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 evidence 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 (Darley,
& Latane 1968).
Then
there are 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, & 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”. Because of 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 have hurt feelings
about being rejected by females they are attracted to (Chrisler, Bacher, Bangali, Campagna, & McKeigue, 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 (Sheerin, & Linehan, 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, & Jagessar, 2015).
Serial killers to prevent the fighting against will subdue their victims in
whatever way the killer feels empowered by (Pettigrew, 2019). This 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). Many
times that figure may be 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, & Watson, 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, & Reid, 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,
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 cared about the upper class people
they killed (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,
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, & Wilson, 2015). In America it is
close to an unwritten understanding between cops and the killers, “stay with the
‘undesirables’ 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 Rader’s twisted mind presented in the form of most if
not all of his victims “smoked” (Bartels, & Parsons, 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, Zeiders, Killoren, Rodriguez,
& Updegraff, 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 begun 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, & Reid, 2018).
Serial killers do not start out killing their victims, there is a recognized build
up process (Harrison, Hughes, & Gott, 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 (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,
& Knoll, 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 do 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, Araujo, & Neijens, 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, Patterson, &
Chen, 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 archetype 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. Identifying the Gaston’s early will remove huge problems
in the successful merging and will become 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 culture’s 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 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 until the cultures merge is as good as it is going to get.
References
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.
Darley, J.M. & Latané, B. (1968).
Bystander interview in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383.
Deckers, L. (2010). Motivation: Biological,
Psychological, and Environmental (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn
& Bacon.
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.
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.
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: Pearson/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.
Rader D.L.. (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
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
Sheerin, C., & Linehan, M.. (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
Shiraev, E. B. & Levy, D.
A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and
contemporary applications (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson/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
Smith. Allison (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
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