8 Week Forum Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

8 Week Forum - Assignment Example In many societies, teenage pregnancy is a social problem. Most girls drop out of school due to pregnancies. Research shows that over 45% of teenagers in grade 9 to 12 engage in sex. Teen pregnancies are associated with low birth weight, premature labour and anaemia among other complications. In some societies, teenage pregnancy results to social stigma. Teenage girls get pregnant due to lack of knowledge about contraceptives and other safety measures. Sex education turns young people into sexually knowledgeable and responsible individuals (Stevens). STDs are illnesses, which are contracted through sexual activities. They can be contracted through oral sex, anal sex, and vaginal intercourse. In the USA, over 15 million cases are reported annually. Most teenagers are vulnerable to STDs due to lack of information. Some of the common STDs include herpes, syphilis, scabies, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, HIV, and Chlamydia among others. These diseases can lead to an ectopic pregnancy and death if left untreated. Sex education is more likely to reduce the cases of STDs among young adults and teenagers. Research shows that societies with extensive sex education tend to record low cases of STDs among the young people. In sex education, teenagers are taught about dangerous of engaging in unprotected sex and other unsafe sexual practices. Teenagers need to access sex education in order to make healthy, loving, and intelligent decisions in their lives (Cotney).† The excerpt above is one of my greatest accomplishments in class. This is because I managed to incorporate all the skills I have learnt in class in writing an essay. First, in the first paragraph, I managed to focus on introducing my topics. This played a significant role in capturing the attention of the reader as well as stating the issue to be addressed in the body of the essay. Moreover, I managed to highlight the issues raised by dissenting voices on the topic. On

America and the Great War 1914-1920 Research Paper

America and the Great War 1914-1920 - Research Paper Example roy the international equilibrium and interfered with the balance of power; the America’s tradition of isolation had become out of control, and it could no longer be sustained in the era of growing independency, and the quest for America’s independence (Abbott et al. 123). Back in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson, before a joint Congress session, requested for a declaration of War against Germany. He claimed that the Germans violated the American request to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic (Goldfield et al. 464). Germany also attempted to persuade Mexico to collaborate with them, and wage war against the United State. The U.S. senate, on April 4, 1917, voted in favor for declaring war against Germany. On December 7, 1917, the United Sates waged war against Austria-Hungary (Ford 23). Germany’s submarine attack on merchant and passenger ships, in 1917, is one of the key reasons that motivated the U.S. senators’ decision to participate, in the World War I. Wilson threatened to frustrate the U.S. diplomatic relations with Germany, following the sinking of Sussex, unarmed French boat, in English Channel, in March 1916 (Goldfield et al. 473). He asserted that the U.S. was not going to have any diplomatic relation with Germany, unless Germany desists from attacking crew merchant and passenger ships. In response, German Government accepted to refrain from these attacks, under terms and conditions that was referred to as â€Å"Sussex pledge† (Goldfield et al. 473). German Government’s pledge changed later, in January 1917. Representatives from the German navy, during a wartime conference meeting that month, claimed that continuation of unrestricted submarine warfare was a strategic move that will see them defeat Great Britain, in the Great War. They based their arguments on the basis that they were capable of violating â€Å"Sussex pledge† since the United States was no longer a neutral party after offering

Descartes Conceivability Argument For Substance Dualism Philosophy Essay

Descartes Conceivability Argument For Substance Dualism Philosophy Essay Substance Dualism is the view that the mind and body are distinct. It pictures the world as consisting of two independent domains, the mental and the material, each with its own distinctive defining properties. We have clear and distinct awareness that the body is physical therefore it is spatially temporary and made from atoms which follow physical laws. It has dimensions, mass, texture etc. We also have clear and distinct awareness that the mind is non-physical therefore is not made from atoms or follows physical laws. The essence of the body is to be extended whilst the essence of the mind is to think. The mind is logically distinct and an independent entity to the body. So what can be asserted for one cant be asserted for the other. The mind will continue to exist without the body. It is infinite and immortal and will go to the afterlife. But the body is subject to decay because it is physical. It is not immortal and cant exist without the mind. The claim is there are two complet ely distinct substances, where substances mean a fundamental thing rather than stuff. In Descartes Sixth Meditation, he states one of his arguments for the mind and body being distinct. This is known as The Conceivability Argument: 1. I can clearly conceive existing without my body 2. What is clearly conceivable is possible 3. So it is possible for me to exist without my body 4. So I am neither identical with, nor a part of my body 5. So substance dualism is true Descartes, when considering himself, had a clear and distinct idea of myself (himself) inasmuch as I am (he is) only a thinking and unextended thing. Since he is thinking now, he must be a thinking thing. This property must be there as it belongs to his essence. If thinking ceases then he doesnt exist, an argument which he tries to prove in his early works in The Discourse. He has a clear understanding of what thought is. This allows him possibly to be non-extended as spatial temporality is not essential to him. He also has a distinct idea of body, inasmuch as it is only an extended and unthinking thing. If we think about an object we comprehend that its necessary extended and its essence is not thinking. For example, the essence of a stone is to be extended not to be a thinking thing. It is very hard to comprehend a stone thinking and if we can it is definitely not an essence of the stone. It is possible to conceive of the mind existing without the body and the body existing without the mind. Descartes uses the word possible in the sense that it is logically conceptual therefore not self contradictory that he can exist without his body. This is because it is possible to conceive of something being extended and non-thinking. Also it is possible to conceive of something being non-extended and being a thinking thing. For example we can conceive of my mind thinking but having no spatially temporality. God can create a world where whatever is conceivable is metaphysically possible because all things which I apprehend clearly and distinctly can be created by God. Thus anything conceivable becomes an actual truth. For example God cant create a square circle as it is not metaphysically possible. But God can create me, a thinking thing, distinct from my extended body since they may be made to exist in separation at least by the omnipotence of God. Therefore it is possible that my mind can exist without my body resulting in having a body not being essential to me. Descartes is moving from this doubt of his body to his essence. Descartes is using his scepticism that he is not going to accept anything that he is not certain of. He is certain of his own thinking and existence though. He concludes that this he can be sure of but this is the only thing he can be sure of: I am a real thinking thing and really exist, but what thing? I have an answer: A thing which thinks. But there are two different meanings to a thinking thing. One is something that thinks or another is something whose essence is to think, a thing that cannot not think. These are very different claims. He is making an epistemological claim to a metaphysical claim. He is arguing from how we come to know something to what it actually is. The argument shifts from a possible sense to a possible fact: It is possible that I am a thinking thing to my essence is a thinking thing. Knowing that I am thinking, it does follow that I am thinking in one sense. If I am thinking then I must be capa ble of thinking. But the claim that his essence is thinking is fallacious. If we take John Lockes claim that God can make matter think then God can make a stone think. A stone would then know that it is only a thinking thing and not know that it is extended. Therefore as its only aware of its own perceptions it can conclude that its essence is thinking. Just as God has made the stone think, God can take this away. Therefore the stone is left with its essence being extended and non-thinking. Moreover, all because the mind and body have different essences, this does not mean that they have to be two different substances. Surely they can be one and the same thing. Cant there be one entity which is thinking and extended? Jerome A. Shaffer uses the example of one entity, a man: The defying characteristic of being a husband is being a married man and the essence of being a parent is having offspring, but one and the same person can be both. Hence all because we have conceived of two entities having different properties it does not mean that they actually exist distinct from each other. For Descartes it would seem that they have completely distinct essences that it is impossible for them to not be distinct. Therefore the example of a husband and a father is seemingly weak because the actual properties of the occupier of the essences are both extended and male. Whereas the properties of extended and thinking things have, according to Descartes nothing in common. It would appear that there needs to be a stronger example from Shaffer to show that the mind and body can be one and the same thing. George Graham has a stronger example of the Gods making Oedipus marry his mother. As he didnt want to marry her he would say: very idea disgusts me, I find it unconceivable that I will marry my mother. Oedipus then falls in love with Jocasta, who is actually his mother. If we asked him what he thought about marrying her he may say: Very idea pleases me, I find it very conceivable. We would then conclude that Oedipus can conceive of himself marrying Jocasta but cant conceive of himself marrying his mother. Therefore they are not the same person. If I can conceive of myself as disembodied but cant conceive of myself without a mind you cant conclude that your mind and body are distinct as they can be one and the same thing. This is because the conclusion is aspectual and realises on aspectual knowledge. This aspectual knowledge that Graham mentions is a major downfall to Descartes conceivable argument. Gottlob Ferge explains this with the ancients knowing that Venus is the morning star whilst believing that the evening star was Venus as well or illiterate people not knowing that water is identical to H20. The mind and body could be the same thing but he they are assessed differently, one by introspection and one by inspection but this doesnt mean they can be separated and exist apart from each other. W. D. Hart creates a story to strengthen Substance Dualism and tries to show that the mind and body are not one and the same thing. This is because we can conceive the mind to exist without a body: Imagine one morning you wake up and go to the mirror. Looking in the mirror you realise that your eye sockets are empty. You can visualise your face with empty eye sockets as it would look to you in the mirror. You then saw around your head and see that your brain is not there. You can visualise how your empty brain pan would look to you in the mirror. Lastly it is still possible to visualise if you had no body. You would see the reflection of the room in the mirror. So you have a recipe for visual experience of yourself disembodied. As this is a thought experiment it could not actually occur in the real world. But the fact that we can imagine being disembodied. As we can imagine being disembodied without contradiction, it means that it is metaphysically possible. Hart would conclude that it is metaphysically possible for me to exist disembodied. Therefore the mind and body are distinct as disembodied existence can occur. Is it not possible to conceive of water not being identical to H2O even though it is metaphysically impossible? If we can then it is possible to conceive of the mind existing apart from the body doesnt show that it is metaphysically possible. For this metaphysically possible for the mind to exist with the body then the mind must be numerically distinct from the body. Kripke used his concept of rigid and non-rigid designators for Cartesian Dualism argument to prove that they are numerical distinct: If a and b are rigid designators, it follows that a = b if true, is a necessary truth. If a and b are not rigid designators, no such conclusion follows about the statement a = b The rigid designator water is identical to the rigid designator H2O. This is true scientifically. Water is identical to H20 in every possible world. If we have two rigid designators and the two are identical then this will mean that conceivability entails metaphysically possibility. This is because we cant conceive of a possible world where H2O is not Water. According to Descartes this would mean that God couldnt create a world where Water is not H2O as they are the same substance with the same essences. We cant conceive metaphysically that water is not H2O as this would make no sense. However it does not work if we use water non-rigidly. Water may not be a direct reference to H2O but a summary of the properties. This would be topic neutral as we are leaving out the nature of water. We could have a sample of water but not know that it is H2O, just like our predecessors. We cant conceive of them being identical in every metaphysically possible world therefore H2O is not water. We can easily conceive a non-rigid designation of water, for example tap fluid, rain, a lake that may not have been H2O as it is only there empirical properties that we know. As long as it is a non-rigid designator of water and we produce the properties, water can be anything. Thus we could conceive of the substance described as having a different chemical composition in a possible world. Kripke applies this to a brain state being identical to a mental state and tries to improve Descartes argument. We are immediately subjectively aware of mental states. We have immediate perceptions of them inside me. What you are experiencing when in pain is pain. It is an internal content of consciousness and this is the only way we can understand it. Therefore it is a rigid designator. If we can conceive of mental states being identical to the body then this would mean that it would be a necessary truth. If Descartes can conceive of himself being distinct from his body then Descartes is not identical to his body. Through modern neuroscience research it is possible to see that Descartes immaterial explanation of thinking being the essence of the mind is a lot simpler than getting a brain dependent theory. He believed that: Each substance is thought to have its own laws and its own range of properties; hence research on the brain is not going to yield any knowledge of the mind. But as more research occurs with neuroscience and neurology the more we realise how absurd the concept of Substance Dualism is. The mind apparently has higher functions which are reasoning, consciousness, emotion etc. All of these higher functions can be changed by drugs or an injury. For example damage to the temporal Lobe, the person with this damage will learn complex cognitive skills but will be unaware he has done so, even while engaging in them. There are many other examples of how the brain affects our higher functions. If the brain is dependent on the mind then how can this be true? How can the brain affect thinking as thinking is not its essence? Therefore it would seem that dualism fails not so much because of our limited knowledge of the mind but rather because of modern science. As the conceivable argument needs the essence of the mind and body to show that they we can conceive of them distinctly, if Descartes has got the essences wrong then he cant conceive of himself di sembodied. Doesnt entail it false as further research may discover there is a substance dualism but at the moment there is no leads.

Global Strategies for the Multinational Corporation Essay -- Globaliza

Global expansion has developed a tactical imperative for nearly all large organizations and multinational corporation (MNC) managers have a great deal on their hands in developing, monitoring and changing these strategies. Becoming international is an important factor in assisting organizations in becoming globally competitive. As we know, trading and bartering have been around since primordial times and trading has become global. As described by Cateora, Gilly, and Graham (2013), â€Å"a huge portion of all consumer products – from automobiles to dinnerware – sold in the United States is foreign made† (p. 7). In addition, many U.S. corporations sell goods overseas to our foreign nations. The development of global markets was established by the needs of the consumer. If a domestic nation cannot supply what the consumer wants, this gives opportunity to the nations with the supply of the goods desired. Could our nation produce all the goods required for domestic consumer demand? Between 1970 and 2005, the value of U.S. merchandise imports has grown far more rapidly than domestic output. These imports increasingly originate in the developing world. Indeed, over the last thirty years, the share of total US imports from developing economies increased from 8% to nearly 40%. (as cited by Kemeny & Rigby, 2012, p. 1-2). Gaining a competitive advantage They are several actions to take to gain a competitive advantage. Productivity plays a major role on a nation’s ability to trade globally. The more production produced in a less amount of time from one nation versus another gives the country the comparative advantage. Competitive moves can also create a competitive advantage. An example is when Komatsu started manufacturing h... ...nce to end Samsung ‘rule’. The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-30/news/38930222_1_sony-india-panasonic-india-samsung Nike unethical business practices. (2011). Retrieved from http://entrepreneurawards.org/2011/12/nike-unethical-business-practices.html Serban, E. (2012). The strategic alternatives for emerging markets entry strategies of multinational companies and their main investments in Romania. Revista de Management Comparat International, 13(2), 337-347. Tangen, K. (2011). Outbound travel of business students in China and India: Enriching the experience not only for students but also for the international communities. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(2), 120-133. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/876865204/fulltextPDF/141848A793F73C00C0D/7?accountid=28180 Global Strategies for the Multinational Corporation Essay -- Globaliza Global expansion has developed a tactical imperative for nearly all large organizations and multinational corporation (MNC) managers have a great deal on their hands in developing, monitoring and changing these strategies. Becoming international is an important factor in assisting organizations in becoming globally competitive. As we know, trading and bartering have been around since primordial times and trading has become global. As described by Cateora, Gilly, and Graham (2013), â€Å"a huge portion of all consumer products – from automobiles to dinnerware – sold in the United States is foreign made† (p. 7). In addition, many U.S. corporations sell goods overseas to our foreign nations. The development of global markets was established by the needs of the consumer. If a domestic nation cannot supply what the consumer wants, this gives opportunity to the nations with the supply of the goods desired. Could our nation produce all the goods required for domestic consumer demand? Between 1970 and 2005, the value of U.S. merchandise imports has grown far more rapidly than domestic output. These imports increasingly originate in the developing world. Indeed, over the last thirty years, the share of total US imports from developing economies increased from 8% to nearly 40%. (as cited by Kemeny & Rigby, 2012, p. 1-2). Gaining a competitive advantage They are several actions to take to gain a competitive advantage. Productivity plays a major role on a nation’s ability to trade globally. The more production produced in a less amount of time from one nation versus another gives the country the comparative advantage. Competitive moves can also create a competitive advantage. An example is when Komatsu started manufacturing h... ...nce to end Samsung ‘rule’. The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-30/news/38930222_1_sony-india-panasonic-india-samsung Nike unethical business practices. (2011). Retrieved from http://entrepreneurawards.org/2011/12/nike-unethical-business-practices.html Serban, E. (2012). The strategic alternatives for emerging markets entry strategies of multinational companies and their main investments in Romania. Revista de Management Comparat International, 13(2), 337-347. Tangen, K. (2011). Outbound travel of business students in China and India: Enriching the experience not only for students but also for the international communities. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(2), 120-133. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/876865204/fulltextPDF/141848A793F73C00C0D/7?accountid=28180

Rawls Summary

Justice as Fairness Rawls first begins with discussing how we are lead to the original position. The original position is a hypothetical argument that considers a society where people do not decide what is right or wrong based on a higher power or emotion, but rather on common sense. These ideas establish justice or fairness simply based on the community’s beliefs that they create. However, these agreements cannot be made without the â€Å"veil of ignorance. † This means that all instances that would create a distortion of views must be ruled out.Thus, the people discussing what the rules will be cannot have any information about the other individual, or the society’s position. The hypothetical argument is contingent on all things being fair and equal, which means that all people involved in crating the beliefs must be free of any preconceived ideas. Another part of the equality of this situation is that every member of a society, including the minority, must be treated fairly. Rawls stated that every citizen had basic liberties and human rights that must be protected.He believed that societies need to protect the least advantaged citizen in order to be successful. We determine which citizens are least advantaged based on if they possess primary goods. Primary goods are what is needed to be a functioning and contributing member of society. These things are not necessarily monetary, but rather on psychological capabilities, historical facts, social capabilities, as well as, moral abilities being free and equal. Rawls believe that the five most important primary goods that determine advantage are basic rights and liberties, freedom to choose, responsibility, income and self respect.These things can make this hypothetical a reality and a society fair as equals. Let us begin with how we might be led to the original position and the reason for not using it. Now this agreement, like any other, must be entered into under certain conditions if it i s to be a valid agreement from the point of view of political justice. Contingent historical advantages and accidental influences from the past should not affect an agreement or principles that are to regulate the basic structure from the present into the future. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to e attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality to opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society. These revisions in the second principle are merely stylistic. To accomplish its aims, certain requirements must be imposed on the basic structure beyond those of the system of natural liberty. A list of basic liberties are drawn up in two ways. To answer these questions we introduce the idea of primary goods. Income and wealth, understood as the purpose of all means.

Prosocial Behaviour Essay

Prosocial behaviors are voluntary behaviors made with the intention of benefiting others (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This definition carefully circumvents the potential benefits to the person performing the prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is often accompanied with psychological and social rewards for its performer. In the long run, individuals can benefit from living in a society where prosociality is common (which, in evolutionary terms, increases reproductive potential). It has therefore been difficult for researchers to identify purely altruistic behaviors, benefiting only the recipient and not the performer. Nevertheless, behaviors benefiting others, but whose main goal is self-advantageous (e.g. cooperative behaviors intended to obtain a common resource), typically are not considered prosocial. Typical examples include: volunteering; sharing toys, treats, or food with friends; instrumental help (e.g., helping a peer with school assignments); costly help (e.g. risking oneâ €™s own life to save others); and emotionally supporting others in distress (e.g., comforting a peer following a disappointing experience or caring for a person who is ill). DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES Prosocial behavior has roots in human evolutionary history as de Waal’s comparison with other species shows. Nevertheless, Fehr and Fischbacher note that humans are unique in their degree of prosociality. Hoffman’s theory proposes that prosocial behavior becomes increasingly other-oriented as children mature. Infants feel self-distress in reaction to the distress of others because they are incapable of differentiating their own experiences from those of others. Gradually, self-distress is replaced by other-oriented concern, requiring some understanding of others’ mental states (Hoffman, 2000). Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, and Emde show that by age 4, many children can react empathically to others, including offering help to those in distress. The 1998 Eisenberg and Fabes meta-analysis found that prosocial behavior increases with age, although increases varied in size, depending on the methodological aspects of each study. In one study by Benenson, Pascoe, and Radmore, about 60 percent of 4-year old children donated at least one of 10 stickers they received to a peer, and about 85 percent did so at age 9. This increase was markedly elevated for higher-SES children compared to lower-SES children. From childhood to adolescence further increases are found in sharing, but not in helping or providing emotional support (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). The boost in prosocial behavior with age is attributed to developmental increases in cognitive abilities associated with detecting others’ needs and determining ways to help, in empathy-related responding, and in the moral understanding of the importance of helping others (Eisenberg et al., 2006). CONTEXTUAL AND INDIVIDUAL INFLUENCES Many contextual factors are associated with prosocial behavior. For example, Cole and colleagues report short-term success for television programs designed to increase children’s prosociality. Social psychological experiments consistently show that recognizing a situation as requiring assistance, involving personal responsibility, and enabling oneself to help, all increase helping behavior (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Individuals are more likely to provide support in situations that promote personal psychological and material rewards, or where the costs (e.g., guilt) associated with not helping are prominent. Finally, individuals are more likely to behave prosocially towards similar or likable others (Penner et al., 2005), and towards others considered to be close, especially kin (Graziano et al., 2007). This pattern may reflect an ultimate evolutionary goal of kin selection as described by Hamilton, although de Waal notes that helpers’ psychological goals may be quite different. Genetic relatedness aside, prosocial behavior towards family members probably involves a sense of duty, reciprocity, and affective relationships. Rushton describes moderate consistency in individuals’ prosocial behavior across varying situations and contexts, demonstrating both stable individual differences in prosociality and the importance of contextual factors. Research following children from early childhood to adulthood supports the existence of the long-debated altruistic or prosocial personality (Eisenberg et al., 1999). Individual differences in prosociality are linked to sociability, low shyness, extroversion, and agreeableness, although specific prosocial behaviors may require a combination of additional traits, such as perceived self-efficacy in the case of helping (Penner et al., 2005). Researchers Bardi and Schwartz highlight the importance of individuals’ specific prosocial values, including emphasizing the importance of the welfare of others, as an additional variable likely to influence prosocial behavior. Personality and contextual variables are likely to interact in determining prosocial behavio r. For example, agreeable individuals were more likely to help an outgroup member than low-agreeableness individuals, but agreeableness was not associated with helping an ingroup member (Graziano et al., 2007). Environmental factors linked to individual differences in children’s prosociality include parental modeling of helping behavior and use of inductive discipline (e.g., explaining to children the consequences of their behavior) as opposed to power-assertive discipline (e.g., punishment) (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Beyond parental influence, siblings, peers, and schools also may affect prosociality. For example, as Wentzel, McNamara, and Caldwell point out, children’s prosociality may be influenced by close friends. Furthermore, the better the affective quality of the friendship, the more influential friends are to each other’s prosociality. Genetics also contribute to individual variation in prosociality. Research on adults finds that prosociality is substan tially heritable. Research on young children shows lower heritability, demonstrated by one longitudinal twin study showing increases in the heritability of parent-rated prosociality, from 30 percent at age 2 to 60 percent at age 7 (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Genetic and environmental effects are often intertwined. For example, parental reasoning may be more effective with highly attentive children, while external rewards may work better for other children. These geneenvironment interactions, in which children’s genetically influenced tendencies interact with environmental influences in determining behavior, are highly likely. Further investigation is necessary of gene-environment interactions with regard to prosociality. Gene-environment correlations can also shape individual differences in prosociality. For example, children’s low prosociality is related to parents’ use of negative discipline and affection. This relationship can be traced back to children’s genetic tendencies, implying that the genetically influenced low prosociality can initiate a negative reaction from parents (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Gender and culture are additional predictors of prosocial behavior. A meta-analysis found small differences favoring girls in prosocial behavior, smaller than expected based on gender stereotypes and lower for instrumental help than for other prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Some evidence suggests that children in Western societies are less prosocial than children in other cultures, but some studies find no differences along these lines (see review by Eisenberg et al., 2006). A field study by Levine, Norenzayan, and Philbrick found large cultural differences in spont aneously helping strangers. For example, the proportion of individuals helping a stranger with a hurt leg pick up dropped magazines ranged from 22 percent to 95 percent across 23 cultures. Although national wealth was negatively associated with helping rates, the closely related cultural value of individualism-collectivism (individualism is on average higher in richer countries) was not related. A compelling cultural explanation for cross-national differences in prosocial behavior was still needed as of 2008. Perhaps, cultures differ substantially in what each promotes as prosocial behavior (Eisenberg et al., 2006). RELATION TO OTHER ASPECTS OF SCHOOL FUNCTIONING Clark and Ladd find that prosocial children are relatively well adjusted and have better peer relationships than less prosocial children. Highly prosocial children have more friends and report a better quality of friendship, relative to less prosocial children. Caprara and colleagues find positive relationships between children’s early prosocial behavior and later academic achievement, and positive peer relations (statistically controlling for earlier achievement). The exact nature of these relationships has yet to be determined. Possibly, prosocial children’s superior social skills enable them to work better with peers and to get along better with teachers. Alternatively, earlier prosociality represents self-regulation abilities needed for later achievement. Similarly, a finding by Johnson and colleagues that volunteering adolescents have higher grade point averages and intrinsic motivation toward schoolwork may indicate that volunteering increases academic self-esteem. Furthermore, adolescents who volunteer may receive preferential treatment from teachers, increasing their achievement. HOW TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS CAN PROMOTE PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Although observational studies suggest that preschool teachers usually do little to encourage prosocial behavior, teachers’ behavior and school policies can promote pro-sociality. Positive, warm, and secure teacher-student relationships are associated with children’s prosociality (Eisenberg et al., 2006). To overrule the possibility that highly adjusted children are both prosocial and elicit positive reactions from teachers, intervention studies are essential. A five-year longitudinal study by Solomon and colleagues finds that training teachers to promote children’s prosociality and developmental discipline increases children’s prosocial values and behaviors. The program provided children with an opportunity to work collaboratively in small groups and participate in activities designed to promote social understanding. It emphasized prosocial values through the use of relevant media and highlighting children’s positive behaviors and provided opportun ities for active helping such as a buddy program that assigned older children to help younger peers. In another school intervention reported by Fraser and colleagues, children received training designed to teach social problem-solving skills and to reduce peer rejection. Simultaneously, parents participated in home lessons designed to improve parenting skills (e.g., child development, parent-child communication, problem-solving, and discipline). Intervention children increased in prosocial behavior in comparison to the control group. Another experimental school program reported by Flan-nery and colleagues shows longitudinal gains in children’s prosocial behavior by altering school climate by teaching students and staff five simple rules and activities: (a) praise people, (b) avoid put-downs, (c) seek wise people as advisers and friends, (d) notice and correct hurts one causes, and (e) right wrongs. McMahon and Washburn point out that effective interventions often work to addr ess students’ empathy and problem-solving skills and are often tailored to the cultural, developmental, and behavioral characteristics of students. Research by Kazdin, Bass, Siegel, and Thomas reveals the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy in increasing prosociality in children with severe antisocial behavior. Another violence prevention program reported by DeCarlo and Hockman improves male urban African American students’ prosocial skills through analysis of relevant RAP music lyrics. Furthermore, Lakes and Hoyt show the effectiveness of tae-kwon-do training at primary school to improve self-regulation and prosocial behavior among boys and, to a lesser extent, girls. Attention/play interventions by school psychologists with highly aggressive boys (modeling, role-playing, coaching, feedback, and discussion of play strategies), by Dubow and colleagues longitudinally decrease aggression and increase prosocial behavior. These studies demonstrate the usefulness of non-preaching approaches to prosocial development. See also:Moral Development, Social Skills BIBLIOGRAPHY Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S.H. (2000). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10),1207–1220. Benenson, J. F., Pascoe, J., & Radmore, N. (2007). Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 168–175. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(4), 302–306. Clark, K. E., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent-child relationships: Links to children’s socioemotional orientation and peer relationships. Developmental Psychology, 36, 485–498. Cole, C. F., Arafat, C., Tidhar, C., Tafesh, W. Z., Fox, N. A., et al. (2003). The educational impact of Rechov Sumsum/Shara’a Simsim: A Sesame Street television series to promote respect and understanding among children living in Israel, th e West Bank and Gaza. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 409–422. DeCarlo, A., & Hockman, E. (2003). RAP therapy: A group work intervention method for urban adolescents. Social Work with Groups, 26(3), 45–59. De Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(4), 4.1–4.22. Dubow, E. F., Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (1987). Mitigating aggression and promoting prosocial behavior in aggressive elementary schoolboys. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 25(6), 527–531. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A.(1998). Prosocial Development. In W. Damon, (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 646–718). New York: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, B., Murphy, C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70(6), 1360–1372. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism.Nature, 425(6960), 785–791. Flannery, D. J., Liau, A. K., Powell, K. E., Vesterdal, W., Vazsonyi, A.T., Guo, S., et al. (2003). Initial behavior outcomes for the peacebuilders universal school-based violence prevention program.Developmental Psychology, 39, 292–308. Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., Galinsky, M. J., Hodges, V. G., & Smokowski, P. R. (2004). Conduct problems and peer rejection in childhood: A randomized trial of the making choices and strong families programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 313–324. Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person X situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–59. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1–52. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, M. K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3), 309–332. Kazdin, A. E., Bass, D., Siegel, T., & Thomas, C. (1989). Cognitive-behavioral therapy and relationship therapy in the treatment of children referred for antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 522–535. Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Parental discipline and affection and children’s prosocial behavior: Genetic and environmental links.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 147–164. Lakes, K. D., & Hoyt, W. T. (2004). Promoting self-regulation through school-based martial arts training. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 283–302. Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 543–560. McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(1), 43–62. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: multilevel perspectives. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 56, 365–392. Rushton, J. P. (1984). The altruistic personality: Evidence from laboratory, naturalistic, and self-report perspectives. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), The Development and Maintenance of Prosocial Behavior: International Perspectives on Positive Development (pp. 271–290). New York: Plenum. Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Scraps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing children’s prosocial behavior in the classroom. Ame rican Educational Research Journal, 25, 527–554. Wentzel, K. R., McNamara, B. C., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school: influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Education Psychology, 96(2), 195–203. Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The development of empathy in twins. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1038–1047. http://www.education.com/reference/article/prosocial-behavior/