No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The investigation of this paper is introduced by describing an important collection of morphisms between two topological groupoids. Characterizations of the different types of morphisms of this collection will be formulated in order to facilitate the construction and the classication of the various morphisms considered. In addition, the relationships existing among the various members of this collection will be determined.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between a direct group experience, a vicarious group experience, and a control group experience and measures of self-actualization (I scale of the Personal Orientation Inventory) and self-congruence (DOM differences and LOV differences on the Interpersonal Check List).Prior to the group experiences, the sample of 75 subjects was divided into three groups of 25 graduate and undergraduate students per group. On the night of the group experience, 66 of these subjects participated in the study. The direct group (13 females and 7 males) participated in a primarily nonverbal personal growth group microlab lasting for one and one-half hours. The vicarious group (11 females and 10 males) viewed the direct group via closed-circuit television. The control group (10 males and 15 females) spent an equivalent amount of time viewingthree films assumed to be unrelated to moving toward self-actualization and increasing self-congruence.The Interpersonal Check List and the Personal Orientation Inventory were administered to the subjects at the conclusion of the group experiences. The subjects responded to the ICL in two different manners. First, each subject responded to the ICL by indicating which adjectives and/or phrases were applicable to S as he saw himself (real self). Next, each subject responded to the ICL by indicating which adjectives and/or phrases were applicable to S as he would like to be ideally (ideal self).The instruments were scored and three scales (DOM differences of the ICL, LOV differences of the ICL, the I scale of the POI) were subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. The F value which was obtained (.7670) was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the major null hypothesis--There will be no statistically significant difference between mean vectors for the direct group, the vicarious group, and the control group on the I scale of the POI, the DOM differences of the ICL, and the LOV differences of the ICL--was not rejected. As the analysis failed to yield results leading to the rejection of the major null hypothesis, the sub-hypotheses were not investigated and were therefore not rejected.Analysis of the intercorrelations between the I scale of the POI, the DOM differences of the ICL, and the LOV differences of the ICL yielded no statistically significant correlations. Since the three scales used within this study provided essentially uncorrelated, independent measures of self-actualization and self-congruence, using these three scales within one study seems to be statistically sound.Further analysis of the data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in selfactualization and self-congruence between the direct group, the vicarious group, and the control group as measured by the DOM differences on the ICL, LOV differences on the ICL, and the I scale of the POI. Therefore, a personal growth group microlab leader could expect to achieve no statistically significant change in his group participants based on self-actualization and self-congruence as measured by the instruments and scales used in this study. If leaders continue to present personal growth group microlabs, there is a need to re-examine the goals of such an experience and re-evaluate the microlab in terms of the new redefined goals.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (PhDSocialScience)--University of South Australia, 2005.

The main purpose of this thesis is to obtain surprising identities by counting the representations of quivers over finite fields. A classical result states that the dimension vectors of the absolutely indecomposable representations of a quiver ?? are in one-to-one correspondence with the positive roots of a root system ??, which is infinite in general. For a given dimension vector ?? ??? ??+, the number A??(??, q), which counts the isomorphism classes of the absolutely indecomposable representations of ?? of dimension ?? over the finite field Fq, turns out to be a polynomial in q with integer coefficients, which have been conjectured to be nonnegative by Kac. The main result of this thesis is a multi-variable formal identity which expresses an infinite series as a formal product indexed by ??+ which has the coefficients of various polynomials A??(??, q) as exponents. This identity turns out to be a qanalogue of the remarkable Weyl-Macdonald-Kac denominator identity modulus a conjecture of Kac, which asserts that the multiplicity of ?? is equal to the constant term of A??(??, q). An equivalent form of this conjecture is established and a partial solution is obtained. A new proof of the integrality of A??(??, q) is given. Three Maple programs have been included which enable one to calculate the polynomials A??(??, q) for quivers with at most three nodes. All sample out-prints are consistence with Kac???s conjectures. Another result of this thesis is as follows. Let A be a finite dimensional algebra over a perfect field K, M be a finitely generated indecomposable module over A ???K ??K. Then there exists a unique indecomposable module M??? over A such that M is a direct summand of M??? ???K ??K, and there exists a positive integer s such that Ms = M ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? M (s copies) has a unique minimal field of definition which is isomorphic to the centre of End ??(M???) rad (End ??(M???)). If K is a finite field, then s can be taken to be 1.

Ingroup bias, which refers to people???s tendency to evaluate and treat members of their ingroups better than members of outgroups, is a central feature of intergroup relations. Conceptually, ingroup bias can be comprised of ingroup positivity, outgroup negativity, or both. However, research has often confounded these components on the assumption that they are reciprocally related. The aim of this research project was to examine the relative dominance of ingroup positivity versus outgroup negativity in ingroup bias and the relationship between them. Two approaches were employed. First, a series of laboratory studies examined the effect of threat on implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. In Study 1, ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity were assessed in the domains of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination in a context where threat appeared to be salient. Analyses within and across measures revealed that ingroup positivity was more dominant than outgroup negativity, and that ingroup and outgroup attitudes were unrelated or positively related. Experiments that manipulated the salience of realistic threat (Studies 2 and 3), symbolic threat, (Studies 6 and 7), or both (Studies 4 and 5) similarly produced nonsignificant or positive correlations between ingroup and outgroup attitudes. However, in Studies 4, 5, and 7, perceptions of symbolic threat significantly influenced intergroup attitudes. Overall, the findings of the laboratory studies suggest that although threat can shift outgroup attitudes, it does not necessarily lead to reciprocity between ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity. The second approach employed in this dissertation involved content analysis of messages posted on an Internet hate site. In contrast to the laboratory experiments, Studies 8 and 9 found that ingroup positivity significantly predicted outgroup negativity. Implications of these findings are discussed, including the possibility that ingroup positivity will be linked to outgroup hostility when people are highly identified with their ingroup and when the outgroup defines the ingroup. This dissertation contributes to the intergroup relations literature by providing a more detailed account of implicit and explicit ingroup bias, and by identifying potential conditions leading to a negative relationship between ingroup and outgroup attitudes.