MD2Assgn
Welling T
T.
"TR" Robert "Shawn" Welling
July 6, 2019
Dr. JESSICA HOLMES
Cross Cultural Psychology
When
you take the subject of cross-cultural psychology and of course the role of
females, problems by default come up. By
an examination of the following categories Patriarchal Societies, Hurt
feelings, Serial Killers, Cross Cultural, Individualism, Collectivism, and
Actions groupings one can come up with solutions. Through a thorough
examination of the evidnece from the well-established behavior patterns the
three solutions presented in this paper will
lay out the best ways to identify the problems in each culture, identify how to
find the rules and regulations of each culture, and to find ways to merge the
A, B, C rules of acceptable order categories of each culture into a more
cohesive unit. Most of the troublemakers have no interest in the merging
cultures, they have an interest in being nasty and violent with new victims to
be violent against.
Patriarchal
Societies
Most
humans have formed into some type of a patriarchal culture from very light
where the division of labor is 51/49%. In those type of societies, females are
just shy of equal rights to men. However, around the world, this is a rather
rare structure (Shahriar, 2018). Most cultures are about 75/25% patriarchal,
which means men rule and have domination over females in a 75/25% split.
Depending on a great deal of diverse interactions depends on if females in said
culture have rights at all.
Then
there are the what can be considered to be “bad cultures” where females have
either very few if any rights at all. In those cultures, the largest problem
is, males are and or feel so threatened by females that females are treated
equal to slaves and on occasion a bit worse than slaves.
In
those types of cultures, the largest issue is how much misogyny does the
culture have? Some cultures with rather
strong 75/25% not all of them are based on misogyny. Some are just so heavily
male dominated, and it has been that way for so long that it is just male
dominance not necessarily hatred of females.
In
the cultures with a 75/25% the torturing and eventually killing of females is not
as common. However, in heavily misogynistic cultures it is a common thing for
the culture to injure, torture, and kill females (Pérez, R., & Greene, 2016). In such culture’s
females are perceived to have a huge amount of bad behavior traits which causes
the insecure men to harm them, and eventually build up to killing them. Many of
those cultures in the west as opposed to Asia east use the concepts of the
original sin committed by Eve as a theocratic excuse to punish and even murder
females. In some ways those misogynistic cultures act and operate based on the
theocratic and cognitive dissonance rule that if they punish females who show “strength”
and or who show a type of behavior pattern where the male leaders feel their
power base is threatened the solution in those cultures is to punish the “Eve”
like females to win back gods favor. Eve threatened the power of god regarding
the tree he placed in the center of the Garden of Eden and informed both Adam
and Eve “do not eat the fruit of that tree”. At least that is how it is
depicted and described in the first several pages of the Jewish holy book ,the
Torah, specifically the book of Genesis, which is the basis and foundation of
the Old Testament portion of the holy bible. Eve commits what has been
considered to be “original sin”. In that she and her husband Adam are removed
from paradise/the Garden of Eden and forced to walk the earth. Cultures that
are based on those ideals of that book have taken on the responsibilities that
when things in their culture go wrong, god is sending them a message that they
need to find the stereotypical “Eve’s” in their midst and punish them.
Sometimes the punishments are light, other times heavy, and on occasion
punishments are full on murder, occasionally mass murder. Other cultures commit
similar acts but do not use the “bible” and “Eve’s original sin” as an excuse,
they simply perform the violence, murder, mass murder for other cultural reasons.
But the end result is similar acts of violence.
Hurt
Feelings
The
largest issue of the above patriarchal cultural structure when boiled down to
its most basic elements are that the men in the culture in basic have hurt
feelings about being rejected by females they are attracted to (Chrisler, J. C., Bacher,
J. E., Bangali, A. M., Campagna, A. J., & McKeigue, A. C. 2012).
In
the wild, some animals when they meet up and it is breeding season, there is
very little choice in the matter. If a male comes across a female, unless she
can fight him off, he simply mounts her, does his thing, and continues his
solitary lifestyle.
In
humans this “I see, I want, I take, I move on” is still very much hard wired
into some human males (Neville-Shepard,
2019). This behavior pattern in some men and some cultures is still very
hard and active. The men involved seem to think that females are simply present
as a thing to mate with and move onto the next thing to mate with (Corina Sheerin, author, &
Margaret Linehan, author. (2018). With very little if any emotional
interaction.
The
key concept is “emotional interactions”, most men have various levels of
emotional interactions. From very little emotion to overwhelming emotion. These
find, mate, move on the object of their momentary desire’s feelings have
nothing to do with the events in question. However, their thoughts, feelings,
emotions are virtually the only thing which matters. When the object of desire
rejects them, their feelings are so hurt they in general have no idea how to
process the rejection.
This
is in a way the basis of how in interviews with various serial killers and politicians
who have been convicted of crimes against humanity the person feels. Males or
females it makes little difference, they are so afraid they must strike
violence against any and all who threatened their power (Msibi, T., & Jagessar,
V. (2015). Serial killers to prevent the fighting against will subdue
their victims in whatever way the killer feels empowered by (Pettigrew, M. (2019). Which
allows the killer to feel a sense of domination and control over the victim (Pettigrew, 2019). Sometimes
victims are chosen randomly, sometimes the victims fulfil some deeply twisted
fantasy concept for the killer (Forsyth,
2015). Some female from their past that hurt their feelings, be that a
mother figure, teacher, first love, etc., if they run across someone that
resembles that type of person in their future, they react violently (Knight, A., & Watson, K. D.
(2017). Instead of hurting the actual object of their anger, they take
their anger out on an unsuspecting victim to reclaim their power over the
person who hurt them (Lee,
J., & Reid, S. (2018).
Self-admitted
this is the case of the serial killer Dennis Rader, his victims of choice were
pretend “upper class females” in Kansas, who in his mind were actually in
private dirty females who in his cognitive dissonance mind in public they
appeared to be prim and proper (Rhodes,
R. (2005). In their private lives they were sexual deviates (Williams, 2017). Regarding a
huge amount of serial and spree killers example Ed Kemper, Dennis “BTK” Rader, Richard Leonard “The Ice Man” Kuklinski, Ted Bundy, etc. the
prostitutes, whores, homeless, etc. they killed for the most part the courts in
written and under oath testimony only really created about the upper class people
they killed (Dennis L. Rader.
(2005). The Ice Man practiced being a mob hit man in his teens by travelling
to Manhattan to the Gay Bars and killing those men and females he could separate
from the rest and kill them, the NYPD only sort of investigated. Mostly they
did not care, as evidence in the court papers and testimony. The Kansas
District Attorney’s office did not care about any of the “undesirables” BTK
killed (Lynes, A., & Wilson,
D. (2015). In America it is close to an unwritten understanding between
cops and the killers, “stay with the ‘underables’ and
leave the good people alone, hunt all you want”. When cultures merge, the new
culture becomes fertile hunting grounds, which causes that culture to have an
extreme objection to their citizens being assaulted and killed. First step
identify and stop the violence. Which was in some way for his twisted mind
presented in the form of most if not all of his victims “smoked” (Bartels, R., & Parsons, C.
(2009). Several as he self-described them (during his testimony in court
right before sentencing) as being at least somewhat willing to be violated. He
stated after he claimed dominance over the situation, he would say “relax”. He
then describes them as relaxing by smoking a cigarette, then saying “ok let us
get this over with”. His description was he needed to simply sexually violate
them e.g. rape (Whiteman, S.
D., Zeiders, K. H., Killoren,
S. E., Rodriguez, S. A., & Updegraff, K. A. (2014).
But that was only to get them to relax and his trigger was to get them to
smoke. After the cigarette, he would then get into position, but instead of the
act, he would strangle them to death, then perform other acts upon the dead
body. He convinced them in the start that “let me violate you, and everything
will be ok”. In some type of a meaning of “if you let me, I will let you live.”
When the whole time, his intent was to get them to relax so he could kill them then
violate the dead body.
Statistics
have shown when lots of random violence in small pockets have began to occur, it is the potential “serial killers” in the
community who are trying to build up the emotional courage to actually kill
their intended victims (Lee,
J., & Reid, S. (2018). Serial killers do not start out killing their
victims, there is a recognized build up process (Harrison, M. A., Hughes, S. M., & Gott, A. J. (2019).
Said build up process is (as example in the study presented) present when
cultures begin to merge.
How
this affects the violence in a community. Serial Killers, whether they are
politicians or individuals operating in each community, an example is Sharia
law they execute several to dozens and dozens of “deviant” males and females a
year. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. All trying to use the rules they think god wrote
down to punish the descendants of Eve and her eating of the apple to appease
some god to observe some type of theocratic concept. Which is literally no
different than the actions done at the Salem Witch Trials (Allison Smith, 2019). Same
actions just different cognitive dissonance packaging (TRIGG, 2014). The compulsion to punish those who
live their lives by rules you and or your community do not like and or cannot
function with and or around becomes the psychological issue.
How
do the rules and regulations of each culture merge when two or more cultures by
situational example are forced together. The rules and regulations of each
culture do not exactly get along perfectly. When x culture breaks the rules of
y culture, the individuals involved and, of course, the lone wolves of said culture
become compelled to act. Those actions usually end up in violence. Sometimes
light violence, in harsher customer service, prejudice, verbal violence, up to
and through physical violence leading to death.
Many
serial violent people not only have a recognized and studied build up process,
they also have a stressor build up process. This concept has been presented in
1000s of peer review papers, it is such a common psychological concept that in
crime drama movies and tv shows it is not outside the realm of possibilities
said “what was the stressor” which the fictionalized character was presented that
triggered the killer to go look for a victim. Practically every episode of
“Mindhunters” on Netflix has this as a central theme for why the killer
performed the action (Lamoureux,
I. C., & Knoll, J. L. (2018). Something happened and the killer
snapped. One solution to the violence when communities begin to merge is the
want to be serial killers are stressed and are using the “outsiders” to express
their wants, needs, desires to perform said serial killing actions. It is rough
individuals not the community itself which is the problem (Deckers,
2010). Find the rough in training serial killers, remove
them as a threat and the merging of cultures can proceed easier.
Cross
Cultural
Every
culture on earth has a specific set of rules from which they operate (Plante, 2011).
Each culture that operates based on those rules usually have to deal with other
cultures which operate based on other sets of rules and regulations (Meyer, 2009).
The differences can and often does lead to intercultural conflicts. Depending
on a wide range of situations, sometimes it is only a mild resentment regarding
those differences, other times those differences result in open hostilities
which can and often lead to war (Clayton, 2009).
Each
culture becomes compelled to in effect force the other culture to either give
up their rules and regulations and or the aim is to destroy the other culture
entirely. Removing the offending rules and regulations which are so different
the cultures cannot both individually and collectively get past the differences
(Shiraev, 2010). There becomes no “live
and let live” structure involved. It becomes “we must destroy, their culture
because their rules of order are simply unacceptable to us in all ways, shapes,
and forms”
(Hansell, 2008). Identify the “nasty” community leaders
encouraging the violence, and you very likely have found either a serial killer
and or someone who is building up to become a serial killer. This has been such
a common theme in entertainment that the brothers Grimm wrote about a serial
killer in training “Gaston” in the fictionalized story “Beauty and the Beast” (Goodwin, 2008).
Individualism
Individualism
is a psychological construct which provides that either groups and or individuals
can and will act according to their own free will (Feist, 2009).
Their wants, needs, and desires will come to the surface and associated
behavior patterns will occur.
The
balance between individualism and collectivism; this balance is difficult for
strong people to maintain. The stronger a culture is with their rules and regulations,
the more they want to follow the collective. However, depending on the rules of
the culture, some people have needs, wants, desires, etc. which are outside
what the culture they are connected with are willing to give each individual. So,
when said happens, a power dynamic occurs between the person trying to suppress
their wants, needs, desires, etc. that are not provided by the culture they
live in. That suppression will come out and force the persons needs to be met.
The stronger the suppression the more unconscious and violent the behaviors are
from the individual to be able to have their needs met. Most of the time they
are entirely unconscious of why they are doing what they are doing. They know
they want something but have no idea what that something is. They just have to
go and get it, or a close enough equivalency.
Some
of the ways in which individual people perceive the role of females is another
issue when it comes to the applications of what each person will do. If the culture
has a positive perception regarding females, but some individuals have between
a not good perspective up to and through as bad a view on females as possible.
Their behavior patterns will stick out from the collective. The exact opposite
is also true. If the perspective of females in the culture’s collectiveness is
harsh to violent, but individuals have a much better to even a really nice
perception of females their actions will stick out just as hard. Example
fathers of daughters in extremely rigid and violent patriarchal cultures, tend to
make decisions about the future of their daughters that are contradictory to
the culture’s collectivism behaviors (Kitirattarkarn, G. P., Araujo, T., & Neijens, P. (2019). Many fathers living under the
rules of Sharia Law who have said individualism bent will send their daughters
out of the influence of said rules in order to avoid the violence when their
daughters turn out to be more independent than the collectivism of the culture
will allow. The in-effect C, the individual has no problem with their actions
but the culture perceives their actions as clearly in the C category of
unacceptable in any way, shape, or form.
Collectivism
Collectivism
comes from what academics has determined is a more primitive side of our brains
(Chen-Bouck,
L., Patterson, M. M., & Chen, J. (2019). We are primates after all,
but even more basic we are mammals who function better in packs. The individual
wants, needs, desires are suppressed in order to have a stronger collective.
Which most of the time said collective is a culture which creates rules and regulations
which govern both the individual and the group to achieve as many people’s
needs as possible.
This
system breaks down when introduced to an outside group of people acting from
both an individual standpoint and a collectivism structure are in some way
forced to merge. Either group can make decisions which the individual’s in both
cultures might or might want to accept.
When
a culture is forced to interact with different cultures, some people and
smaller groups will have a collectivism compulsion regarding acting individually
and in even smaller groups to benefit the group/culture as a whole. Hence the
looking for the architype Gaston who is using the merging of cultures to build
up the nerve to go on a series of violent actions, leading up to killing.
Identify the Gaston’s early will remove huge problems in the successful merging
faster and easier. Hence small one on one or one on a couple violence begins to
happen. It boils down to collectivism in most cases subconscious behavior
patterns, where an individual will want, need, desire someone or a small group
of people from different cultures to “act right” or in other words to follow
the rules of the dominant culture. Rules which are usually not obvious.
How to Solve this Problem
Once
the Gaston’s have been identified and their deviant behaviors have been either dealt
with, or in some way legally dealt with,
then the real solutions can be worked on (Straub, 2007). The real solutions are
to take the following formulas of identifying exactly what each cultures A good
rules, B grey rules, and C no way is that allowed rules of acceptable order
are. Have each culture specifically identify what actions are A, B, and C then
work to rebuild those rules per each culture. Why are the enumerable A, B, and
C categories that exact way. Do, redo, and redo again a cross examination of
what the rules are to merge successfully. Just keep doing this observance of
the rules of order and find out how to merge.
Last
suggestion, for those individuals in the culture who simply cannot get past the
culture x demands that action to be in
category A and or B, when those individuals have to place action 1 in category
C. Point out that they have their own action 1 they think is perfectly ok in A
and or B and the other culture cannot be wavered regarding that action 1 is
absolutely in category C. It comes down to “you do your 1 action, just keep it
to yourself. I will do my 1 action and keep it out of your face”. The
individuals who cannot allow the other culture to perform (a reasonable action
1, which is not based on assault and or coming a crime against humanity) action
1, they need to be examined for a background of violence. Is this person or
this group being obstinate for a cover to get away with other hidden crimes.
Work
from a how do we work together; what are our similarities, exactly what are
each cultures A, B, and C rules of acceptable order. Group A is what does
everyone (or at least most people) agree are the correct behavior patterns, B are gray area but mostly still acceptable patterns, C are
unacceptable behavior patterns in most ways. When two or more cultures merge,
each cultures A, B, C lists are not going to match perfectly. However, being
able to come to an understanding of what each cultures rules are is the key to
being able to find common ground. Can they collectively create a new list of A,
B, and C behavior patterns.
Actions
A versus B
In
most cultures there is a set of actions which are the public face of something
or someone. Those actions and behaviors are A, example in the American south
you have the phrase “Bless your heart”. It means “wow are you stupid, but you
do not have negative intent behind yoru stupidity, so your dumb actions do not
need to be punished.”. A phrase means B translation. Most cultures have an A
and B differential. Those differences when it comes to cross cultural psychology
can and often do lead to rather intense problems.
Group
A B C
Further,
every group of humans has decided upon in some way, shape, or form of the 3
groups of actions (Geary, 2005). A group of
actions is fine and dandy, B group of actions is neutral but frowned upon, C
group of actions is in almost all ways not acceptable.
The
Conflict
How
to deal with the conflict and to bring it to a reasonable temporary solution.
Examine the above sociological and psychology structures, interview the
participants and the events. Determine what and where each person sits in each
category.
Then
help them to see what the actual problems are and what the actual similarities
are. Work to merge the two cultures both individually and group rules of
acceptable order into a more cohesive arrangement.
Conclusion
This
has been an examination of cross-cultural psychology and of course the role of
females, how to solve the problems when cultures merge. The examples presented in the categories of Patriarchal
Societies, Hurt feelings, Serial Killers, Cross Cultural, Individualism,
Collectivism, and Actions provided clear evidence as to what could be the cause
of the problems and how to solve them. Mostly to as cultures merge, the nasty aspects
each culture the community tend to ignore, comes to the surface and those
issues must be addressed. Those issues usually are delivered upon the new
victims in the new culture. Address those aggressive and violent people, and their
actions first. Then begin the painful process of merging group A, B, and C
rules of acceptable order. This will take time as a review of each cultures “bad
apples” over time could and usually do produce more negative actors who rise to
the surface after the initial bad people are dealt with. Then apply the merging
A, B, and C over and over again at least 3 times till the cultures merge is as
good as it is going to get.
Reference
Allison Smith. (2019). The
Counternarrative of Teacher Evaluation: The Kangaroo Court, the Salem Witch
Trials, and the Scarlett Letter. Education Sciences, (2), 147. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.3390/educsci9020147
Baker, J. O., Cañarte, D., & Day, L.
E. (2018). Race, Xenophobia, and Punitiveness Among the American Public. Sociological
Quarterly, 59(3), 363–383. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/00380253.2018.1479202
Bartels, R., & Parsons, C. (2009). The
Social Construction of a Serial Killer. Feminism & Psychology, 19(2),
267–280. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/0959353509102224
Chen-Bouck, L.,
Patterson, M. M., & Chen, J. (2019). Relations of collectivism
socialization goals and training beliefs to Chinese parenting. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(3), 396–418.
https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/0022022118822046
Chrisler, J. C., Bacher,
J. E., Bangali, A. M., Campagna, A. J., & McKeigue, A. C. (2012). A quick and dirty tour of
misogynistic bro culture. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 66(11–12),
810–811. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0123-9
Clayton, S. & Myers, G.
(2009). Conservation psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Corina Sheerin, author, & Margaret
Linehan, author. (2018). Gender performativity and hegemonic masculinity in
investment management. Gender in Management: An International Journal,
(7), 561. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1108/GM-10-2017-0122
Deckers, L. (2010). Motivation: Biological,
Psychological, and Environmental (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn
& Bacon.
Deckers, L. (2010). Motivation: Biological,
Psychological, and Environmental (3rd ed.). Boston: Peerson/Allyn & Bacon.
Dennis L. Rader. (2005). The
Christian Century, (6), 17. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.130970707&site=eds-live&scope=site
Feist, J., & Feist,
G. (2009). Theories of personality (7th ed.).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Forsyth, C. (2015). Posing: The
Sociological Routine of a Serial Killer. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 40(4), 861–875. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9287-x
Geary, P., Kishlansky, M., & O’Brien, P. (2005). A brief
history of Western civilization: The unfinished legacy (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Goodwin, C. J. (2008). A
History of Modern Psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Goodwin, C. J. (2008). A
History of Modern Psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hansell, J. & Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal psychology (2nd
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Harrison, M. A., Hughes, S. M., &
Gott, A. J. (2019). Sex differences in serial killers. Evolutionary
Behavioral Sciences. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/ebs0000157
Kitirattarkarn, G. P., Araujo, T., & Neijens, P. (2019). Challenging Traditional Culture? How
Personal and National Collectivism-Individualism Moderates the Effects of
Content Characteristics and Social Relationships on Consumer Engagement with
Brand-Related User-Generated Content. Journal of Advertising, 48(2),
197–214. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1590884
Knight, A., & Watson, K. D. (2017).
Was Jack the Ripper a Slaughterman? Human-Animal
Violence and the World’s Most Infamous Serial Killer. Animals
(2076-2615), 7(4), 30. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.3390/ani7040030
Lamoureux, I. C., & Knoll, J. L.
(2018). Mindhunter. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry &
the Law, 46(1), 133. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edo&AN=129176625&site=eds-live&scope=site
Landrum, R. E. & Davis, S. F.
(2010). The psychology major: Career options and strategies for success (4th
ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Landrum, R. E. & Davis, S. F. (2010). The
psychology major: Career options and strategies for success (4th ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Lee, J., & Reid, S. (2018). Serial
Killers & Their Easy Prey. Contexts: Understanding People in Their
Social Worlds, 17(2), 46–51. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/1536504218776961
Lee, J., & Reid, S. (2018). Serial
Killers & Their Easy Prey. Contexts: Understanding People in Their
Social Worlds, 17(2), 46–51. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/1536504218776961
Lynes, A., & Wilson, D. (2015).
Driving, Pseudo-reality and the BTK: A Case Study. Journal of
Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 12(3),
267–284. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1002/jip.1441
Meyer, R., Chapman, L. K., &
Weaver, C. M. (2009). Case studies in abnormal behavior. (8th
ed.). Boston: Peerson/Allyn & Bacon.
Msibi, T., & Jagessar,
V. (2015). Restricted Freedom: Negotiating Same-Sex Identifications in the
Residential Spaces of a South African University. Higher Education
Research and Development, 34(4), 750–762. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1071502&site=eds-live&scope=site
Neville-Shepard, M. (2019). Disciplining
the Female Student Body: Consequential Transference in Arguments for School
Dress Codes. Women’s Studies in Communication, 42(1),
1–20. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1573771
Pérez, R., & Greene, V. S. (2016).
Debating rape jokes vs. rape culture: framing and counter-framing misogynistic
comedy. Social Semiotics, 26(3), 265–282. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1134823
Pettigrew, M. (2019). Aggressive hybristophilia in men and the affect
of a female serial killer. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &
Psychology, 30(3), 419–428. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/14789949.2019.1588911
Pettigrew, M. (2019). The Preference for
Strangulation in a Sexually Motivated Serial Killer. International
Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 63(5),
781–796. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/0306624X18803829
Plante,
T. G. (2011). Contemporary clinical psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Rhodes, R. (2005). Beyond redemption? The
Christian Century, (21), 9. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.138142780&site=eds-live&scope=site
Shahriar, A. Z. M. (2018). Gender
differences in entrepreneurial propensity: Evidence from matrilineal and
patriarchal societies. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6),
762–779. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.04.005
Shiraev, E. B. & Levy, D.
A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and
contemporary applications (4th ed.). Boston: Peerson/Allyn
Bacon.
Shubina, I. (2015). Cognitive-behavioral therapy of patients with
PTSD: Literature Review. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 165, 208–216. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.624
Shuwiekh, H., Kira, I. A., & Ashby, J. S. (2018). What are the
personality and trauma dynamics that contribute to posttraumatic growth? International
Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 181–194. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/str0000054
Straub, R. O. (2007). Health
psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
TRIGG, C. (2014). The Devil’s Book at
Salem. Early American Literature, 49(1), 37–65. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1353/eal.2014.0005
Vusparatih, Dina Sekar. (2018). The linkages between mindfulness
and Social Information Processing Theory on the usage of Whatsapp Media Groups.
Humaniora, (1), 105. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.21512/humaniora.v9i1.4306
Whiteman, S. D., Zeiders,
K. H., Killoren, S. E., Rodriguez, S. A., & Updegraff, K. A. (2014). Sibling Influence on
Mexican-Origin Adolescents’ Deviant and Sexual Risk Behaviors: The Role of
Sibling Modeling. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5),
587–592. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.004
Williams, D. J. (2017). Mephitic projects:
a forensic leisure science analysis of the BTK serial murders. Journal
of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(1), 24–37. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/14789949.2016.1247187
Wisam Chaleila. (2016). Between a rock and
a hard place: Racist, xenophobic, and materialist 1920s America struggling for
home and identity. Cogent Arts & Humanities, (1). https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1080/23311983.2016.1191123