🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

RE313 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Prolonged Grief Disorder, Carl Jung, Debriefing

38 views7 pages
orchidbee627
19 Jan 2018
School
WLU
Department
Religion & Culture
Course
RE313
Professor
Ann Baranowski

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

In this lesson, we will focus on five chapters in bonanno"s book. We will examine in more depth his research and what he discovered. We will learn that resilience is the most common grief reaction. We"ll also look at some of the factors that can predict resilience. We"ll learn that some people actually do much better after a loss while others do much worse. Finally, we"ll return to the theme of continuing bonds and look at features of healthy and unhealthy enduring bonds with the deceased. View: in preparing to read this chapter, let"s view this 20-minute talk by bonanno called measuring. Study developed by vince felitti: bonanno incidentally does not reference this study. If some future researchers bring their studies together, perhaps they may find that a low. View: let"s listen to this talk out of the ashes: lessons learned from research about 9/11 that is just over 17 minutes long. https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=tuwcpxk6z-m.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

RE313 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Debriefing, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Prolonged Grief Disorder
orangeswan298
RE313
Final Exam
Study Guide
RE313 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Terrorist Threats, Hot Sauce, Sarcasm
byzantiumgoose294
RE313 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Socioeconomic Status, Co-Creation, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
sapphireswan920

Related Questions

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each paragraph!

The False Income-Inequality Narrative

BY JASON L. RILEY

Published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 29, 2015

An enduring theme of the Democratic presidential race has been income inequality, coupled with an enduring belief that America's affluent reached their status at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

Bernie Sanders speaks of little else on the stump. And when not busy dissembling on her handling of email correspondence at the State Department, Hillary Clinton will tell you that the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. If Joe Biden gets in, expect more of the same. The vice president is said to be contemplating a 2016 bid in large part because struggling middle-income families may have trouble relating to Mrs. Clinton on inequality given her high living since leaving the White House.

This theme, in any case, seems to resonate with voters, which is no huge shock in the sixth year of an economic recovery. Envy and resentment fuel class warfare and lackluster economic growth throughout the Obama presidency have made people less optimistic and more inclined to fault others for their circumstances. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week reports that four-in-five Americans “were either angry because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power or anxious and uncertain. After all, the economy still feels rocky and unpredictable or both.

Liberals want to address income disparities through wealth redistribution by taking money from more productive people and giving it to the less productive in the name of fairness as the left defines it. They want to raise income taxes, expand the welfare state, lift minimum wages, and strengthen the bargaining power of unions. Mr. Sanders has been the most explicit about this, even going so far as to propose a wealth tax. Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1%, the senator said in July.

In reality, the left has overstated the problem. And all the focus on divvying up existing wealth instead of creating more risks making matters far worse for the people they are trying to help and the country in general. To the extent that the expanding welfare state allows more people to live without working and therefore without earning income or developing their own human capital—supporters of the welfare state are contributing to the very income disparities they so much decry, writes economist Thomas Sowell in his new book, “Wealth, Poverty and Politics.

Mr. Sowell is the author of more than 30 books over the past four decades, many having to do with what drives different social and economic outcomes among different groups in the U.S. and elsewhere. In his latest tome, he draws from this well of research to do what he has done so well for so long: question basic assumptions behind public policy and follow the facts where they lead him.

One common assumption is that proportionate or random outcomes are the natural order of things and that gaps or disparities are evidence of something wrong. In fact, huge disparities are the norm, not the exception, because the demographic, cultural, and political factors that influence the development of the human capital that makes people productive also tend to be unequal.

In 2013, only 9% of U.S. women with college degrees who gave birth were unmarried, versus 61% of women who were high-school dropouts and unmarried. Harvard's Robert Putnam reports that children from professional families will hear 19 million more words than their working-class peers before the first day of kindergarten.

These children don't have the same prospects. Equal opportunity, in the sense of being judged and rewarded by the same standards as others, cannot possibly mean equal life chances for children born and raised in these very different settings,writes Mr. Sowell. The fact that life is unfair is not the same as saying that a particular institution, or a particular society, is unfair.

The argument that social mobility is a thing of the past in the U.S. also is disputable. Longitudinal studies by the IRS and others that measure the progress of individuals over time show that the American dream is alive and well. One such paper, published by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, measured whether a person has more or less income, earnings, or wealth than his or her parents did at the same age and concluded that the vast majority of Americans had higher incomes, while 50% had greater wealth.

In other studies, Pew has found generational stagnation but the authors have noted that it didn't apply to immigrants. If low-income immigrants can rise even when the native-born don't, writes Mr. Sowell, that strongly suggests that American society continues to offer opportunities to move up economically, but that not all groups make the same use of these opportunities.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed (Encounter Books, 2014).

As you may recall in the work of Triplett (1898), the presence of others in a bicycle race was found to enhance individual performance. This is called social facilitation (Williams, Harkins, & Karau, 2007). At times, however, the presence of others can detract from individual performance, which is termed social inhibition (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Similarly, social loafing can occur when an individual’s performance within a group decreases due to his or her reliance on others in the group (Crisp & Turner, 2007).

For this Discussion, review the media program, Week 5: The Virtual Office. Focus on the characters in the media and determine which characters displayed social facilitation, social inhibition, and social loafing.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post by Day 3 a description of the characters in the media program demonstrating social loafing, social inhibition, and social facilitation. Explain how you identified them. Then, select one of the characters and, using the current literature, explain two ways you might mitigate their behavior.

Media Program

(Onscreen Text: The employees at the United Cardboard Company often work individually on projects, but as with most environments, they are occasionally asked to participate in group projects. One such group is about to meet right now to plan a presentation for the Board of Directors. Observe the conversation and reactions of various group members to determine which group members exhibit signs of the following: Social Loafing, Social Inhibition, and Social Facilitation.)

(Interior of an office. Ken stands at the front of the conference room.)

KEN: OK, I guess we might as well all get started. As we all know, the big man has requested the five of us to get together and write and conceptualize a presentation to the board on our new packaging system. Maybe we can start by going around and throwing out some initial ideas.

KATHY: Sounds good to me. I think a PowerPoint presentation would do the job well.

GAVIN: I agree. We could follow it up with a physical demonstration of how the packaging looks and folds-- maybe a video of the larger pieces that won't fit into the boardroom.

KEN: Sounds perfect to me. Amanda, Brian, what do you guys think?

BRIAN: Yeah, what you guys said sounds fine.

(Amanda thinks, “I don’t know what to say!”)

KEN: Amanda?

AMANDA: I don't know. I didn't really get much chance to think about this. We only found out we needed to do this together three days ago.

KEN: OK, no worries. Let's focus on the PowerPoint idea. I've been doing a lot of them lately, so I'm happy to take the lead on the design aspect. What do you guys think we should all incorporate into the slides?

GAVIN: I think we should start with where we got the idea for this new packaging -- the company that designed it and the different sizes that it comes in.

KATHY: We should follow that with a graph comparing the old prices to the new ones to illustrate how much we'll be saving over time. Amanda, didn't you have most of that information collected at some point?

(Amanda thinks, “Oh no! What if I deleted that?)

AMANDA: I don't know, maybe, it's been so long. I didn't think I'd need it again for a group project like this.

(Gavin thinks, “I wonder what’s gotten into her. She’s not usually this tense.”)

KEN: That's OK, Amanda, I'm sure we can easily dig it up again. Brian, do you have any other ideas for the PowerPoint slides?

BRIAN: Nah, I think what you guys mentioned sounds right.

(Kathy thinks, “Wow. Way to contribute Brian.”)

KEN: OK then, Kathy and Gavin why don't you send me all of the info and I'll write it up and make the slides. Amanda, don't worry about the cost saving document, I'm sure I can dig it up from my old emails and put it into that slide too.

AMANDA: Are you sure? I'm happy to look. I mean I'm sure I have it somewhere. (Kathy thinks, “She really needs to get it together. Why is she so nervous?”) At least I think I have it somewhere. You won't tell the Board of Directors if I lost it, will you?

KEN: Of course not, we're in it together. So as I was saying, I'll write up and prepare all the PowerPoint slides. Then we can start our presentation with reading and explaining each slide. Then, what?

KATHY: Well, and then I think we should show them the packaging live, and the quick deconstructing techniques.

KEN: Great idea. You and Amanda can demonstrate the folding, while I narrate what you're doing.

(Amanda thinks, “Is he doing too much of the work? And what if I drop everything while he’s talking?”)

GAVIN: And after you all demonstrate the smaller packaging, we could show a quick video of how the really big ones function down at the warehouse. Brian, would you be able to go film that quickly one of these days?

BRIAN: I don't really have any experience with video cameras or anything like that, so...

(Gavin thinks, “I should have seen that one coming.”)

KEN: That's OK. My wife actually just got me this great little camera for our anniversary. It takes great videos. So I can just run down to the warehouse, get some footage, then put it together on this new editing software I just downloaded. Maybe add a little music. It's going to be really slick!

KATHY: Are you sure, I wouldn't mind doing that too.

KEN: Oh no, it's fine. I love this kind of stuff; just leave it to me. But I suppose that's enough planning. Now it's time to get to work and make the presentation a knock out. Go team!

(Everyone except Ken thinks, “Team?”) ©2012 Laureate Education, Inc.

Employees at D-Bart’s San Jose facility have reason to be concerned. Division Manager Karen Howell received word from headquarters that the San Jose plant would be closed, with operations merged into the San Francisco facility. Most of the San Jose staff would be transferred to San Francisco, since the change was more an effort to save facility costs than to eliminate workers. Even so, approximately 20 percent of the San Jose staff would be let go. Howell was to work with supervisors to decide who would go and who would stay. Since there was no particular area that is to be reduced, Howell thought the most straightforward and equitable method to determine staff cuts was to eliminate 20 percent from each department, with termination decisions based on performance appraisal scores. She has reviewed appraisal records and generated a list of employees she believed should get notice. Howell has not yet shared her list with managers, and no general announcement has been made to employees. Managers have been informed of anticipated cuts and were asked to come up with suggestions on which employees to cut. Howell planned to meet with each department manager to finalize their decisions before they took any action. Howell met with Production Supervisor Dave Bradshaw this morning. They needed to cut five people from his department. Howell and Bradshaw both agreed that reductions would be difficult, but she was surprised when Bradshaw said, “I know this is going to be hard for some people, but it’ll be a good thing, too. I’ve got a couple of people I have wanted to get rid of for a very long time.” “Who’s that?” asked Karen. “Ben Renfro and Jackie Callahan,” Dave said without hesitation. “Why?” asked Karen, “They both have outstanding performance appraisals.” “Well, it doesn’t matter what the paperwork says,” he answered, “they’re both terrible. Renfro’s always wasting time chatting with other employees. He keeps everybody from working, and he never meets production goals. Callahan can’t get to work on time. I bet she’s late three days out of five.” “How do you know she’s late three days out of five?” Karen asked. “Have you kept a log or documented her absence?” “No, but I work with these people. I know what they’re doing. We’re pushed to meet production numbers,” Dave said in his defense. “We don’t have time for that paperwork stuff, and besides, people know they have to be at work on time. If they can’t even do that, we should just get rid of them!” Howell found much the same response from all the managers. It appeared that no one had been taking the appraisal process seriously. Feedback to employees had been haphazard at best, and discipline, if it had occurred at all, had been arbitrary and not properly documented. Managers simply checked off boxes on the appraisal forms so they could get back to the “real” work of production. Howell shook her head. Obviously, the existing performance appraisals could not provide reliable documentation on which to base reduction decisions. She would have to come up with a different plan for appraisals and reducing staff. SHRM is recognized as the source for this case study. Students will complete the assigned case study as a way to increase learning through application of course material in complex, real world situations. To complete the case study the student will:

• Identify and define the central dilemma presented in the case

• Select and gather pertinent areas of consideration, and identify critical data and stakeholders (if you need to make assumptions about any of the facts in the case, be sure to specify these assumptions in your analysis)

• Gather additional information and research as necessary

• Identify and investigate all appropriate possibilities to resolve the central issues, and present at least three different options

• Select and present the best solution and include support for the decision that recognizes positions of all the stakeholders

• Describe how to implement the best solution and include strategies to address the known challenges. Also include the likely implications of the selected solution.