Chapter 8: The Trait Approach PDF

174 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach a desire to not receive a poor grade tend to do more poorly than those who come to class with other achievement goals. Indeed, persistent reliance on avoidance goals has been linked to a host of negative consequences, including poor performance and a lowered sens...

174 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach a desire to not receive a poor grade tend to do more poorly than those who come to class with other achievement goals. Indeed, persistent reliance on avoidance goals has been linked to a host of negative consequences, including poor performance and a lowered sense of well-being (Roskes, Elliot, & De Dreu, 2014). As with other personality traits, researchers find a great deal of stability in the use of achievement goals in high school and college students (Corker, ­Donnellan, & Bowles, 2013; Lee, 2016). That is, students typically approach each of their classes with the same kinds of goals. However, investigators also find that students sometimes adopt different achievement goals depending on the situation. Consequently, educators may want to alter the way they structure some of their classes and assignments (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006; Murayama & Elliot, 2009; Roskes et al., 2014). Researchers find higher levels of motivation and learning when teachers emphasize mastery and improving skills (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Meece et al., 2006). Unfortunately, many schools take the opposite approach by emphasizing grades, competition among students, and the threat of a poor performance. Although some students respond well to these incentives, many do not, and a focus on performance rather than learning can often lead to a decrease in academic motivation. Type A, Hostility and Health S everal decades ago, some physicians and medical researchers were frustrated by their inability to identify which patients were likely to suffer from cardiovascular problems. Although they knew high blood pressure, smoking, obesity, and inactivity all contributed to the risk of heart disease, combining these factors still left the researchers unable to predict new cases with much accuracy (Jenkins, 1971, 1976). But these medical professionals also noticed that their patients who had suffered a heart attack seemed to act differently than other patients (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). Heart attack victims were more active, more energetic, and more driving than those without cardiovascular problems. In short, they seemed to have different personalities. Initially, researchers identified this personality dimension as the coronary-prone behavior pattern, because it seemed to consist of a combination of behaviors associated with coronary disease. Later, this individual difference was called Type A–Type B, or sometimes just Type A. Strictly speaking, the name is inappropriate because it is not a true typology. Instead of identifying two types of people, A and B, we should think of a trait continuum with extreme Type A people at one end and extreme Type B people at the other. Typical Type A individuals are strongly motivated to overcome obstacles and are driven to achieve. They are attracted to competition, enjoy power and recognition, and are easily aroused to anger and action. They dislike wasting time and tend to do things in a vigorous and efficient manner. Type A people often find more easygoing people a source of frustration. On the other hand, typical Type B people are relaxed and unhurried. They may work hard on occasion but rarely in the driven, compulsive manner of Type A individuals. They are less likely than Type As to seek competition or to be aroused to anger or action. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 175 Jerry Burger/Santa Clara University Type A, Hostility and Health Type A people often have a sense of urgency and like to do more than one thing at a time. Type A as a Personality Variable What the medical researchers were examining, of course, is a personality trait. Naturally, a trait as intriguing as Type A soon caught the attention of personality researchers. Before long, psychologists identified three major components that appear to make up the Type A trait (Glass, 1977). First, Type A people have a higher competitive achievement striving than Type Bs. Type As work harder at achievement tasks regardless of outside pressure, such as deadlines. Second, Type A individuals show a sense of time urgency. They feel time is important and shouldn’t be wasted. Whereas Type B people might procrastinate, Type As jump right in. Type A students volunteer for experiments earlier in the term than Type Bs, and they show up earlier to participate (Gastorf, 1980; Strube, 1982). Third, Type As are more likely to respond to frustrating situations with anger and hostility (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006). As you will see, it’s this third component that soon became the most significant. Personality researchers have compared Type A and Type B people on a wide variety of behaviors, including driving habits, study habits, reactions to failure, and reactions to persuasive messages. One particularly interesting hypothesis to come out of this work explains differences in Type A and Type B behavior in terms of a motivation for control. That is, achievement striving, time urgency, and hostility reflect the Type A individuals’ desire to exercise effective control over the people and situations they encounter. Type As are more likely than Type Bs to dominate a group discussion (­Yarnold, Mueser, & Grimm, 1985). Type As are less likely to give up control over a Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 176 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach task, even to someone who might do a better job (Strube, Berry, & Moergen, 1985). They are also more likely than Type Bs to want something after being told they can’t have it (Rhodewalt & Comer, 1982; Rhodewalt & Davison, 1983). Naturally, researchers also have looked at achievement, and numerous laboratory studies find Type A participants typically outperform Type Bs on achievement tasks. One reason for this difference is that Type As tend to set higher goals for themselves (Ward & Eisler, 1987). But what really fires them up is competition. What greater threat to Type As sense of control than to be told there can be but one winner? Sometimes their blood pressure and heart rate rise when simply told they are going to compete against another person (Lyness, 1993). In some cases, Type As actually seem to be attracted to competition. Type A participants in one study were more confident in their ability to do well in a game when told they were competing against another participant (Gotay, 1981). Researchers find similar differences when looking at academic performance. Type A students tend to take more classes than Type B students and expect to do better in those classes (Ovcharchyn, Johnson, & Petzel, 1981). Type A students receive more academic honors and participate in more extracurricular activities than Type Bs (Glass, 1977). They also participate in more sports, receive more athletic awards, and participate in more social activities in high school than their Type B classmates (Glass, 1977). Hostility and Health As the medical researchers who first identified the trait anticipated, early studies found Type A was a good predictor of heart disease (Cooper, Detre, & Weiss, 1981). Type A men in one 8½-year study had more than twice the incidence of heart disease than Type B men (Rosenman et al., 1975). In another investigation, Type A was a better predictor of heart attacks than cholesterol level or cigarette smoking (Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1976). Naturally, findings like these caught the attention of the medical community as well as the media. Not only did the concept help physicians do a better job of predicting heart attacks, but the findings also hinted at lifestyle changes that might reduce the risk of heart disease. However, as is often the case, results from subsequent studies found that the connection between Type A and health is more complex than the original research suggested. In particular, several investigators reported low or nonexistent relationships between Type A behavior and coronary disease (Matthews & Haynes, 1986; Siegman, 1994). One team of researchers examined the relationship between Type A and death from cardiovascular disease in a study spanning more than two decades and found no connection (Smigelskas, Zemaitiene, Julkunen, & Kauhanen, 2015). This state of affairs left researchers with the difficult task of explaining inconsistent findings. It seemed unlikely that Type A behavior once caused heart disease but that suddenly it did not. It also did not seem probable that all the earlier studies somehow identified a relationship where one did not exist. Researchers found the answer to this puzzle by breaking Type A into its components. As you may recall, Type A is actually a collection of several behavior tendencies that tend to go together. In essence, when we measure Type A, we are measuring more than one trait. It is possible that only one or two of these components are responsible for health problems. In that case, we would expect to find only weak and sometimes nonsignificant associations between Type A and cardiovascular disease. This line of reasoning led some researchers to look for the “toxic component” of Type A behavior. What did they find? A large amount of evidence now points to the Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Type A, Hostility and Health 177 hostility component as the culprit (Bunde & Suls, 2006; Krantz & McCeney, 2002; Smith, 2006; Smith, Glazer, Ruiz, & Gallo, 2004; Williams, 2010). People high in hostility aren’t necessarily violent or even bossy. Rather, they tend to have a strong reaction to the small frustrations and inconveniences we all experience. They respond to even minor annoyances with “expressions of antagonism, disagreeableness, rudeness, surliness, criticalness, and uncooperativeness” (Dembroski & Costa, 1987). ­People high in hostility might become upset when stuck in a slow-moving line at the post office or when they misplace something and can’t find it right away. Most of us have learned to take these minor inconveniences in stride, but some people become highly irritated. We sometimes refer to these individuals as “quick-tempered,” because it usually doesn’t take much to send them into a fit of anger. It should be noted that researchers sometimes use the terms anger or aggression to refer to this trait (Smith et al., 2004). However, for clarity’s sake, I will simply use the term hostility here. Several investigations find that scores on hostility and anger measures do a good job of predicting coronary artery disease (Kawachi, Sparrow, Spiro, Vokonas, & Weiss, 1996; Niaura, Todaro, Stroud, Spiro, Ward, & Weiss, 2002; Williams, Nieto, Sanford, Couper, & Tyroler, 2002; Williams, Nieto, Sanford, & Tyroler, 2001). One study followed 12,986 healthy middle-aged men and women over a 4½-year period (Williams et al., 2000). Compared to participants low in trait anger, participants who scored high on this trait were more than twice as likely to suffer some form of coronary heart disease during this time. More alarming, the high-anger participants were nearly three times as likely to be hospitalized or die from heart disease during the study. One team of researchers demonstrated the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease by examining the use of anger-related words by Twitter users (Eichstaedt et al., 2015). The investigators examined more than 148 million tweets in 1,347 U.S. counties (more than 88% of the American population lives in these counties). They found a strong correlation between the use of anger-related words in a county and the age-adjusted rate of death from heart disease in that county. In fact, the expression of anger in tweets was a better predictor of heart disease mortality than the county’s level of such well-known risk factors as smoking, hypertension, and obesity. Of course, the people who did the tweeting (most likely younger than average) in most cases were not the ones dying. But the findings do demonstrate a connection between cardiovascular health in a community and the extent to which its residents express their anger. Why is hostility related to cardiovascular problems? Researchers have identified several possible connections, including unhealthy lifestyles (Siegler, 1994), poor social support (Smith, Fernengel, Holcroft, Gerald, & Marien, 1994), immune system weaknesses (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996), and blood lipid levels (Richards, Hof, & Alvarenga, 2000). Other studies find that people high in hostility frequently exhibit the kind of physiological reactions associated with cardiovascular problems, such as high blood pressure (Jackson, Kubzansky, Cohen, Jacobs, & Wright, 2007; Jorgensen, Johnson, Kolodziej, & Schreer, 1996; Martin & Watson, 1997; Powch & Houston, 1996; Raikkonen, Matthews, Flory, & Owens, 1999). Male participants in one investigation wore a blood pressure monitor for an entire day (Guyll & Contrada, 1998). The men also kept a record of their activities and their moods. As shown in Figure 8.3, participants high in hostility showed elevated levels of blood pressure when they interacted with other people, whereas the low-­hostility participants showed no such reaction. Apparently the high-hostility participants found Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 178 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach Systolic Blood Pressure 120 119 118 117 116 115 Low-Hostility Participants Not Talking High-Hostility Participants Talking Figure 8.3 Blood Pressure Response to Social Interactions Source: From Guyll, M., & Contrada, R. J. (1998). Trait hostility and ambulatory cardiovascular activity: Responses to social interaction. Health Psychology, 17, 30–39. Copyright © 1998 by the American Psychological Association. Table 8.2 Some Health Consequences of High Anger and Hostility Physical Illness High hostility scores predict increased incidence of many illnesses, including asthma, liver disease, and arthritis. Immune System High anger is related to weakness in the immune system, especially after conflict. Pain High anger scores are associated with lower pain tolerance in lab studies and with complaints of greater pain among patients experiencing pain. Cholesterol High trait anger is correlated with higher cholesterol levels. Cardiovascular Disease High hostility is related to higher incidence of many cardiovascular diseases, including atherosclerosis and coronary artery blockage. Death High scores on measures of anger and hostility are associated with death from cardiovascular disease as well as death from other causes. Source: Suinn, M. R. (2001). The terrible twos–anger and anxiety: Hazardous to your health. American Psychologist, 56, 27–36. Copyright © 2001 by the American Psychological Association. many of their conversations frustrating or annoying, and this reaction resulted in higher blood pressure. Interestingly, the high-hostility women in the study did not have this reaction. Perhaps this is because women generally find social interactions more pleasant and less a source of frustration than do men. As shown in Table 8.2, the results from numerous studies paint a consistently dangerous picture for those high in hostility (Suinn, 2001). However, as is often the case, we need to be cautious when applying these findings to other cultures. Most of Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Social Anxiety 179 research reflected in the table was conducted largely in Western countries. In fact, one team of researchers looked at Japanese citizens and found that expressing anger was related to lower health risks (Kitayama et al., 2015). Fortunately, investigators also have a couple of pieces of encouraging news to report. First, there is evidence that programs designed to help potential cardiovascular victims reduce their anger can be effective (Davidson, Gidron, Mostofsky, & Trudeau, 2007; Fernandez, 2010; Gidron, Davidson, & Bata, 1999; Suinn, 2001). In general, these programs train anger-prone participants to replace their initial reaction to frustrating situations with relaxation. Instructors often teach participants to think about the situation differently. That is, instead of making a small inconvenience out to be a disaster, participants are taught to keep events in perspective and recognize that there are more effective solutions to the problem than anger. One team of investigators found these training procedures to be especially effective for drivers whose “road rage” had gotten so out of hand that they required psychological counseling (­Deffenbacher, Huff, Lynch, Oetting, & Salvatore, 2000). A second piece of good news applies to those who are Type A but lack the hostility component. Contrary to initial warnings, Type A is not necessarily bad for your health. Workaholics who push themselves to meet ever greater challenges and who prefer to work through lunch might not be headed for an early heart attack after all. If these people don’t let minor setbacks and little frustrations upset them, it may be possible to be productive and healthy. Social Anxiety I took a few minutes at a recent psychology conference to note the different ways my colleagues went about meeting and greeting other professionals. I positioned myself in the corner of a large room and watched as attendees entered what was designated as a “social hour.” The event was scheduled so that people in the field could meet one another and perhaps exchange a few ideas about each other’s work. Some people seemed quite at home in this setting. One woman in particular amazed me with her ability to introduce herself to someone she obviously had never met and immediately begin what appeared to be a lively and pleasant conversation. But other people approached the social hour in a very different manner. One man stopped about 2 feet inside the door and examined the proceedings. Then he slowly worked his way around the exterior of the room, looking for someone to talk to. When people did speak to him, he appeared to smile nervously. The man looked at the floor more than at the person he was speaking to, and his conversations never seemed to last more than 30 seconds. After about 10 minutes, he left. It would be easy to speculate that these two visitors to the social hour probably fall on opposite ends of the personality trait we call social anxiety. The man was very anxious in this situation and behaved in a manner most people would identify as shy. I would guess that the woman has never suffered from shyness. Although most people would probably consider the woman’s behavior normal and appropriate for a social gathering, researchers find that the shy man’s experience may be more common than most of us realize. In fact, shyness appears to be a widespread social problem. Researchers consistently find about 40% of the people they survey identify themselves as shy (Zimbardo, 1986). Another 40% to 50% say they have been shy before or Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach Jerry Burger/Santa Clara University 180 Speaking in front of a group creates high levels of nervousness for someone high in social anxiety. High social-anxiety people are often concerned about negative evaluation. are shy in certain situations. This leaves only a small percentage who do not know the pain of social anxiety. Social anxiety is anxiety related specifically to social interactions or anticipated social interactions. People suffering from social anxiety experience many of the usual anxiety symptoms: increased physiological arousal, inability to concentrate, feelings of nervousness. But socially anxious people recognize that the source of their discomfort is the social encounter they are now or will soon be engaged in. Although everyone has on occasion been at least a little nervous about an upcoming interview or date, we can identify a relatively stable tendency for people to experience social anxiety. That is, each of us can be placed along a continuum for how much social anxiety we typically experience. Social anxiety is the same as or related to many other constructs investigated by psychologists. The names for these concepts include shyness, dating anxiety, communication anxiety, reticence, and stage fright. Although some psychologists draw a distinction between social anxiety and some of these related concepts (Buss, 1980; Leary, 1983), most researchers today appear to use the terms social anxiety and shyness synonymously. Concepts like dating anxiety and stage fright are often regarded as specific examples of the larger concept of social anxiety. Moreover, scales designed to measure social anxiety, shyness, and related constructs are highly correlated with one another (Anderson & Harvey, 1988). Consequently, I will use the terms social anxiety and shyness interchangeably here. It is also important to recognize that social anxiety is not the same as introversion. Whereas introverts often choose to be by themselves, the vast majority of socially anxious people do not like their shyness. Nearly two-thirds of the socially anxious people in one study identified shyness as “a real problem,” and one-quarter of the shy participants said they would be willing to seek professional help to overcome their social anxiety (Pilkonis, 1977). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Social Anxiety 181 Characteristics of Socially Anxious People People who suffer from social anxiety have a difficult time in many social situations. Socially anxious people report feeling awkward and nervous when they have to talk to others, particularly when interacting with people they don’t know (Kashdan & Roberts, 2006; Shimizu, Seery, Weisbuch, & Lupien, 2011). They are very concerned about what others will think of them and become self-conscious when they meet new people or have to talk in front of an audience. Quite often, socially anxious people think about what they are doing wrong, how stupid they must sound, and how foolish they must look (Bruch, Hamer, & Heimberg, 1995; Fung, Moscovitch, & Rodebaugh, 2016; Ritts & Patterson, 1996). Shy people often stumble over their words, say the wrong thing, and show outward signs of nervousness, such as perspiration and shakiness. Shy people are more likely than most to feel ashamed or embarrassed about what they say or do in social situations, which is probably why shy people are also more likely than nonshys to blush (Leary & Meadows, 1991). Shy people sometimes become so self-conscious during a social encounter that they miss important cues about what the other person is feeling (Judah, Grant, Mills, & Lechner, 2013; Yoon, Vidaurri, Joormann, & De Raidt, 2015). Often they cannot think of anything to say and may blurt out something inappropriate (Blackhart, Williamson, & Nelson, 2015) or allow the conversation to fall into silence, which can be extremely uncomfortable for someone already suffering from social anxiety. To alleviate their discomfort, socially anxious people at social gatherings sometimes turn to alcohol or drugs (Battista et al., 2015; Foster, Echer, Zvolensky, & Buckner, 2015). These feelings of awkwardness are not merely in the minds of socially anxious people. The people they interact with also identify shy people as more tense, inhibited, and unfriendly than nonshy people (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Galili, Amir, & ­Gilboa-Schechtman, 2013; Papsdorf & Alden, 1998). College students in one study did a reasonable job of identifying shy and nonshy people just by looking at their Facebook pages (Fernandez, Levinson, & Rodebaugh, 2012). In general, conversations with socially anxious individuals are less pleasant than when speaking with nonanxious people (Heery & Kring, 2007). As noted earlier, shy people are not introverts. Rather, most would like to have a larger network of friends than they do. In particular, shy people often say that they would like more people they could turn to when they need help. Unfortunately, their shyness often keeps them from developing more friends or asking the friends they have for help when they are in need. One study found that shy students were less likely than nonshy students to talk to a counselor about career advice (Phillips & Bruch, 1988). Researchers in another study gave participants a task that could be completed only by asking someone else for assistance (DePaulo, Dull, Greenberg, & Swaim, 1989). Nonetheless, the socially anxious people were more reluctant than the other participants to ask a nearby person for help. Not only do socially anxious people fear that others will think poorly of them, they often assume incorrectly that other people simply are not interested in getting to know them (Wenzel & Emerson, 2009). Perhaps this is why shy individuals also tend to interpret the feedback they get from other people in a negative light (Amir, Beard, & Bower, 2005; Ledley & Heimberg, 2006). This self-defeating tendency was Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 182 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach demonstrated in a study in which college students were asked to work on a series of tasks with other participants (DePaulo, Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver, 1987). When later asked what they believed the other students thought of them, the socially anxious students felt they were less liked and had come across as less competent than did the nonanxious participants. Participants in another experiment carried on what they believed to be a two-way discussion via a television monitor (Pozo, Carver, Wellens, & Scheier, 1991). In reality, all participants watched a prerecorded videotape of a confederate posing as a participant. Although the feedback was identical, socially anxious people were more likely than nonanxious participants to interpret the other person’s facial expressions as indicating disapproval. In short, people high in social anxiety expect their social interactions to go poorly and look for evidence that the other person is rejecting them. Unfortunately, this pessimism may cause the social rejection that the socially anxious person fears in the first place. People sometimes mistake shyness for a lack of interest or a lack of intelligence (Paulhus & Morgan, 1997). Moreover, because they feel the other person dislikes them, socially anxious people may cut conversations short or avoid them altogether. As a result, they may nip pleasant interactions and potential friendships in the bud before they have a chance to bloom. Indeed, researchers find that shy teenagers have Assessing Your Own Personality Social Anxiety Indicate the extent to which each of the following statements describes you. Use a 0-to-4 scale to indicate your answers, with 0 = Extremely uncharacteristic and 4 = Extremely characteristic. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well. I am socially somewhat awkward. I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions. When conversing, I worry about saying something dumb. I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority. I have trouble looking someone right in the eye. I feel inhibited in social situations. I don’t find it hard to talk to strangers. I am more shy with members of the opposite sex. To obtain your score, first reverse the value of your answer to item #8 (that is, for this item only, 0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, 4 = 0). Then add all nine answer values. Researchers find a mean score on the scale of 14.8 (standard deviation = 5.6) for men and 14.4 (standard deviation = 5.9) for women (Cheek & Buss, 1981). Higher scores indicate higher levels of social anxiety. Scale: The Shynes Scale Source: Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written permission from the American Psychological Association. Copyright © 1981 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.