Tuesday, January 28, 2020

An investigation into the effect of social loafing

An investigation into the effect of social loafing The aim of this experiment was to measure the effect of two categories, group or individuals, and the effect they have on the performance of individuals. Participants were involved in the activity of unscrambling as many words as they could in the time limit of five minutes. The hypothesis is that the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working individually is higher than the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working in a group. The experiment consisted of 19 participants which included 10 males and 9 females. The rights of the participants were taken into consideration throughout the whole experiment. Nine of the participants who were selected randomly were divided into groups of three while the other ten participants worked individually. They were given a list of 26 words to unscramble. The number of words which they were able to unscramble in five minutes was then collected and counted to measure the performance of those who are working individually and those working in groups. The results show that the average number of words found for those who were working individually was 12.4 words while the average number of words found per individual who were working in groups were 5.22 words. This shows that the experiment supports the social loafing theory. The significance level were calculated to be p < 0.005. This means that the probability that the results were because of chance was less than 0.5%. The results were highly significant. Thus, according to the results of the statistical test, the research hypothesis is supported while the null hypothesis is rejected. The theory of social loafing is evident in a lot of situations in life. Social loafing is a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups as compared to when they work by themselves (Weiten, 2008: 491) Each person in a group usually tends to put in lesser effort than they would working alone. Max Ringelmann (1913) first came up with the idea of social loafing when he found that when a group of men were instructed to pull on a rope, they did not put in as much effort as when they were pulling alone. The force of the pull produced by the participants was measured by a strain gauge attached to the rope. When the group of men was led to believe that they had other team members helping them, he noticed that they tend to put in less effort than they normally would when pulling alone. Ringelmann stated that the amount of effort produced by each individual working alone was not the same as the average amount of effort put in by the individuals who believed that they were in a group. Another study which was used to investigate social loafing is Latanà © et al.s (1979). As cited by Weiten (2008), the study consisted of measuring the level of noise created by participants who were asked to either clap or cheer as loud as they could. A group of participants were told that they working in a group while another group was told that they were working alone. This was in fact not true, as the only purpose was to ensure that they believed that were actually working in a group. Consequently, the amount of effort that they produced individually was measured. From the study, Latanà © and his colleagues found that each person in a group tends to put in lesser effort when in a group than working alone. Research shows that the larger the group, the lesser the effort produced by each of the individuals. The reason is that when more people are assigned to an activity, the amount of work which needs to be produced is divided equally among more people and this consequently causes individuals to think that their effort is not as significant and their contribution is not evaluated suitably. As cited by Antony S. R. Manstead et al. (1995, 1996:275) in the book called The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology, Steiner, I.D. (1972) postulated that actual group productivity should always be lower than potential group productivity because of process losses due to poor coordination and low motivation. Furthermore, he added that the potential productivity is usually based on performance of individuals working alone. This study aims to support the social loafing theory. A group of participants will be divided into two categories: those working individually and those working in groups. The mean number unscrambled by participants in each category will be calculated. Their performance in the activity will show that social loafing does exist when working in a group. The experiment is a one-tailed experiment. Research hypothesis (H1): The mean number of words unscrambled by participants working individually is higher than the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working in a group. Null hypothesis (H0): There will be no significant difference in the number of words found in participants working individually than in a group. Method Design The type of method used in this experiment is an independent measures design. This was used to avoid practice effects. Each participant only took part in each condition once which means that both groups consist of different individuals. The independent variable is working individually or in a group. The dependant variable is the difference of performance in each condition. The environment that the participants were in was under controlled conditions. The activity is the unscrambling of words. This experiment is considered as a single blind experiment where only the experimenters know the hypothesis and aim of the experiments. Participants were given consent letters to sign and were briefed and de-briefed accordingly. Those who did not include their signature on the given consent letters prior to the experiment were not allowed to participate in the activity. Those who participated were given the right to withdraw at any point of time. The participants also remained anonymous througho ut the study. Participants The participants tested in this study consisted of 19 Year 6 students from a private school in Victoria. The participants consisted of 10 males and 9 females aged 11 to 13 years. The sample was an opportunity sample but the participants in each category were randomly assigned. The participants came from different backgrounds and cultures. This is to ensure that the experiment is fair and not biased. Materials List of 26 words to unscramble (Refer to Appendix ) Pen Stopwatch Briefing instructions (Refer to Appendix ) De-briefing instructions (Refer to Appendix ) Consent Letter (Refer to Appendix ) Procedure Participants are first briefed (Refer to Appendix ). Participants are randomly divided into two conditions. Half of the participants will be carrying out the activity alone and the other half is to be divided into groups of three to work on the same activity. Participants who are working individually are to sit far from each other to avoid communicating. The other participants who are working in groups of three are to be seated together but each group is to be seated far from another group to avoid communication between groups. Participants who are in the group category are asked to work as a team to unscramble the list of 26 words while the others will be working individually to unscramble the same set of 26 words. When the seating arrangement of all the participants are properly allocated, the list of 26 words is given faced down to the participants. Only one copy of the list will be given to each of the groups instead of one copy for each participant. The participants are then giv en a time limit of five minutes to quickly unscramble the list of 26 words. During the experiment, participants have the right to withdraw if they do not wish to participate. After exactly five minutes, they are asked to stop writing and the sheets are to be collected by the experimenters. Participants are then de-briefed. Results Table 1: Table shows mean number of words found in each category Participants working individually Participants working in a group Mean number of words found 12.4 words 5.22 words Standard Deviation 5.04 words 1.09 words Graph 1: Bar graph shows average no. of words found in each category Graph 1 shows that the average number of words found for those who were working individually were 12.4 words. The average number of words found per individual who were working in groups were 5.22 words. This shows that the experiment supports the social loafing theory. The standard deviation were 5.04 and 1.09 respectively. A Mann-Whitney U test was used in order to test the significance of the results as it is an ordinal level data, and it was an unrelated design. When tested, it was found that the probability that it was the independant variable that changed the dependent variable and not chance. The significance level were calculated to be p < 0.005 (Refer to appendix ). This means that the probability that the results were because of chance was less than 0.5%. The results were highly significant. Thus, according to the results of the statistical test, the research hypothesis is supported while the null hypothesis is rejected. Discussion The results shows that the research hypothesis has been supported. The mean number of words unscrambled by participants working individually is 12.4, higher than the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working in a group which is 5.22 words. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to show that the results were highly significant. This shows that the research hypothesis is supported and the null hypothesis is rejected. According to Ringelmanns study, the amount of effort produced by each individual working alone is not the same as the average amount of effort put in by the individuals who were in pseudogroups. He asserted that the performance of individuals working alone is much more than the average performance of individuals working in groups, which is called the social loafing theory. In this experiment, the social loafing theory is supported as the mean number of words unscrambled by individuals working alone is 12.4, which is definitely higher than 5.22 words, the average number of words unscrambled by individuals working in groups. The aim of this study was to measure the cause and effect relationship of the performance of individuals working in a group or individually. The result of this experiment relates to the study carried out by Latanà © and his colleagues as it supports the theory of social loafing. The reduction in performance of individuals when they are working in groups as compared to working individually is evident in both studies. There are several strengths in the experiment. One of the strengths of the experiment was that the subjects came from different backgrounds and cultures. This is a good as the cultural diversity of the participants was not limited. Also, the fact that there were approximately the same number of males and females is good. If there were a huge difference in females and males, the experiments would not be fair. Another strength of the experiment is that it was designed to be an independent measures design. This was to avoid practice effects. If the participants had taken part in both conditions, the results would have been affected. Though the research hypothesis was supported, there are several limitations in the experiment. As mentioned, the participants were between the ages of 11 to 13 as it was an opportunity sample. It was difficult to get a random sample as there are limited number students available and there was a time constraint. Another limitation of the experiment was that no extra precaution was made ensure that the participants did not cheat by communicating with each other. Though we did our best effort to ensure that they did not communicate with each other, it is not absolute that no one cheated. Also, during the experiment, as all the participants (whether in a group or individually) were in the same environment at the same time, there was a chance that some participants may have overheard the words unscrambled by another person. This component of the experiment was hard to control as no matter how much effort was put in to ensure it was a fair experiment, the participants did have a chance to cheat. With regards to the limitations of the experiment, there are a few areas of improvement. In relation to the sample itself, although the participants and the students were randomly assigned, we could have ensured that the sample were not an opportunity sample. Furthermore, instead of selecting ten males and nine females, it could have been better if there was exactly the same number of females and males. To counteract the problem of cheating, the environment that the participants were in (which was a classroom) could have been different. The experiment could have been carried out in an open space so that there is a significant amount of space between groups and the individuals working alone. This would ensure that there was less opportunity for the participants to cheat. Ethical considerations were taken into account in this experiment. The participants were allowed to withdraw at any point of time during the activity. The rights of the participants were met and they remained anonymous throughout the whole experiment. The participants were not deceived in any way as that would be unethical. The implication of this finding is that the results produced can be shown to teachers/instructors to prove that individuals generally work better alone than working in groups as they tend not to put in as much effort when working in groups. In majority of the groups, some individuals tend to slack off and let their other team members do the work. Some individuals may also think that their effort is not evaluated individually so they tend to put less effort than they would put in when working alone. This could further relate to employers in the work field. For further researches, the sample should be much bigger so that the experiment would have fewer limitations. Also, follow-up studies can manipulate the age groups and compare the difference in performance for various age groups. They could also investigate the effect of culture on the performance of individuals when working in groups. They could test the theory of: Asians generally tend to work well in groups unlike Westerns, who prefer to work individually.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Victorian Short Essay -- English Literature

Victorian Short Victorian Short Stories Discuss the role of women – as villains, victims and heroes in a selection of Victorian short stories. In the 19th Century the only type of people who could read and write were people in upper class families. Remembered for being such a class conscious society, the 19th century rarely ever mixed regarding their status in the society, this was the greatest divide ever between rich and poor. As well as their being a division between rich and poor, there was also a division between the sexes. Women were automatically given the lower status between men and women and they were seen as lower, less able people by men. Seeing as Victorian short stories were written in the 19th century, they follow through the theme of men being better than women. Also another theme which was common in these stories were brutal murders and obvious villains. Most of the writers who wrote in those days wrote for different reasons compared to reasons why writers wrote in the 20th century. Writers in the 20th century wrote to entertain rather than to instruct people. Famous writers such as Charles Dickens wrote for moral obligation. He wrote to try and shame and instruct rich people into helping the poor. I am going to look at three different Victorian short stories and see how women are portrayed. Are they the villain, the victim or the hero? The first story I have read is â€Å"Captain Murderer†. â€Å"Captain Murderer† was written by Charles Dickens however, he did not invent this story he simply retold it. From the very start Dickens demonstrates how rich people were always perceived to be better than the poor: â€Å"His warning name would seem to have awakened no general prejudice against .. ...d this attracts negative attention just like the name of the villain Captain Murderer in â€Å"Captain Murderer†. Bessie tries to conquer her status as victim by showing the villains she is not afraid of them: â€Å"..you cowardly villains! I screamed at them through the door. You think you can frighten me†¦. You ragamuffin thieves.† Despite Bessie showing she is not going to be overruled the danger increases for her. Shifty Dick goes to an extreme measure when he takes out a knife and starts to hack trough the thatch roof. Bessie finally surrenders her status as hero after all her brave and bold acts and flees the house into the darkness of the countryside: â€Å"†¦I saw the heavy, hairy hand of Shift Dick, armed with the knife, come through after the fallen fragments†¦.. I lost courage at last†¦..I must trust to the night and the thick darkness, and save my life.†

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Piano Concerto in a Major, K. 488

Mozart completed the Piano Concerto in A Major, K. 488, in March 1786 and it is a graceful piece in three movements. It used a small orchestra with two flutes, two clarinets in A, two bassoons, and two horns in A, along with the usual string orchestra. The first movement embodies the form called a â€Å"sonata form with double exposition. † This form is common in concerti and one feature of this form is that the first exposition does not end with a double bar and repeat sign indicating a literal repeat of the exposition.Instead the first exposition is for the orchestra without the soloist, and does not modulate to and conclude in the dominant, but stays in the tonic key throughout. When the soloist enters a second exposition begins which does modulate to the dominant key (or relative major if the work is in a minor key), and the second exposition does indeed cadence in the dominant. The only other variance from a standard (non-concerto) sonata form is the traditional cadenza, which occurs near the end of the recapitulation of the movement. The second theme is presented following a transitional section.In the first exposition it is in the key of A, but in the second exposition it is heard in the dominant key of E Major. This phrase ends with a half cadence, and the following phrase ends with a PAC, creating a double parallel period. The closing theme is more intense in character and features interplay between the winds and strings as well as frequent use of the borrowed subdominant chord. It includes a number of different melodic ideas and concludes with a strong beat PAC in A Major in measure 62. The second exposition begins in measure 67 with the first theme stated by the solo pianist.The major difference in this exposition is the modulation to the dominant key of E Major, which takes place in the Transition section in measures 82-98. This second exposition ends in a surprising way in measure 142 with the half cadence falling on the fourth beat of the m easure and the music abruptly ceasing, creating a dramatic pause that is followed by an entirely new theme, which begins the development section. This new theme is in E Major and provides virtually all of the melodic harmony heard throughout the development section.Following this embellished theme in E Major, the music begins to fragment this new theme and moves into key areas associated with the key of A minor as opposed to A Major. The keys touched on include E minor, C Major, F Major, and D minor. An especially nice passage is found in mm. 170-178. It features the clarinet and flute in a canon based on the ‘new’ theme, while the soloist maintains a running sixteenth note figure. Harmonically it begins in the key of D minor and traces the circle of fifths to a cadence on an E major chord in measure 178.Since E Major is the dominant chord of A Major this initiates a prolongation of the dominant of A Major in measures 178-189. A sort of â€Å"mini-cadenza† occurr ed in 189-198, which leads to the Recapitulation beginning in measure 198. The Recapitulation restates all of the themes heard in the exposition, now all in the key of A Major, with the soloist and orchestra interacting, unlike the first exposition. A particularly long Coda section begins in measure 261 with the reintroduction of the development section’s ‘New’ theme, presented now by the soloist alone, and in the key of A Major for the first time.Like the beginning of the development section, including the dramatic pause, it is followed by the placid restatement of the ‘New’ theme by the orchestra (290). This breaks off though and leads through a series of forte chords to the traditional tonic 6/4 chord paving the way for the cadenza. The cadenza is fundamentally a greatly expanded prolongation of the V chord. Following the cadenza the orchestra enters in a forte tutti statement with material drawn from the closing theme first presented in measure 4 9. A decisive PAC in A Major occurs in m. 309 followed by a prolongation of the tonic chord to the movement’s end.

Friday, January 3, 2020

The Associative and Commutative Properties

There are several mathematical properties that are used in statistics and probability; two of these, the commutative and associative properties, are generally associated with the basic arithmetic of integers, rationals, and real numbers, though they also show up in more advanced mathematics. These properties—the commutative and the associative—are very similar and can be easily mixed up. For that reason, it is important to understand the difference between the two. The commutative property concerns the order of certain mathematical operations. For a binary operation—one that involves only two elements—this can be shown by the equation a b b a. The operation is commutative because the order of the elements does not affect the result of the operation. The associative property, on the other hand, concerns the grouping of elements in an operation. This can be shown by the equation (a b) c a (b c). The grouping of the elements, as indicated by the parentheses, does not affect the result of the equation. Note that when the commutative property is used, elements in an equation are rearranged. When the associative property is used, elements are merely regrouped. Commutative Property Simply put, the commutative property states that the factors in an equation can be rearranged freely without affecting the outcome of the equation. The commutative property, therefore, concerns itself with the ordering of operations, including the addition and multiplication of real numbers, integers, and rational numbers. For example, the numbers 2, 3, and 5 can be added together in any order without affecting the final result: 2 3 5 10 3 2 5 10 5 3 2 10 The numbers can likewise be multiplied in any order without affecting the final result: 2 x 3 x 5 30 3 x 2 x 5 30 5 x 3 x 2 30 Subtraction and division, however, are not operations that can be commutative because the order of operations is important. The three numbers above cannot, for example, be subtracted in any order without affecting the final value: 2 - 3 - 5 -6 3 - 5 - 2 -4 5 - 3 - 2 0 As a result, the commutative property can be expressed through the equations a b b a and a x b b x a. No matter the order of the values in these equations, the results will always be the same. Associative Property The associative property states that the grouping of factors in an operation can be changed without affecting the outcome of the equation. This can be expressed through the equation a (b c) (a b) c. No matter which pair of values in the equation is added first, the result will be the same. For example, take the equation 2 3 5. No matter how the values are grouped, the result of the equation will be 10: (2 3) 5 (5) 5 10 2 (3 5) 2 (8) 10 As with the commutative property, examples of operations that are associative include the addition and multiplication of real numbers, integers, and rational numbers. However, unlike the commutative property, the associative property can also apply to matrix multiplication and function composition. Like commutative property equations, associative property equations cannot contain the subtraction of real numbers. Take, for example, the arithmetic problem (6 – 3) – 2 3 – 2 1; if we change the grouping of the parentheses, we have 6 – (3 – 2) 6 – 1 5, which changes the final result of the equation. What Is the Difference? We can tell the difference between the associative and the commutative property by asking the question, â€Å"Are we changing the order of the elements, or are we changing the grouping of the elements?† If the elements are being reordered, then the commutative property applies. If the elements are only being regrouped, then the associative property applies. However, note that the presence of parentheses alone does not necessarily mean that the associative property applies. For instance: (2 3) 4 4 (2 3) This equation is an example of the commutative property of addition of real numbers. If we pay careful attention to the equation, though, we see that only the order of the elements has been changed, not the grouping. For the associative property to apply, we would have to rearrange the grouping of the elements as well: (2 3) 4 (4 2) 3