Debating the Cholula Massacre essays

Debating the Cholula Massacre essays The Massacre at Cholula was documented by varying participants, providing great detail on the events that transpired at Cholula. These varying perspectives allow for a comparative study, which can expose the underlying truth hidden in each individual perspective among bias. The four accounts shed light on Hernan Cortes, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, the Cholulans, and from the indigenous allies of Cortes, the Tlaxcalans. Each perspective offers up a different view on the massacre at Cholula. Through these different perspectives we can use inductive reasoning to understand the overlap of truth behind the massacre. The First perspective comes from Hernan Cortes, who was controlled by his greed for gold and treasures. This greed in turn fueled Cortes in his decision to commit acts of violence on the native indigenous people of South America. When Cortes arrived in Cholula, he was to be housed and fed. However their food rations eventually were shortened and the city would give off an unfriendly vibe. The natives (Tlaxcalan) would warn Cortez of the double dealing in Cholula would prove to be true. Cortez would leave the city and travel to Tenochtitlan. It is well known that the king of Tenochtitlan had qualms about Cortez, and did not approve of his stay. At the end of the attack, both the native people and Cortez both bore witness to this tragic event, as did Bernal Diaz del Castillo. In the second perspective, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, we are told that the entire mission of these men was to peacefully spread the good news of salvation to the indigenous people. Through Castillo's account, it is suggested that Cortes proposed that the people of Cholula and Tlaxcala must enter into a treaty in order to end the hatred. After the fighting, which according to Bernal Diaz del Castillo, was by the Cholulan's choice. Throughout the Castillo's testimony, it is obvious that the Cholulan's were taking orders from Montezuma to prepare for war, f...

28 Quotes About Teenage Love

28 Quotes About Teenage Love Do you feel woozy every time your object of affection passes by your desk in class? Do you swoon with delirious happiness whenever they say as much as a hi to you? Well, guess whos having a crush? Crushes are a natural part of growing up. During your  teenage  years, your body goes through physical and emotional changes. One such change is an acute awareness of oneself, and the need to be loved. A lot of the trials and tribulations of adolescence can be attributed to teenage love. Seemingly insignificant, teenage love can, in fact, mark the beginning of great, mature, and everlasting love. The following  love quotes  for teens expound on the impish and youthful love that brews between two young hearts. Robert HerrickWhat is a kiss? Why this, as some approve: The sure, sweet cement, glue, and lime of love. J. K. RowlingWhen you have seen as much of life as I have, you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love. William ShakespeareThey do not love that do not show their love. The course of true love never did run smooth. Love is a familiar. Love is a devil. There is no evil angel but love. Elizabeth BowenFirst love, with its frantic haughty imagination, swings its object clear of the every day, over the rut of living, making him all looks, silences, gestures, attitudes, a burning phrase with no context. C. S. LewisWhy love if losing hurts so much? We love to know that we are not alone. Raquel Cepeda, Bird of Paradise: How I Became LatinaNobody, she felt, understood her. Not her mother, not her father, not her sister or brother, none of the girls or boys at school, Nadie, except her man. AnonymousIts funny, most people can be around someone and then gradually begin to love them and never know exactly when it happened. AnonymousLove is like playing the piano. First, you must learn to play by the rules, then you must forget the rules and play from your heart. Margaret Atwood, The Blind AssassinThe young habitually mistake lust for love, theyre infested with idealism of all kinds. MoliereA lover tries to stand in well with the pet dog of the house. John GreenAll sorts of yayness floods my brain. Love is such a drug. AnonymousLove: a wildly misunderstood although highly desirable malfunction of the heart which weakens the brain, causes eyes to sparkle, cheeks to glow, blood pressure to rise and the lips to pucker. George Bernard ShawFirst love is only a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity. Tyne DalyLove is as strict as acting. If you want to love somebody, stand there and do it. If you dont, dont. There are no other choices. Winnie the PoohPromise me youll never forget me because if I thought you would Id never leave. Antonio PorchiaI love you as you are, but do not tell me how that is. Vladimir NabokovI think it is all a matter of love; the more you love a memory the stronger and stranger it becomes. NietzscheThere is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness. Henry Ward BeecherYoung love is a flame; very pretty, often very hot and fierce, but still only light and flickering. The love of the older and disciplined heart is as coals, deep-burning, unquenchable. Marc ChagallIn our life, there is a single color, as on an artists palette, which provides the meaning of life and art. It is the color of love. Oscar WildeMen always want to be a womans first love; women like to be a mans last romance. William WordsworthThe little-unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a persons life. Barbara HowerThere is nothing better for the spirit or the body than a love affair. It elevates the thoughts and flattens the stomachs. Suzanne NeckerThe quarrels of lovers are like summer storms. Everything is more beautiful when they have passed. Leigh HuntStolen kisses are always sweetest. Eleanor RooseveltThe giving of love is an education in itself. Lynda BarryLove is an exploding cigar we willingly smoke. Ingrid BergmanA kiss is a lovely trick designed by nature to stop speech when words become superfluous.

Aristotle Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 1

Aristotle - Research Paper Example However, others have agreed with both theories stating that nature provides the individuals with these traits while nurture serves to mould and develop these traits through maturity and learning. The influence of heredity and the environment is however evident as in many individuals. The genetic make of an individual is derived from his parents and this is due to heredity. This has a lot of influence on the behavior of an individual as these traits have been reported by researchers to influence intelligence, personality, sexual orientation and aggression (Ceci & Williams, 123). These traits are encoded in an individual’s DNA and hence are inherited by the offspring’s. Physical appearances of various individuals like color of the skin, eye, and height among other things have confirmed this and hence there is a possibility that nature plays a very important role in influencing the way we behave. For example if fraternal twins that are reared under the same conditions will never behave the same way as they posses’ different traits from their parents. Nurture on the other hand is also very important in determining our behaviors as these traits are just in the body but they have to be developed in order to fully come up and influence the behavior of an individual. ... This is only possible when such individuals practice how to be intelligent and creative and the type of the environment in which they are also contributes a lot. It is said then he was ‘’nurtured’’ by certain people (Ceci & Williams, 134). An example here is to consider identical twins brought up under different conditions will never behave like each other. The persistent of nature vs. nurture debate has continued long time for several centuries due to certain underlying issues. One of the most important characteristics of this issue is that there are several issues that are knitted together by ambiguity and also uncertainty into an issue that is very difficult to solve (Ceci & Williams, 147). This makes the people in the debate unable to put their focus in one or a single defined meaningful question. Another issue rises from genetic language itself we need to differentiate the meaning of nature and nurture and what most scientists call contributions of the two terms. Sometimes the difference is that nature is about what is inside while nurture is what we acquire from the environments that we interact with. Contributions here means that the impact of either nature or nurture on the behaviors of individuals. The controversy here is that some people believe that what is inborn contribute or determines what an individual will be. Nature bases its argument from the genes while nurture argument is based on environment (Ceci & Williams 137). There is need therefore two define very well the meaning of gene and environment as they are the key issues in this argument. We need to understand what the gene does and what the environment does as far as behavior is concerned. These two issues are the central of this debate. Aristotle’s argument in the

Marketing to Hispanic Americans Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Marketing to Hispanic Americans - Research Paper Example Companies and business firms that use specific Hispanic business models to target Hispanic consumer are likely to become successful in the highly volatile and competitive business world.   Marketing to Hispanics should take the aspect of ethnicity into consideration because ethnicity is important to all minorities for the purpose of identity. 67% of Hispanics suggest that ethnicity is an important element of their identity. Furthermore, 78% of them suggest that they are proud of their ethnic identity (Yahoo, n.d.). Ethnicity determines the individuality, faith, values, views on gender roles, and consumption behaviors and attitudes of the Hispanics. This makes the aspect of ethnicity even more significant in marketing to Hispanics. Drivers of ethnicity for Hispanics in America include political views, speech and dialect, reunions, family, gatherings, eating habits and preferences, and home dà ©cor. Hispanic reactions to news content are often motivated by ethnicity. For instance, ethnicity influences the choices of Hispanic Americans regarding fashion and style, beauty, finance, entertainment, food, and restaurants. The shopping content of Hispanic Americans is als o influenced by ethnicity.   Hispanic Americans may be classified into first and second generations. For both first and second generation Hispanic Americans, ethnicity is an important aspect their present and past. However, first generations Hispanics are connected with their ethnicity more strongly than second-generation Hispanics. First generation Hispanics are ethnically influenced by their Spanish shopping content, but second-generation Hispanics are not much influenced by their ethnic Spanish shopping content (Valdà ©s, 2000). Both first and second generation Hispanics are greatly influenced by how news media and marketing campaigns in the media cover them.

School Prayer Essay Example for Free

School Prayer Essay In simple terms, prayer is talking to God or a god. During that conversation, the person praying may use his or her own words or, â€Å"a set order of words,† such as the Lord’s Prayer to speak to God, may â€Å"request or wish† something from a God. The conversation may be vocal or silent. Questions involving school prayer are among the most argumentative questions posed to the courts. This has been the case decades ago and still occurring today. The history of prayer in the public education system is a story of legal rendering. The relationship between religion and government in the United States is governed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government discrimination. The First Amendment establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer. The First Amendment says, â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [known as the Establishment Clause], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [known as the Free Exercise Clause],† (U.  S. Constitution) When deciding a case, the court has to balance between favoring a religion and prohibiting it. Landmark Case: Engle vs. Vitale The Supreme Court has many times held that the First Amendment requires public school leaders to be neutral in their treatment of religion. This means not showing favoritism toward any religion but yet not showing any hostile expression towards any religious doings, such as prayer. One of the most famous court cases involving religion and public schools happened in a New York City school district in the 1950s. Each morning before classes started, students would say a twenty-two word prayer that was created by the school board. Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country. A few parents objected, saying that this school promoted prayer violated the First Amendment. The New York Supreme Court ruled against the parents, who was represented by Stephen Engle. After taking their claim to a higher court numerous times, the court case Engle v. Vitale (1962), finally made it to the Supreme Court. In 1962 the Supreme Court Judges voted, the vote was 6 to 1, deciding that the twenty-two word prayer was unconstitutional. It was decided that the prayer, â€Å"singled out a particular religious practice contradicting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendement. † (Haas 48) This landmark case is one of the significant case laws used in order to determine neutrality in questions of school prayer. It was decided that teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962) Violation of the Establishment Clause: Sante Fe v. Doe While school leaders may not lead their students in prayer, according to 105 ILCS 20/5, Students do have the right to pray at school. They must respect the schools policies, regulations, and rules that are in place regarding any disruption to the educational system. This being said, â€Å"students may read their Bibles during study hall or other non-structured time, may say grace, and may discuss religion with their peers during non-directed free time, such as time spent on the playground, on a school bus, in the hallways, or in the cafeteria. † (Braun 184) This student right and Illinois compiled statute was tested in the case of Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Santa Fe v. Doe centered on the Santa Fe Independent School District policy allowing student-led prayer before football games. Santa Fe Independent School District had a history of student-led prayer. The students were elected by their peers to lead prayer at a school event. An Appellate Court ruling found that the district’s policy was unconstitutional in accordance with the Establishment Clause. The Court stated that the policy was not only an actual endorsement of prayer, but also a perceived endorsement, and, therefore, sent a message to nonbelievers that they were outsiders and that believers were the favored group in the community If the prayer is student lead, driven, and initiated it does not go against the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled saying, â€Å"The delivery of such a message, over the schools public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of the school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer is not properly characterized as private speech† (Santa Fe v. Doe, 2000). Moment of Silence for Prayer: Wallace v. Jaffrey? So far a few things have been decided. The first is that any school-sponsored religious practice is prohibited because it is in violation of the Establishment Clause. The second thing is that students do have a right to freely exercise their personal religious practices as long as they do it during non-structured times; but where does the law stand on moments of silence that schools use for personal prayer times? After court cases such as Engle vs. Vitale it was obvious that religion in schools was diminishing. To counter back at these Supreme Court rulings many states started establishing moments of silence at the beginning of each school day as a substitute for the vocal prayer that had been taken away. These moments of silence are permissible as long as they are done for a secular purpose. Wallace v. Jaffrey is the only case that the Supreme Court has heard on a moment of silence in schools. The case contested an Alabama law that established a moment of silence for the purpose of â€Å"meditation or voluntary prayer† (Wallace v. Jaffrey, 1985). The court found that the statue was unconstitutional because it was enacted solely for the purpose of promoting religion in schools. The majority opinion found that any statute establishing a moment of silence that included the word â€Å"prayer† was unconstitutional. 1985 the Supreme Court concluded that Alabama’s silent meditation and prayer statute violated the Establishment Clause. Alexander 217) Explaining how this ruling came to be, an understanding of how our courts can make such a decision is needed first. The Establishment Clause Tests: The Supreme Court uses three tests to determine violations of the Establishment Clause. The tests may be considered singularly or together to determine constitutionality. The court has repeatedly stressed that the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching children in religion. But it is not always easy to determine exactly what constitutes teaching or school sponsorship of religious acts. To help explain the establishment clause, which is often a question in issues of school prayer, the court uses several tests. The three main tests include the Lemon, coercion, and endorsement test. Lemon Test: The Lemon test gets its name from the 1973 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Court struck down a state program that was giving aid to religious elementary and secondary schools. The Lemon test is a three prong test, each part being just as important as the other two. Using the Lemon test, a court must first determine whether the law or government action in question has a secular purpose. This prong is based on the idea that government should only concern itself in civil matters, leaving religion to the conscience of the individual. Second, a court would ask whether the state action has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Finally, the court would consider whether the action excessively entangles religion and government. While religion and government must interact at some points while co-existing in society, the concern here is that they do not so overlap and intertwine that people have difficulty differentiating between the two. Although this test has come under fire from certain Supreme Court Justices, it has never been over turned, and it is still used to guide decisions in courts today. Coercion Test: Some justices propose allowing more government support for religion than the Lemon test allows, their support stands with the coercion test. Justice Kennedy created the coercion test in Lee v. Weisman. The coercion test is used to determine whether or not the government coerced participation in the religious activity. In regard to public schools, it is used to determine whether or not students experienced a coercive effect. Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or â€Å"coerce† individuals to participate. The Court has defined that the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it, (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. Even the coercion test is subject to varying interpretations. This was evident and illustrated in Lee v.  Weisman. Endorsement Test: The third test that was proposed by Justice Sandra Day OConnor is the endorsement test. It was used in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly, asking whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Its with this test that a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that a religion is being endorsed or disapproved. The endorsement test has been included into the Lemon test. While the endorsement test has been applied in many cases, it has not produced a conclusive answer to the question of constitutionality in all cases. There is a forth test that is sometimes used in establishment-clause decisions, it is the neutrality test. While the Lemon, coercion, and endorsement test are used in matters of expression the neutrality test is mainly used in issues dealing with funding. Making sure the government is giving neutral aid to public and religious schools with no religious promotion. Because of its dealings and ruling in funding matters, the neutrality test is not often used in issues of prayer in public schools. The Wallace case is legally significant for representing the value of neutrality underlying the Establishment Clause. It also showed the significance for the Lemon test as the main test for evaluating the constitutionality of public school involvement in religion. The Court in Wallace showed its position that the Establishment Clause â€Å"‘requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers. ’† (Lofaso 30) The Court then concluded that Alabama’s moment-of-silence statute violated the Establishment Clause because it failed the purpose prong of the Lemon test: â€Å"The legislature enacted . . for the sole purpose of expressing the State’s endorsement of prayer activities for one minute at the beginning of each school day. Does Location of the Prayer Matter? It was almost a half-century ago that the Supreme Court in Engle v. Vitale established that daily prayer in the classroom is unconstitutional. Since then, this thought has grown due to cases where location of the prayer have been put into question. Now the Supreme Court extends their thinking to include, â€Å"any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity. The Supreme Court continued to keep watch even when school prayer moved outside the classroom to a graduation ceremony. In Lee v. Weisman, principals at public schools in Providence, Rhode Island invited clergy to speak at graduations. The principals provided the clergy with guidelines, which essentially boiled down to keeping the prayers nonsectarian. When Principal Lee invited a rabbi to give a prayer at Nathan Bishop Middle School’s graduation, Deborah Weisman and her parents objected. When the Weismans alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause, the school board argued that an event as significant as graduation warranted prayer. The lower courts agreed with the Weismans and the Supreme Court affirmed. The school board argued that graduation was a voluntary event. The Court dismissed this argument, finding graduation to be an important event in a student’s life that must not be forfeited due to different religious beliefs and that the government must not get involved. In 1992 the Court decided that it was unconstitutional for a member of the clergy to deliver an invocation or benediction at a public school graduation, and that in doing so, the school endorsed religion and required students who were non-believers to accept the religious practices. Conclusion: Supreme Court decisions provide insight into the debate against school prayer. Because of the various Court rulings on the school prayer issue, we do have a foundation to base other decisions off of when issues arise with mixing church and state in the public educational system. Students today can not be forced to recite any prayer that has been endorsed by the school, but they may practice a moment of silence during the school day as long as they are not required to use that time for prayer. Students are also free to exercise their religious beliefs. They may read their Bibles during non structured time and pray as long as they are following the rules and regulations regarding school disruption. If at any time the state gets involved, or the activities become school-sponsored then the religious acts are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. It is important to remember that the United States exists today because the founders sought to live in a country free from government interference, especially concerning religion. Individuals are free to exercise their beliefs as long as they are not forcing those beliefs unto others.

How Diverse is B.E.T. :: essays research papers

The television and music industry is one of the main industries of today. I chose to research the company BET (Black Entertainment Television). BET is the number one black television network on television today and it is the only television show that does not have any white announcers or white based shows, everything is based on blacks and what is going on today in the lives of Black people.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  BET is a show for the ages and what I mean by that is that you will only ever hear about teenagers and young adults watching it, it is not a show that is centered around all age groups like MTV (Music Television). The people that BET is targeted towards are the group that is what makes the world go round.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  But the problem with BET is that even though it targets the main age groups of the world, it only is targeted towards the black race and isn’t meant for whites. BET is not a very diverse company and they need to become one, but if they become more diverse they could actually loose the business they have now. It is the only show in the world that has no white television announcers and will not have any television shows that are white based and that would encourage white living.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  BET is one of those shows that plays all rap videos and goes around to the ghetto’s of the US and shows what life is really like outside of the yuppie lifestyle so many people think this world is like. It shows how things are and they shouldn’t change anything. If they changed the races they attracted then I believe they would loose money. BET is probably the only company that can get away with not being very diverse and still be successful. They will never be a diverse company and will never show diverse shows.

Key Success Factors for Online Advertising

Social Advertising Catherine Tucker? February 15, 2012 Abstract In social advertising, ads are targeted based on underlying social networks and their content is tailored with information that pertains to the social relationship. This paper explores the e? ectiveness of social advertising using data from ? eld tests of di? erent ads on Facebook. We ? nd evidence that social advertising is e? ective, and that this e? cacy seems to stem mainly from the ability of targeting based on social networks to uncover similarly responsive consumers.However, social advertising is less e? ective if the advertiser explicitly states they are trying to promote social in? uence in the text of their ad. This suggests that advertisers must avoid being overt in their attempts to exploit social networks in their advertising. Catherine Tucker is Associate Professor of Marketing at MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. and Faculty Research Fellow at the NBER. Thank-you to Google for ? nancial suppor t and to an anonymous non-pro? t for their cooperation.Thank-you to Jon Baker, Ann Kronrod, Preston Mcafee, and seminar participants at the George Mason University Roundtable on the Law and Economics of Internet Search, the University of Rochester, UCLA and Wharton for valuable comments. All errors are my own. ? 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1975897 1 Introduction Recent advances on the internet have allowed consumers to interact across digital social networks. This is taking place at unprecedented levels: Facebook was the most visited website in the US in 2010, accounting for 20% of all time spent on the internet, a higher proportion than Google or Yahoo! ComScore, 2011). However, it is striking that traditional marketing communications have been at the periphery of this explosion of social data despite the documented power of social in? uence on purchasing behavior. Much of the emphasis on marketing in social media, so far, has been on the achievement o f ‘earned reach,’ whereby a brand builds its subscriber base organically and also hopes that this will in? uence others organically through sharing links with their social networks (Corcoran, 2009). However, recent research by Bakshy et al. 2011) has emphasized that this kind of organic sharing is far rarer than previously supposed, and that there are very few examples of a commercial message being consistently transmitted across social networks. Further, Tucker (2011a) shows that in order to achieve virality, an advertiser may have to sacri? ce the commercial e? ectiveness of their message. This means that advertisers may need to use paid advertising to facilitate the sharing of their commercial message through social networks. Both Facebook and LinkedIn have recently introduced a new form of advertising called ‘social advertising. A social ad is an online ad that ‘incorporates user interactions that the consumer has agreed to display and be shared. The res ulting ad displays these interactions along with the user’s persona (picture and/or name) within the ad content’ (IAB, 2009). This represents a radical technological development for advertisers, because it means that potentially they can co-opt the power of an individual’s social network to target advertising and engage their audience. This paper asks whether social advertising is e? ective, and what active steps advertisers themselves should take in their ads to promote social in? ence. 2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1975897 We explore the e? ectiveness of social ads using data from a ? eld experiment conducted on Facebook by a non-pro? t. This ? eld experiment compared the performance of social ads with conventionally targeted and untargeted ads. The social ads were targeted to the friends of ‘fans’ of the charity on Facebook. The ads featured that fan’s name and the fact that they had become a fan of this charity . We ? nd that on average these social ads were more e? ective than demographically targeted or untargeted ads.Further, this technique is useful for improving both the performance of demographically targeted and untargeted campaigns. Comparing the performance of these ads that contained the name of the fan and were targeted towards the fan’s friends with those that were simply targeted to that fan’s friends suggests that their e? ectiveness stems predominantly from the ability of social targeting to uncover similarly responsive consumers. We present results that suggest that as well as being more e? ective at gathering clicks, social advertising is also more e? ective at promoting actual subscriptions to the newsfeed and is more cost-e? ctive. We then turn to investigate how advertisers should word their social advertising. Through randomized ? eld tests, we investigate the e? ectiveness of advertisers deliberately promoting social in? uence in their advertising copy t hrough including a statement that encourages the viewer to, for example, ‘be like their friend. ’ We ? nd that consumers reject attempts by advertisers to explicitly harness or refer to a friend’s actions in their ad copy. This result contrasts with previous empirical research that ? nds consistent bene? ts to ? rms from highlighting previous consumer actions to positively in? ence the consumers’ response (Algesheimer et al. , 2010; Tucker and Zhang, 2011). This rejection is reasonably uniform across di? erent wording, though slightly less severe for ads that make a less explicit reference to friendship. We then present additional evidence to rule out two potential explanations for our ? ndings. First, we rule out that the overt mention of social in? uence simply made people aware they were seeing an ad rather than something organic to the site. We do this by comparing an ad that states it is an ad with an ad that does not, and ? nding no di? rence. 3 Seco nd, to investigate whether it was simply bad advertising copy, we examined how the ads perform for a group of Facebook users who have shown a visible propensity for social in? uence. We identify such users by whether or not they have a stated attachment to a ‘Fashion Brand’ on their Facebook pro? le. These users, in contrast to our earlier results, react more positively to the advertiser explicitly co-opting social in? uence than to a message that did not. This suggests that it was not simply that the message was badly communicated, but instead re? cts a taste (or more accurately distaste) for explicit references to social in? uence among most, though not all, consumers. This research builds on a literature that has studied the interplay between social networks and word of mouth. Zubcsek and Sarvary (2011) present a theoretical model that examines the e? ects of advertising to a social network, but assume that a ? rm cannot directly use the social network for marketing purposes. Instead, ? rms have to rely on consumers to organically pass their advertising message within the social networks. There has been little work on advertising in social networks.Previous studies in marketing about social network sites have questioned how such sites can use advertising to obtain members (Trusov et al. , 2009), and also how makers of applications designed to be used on social network sites can best advertise their products (Aral and Walker, 2011) through viral marketing. Hill et al. (2006) show that phone communications data can be used to predict who is more likely to adopt a service, Bagherjeiran et al. (2010) present a practical application where they use data from instant messaging logs at Yahoo! to improve online advertising targeting, and similarly Provost et al. 2009) show how to use browsing data to match groups of users who are socially similar. Tucker (2011b) explores how privacy controls mediate the e? ectiveness of advertising on Facebook. However, to our knowledge this is the ? rst academic study of the e? ectiveness of social advertising. Managerially, our results have important implications. Social advertising and the use of online social networks is e? ective. However, when advertisers attempt to reinforce this social 4 in? uence in ad copy, consumers appear less likely to respond positively to the ad. This is, to our knowledge, the ? st piece of empirical support for emerging managerial theories that emphasize the need for ? rms to not appear too obviously commercial when exploiting social media (Gossieaux and Moran, 2010). 5 2 Field Experiment The ? eld experiment was run by a small non-pro? t that provides educational scholarships for girls to attend high school in East Africa. Without the intervention of this non-pro? t, and other non-pro? ts like them, girls do not attend secondary school because their families prioritize the education of sons. Though the non-pro? t’s main mission is funding these educational scholarships, the non-pro? has a secondary mission which is to inform young people in the US about the state of education for African girls. It was in aid of this secondary mission that the non-pro? t set up a Facebook page. This page serves as a repository of interviews with girls where they describe the challenges they have faced. To launch the ? eld experiment, the non-pro? t followed the procedure described in ‘A/B Testing your Facebook Ads: Getting better results through experimentation’ (Facebook, 2010) which involved setting up multiple competing campaigns. These ad campaigns was targeted to three di? erent groups as shown in Table 1. The ? st group was a broad untargeted campaign for all Facebook users aged 18 and older in the US. The second group were people who had already expressed interest in other charities. These people were identi? ed using Facebook’s ‘broad category targeting’ of ‘Charity + Causes. ’ The third group were people who had already expressed an interest in ‘Education + Teaching. ’ Previously, the charity had tried such reasonably broad targeting with little success and was hopeful that social advertising would improve the ads’ performance (Tucker, 2011b). In all cases, the charity explicitly excluded current fans from seeing its ads.For each of these groups of Facebook users, the non-pro? t launched a socially targeted variant. These ads employed the Facebook ad option that meant that they were targeted only to users who were friends of existing fans of the charity. This also meant that when the fan had not opted-out on Facebook, the ad also displayed a ‘social endorsement’ where the name of the friend was shown at the bottom of the ad as shown in Figure 1. 6 Table 1: Di? erent Groups Targeted Condition Untargeted Baseline: Only Shown Baseline text All people in US over age of 18 who are not fans of the non-pro? t already.All people in US over age of 18 w ho state a? nity with charities on their Facebook pro? le who are not fans of the non-pro? t already. All people in US over age of 18 who state a? nity with education on their Facebook pro? le who are not fans of the non-pro? t already. Social Variant: Shown all 5 texts from Table 2 All people in US over age of 18 who are friends of the non-pro? t’s supporters who are not fans of the non-pro? t already. All people in US over age of 18 who state a? nity with charities on their Facebook pro? le who are friends of the non-pro? t’s supporters who are not fans of the nonpro? already. All people in US over age of 18 who state a? nity with education on their Facebook pro? le who are friends of the non-pro? t’s supporters who are not fans of the nonpro? t already. Charity Education The non-pro? t varied whether the campaign was demographically targeted and whether the campaign was socially targeted, and also explored di? erent ad-text conditions. Table 2 describes the d i? erent ad-copy for each condition. Each di? erent type of ad-copy was accompanied by the same picture of an appealing secondary-school student who had bene? ted from their program.The socially targeted ads displayed all ? ve variants of the advertising message depicted in Table 2. For each of the non-socially-targeted campaigns, we ran the baseline variant of the ad text which, as shown in Table 2, simply says ‘Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. ’ The non-pro? t could not run the other four conditions that refer to others’ actions, because federal regulations require ads to be truthful and they did not want to mislead potential supporters. The di? erent ad conditions were broadly designed to cover the kinds of normative and informational social in? ence described by Deutsch and Gerard (1955); Burnkrant and Cousineau (1975). 1 We want to be clear that we do not argue that these advertising measures 1 Other forms of social in? uence s tudied in the literature involve network externalities where there is a performance bene? t to multiple people adopting (Tucker, 2008). However, that does not seem to be relevant 7 Table 2: Di? erent Ad-Text Conditions Condition Baseline Be like your friend Ad-Text Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Be like your friend.Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Don’t be left out. Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Your friend knows this is a good cause. Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Learn from your friend. Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. Don’t be left out. Your friend knows Learn from your friend. capture all types of social in? uence or are necessarily successful at distinguishing between the di? erent types of social in? uence that are possible. The literature on social in? ence has emphasized that the underlying mechanism i s nuanced and complex. Obviously, di? erent types of social in? uence relate and interact in ways that cannot be teased apart simply with di? erent wording. However, the variation in messages does allow us to study whether explicit advertising messages that attempt to use di? erent types of wording to evoke social in? uence are e? ective in general. Figure 1: Sample Ad Figure 1 displays an anonymized sample ad for a social ad in the ‘be like your friend’ condition. The blacked-out top of the ad contained the non-pro? t’s name. The grayedhere. out bottom of the ad contained a supporter’s name, who had ‘liked’ the charity and was a Facebook friend of the person who was being advertised to. It is only with developments in technology and the development of automated algorithms that such individualized display of the friend’s name when pertinent is possible. Table 3 describes the demographics of the roughly 1,500 fans at the beginning of the campaign. Though the initial fans were reasonably spread out across di? erent age cohorts, they were more female than the average population, which makes sense given the nature of the charity.At the end of the experiment, the fans were slightly more likely to be male than before. The way that Facebook reports data means that we have access to the demographics only of the fans of the charity, not of those who were advertised to. Table 3: Demographics of the non-pro? t’s fans before and after the ? eld experiment Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Total Before Male 5 5 6 3 3 22 Experiment After Experiment Female Male Female 13 8 14 14 6 14 17 6 16 13 3 13 10 4 10 67 27 67 The ‘Total’ row does not add up to 100% because fans who are below 18 years of age are omitted. 9 3 DataThe data that Facebook shares with advertisers is both anonymous and aggregate. This means that we cannot trace the e? ects of social advertising on the friends of any one individual. It also mean s that we cannot examine heterogeneity in the degrees of in? uence across individuals, as is studied, for example, by Godes and Mayzlin (2009) in their study of o? ine ? rm-sponsored communications. However, given that the central research question of the study is whether, on average, di? erent types of social advertising are more e? ective, the aggregate nature of the data is su? cient.Table 4 reports daily summary statistics for the campaigns in our data. Over a 5-week period, there were 630 observations. There were 18 campaigns in total that consisted of a) The three baseline conditions that were demographically targeted to everyone, charity-lovers and education-supporters and used the baseline text, and b) The ? fteen social ad conditions that had all the ? ve di? erent types of text, and socially targeted separately to everyone, charity-lovers and education-supporters. Table A2 in the appendix provides a summary of these campaigns. Table 4: Summary Statistics Mean Std Dev Min M ax Average Impressions 13815. 13898. 6 1 98037 Average Clicks 5. 06 5. 17 0 37 Connections 2. 70 3. 52 0 24 Unique Clicks 5. 04 5. 14 0 36 Daily Click Rate 0. 11 0. 10 0 1. 27 Impression Click Rate 0. 045 0. 047 0 0. 50 Cost Per Click (USD) 0. 98 0. 40 0. 31 3. 90 Cost Per 1000 views (USD) 0. 52 1. 37 0 24. 5 Ad-Reach 6165. 7 6185. 0 1 60981 Frequency 2. 32 0. 82 1 9. 70 18 ad variants at the daily level for 5 weeks (630 observations) There are two click-through rates reported in Table 4. The ? rst click-through rate is the proportion of people who clicked on an ad that day. The denominator here is the 10Ad-Reach measure that captures the number of people exposed to an ad each day. The second click-through rate is per ad impression. We focus on the former in our econometric analysis, because impressions can be a function of person refreshing their page or using the back button on the browser or other actions which do not necessarily lead to increased exposure to the ad. We show robu stness subsequently to using this click-through rate per impression measure. Due to the relatively small number of clicks, these click through rates are expressed as percentage points or sometimes as fractions of a percentage point.In our regression analysis we also use this scaling in order to make our coe? cients more easily readable. 2 The data also contains an alternative means of measuring advertising success. The connection rate measures the number of people who liked a Facebook page within 24 hours of seeing a sponsored ad, where the denominator is the ad’s reach that day. We compare this measure to clicks in subsequent analysis to check that the click-through rate is capturing something meaningful. We also use the cost data about how much the advertiser paid for each of these ads in a robustness check.The data reassuringly suggests that there were only ? ve occasions where someone clicked twice on the ads. Therefore, 99. 8% of the click-through rate we measure capture s a single individual clicking on the ad. 2 11 Figure 2: Social advertising is e? ective 4 4. 1 Results Does Social Advertising Work? First, we present some simple evidence about whether social advertising is more e? ective than regular display advertising. Figure 2 displays the basic comparison of aggregate (that is, across the whole ? ve-week period) click-through rates between non-socially-targeted ads and ads that were socially targeted.Since these are aggregate click-through rates they di? er from the daily click-through rates reported in Table 4. These are expressed as fractions of a percentage point. It is clear that social advertising earned far larger click-through rates. The di? erence between the two bars is quite striking. To check the robustness and statistical signi? cance of this relationship, we turn to econometrics. The econometric analysis is relatively straightforward because of the randomization induced by the ? eld tests. We model the click-through rate of campa ign j on day t targeted to demographic group k as: 2 ClickRatejt = ? SocialT argeting Endorsementj + ? k + ? t + j (1) SocialT argeting Endorsementj is an indicator for whether or not this campaign variance was socially targeted and displayed the endorsement. Since Facebook does not allow the testing of these di? erent features separately, this is a combined (rather than separable) indicator. ?k is a ? xed e? ect that captures whether this was the untargeted variant of the ad. This controls for underlying systematic di? erences in how likely people within that target and untargeted segment were to respond to this charity.We include a vector of date dummies ? t . Because the ads are randomized, ? t and ? k should primarily improve e? ciency. We estimate the speci? cation using ordinary least squares. Though we recognize that theoretically a click-through rate is bounded at one hundred since it is measured in percentage points, click-through rates in our data are never close to this u pper bound or lower bound. 3 Table 5 reports our initial results. Column (1) presents results for the simple speci? cation implied by equation (1) but without the date and demographic controls.The point estimates suggest that social targeting and a friend’s endorsement increased the average daily clickthrough rate by around half. Column (2) repeats the analysis with the controls for date. It suggests that after controlling for date, the result holds. This is reassuring and suggests that any unevenness in how ads were served across days does not drive our results. It also suggests that our result is not an artifact of a failure of randomization. Column (3) adds an extra coe? cient that indicates whether that campaign was untargeted rather than being targeted to one of the customer groups identi? d as being likely ‘targets’ by the non-pro? t We also tried alternative speci? cations where we use the unbounded clicks measure (rather than a rate) as the dependent vari able and show that our results are robust to such a speci? cation in Table A1, in the appendix. 3 13 – Educational and Charity supporters. It suggests that indeed, as expected, an untargeted campaign was weakly ine? ective, though the estimate is not signi? cant at conventional levels. We speculate that the apparent weakness of demographic targeting may be because target markets of charity and educational supporters is reasonably broad, and consequently may have ontained many individuals who would not support an international charity. An obvious question is what explains the success of social advertising. One explanation is that the endorsement of a friend is informative. Another explanation is that social targeting uncovers people who will be more likely to be interested in their charity as they are similar, in unobserved ways, to their friends who are already fans of the charity. Manski (1993) pointed out that this particular issue of distinguishing homophily (unobserved ch aracteristics that make friends behave in a similar way) from the explicit in? ence of friends on each other is empirically problematic. Ideally, to address this we would simply randomize whether users saw the endorsement or not. However, Facebook’s advertiser interface does not allow that. What we can do is take advantage of the fact that sometimes ads are shown to people without the endorsement if that fan has selected a privacy setting which restricts the use of their image and name. The interface which users use to do this is displayed in Figure A1; all users do is simply select the ‘No One’ rather than the ‘Only my friends’ option.Of course, this will not represent perfect randomization. It is likely that the fans who select stricter privacy settings di? er in unobserved ways from those who do not, and that therefore their social networks may di? er as well. However, despite this potential for bias, this does represent a useful opportunity to tr y to disentangle the power of social targeting to enable homophily and the power of personal endorsements. Column (4) displays the results of a speci? cation for equation (1) where the dependent variable is the conversion rate for these socially targeted but not socially endorsed ads.Here for ads that were being shown to friends, the click-through rate was only calculated for occasions when the endorsement was not shown. A comparison of Column 14 (3) and Column (4) in Table 5 makes it clear the ads that were displayed to friends of fans but lacked a clear endorsement were less e? ective than those that had a clear endorsement. However, they were still measurably more e? ective than non-socially-targeted ads. It appears that, roughly, the endorsement accounted for less than half of the persuasive e? ect and the ability to use social networks to target the ad accounted for slightly more than half of such ads’ e? acy. Columns (5) and (6) of Table 5 estimate the speci? cation sep arately by whether the campaign was targeted or untargeted. Though the point estimate for the targeted campaigns is higher, it is notable that social advertising improved the performance of both targeted and untargeted campaigns. Given the widely reported lack of e? cacy of untargeted campaigns (Reiley and Lewis, 2009), the increase in e? ectiveness allowed by social advertising appears large for untargeted campaigns. 15 Table 5: Social Targeting and Endorsement is E? ective (4) No Endorsement Click Rate SocialTargeting EndorsementAll (1) Click Rate 0. 0386 (0. 0123) (2) Click Rate 0. 0385 (0. 0108) 0. 0287 (0. 0143) -0. 000275 (0. 0122) 0. 0794 (0. 0116) 0. 0132 (0. 0166) (3) Click Rate 0. 0386 (0. 0125) Untargeted (5) Click Rate 0. 0297 (0. 00755) Targeted (6) Click Rate 0. 0376 (0. 00927) SocialTargeting Untargeted Constant 16 Date Controls No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 630 630 630 630 210 420 Log-Likelihood 542. 1 610. 3 610. 3 427. 8 187. 7 452. 3 R-Squared 0. 0221 0. 212 0. 212 0. 119 0. 317 0. 228 OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the percentage point of people who click on the ad.Dependent variable in Columns (4) for social ads is the percentage point daily click-through rate of ads that did not display the endorsement. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 4. 2 Robustness Table 6 checks the robustness of the ? nding that social targeting and endorsement are effective, to di? erent de? nitions of the dependent variable. Column (1) reports the results of using a dependent measure which is the percentage click-through per impression. Again, we ? nd that social advertising is more e? ective, though the e? ectiveness is less pronounced and less precisely estimated than before.This suggests that the appeal of social advertising is not necessarily enhanced by multiple exposure. It could also, of course, merely re? ect noise introduced into the process by someone refreshing their browser multiple times. The results so far s uggest that consumer privacy concerns or the intrusiveness of such ads do not seem to outweigh the appeal of social advertising for consumers. 4 There is always the possibility of course that people clicked on the ads because they were annoyed or wanted to understand more the extent of privacy intrusion rather than because the ads were actually e? ective.To explore this, we estimate a speci? cation where the dependent measure was the proportion of clicks that became subscribers of the newsfeed. The results are reported in Column (2). We see that again social advertising appears to be more e? ective at encouraging Facebook users to take the intended action as well as simply clicking. This is evidence that people are not clicking on social ads due to annoyance at their intrusiveness but instead are clicking on them and taking the action the ads intend to encourage them to take. Untargeted ads are less likely to lead to conversions than those targeted at appropriate demographics.This m akes sense – these people are being targeted precisely because they are the kind of people who have signed up for such news feeds in the past. A ? nal question is whether ads that are socially targeted and display endorsements are more expensive for advertisers, thereby wiping out their relative e? ectiveness in terms of return on advertising investment. We explore this in Column (3) of Table 6. There are This may be because Facebook users ? nd it reassuring that these ads, though narrowly targeted, are not overly visually intrusive (Goldfarb and Tucker, 2011). 4 17 everal missing observations where there were no clicks that day and consequently there was no price recorded. In Column (3), we report the results of a speci? cation where our explanatory variables is the relative price per click. The results suggest that advertisers pay less for these clicks that are socially targeted. This suggests that Facebook is not charging a premium for this kind of advertising. Though Face book shrouds in secrecy the precise pricing and auction mechanism underlying their advertising pricing, this result would be consistent with a mechanism whereby advertisers pay less for clicks if they have higher clickthrough rates.In other words, prices paid bene? t from an improved ‘quality-score’ (Athey and Nekipelov, 2011). The results also suggest that advertisers pay less for demographically untargeted clicks which is in line with previous studies such as Beales (2010). Table 6: Social Advertising is E? ective: Checking robustness to di? erent dependent variables SocialTargeting Endorsement (1) Click Rate (Multiple) 0. 0108 (0. 00501) 0. 00526 (0. 00582) Yes 630 1086. 5 0. 150 (2) Clicks to Connections Rate 0. 433 (0. 0997) -0. 321 (0. 0768) Yes 554 -467. 5 0. 163 (3) Cost Per Click (USD) -0. 95 (0. 0480) -0. 177 (0. 0520) Yes 559 -129. 0 0. 426 Untargeted Date Controls Observations Log-Likelihood R-Squared OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the click-through ra te (expressed as a fraction of a percentage point) for impressions in Column (1). Dependent variable in Column (2) is the clicks to conversions rate. Dependent variable in Column (3) is cost per click. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 4. 3 What Kind of Social Advertising Messages Work? We then go on to explore what kind of advertising message works in social ads.We distinguish between ads that rely simply on the Facebook algorithm to promote social in? uence by featuring the automated endorsement at the bottom of their ad, and ads that explicitly refer to this endorsement in their ad copy. 18 Table 7: Social Advertising is Less E? ective if an Advertiser is Too Explicit (3) No Endorsement Click Rate SocialTargeting Endorsement All (1) Click Rate 0. 0577 (0. 0139) (2) Click Rate 0. 0571 (0. 0113) 0. 0333 (0. 0168) -0. 0287 (0. 00886) -0. 000463 (0. 0122) -0. 0136 (0. 0115) -0. 0189? (0. 01000) -0. 0378 (0. 0115) -0. 0429 (0. 0144) -0. 101 (0. 0124) Yes 630 615. 4 0. 225 Yes 630 618. 1 0. 232 Yes 630 429. 5 0. 124 Yes 210 189. 6 0. 329 Yes 420 461. 0 0. 260 -0. 000281 (0. 0177) 0. 0161 (0. 0169) -0. 0303? (0. 0167) -0. 0284 (0. 0124) Untargeted (4) Click Rate 0. 0498 (0. 0245) Targeted (5) Click Rate 0. 0527 (0. 0130) SocialTargeting SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Explicit Untargeted SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Don’t be left out SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Be like your friend SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Learn from your friend 19 SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Your friend knows SocialTargeting ? ExplicitDate Controls Observations Log-Likelihood R-Squared OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the percentage points of people who click on the ad. Dependent variable in Columns (3) adjusted for social ads so that is the percentage point daily click-through rate of ads that did not display the endorsement. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 We use the additional binary indicator variable Explicitj to indicate when the advertiser uses a message that evokes social in? uence explicitly in their ad copy, in addition to the social endorsement automated by the Facebook algorithm.This covers all the non-baseline conditions described in Table 2. We interact this with the SocialT argeting Endorsementj , meaning that SocialT argeting Endorsementj now measures the e? ect of the baseline effect, and the interacted variable measures the incremental advantage or disadvantage of mentioning the friend or the potential for social in? uence in the ad. Column (1) of Table 7 reports the results. The negative coe? cient on the interaction between Explicit and SocialT argeting Endorsementj suggests that explicit reference to a social in? uence mechanism in the ad a? ected the performance of the ad negatively.That is, when the advertiser themselves were explicit about their intention to harness social in? uence, it back? res. Further, the large point estimate for SocialT argeting Endorsementj sugge sts that the baseline message is even more e? ective than the estimates of Table 5 suggested. Column (2) in Table 7 reports the results of a speci? cation where we break up Explicit by the di? erent types of ‘social in? uence’-focused advertising messages featured in Table 2. It is striking that all measures are negative. It is also suggestive that the one message that was not statistically signi? ant and had a smaller point estimate than the others did not refer to the friend explicitly but instead referred obliquely to the friend’s action. This is speculative, since the point estimate here is not statistically di? erent from the others due to its large standard error. Column (3) repeats the exercise for the click-through rate for the ads that did not display an endorsement that we investigated in Table 5. Since these ads did not display the friend’s name at the bottom, it should not be so obvious to a viewer that the ? rm is explicitly trying to harness the social in? uence that results from the friend being a fan of the charity.We recognize that there may of course be some confusion at the mention of a friend when no name is displayed, but this confusion should work against us rather than for us. In this case, 20 we do not see a negative and signi? cant e? ect of the ‘Explicit’ advertising message which referred to a friend. This suggests that it was the combination of the friend’s name and the mention of social in? uence which was particularly o? -putting. The results in Column (3) suggest that what is damaging is the combination of an advertiser making it explicit they are trying to harness social in? ence and the algorithmic social advertising message. We next explored whether this ? nding that attempts by advertisers to explicitly harness social in? uence in their ad text damaged the e? ectiveness of social advertising di? ered by the target group selected. Column (4) presents the results for the campaign t hat was targeted at friends of fans who were simply over 18 years old and based in the US. Column (5) presents the results for the group of users whom the charity selected as being in the target ‘demographic’ groups for the campaign – that is users whose Facebook pro? e revealed their support for other educational and charitable causes. What is striking is the similarity of the estimates for the e? cacy of social advertising and the damage done by the advertiser being overly explicit about social in? uence across Columns (4) and (5). Again, similar to the results reported in Table 5 social advertising appears to be able to o? er as nearly as large a lift to ad e? cacy for an untargeted population as a targeted one. 4. 4 Behavioral Mechanism We then collected additional data to help rule out alternative explanations of our ? nding that the explicit mention of social in? ence was undesirable in social ads. One obvious potential explanation is that what we are measu ring is simply that people are unaware that what they are seeing is actually an ad, rather than part of Facebook. When a non-pro? t uses a message such as ‘Be like your friend’ then it becomes obvious that this is an ad, and people respond di? erently. To test this, we persuaded the non-pro? t to run a subsequent experiment that allowed us to explicitly tease this apart. In this experiment we compared the performance of ads that said ‘Please read this ad. Help girls in East Africa 21 change their lives through education. , and ads that simply said ‘Help girls in East Africa change their lives through education. ’5 If it is was the case that Facebook users were simply mistaking socially targeted ads for regular content and the explicit appeals to social in? uence stopped them making this mistake, we would expect to also see a negative e? ect of wording that made it clear that the message was an ad. However, it appears that adding ‘Please read thi s ad’ if anything helped ad performance, which suggests that it was not the case that Facebook users were simply mistaking socially targeted ads for content if there is no explicit message.Obviously, though, the sample size here is very small, making more de? nitive pronouncements unwise. Table 8: Not Driven by Lack of Awareness of Advertising or Universally Unappealing Ad Copy Knowledge (1) Click Rate 0. 0312? (0. 0160) 0. 0114 (0. 0288) Fashion (2) Click Rate 0. 0194 (0. 0208) 0. 0376? (0. 0221) 0. 0449? (0. 0254) -0. 00448 (0. 0218) 0. 0172 (0. 0254) 0. 127 (0. 0584) (3) Click Rate 0. 0182 (0. 0208) SocialTargeting Endorsement SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Explicit SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Don’t be left out SocialTargeting Endorsement Be like your friend SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Learn from your friend SocialTargeting Endorsement ? Your friend knows Date Controls Yes Yes Yes Observations 20 60 60 Log-Likelihood 55. 43 91. 77 103. 7 R-Squared 0. 916 0. 267 0 . 508 OLS Estimates. Dependent variable is the percentage point of people who click on ad that day. Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 Recent research has questioned the use of the imperative in advertising copy, which is why we used ‘please’ (Kronrod et al. , 2012) 5 22 Another alternative explanation for our ? dings is that the messages referring to the friend were poorly-written or unappealing. To test whether this was the case, we selected an alternative set of users whom might be expected to react in an opposite way to potential presumptions of social in? uence. Speci? cally, the charity agreed to run test conditions identical to those in Table 2 for the people who expressed a? nity with ‘Fashion’ goods on their Facebook pro? les. The Fashion category of users were chosen because typical models of social in? uence have focused on fashion cycles (Bikhchandani et al. , 1992).These models emphasize the extent to which people who participate in Fashion cycles receive explicit utility from conformity, even when this conformity is provoked by a ? rm. In other words, they may ? nd advertiser-endorsed social in? uence more persuasive and advertiser attempts at emphasizing the power of social in? uence more acceptable than the general population does. This group of users exhibits a very di? erent pattern to that exhibited by the general population. They appear to respond somewhat positively to social advertising, though this estimate is imprecise and the point estimate is smaller than for the other conditions.However, strikingly, they reacted particularly positively to advertising messages that emphasized social in? uence and the actions of the friend in the ad copy. In other words, social advertising for this group worked even when the advertiser explicitly embraced the potential for social in? uence. This result suggests that there may be heterogeneity in consumer responses to the wording of social advertis ing messages depending on their previous consumption patterns. This is evidence against an alternative explanation for our results in Table 7 based on these advertising messages which explicitly refer to the potential for social in? ence being confusing or overly wordy, since they were e? ective for this group of Fashion fans. In general, the results of Tables 7 and 8 suggest that there is heterogeneity in distaste for advertiser attempts to harness social in? uence given previous consumption patterns, but that for the average person the e? ects are negative. 23 5 Implications How helpful is data on social relationships when it comes to targeting and delivering advertising content? This paper answers this question using ? eld test data of di? erent ads on the large social network site Facebook. We ? nd evidence that social advertising is indeed very e? ctive. This is important, as for the past few years social network websites have often been dismissed by advertisers as venues for à ¢â‚¬Ëœpaid media’, that is, paid advertising. Instead, the emphasis was on ‘earned’ or organic media whereby social networks were venues for organic word of mouth. This dismissal of paid advertisements was echoed in the popular and marketing press with headlines such as ‘Online Social Network and Advertising Don’t Mix’ and ‘Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful’ (Joel, 2008; Barefoot and Szabo, 2008). Our results suggest, however, that as social advertising develops this will change swiftly.In particular, social networks will be able to exploit their considerable inherent network e? ects to enlarge their share of advertising dollars. Strikingly, we ? nd that the average Facebook user appears to ? nd social advertising as done by the standard Facebook algorithm appealing. However, when advertisers attempt to emulate or reinforce this social in? uence, consumers appear less likely to respond positively to the ad. Specul atively, the results suggest that intrusive or highly personal advertising is more acceptable if done algorithmically by a faceless entity uch as a computer than when it is the result of evident human agency. Very speculatively, there is perhaps a parallel with users of web-based email programs accepting an algorithm scanning their emails to serve them relevant ads when the interception of emails by a human agent would not be acceptable. Our results suggest that social advertising works well for both targeted and untargeted populations, which may mean that social advertising is a particularly useful technique when 24 advertising to consumers outside the product’s natural or obvious market segment since their are less obvious ways of targeting in these settings.The majority of this e? cacy appears to be because social targeting uncovers unobserved homophily between users of a website and their underlying receptiveness to an advertising message. There are of course limitations to our study. First, the non-pro? t setting may bias our results in ways that we cannot predict. Second, the aims of the non-pro? t also means the outcome measure we study is whether or not people sign up to hear more about the nonpro? t, rather than studying the direct e? ect of advertising on for-pro? t outcomes such as customers making purchases.Third, we studied this advertising at a time when Facebook was just launching and promoting its social advertising features. It is not clear whether the results will be as strong if the advertising market becomes saturated with social ads. Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe that this paper makes a useful contribution in terms of documenting when social advertising is useful and when it is not. 25 References Algesheimer, R. , S. Borle, U. M. Dholakia, and S. S. Singh (July/August 2010). The impact of customer community participation on customer behaviors: An empirical investigation.Marketing Science 29 (4), 756–769. Aral, S. and D. Walker (September 2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer in? uence in networks. Management Science 57 (9), 1623–1639. Athey, S. and D. Nekipelov (2011). A structural model of sponsored search advertising auctions. Mimeo, Berkeley. Bagherjeiran, A. , R. P. Bhatt, R. Parekh, and V. Chaoji (2010). Online advertising in social networks. In B. Furht (Ed. ), Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications, pp. 651–689. Springer US. Bakshy, E. , J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts (2011). Everyone’s an in? encer: quantifying in? uence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, WSDM ’11, New York, NY, USA, pp. 65–74. ACM. Barefoot, D. and J. Szabo (2008, April). Facebook ad click-through rates are really pitiful. Friends with Bene? ts: A social media handbook blog. Beales, H. (2010). The value of behavioral targeting. Mime o, George Washington University. Bikhchandani, S. , D. Hirshleifer, and I. Welch (1992, October). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change in informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy 100 (5), 992–1026. 6 Burnkrant, R. E. and A. Cousineau (1975, December). Informational and normative social in? uence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (3), 206–15. ComScore (2011). ComScore’s 2011 social report: Facebook leading, microblogging growing, world connecting. White Paper . Corcoran, S. (2009, December 16). De? ning earned, owned and paid media. Forrester Research. Deutsch, M. and H. B. Gerard (1955). A study of normative and informational social in? uences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3), 629–636. Facebook (2010, September).A/B testing your Facebook ads: Getting better results through experimentation’. Technical Report. Godes, D. and D. Mayzlin (2009). Firm-Created Word -of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test. Marketing Science 28 (4), 721–739. Goldfarb, A. and C. Tucker (2011, May). Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Science 30, 389–404. Gossieaux, F. and E. Moran (2010). The Hyper-Social Organization: Eclipse Your Competition by Leveraging Social Media. McGraw-Hill. Hill, S. , F. Provest, and C. Volinksky (2006). Network-based marketing: Identifying likely adopters via consumer networks.Statistical Science 21 (2), 256276. IAB (2009). IAB social advertising best practices. Interactive Advertising Bureau. Joel, M. (2008, February 8). Online social networks and advertising don’t mix. Six Pixels of Separation, Twist Image. 27 Kronrod, A. , A. Grinstein, and L. Wathieu (2012, January). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing 76, 95–102. Manski, C. F. (1993, July). Identi? cation of endogenous social e? ects: The re? ection problem. Review of E conomic Studies 60 (3), 531–42. Provost, F. , B. Dalessandro, R. Hook, X. Zhang, and A. Murray (2009).Audience selection for on-line brand advertising: privacy-friendly social network targeting. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’09, New York, NY, USA, pp. 707–716. ACM. Reiley, D. and R. Lewis (2009). Retail advertising works! measuring the e? ects of advertising on sales via a controlled experiment on Yahoo! †. Working Paper, Yahoo! Research. Trusov, M. , R. E. Bucklin, and K. Pauwels (2009, September). E? ects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site.Journal of Marketing 73, 90–102. Tucker, C. (2008). Identifying formal and informal in? uence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Science 54 (12), 2024–2038. Tucker, C. (2011a). Ad virality and ad persuasiveness. Mimeo, MIT . Tucker, C. (2011b ). Mimeo, MIT . Tucker, C. and J. Zhang (2011). How does popularity information a? ect choices? A ? eld experiment. Management Science 57 (5), 828–842. Zubcsek, P. and M. Sarvary (2011). Advertising to a social network. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 9, 71–107. Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls. 28Figure A1: Control interface for switching o? Endorsement A-1 Table A1: Robustness of Table 5 to using number of clicks as dependent variable OLS (1) Average Clicks SocialTargeting Endorsement 1. 991 (0. 394) -0. 0385 (0. 422) 0. 000405 (0. 0000443) Poisson (2) Average Clicks 0. 258 (0. 0746) 0. 134 (0. 0817) 0. 0000327 (0. 00000638) Negative Binomial (3) Average Clicks 0. 230 (0. 0922) 0. 187 (0. 123) 0. 0000455 (0. 0000135) Untargeted Ad-Reach Date Controls Yes Yes Yes Observations 630 630 630 Log-Likelihood -1484. 8 -1417. 6 -1394. 7 R-Squared 0. 755 OLS Estimates in Columns (1)-(2).Dependent variable is the Number of clicks on the ad in Columns (3)-(4). Robust standard errors. * p < 0. 10, ** p < 0. 05, *** p < 0. 01 A-2 Table A2: Summary of 18 Campaigns Campaign 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Social Ad? Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Social Advertising Non-Social Advertising Non-Social Advertising Non-Social Advertising Demo Targeting?Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Untargeted Untargeted Untargeted Untargeted Untargeted Demo 1 Targeted Demo 2 Targeted Untargeted Message Baseline Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 Baseline Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 Baseline Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4 Baseline Baseline Baseline A- 3

Dancing in the Night

It was a long, frigid night. The air was crisp and there was fog building up on the windows, as she sat and waited in the car for the night to end and daybreak to arrive. She had been fighting with her boyfriend of several years. As always, the fight ended with a loud WHACK†¦ Her face red with shame and damp with tears she shed. She did not know why she shed them- more for the pain or for the embarrassment. She sat in the car, her cries for pain dancing in the cold air, her breath becoming shorter on the intake. She wanted to break free. She wanted to break the chains over this abuse! Oh how she wanted to drive, drive anywhere and start her life over again. But again, as always, she had an excuse. She had reasoning for this crazy life, this notion of love. Thoughts swirling in her head. And then her breathing would dance in the frigid air once again. It was two o'clock in the morning. She had little clothing on to keep her warm. The only protection from the cold, besides the thin sheath of a jacket on her arms and an old scarf, was the array of goose pimples. She cupped her icy hands over her mouth and withdrew a hearty, deep breath. That still was not enough. She ran the scenario through her mind, trying to figure out where she went wrong, where she wronged the man whom she loved so dearly. All she could think of was how the thrashing of their bodies collided together, the pain she felt everytime he wanted to. She would tell him to stop, but he would stop at nothing. He always got what he wanted. These thoughts running through her mind were making her cry uncontrollably. She brought her hands to her face, gently cupping her rosy, tear stricken face. Pondering once again about her life, she could not understand one thing. She could not understand how this man, the man whom she has been with for so long, could be such an ass at times. He would man handle her, like she was one of the guys, when in reality she was frail, weak, a porcelain doll. He treated her in such a way that a savage young boy would do to a quaint dollhouse with glass dolls inside. She wiped a tear from her frozen left cheek. Rubbing her nose with the sleeve of the sheath, she gently blew. All of this crying left her nose terribly stuffed up, like traffic on a freeway during rush hour. He had broad shoulders with bulging veins, high cheekbones, a strong trunk, chiseled legs. Why would he force her? Why would he strike her? She could not think. She was almost frozen. Shaking once again from the cold night, she decided to try and get the heater to go on in her old Oldsmobile. Turning the key clockwise, pumping the break†¦ A load croak and moan spoke from within the car. Her luck- the car was dead. She knew nothing about cars. She was miles from home and from civilization. Her life was very complicated. This man spoke words of poetry about getting married and starting a family. Why would he strike her? He did not mean to though. He always bought her tulips after their fights. Pink and red ones. She loved the tulips he bought. They brought her back to her childhood. Her father was the same way. That is why she loved him so much. They are so much alike. She always fixed the same drink when they came home from a long day- Jack on the rocks. Then they would ask her to sit on their knee. Sometimes she would. When she would not, they would grab her pencil- like arm and force her down on their knee. They would never ask though. They would never ask if they could. They would just throw her frail body on the bed and pin her down. She would fight back, but after exuding so much energy, she would give in. And then the pain would begin. She never liked it. She never wanted her daddy to do this, her boyfriend to use that. After it was all over, she would sit and cry in the bathroom, blood oozing from her. Thinking about this made her flush once again and the heavens flowed from her angelic eyes. Six o'clock. Almost time for the rooster to crow. She made her way from the broken car to the side of the road. She saw some truckers pass by this secluded road during the night. She wondered if any of them had heat. What she would do for warmth right about now†¦ Then she spotted it- a large tractor-trailer coming her way. She withdrew her chaffed thumb from her pocket, shaking violently from the rough night of tears and lack of warmth. She still managed to shake her hip and open one more button on her jacket. She slightly exposed her sequin top from work the day before. She hid her tips in the hole of the right sleeve. All she needed was warmth and a place to lay her head. The tractor-trailer slowly grooved its way to a stop, like a train stopping on the tracks. The window disappeared into the door and the rough smile of this man was comforting to her. She opened up one more button and managed to say amidst the shaking, â€Å"Could ya give me a ride to the motel a few miles up? I seem to be havin' some car trouble. In return, I could give you some company- and anything else you might need, want, hafta have†¦Ã¢â‚¬  A half smile crept on her face. The driver had a sly smirk, as provocative thoughts ran through his head. He agreed to give her the ride. She agreed to his wishes. After all, that is how she met her boyfriend nearly three years earlier, running away from her daddy.

Free Essays on Parent And Ed.

Today’s world is a busy place. Most households consist of both parents working or single parents, leading to many kids to come home to an empty house. With everybody running around busy, do parents still have time to be involved with their children’s education? Parental involvement can be crucial to children’s success in schools. As a future teacher I think that it is important for parents to be invovled in their child’s education. Are schools responsible for making sure that parents are involved in their child’s education? Research indicates that for parent involvement to flourish it must be meaningful and integrated with schools programs. This way they can get stuff out of it too. Joyce Epstein feels that there are six types f programs schools may use to help parent involvement. A few examples are: Schools assist families worth parenting and child-rearing skills. This helps parents become better, more involved parents leading better students. Another example of ways schools can help involve parents beyond the basic parent teacher conference or PTA meetings is by working to improve recruitment training and schedules to involve families in school activities at home. Some schools are trying to make their schools the center of community life by providing health facilities, continuing education classes, weekend activities, and providing other services on site. I personally feel that parental involvement is very important. First of all it shows that your parents care. School is a huge part of your life and if your parents show no interest in your education it seems like they don’t care as much as parents who do get involved. Parental involvement is especially important in their younger years. I volunteered in a first grade class my senior year in high school. I did a lot of one on one with the kids, I could always tell the kids whose parents didn’t take the time to work with their kids at home. They often st... Free Essays on Parent And Ed. Free Essays on Parent And Ed. Today’s world is a busy place. Most households consist of both parents working or single parents, leading to many kids to come home to an empty house. With everybody running around busy, do parents still have time to be involved with their children’s education? Parental involvement can be crucial to children’s success in schools. As a future teacher I think that it is important for parents to be invovled in their child’s education. Are schools responsible for making sure that parents are involved in their child’s education? Research indicates that for parent involvement to flourish it must be meaningful and integrated with schools programs. This way they can get stuff out of it too. Joyce Epstein feels that there are six types f programs schools may use to help parent involvement. A few examples are: Schools assist families worth parenting and child-rearing skills. This helps parents become better, more involved parents leading better students. Another example of ways schools can help involve parents beyond the basic parent teacher conference or PTA meetings is by working to improve recruitment training and schedules to involve families in school activities at home. Some schools are trying to make their schools the center of community life by providing health facilities, continuing education classes, weekend activities, and providing other services on site. I personally feel that parental involvement is very important. First of all it shows that your parents care. School is a huge part of your life and if your parents show no interest in your education it seems like they don’t care as much as parents who do get involved. Parental involvement is especially important in their younger years. I volunteered in a first grade class my senior year in high school. I did a lot of one on one with the kids, I could always tell the kids whose parents didn’t take the time to work with their kids at home. They often st...

President James Buchanan and the Secession Crisis

President James Buchanan and the Secession Crisis The election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 triggered a crisis which had been simmering for at least a decade. Outraged by the election of a candidate who was known to be opposed to the spread of slavery into new states and territories, leaders of the southern states began to take action to split from the United States. In Washington, President James Buchanan, who had been miserable during his term in the White House and couldn’t wait to leave office, was thrown into a horrendous situation. In the 1800s, newly elected presidents were not sworn into office until March 4 of the following year. And that meant Buchanan had to spend four months presiding over a nation which was coming apart. The state of South Carolina, which had been asserting its right to secede from the Union for decades, back to the time of the Nullification Crisis, was a hotbed of secessionist sentiment. One of its senators, James Chesnut, resigned from the U.S. Senate on November 10, 1860, only four days after Lincoln’s election. His states other senator resigned the next day. Buchanans Message to Congress Did Nothing to Hold the Union Together As talk in the South about secession was quite serious, it was expected that the president would do something to reduce tensions. In that era, presidents did not visit Capitol Hill to deliver a State of the Union Address in January but instead provided the report required by the Constitution in written form in early December. President Buchanan wrote a message to Congress which was delivered on December 3, 1860. In his message, Buchanan said that he believed secession was illegal. Yet Buchanan also said he did not believe the federal government had any right to prevent states from seceding. So Buchanan’s message pleased nobody. Southerners were offended by Buchanan’s belief that secession was illegal. And Northerners were perplexed by the president’s belief that the federal government couldn’t act to prevent states from seceding. His Own Cabinet Reflected the National Crisis Buchanan’s message to Congress also angered members of his own cabinet. On December 8, 1860, Howell Cobb, the secretary of the treasury, a native of Georgia, told Buchanan he could no longer work for him. A week later, Buchanan’s Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, a native of Michigan, also resigned, but for a very different reason. Cass felt that Buchanan was not doing enough to prevent the secession of southern states. South Carolina Seceded on December 20 As the year drew to a close, the state of South Carolina held a convention at which the state’s leaders decided to secede from the Union. The official ordinance of secession was voted on and passed on December 20, 1860. A delegation of South Carolinians traveled to Washington to meet with Buchanan, who saw them at the White House on December 28, 1860. Buchanan told the South Carolina commissioners that he was considering them to be private citizens, not representatives of some new government. But, he was willing to listen to their various complaints, which tended to focus on the situation surrounding the federal garrison which had just moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Senators Tried to Hold the Union Together With President Buchanan unable to prevent the nation from splitting, prominent senators, including Stephen Douglas of Illinois and William Seward of New York, attempted various strategies to placate the southern states. But action in the U.S. Senate seemed to offer little hope. Speeches by Douglas and Seward on the Senate floor in early January 1861 only seemed to make things worse. An attempt to prevent secession then came from an unlikely source, the state of Virginia. As many Virginians felt their state would suffer greatly from the outbreak of war, the states governor and other officials proposed a peace convention to be held in Washington. The Peace Convention Was Held in February 1861 On February 4, 1861, the Peace Convention began at the Willard Hotel in Washington. Delegates from 21 of the nations 33 states attended, and former president John Tyler, a native of Virginia, was elected its presiding officer. The Peace Convention held sessions until mid-February when it delivered a set of proposals to Congress. The compromises hammered out at the convention would have taken the form of new amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The proposals from the Peace Convention quickly died in Congress, and the gathering in Washington proved to be a pointless exercise. The Crittenden Compromise A final attempt to forge a compromise that would avoid outright war was proposed by a respected senator from Kentucky, John J. Crittenden. The Crittenden Compromise would have required significant changes to the United States Constitution. And it would have made slavery permanent, which meant legislators from the anti-slavery Republican Party would likely have never agreed to it. Despite the obvious obstacles, Crittenden introduced a bill in the Senate in December 1860. The proposed legislation had six articles, which Crittenden hoped to get through the Senate and the House of Representatives with two-thirds votes so they might become six new amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Given the splits in Congress and the ineffectiveness of President Buchanan, Crittendens bill did not have much chance of passage. Not dissuaded, Crittenden proposed bypassing Congress and seeking to change the Constitution with direct referendums in the states. President-Elect Lincoln, still at home in Illinois, let it be known that he did not approve of Crittendens plan. And Republicans on Capitol Hill were able to use stalling tactics to make sure the proposed Crittenden Compromise would languish and die in Congress. With Lincolns Inauguration, Buchanan Happily Left Office By the time Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, on March 4, 1861, seven slave states had already passed ordinances of secession, thus declaring themselves no longer part of the Union. Following Lincolns inauguration, four more states would secede. As Lincoln rode to the Capitol in a carriage beside James Buchanan, the outgoing president reportedly said to him, If you are as happy entering the presidency as I am leaving it, then you are a very happy man. Within weeks of Lincoln taking office, the Confederates fired upon Fort Sumter, and the Civil War began.

The Salem Witch Trials - How Did it Lead to a Less Religious Society Research Paper

The Salem Witch Trials - How Did it Lead to a Less Religious Society - Research Paper Example During the year of 1692, the Massachusetts Bay colony was deemed as an isolated but emerging puritan community in the wilderness of North America. The population in the area was significantly scattered. People inhibiting the isolated communities of the Salem village, were efficiently threatened due to the wild animals present there, and also the frequent attacks by the Native Americans. The most essential and interesting scenario of the Salem community was the spiritual beliefs and aspects of the members of the community. The vulnerable nature of the puritans inhibiting in the Salem village was deeply due to their religious beliefs, methods, and practices. The fundamentals of the puritans stressed on the fact that everything was in the hand of the almighty (Wilson, 7). It is god who determines the good fortune and prosperous health of a human being. Salvation was a gift from god. The puritan’s practice of worship included worship services, devotion, prayer, and self examinatio n to achieve the blessings of the almighty. The puritans also effectively believed in the fact that god permitted Satan to cause temptation and torment the ones who deviated from the path of righteousness and acted immorally or those whose faith the almighty wanted to test (Wilson, 7). It was believed that the people who failed to follow the path of righteousness was subjected to misfortune, sickness, and endured with a prominent period of grief. It is also to be notified that the puritans had the belief that a Satan might also enter a person’s life in the form of a witch. This was very much prominent in the era of Salem’s witch trial, which was also a significant cause of the evolution of the American civil society (Wilson, 7-8) The thesis acknowledges the fact, â€Å"Salem Witch Trials was a significant factor of the evolution of American civil society. Separation of Church & State, and a breakdown of the strict puritan codes led to a less religious society, improvi ng the justice system which later allowed for fair trials.† It is essentially problematic to actually ascertain the fact about what had occurred in Salem during the year of 1962, but a majority of historian and scholarly sources suggest that the Salem’s witch trial originated due to a particular incident. A group girls from the Salem village was diagnosed with unpredictable fits, followed by hysterical reactions, laughter and crying which was not intentionally provoked, incoherent babbling, attempts to fly, and also in some cases a hypnotic trance. The thing that preceded these incidents of bizarre fits were presumably a secret enchanting session with a woman named Tituba, a salve of the Indian origin from the Caribbean What preceded these bizarre fits apparently were secret enchanting, during which the woman Tituba, accompanied by several girls from the village practiced folk magic in order to predict the nature and identity of their husband before they are married. Wh en the girls were diagnosed by the local doctor, no effective physical cause was found for such bizarre behavior. Due to the attitude and beliefs of that era, it was concluded as no logical explanation could be concluded, then there has to be a disturbing influence of the Satan. Due to the fact that two of them were from the house of a local minister, reverend Parris, he subsequently called the ministers from