Mental Imagery Vividness Essay Example for Free

Mental Imagery Vividness Essay Abstract This review examined the hypothesis that mental imagery vividness can be used as a predictor of hallucinatory experience. Earlier studies provided supporting evidences to this hypothesis, showing hallucinating population has higher mental imagery vividness comparing to nonhallucianting population. However, as a result of varied operationalization and measurements of mental imagery, contradicting results abound, showing no significant difference of mental imagery vividness between halluciantors and nonhallucinators. No clear evidences can be used to determine whether the hypothesis is valid or not so far. On the other hand, development of neurological studies provided a new perspective for looking into the relationship between mental imagery and the experience of hallucination. Keywords: mental imagery vividness, hallucination, schizophrenia Mental Imagery Vividness as a Predictor of Hallucination: A Literature Review Mental imagery, as defined by Finke (1989), is an experience significantly resembling that of perceiving, but it occurs in the absence of an adequate physical stimulus. It exists in all of the seven sensory modalities, such as visual, auditory, and olfactory (Thomas, 1999). Mental imagery is believed to be in close relationship with some core psychological mechanisms such as perception and memory, and holding its unique role in contributing to cognitive performance (Kosslyn, 1994). For example, evidences suggested that visual imagery ability predicts visuospatial memory performance (Kail, 1997). Hallucination is an experience that largely resembles mental imagery, because of its perceptual nature as well as absence of appropriate stimuli (Sack, Van de Ven, Etschenberg, Schatz, Linden, 2005). Nevertheless, the two distinguish from each other by the individual’s ability of voluntary control, as well a s his/her ability to determine the source of the experience. Specifically, mental imagery is generally regarded as being actively generated and can be intentionally controlled, while hallucination is most times beyond intention and control. The operator of mental imagery is usually aware of its internal source, while not necessarily so hallucinator. (Bentall, 1990). Hallucination, especially the form of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH), is an important hallmark of schizophrenia (Wible, 2009). AVH is the perception of voices in the absence of sensory input. AVH has distinct clinical significance, as it affects about 70% of patients with schizophrenia (Sartorius et al., 1978; Silbersweig Stern, 1996). Furthermore, there have been increasing evidences supporting that hallucination is not a rare case in non-clinical population, either. It is now believed to exist on a spectrum from comparably innocuous forms in non-clinical population to a more pathological manifestation in schizophrenics (see review by Bentall, 1990). Because of its significant implication in psychopathology, continuous work has been going on to find out the risk factors and predictors for hallucination. The relationship between mental imagery and hallucination has interested researchers for long because of their shared features. Among all the characteristics of mental imagery that are potentially related with hallucination, vividness has been most substantively examined. This review summarized theories and empirical evidences for the relationship between mental imagery vividness and hallucination. Although still in its budding stage, relevant neurological evidences were also examined. Theoretical Models Vividness of mental imagery can be defined as the degree of perceptual detail experienced when having a mental image (Oertel et al., 2009). It has been associated with hallucination and schizophrenia for decades. In 1883, Galton suggested that increased vividness of mental imagery might be associated with hallucinatory experiences (as cited in Aleman, Bocker, de Haan, 1999). Later in the 20th century, West (1962) and Horowitz (1975) proposed separate models suggesting that hallucinations were mental images derived from internal source, but mistakenly attributed to external source. More specifically, the model suggested that vividness of perception was typically higher than that of mental imagery. As vividness of mental imagery increased, it became more difficult for the individual to decide its source as internal or external, and eventually these images could grow into hallucinatory. This model suggested that mental imagery and hallucination shared fundamental features and were possibly on the same continuum. Johnson and Raye (1981) supported the importance of imagery vividness, stating that memories from internal and external sources could usually be differentiated by comparing the amount of sensory, contextual and semantic attributes of events. Mintz and Alpert (1972) developed their model relevant to mental imagery vividness as well. They proposed that vividness of imagery was not the only factor contributing to hallucination. According to their argument, increased vividness of imagery, and impaired reality testing, referring to the ability to recognize the distortions in one’s own perception, are necessary but not sufficient prerequisites to generation of hallucination. Bentall (1990) summarized predecessors’ work and introduced the concept of â€Å"reality discrimination† – the idea that â€Å"hallucinators mistake their own inte rnal, mental, or private events for external, publicly observable events†. They stated that one type of information used in the reality discrimination process was the amount of sensory information present in conscious: rich sensory information implied a perception being experiences, while poor sensory information implied a mental imagery. Following this argument, individuals who have the propensity to construct images rich in sensory details are more likely to experience their internal imagery as a perception experience, and thus resulting in hallucination. Barrett (1993) provided empirical evidences in support of the above hypothesis, yet he also pointed out some questions of the model. He argued that it was unclear where the locus of the imagery effects was. The imagery vividness discrepancy between individuals with and without hallucinations could be the result of either storage or retrieval difference of sensory information. Specifically, it could be that hallucinators were able to store more abundant sensory information than nonhallucinators; and it could also be that hallucinators were better at retrieving sensory information than nonhallucinators, with same storage capacity. Despite of some questioning opinions, there are very limited direct theoretical dissents or alternative models. Holt (1972) is one of the very few that he argued that hallucination and mental imagery involved independent systems and should not correlate with each other. However, this is not saying that the hypotheses of mental imagery vividness and hallucination have not been subject to scrutinize. A large amount of researchers have attempted to verify or disprove these hypotheses through empirical evidences. Below is an incomplete summary of the empirical studies that are relevant. Empirical Evidences Evidences in Support Mintz and Alpert (1972) provided empirical evidences in support of their own hypothesis. Their study found that auditory hallucinating schizophrenics had a significantly higher vividness of auditory mental imagery comparing to non-hallucinating controls. They also identified an impaired ability to assess the accuracy of auditory perceptions in hallucinating schizophrenics. Similar results were presented by other studies. Barrett (1993) found that nonclinical subjects with hallucinations had higher vividness of mental imagery, and at the same time, had lower control of these images comparing to nonclinical subjects without hallucinations. Barrett’s (1993) study differed from that of Mintz and Alpert (1972) in the sense that he assessed mental imagery vividness on all seven sensory modalities, with one single factor emerged after factor analysis – general imagery vividness factor. In another study by Bocker (2000), no group difference in perceptual acuity was identified between the schizophrenia group and the normal controls, suggesting perceptual degradation is not a reason for hallucination. For the hallucinating schizophrenia patients, the vividness for visual imagery was significantly lower than control, while that for auditory imagery was not. Although the decreased visual mental imagery contradicted with earlier studies, the relatively high auditory mental imagery ability suggested the possibility that auditory imagery for hallucinating patients was more percept-like and thus harder to differentiate, which is in line with the fact that most of the patients experienced hallucinations in auditory modality. Evidences in Contradiction Brett and Starker (1977) found no significant difference of auditory mental imagery vividness between hallucinating schizophrenics, nonhallucinating schizophrenics medical patients with no history of psychiatric problems. Starker and Jolin (1982) also found no significantly different vividness strength of auditory mental imagery between schizophrenics, possible schizophrenics, or nonschizophrenic psychiatrics, nor between schizophrenic subgroups of currently hallucinatory, previously hallucinatory, or nonhallucinatory. In fact, Starker and Jolin (1982) suggested that hallucinating schizophrenics might actually have less vivid auditory imagery than schizophrenics who had never hallucinated. Aleman et al.’s (1999) study revealed interesting results. In their study, hallucinating subjects reported higher imagery vividness than nonhallucinating controls when subjective (self-report) scales were used to measure vividness. However, the pattern was reversed (i.e. hallucinating subjects demonstrated lower mental imagery vividness) when objective measure was used. Van de Ven and Merckelbach (2003) examined the mental imagery vividness and fantasy proneness in non-clinical population with and without hallucination experiences. They found that although subjects with hallucination scored higher on mental imagery vividness than subjects without such experiences, their imagery vividness was highly correlated with their fantasy proneness. Further analysis indicated that hallucination experience was better predicted by fantasy proneness, comparing to mental imagery vividness. Sack and his colleagues (2005) incorporated in their study measures sensitive to cognitive capacity, in order to rule it out as a confounding variable. Their results showed that paranoid schizophrenics reported higher vividness of mental imagery in comparison to age- and sex-matched healthy controls, controlling for general intelligence and psychomotor speed of the subjects. More importantly, the higher imagery vividness of paranoid schizophrenics was not statistically dependent of the patients’ individual psychopathology, including the presence of hallucinations. The authors thus argued that mental imagery could be an independent trait marker of schizophrenia, and it operated on a separate system with hallucination for schizophrenics. Sack and colleagues (2005) also found that patient group performed worse on tasks that require involvement of mental imagery processes, which could indicate an impaired overall mental imagery ability. However, this performance deficit could be attributed to general cognitive capacity deficit. In comparison, Doninger, Silipo, Rabinowics, Snodgrass and Javitt (2001) conducted a study with a task that was more purely targeted at mental imagery ability without time constraint. Their results also revealed worse performance from schizophrenia patients comparing to healthy controls. Results of these studied implied the possibility that group difference in vividness of mental imagery is not due to an enhancement of mental imagery abilities, but to altered information processing. Oertel and colleagues (2009) conducted a further study to address the question that whether vividness of mental imagery is a trait marker of the schizophrenia spectrum (i.e. including non-clinical population with schizophrenia-like traits – schizotypy) that is independent of presence of hallucination. Subjects include schizphrenia patients, first-degree relatives of schizophrenics, as well as high- and low-schizotypy healthy controls. Results showed significantly higher mental imagery vividness across all modalities in schizophrenics, first-degree relatives, as well as high-schizotypy controls comparing to low-schizotypy controls, with cognitive abilities controlled. In replication of Sack et al.’s work, this study also revealed that the vividness of mental imagery and hallucinations were independent of each other. Results also indicated that first-degree relatives obtained highest score in vividness, and high-schizotypy controls’ score did not differ significantly from that of schizophrenia patients. The results strengthened Sack et al.’s (2005) argument that vivid imagery is a trait marker of schizotypyrather, and could be related to the genetic liability to develop schizophrenia. However, longitudinal studies including premorbid data are required for further investigation. Bell and Halligan (2010) repeated Oertel et al.’s study on high- and low-schizotypy population with a larger sample size, yet with a different measure of schizotypy and a specific assessment of visual mental imagery. Their results revealed no significant difference on visual mental imagery vividness between the two groups. Explanation for Results Variation Although large variations exist across different studies, it is not justified to say whether the hypothesis of high mental imagery vividness predicts hallucination has been rejected or not. The main reason for failing to do so is that procedures, especially the measures of mental imagery, of these studies varies a lot, thus leaving considerable space for alternative explanations. Specifically, some of the measures were subjective scale (i.e. self-report), while some of the measures were objective (i.e. behavioral tasks). On the other hand, some of the measures assess mental imagery vividness of a single sensory modality, while some of them assess mental imagery vividness as a whole across all seven sensory modalities. S ubjective Measure vs. Objective Measure of Mental Imagery Kosslyn, Brunn, Cave and Wallach (1984) had presented an insignificant relation between performance on an objective task of visual imagery acuity and a self-report imagery vividness measure, indicating that subjective and objective measures of imagery vividness may not be necessarily measuring the same constructs and/or processes. Aleman et al. (1999) pointed out that objective and subjective mental imagery measures could yield contradictory results within the normal population. This distinction could be true for clinical population as well. For example, Mintz and Alpert (1972) utilized subjective measures (suggestion paradigms or self-report measures) and obtained the finding of an association between increased mental imagery and hallucinations, while Bocker et al. (2000) used a more objective mental imagery task, resulting in insignificant difference of mental imagery performance between patients and controls. Aleman et al. (1999), who generated contradicting results of subjective and objective measures in one study, summarized the disadvantages of subjective and objective measures. For subjective measures, the process of introspection is involved, which is an ability varied across individuals, and can be especially impaired in hallucinating and/or schizophrenia populations. Also, the effect of social demand could influence a subject’s self-report, depending on how the concept of mental imagery vividness is interpreted. Subject’s idiosyncratic definition of imagery vividness also heavily impact his/her self-report. For objective measures, tasks are not real-life resembling, which can fail to evaluate one’s true capacity in daily life. In addition, commonly used objective measures fail to purely target at the vividness of mental imagery alone, other processes such as conceptualization and reasoning are in effect as well. In addition, the contents of cued mental images could largely vary across individuals. Standardized scoring procedure fail to take into account these confounding processes and experiences, indicating that high imagery vividness does not guarantee a high score as it is designed to, and vice versa. General Mental Imagery vs. Single Sensory Modality Mental Imagery Barrett (1993) introduced the idea of general imagery vividness factor. If that is a valid factor, then measurement of general mental imagery vividness and measurement of single sensory modality imagery vividness could be more different than the mere part-whole relationship. Mintz and Alpert (1972) measured auditory imagery vividness only, and Barrett (1993) measured general mental imagery vividness. These two studies both resulted in significant difference of imagery vividness between halluciantors and controls. However, Brett and Starker (1977) and Starker and Jolin (1982) both measured auditory only imagery vividness and resulted in no significant difference between hallucinators and controls. In addition, in replication of Oertel’s (2009) study, Bell and Halligan (2010) changed the general imagery vividness measure to a visual-specific mental imagery measure, and their results differed from that of Oertel et al.. Bell and Halligan (2010) proposed that vividness per se might not be modality specific, and this argument is in line with the modality-independent salience dysregulation theories of psychosis and the psychosis continuum (Murray, Lappin, Di Forti., 2008). Neurological Evidence Despite of the fact that neurological evidences for mental imagery and hallucination experiences did not start to bloom until late 20th century (Linden et al., 2010) and that there is no specific neurological evidence for mental imagery vividness’s relationship with hallucination, this session is included as it provides new perspectives on how experiences of mental imagery and hallucination overlap. Evidences from earlier studies suggested that imagery and hallucinations were associated with overlapping neural networks (Allen, Laroi, McGuire, Aleman, 2008). McGuire et al. (1995) and Shergill et al. (2001) found that auditory mental imagery and auditory hallucination were involved with overlaps in fronto temporal language circuits. In terms of the main difference between hallucination and mental imagery – voluntary controllability, Linden et al. (2011) speculated that it was generated from the altered forward model of sensory productions. Forward model (Wolpert, Ghahramani, Jordan, 1995) stated that perceptual consequences were predicted upon known actions, and the prediction in turn influenced the actual experience of the self-generated action. The forward model could be in effect in speech production. According to it, self-generated speech is subject to prediction of resulted sensory experience. This hypothesis was partially supported by Linden et al.’s (2011) study. They found that the voice-selective area on the banks of superior temporal sulcus (STS) was consistently activated during auditory hallucination and voluntary auditory mental imagery. This area had been regarded as reacting to external sensory stimulation only, but it was later speculated of having been monitoring the self-generated speech in mental imagery and hallucination. Linden et al. (2011) identified in their study that the monitoring and modulating functioning of relevant auditory regions were disturbed in nonclinical hallucinators, resulting in the likelihood of attributing internally generated speech to external sources. These budding evidences suggested that hallucination and mental imagery indeed share fundamental neural networks and do not operate on completely distinctive systems. However, detailed examinations of the activity of these neural networks in terms of different features of mental imagery and hallucination, as well as differed neural system contributing to their differences are still in need. Conclusion Mental imagery vividness has interested researchers for long because of their potential relationship with the experience of hallucination. However, empirical studies have resulted in contradicting results. Earlier studies proposed that increased vividness of mental imagery is a predictor of hallucination, and they have found that higher mental imagery vividness was related with hallucination experiences. Nevertheless, many of the later replications with various methodological modifications failed to reproduce any significant relationship. Because of the variations of measurement of mental imagery vividness, it is hard to decide whether the hypothesis of the relationship between mental imagery vividness and hallucination can be rejected or not. The development of neuroscience based study methods provided a new perspective of testing the hypothesis. Current neurological studies have focused on neural activity comparison between general mental imagery process and hallucination experience. More specific studies targeting at features of mental imagery and hallucination are needed to provide a higher-level understanding of the relationship between the two experiences. Reference Aleman, A., Bocker, K.B.E., de Haan, E.H.F. (1999). Disposition towards hallucinations and subjective versus objective vividness of imagery in normal subjects. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 707-714. Allen, P., Laroi, F., McGuire, P., Aleman, A. (2008). The hallucinating brain: a review of structural and functional neuroimaging studies of hallucinations. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 175-191. Barrett, T.R. (1993). Verbal hallucinations in normals, II: Self-reported imagery vividness. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 61-67. Barrett, T. R., Etheridge, J. B. (1992). Verbal hallucinations in normals, I: People who hear ‘voices’. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 379-387. Bell, V., Halligan, P. W. (2009, April). Additional data on whether vividness of visual mental imagery is linked to schizotypal traits in a non-clinical population [Letter to the editor]. Psychiatry Research, 178, 568-569. Bentall, R.P. (1990). The illusion of reality: A review and integration of psychological research on hallucinations. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 82-95. Bocker, K. B. E., Hijman, R., Kahn, R.S., de Haan, E. H. F. (2000). Perception, mental imagery and reality discrimination in hallucinating and non-hallucinating schizo phrenic patients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 397-406. Brett, E. A., Starker, S. (1977). Auditory imagery and hallucinations. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 164, 394–400. Doninger, G.M., Silipo, G., Rabinowics, E.F., Snodgrass, J.G., Javitt, D.C. (2001). Impaired sensory processing as a basis for object-recognition deficits in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1818-1826. Finke, R.A. (1989). Principles of mental imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Holt, R. R. (1972). On the nature and generality of mental imagery. In P. W. Sheehan (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery. New York, NY: Academic Press. Horowitz, M. (1975). Hallucinations: An information processing approach. In R. K. Siegel, L. J. West (Eds.), Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience and Theory (pp.163-196.95). New York, NY: Wiley. Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85. Kail, R. (1997). Processing time, imagery, and spati al memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 67-78. Kosslyn, S.M. (1994). Image and brain: the resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kosslyn, S. M., Brunn, J., Cave, K. R., Wallach, R. W. (1984). Individual differences in mental imagery ability: A computational analysis. Cognition, 18, 195-243. Linden, D. E. J., Thornton, K., Kuswanto, C. N., Johnston, S. J., Jackson, M. C. (2011). The brain’s voices: Comparing nonclinical auditory hallucinations and imagery. Cerebral Cortex, 21, 330–337. McGuire, P., Silbersweig, D., Murray, R., David, A., Frackowiak, R. Frith C. (1996). Functional anatomy of inner speech and auditory verbal imagery. Psychological Medicine, 26, 29-38. Mintz, S., Alpert, M. (1972). Imagery vividness, reality testing, and schizophrenic hallucinations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 310-316. Murray, R.M., Lappin, J., Di Forti, M. (2008). Schizophrenia: from developmental deviance to dopamine dysregulation. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 18, S129-S134. Oertel, V., Rotarska-Jagiela, A., van de Ven, V., Haenschel, C., Grube, M., Stangier, U., Maurer, K., Liden, D. E. J. (2009). Mental imagery vividness as a trait marker across the schizophrenia spectrum. Psychiatry Research, 167, 1-11. Sack, A., Van De Ven, V., Etschenberg, S., Schatz, D., Linden, D. (2005). Enhanced vividness of mental imagery as a trait marker of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 31, 1 -8. Sartorius, N., Jablensky, A., Shapiro, R. (1978). Cross-cultural differences in the short-term prognosis of schizophrenic psychoses. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 4, 102-113. Shergill, S., Bullmore, E., Brammer, M., Williams, S., Murray, R. McGuire, P. (2001). A functional study of auditory verbal imagery. Psychological Medicine, 31, 241-253. Silbersweig, D., Stern, E. (1996). Functional neuroimaging of hallucinations in schizophrenia: toward an integration of bottomup and top-down approaches. Molecular Psychiatry, 1, 367-375. Starker, S., Jolin, A. (1982). Imagery and hallucination in schizophrenic patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 170, 448-451. Thomas, N. J. T. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An active perception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science, 23, 207-245. Van de Ven, V., Merckelbach, H. (2003). The role of schizotypy, mental imagery, and fantasy proneness in hallucinatory reports of undergraduate students. P ersonality and Individual Differences, 35, 889–896. West, L. J. (Ed.). (1962). A general theory of hallucinations and dreams. New York, NY: Grune Stratton. Wible, C. G., Lee, K., Molina, I., Hashimoto, R., Preus, A. P., Roach, B. J., Ford, J. M., Mathalon, D. H., McCarthey, G., Turner, J. A., Potkin, S. G., O’Leary, D., Belger, A., Diaz, M., Voyvodic, J., Brown, G. G., Notestine, R., Greve, D., Lauriello, J. FBINA. (2009). fMRI

The Nurture And Nature Views Education Essay

The Nurture And Nature Views Education Essay As a matter of fact, the nature/nurture debate has dominated the thoughts of researchers for a long time as people have been trying to find out the origin of intelligence. Bee believed that this question could possibly be among the oldest theories debated in psychology. The nurture view holds that human mind was born without any knowledge. This view is supported by empiricists, and one of the major tenants of empiricists is John Locke, a seventeenth English philosopher, who thought that humans are born with a tabula rasa, or a blank slate, and that knowledge is learnt and gained through experience.   In the 19th century, Hermann von Helmhotz believed that the raw data of sensation were perpetually subject to judgements based on experience. (Gigerenzer, 63) His research was that there is a simple inverse relationship between distance and retinal image size. (Gleitman, 249). In He concluded that it is through experience which we gain the ability to understand our visual perceptions. Empiricism was adopted by educationalists. Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist examined physical knowledge in infancy using some experiments, and concluded that children under 18 months of age had no knowledge of physical laws of motion because they looked for hidden objects in places that were not possible. Further, John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner, came with behaviourism to argue that a child can be made into any kind of person, regardless of their heredity. However other researchers questioned those findings and came with a different view  : Innativism. Innativists claimed that a child was born with innate abilities which are actualised in context. This view was influenced by Plato, a Greek philosopher who thought that Children begin life with knowledge already present within them,; they do not learn anything new but merely recollect knowledge that has previously lain dormant. Nativism was later adopted by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher of the 18th centry. Kant argued that the mind is born with a number of innate catergories, mainly space, time and causality, which enable people to understand their senses. It is these catergories, nativists say, that make perception possible. (Gleitman, 173) In other words, knowledge of these concepts is innate. Charles Darwin was also among those who offered evidence of inherited knowledge with his universality thesis where, after some cross-cultural studies, he observed that some facial expressions are universal to all people. Darwin finally explained that all people are born with an innate understanding of these facial expressions. (Gleitman, 477) One of the domains in which this debate has found implications in education is language acquisition. Despite the existence of several theories of language development, this essay limits only to three of them that have a close link with the nature/nurture debate. According to behaviourist theory, language is viewed as a kind of verbal behaviour, and based on this view they argue that children learn language through imitation, reinforcement, analogy, and structured input. This is  linguistic empiricism. Empiricists think that language is entirely learned. This is the nurture or external perspective. In this context, language and grammar become features of the organisms environment. Language is a cultural artifact. This is based on beviourism as the general theory of learning described by the psychologist John B. Watson in 1923. On the other hand, there is linguistic nativism, which holds that the basics of language and grammar are innate. This is the nature or internal perspective. In this context, language and grammar are built into every human being at birth. They are universals that all humans share, as language is in the genes. This is the theory advocated by the American linguist Noam Chomsky who argued for a universal grammar wired in every child brain. This position was also adopted by Jerry Fodor (1983) who studied the relationship between language and mind and viewed language as a modular process with implications for a theory of language acquisition, especially language acquisition as genetically predetermined. The third interesting theory is called interactionist theory, and states that there is a both a biological and a social aspect to language development. It states that language is developed through a childs desire to communicate his or her thoughts and feelings. The foundation of this view of language acquisition was laid by Vygotsky, a psychologist and social constructivist. Vygotsky argued that social interaction plays an important role in the learning process and proposed the  zone of proximal development  (ZPD) where learners construct the new language through socially mediated interaction. Thisn theory was later adopted by  Jerome Bruner  [2]  who laid the foundations of a model of language development in the context of adult-child interaction. In education, it can be argued that both nature and nurture are responsible for how someone is today. For that reason, the position advocated by Robert Plomin would help to put both empiricism and nativism together for the good of children. Actually, the American Psychologist, Robert Plomin has demonstrated that genetic factors can mediate the link between the environment and person outcomes such as intelligence.   Actually, nowadays, it is commonly accepted that most aspects of a childs development are a product of the interaction of both nurture and nature (Bee, 2004) This means that aspects such as the innate ability of the child which is the inherited aspect of his life, and the environmental factors such as effects of family, peers, schools, neighborhoods, culture, the media, the broader society, and the physical environment. Should be taken into account. Nurture affects childrens development through multiple channels-physically through nutrition and activity; intellectually through informal experiences and formal instruction; socially through adult role models  and peer relationships (McDevitt and Ormrod, 2004: 7). At this point, one can share Ganly (2007) position and argue that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ it is hard to completely distinguish between the two ideas. Nature will inevitably affect the classroom performance of a student because a student inherits certain traits that pertain to education. A student inherits the ability to do well in certain subjects and poor in other subjects. A student also inherits the certain psychological traits such as shyness or self confidence. The nature aspect is important as it helps to determine inherited possible disabilities such as reading disability, so giving making teachers proactive and intervene at earlier stages. Educators have therefore to make sure the inner nature of a child is respected, that a child feels wanted and put in a supportive environment to learn. There should be a balance between class time between acquisition activities and learning exercises.  

Controlling Soil Fertility Essay -- Agriculture Farming Essays

Controlling Soil Fertility Approximately 2 billion hectares of land, 17% of the total vegetated area of the earth has been degraded for agricultural purposes since 1945 (Oldeman et al., 1990). Oldeman et al. (1990) classify about half of this degraded area as still permitting agricultural use, but with greatly reduced productivity, and in the rest no agriculture is deemed possible. The causes of this degradation are overgrazing (35%), agricultural activities (28%), deforestation (30%), over exploitation (7%) and industrialization (1%). Wind and water erosion are the principal mechanisms of this soil degradation, accounting for about 56% and 28% respectively of the total; 12% is attributable to chemical degradation (due to insufficient manure and fertilizer returned to cropped areas, salinization by unwise irrigation or drainage, soil acidification not corrected by liming, and pollution caused by industrial and other urban uses) and the remaining 4% is physical degradation from compaction or flooding. (Oldeman et al., 1990) Moreover, it has become increasingly evident that although crop yields seem to be increasing, they are increasing at a decreasing rate. Krauss and Allmaras (1982) argue that this is largely due to the fact that in many areas, poor soil management is leading to soil degradation which is ignored as long as crop yields continue to rise. Technological advances such as improved cultivation systems, irrigation and pest control mask the negative effects of poor soil management on crop yields (Krauss and Allmaras, 1982, p85). What are the factors that contribute to the suitability of a soil for agricultural purposes? To what extent can people control these factors to halt soil degradation and maintain, enha... ..., L.R., V.W.P van Engelen, and J.H.M. Pulles. 1990. The extent of human induced soil degradation. Annex 5 of World Man of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note, rev. 2nd edn., International Soil Reference and Information Center, Wageningen, Netherlands as cited by J.Schnoor and V. Thomas, 1994, Soil as a Vulnerable Environmental System pp233-44 in R. Socolow, C. Andrews, F. Berkhour and V. Thomas (eds.), Industrial Ecology and Global Change: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, C.A., R.M. Cruse, and K.A. Kohler, 1994, Soil Management, pp 109-134 in J.L. Hatfield and D.L. Karlen (eds.) Sustainable Agricultural Systems: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, 316pp. USGS, 1988, Essential Elements and Soil Amendments for Plants: Sources and use for agriculture: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1017, U.S. Government Printing Office, 48pp

Analysis of McDonald’s Corporation Advertising :: Advertising

Advertising generally tries to sell the things that consumers want even if they should not wish for them. Adverting things that consumers do not yearn for is not effective use of the advertiser’s money. A majority of what advertisers sell consists of customer items like food, clothing, cars and services-- things that people desire to have. On the other hand it is believed by some advertising experts that the greatest influence in advertising happens in choosing a brand at the point of sale. Advertising appeals to consumers through common images; the logo used is well-designed and there is a clear separation of art from commerce. Advertisers use these iconic images to appeal to consumers since they symbolize or stand directly for something. The image for MacDonald’s symbolizes its non-conventionality. Hence advertisers use these images to communicate much more than words, since they seem to convey the message without too much effort. According to McDonald’s website, their mission statement is â€Å"to be our customers' favorite place and way to eat. Our worldwide operations have been aligned around a global strategy called the Plan to win centering on the five basics of an exceptional customer experience – People, Products, Place, Price and Promotion. We are committed to improving our operations and enhancing our customers' experience. (http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd) For decades, Macdonald’s has maintained a broad advertising campaign. In addition to the media, the company makes considerable use of signage and billboards, sporting events and coolers of drinks with their logo for all kinds of events. The company has used twenty-three diverse slogans in United States for advertising. At the same time the company has few other slogans for the selected countries and regions. In the case of McDonald’s advertising the texts used are effective. They have contributed in attracting targeted clients to the company. The wordings are aesthetically pleasing and successful at getting the consumers to buy the product. The phrase ‘I’m Lovin’ it’ which is used in one the advertisements, indicates a piece of advertising that is particularly striking. According to Cross â€Å"propagandas is simply a means of persuasion†, which they have applied that to their place because it is evidently an artistic expression, yet is trying to sell something to the consumers.(Cross,149) The company has had to face are numerous. The company has been involved in quite a number of lawsuits, most of which entail trademark disputes. MacDonald’s has threatened many food production industries with legal action unless the companies drop their trading name.

Euthanasia Essay: Mercy Killing or Murder? -- Euthanasia Physician Ass

Euthanasia: Mercy Killing or Murder?      Ã‚   We, as humans, are mortal beings.   Our life span is finite.   Even though we are mortal, we try to hang onto our lives as long as we can; fear of death and wanting to live forever are, after all, part of human nature.   Sometimes, however, the field of medicine capitalizes on this aspect of humanity. While it is certainly true that one goal of medicine has always been to prolong life, another goal has been the alleviation of pain and suffering.   One point at which these two views collide is over the hotly debated issue of euthanasia.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Euthanasia, or "mercy killing," as it has been called, is certainly not an issue with just two sides.   There are many shades of gray involved, so to speak.   Euthanasia, after all,   ranges from simply allowing an individual to die naturally without life support or "pulling the plug" (passive euthanasia), all the way to Jack Kevorkian's suicide machine (active euthanasia). To complicate things further, there is also voluntary euthanasia, "Cases in which patient requests to be killed, and dies as a result of action taken by another person," involuntary euthanasia; "cases in which no action is requested because the patient is unconscious, senile, or otherwise incapable of making a request, but the person is allowed to die or is killed," and nonvoluntary euthanasia; "cases in which a conscious, terminally ill patient states that they do not want to die, but is allowed to die or is killed anyway" (http://valdosta.peachnet.edu).   While an individual may advocate one form of euthanasia, it is not uncommon for the same person to be completely against another form.   There are cases in which euthanasia is wrong, especially cases involving conscious pe... ...d dreaded events that human beings ever have to go through.   This is probably the main reason that euthanasia is so controversial.   It is human nature for us to try and prolong our lives as long as possible, and, through medicine, we have prolonged them quite a bit.   It is important to remember, nevertheless, that sometimes while attempting to fight our common enemy death, we lose sight of the best interests of the individuals whose lives we are affecting.   Are these people not the most qualified people to make this decision?   It is, after all, their lives that hang in the balance.    Works Cited "Murder" American Heritage Dictionary on CD-ROM,   1991. Internet: Http://www.ieatf.org.McCord, William. Internet: Http://valdosta.peachnet.edu.   "Moral Dilemmas." Society 29 July-August 1992: 22. Pallone, Nathaniel. Society 29 July-August 1992: 35.

Ethics Bank Bailout

This paper explores the ethics of bank executives receiving large bonuses despite the fact that they received a bailout. I identify the utilitarian and deontological implications of these executives’ actions. This paper also examines if the executives deserved the bonuses, did the banks need a bonus, and how the banks should have been regulated by the banks.Keywords: bailout, utilitarian, deontologyEthics of Bank Bailout BonusesCurrently the economy is still in â€Å"The Great Recession† largely due to the fallout caused by banks. Banks caused this fallout by giving out home loans to unqualified borrowers.  The banks approved loans they know could not be repaid by the borrower because of the terms such as adjustable rates.These home loans started defaulting; which started a domino effect of bank failures, further driving the economy into a downward spiral. In came the government, armed with astronomical sums of money determined to rescue these large financial institut ions. Enrich, Hilsenrath, and Solomon (2009) state that 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money was used to bailout these banks under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).It wasn’t long after these bailouts that these banks continued to reward the executives with large bonuses. Should have these top executives of these major banks that received the bailout money been allowed to receive large bonuses? I say definitely not because it was wrong under the provisions of utilitarian ethics which I believe should have been applied in this situation. These executives were at the helm when these banks failed. Bonuses should be rewards for success not compensation for a title or position. If these banks had enough money to give bonuses then the question of do they really need a bailout should be asked.Furthermore, this bailout money did not belong to the banks to give out as they pleased, it belonged to the taxpayers and the money should have been accompanied by stringent regulation s imposed by the government. A bonus is normally given as a reward for production or as an enticement for favored behavior or performance. On Wall Street a bonus is an equivocal right with no strings attached. Success or failure does not matter. Being an executive in the country’s most powerful financial firms is justification enough to entitle them to a bonus. This is the methodology that these institutions follow.Executives used deontological ethics because they focused on their rights and entitlements as executives. They decided their rights to large bonuses outweighed the importance of righting the economy which affected the entire country. Meanwhile, these are the same executives that were in charge when many American’s retirement plans and investments were depleted or completely wiped out. These were the same executives that oversaw an industry that gave out home loans with impossible repayment terms. It can be argued that the banks caused the entire financial wo es that are still present today.Instead of the institutions terminating their executives for not stopping their organization’s misdeeds they were rewarded. These bank executives drove their institutions to the brink of demise. Yet, they were still rewarded with multi-billion dollar bonuses. How could this be justified or ethical? According to Freifeld (2009), Citigroup Inc. , Merrill Lynch & Co. and seven other U. S. banks paid $32. 6 billion in bonuses in 2008 while receiving $175 billion in taxpayer funds through TARP. That means that almost 20% of the government’s bank bail-out to these banks was used on bonuses for their institution’s executives.The question has to be asked, â€Å"Could the bank bailout have been 20% less to these banks? † An even more interesting question would be, â€Å"Did these banks really need the bank bail-out money? † These executives took an ethical egoistic approach by accepting these bonuses. Andre and Velasquez (198 9) explain that three steps to apply utilitarianism to any situation to decide a moral course of action. The first step is to identify all the course of actions that are available in a situation. The second step is to determine all the beneficial and harmful consequences of each course of action for everyone affected by the action.Finally, the third step is to select the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account. Let’s apply this theory to the bank executives and their choice to receive a large bonus. First step would have them identify all their course of actions available to them, which was to take or leave the massive bonus. Secondly, was to determine all the beneficial and harmful consequences for each course of action for everyone affected by taking or refusing the bonus. Those affected by the taking or leaving the bonus include the executive, the financial institution, and the taxpayers.The beneficial consequence o f taking the bonus for the executive is a very large sum of money. The benefit to the financial institution and the taxpayer is none. The harmful consequence to the executive would be obvious, which would be the loss of a tremendous amount of money. The harmful consequences for the financial institution would be loss of capital that could be used somewhere else more productive and the loss of the government’s confidence. The harmful consequence of the executive taking the bonus would be an increased budget deficit which may lead to higher taxes and loss of federal program funding.Finally, weighing the consequences using the utilitarian theory the greatest benefit would be for the executives to refuse the bonus. The right decision for these bank executives would have been to take a utilitarian ethical approach and not accepted their bonuses. These bonuses hurt the government and the people of the United States by costing the bailout more money than necessary and creating a lar ger deficit. Thus, the act of the executives taking their bonuses was morally unethical under the theory of utilitarian ethics because the consequences were more harmful for the greater population.Instead, these executives prioritized their needs and wants higher than the needs and wants of the people. Financial executives were following the ideology of deontology when they made their decision to take their multi-billion dollar bonuses. According to Alexander and Moore (2008) deontology is based from the word â€Å"duty. † I believe that these bank executives felt it was their duty and entitlement to take the bonus. Also deontologists believe in following the rules even though the act may be considered the right thing to do even if it produces bad consequences (Alexander & Moore 2008).They were not breaking the rules or law when they took their bonuses because there were no regulations or rules against them doing so. They followed the rules and it produced the bad effect of c reating a larger than necessary bailout amount. On the other hand however, the government made the bank bailout loan on good faith. Utilitarian ethics were applied in the decision to give out the loan because they feared the banks would ultimately fail without the money. The choice was made out of consequence. The consequence of failing banks would be a country with an even worse economy and completely ruined financial sector.Thus, the government acted and followed utilitarianism’s theory of the greatest good, for the greater amount of people. The government should have not rushed to give the money to the banks without devising stricter regulations. Restrictions were placed on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses (Despite Bailout 2008). If the government had placed limitations regulating excessive bonuses this could have been avoided. Executives would have been able to follow either consequential or deontological ethics b y following these limits imposed.Instead the government through legislation did not impose sanctions against bonuses as part of TARP. By failing to do so they left the door open for banks and executives to make ethical choices on their own. I explored the utilitarian and deontology implications of the bank bailout bonuses. I found that the bank executives should not have taken the bonuses after receiving bailout money from the government by using the utilitarian theory because ultimately the consequences were more harmful than good for greater population. I also explained why executives should not have received the bonuses based on their and their institution’s performance.I also questioned whether the bank bailout money was necessary because the banks had enough money to give out large bonuses. Also discussed was the idea of the government imposing stricter sanctions with the TARP legislation forbidding large bonuses. I also stated that the bank executives could have been et hically right under the pretense of deontology. Deontology’s theories revolve around duties, rules, and obligations (Waller B. , 2008). Therefore, the bank executives felt they had the right and duty to an enormous bonus as heads of multi-billion dollar financial institutions. They also followed the rules by accepting the bonuses.

The Popularity of Fast Food Restaurants

Why are fast food restaurants so popular? That question in now very popular. Some people around the world still don’t understand why the fast food restaurants are still popular, despite the eventual inconveniences mentioned daily. I think that fast food restaurants are popular because of their availability, they avoid cooking, and because of their prices. One of the causes of the popularity of fast food restaurants is their availability. Indeed, people can find fast food restaurants everywhere.Nowadays, those restaurants are built on the main streets, in business buildings and in the neighborhood in order to allow a quick access to their clients. For example, there is a fast food restaurant at North Lake College. Whether I like or not, it’s the nearest restaurant that I can find when I have a break. Therefore, I will obviously go there to grab something for not being hungry during the coming classes. Consequently, the availability is on the cause of the popularity of fa st food restaurants.Another cause of the popularity of fast food restaurants is that they allow us not to cook. Indeed, some people may be very busy by their job, a project or a school program, which does not allow them enough time to cook. Therefore, they will be tempted by an easier choice, which is the fast food restaurant. Why? Simply because the fast food restaurants are faster than normal restaurants, so they allow people to spend more time on their job, or projects. In addition, some people do not know how to cook.Therefore, these restaurants are help for them. Furthermore, you can find different menus in these restaurants, which give a large choice of foods to the clients. Consequently, the fast food restaurants are popular because they allow people to avoid cooking. A last cause of the popularity of fast food restaurants is the price. As you know, the fast food restaurants are the cheapest you can find. Not everybody has the opportunity, or the money to afford for a lunch i n a restaurant. Therefore, people prefer to spend their money in fast foods.In addition, in order to save, some people are more tempted to buy fast foods than to eat in restaurants. Consequently, the price is another of the popularity of the fast food restaurants. In conclusion, the fast food restaurants may be popular because of their availability, they avoid cooking, and because of their prices. Being available everywhere, allowing people to avoid some household tasks, and even allowing them to save money are some of the reasons that make the fast food restaurants very popular.