No description available.

Doctor Pharmaceuticae - Dpharm / The brain laterality of pharmacists may influence where the pharmacists are best suited to work. Brain laterality refers to the asymmetry of the hemispheres of the brain with regard to specific cognitive functions, such as objectivity and emotion. The left hemisphere functions objectively and rationally, whereas the right hemisphere is subjective and non-rational. Animal behaviour in the literature demonstrated an influence of brain laterality, thus selecting an ideal work environment may also be driven by brain laterality bias. Further support for the research included: amblyopia; hemiplegia; the WADA test. The research question investigated the matching of the brain laterality groups of pharmacists to their ideal work environments. The aims investigated: ear, eye, hand and foot dominance in determining brain laterality; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables on job choice; location of emotion generation and job choice. Five objectives investigated these aims: influence of brain laterality alone; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables; influence of a new brain laterality determining continuum; Propinquity Principle in achieving data; correctness of the Right Hemisphere Theory (RHT) or the Valence Theory (VT). The RHT suggests that the right hemisphere is dominant in processing all emotion. The VT argues that the left hemisphere is specialised in processing the positive emotions while the right hemisphere is specialised in processing the negative emotions. The resulting Null Hypothesis posits that there is no statistical difference between the different brain laterality groups enabling pharmacists to work competently in any placement. The Alternative Hypothesis was that there is a statistical difference between the brain laterality groups, thus brain laterality can be used to best place pharmacists into ideal placements.

Doctor Pharmaceuticae - Dpharm / The brain laterality of pharmacists may influence where the pharmacists are best suited to work. Brain laterality refers to the asymmetry of the hemispheres of the brain with regard to specific cognitive functions, such as objectivity and emotion. The left hemisphere functions objectively and rationally, whereas the right hemisphere is subjective and nonrational. Animal behaviour in the literature demonstrated an influence of brain laterality, thus selecting an ideal work environment may also be driven by brain laterality bias. Further support for the research included: amblyopia; hemiplegia; the WADA test. The research question investigated the matching of the brain laterality groups of pharmacists to their ideal work environments. The aims investigated: ear, eye, hand and foot dominance in determining brain laterality; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables on job choice; location of emotion generation and job choice. Five objectives investigated these aims: influence of brain laterality alone; influence of brain laterality and reductionistic variables; influence of a new brain laterality determining continuum; Propinquity Principle in achieving data; correctness of the Right Hemisphere Theory (RHT) or the Valence Theory (VT). The RHT suggests that the right hemisphere is dominant in processing all emotion. The VT argues that the left hemisphere is specialised in processing the positive emotions while the right hemisphere is specialised in processing the negative emotions. The resulting Null Hypothesis posits that there is no statistical difference between the different brain laterality groups enabling pharmacists to work competently in any placement. The Alternative Hypothesis was that there is a statistical difference between the brain laterality groups, thus brain laterality can be used to best place pharmacists into ideal placements. Global warming questions in the questionnaire determined positive and negative emotion as well as enthusiasm for global warming problems. In South Africa, probability cluster sampling was applied utilising postal and email methods. In the UK, non-probability purposive sampling was applied utilising four methods: snowballing, email, postal, and convenience sampling. Both countries produced similar results for the same sample size.

Doctor of Philosophy / School of Family Studies and Human Services / Walter Schumm / Farrell J. Webb / There is considerable research on concepts of Blackness in America. Much of this research is conducted within a Eurocentric as opposed to an Afrocentric perspective. Social research has established that ideals, social norms, and values about Black minority groups may be shaped by dominant culture premises and that the dominant culture of any society can influence the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of minority group members coexisting within that culture. The White racial frame holds that over time a dominant cultural perspective in the U.S. has installed a positive orientation to “White” and whiteness and a strong negative orientation toward racial “others”, particularly toward Black Americans. The present research explores this phenomenon from an Afrocentric perspective, assessing propinquity preferences of non-native Immigrant and native-born American Blacks toward native-born Blacks. Utilizing data drawn from The National Survey on American Life 2001-2003 (Jackson, 2007) the study assessed the degree of Black propinquity (i.e., self-identified feelings of closeness and identity preferences with native-born Blacks) expressed within and between subsamples of native-born African American (n = 3,464) and non-native (chiefly Afro-Caribbean) Blacks (n = 1,118). More specifically, it hypothesized that native-born Blacks would display greater propinquity preferences than Immigrant Blacks for native-American Blacks depicted as more economically-challenged as well as socially affluent and elite; also, it expected they would report greater support for socially undesirable as well as socially desirable Blacks than would Immigrant Blacks. A series of hierarchical regression analyses modeled the unique and joint predictive variance of socio-demographic, socio-economic, and Black (derived) target characteristics within each Black subpopulation against the primary outcome variable (propinquity). Overall regression models for each Black group were highly similar in the proportion of explained variance (27% for native Blacks; 26% for Immigrant Blacks) and weighted contributions of three blocks of variables; derived variables for Black target characteristics contributed most of the total variance within each group. No statistically reliable differences for R score values were found between the two Black subpopulations on these derived variables. Findings are discussed in the context of the White racial frame perspective, secondary data methodology, and future research.