№ lp_2_3_18018
File format: docx
Character count: 33597
File size: 95 KB
The article analyzes persuasion within the context of social interactions, using a discursive psychological approach to explore how persuasive practices manifest in real-world situations such as business-to-business sales calls.
Year:
2020
Region / city:
UK
Field:
Psychology
Document type:
Journal article
Institution:
York St John University, Loughborough University
Authors:
Bogdana Humă, Elizabeth Stokoe, Rein Ove Sikveland
Target audience:
Academics, students, researchers in psychology and related fields
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
1969–1987
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Social psychology, persuasion, cognitive processing, attitude formation
Document type:
Academic multiple-choice questions
Institution / Organization:
University-level psychology courses
Author:
Unknown / compiled from textbooks
Target audience:
Psychology students and researchers
Covered models:
McGuire’s information processing, Yale persuasive communications, Theory of Planned Behavior, Elaboration Likelihood Model, MODE model, Implicit Association Test
Topics included:
Attitude change, message processing, involvement, cognitive responses, intergroup bias, stereotyping
Period:
Late 20th century research up to early 21st century summaries
Format:
Multiple-choice question set
Related disciplines:
Cognitive psychology, social psychology, behavioral science
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2013
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Patient group directions, healthcare professionals, NICE guidance
Document Type:
Framework
Organization / Institution:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Author:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Target Audience:
Health professionals, commissioners, and healthcare providers
Effective Period:
From August 2013
Approval Date:
August 2013
Last Updated:
January 2018
Date of Amendments:
January 2018
Year:
2015
Region / City:
Queensland
Topic:
Domestic and Family Violence Prevention
Document Type:
Government Response Report
Agency / Institution:
Queensland Government
Author:
Queensland Government
Target Audience:
General Public, Policy Makers, Domestic Violence Prevention Organizations
Action Period:
2016-2026
Approval Date:
18 August 2015
Date of Changes:
30 June 2022
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Aotearoa New Zealand
Topic:
Artificial Intelligence Governance
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization:
Government of New Zealand
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Public service agencies, AI practitioners
Period of Application:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Organization / Institution:
Richmond County Schools
Year:
2022
Region / city:
Memphis, TN; Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL; Burlington, MA
Topic:
RFID Technology in Healthcare
Document Type:
Continuing Education Activity
Organization / Institution:
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
Author:
David Aguero, Pharm.D., DPLA; Anthony Scott, Pharm.D., M.B.A.; Matthew Gimbar, Pharm.D.; Nancy Huff, Pharm.D.
Target Audience:
Pharmacy leaders, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians
Effective Period:
February 16, 2022 - February 16, 2025
Approval Date:
February 16, 2022
Expiration Date:
February 16, 2025
Activity Type:
Knowledge-based
CE Credit Hours:
1 contact hour (1.0 CEU)
Activity Fee:
Free
Accreditation:
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)
Relevant Financial Relationship Disclosure:
No relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies
Note:
Summary
Year:
2003
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Cancer Research
Document Type:
Lecture
Institution:
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine
Author:
Bert Vogelstein, M.D., Huda Zoghbi
Target Audience:
General public, students, researchers
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Wedemark, Germany
Topic:
Audio technology, Anniversary product
Document Type:
Press release
Organization:
Sennheiser
Author:
Jacqueline Gusmag
Target audience:
Audio enthusiasts, Sennheiser customers
Effective period:
September 1, 2020 - indefinite
Approval date:
August 18, 2020
Change date:
N/A