Recent orders
Counterfactual Thinking
Counterfactual Thinking: Appointing Blame
Former Student
Florida International University
Methods
Participants
One hundred and twenty six students from Florida International University were randomly selected to participate in our study. Of these 126 participants, 37% (n = 47) were male and 63% (n = 79) were female. Ages ranged from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 58 with an average of 22.32 years (SD = 6.30). Our sample population consisted of 68.3% Hispanic Americans (n = 86), 8.7% African Americans (n = 11), 19% Caucasians (n = 24), 1.6% Asians (n = 2), and 2.4% who did not specify their ethnicity (n = 3). See Appendix A.
Materials and Procedure
In accordance with the standardized guidelines for informed consent, prospective participants were notified of the potential risks and benefits of participating in the study before being introduced to the research material. If the student verbally agreed to participate, he or she was given one of three different documents, each of which consisted of four parts or sections. In part one of the study, the participant read a short scenario concerning a paraplegic couple, Tina and Eugene, who requested a taxi for a night out with friends. Each of the three documents depicted the same initial situation with alternate conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) that ultimately led to different outcomes of events.
In the changeable condition, the taxi driver arrived to pick up the couple, only to promptly decline their fare upon seeing that they were both paraplegic. Without enough time to call for another taxi, Tina and Eugene decided to take Tina’s car, which was handicap equipped. In order to reach their destination, they had to cross a bridge that had been weakened the night before due to a severe storm. The damaged bridge collapsed mere minutes before the couple reached it. Unable to see the missing portion of the bridge in the night, Tina and Eugene drove off the road, into the river below, and drowned. The taxi driver, who had left 15 minutes earlier, managed to make it safely across, before the collapse. In the unchangeable condition, the situation remained mostly the same with the exception that the taxi driver arrived at the bridge after it had collapsed and plummeted into the water as well. He managed to make it out of the car and swim to safety, but Tina and Eugene drowned. In the neutral condition, the taxi arrived to pick up the couple but promptly refused their fare as soon as he realized that they were both paraplegic. In this condition, the taxi driver did eventually agree to take Tina and Eugene to their destination downtown, albeit after much argument. Due to the recently collapsed bridge, the taxi driver drove his passengers and himself off the road and into the river below. He barely managed to make it out of the car before drowning. Tina and Eugene’s outcome remained the same.
After reading one of the scenarios described above, the participant continued on to the remainder of the study, which was composed of a series of open, partially open, and close-ended questions. In part two, the student participating in the study was asked to procure as many ‘If Only’ statements as possible, meaning that they had to list all the factors they could think of that could have possibly changed the outcome of the event. In part three, the participant was presented with a series of questions about their thoughts regarding the specific situation they read about. After reading each question, the participant was asked to record his or her response in a scale of one to nine. These questions included how avoidable they thought the accident was (1 = not at all avoidable, 9 = very avoidable), the causal role of the taxi driver in the couple’s death (1 = not at all causal, 9 = the most important cause), their thoughts on how much control the taxi driver had (1 = no control, 9 = complete control), the negligence of the taxi driver (1 = not at all negligent, 9 = completely negligent), how much money for damages the taxi driver was responsible for (1 = no money, 9 = as much as possible), the foreseeability of the couple’s death (1 = not at all foreseeable, 9 = completely foreseeable), and how much blame the taxi driver deserved for the event (1 = no blame at all, 9 = total blame). The last question of part three was a yes or no question that asked the participant whether the taxi driver agreed to drive the couple or not. This final question served as an attention check, which informed us if the participant was actually attentive to the study and allowed us to exclude potentially misrepresentative responses form our data. Part four asked for the participant’s demographic information, including gender, age, ethnicity, their first language, and whether they were a student at Florida International University. Concluding the study, the participant was debriefed on his or her contribution to the study as well as our insights on counterfactual thinking and our main hypothesis.
Although we had several dependent variables, our primary focus involved the perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, the number of ‘If Only’ statements the participants could create, and the manipulation check regarding whether the driver agreed to take the couple. We hypothesized that participants would find the taxi driver more blameworthy for the couple’s death in the changeable condition, since he refused to drive Tina and Eugene while safely passing over the bridge himself. We also predicted that the participants in the changeable condition would generate more counterfactual (‘If Only’) statements than in the unchangeable or neutral conditions.
Results
Using survey condition (changeable vs. unchangeable vs. neutral) as our independent variable and whether participants recalled whether the taxi driver picked up the paraplegic couple as the dependent variable, we ran a manipulation check in which we saw a significant effect, X2(2) = 93.95, p < .001. Participants in the changeable and unchangeable conditions correctly said the taxi did not pick up the couple (95.2% and 90.5%, respectively) while few participants in the neutral condition said the driver picked up the couple (4.8%). Phi showed a large effect. This indicates that participants did pay attention to whether the taxi driver picked up the couple. See Appendix B.
For our main analysis, our first One-Way ANOVA test revealed significant differences among our independent variable, the scenario conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) and our dependent variable, perceived blameworthiness of the taxi driver, F(2, 122) = 3.55, p = .032. A subsequent Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis by demonstrating that participants were more likely to blame the taxi driver in the changeable condition (M = 4.51, SD = 2.06) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 3.38, SD = 2.14).. However, there were no significant difference for perceived blame between the neutral condition (M = 4.36, SD = 2.11) and either the changeable or unchangeable conditions. These results indicate that in situations where the outcome is perceived as mutable (changeable), individuals are more likely to assign blame to the actor who could have acted differently (unchangeable). See Appendix C.
We were also interested in the number of ‘If Only’ statements generated for each condition. We ran a One-Way ANOVA test using the different conditions (changeable, unchangeable, or neutral) as our independent variable, and the number of counterfactuals produced as our dependent variable. The results revealed that the relationship between condition and number of ‘If Only’ statements produced was not significant, F(2, 123) = 1.79, p = .171. Our initial prediction that participants would develop more counterfactuals in the changeable condition was not supported since the number of counterfactuals generated in the changeable condition (M = 5.41, SD = 2.21), the unchangeable condition (M = 4.57, SD = 2.04), and the neutral condition (M = 4.88, SD = 1.85) did not differ. Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was not significant, there was no need to run post hoc tests. See Appendix D.
Finally, we ran an independent samples t-Test with the changeable and unchangeable conditions only and “How avoidable was the accident” as the dependent variable, which was significant, t(82) = 2.71, p < .01. Participants thought the accident was more avoidable in the changeable condition (M = 5.31, SD = 1.77) than in the unchangeable condition (M = 4.21, SD = 1.85). See Appendix E.
Discussion
We predicted that participants would place more blame on an actor whose behavior led to an undesirable outcome (death) when that actor could have acted differently primarily because these participants would generate more “If Only” counterfactual statements that would lead them to see the outcome could have been avoided. Conversely, we predicted that participants who read about an undesirable outcome that could not have been avoided would assign less blame to the actor and would think of fewer counterfactual “If Only” statements. Results partially supported these predictions, as we did find more blame for in the changeable condition compared to the unchangeable (though neither differed from the neutral condition), and they thought the accident was more avoidable in the changeable condition than in the unchangeable condition. However, the number of counterfactual statements that participants generated did not differ among our three conditions. It could be that participants were unfamiliar with the counterfactual task, which requires some deep thinking, though on a more unconscious level they could have seen the changeable condition as evidencing more elements of blame. This begs the question: what if participants were forced to think deeper? This is the focus of our second study.
Appendix A – Demographics – Study One
Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One
Appendix C – ANOVA Blame – Study One
Appendix D – ANOVA Number of Counterfactuals – Study One
Appendix E – t-Test “Was the accident avoidable?” – Study One
Democracy as a concept
Democracy as a concept
In any ordinary society, a mode of governance is vital to help attain law and order. This scenario suggests that models of governance such as democracy, monarchy and authoritarianism are entrenched into the lives of the electorate. Democracy, for instance, has gained prominence in most countries, both developed and developing because it allows the masses to elect their leaders through the ballot. In other words, it’s a governance model that is founded on fair competition, transparency and accountability allowing all potential leaders to try their chances of ascending to power (Harrison, 2002). According to historians, democracy involves the equal participation of the electors to elect their preferred representatives who participate in their political self-determination. However, unlike other forms of governance that have been labeled evil, democracy is highly overrated based on numerous factors.
Democracy, for example, concentrates too much on quantity instead of quality. This aspect implies that all persons irrespective of their intelligence are considered equal and thus fit to participate in the electoral process. It mixes both the ignorant and the informed hence diluting the essence of rationale in electing clear-minded leaders (Manisha et al, 2009). Consequently, a government established on the principles of democracy thrives on mediocrity instead of sense to propel the respective country prosperity and success.
People’s will is also characterized by inefficiency because political leaders emphasize on alliances rather than serving the people (Harrison, 2002). As a result, a cult of incompetence grows within the political leadership hence ruining the cherished ideals and principles of democracy.
Corruption equally proves that democracy is overrated because of several political compromises such as the formation of new alliances, lobbying and creation of coalitions to accommodate cronies and relatives (Manisha et al, 2009). Therefore, democracy encourages the distribution of power and privilege to non-deserving persons instead of the needy who often participate in the national and local elections. Favoritism of the regime also leads to discontent and hatred among the masses and could ignite sectarian violence.
Democracy is also overrated because it results to the establishment of too many political parties that lack honest manifestos and ideals of bringing change to the people. A majority of political parties, for example, thrive on spreading misinformation to survive. Others offer Utopian promises by falsifying facts and distorting issues of vital importance in the overall development of a country (Harrison, 2002). Consequently, the electorate becomes disenchanted and discouraged with the system thus hampering their collective effort of building the nation.
The cost of managing an effective democracy also proves that it is an overrated governance model. This case is apparent in the funding of the cabinet especially the remuneration of ministers and their assistants including the representatives of the legislature (Harrison, 2002. In other words, the government creates a huge deficit in the national budget before it disburses the funds for development and payment of its workers.
Considerably, from overrated governance model emanates the interference with people’s liberties and freedoms. Democracy creates difficulties for the masses because it accords most of its powers to the executive who, in effect, determine how people relate with one another). This despicable aspect has resulted to the promotion of outdated practices such as McCarthyism in the US. Additionally, in India, its executive enjoys the discretion of provoking the Preventive Detention Act in case of a crime threatening the powers of the president. It means the electorate remains at the mercy of the state for safety (Manisha et al, 2009).
References
Harrison, R. (2002). Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Manisha, M et al (2009). Indian Democracy: Problems and Prospects. New York, NY: Anthem Press.
Counterculture in the United States
Counterculture in the United States
Student’s name
Student number
AMH2020
American History Since 1877
Professor N. Hernandez
23-07-2021
Counterculture in the United States
Counterculture is when a group comes up and tries to challenge the ordinary rule or the usual way things are done. This has happened many times within the history of different countries. However, in the United States, the major counterculture revolution was witnessed in the 1960s and 1970s. This happened due to some people feeling too much restrained by the norms in society and the laws that governed and stated that only some things could be done in a certain way.. For example, only movie productions of stated subjects could be produced, and others were banned, and the same applied to music, thus limiting the power of expression. Therefore with some Americans feeling that it is good to be liberal and not a traditionalist or conservative, they began the counterculture which propagated their ideas. This paper, therefore, discusses the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s and how this counterculture has affected the way of life present today.
In the 1960s, the counterculture happened in the United States and happened in other Western world countries. It involved many young and youths who believed differently from the beliefs of the society by then. Therefore they decided to begin a movement which could see their views looked into and considered into the community other than just being conservative and following everything they were told they were supposed to do. Even though the youths protested against the formerly approved way of life, they did this with a good spirit, and their demonstration was non-violent. Their fundamental concerns were racial segregation, poverty among so many individuals, pollution of the environment resulting from rapid industrialization, and the discrimination of minority groups.. The youths were not allowed to speak about certain things like the issue of LGBTQ fought for their right of speech.
Some of the essential things that fueled this counterculture were the emergence of tv as a news broadcaster and for entertainment purposes. Others included music like Jefferson Airplane and the Beatles.. Mass media, including films and music, were under censorship before 1960, and this counter culture was why the censorship was removed. The mainstream media had a way of presenting their media productions, and some issues in society were never addressed. However, counterculture brought change to this as people got a complete picture of what happened in the community and the views of different people and not just some things being hidden from the public. The youth who propagated for the ideas of the counter culture created their fashion, music, lifestyle, and magazines to express their views.
The emergence of television specifically was of great importance to the counter culture. Television came about with consumerism, and therefore producers were trying all they can to reach the youths. Therefore it meant that if a person wanted to get the youths and encourage them to buy the products, they had to support them somehow. Thus the television advertisements helped the youth enhance their desire to be considered. The public saw them, and every person was supposed to help the youth by doing away with some restrictions and allowing liberal mindsets and lifestyles to go on.
However, the counter culture was not without resistance. Most of the individuals who were actively involved were arrested and were forbidden by their elders. The culture was banned by most of the individuals and even some of the states.. However, this did not stop the youth from going forward with what they desired, and therefore, a change had to be made in the kind of societal norms which were being observed then. The counterculture influenced a considerable part of American culture, including fashion, music, literature, and art. It also addressed taboos like xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. LGBTQ community gained a better acceptance into society due to the counterculture. Racial segregation was done away with, and this was a very positive outcome of the counter culture.
In conclusion, therefore, the counterculture had its challenges, advantages, and disadvantages. The positives discussed above were some of the successes of the counter culture in making society a better and a fairer place to live in. it can be said that it shaped the modern culture we have today. Its challenges or disadvantages are that it is accused of misleading the youth, and therefore most of the traditional values and norms which were good are almost non-existent. The counterculture, most of the time, disregarded culture, and consequently, we have an unruly society that is also liberal.
Bibliography
Brinkley, Alan, John Michael Giggie, and Andrew Huebner. The unfinished nation: A concise history of the American people. McGraw-Hill, 1993. Buck, Simon H. “Pete Seeger’s Rainbow Quest: televisual old age, intergenerational, and US folk music.” The Sixties 12, no. 1 (2019):