Three things i learned after i came to USA as a international student Essay

Three things i learned after i came to USA as a international student from china are independence, self-control and know more about the cultural diversity - Essay Example And more importantly, in today’s world, it is difficult to expect that an act of violence will not receive the similar treatment from the victim. In other words, violence creates violence. In order to avoid this savage behavior and to support and work for the collective coexistence, it is highly essential that difference must not be used as a point for hatred but it should be celebrated as a form of diversity. United States of America is a multi-cultural society where people from different countries, different nations and from different ethnic, social, social and economic and religious backgrounds live together (Chandra and Mahajan 31). And this experience has been very unique and interesting for me for various reasons as I have made so many local friends and have experienced that such negative attitudes are not common as they are told, informed and considered internationally. For example, internationally it is assumed that both China and the United States of America do not have friendly or cordial relations as both do not have similar or favorable attitudes towards each other. And more interestingly, the global media and the national media do not take time to portray this type of relationship between America and China in such a way to highlight intense and deep animosity between them. Consequently, people living in countries follow media and nurture hatred against each others. In other w ords, there are certain â€Å"vested interests† who earn through fuelling negative sentiment in the relationship between both countries. However, the ground reality is always totally different. Before coming to the United States, the effect of such media news was very much on my mind and the subsequent result was that I was unable to have positive and constructive opinion about people. Later on, after entering into the United States, my mindset suddenly changed after meeting with my American

Swallows and Amazons Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Swallows and Amazons - Essay Example Most of these works discuss the sensitive and controversial themes such as drugs, teenage pregnancy, political events and physical attack and abandoned children. â€Å"An inevitable consequence of the way that children’s literature came in to being was that a certain restraint has been imposed on children’s writers in the realist condition when it comes to topics such as terror, politics and sex† ( Hunt, 1990). Middle of the nineteenth century is often regarded the golden age of children’s literature in English. During this period most of the children’s literary works gave emphasis to children’s happiness and imagination. Child adventures and wanderings were an inevitable part of child life in most of the European countries during 18th and 19th centuries. In this paper the researcher makes a comparative study about the use of realism and fantastic in three novels. Swallows and Amazons is the first book in a series of children’s books written by Arthur Ransom. In his novel Arthur Ransom demonstrates the world of adventure by the Walker and Blacket children. Analyzing the novel Swallows and Amazons a reader can find that the author depicts the most realistic dishonesty of childhood and the conflict between youthful imagination and reality. Critics notice that a reader can see the extensive features of both the characters and the events can be traced back to the events in the author’s life. Most of the places mentioned in the novel are the places where Ransom spent his childhood. The novelist has succeeded in creating a sense of reality and authenticity in his work. Middle part of the novel novelist gives the image of an unknown island and also a series of adventures which symbolizes the geographical explorations which happened in 15th and 16th century. The children reach an unknown island and they call it Wild Cat Island. Events of sailing, camping, fishing,

Novel Sequential-presentation-only (SPO) Line-up Effects

Novel Sequential-presentation-only (SPO) Line-up Effects Simultaneous, Sequential and Sequential Presentation Only line-ups in mediating Hit False alarm rates   Valerie Lim Abstract Exculpating individuals due to mistaken identifications in simultaneous line-ups have stirred questions of trust to the procedure. Researchers proposed a sequential presentation line-up to reduce the false identifications more than they reduce hits as a superior procedure. This study investigated if a novel sequential-presentation-only (SPO) line-up could draw the benefits of both procedure by hypothesizing (a) a sequential line-up will yield fewer hits and false alarms than a simultaneous line-up and (b) a sequential presentation only line-up will yield fewer false alarms than a simultaneous line-up without a significant reduction of hits. 713 participants assessed a set of images to an image of the perpetrator in different line-up conditions. The first hypothesis was partially supported while the second hypothesis was not. This study suggests that simple manipulations have potential to make the simultaneous line-up more reliable and a novel SPO line-up does not redeem the effects. Eyewitness identifications are among the most persuasive, and sometimes only, juncture in the apprehension of criminals. This typically involves a simultaneous line-up(SIM) where the suspect(target) is placed among known innocents(foils) who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator (Wells Olson, 2003). The selection or lack of selection from the witness is given significant legal weighting. However, 75% of convictions involved exculpation through DNA testing where eyewitness misidentification was at fault. Furthermore, in 38% of these cases, multiple witnesses have misidentified the same innocent person (Project, 2009), which brings to question the accuracy of the procedure. Lindsay and Wells (1985) devised the sequential line-up (SEQ) procedure as a better alternative. Each line-up member is presented one at a time and witnesses must decide if the line-up member matches the perpetrator before moving on to the next. Witnesses are unaware of the number of members shown, similar to real world cases, where each member is shown once. The â€Å"superiority effect† stems from the enhanced overall accuracy as SEQ reduces false identifications(false alarms) when the target is absent(target-absent conditions), more than it reduces correct identifications (hits) when the target is present (target-present conditions) (N. Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, Lindsay, 2001). The differences in line-up performance can be attributed to witness’s decision strategies (Gronlund, 2004). In SIMs, witnesses employ a relative judgement strategy where they evaluate the similarity of line-up members to their recollection of the culprit relative to one another, even when the resemblance Is vague (McQuiston-Surrett, Malpass, Tredoux, 2006; N. K. Steblay Phillips, 2011). In target-present conditions, the perpetrator is the closest match, resulting in more hits (N. Steblay et al., 2001). In comparison, target-absent conditions risk foils with the closest resemblance to be picked, in effect producing more false alarms. This flaw is further enhanced when the dissimilarity of appearance in line-up members increases (Charman, Wells, Joy, 2011). Accordingly, presenting a line-up sequentially is said to eliminate relative judgements and to allow absolute comparisons to each line-up member exclusively to memory (Lindsay Wells, 1985; N. K. Steblay Phillips, 2011). However, in target-present conditions, sequential line-ups produce lower hit rates compared to simultaneous line-ups (McQuiston-Surrett et al., 2006). The reduction in hit rate is better understood with signal detection theory (SDT) (Meisser, Parker, Parker, MacLin, 2005). SDT posits that our ability to recognise and differentiate between familiar and novel stimuli rests on our response criterion and discrimination accuracy. Discrimination accuracy is the ability of an individual to correctly detect a signal (hits) vs. correctly reject its absence (correct rejections), while response criterion is the strength of evidence required before a signal (hit) is registered. In line-ups, the response criterion is familiarity-based and if a line-up member exceeds the familiarity threshold and corresponds to the witness’s memory of the perpetrator, it produces a hit, or otherwise it is rejected (Gronlund, 2004). It is important to note that witnesses lack awareness of the number of line-up members they will be shown in sequential line-ups. This raises the criterion threshold, which means more hits will be unlikely and more misses are produced. Furthermore, since witnesses cannot revise their previous decisions on a line-up member, they are subjected to a conservative response bias (McQuiston-Surrett et al., 2006). In effect, this reduces the hit and false alarm rates. Ideally, a line-up procedure that employed absolute judgement without a criterion shift would confer the best of both simultaneous and sequential procedures. This maximises hit rates while minimises false alarms, optimising the discrimination accuracy. This study examines a novel type of sequential procedure, named sequential presentation only (SPO), which theoretically can do so. The SPO involves line-up members being shown one at a time, while leaving the decision making until after all line-up members have been shown. This retains absolute judgement in the decision making process while decreasing response bias. As a result, the hit rates should be comparable to those of a simultaneous line-up. It follows that this study hypothesises in target-present manipulations (a) a sequential line-up will yield fewer hits and false alarms than the simultaneous line-up and (b) a sequential presentation only line-up will yield fewer false alarms than the simultaneous line-up without a significant reduction in hits. Method Participants The participants were 713 PSYC20007 Cognitive Psychology students who completed the task in groups as part of a laboratory experiment. Students were randomly assigned to conditions with 240 in the Simultaneous presentation condition, 229 in the Sequential presentation condition and 218 in the Sequential Presentation Only condition. 26 Participants were removed for having incomplete data files. Stimuli and Apparatus Participants were group tested in a computer lab. The experiment was completed in an internet browser running an experiment programmed using HTML and Javascript. The stimuli were black and white head shots of males taken from Kayser (1985); each photo was presented on a white background. Procedure On each trial, the words â€Å"Get Ready† were presented for 1000 ms followed by the presentation of a target face (the perpetrator), which was presented for 500 ms and was immediately backward masked by a scrambled image of that face presented for 1000 ms. The line-up was then presented, and the participants response recorded. In the simultaneous presentation condition, all five faces were presented simultaneously in a row across the centre of the screen with a small gap between each face along with identifying numbers 1 to 5. The number of remaining trials was displayed on the screen at this stage. Participants were instructed to respond with 1 to 5 indicating the line-up member that they thought was the target or to respond 6 if the target was not present in the line-up. The experiment then advanced to the next trial. In the sequential condition, the five line-up members were presented one at a time for until a response was made. For each line-up member, the participant made a response (yes or no). There was a 1000 ms blank interval between each face. Once all of the five line-up members were completed, the participants were informed of the number of remaining trials for 1500 ms, and the experiment advanced to the next trial. In the Sequential Presentation Only condition, the five line-up members were presented one at a time for 1000 ms each. There was a blank interval of 1000 ms between each line-up member. After the final line-up member, the response scale was presented until a response was made. The number of remaining trials was displayed on the screen at this stage. Participants were instructed to respond with 1 to 5 indicating the line-up 7 member that they thought was the target or to respond 6 if the target was not present in the line-up. The experiment then advanced to the next trial. In each condition, the line-up was constructed from a set of five faces drawn from a set of 54 possible faces. On target present trials, the target was drawn randomly from the set of line-up faces. On target absent trials, the target was drawn from the remaining 49 faces. There were 50 trials in the experiment. Results The mean ratings for the Simultaneous, Sequential and SPO condition as a function of Hit rates and False alarms are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Mean hit rates and false alarms as a function of line-up condition A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in the hit rate, F(2,684) = 12.62, p ÃŽ ·2 = .04. A post-hoc analysis using the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons showed significant difference in the hit rate between the SIM condition and the SEQ condition (Mean Difference = 0.08, p Mean Difference = 0.05, p = .02), but not between the SEQ and the SPO condition (Mean Difference = 0.04, p = .10). A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in the false alarms, F(2, 684) = 9.28, p ÃŽ ·2 =.03. A post-hoc analysis with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons showed significant difference in the false alarm rate between the SIM and SPO condition (Mean Difference=0.69, p Mean Difference= 0.01, p=1.00) as well as the SEQ and the SPO condition (Mean Difference= 0.06, p= .004). According to Cohen (1988), both hit rate and false alarms demonstrated a small to medium effect of line-up procedure. Discussion This study investigated if a novel SPO line-up could attain optimal discrimination accuracy. In target-present conditions, it was hypothesized that (a) sequential line-up will yield fewer hits and false alarms than the simultaneous line-up and (b) the SPO line-up will yield fewer false alarms than the simultaneous line-up without a significant reduction in hits. The first hypothesis was partially supported as there were fewer hit rates but not false alarms in the SEQ condition. Our second hypothesis was not supported. Results showed that the sequential condition produced less hits compared to the simultaneous condition, this was consistent with previous research (Lindsay Wells, 1985). However, false alarm rates were comparable. As for the SPO condition, a significantly lower mean hit rate was produced, as well as a higher false alarm rate compared to both the other conditions. Simultaneous line-ups induce a relative judgement decision approach (Gronlund, 2004). In a target-present condition such as ours, the line-up member that most resembles witness’s memory of the culprit will induce a higher mean hit rate (N. Steblay et al., 2001). This was supported in our results. In a simultaneous target-absent line-up, the foil with most resemblance should be picked with similar reasoning, producing more false alarms. However, our results showed that false alarm rates were higher in the sequential line-up instead. Sequential line-ups cause a criterion shift, influencing a conservative â€Å"no† or â€Å"unsure† response in witnesses which reduces hits and false alarm rates (McQuiston-Surrett et al., 2006). A possible explanation our results did not replicate this is the use of instructions which states explicitly the target may be absent or present. Instructions may prompt witnesses in realising that a criminal’s absence was a genuine possibility (N. Steblay et al., 2001), and thus will consider each person in succession (absolute judgement strategy) (Dysart Lindsay, 2001). Since simultaneous line-ups do not induce a criterion shift, witnesses have less of a conservative bias and will refrain from guessing more (Palmer Brewer, 2011). This accounts for the high rate in the simultaneous line-up and low false alarm rates compared to the sequential condition. However, since the same instructions were given to both conditions, it does not explain the unexpected results in the sequential condition. Perhaps showing all the line-up members in one sitting works at ease to witnesses’ memory and hence decisions (Smith et al., 2014). Further investigations need to verify this result. Participants in the sequential condition refrain from making an identification as a result of the criterion shift (Palmer Brewer, 2011). This reduces the overall hit rate. To negate this effect, all decision making is reserved to the end of the line-up procedure in the SPO condition. However, it still produced a significantly lower mean hit rate compared to the simultaneous condition, suggesting a criterion shift is unaffected by when participants report their decisions. Furthermore, the results indicate that the difference between the simultaneous and SPO line-ups were not significant in regards to false alarms. The SPO condition was created to retain the low false alarm rates by appealing an absolute judgement framework. It appeals to memory in the sense of match-making, instead of a relative judgement among line-up members (Gronlund, 2004). By theory, this would discourage false alarms from occurring. Nonetheless, our results were comparable between the simultaneous and SPO procedures. This could also be explained in terms of the effect of imposing instructions. The caution that it gives participants makes it more likely in minimizing false alarm rates in the simultaneous condition, but may not be as dominant in a sequential set-up. This study included presenting photographs of suspects as opposed to actual human entities in line-up conditions. The photographs only contained the suspect’s neck to facial features, excluding their physical build-up. This means that our line-ups may not include ecological validity (McQuiston-Surrett et al., 2006) and should be validated in similar trials and psychological concepts before being used in practice. In conclusion, this study found that the simultaneous condition have potential in possessing optimal discrimination accuracy in regards to more hits and fewer false alarms. This is a contradiction to previous research as the superiority effect of the sequential condition may not hold even under target-absent settings. This finding followed when validating a novel SPO procedure was ineffective. A lower hit rate and higher false alarm rate resulted, becoming the worst performer of all conditions. However, it should be taken into consideration photographs cannot replicate real world ecology and may affect response criterion. Further research should focus on binding the findings to psychological concepts related to memory and decision making in line-up procedures. References Charman, S., Wells, G., Joy, S. (2011). The Dud Effect: Adding Highly Dissimilar Fillers Increases Confidence in Lineup Identifications. Law Human Behavior (Springer Science Business Media B.V.). 35(6), 479-500. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). A Preidentification Questioning Effect: Serendipitously Increaseing Correct Rejections Law and Human Behaviour, 25(2). Gronlund, S. D. (2004). Sequential line-ups: Shift in criterion or decision strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 362-368. Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556-564. McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, S. R., Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. Simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(2), 137-169. Meisser, C. A., Parker, C. G., Parker, J. F., MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory Cognition, 33(5), 783-792. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N. (2011). Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255. Project, T. I. (2009). Reevaluating Lineups: Why witnesses make mistakes and how to reduce the chance of a misidentification. . Smith, A. M., Bertrand, M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Kalmet, N., Grossman, D., Provenzano, D. (2014). The Impact of Multiple Show-Ups on Eyewitness Decision-Making and Innocence Risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 247-259. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behaviour, 25(5), 459-473. Steblay, N. K., Phillips, J. D. (2011). The not-sure response option in sequential lineup practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(768-774). Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 277-295.

Defining Community Essay example -- Definition Essays

Defining Community Before studying the definition of a community, one might associate the word with life back in their hometown.   After reading through the definitions of community in numerous dictionaries, it is clear that community is so much more than the place you grow up in. It is interesting that the definition of one word could change so drastically over a decade. According to A Dictionary of American English, (1847) the definition of a community is â€Å"a communistic or socialistic society.†Ã‚   Although it isn't hard to identify the idea of each definition, they are extremely different.   The definition of community from 1874 mentions communism.   This is interesting because many people would not think of their community in terms of communism.   Community is such a friendly word, where as communism is not. It is understandable that some may see some form of communism when thinking about their community. Take West Bloomfield, for example, although the government doesn’t exactly control the economy, it is known to be a wealthy area, filled with the elite people who can afford t...

Pericles and His Influence on Athens

Ancient Greece had many ups and downs in its very long history. As a growing civilization, it earned numerous allies as well as enemies. One of these great enemies was the Persians. Although the Persians were very powerful adversaries, the Greeks defeated them and at that point, the era of classical Greece began. The Delian league, which was created to unite all states and protect them from intruders, had turned into an empire. This empire was governed by Athens.As peace and harmony was restored in Greece, the city of Athens was about to experience it’s greatest epoch. A time filled with power and great social and political wealth. All of which was the product of a great man’s work. His name was Pericles. Pericles was born in the year 495 B. C. into a very noble family. He was the nephew of Cleisthenes who founded Athenian Democracy. Pericles lived his whole life in a political environment. When he became involved in Athenian affairs, he received a very good reputation. In 462 B. C. e began to dominate the politics in Athens as a key leader in the democratic movement. Not only was he a great orator, In the history of the ancient Greek civilization, there were many powerful and contributing men and women. Only one could be called the â€Å"Greatest Greek† and that man’s name is Pericles. Pericles was a wise and powerful leader of the city of Athens. He was a great supporter of the concept of democracy. Pericles guided Athens almost through the entire Peloponnesian War. Pericles promoted the arts and literature.This was a main reason Athens held the reputation of being the educational and cultural centre of the ancient Greek world. Pericles' rule as a political leader in Athens is called the Golden Age of Pericles, and he was an eager supporter of democracy. He wanted all citizens of Athens to take an active part in politics, and he was the first to pay servants to the state. All Athenians chose members of the council, and Pericles res tored and built many temples and structures, such as the Parthenon on the Acropolis, employing the poorest citizens.

Human Nature: Self-Interest & Altruism

Human Nature: Self-Interest vs. Altruism A debate encompassing human nature has carried on for centuries, and philosophers throughout history have provided a vast inventory of explanations they deem to be sufficient in understanding the perplex idea of human nature. A question commonly debated regarding human nature is determining whether human beings are naturally self-interested or altruistic. Political philosophers Bernard Mandeville and Francis Hutcheson specifically addressed this question, but each arrived at different conclusions based on personal observation and reasoning.Mandeville, influenced by Hobbesian thought, advocated the belief that human beings were naturally self-interested. Opposing the idea of self-interest, Francis Hutcheson attacked Mandeville’s notion and reasoned that human beings were inherently altruistic. Although both sets of ideals originated in the early 18th century, both can be utilized to infer about current events and situations (Tannenbaum & Schultz, 2004). Dutch political philosopher Bernard Mandeville, author of The Fable of the Bees or Private Vice Publik Benefits, attacked a common notion for the time that human beings were naturally altruistic.Mandeville believed that humans were naturally self-interested while most thought of altruism as virtuous and self-interest as vice. He stated that empirical evidence supporting human altruism was non-existent, and it is selfish actions that benefit society. Society that runs on altruism and benevolence is a stagnant society that fails to progress. In Mandeville’s The Fable of the Bees, he emphasizes that when people seek self interests, comforts and pleasures, society inevitably progresses with occurences of new inventions and a circulation of capital.According to Mandeville, a benevolent society is an honest one, â€Å"but if they would likewise enjoy their Ease and the Comforts of the World, and be at once opulent, potent and flourishing† as well as a self-i nterested society, it is likely impossible (Kaye, 1989). Likewise, a self-interested society experiences invisible cooperation, in which greed leads to cooperation if property is sufficiently channeled. The Fable of the Bees is also considered a political satire of England during the time, and Mandeville describes a society having virtues along with ontent and honesty. The society mentioned lacks self-love, a Hobbesian idea that Mandeville emphasizes as a barrier to progress. Virtues held by such a society are hypocrisy that arise from a selfish desire to be superior. While Mandeville concludes his essay with statements expressing that the purpose of his essay was not to directly oppose Christian values, he states that modern honor â€Å"bids you bear injuries with patience†, but religion â€Å"tells you if you don’t resent them, you are not fit to live† (1989).Finally, Mandeville concludes his thoughts rejecting altruism, and emphasizes that â€Å"the seeds of every passion are innate to us, and nobody comes into the world without them† (1989, 2004). A political philosopher during the Scottish Enlightenment, Francis Hutcheson opposed Mandeville’s Hobbesian view that humans are naturally self-interested. He advocated the notion that human beings are naturally altruistic and benevolent. While declaring these attributes as factual about human nature, Hutcheson also stressed the importance and success such qualities have on society.He believed humans are endowed with a â€Å"moral sense†, or derive pleasure from witnessing someone else perform a benevolent act and in turn have a desire to do the same. This â€Å"moral sense†, as Hutcheson describes, is a human being’s natural inclination of pursuing happiness. Hutcheson, a major contributer to the advancement of utilitarianism stated that, â€Å"regarding the pleasurable and painful consequences of actions as morally significant† provided the â€Å"f ormula that that action is best which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers† (Peach, 1971).He divides what he refers to as â€Å"exciting reasons† and â€Å"justifying reasons† into functionality. He considers exciting reasons as merely an appeal to self-interest, and â€Å"have nothing to do with moral justification† (1971). Differentiating, justifying reasons â€Å"establish the virtue, moral goodness, or moral obligations of actions† (1971). This reasoning explains his opposition to Mandeville’s view that moral distinctions derive from self-interest, and declares these distinctions as undoubtedly self-determining.The basis of Hutcheson’s theory expresses that the â€Å"moral sense† tends to be consistent as long as it is not interfered with. Interfering forces such as â€Å"ignorance, mistaken belief, prejudice, or the like† are corrected and addressed by reason (1971). He concludes his statements wi th an underlying theme which states â€Å"the benevolent one is reasonable and the malicious unreasonable†, based on the approval and disapproval of one’s moral sense (1971, 2004). Although both philosophers theorized about human nature more than two centuries ago, opposition and advocation for both is seen throughout current events.For example, Mandeville’s views can be advocated by the constant confrontation between the Israelis and the Arab world, more specifically the Palestinians. Neither side will relent to the interests of the other, viewing altruism with the other as being a weakener of their own state. If the Israelis recognize Palestine as a legitimate state, they lose both land and resources, while also fearing further invasion and conflict within Israel. Numerous negotiations and attempted treaties have failed, because neither side ultimately recognizes sufficient advantages to their own state if they comply.While this situation conflicts with Hutche son’s view, a current example advocates it. Disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and 9-11 have sparked a numerous amount of community benevolence. Countless organizations and people have joined together to help those affected in the disasters recover. Hutcheson would most likely state that such expressed benevolence for others is the result of their â€Å"moral sense†, while Mandeville would describe it as merely human beings seeing an advantage for themselves by joining such an organization; possibly honorable recognition or status improvement.Clearly seen, support and opposition for both Mandeville’s and Hutcheson’s theories has divided thought on this issue still today (2004). References Kaye, F. B. & Mandeville, B (1989). The Fable of the Bees. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics. Peach, B (1971). Illustrations on the Moral Sense. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Tannenbaum & Schultz (2004). Inventors of Ideas. Belmont, CA: Wads worth/Thomson Learning.