamessage sensitivity, liking of humor, and emotional expressiveness. SHQ used for investigating relationship between sense of humor and other personality dimensions as well as measures of psychological and physical health and well being. Then, Multidimensional Sense of Humor Scale was a 24 items scale with 4 factors (humor creativity and uses of humor for social purposes, uses of coping humor, appreciation of humorous people and appreciation of humor) comparing groups on sense of humor for determining correlates between sense of humor and other personality variables. Humor Styles Questionnaire was a 32 items scale which used to measure 4 humor styles (affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive and self-defending) in accessing both positive and negative styles of humor in correlational research on the role of humor in psychological and physical health, etc. Lefcourt (2001) described that humor has always been found to occur in everyone across many different cultures around the world. Three different categories of research area in cross cultural differences or national differences in humor were suggested by Goldstein (1976): cross cultural comparisons, cross national replications, and intracultural research of Western and non-Western cultures. Other than that, Nevo, Nevo Yin (2001) stated that cross cultural studies are valuable because they help assess the generality of empirical phenomena and highlights the effects of specific cultural influences which show in Castell and Goldstein (1976) research. They compared different culture group like Belgium, Hong Kong and US, and found out that US unlike others nations, they preferred jokes which related to sexual and aggressive content. In addition, humor tends to be interpreting in different way by various cultures which results of cultural and linguistics differences (Thorson, Brdar and Pow ell, 1997). Besides that, Hofstede (1983) found out that cultures could be differentiated on two dimensions: individualism-collectivism andpower-distance. There are several studies using Multidimensional Sense of Humor to measures humor in cultural differences with the finding which culture score higher in creativity. In Nevo, Nevo Yin (2001) studies, there is a significant cross cultural difference found in the structured questionnaires was the tendency of Singaporean students to rely less on humor when coping with difficulty which concludes (Crawford Gressley, 1991) that they are tendency to produce humor rather than to appreciate it. The relationship of humor and gender are being discussed over year and year. According to Lampert Tripp (1998), men are more likely to joke, tease and kid, whereas women are more likely to act as an appreciative audience than to produce humor of their own. Powell, Sarmany-Schuller and Hampes (1997) stated that there are pretty much gender neutral in using the MSHS questionnaire, however, there are still some differences between male and women in the sense of humor. A past research which done by Thorson and Powell (1996) using the MSHS questionnaires showing that males tended to respond with higher score on the humor production and the social uses of humor, while woman respond with higher score in the coping mechanism. The study of Ho Chik (2010) have examines there is a gender differences in association with the moderating effects of coping humor on environmental mastery. The present study is interested in investigating the humour responses in both Malaysian and British cultures, cross gender comparison and also the interaction between the culture differences and the gender in humour. There are few studies in humour using Western countries culture like British, Canadian and Eastern countries culture such as Singaporean, Hong Konger and Japanese but they arent studies done on Malaysian humour. There wasnt any research have been done between Malaysian and British but there were researches done between western and eastern culture which the hypothesis was made accordingly to the results done by previous cultural studies. In the support of the past research, two hypotheses were made for this study. The first hypothesis were that male participants will be more humorous than female which based on the finding of past research like Thornson Powell (1996) which shows men will score higher in the humour production and humour creativity of Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale. Additionally, the second hypothesis was British tend to be funnier, hilarious comparing to Malaysian due to the cultural differences. Acordingly to the studies of humour in most of the eastern culture showed that they are not humourous as western cultures because of their own cultural bias. Method Participants There were 100 participants (28 female Malaysian, 28 male Malaysian, 22 female British, 22 male British) were recruited for this study. 75% of British and Malaysian participants were recruited Middlesex University and Malaysia, the remaining 25% were recruited through email within Middlesex database and Malaysias friends. All the participants were required to respond to a demographic form and 4 sets of questionnaires (Coping Humour Scale, Situational Humour Response Questionnaire, Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale, Humour Scale Questionnaire). For this experiment, participants were between 16 to 57 years of age, the average mean of the age was 24.44 (SD= 6.76). All of them were English literate, able to do their questionnaire without others help. Design The present study carried out had an independent groups design. There were two independent variables which the first independent variable was the nationality of the participants and the second independent variable was the gender of the participants. The dependant variables are participants humour responses, which measured through 4 sets of questionnaires. These dependent variables include the Coping Humour Scale questionnaires, Situational Humour Responses Questionnaires, the affiliative humour, self-enhancing humour, aggressive humour and self-defeating humour of Humour Scale Questionnaires, the humour creativity, coping humour, attitude towards humorous people and facility of social uses of humour of Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale. Materials Participants are required to complete a demographical form with few questions, eg.Gender, nationality, age etc. (appendix 3) and 4 sets of Humour questionnaires which they were Coping Humour Scale (appendix 4), Situational Humour Response Questionnaire (appendix 5), Multidimensional Sense of Humour (appendix 6), and Humour Styles Questionnaire (appendix 7). The Coping Humour Scale (CHS; Martin Lefcourt, 1983) is a 7-item scale which designed to measure participants tendency to make use of humour as a strategy for coping with stress and also the association between sense of humor and both mental and physical health. The CHS (Coping Humour Scale) is a 4-point Likert scale which ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). Eg 1. extract from appendix 4 Strongly disagree Mildly disagree Mildly agree Strongly agree 1. I often lose my sense of humour when I am having problems. 2. I have often found that my problems have been greatly reduced when I try to find something funny in them. Example 1 The Situational Humour Response Questionnaire (SHRQ; Martin Lefcourt, 1984) is designed to assess participants sense of humour as the tendency to laugh and smile in a wide range of situations. The SHRQ includes 18 situational items that describe a possible life situation. Participants were asked to respond to the situation by imaging or recalling it, which they could be as irritating or they might be amusing. These questionnaires will be rated in a 5-point Guttman-type scale ranging from I wouldnt have found it particularly amusing (1) to I would have laughed heartily (5) (Martin 2006). Besides that, Martin (2006) also explain that the SHRQ correlated significantly with peer ratings of participants laughter, and tendency to use humour in stressful situations . Eg 2. Extract from appendix 5. 1. If you were shopping by yourself in a distant city and you unexpectedly saw an acquaintance from school (or work), how have you responded or how would you respond? (a.) I would probably not have bothered to speak to the person (b.)I would have talked to the person but wouldnt have shown much humor (c.) I would have found something to smile about in talking with him or her (d.)I would have found something to laugh about with this person (e.) I would have laughed heartily with the person Example 2 Humour Style Questionnaires (HSQ; Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Gray Weir, 2003) is a 32 items scale which consists of 4 humour style (each humour style contains of 8 items). The four humour style includes affiliative humour ( I enjoy making people laugh), self-enhancing humour (If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humour), aggressive humour (if someone make mistake, I will often tease them about it) and finally the self-defeating humour (I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should). Humour Style Questionnaires consists of 21 positively- phrased item and 11 negatively-phrased items which the 11 negatively-phrased items will be reversed in scoring. All questions are answered by participants on a seven-point scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7). Eg 4. Extract from appendix 7 Totally Disagree = 1 Moderately Disagree = 2 Slightly Disagree = 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree = 4 Slightly Agree = 5 Moderately Agree = 6 Totally Agree = 7 1. ______ I usually dont laugh or joke around much with other people. 2. ______ If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humor. Example 4 The Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale (MHSH; Thorson Powell, 1993) contains 24 self descriptive Likert item testing for the four factors which assess individual aspects of the sense of humour. These four factors includes humour creativity (sometimes I think up jokes and funny stories), use of humour as a coping mechanism (Uses of humour help to put me at ease), attitudes towards humour itself (people who tell jokes are a pain in the neck) and appreciation of humour (I appreciate those who generate humour). Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale consist of 18 positively- phrased item and 6 negatively-phrased item. The 6 negatively-phrased items are reversed in scoring. In this questionnaire, participants with higer scores indicate higher sense of humour (Thorson, Powell and Samuel, 2001). Participants were required to indicate their choices on every question on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Eg3.extract from appendix 6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1. I can often crack people up with the things I say. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Other people tell me that I say funny things. 1 2 3 4 5 Example 3 Procedure Participants were invited to participant in the study as they will be given an information sheet (appendix 1) which explained about the study. After finished reading the information sheet, they will be given the informed consent form (appendix 2) to sign if they willing to participate the experiment. After signing the consent form, they will require to fill in the demographic form (appendix 3) which consists of gender, age, nationality etc. Then, four sets of questionnaires which include the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Questionnaire, Humour Styles Questionnaire, Coping Humour Scale and Situational Humour Response Questionnaire will be given to them to fill in. After finishing all the questionnaires, participants were given a debriefing sheet (Appendix 8) and dismissed from the study. For participants recruited through email, they had also received the information sheet by email before they agreed to do the experiment. Then, they will receive a consent form to sign and together with the demographic form and four sets of questionnaires to fill in. After finished filling in all the answer, the consent form, demographic form and four sets of questionnaires will be given back through email. After receiving the questionnaires set, a debriefing sheet will be emailed to them. Results Descriptive statistics The means and standard deviations (S.D) for each of the measures are shown in table one to table two, by splitting gender (male, female) and nationality (British, Malaysian) respectively. From the table 1 shown below, British male had higher mean than Malaysian Male in all of the measures except Coping Humour scale. In the other hand, Malaysian female had higher mean compare to the British Female except Multidimensional sense of Humour Sense which shown in table 2. To be more specified, descriptive tables for both four subscale of Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale are shown in table three to table six. The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the dependent variables of Male Participants (50) were shown below as table 1. British Male Sample size = 22 Malaysian Male sample size= 28 Total Sample size =50 Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Coping Humour Scale 2.89 0.43 2.96 0.40 Situational Humour Response Questionnaire 2.70 0.62 2.47 0.45 Humour Style Questionnaire 5.44 4.33 4.09 0.50 Multidimensional sense of Humour Sense 4.01 3.17 3.22 0.24 Table 1 The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the dependent variables of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 2. British Female Sample size = 22 Malaysian Female sample size= 28 Total Sample size =50 Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Coping Humour Scale 2.60 0.37 2.90 0.32 Situational Humour Response Questionnaire 2.34 0.43 2.46 0.39 Humor Style Questionnaire 4.05 0.46 4.09 0.67 Multidimensional sense of Humour Sense 3.30 0.29 3.16 0.26 Table 2 The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Humour Style Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 3. Humor Style Questionnaire British Male Sample size = 22 Malaysian Male sample size= 28 Total Sample size =50 Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Affiliative humour (HSQ) 5.41 1.23 5.18 0.79 5.29 1.00 Self-enhancing humour (HSQ) 4.70 1.10 4.00 0.89 4.28 1.04 Aggressive humour (HSQ) 3.50 1.04 3.50 0.68 3.49 0.85 Self-defeating humour (HSQ) 3.75 1.03 3.73 0.86 3.74 0.93 Table 3 The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Humour Style Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 4. Humor Style Questionnaire British Female Sample size = 22 Malaysian Female sample size= 28 Total Sample size =50 Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Affiliative humour (HSQ) 5.58 0.96 5.28 0.82 5.41 0.89 Self-enhancing humour (HSQ) 4.05 0.82 3.88 0.77 4.00 0.79 Aggressive humour (HSQ) 3.55 0.83 3.47 0.71 3.50 0.76 Self-defeating humour (HSQ) 3.03 0.90 3.72 1.05 3.42 1.04 Table 4 The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Male Participants (50) were shown below as table 5. Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale British Male Sample size = 22 Malaysian Male sample size= 28 Total Sample size=50 Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Humour creativity 3.48 0.94 3.49 0.61 3.46 0.76 Coping humour 3.63 0.48 3.62 0.51 3.62 0.49 Attitude towards humorous people 3.89 0.65 3.91 0.55 3.90 0.59 Appreciation of humour 4.25 0.65 4.29 0.63 4.27 0.63 Table 5 The Mean and Standard Deviation (S.D) of the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale Questionnaires sub-factors (dependent variables) of Female Participants (50) were shown below as table 6. Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale British Females Sample size = 22 Malaysian Females sample size= 28 Total Sample size= 50 Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Humour creativity 3.36 0.61 3.32 0.76 3.29 0.70 Coping humour 3.56 0.67 3.53 0.43 3.54 0.54 Attitude towards humorous people 4.31 0.63 3.95 0.72 4.11 0.70 Appreciation of humour 4.57 0.44 4.52 0.59 4.54 0.52 Table 6 Factor Analysis Factor analysis was carried out in order to test the validity of the sub-scales in two measures (Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale). It was expected that the four factors of each measure would emerge from this analysis. Both Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as the analysis. Table seven and table eight showed both of the results of the PCA of Humour Style Questionnaires and Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale using the Varimax rotation and Kaiser-Meyer-Oblin test. The results showed that the expected factors loading in previous studies did not emerge from the current sample. For the Humour Style Questionnaires, five items (questions 6, 22, 26, 27, 28) load in different factors comparing to Martins (2003) original questionnaires, which looks a bit confusing. In addition, four items (questions 7, 13, 16, 30) did not load significantly (at above .3), therefore, there were excluded from the tables 7. For the Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale, table 8 showed messy values load in each factors. Two factors can not be identified due to the messy items comparing with Thornson Powells (1993) original scale. Only one item did not load significantly (at above .3) on any factors. The overall results of the factor analysis were not satisfied, because the analysis came out in a mess. One of the reasons which contribute the following table 7 and table 8 might because of the small sample size (100) comparing with the large sample size (>1000) in Martins (2003) and Thornson Powells (1993) studies. Therefore, the following reliability test and ANOVA will adopt past researchs scale. Table 7: Factor loadings of the 32 items of Humour Style Questionnaires (Principal Componenet Analysis using Varimax Rotation, N=100) Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 I usually dont like to tell jokes or amuse people. .765 I dont often joke around with my friends. .711 I usually dont laugh or joke around much with other people. .654 I enjoy making people laugh. .650 I usually cant think of witty things to say when I m with other people. .640 Even when Im by myself, Im often amused by the absurdities of life. .564 I rarely make other people laugh by telling funny stories about myself. .557 I dont have to work very hard at making other people laugh I seem to be a naturally humorous person. .468 I often go overboard in putting myself down when I am making jokes or trying to be funny .767 Letting others laugh at me is my way of keeping my friends and family in good spirits. .716 I often try to make people like or accept me more by saying something funny about my own weaknesses, blunders, or faults. .618 I will often get carried away in putting myself down if it makes my family or friends laugh. .598 If I dont like someone, I often use humor or teasing to put them down .554 I let people laugh at me or make fun at my expense more than I should .517 When I am with friends or family, I often seem to be the one that other people make fun of or joke about. .479 It is my experience that thinking about some amusing aspect of a situation is often a very effective way of coping with problems. .391 -.311 If I am feeling upset or unhappy I usually try to think of something funny about the situation to make myself feel better. .775 If Im by myself and Im feeling unhappy, I make an effort to think of something funny to cheer myself up. .755 If I am feeling depressed, I can usually cheer myself up with humor. .703 My humorous outlook on life keeps me from getting overly upset or depressed about things. .357 .322 .360 If I am having problems or feeling unhappy, I often cover it up by joking around, so that even my closest friends dont know how I really feel. .344 I do not like it when people use humor as a way of criticizing or putting someone down. .654 If I am feeling sad or upset, I usually lose my sense of humor. .393 .579 Even if something is really funny to me, I will not laugh or joke about it if someone will be offended .506 If someone makes a mistake, I will often tease them about it. .487 Sometimes I think of something that is so funny that I cant stop myself from saying it, even if it is not appropriate for the situation. .443 I never participate in laughing at others even if all my friends are doing it. -.334 .336 Eigenvalue 4.73 3.21 2.41 2.02 % of Variance 14.80 10.04 7.53 6.34 * Only Coefficient above .3 were shown Table 8: Factor loadings of the 24 items of Multidimensional Sense of Humour Scale (Principal Componenet Analysis using Varimax Rotation, N=100) Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 I can say things in such a way as to make people laugh. .837 Other people tell me that I say funny things. .825 Im confident that I can make other people laugh .793 My clever sayings amuse others. .785 I use humour to entertain my friends .779 Im regarded as something of a wit by my friends. .779 People look to me to say amusing things .773 I can often crack people up with the things I say. .755 Sometimes I think up jokes or funny stories .699 I can actually have some control over a group by my uses of humour .643 .324 I can use wit to help adapt to many situations. .545 .337 Trying to master situations through uses of humour is really dumb. .704 .333 Humour is a lousy coping mechanism .697 Calling somebody a comedian is a real insult. .695 I like a good joke .592 People who tell jokes are a pain in the neck. .581 Humour helps me cope .814 Uses of wit or humour help me master difficult situations .798 Coping by using humour is an elegant way of adapting. .750 I appreciate those who generate humour .774 Uses of humour to put me at ease. .523 .641 I dislike comics .566 Im uncomfortable when everyone is cracking jokes .372 .447 Eigenvalue 6.67 3.41 2.26 1.13 % of Variance 27.82 14.19 9.40 5.61 * Only Coefficient above .3 were shown Reliability Test The internal consistencies (Cronbach Alpha) were run in order to check the reliability of the test. The Cronbach Alpha for the Coping Humour Scale was low, .50 but still acceptable and it was lower than the value .61 found in Martin and Lefecourts (1983) studies in Canada. The corrected item-total correlation for the 7 item of Coping Humour Scale fall between .199 to .483, with an exception of Item 1 ( I often lose my sense of humour when I am having problems), which the corrected item-total correlation was -.22. This means that item 1 is not consistent with other items, if item 1 was deleted, the Cronbach Alpha of Coping Humour Scale will become .58, higher than current value .50. The Cronbach Alpha of the Situational Humour Response Questionnaire was high, .78 which was a reliable measure although it only consists of 18 items comparing to 21 items. The corrected item-total correlation for the 18 items of Situational Humour Response Questionnaire falls between .151 and .519. Given its comparability to previous study of 21 items, Cronbach Alpha ranging from .70 to .85 and test-retest correlation of around .70 was presented (Lefcourt Martin, 1986; Martin Lefcourt, 1984). The Cronbach Alphas of the four sub-scales (affiliative humour, self-enhancing humour, aggressive humour and self-defeating humour) of the Humor Style Questionnaire were .77, .68, .47 and .69 respectively. The Cronbach alpha of aggressive humour was low .47, if the item 27 (If I dont like someone, I often use humor or teasing to put them down) was deleted, the Cronbach alpha will rise to an acceptable value .50. Comparing with Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Gray and Weirs research(2002), reliabilit

An Annotation of John Crowe Ransoms Blue Girls Essay -- Crowe Ransom

An Annotation of John Crowe Ransom's Blue Girls Simply put, Blue Girls is about beauty. The poem focuses on the realization and truthfulness that beauty undoubtedly fades. The speaker appeals to young girls, warning them to not put all their hope in their beauty, but to still utilize it before it diminishes. Blue Girls By John Crowe Ransom Twirling your blue skirts, travelling the sward Under the towers of your seminary, Go listen to your teacher old and contrary Without believing a word. Tie the white fillets then about your hair And think no more of what will come to pass Than bluebirds that go walking on the grass And chattering on the air. Practise your beauty, blue girls, before it fail; And I will cry with my loud lips and publish Beauty which all our power shall never establish, It is so frail. For I could tell you a story which is true; I know a lady with a terrible tongue, Blear eyes fallen from blue, All her perfections tarnished &endash; yet it is not long Since she was lovelier than any of you. The "your" in this poem signifies young adolescent girls attending school. While the moral of the poem could apply to anyone, he probably chose young girls as his audience because they are often the most aware and the most controlled by outward beauty. He also chose the color blue here, which can mean "intellectual" when speaking of a woman. So, "blue" could very well refer to the knowledge the girls hold, or it could just be the color of their skirts. I prefer the first meaning, especially since we find out that they are attending school in the next line. A sward is a grassy area of land, thus suggesting that the girls lead a carefree life of "twirling" and "travel... ... his point across here: beauty does indeed fade away, so some other purpose in life is necessary. In this poem, Ransom offers the girls three main lessons, which, although they seem contradictory, are really closely related: (1) Beauty does fade. (2) Use your beauty as much as you can before it fades. (3) Have something in your life besides beauty, so that when it fades, you are not left with nothing. He describes beauty as delicate and rare, unable to be established. He focuses on the lightheartedness of young girls, how they are caught up in beauty, and he warns them to be conscientious of the fact that their beauty will fade and that they cannot put all their hope on their beauty. At the same time, he encourages them to "practice" their beauty until it is gone, and he promises to celebrate that beauty as best he can, with all its value and frailty.

A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction

How far can humor go? This question is often asked regarding ribald, lewd, or obscene humor. In these cases, critics often ask whether humor has gone far enough.Critics and questioners ask whether what the comedian presents as humor has crossed the line into the offensive and revolting. How far has a particular bit humor gone to the bottom of the barrel and how do we know if it has reached the bottom.How far can humor go? That same question may be asked for Jon Stewart’s 2004 humor book America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction. However, instead of asking how the degenerate the humor is, after reading Stewart’s book, we are forced to ask how enlightening humor can be?Can humor be a tool to scrutinize? To question? To criticize? The likelihood of these possibilities are astonishing, especially when you consider that Stewart’s book is about America and its government and political system.Jon Stewart is the host of the popular comedy program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The Daily Show is a satire news program, complete with the familiar news program introduction, faux field reporters and even interviews with current newsmakers. Instead of glorifying news programs, The Daily Show takes pride in crucifying it and the political culture it inculcates.The late-night show is notorious for its no holds barred treatment of politicians and pundits from all sides of the political spectrum. The show prides itself as an equal opportunity offender as it makes fun of all political entities from all sides. This has resulted in great popularity for the show as well as for its host, even generating a spin off show from one of its faux pundits.That said, there are many parallels to be drawn between the Daily Show and America (The Book). While The Daily Show pretends to be a nightly news program, America (The Book) pretends to be a high school social studies textbook. In this regard, America (The Book) is successful as it really does look and feel like a social studies textbook. Its content and outline matches that of common high school textbooks.Its layout is also befitting that of a high school textbook, complete with margin notes, sidebars, interviews with â€Å"noted† individuals and numerous illustrations and figures. It is even complete with end of chapter questions and classroom activities.

Enjoy homework

Analyses two possible reasons why Michael currently has a centralized structure. A centralized structure is a management structure where decision making is done at higher consolidated levels by those with a broader perspective. In a centralized organization, decisions made by higher management are typically communicated to lower organizational tiers who are then expected to accept and move forward in a way, which follows the higher tier managers' decisions.Michael currently has a centralized structure to keep consistency in he restaurants and maintain a brand image however the restaurant sector is very diverse which means different parts of the I-J require different approaches which would more so benefit the decentralized Structure. Michael is responsible for the organizational structure that reflects from his personality, management style and characteristics.Michael has a wider span of control due to the fact it gives him a bigger influence on what happens within the business theref ore making more of the decisions and generating us access. 2) Ruth believes Enjoy! Should extend its flexible workforce strategy. To what extent do you agree with this view? A workforce strategy is the company's overall approach to maximizing the performance of its workforce by stating clearly the goals, objectives and expectations that are made of the workforce. To what extent does Enjoy! Deed to alter their own flexible workforce strategy. Ruth wants to increase the flexibility of the current plan by employing more part time and temporary contracts that they re hoping will increase their labor turnover. A benefit from having more part time contracts would be that the costs of the business are lowered and the company doesn't have to make a commitment to the employee. Workers are more satisfied and less likely to leave the firm and more likely to speak positively about it.Although a downside to more part time workers would mean less attachment to Enjoy! As they're less likely to spe nd as much time there as a full time employee. Also, they might have less experience doing the job within the firm therefore underperforming in tasks. Ruth wants to focus her costs on the quality of the recruitment agency by using the Hospitality Recruitment Agency who can recognize a gifted candidate when they see one. Enjoy! Always have the opportunity to employ omen full time if they think highly of their performance.