Recent orders
Dolls House By Henrik Ibsen
Doll’s House By Henrik Ibsen
Section: English Essays
In Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, the personality of the protagonist Nora Helmer is developed and revealed through her interactions and conversations with the other characters in the play, including Mrs. Linde, Nils Krogstad, Dr. Rank and Ann-Marie. Ibsen also uses certain dramatic and literary techniques and styles, such as irony, juxtaposition and parallelism to further reveal interesting aspects of Nora’s personality. Mrs. Linde provides and interesting juxtaposition to Nora, while Krogstad initially provides the plot elements required for Nora’s character to fully expand in the play. Dr. Rank’s love for Nora provides irony and an interesting twist in their relationship, while Ann-Marie acts in a parallel role to Nora in that they are both away from their children for long periods of time. Nora Helmer’s character itself is minimally established and revealed at the beginning of the play, but the reader is further privy to her personality as the play progresses, as she interacts with each of the other minor characters in the play.
Ibsen deliberately chooses to show Nora’s true self by revealing it in conversations between her and other characters; Mrs. Linde is one of these minor characters who is juxtaposed against Nora. Mrs. Linde married primarily for financial security and future ambitions while Nora sincerely believes that she married Torvald for love and happiness. This provides a conflict for the apparently childlike Nora as she realizes that her partner in the marriage probably didn’t marry her for the same reason. Also, an example of dramatic irony arises at the end of the play when Mrs. Linde’s relationship with Krogstad revives again while Nora’s marriage to Helmer crumbles. As Nora unhappily but determinedly leaves her home for a different life, Mrs. Linde’s happiness seems to be just beginning: “How different now! How different! Someone to work for, to live for – a home to build.” These sentiments ironically portray the very qualities of married life that Nora desired to win, and keep throughout her life; and these feelings add to her established flair for the romantic.
Since the main plot of A Doll’s House revolves around the debt incurred by Nora upon taking out a loan to pay for Helmer’s recovery, Krogstad functions primarily to set forth the series of actions, which propels much of the story. In contrast to Nora, who seems to never have encountered tremendous difficulty or hardship in her life, Krogstad’s struggles have left him bitter and searching for a better station in life. This attitude is best expressed when he says, “I had to grab hold somewhere; and I dare say that I haven’t been among the worst.” This light juxtaposition which affects Nora and Krogstad’s relationship, combined with Nora’s secretive borrowing and money-saving practices creates a lasting impression of her desire that no one, including Helmer, discover her debt to the bank. This clashes directly with the initial portrait of a childlike, carefree and oblivious woman that Nora «was» at the beginning of the play. Nora’s personality slowly changes from a two-dimensional figure to a fully developed and captivating woman who can independently take care of herself and her family without the guiding hand of a man at her side. This is illustrated by her handling of the debt crisis up to the point that her husband finds out. The prevailing belief in nineteenth century society was that women could not handle affairs suited only for men, such as the management of finances or similar tasks and occupations. Ibsen’s Nora progresses from an innocent, apparently oblivious bystander to the her world’s events to a character who has the courage, determination, and intellect to undertake those tasks that Victorian society prohibited for women. Krogstad’s demeanor and attitude toward Nora also reveals certain important aspects of their relationship, and thus her personality. For example, while Torvald figuratively and continually refers to Nora as his “little sky-lark” and «squirrel», Nora’s conversation with Krogstad contains an undercurrent of cautious respect on the part of Krogstad and fear and foreboding on the part of Nora. For Krogstad, a woman as independent as Nora is a novelty, and thus he is nowhere near as condescending and parental as Torvald is and a man is expected to be. This element of Nora and Krogstad’s association is illustrative of Nora’s unique character and intriguing personality. Ibsen deliberately uses the symbolism of Nora and Krogstad’s relationship to raise questions about women’s actual – as opposed to devised – role in society and to develop Nora’s persona beyond that of a submissive, role-playing woman.
Another minor character who indirectly reveals much of Nora’s character is Dr. Rank, an associate and close friend of Nora who professes his love for her later in the play. Although Nora desires to ask Rank for the money required to pay off her debt to the bank, his sudden declaration of love confuses and disorients Nora. Most women in Victorian society were conscious and very mindful of their sexuality. But the reader is introduced to an unique element of Nora’s personality – she is only now aware that she is seen as a sex object by those around her, including Torvald. Also, Nora’s jovial attitude towards Rank during Act
One changes after his announcement. Her choice of words and diction markedly differs from her previously friendly conversations with Rank as she says following his declaration, “Now there’s nothing you can do for me. Besides, actually, I don’t need any help. You’ll see-it’s only my fantasies.” Her denial of needing anything from Rank illustrates a mind conscious of the moral limits to what she can ask of Rank in such situation, further enriching Nora’s character in this play. While most people would take advantage of such a predicament to pay the debt in full and resume the carefree and content life that Nora led, she chooses instead to prevent such a thought from even taking root in her mind, and to face the consequences of her actions. Also, the relationship between Rank and Nora provides an interesting irony in the play. Dr. Rank is, in all aspects, a man who recognizes the elements of Nora’s personality, including her independent nature and deep affection for her family, as making her very unique in a society of repressed women. Instead of regarding Nora as a “Capri fishergirl” and a sex object as Helmer has, Rank realizes Nora’s deeper sensitivity to the world and her environment. In some ways, Rank is exactly the husband for Nora – he is her best friend and confidant – but he is unable to fill such a role. In his place, Torvald figuratively dresses Nora as a child would a doll, and disregards her hidden qualities. In this irony and paradox, the reader feels sympathy for Nora, and is conscious of her inner strength required to endure Torvald’s opinions and restrictions.
Finally, Ann-Marie, the nurse of the Helmer household, parallels Nora in some ways. When Nora asks of her nurse, “Do you think [the children] would forget their mother if she was gone for good?” Ibsen inserts an aspect of foreshadowing which highlights Nora’s final departure from her household. Ann-Marie is a matron figure to the childish Nora, as she was the foster mother for the little Mrs. Helmer. Nora’s deep affection for all members of her household family is emphasized here as her relationship with Ann-Marie is developed. Nora’s extended time away from her children is analogous to Ann-Marie’s own association with her children, who she had to leave in order to better serve as Nora’s nurse. The reader sympathizes slightly with both women in this fact. Ibsen uses their relationship to further develop Nora’s personality and feelings towards her relations. Ibsen deliberately portrayed Nora as a woman sensitive to others’ emotions and thoughts to provoke a genuine and appreciative response from a realistic-minded audience who would realize human elements of Nora’s personality.
Throughout Ibsen’s play, Nora Helmer is a protagonist who is initially a two-dimensional, oblivious character, but transforms into a complex and rich personality, mainly through her interactions with minor characters in the play. Figures such as Mrs. Linde and Ann-Marie provided emotional and physical parallels and contrasts to Nora while Dr. Rank and Nils Krogstad functioned to develop the plot and Nora’s persona though conversations. Ibsen’s deliberate use of minor characters in A Doll’s House was to create and develop Nora’s personality; and as the play finishes, Nora is a real and complex character, a woman who is contradictory to society’s expectations and ideal for a realistic world.
Albert Cohens Theory of Delinquent Subcultures
Running Head: Albert Cohen’s Theory of Delinquent Subcultures
Name:
Course Name:
Institution:
Tutor:
Date:
Since time immemorial, crimes have been committed in the world societies. In the recent past, crime rate has increased significantly. Different theories have been put in place to explain these crimes. The functionalist theory is one of the strain theories that attempts to deeply explain crime and deviance as they occur in the societies. Albert Cohen’s theory of delinquent subcultures focuses on mainstream cultural objectives and goals in the vast range of societies. In addition, the theory centralizes on the reasons why the lower class people in the world societies have failed to attain theory desired goals and objective thus replacing them with deviant behavior which often give rise to criminal activities. According to Cohen, the criminal acts that individuals often engage after failing to achieve their objectives leads to development of delinquent subcultures whose objectives and goals sharply contrast with those associated with achieving success in the society.
Focusing on delinquents as ooposed to adults, the theory explains that occurrence of crimes in the society is associated with poor upbringing of young children. Shortly after World War II, Cohen discovered that high number of baby boomers engage in criminal activities in the societies. This is profound in the lower class societies. Everyone in the society holds the same goals but the opportunity to achieve them differs. The lower class have limited opportunities to fulfill their objectives hence some have resorted to criminal activities as away of nursing these frustrations. According to Cohen, the disparity in the accessibility of opportunities for achieving goals has resulted directly to criminal activities. The mainstream goals and objectives are replaced with criminal activities as the alternative of achieving success.
Delinquent behavior among the young people in the societies is uprising against what people in the upper class and the middle class believe should be. The poor conditions experienced by the poor class in the societies, the youths encounter another form of culture that sociologist has labeled status frustration. So what actually happens is that, because these individuals do not fit the existing culture and norm, they ended up forming gangs in an attempt to support each other. The formed gangs are very rebellious and engage in opposing the rules, processes, systems, goals and objectives of the society. These individuals take norms from the larger society or culture, but turn them upside down. Therefore, the delinquent conducts among the young people in the society is right by the standards and rules of the subculture precisely since it is against the norms of the larger society and culture.
The lower class people have been sidelined in the society. They do not acquire necessary communication skills, which in the modern societies is a very crucial skill. Cohen theory explains that delinquent subcultures do no occur as result individual deviant behavior only but by societal factors that pressurize these individuals into forming them.
One flaw that children face in the lower class society is that they are not capable of producing a positive image in the eyes of the responsible authorities. They cannot conform to what Cohen calls “authority figures middle-class measuring tools.” Unlike positive evaluations of individuals, negative evaluations follow individuals for the rest of their lives unless a corrective action is taken to change it. Fundamentally, the lower-class boys in the society suffer rejection by the upper and the middle-class decision makers. On condition of such situations, these boys will opt to being corner boys, the college boys or the delinquent boys. In this respect, the corner boys refer to those portrayed as those not accepted by the middle class counterparts. The corner boys would not engage in delinquent acts but will commit minute offenses. Those praised by their peers often gain sense of comfort and boost individual’s self-esteem. Since they cannot compete with those in the middle and the upper class, these boys will resort to staying in the neighborhood where they compete their lives there. They will compete for their lives in the neighborhood within the lower class by engaging in minute offenses which can often give rise to serious criminal acts especially in the later stages of their lives. The college boys are the next group of lower-class boys. They praise everything that occurs in the middle class societies and they have the tendency of going down the road to fight for their lives. Their actions often lead to dead-end and this is normally caused by the fact that these individuals do not posses have the necessary skills to pursue their lives in the middle and the upper class. The delinquent boys represent the most rebellious groups that flip the values and the norms observed by the middle and the upper class people. In order to achieve their goals and means, they engage in short run hedonism, where they assume that “living for today and letting tomorrow take care of itself.” They are very careless hence do not consider what will happen in the future. They do not weight the consequences of their actions. They do not take heed of the societal teachings; do not observe the behaviors of the authorities hence their behaviors are difficult to control. The only thing they do is to form gangs in an attempt to persuade others that they can make by their own. Boys who are incapable of achieving success in the society often resort to a process that Cohen termed it as reaction formation. This implies that the affected victims react with extremely violent responses to various situations as they occur in the society. These victims do not realize that they on the wrong when break the laws.
Arguably, the focal concerns of the lower class people include trouble, excitement, fate, smartness, toughness and autonomy. People get into trouble by breaking the common laws, and this has the effect of creating image on the subject. In cases where the subject fights and win, people in the class will respect and honor i.e. reputation increases. Therefore, people would not try to fight that individual. As revealed by the Cohen theory, excitement has contributed to range criminal activities in the society. Excitement makes individuals want to know an activity that is out of the societal norm. Autonomy makes individuals desire to become independent. Since they do no have adequate opportunities of achieving this, they resorted to gang involvement.
The lower class people do not feel the impact of policy implementations made by the government or local authorities. This is because they are sidelined during the decision making. The young children do not engage in educational programs that could modify their behaviors and they cannot get the special needs. Due to idleness and the attempt to meet their needs, the subject resort to criminal activities.
Strain theories have tried to explain the occurrence of crimes in the world societies. Objectively, Cohen theory offers the best answer as to why there are cases of crimes in the society. The environment within which an individual is reared helps shape behavior.
Facebook Conformity and consensus We live in a world where social media has overtaken everything.
Facebook Conformity and consensus
Donthel Daniels
Institution Affiliation
Facebook Conformity and Consensus
We live in a world where social media has overtaken everything. We are no longer in the period where only the millennials are obsessed with the use of social media and a platform like Facebook attracts people of all ages. The use of Facebook has increased to billions of people and the amount of information people have opted to share out there in their lives is quite alarming. Just last year, Mark Zuckerberg before the US Congress as he needed to explain how Facebook aided Cambridge Analytica in obtaining people’s information. Although many agree that social media has been of huge impact, many people are also of the consensus of the numerous negative impacts that Facebook has had on top of the list being as it led to people getting severe polarized in key issues including the election.
According to a research article by Serena Coppolino, on Computer in Human Behavior, they clearly portray the polarization due to use of social network platforms (Perfumi, et.al, 2019). There is a great difference e that has been observed over the years when it comes to computer-mediated-communication as compared to face-to –face communication. AI which includes Facebook has resulted in people losing touch with fellow humans because all they are used to is chatting online. We currently live in a society where almost everybody wants to brand themselves as being anti-social, but this may not be the case rather it is because we have spent too much updating everything on our Facebook pages where strangers give us comments that may be true or not true.
Conformity in social media platforms results from people affiliation to what they tend to like. An individual is likely to follow pages they feel they can relate to and at times these pages become misleading from the content they share out there. It is for a fact that Facebook has been a useful tool when it comes to spreading news but to this good side, there has been a bad side. In order to get the engagement including the likes and the following some sites rely on spreading of Fake news (Kundu, 2013). News does not have to be reliable as it is a competition between the various news outlets on who will be the first to get the information out there. At times we find ourselves liking, commenting and even sharing content that we may not conform to (Winter, 2015).
According to an article by Winter (2015), it talks about how Facebook has been an important source of social marketing as people can easily get information of the products out there, however when comparing likes to comments, most people rely on comments while trying to regard if a product or content is reliable (Winter, 2015). Comment section will always indicate what people feel, and even when a product or a content out there is great, you may still find hateful as well as spiteful comments. Normative influence is likely to result in someone getting a huge following and with these followers the ones content may be liked, shared and commented on by people proving the conformity as well as the consensus that exists in Facebook.
From social media pages, we have created a perception about ourselves out there. When you look at people’s profiles, they are all different but mostly from these profiles people can make judgements on what they think about us. In a research conducted by Rom and Conway on Strategic Moral Self, the talk of the perception we tend to present to people which are times are false and misleading (Rom, 2018). On Facebook among other social media pages, you are likely to encounter individuals living their best lives, driving dream cars, going to the best holiday destination but behind the cameras they may be going through their worst depression. Kelly and Ngo interaction seems to also agree with the fact that online vs reality may actually not be the same for most of us (Kelly, 2017). On social media platforms, people are likely to put up content that is liked and relatable by many. The aspect of consensus results from concepts people have and what they reflect on their profile. The owners may actually possess certain features that are actually not close to their real personalities.
In the study conducted we hypothesized that the participants who read the support response were most likely to support her in that she should keep it to herself and take the win, for those who read the opposing comments were most likely to find her guilty and condemn her actions.
Study One
To shed light on Facebook conformity and how various comments on any issue may affect people perception, we conducted a study where we evaluated people reaction after reading comments made on a post. The scenario was a post by Abigail who was mistakenly given the answer sheet by the teacher as the question papers were being given and how she used since she always had difficult in the class and she ended up passing the test resulting to the teacher changing the curve method idea for the rest of the students. There were three conditions under the scenario; support, oppose and mixed. The support condition were those comments of people who found that Abigail’s behavior was appropriate and that the fault lied with the teacher, oppose condition were people against her actions who claimed she would have report. Lastly, the mixed condition was people who were both for and against Abigail’s action.
Methods
Participants
For the study, 140 participants among them Florida University students were randomly selected. Of the 140 participants, 51.4% (n=72) were male and 48.6% (n=68) were female. Ages of the participants ranged from 18 years to 29 years with an average of 22.16 years (SD=3). The sample population consisted of 45.7% Hispanic (n=64), 25.7% Caucasians (n=36), 20.7%African-Americans (n=29), 5.7%Asian –American (n=8) and 2.1%Native Indians (n=3). (See Appendix 1.)
Materials and Procedures
The participants were informed of the study itself, the risks and benefits that it carried for the students, an overview of the information required and the time required as stipulated in the standardized guidelines for informed consent. The participants had to give their consent verbally after which they were given one of the three research study documents that contained both the primary independent and dependent variables for the study. The document also consisted of five parts, the first part had the Abigail Foster Facebook post, unfortunately the professor while handling the question paper to Abigail he also gave her the answer key and Abigail who was certain she was going to work in spite of working hard used the answers. After she did very well the professor who was to curve the results because most students had not done well changed his mind, the dilemma was with Abigail who was not sure what she should do hence, in search for advice she posted on Facebook. Among the three documents in spite of them having the same scenario the condition under each of them is different, the conditions are; support, oppose and mixed which are various reactions to Abigail’s post.
For the support condition, it outlined eight comments by people who believed that Abigail had done nothing wrong and should accept the grade while putting the blame on the professor who could have been more careful. The second condition oppose, also has eight comments from students who believed that Abigail should admit to her wrongdoing by putting herself in the other students’ shoes. Lastly, the mixed condition has no consensus since among the eight responses some people opposed her actions while others gave her support.
After having read the scenario the participants were then required to proceed with part two of the questionnaire where they were required to rate Abigail’s behavior based on some statements by either agreeing or disagreeing. They were to use an interval scale of 1(strongly disagree) to 6(strongly agree). The statements that participants were to evaluate on Abigail’s behavior included, Abigail’s behavior was wrong, Abigail’s behavior was understandable, Abigail’s behavior was reasonable, Abigail’s behavior was unethical, Abigail’s behavior was immoral, Abigail’s behavior was appropriate, and Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable. (See Appendix 2)
In the third part the participant was to rate various statements on what advice they would offer Abigail, their response if they were in the same situation and their general Abigail’s impression, there were three statements, I would advise Abigail to keep silent, I would try to comfort Abigail and I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her. For the other two parts of the sections on the response and impressions the participants have in regards to Abigail’s behavior and their own, the interval scale of 1 (strongly disagree) or 6 (strongly agree) was used. In response to what they would do the participant was given two statements on whether they would confess or keep silent and on Abigail’s impressions it was either she seems warm, moral, sincere, competent, confident, competitive or good-natured. Additionally, the fourth part of the questions contained demographic questions that the participant had the choice of not answering if he or she deemed them private. The questions included gender, age, race, relationship status, whether they were FIU students and whether English was their first language. Lastly, in the fifth part the participant was supposed to give their feedback on whether the advice Abigail was given was either in support of her behavior, opposing it or was more of the both of them, they filled their response by marking an X.
While the study has both dependent and independent variables, our focus was on the dependent variables which are warm-cold scale, either accepting or rejecting what she did and the self-ratings. The main variable was accepting or rejecting that was reliant on the responses the people wrote in relation to her post and the influence they would have on her. We hypothesized that the participants who read the support response were most likely to support her in that she should keep it to herself and take the win, for those who read the opposing comments were most likely to find her guilty and condemn her actions.
Results
Under the survey conditions (support vs. oppose vs. mixed) which were our independent variables and while focusing on the participant’s assessment on Abigail’s behavior based on the responses in their scenarios, we arrived as various results. Those who had the suppose response were 46 which was 32.9%, oppose 45 which was 32.1% and mixed were 49 which was 35%. Just like predicted the participant who had the support responses described Abigail competent, moral, confident, warm and good-natured person. They believed that she deserved her grade hence she did not have to report it to the professor, they also termed her response after she was given the answer key to be appropriate and reasonable hence if there was a person to blame it would have to be the professor. However, those who read the opposing notions on the scenarios termed what Abigail had done to be wrong and that she should have reported, they went ahead to describe her as immoral and unacceptable and unethical of what she had done. They also referred her behavior in a not good way disagreeing with all notions in part three of the question. Those who had missed reactions assessment on Abigail tended to balance with a few agreeing while the others disagreed.
In addition, for the ANOVA test which was our main analysis there was a significant difference in whether our dependent variable on accepting or rejecting Abigail’s behavior had been wrong in relation to the support, oppose and mixed independent valuables, F (2,137) = 4.537, p <.05. The test confirmed that the participant’s assessment would be affected by the response scenario they read. Lastly, the Post Hoc Tests analysis is used to show a significant difference among various groups. From the table, it is evident that there is a statistically significant difference between the reactions by those people who had both suppose and oppose response and those with suppose and mixed response which is (p=0.021) and (p=0.035) respectively while there was no difference with those with oppose and mixed response(p=0.969). Also, this test supported the hypothesis that participants were likely to support Abigail in the support condition (M = 4.2, SD = 0.773), the oppose condition was (M = 3.4 SD = 0.986, and the mixed condition (M = 3.816 SD = 0.727). (See Appendix 3)
Discussion
As earlier predicted that depending on the response the participants read they would influence their view and eventually on how they would make inferences on Abigail have been proved. Participants who read the positive response were in support of Abigail’s actions and termed her behavior as appropriate, these same people too while asked of what they would have done they supported that they would keep quiet. Similarly, those participants who read the opposing responses arrived at the conclusion that Abigail did the wrong thing and that for the sake of her integrity she should have reported the matter. Lastly, there was no major difference in those who got both responses since just as predicted some opposed while others supported Abigail’s decision. However, it is clear that the difference in all those scenarios assessment by the participants was not major this could have been the fact that the participants all have an experience of how some classes can be tough and in the event, they find themselves in such a situation they are bound to make the same decision. Frankly, if the same situations were to happen to those people who opposed Abigail’s decision they are likely to just act the same way because until one faced a similar issue can their real intentions be revealed.
Study Two
With the advancement of technology that has been happening in the last few decades, the interaction among people has shifted from the face-face to digital. There have been multiple media channels that have facilitated this shift with the social media platforms taking the lead, the various mediums are currently, being used even for marketing and advertising business. Facebook is one of this channel that came into being in 2004 and despite other social media platforms emerging the number of active users keep increasing with the statistics of December 2019 is 2.50 billion people on a monthly basis (Noyes, 2020).
Most users of Facebook users often are often observing the content on the site rather than posting, this was depicted when a study was conducted among students, also it was concluded that most people interact on Facebook with people they already have interaction with offline. Also, Facebook users are more likely to post on the public display with people they are regularly involved with, with parents this never occurred and rarely for strangers (Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009). According to Wang, Kraut & Burke, (2013), Facebook posts and comments vary among different genders where men tend to post more on money and work while females talk of relationships and people and in spite of the changing times also the languages employed by the two genders differ. Also, with the widespread use of emoticons, it has been found that women use those with hugs and smile and their posts and comments in most cases are usually shorten than men whose posts center more on external factors. In addition, the authors recognize that while it is evident that men get few comments across the media platform the comments are usually higher when the posts are on masculine issues and female comments are more when they defy the perception of the society.
According to the Engaging the Social News User article, various scholars believe that the lack anonymity of with the comments on Facebook has ensured that the comments are of higher quality and are more and the users rarely post offensive and abusive comments. The lack of this anonymity has been attributed to the reasons both Los Aneles Times and the digitalspy.co.uk shifted to using the Facebook commenting system (Hille & Bakker, 2014). The comments across social media platforms have been said to be the most common form of public online participation. There are also various factors that determine the quality and number of comments on each post, the comments displayed on each page and the criteria behind it and the message characteristics (Ziegele, Breiner & Quiring, 2014).
According to Winter, Krämer & Brückner, (2015), a study was conducted and it concluded that the negative comments in a post reduced the article persuasiveness, however, the positive comments hardly had any effect. Also, when the posts were termed as the readers as relevant they were more comments with various opinions and higher elaboration levels. The authors of the article have also affirmed that the comments influence the public opinions since the lack of anonymity limit identification since one can associate the cultural background and age and that the comments are usually connected with the profile which is usually visible to the public (Winter, Krämer & Brückner, 2015).
While in study one we had support, oppose and mixed condition for the scenario in this study two we will only have support and oppose condition. The second independent variable is the effects of cheating and how they will influence the participant’s reaction to the post. The hypothesize of this study is that those participants who believe the effects of cheating are severe will oppose Abigail’s action while those who see the effects of cheating as just a bump on the road will support her actions.Appendix 1
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 72 51.4 51.4 51.4
Female 68 48.6 48.6 100.0
Total 140 100.0 100.0 Race
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Caucasian 36 25.7 25.7 25.7
Hispanic 64 45.7 45.7 71.4
Native Indian 3 2.1 2.1 73.6
African American 29 20.7 20.7 94.3
Asian American 8 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 140 100.0 100.0 Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 17.00 2 1.4 1.4 1.4
18.00 22 15.7 15.7 17.1
19.00 7 5.0 5.0 22.1
20.00 6 4.3 4.3 26.4
21.00 28 20.0 20.0 46.4
22.00 13 9.3 9.3 55.7
23.00 21 15.0 15.0 70.7
24.00 3 2.1 2.1 72.9
25.00 21 15.0 15.0 87.9
26.00 2 1.4 1.4 89.3
27.00 10 7.1 7.1 96.4
28.00 1 .7 .7 97.1
29.00 4 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 140 100.0 100.0 Frequency Table
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Support 46 32.9 32.9 32.9
Oppose 45 32.1 32.1 65.0
Mixed 49 35.0 35.0 100.0
Total 140 100.0 100.0 Appendix 2
Crosstab and Chi Square
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong
Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 28 14 1 46
Oppose 7 6 23 9 45
Mixed 4 16 19 10 49
Total 14 50 56 20 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 26.198a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 29.031 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.884 1 .015
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was understandable
Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was understandable Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 1 6 19 20 46
Oppose 9 16 13 7 45
Mixed 1 15 25 8 49
Total 11 37 57 35 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 29.497a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 28.563 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.492 1 .019
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was reasonable
Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was reasonable Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 8 20 15 46
Oppose 10 14 14 7 45
Mixed 1 15 25 8 49
Total 14 37 59 30 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.740a 6 .005
Likelihood Ratio 18.576 6 .005
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.097 1 .295
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was unethical
Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was unethical Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 5 22 15 4 46
Oppose 3 10 21 11 45
Mixed 2 17 22 8 49
Total 10 49 58 23 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.553a 6 .103
Likelihood Ratio 10.811 6 .094
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.862 1 .049
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was immoral
Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was immoral Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 20 19 4 46
Oppose 3 10 23 9 45
Mixed 2 12 27 8 49
Total 8 42 69 21 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.529a 6 .275
Likelihood Ratio 7.498 6 .277
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.760 1 .053
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part II: Abigail’s behavior was appropriate
Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was appropriate Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 4 17 14 11 46
Oppose 8 17 13 7 45
Mixed 9 21 15 4 49
Total 21 55 42 22 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.843a 6 .441
Likelihood Ratio 6.131 6 .409
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.557 1 .033
N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab
Count
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 8 23 13 2 46
Oppose 7 15 16 7 45
Mixed 6 19 19 5 49
Total 21 57 48 14 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.711a 6 .456
Likelihood Ratio 5.908 6 .434
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.328 1 .127
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: I would advise Abigail to keep quiet
Crosstab
Count
Part III: I would advise Abigail to keep quiet Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 5 6 19 16 46
Oppose 3 22 15 5 45
Mixed 2 17 24 6 49
Total 10 45 58 27 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 20.731a 6 .002
Likelihood Ratio 21.079 6 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.898 1 .089
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: I would try to comfort Abigail
Crosstab
Count
Part III: I would try to comfort Abigail Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 0 7 23 16 46
Oppose 2 13 20 10 45
Mixed 0 8 26 15 49
Total 2 28 69 41 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.488a 6 .204
Likelihood Ratio 8.705 6 .191
Linear-by-Linear Association .092 1 .761
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her
Crosstab
Count
Part III: I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 2 4 24 16
Oppose 3 5 20 17
Mixed 1 10 27 11
Total 6 19 71 44
Crosstab
Count
Total
Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 46
Oppose 45
Mixed 49
Total 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.419a 6 .378
Likelihood Ratio 6.485 6 .371
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.469 1 .225
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: If I received the answers, I would keep silent
Crosstab
Count
Part III: If I received the answers, I would keep silent Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 11 4 14 17 46
Oppose 18 9 14 4 45
Mixed 14 3 17 15 49
Total 43 16 45 36 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.258a 6 .027
Likelihood Ratio 15.338 6 .018
Linear-by-Linear Association .237 1 .627
N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab
Count
Part III: If I received the answers, I would confess Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 21 10 8 7 46
Oppose 11 10 6 18 45
Mixed 22 9 5 13 49
Total 54 29 19 38 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.701a 6 .138
Likelihood Ratio 10.103 6 .120
Linear-by-Linear Association .349 1 .555
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems warm
Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems warm Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 3 5 21 17 46
Oppose 9 7 10 19 45
Mixed 6 3 20 20 49
Total 18 15 51 56 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.182a 6 .164
Likelihood Ratio 9.616 6 .142
Linear-by-Linear Association .013 1 .911
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems good-natured
Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems good-natured Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 0 6 24 16 46
Oppose 6 10 12 17 45
Mixed 1 6 23 19 49
Total 7 22 59 52 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 15.237a 6 .018
Likelihood Ratio 16.012 6 .014
Linear-by-Linear Association .006 1 .937
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems confident
Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems confident Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 22 9 9 6 46
Oppose 28 10 4 3 45
Mixed 32 9 4 4 49
Total 82 28 17 13 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.786a 6 .448
Likelihood Ratio 5.586 6 .471
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.447 1 .063
N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems competitive Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 5 4 19 18 46
Oppose 12 4 13 16 45
Mixed 4 3 22 20 49
Total 21 11 54 54 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.288a 6 .218
Likelihood Ratio 7.966 6 .241
Linear-by-Linear Association .244 1 .622
N of Valid Cases 140 Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems sincere Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 0 0 15 31 46
Oppose 1 2 11 31 45
Mixed 7 5 13 24 49
Total 8 7 39 86 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.373a 6 .008
Likelihood Ratio 20.162 6 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 11.332 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems moral
Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems moral Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 10 7 14 15 46
Oppose 25 12 8 0 45
Mixed 24 8 14 3 49
Total 59 27 36 18 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 32.026a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 34.821 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 12.940 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 140 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) * Part III: Abigail seems competent
Crosstab
Count
Part III: Abigail seems competent Total
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Condition (1 = Support, 2 = Oppose, 3 = Mixed) Support 24 9 7 6 46
Oppose 29 8 6 2 45
Mixed 32 10 4 3 49
Total 85 27 17 11 140
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.392a 6 .624
Likelihood Ratio 4.347 6 .630
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.869 1 .090
N of Valid Cases 140 Appendix 3
Descriptive
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Support 46 3.2826 .62050 .09149 3.0983 3.4669
Oppose 45 3.7556 .95716 .14269 3.4680 4.0431
Mixed 49 3.7143 .88976 .12711 3.4587 3.9699
Total 140 3.5857 .85651 .07239 3.4426 3.7288
Descriptive
Part II: Abigail’s behavior was wrong
Minimum Maximum
Support 2.00 5.00
Oppose 2.00 5.00
Mixed 2.00 5.00
Total 2.00 5.00
ANOVA
Part II: Abigail