Recent orders
Homologous series is
Homologous series is a group of organic compounds that have CH2 group and the number of CH2group causes the difference among the homologues. Examples of functional groups in homologous series include, alcohols (-OH), carboxylic acid (-COOH), aldehydes (COH), Ketones (C=O) and amines (N). Alcohols are the most common organic compounds and characterized by one or more –OH groups attached to a carbon atom of any alkali group. Alcohols are colorless liquids and solids at room temperature and those with low molecular weight most soluble in water. As their molecular weight increases the solubility in water decreases, their viscosity, boiling points density and vapor pressure increase. The common names of alcohols combine the alkyl group and the term alcohol. Example, CH3CH2OH (ethanol). Alcohols have higher boiling points than alkanes because alcohols have the ability to form intermolecular hydrogen bonds; the diagram below shows how the hydrogen bonds increase the boiling points.
Organic compound Formula Boiling point
Pentane CH3CH2CH2CH2CH3 36.3oC
Butan-1-ol CH3CH2CH2CH2OH 1170C
2-methylpropan-1-ol CH3CH2(CH3)CH2OH 1080C
Alcohols are commercially important and they include methanol, which mostly used as an industrial solvent and ethanol, which is used as fuel.
Work Cited.
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Bailey, Jane. “Alcohols.” Organic Chemistry (2018).
Murmson, Serm. “What Is a Homologous Series.” Sciencing (2018).
Article Summary How Is the Boss’s Mood Today I Want a Raise
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Article Summary: How Is the Boss’s Mood Today? I Want a Raise
Many people assume that their feelings play a big part in the decisions that they make. Research has however shown that other people’s emotions also play a significant role in influencing a person’s choices. When people are engaged in a negotiation, positive feelings will result in a collaborative spirit while anger will result in competitive behavior. A 2004 research by Van Kleef, de Dreu, and Manstead showed that the reaction of an opponent changed the decisions made by the proposer (Andrade & Ho). If the receiver were angry, then the proposer would be more likely to concede. The opposite was found to be true.
This effect only works when the proposer if unaware of the facts. If the receiver reacts in a certain way, the proposer will consider this in making a new offer. The feelings exhibited by the receiver should not be seen to intend to influence the proposer in any way. The proposer is more likely to ask for more when they know that the receiver has earlier been exposed to a source of happy incidental affect. For this to work, the receiver must be unaware that the receiver knows this information. If the receiver finds out that the proposer is trying to profit from the receiver’s happy state, then they will respond negatively.
An experiment to prove the incidental affect involved 122 students as participants for $ 10. They were each asked to view a five-minute clip on a laptop and describe a related story afterward (Andrade & Ho). The proposers would then propose how to share their money with the receiver. The proposer would get either 75% or 50% while the receiver would get the rest. The receivers were also asked to choose an amount. Each participant played seven to ten rounds of the ultimatum game without being told the responses of the receivers.
The proposers watched neutral clips while the receivers watched clips of either a sitcom or a movie clip showing anger. The proposers were told which clips their receivers had watched and the effect it had on them, whether happiness or anger. Half of the receivers were told that the proposers were aware of the clips the receiver had watched (shared condition) while the other half were not (private condition). From the results, all the proposers were able to identify the clip viewed by their receivers correctly. It was assumed that the proposer would make an unfair offer of 75%-25% if they knew that the receiver had watched a happy clip and a fair offer if the receiver had watched an angry clip, but only under the private condition. The findings confirmed this assumption. Under the shared condition, affective information had no impact on both the receiver and the proposer.
Knowledge of another person’s incidental feelings plays a significant role in making decisions. This is also affected by whether the person is aware that the other has this incidental information or not (Andrade & Ho). A person will take advantage of another person’s incidental feelings but only if the person is not aware of it. Proposers make use of their knowledge of the receivers’ affective state with a high level of stability over time. The experiment used in this study did not investigate the economic consequences of exploiting another person’s incidental feelings. The conclusion of the study is that in order for a proposer to profit from receiver’s incidental feelings, the receiver should not be aware that the proposer had knowledge about their state. If the receiver is made aware, then the effects of the incidental feelings will disappear.
Works Cited
Andrade, Eduardo B., and Teck-Hua Ho. “How is the boss’s mood today? I want a raise.” Psychological Science 18.8 (2007): 668-671.
Article Summary Guns Automatically Prime Aggressive Thoughts
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Article Summary: Guns Automatically Prime Aggressive Thoughts, Regardless of Whether a “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” Holds the Gun
Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage carried out a study investigate whether seeing a gun could provoke aggression. The participants in the study were college students of the male gender who were paired up with a partner who happened to be an accessory. They would evaluate each other’s reaction based on electric shocks ranked from 1 to 10. As part of the experiments, items such as guns and tennis racquets would be left on the table while for the control group there were no items on the table. It was shown that the observer who saw the guns exhibited more aggressive thoughts compared to the others, demonstrating the weapons effect. This reaction is based on the cognitive neoassociation theory which explains that seeing a weapon can activate aggression because firearms are associated with aggression in our memories. Another approach to explain this phenomenon is the social priming theory that reveals that a person interprets ambiguous concepts based on available information.
The study aimed to test the effect of contextual factors on the weapons effect. Does it matter whether the guy holding a weapon is a bad guy or a good guy? (Bushman 728).Studies show that hunting rifles do not trigger hunters because they distinguish that they are used on non-human targets while nonhunters cannot make this distinction. In the first experiment, participants were exposed to pictures of either criminals wielding guns or police and military personnel armed with guns. The police were dressed in military gear as well as in their regular equipment. There were also pictures of plainclothes officers without firearms. Forty-seven men and 47 women took part in this experiment. They were given word fragments to complete as fast as possible afterward. The race and gender of the participants had no influence on the results. Participants who saw pictures with guns showed a higher level of aggressive thoughts that those who saw pictures without guns. It did not count whether the weapons were carried by criminals or police or military.
The second experiment was a replication of the first with the guns used to shoot at human targets. A different condition of Olympians shooting and nonhuman targets were included. The experiment was online with 672 adult participants of diverse backgrounds (Bushman 730). The participants had less aggressive thoughts when they saw pictures of the Olympians with guns as compared to images of criminals, soldiers, and police armed with guns. The aggressive thoughts were similar between pictures of Olympians with weapons and plainclothes officers without guns. As in experiment 1, race and gender did not affect the results. The results of the two experiments are the same, with the addition that the images of Olympians with guns did not stir up aggressive thoughts. This is because the Olympians were known to be shooting at inanimate objects.
The results of the two experiments are consistent with both social priming theory as well as the cognitive neoassociation theory. The participants had different thoughts depending on whether the weapons were used on human or nonhuman targets (Bushman 733). Guns with human targets trigger aggressive thoughts while those on inanimate objects do not. The significance of these findings is practical. The United States has a large number of guns among its citizens. Hence, the large number of weapons can trigger the weapons effect resulting in more aggressive thoughts. This is important in the debate about gun violence. Even if the good guy is the one holding the gun, the picture still triggered aggressive thoughts. The main challenge in the experiment was that it was difficult to measure the aggressive behavior of the participants because the analysis was done online. The findings of the two experiments are practical both in the real and the virtual world.
Works Cited
Bushman, Brad J. “Guns automatically prime aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” or “bad guy” holds the gun.” Social Psychological and Personality Science9.6 (2018): 727-733.