text:
How Can She be Gone
I think I am still in shock, I just cannot believe I will never see my mother again. My Mom and best friend passed away unexpectedly on January 10, 2007 at the age of 59. Mom was the one that held the family together, every holiday, celebration and special moment was spent at moms house, saturday night texas hold 'em' with all the family. How can we go on, the pain is so unreal. I spend all day at moms house and think of all the memories. I spent all of my free time with my mom, we were very close. I think the thing that hurts me the most is that I didnt get to tell her goodbye, and that I love her so very very much. Mom I love you so very very much ! Sandy
I send my sincere condolences on the death of your darling Mother, I am so sad for you, you have had a terrible shock. I will pray God will help you through this. You are stunned because your whole world had just been shattered. I know that you want to wake up and find that this is all a bad dream. I hope someone is near to hold and hug you because I know you need that right now. God Bless.
I can totally relate to how you feel. My dad was only 68 and was my best friend. He died unexpectedly from a brain bleed (stroke). I wasnt there when he died in the cat scan machine. By the time I got there he was already gone. He was fine the nite before. I think when someone passes on unexpectedly, I wont say die because they never really die, that is the hardest kind of passing to except. We never got to say good bye or hold his hand when he parted. The hurt is so gut wrenching and the lonely feeling is unbearable at times. My dad is gone only 14 months but it feels like yesterday. I miss everything about him. Everyone kept telling me that in time I will find somewhere to put the pain and I will start remembering only happy thaughts. I really dont think you ever get over it. Its a shock to our systems. Have faith and believe you will see your mom again. Her work here was done. But you still are here to do your job. When the time is right, we will be reunited with our loved ones. The last time i saw my dad was the nite before he passed. I Told him I loved him and I'll see you later. That was it. no goodbyes. because its truly really never goodbye. Its more like, I'll be seeing you again. If you want to e-mail me thats fine. Id be happy to talk to you. You will be OK. The hurt you feel is showing you how much you were loved and how much you loved your mom. I still cry and get very angry that my dad left. There are no quick fixes and no answers to my questions. My heart goes out to you and I hope and pray as every day that passes, you will become a little bit stronger. Its not fair but we cant question God. Just have faith and know that he is always walking one step ahead of you. And he wont give you more than you can handle. I know that seems very unbelievable to say, everyone told me that right after my dad passed and I wanted to tell them all to just leave me alone. But its true. He will guide you if you let him. Your mom will always be with you, you keep her alive in your heart, just as I do with my dad. Try to keep all your family traditions going. If it was important to your mom than I am sure she would want you to continue your family get togethers. I am a mom and when I pass I wouldnt want my children to stop living there lives and keep mourning over me. A mom only wants her kids to be happy. She's watching you always, so dont let everything she taught you be forgotten. I hope this helped you in some way. I really and truly know how you feel.
I am so very sorry for your loss. I lost my dear Mother 2 years ago in March. She, too was my very best friend in the whole world. I loved her so much yet feel like I failed her. So many mixed feelings and unresolved stuff. There is just no good way to lose someone that you love and you are never ever ready to let them go. Just live as she would want you to and hold your Mother and your memories with her close in your heart. Have her special things around you. Talk about her. And hang in there and take help and comfort from those who offer and care about you. You will always miss her, but your days will get easier, I promise.
You can talk to your Mom, I talk to my husband and I find that it keeps him closer, I ask him to help me make decisions etc. I am going on a trip and I keep telling him that "we" are going on a trip and I really feel like I am taking him with me in my heart and not leaving him behind. I hope you understand what I mean (and you don't think I'm crazy), I know it helps me.
She's only a thought away. My mother passed away in 1991 at age 59. What an incredibly young age to go. You really can still talk to your mom at any time. I firmly believe that she will hear you and, if you pay attention, she may talk back! You have my deepest sympathy.
Sandy...I'm so sorry for your loss. I know how you feel. My mother passed away on 5/12/2005 at the age of 57. She died suddenly in her sleep...it was such a shock to us all. My deepest regret is that I never got to say goodbye, tell her I how much I loved her and how sorry I was for all the things that had gone wrong, in our otherwise wonderful relationship, right before her death. But I've learned to deal with that regret by "talking" to her almost daily. Although I miss her with all of my heart and soul, my grief has finally lessened enough for me to smile at the memories instead of break down and cry. I laugh out loud all of the time at things she would have laughed at with me. I know it's hard to believe right now, but it will get easier with time and you'll be able to come to terms with this horrible tragedy. My thoughs and prayers are with you.


text:
Inventory Search
2015 Buick Enclave Premium AWD
2015 Buick Encore AWD 4dr
2015 Buick LaCrosse FWD Base
2015 Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe Z/28
2015 Chevrolet City Express Cargo Van FWD 115" LS
2015 Chevrolet Colorado Crew Cab Short Box 4-Wheel Drive Z71
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Coupe 3LT
2015 Chevrolet Cruze Sedan LS (Automatic)
2015 Chevrolet Equinox FWD LS
2015 Chevrolet Impala LS
Price: $54,9952014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray..
Price: $14,9952014 Chevrolet Cruze Sedan 1LT..
Price: $14,9952014 Chevrolet Cruze Sedan 1LT..
Price: $14,9952014 Chevrolet Cruze Sedan 1LT..
Price: $21,9952014 Chevrolet Impala 1LT
Price: $22,9952014 Chevrolet Impala 2LT
Price: $18,9952014 Chevrolet Malibu 2LT
Price: $15,9952013 Chevrolet Malibu LS
Price: $28,9952013 Chevrolet Silverado 1500..
Price: $29,9952013 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew..
Hours Of Operation
Bowling Green Chevrolet Buick: A Hannibal Area Chevrolet & Buick Dealer
Our Bowling Green Chevrolet Buick family would like to personally thank you for visiting our website. We've built our site to be as convenient as possible to our Bowling Green customers, making it easy to search our stock of new and used cars. This, plus so much more, is how we can serve as your alternative to any Hannibal Chevrolet or Buick dealership.
A Bowling Green Buick Chevrolet Dealer Serving Hannibal
Only a short drive from Hannibal, our Chevrolet & Buick dealership provides the best in quality GM vehicles and customer satisfaction. More detailed hours & directions to our Bowling Green Buick Chevy dealer is available at our hours and directions page. You'll find our wide variety of new and used car models has what you need, whether you're looking for Chevy trucks in Bowling Green or near Hannibal, our Chevrolet Buick dealership is the best place to be.
Our Bowling Green dealership goes above and beyond by making it easy to request a quote from our trained sales team or schedule a test drive. Make your car buying experience easy by doing your own research on available financing terms for your new or used car. Browse updated pricing on exciting new models in your area, like the redesigned Chevrolet Silverado 1500, the powerful Tahoe, or shop our wide selection of used cars. Bowling Green goes that extra mile by making it easy to shop for your very own Missouri Chevrolet today. We look forward to serving you!
Hannibal Chevrolet & Buick Service Alternative in Bowling Green, MO
Our GM service department in Bowling Green is prepared to provide the all king of repair and maintenance your Chevrolet & Buick car or truck. From our online service appointment and parts order form to our service specials, GM accessories, and GM tire store, we have the resources to be your Bowling Green, MO & Hannibal area Chevrolet & Buick service center of choice. Give our service technicians a call at (877) 363-7841 with any questions you have today!
Chevrolet & Buick Used Cars in Bowling Green Near Hannibal
Bowling Green Chevrolet Buick is not only a trusted dealer for new cars, but also has a great reputation for sellingused cars to our Hannibal Chevrolet & Buick customers. Designed with our customers in mind, use our website to easily search for the car that you want based on make, model, year and other criteria. Our certified pre-owned cars are sold at affordable prices and all are kept in the best condition. Contact us to get a price for the used car that you want. If you're looking for a dealership that sells used Buick and Chevrolet vehicles, stop by our showroom. Browse our inventory online, and when you find what you like, schedule a test drive.
Chevrolet: Camaro | Colorado | Corvette | Cruze | Equinox | Express Passenger Van | Impala | Malibu
Silverado 1500 | Silverado 2500HD | Sonic | Spark | Tahoe | Traverse
Buick: Enclave | Encore | LaCrosse | Regal | Verano

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Etiquette Question
My fiance and I haven't yet started making wedding plans, but he has mentioned that he would want to invite his DD's BM even though he and BM do not get along. He has said he thinks it is important for DD that both parents have the option to be involved during such an important event and he would expect an invitation from BM to her wedding (although I don't see why she would invite him).
First off, it is HIGHLY unlikely that BM would consider attending for even a second since she has a hard time agreeing to attend any event at our home we have invited her to when they are fully centered around DD. Second, even though my future SD certainly will have a role in the wedding ceremony, I see the event being for me and her father, so why would we invite BM? Also, we both agree that we want a very small wedding (like 20 guests small), so that would make it impossible to avoid BM if she did show.
I haven't worried too much about it since it's likely to be a year or so before any wedding ceremony, but I'm curious if the rest of you think this is a normal thing for Dad to want to do and if I should just let it go and cross my fingers she doesn't come, or should I try to talk him out of it since her attendance would be extremely awkward for everyone except maybe DD?
"I'm curious if the rest of you think this is a normal thing for Dad to want to do and if I should just let it go and cross my fingers she doesn't come, or should I try to talk him out of it"
1. no
2. no
3. yes
A wedding is not for anyone but you and DH. If it's an issue, elope, then have a party that BM can be invited to. Stand your ground now. This is not a DD event. This is a you and DH event with choice people who are significant to the two of you. Not who is significant to DD.
I am going to be facing the same situation within the next year or so. My fiance wants to invite her ex to our wedding for her son's sake and because they used to have a really good friendship even after they broke up (before her and I got together). I don't really have a problem with this, my only concern is that if he chooses to come (and bring his new gf who hates her family) that tensions will be high between everyone and that something might happen that could ruin the celebration. As for me I think I might just pick and choose my battles and say it's ok. I don't really expect them to come even if they do get an invite anyway
In most situations, no it not usual to invite the ex. And you are reasonable to not want his ex at your wedding.
Here's our situation:
We had a small wedding, but then a big party on a different day. SS (9 at the time) asked us to invite his mom. We invited her and her BF to the party. They didn't attend but gave us a lovely card and gift.
BM and the BF got engaged, and just married a few weeks ago. They had a medium-sized wedding. SS, now 11, asked them to invite us. They invited us to the ceremony and dance but not the dinner. We got SS ready and brought him to the ceremony, stayed for the ceremony, dropped off our gift, and left. Staying for the ceremony was at SS's request; if he had not specifically asked us to, we would not have.
We all get along very well (most of the time), but felt that we didn't really "belong" at each other's weddings. It was important to SS that we attend his mom's wedding, so we found a way to meet SS's request while still keeping weddings as about the new couple, not the ex.
My DH and I got married two years ago and most certainly did not invite his ex, SS's mother.
Likewise, she got married about six months after we did and did not invite us, although we were actually fairly friendly at the time.
I think it would be only the most unusual situations where one would invite one's ex to a wedding.
Is it normal?
Certainly not typical. I can sort of understand where he's coming from, but I think he's very mistaken in his perceptions of how his Ex will feel. Unless relations are very friendly, the wedding is large, and the Ex needs to bring the children, I can't imagine how an Ex would expect to be invited.
Would I be happy about it?
No. But I would trust him to deal with is Ex, and would just request that he word the invitation in such a way as to give her the option of a graceful refusal if she thinks an invitation is as wacky as you (and I) do. There are ways of issuing invitations that could make it clear that the invitation was issued out of courtesy and grace only, and that the recipient isn't really expected to attend. Something along the lines of "We certainly wouldn't want to insult you, so you're welcome to attend if you'd like to be there, and we'll mail you an invitation. It'll be a very small wedding - only 20 people or so - but DD might be more comfortable if you were there."
Would I try to talk him out of it?
I'd try to talk him into reconsidering, and if he wants to invite her, into modifying his wording.
When we were planning our wedding, we thought that BM was behaving fairly civilly (we found out later that she was lying through her teeth about many, many things), and DH invited her. SS8 was the ring-bearer and our wedding was very casual; DH explained and told her that she was welcome to come for a bit if she wanted to see him (SS) all dressed up. We didn't think she'd come to the ceremony itself because that would probably be uncomfortable, but thought that she might stop by the reception briefly to see SS. She did not. And if we knew then what we know now there is a better chance of Obama and Palin having a torrid love affair than her ever being invited to anything we are having again.
There's a big difference though - I was fine with it. This is yours and your FDH's wedding, not his daughter's. Yes, both her parents should be able to attend a wedding together - HERS. Your wedding is about the two of you, not DD nor her BM.
To answer your question, no it is not appropriate, especially if they don't along. It doesn't matter what's important for DD, t is not DD's wedding. And no it is not important for exspouses to attend each other weddings.
I get along with ex very well, we were always very friendly, but saying that...no, attending each other wedding is unnecessary, and rather silly. If it would be one of the kids wedding, it would be a different story. I don't see my DD asking me to attend her dad's wedding, it is not her wedding. Exspouse would go there to look at kids dressed up. What for?
mattie, Obama and Palin having love affair?? hahahaha New tabloid news haha
Thank you so much for all of the different perspectives!
As far as I know, future SD has never mentioned/requested any involvement of BM at the wedding, so hopefully that would mean no having to explain why BM would not be included in the event.
Also, the more I think about how awkward time is around BM, I realize SD would probably be unable to to really celebrate with us for fear that BM would be hurt or upset.
When BF first told FSD that we were engaged she said "does that mean she's going to be my mom?" He explained to her that she already has a mom, but I can just imagine how much BM would FLIP if she heard that or got any sort of inclination that her DD cares about me in a mom sort of way (FSD doesn't even say goodbye/give hugs/etc to me when BM picks her up, or talk about me on the phone to BM because BM is so emotionally sensitive about me being around).
Yeah, I think if this comes up again when we get serious about planning I'm just going to have to put my foot down.


text:
Was £18.00
Now £9.00
Now £5.40
70% Off
Save a total of £12.60
Designer babies blue striped dungarees and top set
Item No.2210102541
From the designer Rocha.Little Rocha collection, this baby boy's set offers a pair of blue cotton dungarees and a white long sleeved top with blue elbow patches. The dungarees have a bright multi striped design with three pockets and an applique toucan badge at the back.
This item is available for
UK Home Delivery Free (UK orders over £30) or £3.99
Delivered within 4 working days
Next or Named Day Delivery
7 days a week between 8am - 6pm
Monday to Friday - order by 7pm - £4.99
Saturday & Sunday - order by 6pm - £4.99
Next or Named Evening Delivery
7 days a week between 6pm - 10pm
Monday to Sunday - order by 10pm - £6.99
Collect from store the next day - FREE
Order before 7pm for next day collection after 12pm midday
Show participating stores
Full Delivery details
- Popper fastening
- Dungarees: 100% cotton
- Top: 100% cotton
- Machine washable


text:
It wasn't shocking that John Isner played five sets Monday, but it didn't quite work out this time. Isner is his own worst enemy, writes Greg Garber. Story
If Mardy Fish is going to mount any kind of comeback after a life-threatening scare, Wimbledon is just the place, writes Ravi Ubha. Story
Take one look at Donald Young on the court, and you'll figure out why he can't win. Howard Bryant asks why we pay attention to him. Story
• Bryant: Wind is at Nadal's back
• Ubha: Uncle Toni feels quite chipper
For the latest results and news at the All England Club, text "Wimbledon" to 43776 and sign up for video alerts.


text:
Journal: Blah 13
Journal by neuroticia
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
RAM wasn't built in a day.


text:
Euro zone yields wither as ECB's QE gets off to strong start
- Economy
- March 11, 2015, 09:06
Euro zone bond yields kept falling on Wednesday as the European Central Bank hoovered up government debt across the currency union at a rate matching (...)
European consumer prices drop more than expected
- Economy
- January 30, 2015, 10:15
Consumer prices fell more than economists forecast in January, underlining the challenges Mario Draghi faces as he seeks to stave off a deflationary (...)
Germany rules out debt cut for Greece as AfD revives Grexit demand
- Europe
- January 27, 2015, 01:00
German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has ruled out a further debt cut for Greece, but said a further extension of existing European Union-Interna(...)
EU will not yield to Greek demands for debt forgiveness
- Europe
- January 26, 2015, 20:48
The European Union showed a willingness on Monday to give Athens more time to pay its debts, but said it would not yield to a new Greek government's d(...)
Central bankers in Davos watched for clues about future
- Economy
- January 26, 2015, 01:00
The ECB has done its part – now it's up for countries to implement structural reforms. That was the message from Benoît Cœuré, a senior ECB figure,(...)
Expectations over ECB bond-buying plan intensify
- Economy
- January 19, 2015, 06:00
European Central Bank governors meet on Thursday as expectations intensify that the bank will initiate a big bond-buying campaign to avert deflatio(...)
State must keep finances prudent, says ECB official
- Economy
- January 16, 2015, 06:00
A senior European Central Bank policymaker has urged the Irish authorities to avoid spending money in future budgets "that is not yet there".Benoit Co(...)
Iseq rises as major European stocks fall
- Markets
- October 20, 2014, 21:05
European stocks fell following their longest streak of weekly losses in more than a year, as worse-than-estimated financial results added to concerns(...)
Europe stocks end longest rout in 11 years
- Markets
- October 18, 2014, 01:00
European stocks rose yesterday, ending the longest rout in 11 years, while Italian and Greek bonds gained on prospects for more stimulus. Ten-year It(...)
Europe holds nerve as Russia-Ukraine warnings ratchet up
- Economy
- September 1, 2014, 10:52
European markets cautiously set aside warnings that Russia's conflict with Ukraine was sliding out of control today, as investors focused on the Europ(...)


text:
The Sino-American Alliance: Nationalist China and American Cold War Strategy in Asia
M.E. Sharpe, 1997 - History - 312 pages
The United States alliance with Nationalist China was a central feature of American strategy in East Asia during the cold war, but it has not previously received adequate scholarly attention. This study, based on Chinese and American archival sources, provides the first detailed analysis of the role the alliance with Nationalist China played in U.S. strategy to contain first the Sino-Soviet alliance and then China during the 1950s and 1960s. It surveys the important political, psychological, and military roles played by Nationalist China in the twenty-year long political war waged between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Mr. Garver makes a generally positive appraisal of the American link with Nationalist China, a link that served U.S. policy interests rather well. His book is the first forthright affirmation of the value of the U.S. relationship with Nationalist China to appear in the academic literature in many years, going against a dominant academic interpretation that the link was a colossal blunder for the United States.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
References to this book
From Stem to Stern: A Fletcher's Story
Joe Galligan
No preview available - 2003
All Book Search results »
Ireland and the Cold War: Diplomacy and Recognition, 1949-63
Paula L. Wylie
Snippet view - 2006


text:
219 Boylston Street
Newton, Massachusetts, 02467
Commute to Downtown Brookline
Most errands can be accomplished on foot.
Many nearby public transportation options.
Score Details
219 Boylston Street has a Walk Score of 78 out of 100. This location is Very Walkable so most errands can be accomplished on foot.
219 Boylston Street is a 17 minute walk from the Green Line at the Chestnut Hill Station - Outbound stop.
This location is in Newton. Nearby parks include Hammond Pond Reservation, Hammond Pond Reservation and Hammond Pond Reservation.
Explore how far you can travel by car, bus, bike and foot from 219 Boylston Street.
219 Boylston Street has good transit which means many nearby public transportation options. Car sharing is available from RelayRides and Zipcar.
Rail lines:
Green Line
0.6 mi
Bus lines:
0.2 mi
0.9 mi
1.0 mi
Car shares:
View all Newton apartments on a map.
Popular apartment searches include single family, fireplace and hardwood floor.
Find a Newton real estate agent who knows walkable neighborhoods. Links will open on our partner site Redfin.com.
This location is in the city of Newton, MA. Newton has an average Walk Score of 51 and has 85,146 residents.


text:
455 The British Psychological British Journal of Psychology (2009), 100, 455–471 q 2009 The British Psychological Society Society www.bpsjournals.co.uk The roots of human altruism Felix Warneken* and Michael Tomasello Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany Human infants as young as 14 to 18 months of age help others attain their goals, for example, by helping them to fetch out-of-reach objects or opening cabinets for them. They do this irrespective of any reward from adults (indeed external rewards undermine the tendency), and very likely with no concern for such things as reciprocation and reputation, which serve to maintain altruism in older children and adults. Humans' nearest primate relatives, chimpanzees, also help others instrumentally without concrete rewards. These results suggest that human infants are naturally altruistic, and as ontogeny proceeds and they must deal more independently with a wider range of social contexts, socialization and feedback from social interactions with others become important mediators of these initial altruistic tendencies. From the beginning, Darwin (1871) knew that altruism was a problem for his theory of evolution by natural selection. In particular, he was worried about the eusocial insects, such as termites and ants, who sacrificed for one another regularly. The solution to this particular problem came with modern genetics and the theory of kin selection (aka: inclusive fitness), as Hamilton (1964) quantified how the act of helping relatives would promote one's own genes (and ants and termites from within the same colonies are genetically related in especially close ways). For unrelated individuals, Trivers (1971) proposed a theory of reciprocal altruism, in which individuals help others to the degree that they can anticipate being helped in return (thus leading individuals to cultivate reputations for being helpful). Helping can also be a costly signal of fitness and so promote mating opportunities (and again individuals can cultivate reputations for this; Zahavi, 2003). It is a common observation that human beings, as a species, are extraordinarily helpful, even to non-relatives (in addition to being downright mean on many occasions also). In adults, this could be maintained by any of the mechanisms noted above. But young children also intervene on behalf of others, and in most cases it is unlikely that they are calculating kinship, reciprocity, mating opportunities, or cultivating their reputations for helpfulness. The question thus arises why young children are helpful to * Correspondence should be addressed to Felix Warneken, Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany (e-mail: email@example.com). DOI:10.1348/000712608X379061 456 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello the degree they are. One answer is cultural. Young children are encouraged and rewarded by adults for being helpful and cooperative; it is part of the socialization process in most, presumably all, cultures. Being helpful is something children do to get adult praise and other social rewards. Another answer focuses on biology. It is well-known that for reciprocity to become a stable strategy in a social group, it is best if all individuals follow the so-called tit-for-tat strategy in which everyone begins with a predisposition to cooperate and then subsequently does what the other does – so that unhelpful people are ultimately treated in kind (Axelrod, 1984; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). It is thus possible that humans have a natural tendency to be helpful and cooperative that they then modulate if they detect cheaters and other uncooperative people (Tooby & Cosmides, 1989). In this case, it might be expected that young children would begin by being cooperative naturally, especially when still under the almost constant care of their parents, and the various mechanisms thought to maintain cooperation would become relevant only as they become older and must deal with others independently – at which point a reputation for being cooperative but not easily taken advantage of becomes important. In the current paper we defend the thesis that young children are naturally altruistic. Our argument is based on a number of recent studies that we and others have conducted on the propensity of one-year-old children – just beginning to acquire language and to be socialized formally – to help others instrumentally, even when no rewards and none of the usual mechanisms that maintain cooperation evolutionarily would seem to be operative. In addition, studies demonstrating that our nearest primate relatives also, at least in some situations, can be helpful provide further evidence for this claim. The many forms of altruism It is quite common for scholars to question whether altruism exists at all. In evolution, any organism that sacrificed itself in ways that were lethal to its and its kin's survival and reproduction would leave no offspring as altruistic descendants – and so there must always be some payback for an organism's sacrifice if its lineage is to persist. Altruism is thus a much-studied topic in evolutionary biology because it is important to understand mechanisms such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism by means of which an organism may perform altruistic acts in the moment, and still survive and reproduce in the long run. In evolutionary biology, the psychological mechanisms involved are not of direct interest,1 and indeed 'A mindless organism can be an evolutionary altruist.' (Sober, 2002, p. 17). And so even bacteria can be altruistic if their behaviour results in 1 This difference is also reflected in the classic distinction of ultimate causation (the evolutionary function of a behaviour in terms of fitness costs and benefits) and proximate causation (the e.g. cognitive and motivational mechanisms producing a behaviour; Mayr, 1961; Tinbergen, 1963). One can thus reject the possibility of altruism in terms of ultimate causation, but still accept the idea that we have altruistic motivations to help others in need. In particular, even though acts of altruism will most likely result in some long-term benefit for the helper as well (through indirect mechanisms such as reciprocity, reputation, or kin selection), the behaviour is motivated by the other's need, not the anticipation of future benefits. Concerning this proximate psychological level, and focusing on the case of humans, some scholars argue that because people derive pleasure from helping others, their helping is not altruistic. However, taking pleasure in seeing others benefit is different from other self-serving motives such as social approval or material gain because it is instigated by another's need and follows only if others actually benefit from the altruistic act (see e.g. Batson et al., 1988). The intrinsic pleasure is thus mediated by the other's welfare and therefore inherently altruistic. Indeed, if performing altruistic acts is intrinsically self-rewarding, this might be the very mechanism by which acts of altruism come about and suggests a biological predisposition (de Waal, 2007; Hoffman, 1981; Mook, 1991). The roots of human altruism 457 (temporarily) fitness-reducing outcomes to themselves to the benefit of other bacteria (Dugatkin, 1997). But the behaviour of such a 'mindless altruist' is only for specific acts in highly constrained situations. Human altruism, on the other hand, derives from a predisposition that is not preprogrammed for specific acts, but allows the generation of acts as diverse as comforting a distressed individual (however that might manifest itself on a particular occasion), helping another individual achieve its instrumental goal, sharing food and objects with others, and providing others with helpful information. This flexibility indicates a strong cognitive component in the human version of altruism. Human altruism thus comes in many forms, possibly supported by different psychological mechanisms. Most of these are evident already in human children (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Hay & Cook, 2007). Such behaviours have been ´ subsumed under the general term 'prosocial behaviour' (coined by Wispe (1972) as a counterpart to 'antisocial behaviour') because they are all aimed, at least in part, at benefiting another individual. This broad category of prosocial behaviour has been successfully applied in research assessing, for example, individual differences and longitudinal development of prosociality in relation to gene-environment interaction, parenting or educational programs (Eisenberg et al., 2006). In the current paper we will focus on one particular type of prosocial behaviour in infancy and early childhood: instrumental helping. To situate this focus more clearly, we propose the following typology of prosocial behaviour in young children, based mainly on the nature of the benefit provided to the other. (Note that for current purposes, and following Eisenberg et al., we do not consider mutualistic collaboration in which both partners benefit as 'prosocial'; Table 1.) It is not our purpose here to review all of the many studies on these various topics (see Eisenberg et al., 2006 for a more thorough overview). The representative studies cited in the table are only a few in each case, focusing on children before school age. The main thing to point out here is that in this younger age range, by far the most studies have been done in the affective domain expressed in for example comforting, and a few on sharing objects. In contrast, very few have been done on any kind of informing or instrumental helping. Our focus here – reflecting our recent empirical research – is on the relatively neglected topic of instrumental helping. In instrumental helping, a child perceives an actor who is unable to achieve her goal, and so acts altruistically on her behalf – with the child's primary goal being that the actor achieves hers, even in the absence of an immediate benefit for the child herself.2 Ontogenetic roots of instrumental helping Instrumental helping has both a cognitive and a motivational component. Cognitively, to help an actor achieve her goal, one must first recognize what that goal is – the change of state in the environment the actor wishes to bring about. Motivationally, to help an actor achieve her goal, one must be motivated by the sight of her achieving her goal, or perhaps the sight of her pleasure upon achievement. 2 Note that we draw a distinction between agents performing acts of altruistic helping towards another person's individual goal and collaborative activities in which two or more agents form shared intentions to jointly act towards a shared goal, usually leading to mutualistic outcomes. See Tomasello et al. (2005) for a conceptual framework of collaboration with shared intentions, as well as Warneken (in press) for the argument that instrumental helping and collaboration might be rooted in different psychological processes. 458 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello Table 1. Types of prosocial behavior Type Definition References (examples) Comforting Providing emotional support ¨ Bischof-Kohler, 1988; Johnson, to others 1982; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1992 Sharing Giving food or objects to others Hay et al., 1991; Levitt et al., 1985 Informing Providing useful information Dunn & Munn, 1986; for others Liszkowski et al., 2006 Instrumental helping Acting on behalf of others' goals Rheingold, 1982; Warneken et al. 2006, 2007 With regard to the cognitive component, it is well known that infants from 12 to 18 months of age (if not earlier) understand other person's behaviours in terms of the underlying goals and intentions (for an overview see Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). For instance, infants in this age range can differentiate purposeful from accidental actions (Carpenter, Akhtar, & Tomasello, 1998) and even infer what another person was trying to achieve without actually witnessing the intended outcome (Meltzoff, 1995). With regard to the motivational component, a number of studies demonstrate that infants as young as 12 months of age begin to comfort victims of distress, based upon responses to and alterations of the emotional need of another ¨ person (Bischof-Kohler, 1988, 1991; Johnson, 1982; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992). This kind of prosocial behaviour can also be construed as 'emotional helping' as in contrast to instrumental helping, it critically depends on the response to the other's emotional state (rather than an unachieved goal or conative state), which the helper tries to alter (see Warneken & Tomasello, 2006 for more details). Despite the early emergence of these two components of instrumental helping in separate spheres of activity, it remains an open question whether young infants put these together to perform acts of instrumental helping in which they assist another person in achieving an unfulfilled goal. Do young children combine their cognitive understanding of others' goals and their altruistic motivation to help others instrumentally? When we first addressed this question, we were surprised that there were virtually no experimental studies on helping in young children. The only experimental study was that by Rheingold (1982) with children at 19 to 32 months of age who participated in- household chores simulated in the laboratory. Any act which was appropriate for the task and contributed to its completion qualified as helping and under these criteria many of the young children helped adults by holding a dustpan or putting groceries away. Therefore, this study showed that children can perform sophisticated prosocial behaviours and that the children knew the goals of the rituals. However, it was not assessed whether children would be attentive to the other's unachieved goal, that is, would be able to infer the intended goal when witnessing a failed attempt. Moreover, no control or baseline condition assessed whether children actually performed the behaviours because the other needed help or whether they were motivated to engage in them for its own sake, independently of the other actually needing help. Therefore, we conducted a series of studies to explore the cognitive and motivational components of helping in infancy. In a first study, we presented 18-month-old infants with ten different situations in which an adult experimenter was having trouble achieving his goal (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). The variety of situations probed the children's ability to discern a variety of goals and intervene in a variety of ways. For instance, the The roots of human altruism 459 experimenter used clothespins to hang towels on a line, when he accidentally dropped a clothespin on the floor and unsuccessfully reached for it. In this case, helping consisted in picking up the clothespin and handing it to the experimenter. In another situation, the 'cabinet task', the experimenter was trying to put a stack of magazines into a cabinet, but he could not open the doors because his hands were full. Thus, the child could help by opening the doors for him. For each of the ten tasks there were control conditions to rule out the possibility that children would perform the target behaviour (offering the clothespin; opening the door) irrespective of the other's need, e.g. because they like to hand things to adults or like to open cabinet doors when their attention is drawn to it. In these control conditions, the same basic physical situation was established, but with no indication that the experimenter needed help. The finding of this study was that children display spontaneous, unrewarded helping behaviours when another person is unable to achieve his goal (but performed these behaviours significantly less often in control conditions where no help is necessary, see Figure 1). Infants did so spontaneously; that is, they intervened without being explicitly asked for help and never being rewarded or praised for their effort. Moreover, helping was observed in diverse situations. Infants handed out-of-reach objects; they completed an action after his failed attempt of stacking books; they opened the door of a cabinet for the other and they brought about the other's goal by different means such as accessing a box by lifting a flap rather than using the wrong means which the adult was using by unsuccessfully reaching through a tiny hole. This initial experiment showed that 18-month- old infants spontaneously provide instrumental help and do so in a wide range of situations. In a follow-up study we tested even younger infants on several of these tasks and found that 14-month-old infants also helped under some circumstances (Warneken & Tomasello, 2007). Namely, they reliably helped with out-of-reach objects such as the 'clothespin task', but did not help in the other types of tasks such as the 'cabinet task'. One possible interpretation for this finding is that they are willing to help, but can do so only in cognitively less demanding situations with more obvious goals such as a person reaching for an object, but fail to do so in situations with presumably more complex goals and more complex types of intervention. Thus, even 14-month-old infants help spontaneously in situations in which they are able to determine the other person's goal. These acts of instrumental helping are some of the earliest manifestations of altruism in human ontogeny: children acting on behalf of others without a benefit for themselves. To further examine the interpretation that these acts of instrumental helping are the result of an altruistic motivation, we tested children's helpfulness by on the one hand Figure 1. Mean percentage of target behaviours as a function of task and condition. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (adapted from Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). 460 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello manipulating the costs for helping, and on the other hand varying whether the helper would benefit from this helpful act. Young children even helped when the costs for helping are slightly raised. In one study, we once again tested 18-month-old infants in a situation in which an object was on the floor and the experimenter was unsuccessfully reaching for it (Warneken, Hare, Melis, Hanus, & Tomasello, 2007; Experiment 2). But this time the children had to surmount an array of obstacles to pick up the object for the other. This can be quite effortful for toddlers who have just started to walk. But even these obstacles did not hinder them from helping the other person over a test session of ten trials. A similar result was obtained when we made the helping act costly in a different way. In particular, we gave 20-month-old children the opportunity to play with attractive toys in one corner of the testing room (Warneken & Tomasello, 2008). The experimenter was located in the opposite corner, so that when she encountered a problem and needed help, the child had to stop playing and leave the toys behind in order to provide help. Again, children continued to help in the majority of cases and did so over repeated trials – even when they had the alternative to play an attractive game. Children are thus willing to put some effort in helping – but do they maybe expect to be rewarded in return? In one experiment we directly contrasted whether 18-month-old children are motivated by the other person's goal or an immediate benefit for themselves (Warneken et al., 2007; Experiment 1). We experimentally varied whether the helpee would or would not offer a reward in return for their helping effort. The results could not be clearer: Children once again helped by picking up objects the experimenter was unsuccessfully reaching for – and did so irrespective of being rewarded for it. Rewarding was neither necessary nor did it increase the rate of helping. Thus, what determined children's helping was the other's unfulfilled goal, not an immediate benefit for themselves. This suggests the possibility that young children have an intrinsic motivation to act altruistically. To further test this hypothesis of an intrinsic motivation for helping, we took advantage of a curious feature of intrinsic motivation: It is a well-established phenomenon that intrinsic rewards can be undermined by salient extrinsic rewards – what has also been called the 'overjustification effect' (Deci, 1971; Lepper, 1981). Social-psychological theories suggest that an induced extrinsic motivation to perform an enjoyable activity in order to receive a reward supplants the previously intrinsic motivation, so that when the extrinsic reward is no longer forthcoming, the motivation for the activity decreases. Would we find such an undermining effect of extrinsic rewards also in the case of altruistic helping? When we used the method established in overjustification research in an experiment with 20-month-olds, we found that children who had received a material reward for helping at an earlier time were subsequently less likely to engage in further helping than children who had not received such a reward (Warneken & Tomasello, 2008; see also Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, May-Plumlee, & Christopher, 1989, for school-aged children). This rather surprising finding provides even further evidence for the hypothesis that children's helping is driven by an intrinsic rather than an extrinsic motivation. Rewards are often not only superfluous, but can have even detrimental effects as they can undermine children's intrinsic altruistic motivation. In sum, these series of studies demonstrate that the ontogenetic roots of altruism are apparent early in childhood. Infants from 14 to 18 months of age display spontaneous, unrewarded helping when another person is unable to achieve his goal. They are willing to help multiple times and continue helping even when the costs are raised. Additional experiments confirm that they are actually motivated by the other person's need rather than an immediate benefit for themselves, as rewarding is neither necessary nor does it The roots of human altruism 461 increase their rate of helping. On the contrary, children appear to have an intrinsic motivation to help, and extrinsic rewards seem to undermine it. Taken together, these results indicate that the ontogenetic roots of human altruism are present from very early in human ontogeny. Phylogenetic roots of instrumental helping A number of scholars have claimed that human altruism is unique in the animal kingdom (e.g. Bowles & Gintis, 2003). To test this claim – and to seek the phylogenetic roots of human altruism – the obvious place to look is to our closest primate relatives. Specifically, we may ask the question whether our nearest primate relatives, chimpanzees, engage in instrumental helping. There is converging evidence that chimpanzees have the cognitive capacity to infer other people's goals – and therefore possess one crucial component for acts of instrumental helping (Tomasello et al., 2005, but see Povinelli & Vonk, 2003, for an opposing view). However, when it comes to the motivational component of helping, the issue becomes more controversial. The predominant view appears to be that chimpanzees are guided solely by self-interest: altruistic motivations are thought to be unique to humans, reflecting a species-unique psychology (e.g. Boyd & Richerson, 2006; Henrich et al., 2005; Silk et al., 2005). In support of this view, in a recent experiment chimpanzees did not seem to care about the welfare of other individuals (Jensen, Hare, Call, & Tomasello, 2006; see also Silk et al., 2005; Vonk et al., 2008 for similar findings). More specifically, chimpanzees did not reliably pull a tray with food within reach of a conspecific if they themselves would not benefit from the act. The test subjects were self- regarding and did not seem to pay attention to the needs of the other in this food-retrieval context. But this context might not be representative of all potential helping-situations. In fact, there are a number of anecdotal observations which suggest that chimpanzees might on occasion act altruistically (for overviews see de Waal, 1996). In particular, it has to be pointed out that chimpanzees are very competitive with each other about monopolizable food and it is thus possible that when the test subjects are preoccupied with retrieving food for themselves, this might override altruistic tendencies. Moreover, in these experiments with negative results, the recipient chimpanzees remained rather passive during the test. That is, they were not actively struggling to achieve a concrete goal and thus the need for help might not have been obvious to the chimpanzee subjects. This allows for the possibility that when constraints related to food are lifted and the problem- situation is made more salient to the potential helper, a different picture might emerge. Therefore, we created several instrumental helping tasks for a series of experiments with chimpanzees. In an initial study, we tested three nursery-reared chimpanzees who interacted with their primary human caregiver (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). The caregiver enacted the ten different helping-situations adapted from our infant study, including out-of-reach objects, physical obstacles, using wrong means etc. Importantly, the tasks involved objects other than food and the caregiver never rewarded the chimpanzee for helping. The intriguing finding was that all three chimpanzees reliably handed over objects the caregiver was reaching for (and did not do so in control conditions in which she was not reaching for it). These chimpanzees were thus able to determine the caregiver's goal and had the motivation to help in the absence of a reward. However, in contrast to the out-of-reach tasks, the chimpanzees showed no reliable helping in the other types of tasks (removing a physical obstacle by opening a door; opening a container for the other when the other used the wrong means etc.). 462 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello One possibility is that they failed to help in these tasks because the supposedly more complex goals might not have been obvious to them or they did not know how to intervene. Thus, these nursery-reared chimpanzees were in principle willing to help, but displayed this behaviour only in restricted contexts in which the other's goal was easier to identify and the type of intervention followed straightforwardly. This was the first experimental demonstration of altruistic helping in chimpanzees. It has to be kept in mind, though, that these were nursery-reared chimpanzees helping a human with whom they interacted regularly. Thus, it is possible that these chimpanzees present a special case. Human-raised chimpanzees often develop skills not found in individuals with less human contact (Bering, 2004; Call & Tomasello, 1996; Tomasello & Call, 2004). Moreover, although the helping situations were novel for the chimpanzee subjects, the caregiver had previously reinforced other types of compliant behaviour. Therefore, from this initial experiment it remains unclear whether helping is confined to interactions with highly familiar individuals who had rewarded them before or extends also to unfamiliar individuals. We investigated this question by testing a sample of wild-born chimpanzees who live in a sanctuary in Uganda. These chimpanzees spend the day in the forest of an island and come to a human shelter for feeding and sleeping. While they have regular contact with humans, they were not exposed to comparable human rearing-practices as the three nursery-reared chimpanzees from the initial helping study. Of particular importance for the current purposes was that these chimpanzees were tested by a human who had not interacted with them before the study. In a first experiment, we wanted to investigate whether chimpanzees are actually motivated by the other person's problem or a benefit for themselves (Warneken et al., 2007; Experiment 1). Thus, we tested 36 chimpanzees and compared their behaviour to that of 36 human children at 18 months of age in the helping situation with out-of-reach object described above. The major finding was that just like the human infants, chimpanzees handed the out-of-reach object to the experimenter when he was unsuccessfully reaching for it than when he was not reaching for it – and did so irrespective of being rewarded. Rewarding was unnecessary and did not even raise the rate of helping. This indicates that the chimpanzees were primarily motivated by the other person's unattained goal and not a reward for themselves. In this experiment the chimpanzees did not have to do much more than to pick up an object from the floor and hand it to the human. But when we made helping slightly more costly by putting the object in a location 2.5 m above the ground, so that the chimpanzees first had to climb up to retrieve the object for the other, they still helped (Warneken et al., 2007; Experiment 2). Thus, the chimpanzees continued to help even when helping required slightly more effort. Taken together, these experiments show that also semi-free ranging chimpanzees perform acts of helping towards a human stranger, even when helping is made effortful and they receive no immediate benefit for themselves. However, it could still be argued that despite the fact that chimpanzees helped without prior or current rewarding in this situation, chimpanzees might have been rewarded in the past for the general behaviour of handing over objects to humans. Therefore, an even more stringent test might be one with a novel task with no potential reward-history at all. Moreover, these positive instances of chimpanzee helping all involved chimpanzees helping humans. The use of a human as the recipient allows us to experimentally manipulate otherwise uncontrollable factors (such as the exact behaviour of the recipient or him offering a reward or not), but the crucial test-case for social behaviours still is a situation in which chimpanzees interact with a conspecific. Therefore, the question remains: Would chimpanzees help other chimpanzees? The roots of human altruism 463 To answer this question we put chimpanzees in a situation in which one chimpanzee (the recipient) was faced with the problem that a door leading to a room with a piece of food was fixed with a chain that he could not unlock (see Figure 2). Only if the other chimpanzee (the subject) released this chain from another room could the recipient enter. All chimpanzees were genetically unrelated group-members and roles of subject and recipient were not switched within a pair to exclude short-term reciprocation within the same context. Results showed that chimpanzees helped by releasing the chain in the majority of cases. They did so significantly more often than in control conditions in which releasing the chain would either not help the recipient or no recipient was present. This shows that subjects were attentive to the recipient's goal: They were more likely to release the chain if the recipient was unsuccessfully trying to enter through that door. Additional correlational analyses showed that the occurrence of the target behaviour was not only different for the experimental as compared to the control conditions, but was also contingent upon the actual behaviour of the recipient: Subjects were most likely to release the chain when the recipient was approaching the door rather than locomoting to some other part of the room. Moreover, the mere physical properties of the apparatus itself (the presence of the mechanism or stimulus enhancement as measured by the amount of movement of the chain) did not account for the results. Importantly, there was also no begging or harassment by the subjects after they helped, ruling out the possibility that they opened the door only to have the recipients access the otherwise unobtainable food and then try to coax it from them. Thus, this experiment showed that chimpanzees also help other chimpanzees in a novel situation without any immediate return-benefit. A recent study by Melis, Hare, and Tomasello (2008) replicated the finding that chimpanzees would help conspecifics in this problem context. In addition, this new study revealed that there is some, but rather weak tendency for contingency-based reciprocation. The basic design was that chimpanzees were first confronted with a helpful or an unhelpful conspecific (stooges who had been induced to help or not to help during an exposure phase) and could then help them in the same situation with reversed roles: Overall, chimpanzee subjects helped most of the time (and significantly more often than in a control condition), but they had a slight tendency to help the previously helpful individual more than the unhelpful one. This indicates that contingency-based reciprocation within a small time-interval can slightly alter the basic tendency to help conspecifics, but accounts for only a small proportion of the variance (which is in accordance with correlational studies, de Waal, 1997; Koyama, Caws, & Aureli, 2006). Moreover, this finding provides indirect evidence against the notion that Figure 2. Test area and setup for helping among chimpanzee conspecifics. Both the target and the distracter door were held shut by chains. The recipient (R) could not access either chain, but the subject (S) could release the chain of the target door (adapted from Warneken et al., 2007). 464 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello chimpanzees respond only to superficial behavioural cues or the concern that the sight of an incomplete action triggers a tendency to complete it without account of the individual performing the action – because, if this were true, the chimpanzees should perform the target behaviour irrespective of the other's identity and prior relationship history. In sum, this new study by Melis et al. (2008) replicates the basic finding and demonstrates in addition that chimpanzees have some sensitivity for contingency-based reciprocity, altering but not fully changing their tendency to help others altruistically. Taken together, these studies with chimpanzees indicate that the altruistic tendency seen early in human ontogeny did not evolve in humans de novo. Chimpanzees also appear to have a basic motivation to act altruistically for others. Thus, the phylogenetic roots of human altruism – at least in the form of instrumental helping – may reach as far back as to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees some six million years ago. The negative experimental findings on chimpanzee altruism all concern situations in which the benefit being provided to another is food. It may be that chimpanzees are not adapted for sharing food – due to a behavioural ecology in which they forage for patchy and unpredictable resources such as ripe fruit – whereas they are adapted for low-cost acts of instrumental helping (perhaps initially for kin, and then more broadly). There is some observational evidence that chimpanzees may comfort others in distress (de Waal, 1996), but there are no observations or experiments suggesting that they inform others of things intentionally and helpfully in their communication (Tomasello, 2008). It may just be that our search for the phylogenetic origins of human altruism must actually trace back not just one, but several different roots involving different domains of activity. The development of altruism The reported studies demonstrate that human infants and chimpanzees are able and willing to instrumentally help others. With regard to the ontogenetic roots of altruism, these results indicate that children have a natural tendency to develop altruistic behaviours. Socialization practices can build upon this predisposition for altruism, but socialization is not its original source. In other words, we argue against the notion that socialization practices operate independently of any altruistic predisposition or even impose altruism on children who are originally purely selfish. Children appear to have altruistic tendencies as well, and socialization works in concert with this predisposition. Our claim is supported by three lines of evidence: First, as reported above, altruistic tendencies emerge early in ontogeny before socialization could have had a major impact on the infants' development. Second, socialization practices in early and middle childhood are only effective if they mesh with this predisposition. Third, nonhuman primates display altruistic tendencies in the absence of any socialization practices. Let us examine each of these arguments in turn. (1) Early emergence: It seems implausible to assume that our infants helped because they comply with an altruistic norm. The internalization of altruistic norms or moral value systems is just not applicable to one-year-old children. Also, imitation is not a plausible candidate as our infants helped in various tasks including novel helping situations created for our laboratory experiment that could not have been modelled for them before. Moreover, infants this young just generally do not have many opportunities for helping and its reinforcement through their parents. And even if that is the case under some circumstances, it cannot easily explain why infants demonstrate helping also in novel situations with unfamiliar adults, as demonstrated in the current experiments. That is because in studies in which the attempt was made to elicit The roots of human altruism 465 prosocial behaviours in children by external rewards, it resulted in positive effects for the immediate situation, but did not endure and generalize to other situations and other people (for overviews see Eisenberg et al., 2006; Moore & Eisenberg, 1984). (2) Subsequent socialization: If reinforcement is used, external rewards can have a detrimental effect on future behaviours, as shown in our experimental study on helping (Warneken & Tomasello, 2008). Similarly, in an observational study (Eisenberg, Wolchik, Goldberg, & Engel, 1992) with 19 to 27 month-old children, the amount of parental reinforcement of compliant prosocial behaviours (mainly sharing) was negatively correlated with prosocial behaviours towards peers two years later. Correspondingly, punishment generally does not appear to have any positive long-term effects (when the possibility of punishment disappears, the effect disappears) and can even undermine prosocial behaviour (Eisenberg et al., 2006; Moore & Eisenberg, 1984). As a matter of fact, when we look at how parents (in North American middle-class families) actually respond to children's prosocial behaviours, it turns out that parents almost never use material rewards and most often just acknowledge the child's prosocial act, responding with overt social approval or praise only in around one fourth of the cases (Grusec, 1991 for children at 4 and 7 years of age). What appears to be the most efficient strategy to elicit prosocial behaviours is what has been termed 'inductive parenting'. Prosocial behaviours are more likely to follow if adults are drawing the child's attention to the feelings, needs, thoughts or intentions of other people (Hoffman, 2000). In other terms, inductive parenting draws upon the child's other-regard – if another's needs are highlighted, positive behaviours follow. The most effective socialization practice is thus one that presupposes an altruistic predisposition on part of the child. (3) Altruism in chimpanzees: Even if one disagrees with the two arguments made above – by for example arguing that the relevant socialization experiences just have not been identified, that external reinforcement works in more subtle ways or that the internalization of norms operate already in infancy – this perspective runs into problems when faced with our finding that also chimpanzees provide signs of altruism. Humans might be very eager to raise altruistic offspring, but chimpanzee mothers certainly do not teach their children altruistic norms and there is no indication that they reward their children for helping others. The fact that both humans and chimpanzees altruistically help others indicates that a basic altruistic tendency emerged in human evolution pre- culturally, before social groups created altruistic norms and taught them to their offspring. Conclusion and prospects Our claim is thus that the altruistic tendencies seen in early human ontogeny reflect a natural predisposition. Socialization can build upon this predisposition, but it is not its primary source. Human cultures cultivate rather than implant altruism in the human psyche. And even if we are wrong about this ontogenetic proposal, and human adults do in fact train altruism in developing young, it is worth asking where this tendency of adults came from? We do not see the adults of other species attempting to implant altruistic tendencies in their offspring. If the data we have presented here are valid, infants are genuinely altruistic early in ontogeny. The starting state of altruism in ontogeny is characterized by children's tendency to help others spontaneously (i.e. in novel situations, without being encouraged to help, and without the expectation of rewards). It even appears that infants help rather indiscriminately, without taking into account if the beneficiary is a 466 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello relative or a stranger, whether the other will reciprocate, or how their behaviour will affect their reputation. However, it is implausible from an evolutionary perspective that such a naıve altruism in which people help without regard of any of these factors could ¨ persist. As Dennis Krebs points out: 'Evolutionary theory leads to the expectation that dispositions to engage in indiscriminate altruism should not evolve.' (Krebs, 2006, p. 48). For altruism to be sustained as an evolutionarily stable strategy, it must be complemented by safety measures to avoid being exploited by others and bias altruism towards certain individuals under certain circumstances. Thus, mechanisms that make altruism function selectively must be operative as well. However, this does not necessarily imply that all these mechanisms are co-present with the altruistic tendencies in early ontogeny. For instance, the ability to detect cheaters who profit from altruistic acts but do not repay the costs in the future is potentially of less relevance early in ontogeny when children are mainly surrounded by family members, who – even if not always trustworthy – at least share genes with the altruist so that inclusive fitness benefits are likely. The ability to tell apart other altruists from cheaters probably becomes important only later in life as the interaction with strangers increases. Our proposal is thus that children start out as rather indiscriminate altruists who become more selective as they grow older. Children's emerging social-cognitive understanding and new experiences will enable them to act altruistically more frequently and across a variety of situations, but this should not just blindly lead to more helping, but more selective helping. This general notion of a differentiation process of prosocial behaviours across development has first been introduced by Dale Hay (1994), who quotes Machiavelli's motto that 'A prince must learn how not to be good.' and hypothesizes that factors such as individual differences, gender roles and other norms should lead to a differentiation later in childhood. Our model corresponds to that by Hay in the general statement that a rather undifferentiated prosocial predisposition is differentiated out during later childhood (see also Caplan, 1993; Peterson, 1982), but in our model we focus on other factors as the cause of this differentiation. Namely, we derive our model from evolutionary theory, leading to the proposal to investigate how the proximate mechanism entailed in different evolutionary models begin to play a role during children's development. Namely, these are kin selection, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, and the transmission of norms. First, when do children begin to direct acts of altruism differentially towards kin versus non-kin? There is evidence that altruism is directed more towards family members and towards monozygotic over dizygotic twins (Cunningham, 1985/1986; Eisenberg, 1983), but little is known about the role of kinship for the earliest forms of altruism in infancy. Studies showed that young children are more likely to comfort their mothers than a stranger (Young, Fox, & Zahn-Waxler, 1999) but this has not been done with regard to the provision of instrumental helping. In any case, evolutionary theory suggests that altruism should be biased towards kin. However, one crucial feature of human altruism is the fact that it is not restricted to interactions with kin (as in almost all other species). Therefore, to get at the specifics of human altruism, other mechanisms have been proposed to manage altruism among genetically unrelated individuals. One such mechanism is reciprocal altruism. This is based upon the idea that people should help individuals who will be more likely to repay the incurred costs in the future (and should refrain from helping individuals when there is no prospect of future interaction; Trivers, 1971). When do children start to engage in reciprocal altruism? Reciprocity has mainly been studied in the domain of sharing and distributive justice. When asked about their explicit judgments, preschoolers at 4 to 5 years of age show no The roots of human altruism 467 understanding of reciprocity (Berndt, 1979) and refer to reciprocity in their decisions about resource allocations in distributive justice tasks not before 6 to 7 years of age (Damon, 1975). In one study about children's sharing, even children at 9 to 11 years of age engage in little reciprocal sharing, but Keil (1986) found that children at 7 and 12 years of age show increased sensitivity to the contributions of a co-worker in a distributive justice task over repeated trials by allocating rewards more favourable to generous than selfish co-workers. Concerning younger children, we know of only one study in which children at 29 to 36 months of age were tested for their tendency to share toys reciprocally. One child possessed toys while the other child was toy-deprived. Only children who had shared with the other (after being prompted by their mother), received toys back from the previous recipient when roles of who had or had no toys were switched once (Levitt, Weber, Clark, & McDonnell, 1985). Therefore, in more sophisticated sharing situations such as distributive justice tasks, reciprocity appears to be a late achievement, but when the sharing task is kept simple, there is at least one empirical demonstration that reciprocation can occur in middle childhood. However, it is not known how reciprocity would influence children's instrumental helping. Another critical question is that of indirect reciprocity or reputation formation. In contrast to cases of direct reciprocity (in which two individuals take turns in helping each other), indirect reciprocity describes how people encode third-party interactions. This influences how people choose to interact with these individuals who have previously proven to be selfish or altruistic towards other parties and how people themselves act – as their own reputation is at stake if they fail to act altruistically. Regarding the first issue, recent studies show that infants in the first year of life differentiate between 'helpers' and 'hinderers' (agents displayed as geometric shapes who either assist another agent to climb up an incline or push it down (Kuhlmeier, Wynn, & Bloom, 2003), and show a preference for the helper, Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007). These are intriguing results, leading to the question how infants would bring to bear this discriminatory ability in their choice whom (not) to help. Regarding the second issue about children's own reputation, it cannot be expected that infants already strategically manage their reputation as it appears in the eye of the beholder. The limited perspective-taking abilities in infancy do not lead to the expectation that reputation formation plays a critical role in their tendency to help others. We know of no study specifically addressing this issue with regard to prosocial behaviour (let alone instrumental helping), but related findings come from studies of children's self- presentation behaviours and dispositional praise. Self-presentation behaviour – in which individuals try to shape others' evaluations of their public self (also-called 'impression management') – does not appear to be strategically used (Aloise-Young, 1993) or be understood (Banerjee, 2002) by children before around 8 years of age. Moreover, research on dispositional praise in the domain of prosocial behaviour, (in which adults provide internal attributions highlighting the child's prosocial personality to be for example 'a nice and helpful person'), does not influence prosocial behaviour before 8 years of age (e.g. Grusec & Redler, 1980). This finding indicates that changes in children's self-image mediate prosocial behaviour only after they have gained an understanding of personality traits as stable entities (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Finally, at some point young children become sensitive to, and even internalize, social norms regulating prosocial behaviour. This means that they will blame others for antisocial acts – or even the omission of expected prosocial acts – and will blame themselves, and feel guilty, for these same acts and omissions (Hoffman, 2000). More specifically, prosocial norms and moral obligations should be especially influential in 468 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello situations in which the costs for helping are high, leading to altruistic outcomes when conflicts between other-regard and self-regard arise (Eisenberg & Shell, 1986). These mechanisms might bridge the gap between the spontaneous provision of help to more deliberate acts of altruism underlain by moral considerations. Taken together, the internalization of prosocial norms – and their association with distinct emotions such as guilt and shame, which are probably unique to humans – suggests again a complex interplay between biological predispositions and enculturation during ontogeny. Taken together, there is sporadic evidence about the role of the evolutionarily relevant factors to sustain altruistic tendencies as they have been investigated only for some prosocial behaviours (mainly sharing), mainly with older children, and often outside of controlled experimental situations. Virtually no studies exist about the role of these factors for instrumental helping. In particular, there is a striking gap in experimental evidence between the early manifestations of instrumental helping in infants and their counterparts in middle childhood. In addition, further research is needed to investigate how children bring to bear their conceptual understanding and categorization of social partners in their own helping behaviour. Specifically, a recent study on the anonymous sharing of resources demonstrated that children entering school-age selectively share more with in-group members over outgroup members and thus begin to show a tendency for parochialism (Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach, 2008). Moreover, using a verbal task with story vignettes, Volland, Ulich and Fischer (2004) found that when children between 4 and 8 years of age were supposed to decide for a puppet character to comfort, help, or share with one of two potential recipients who differed along a particular dimension such as familiarity, reciprocity, harm, and responsibility, they favoured e.g. the one who was more familiar, who had helped previously, had suffered more or who was not responsible for their misfortune etc. Most recently, Olson and Spelke (2008) used a very similar method to systematically test the critical dimensions proposed by evolutionary theory, revealing that children at 3.5 years of age take into account kin relationship as well as direct and indirect reciprocity when deciding for a puppet character who to share with. Thus, when entering middle childhood, children begin to make these conceptual distinctions in the domain of prosocial behaviour, including the critical dimensions put forward in evolutionary theory. Further research is needed, however, to determine when these factors become operative during early ontogeny and how they guide children's own helping behaviour. In conclusion, we have attempted here to provide a comprehensive picture of the emergence of human altruism, a picture which includes both its phylogenetic roots as reflected in the helpful acts of chimpanzees and its ontogenetic roots as illustrated by the helpful acts of human infants. Future research should seek to investigate the subsequent development of human altruism throughout childhood, specifying how the evolutionarily crucial factors that serve to maintain altruistic behaviours in adults gradually become a part of the developmental process. Acknowledgements We want to thank Amrisha Vaish for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. References Aloise-Young, P. A. (1993). The development of self-presentation: Self-Promotion in 6- to 10-year- old children. Social Cognition, 11(2), 201–222. The roots of human altruism 469 Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396. Banerjee, R. (2002). Children's understanding of self-presentational behaviour: Links with mental- state reasoning and the attribution of embarrassment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48(4), 378–404. Batson, D. C., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMater, M. R., et al. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77. Bering, J. (2004). A critical review of the "enculturation hypothesis": The effects of human rearing on great ape social cognition. Animal Cognition, 7(4), 201–212. Berndt, T. J. (1979). Lack of acceptance of reciprocity norms in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 662–663. ¨ Bischof-Kohler, D. (1988). On the connection between empathy and the ability to recognize oneself ¨ in the mirror (in German). Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 47(2-3), 147–159. ¨ Bischof-Kohler, D. (1991). The development of empathy in infants. In M. E. Lamb & H. Keller (Eds.), Infant development: Perspectives from German-speaking countries (pp. 245–273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2003). Origins of human cooperation. In P. Hammerstein (Ed.), Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 429–443). Boston: MIT Press. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (2006). Culture and the evolution of the human social instincts. In S. Levinson & N. Enfield (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 453–477). Oxford: Berg. Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1996). The effect of humans on the cognitive development of apes. In A. E. Russon & K. A. Bard (Eds.), Reaching into thought: The minds of the great apes (pp. 371–403). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Caplan, M. (1993). Inhibitory influences in development: The case of prosocial behaviour. In D. F. Hay & A. Angold (Eds.), Precursors and causes in development and psychopathology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son. Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behaviour & Development, 21(2), 315–330. Cunningham, M. R. (1985/1986). Levites and brother's keepers: A sociobiological perspective on prosocial behaviour. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 13, 35–67. Damon, W. (1975). Early conceptions of positive justice as related to the development of logical operations. Child Development, 46, 301–312. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. de Waal, F. (1996). Good natured. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. de Waal, F. (1997). The chimpanzee's service economy: Food for grooming. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 18, 375–386. de Waal, F. (2007). With a little help from a friend. PLoS Biology, 5(7), 1405–1408. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Cooperation among animals. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Siblings and the development of prosocial behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(3), 265–284. Eisenberg, N. (1983). Children's differentiations among potential recipients of aid. Child Development, 54, 594–602. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial Development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Eisenberg, N., & Shell, R. (1986). The relation of prosocial moral judgment and behaviour in children: The mediating role of cost. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 426–433. Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S., Goldberg, L., & Engel, I. (1992). Parental values, reinforcement, and young chidren's prosocial behaviour. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 19–36. 470 Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., & Christopher, F. S. (1989). Effects of rewards on children's prosocial motivation: A socialization study. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 509–515. Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454, 1079–1084. Grusec, J. (1991). Socializing concern for others in the home. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 338–342. Grusec, J., & Redler, E. (1980). Attribution, reinforcement, and altruism: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 525–534. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. Hamlin, K. J., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450, 557–560. Hay, D. F. (1994). Prosocial development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(1), 29–71. Hay, D. F., Caplan, M., Castle, J., & Stimson, C. A. (1991). Does sharing become increasingly more 'rational' in the second year of life? Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 987–993. Hay, D. F., & Cook, K. V. (2007). The transformation of prosocial behaviour from infancy to childhood. In C. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the Toddler years (pp. 100–131). New York: The Guilford Press. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., et al. (2005). 'Economic man' in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioural experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855. Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 121–137. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jensen, K., Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). What's in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. Proceedings Biological Sciences/The Royal Society, 273, 1013–1021. Johnson, D. B. (1982). Altruistic behaviour and the development of the self in infants. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 28(3), 379–388. Keil, L. (1986). Rules, reciprocity, and rewards: A developmental study of resource allocation in social interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 419–435. Koyama, N. F., Caws, C., & Aureli, F. (2006). Interchange of grooming and agonistic support in chimpanzees. International Journal of Primatology, 72, 1293–1309. Krebs, D. (2006). The nature of altruism: Ultimate determinants and proximate mechanisms. Psychological Inquiry, 17(1), 48–50. Kuhlmeier, V., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2003). Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychological Science, 14(5), 402–408. Lepper, M. R. (1981). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in children: Detrimental effects of superfluous social controls. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Levitt, M. J., Weber, R. A., Clark, M. C., & McDonnell, P. (1985). Reciprocity of exchange in toddler sharing behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 122–123. Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Twelve- and 18-month-olds point to provide information for others. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 173–187. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506. Melis, A. P., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Do chimpanzees reciprocate received favours? Animal Behaviour, 76(3), 951–962. Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 1–16. Mook, D. G. (1991). Why can't altruism be selfish? Psychological Inquiry, 2, 139–141. The roots of human altruism 471 Moore, B., & Eisenberg, N. (1984). The development of altruism. Annals of Child Development, 1, 107–174. Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of cooperation in preschool children. Cognition, 108, 222–231. Peterson, L. (1982). Altruism and the development of internal control: An integrative model. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28(2), 197–222. Povinelli, D. J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: Suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 157–160. Rheingold, H. L. (1982). Little children's participation in the work of adults, a nascent prosocial behaviour. Child Development, 53(1), 114–125. Silk, J., Brosnan, S., Vonk, J., Henrich, J., Povinelli, D., Richardson, A. S., et al. (2005). Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature, 437, 1357–1359. Sober, E. (2002). The ABC of altruism. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. Schloss, & P. W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love (pp. 17–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ¨ Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2004). The role of humans in the cognitive development of apes revisited. Animal Cognition, 7, 213–215. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The ontogeny and phylogeny of cultural cognition. Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part I. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29–49. Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. Volland, C., Ulich, D., & Fischer, A. (2004). Who deserves help? The age-dependent influence of recipient characteristics on the prosociality of children (in German). Zeitschrift fur ¨ ¨ Entwicklungspsychologie und Padagogische Psychologie, 36(2), 69–73. Vonk, J., Brosnan, S. F., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Richardson, A. S., Lambeth, S. P., et al. (2008). Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to unrelated group members. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1757–1770. Warneken, F. (in press). The origins of human cooperation from a developmental and comparative perspective. In G. Hatfield (Ed.), The evolution of mind, brain, and culture. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Warneken, F., Hare, B., Melis, A. P., Hanus, D., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biology, 5(7), 1414–1420. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301–1303. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy, 11(3), 271–294. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in 20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1785–1788. ´ Wispe, L. G. (1972). Positive forms of social behaviour: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 28(3), 1–19. Young, S. K., Fox, N. A., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1999). The relations between temperament and empathy in 2-Year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1189–1197. Zahavi, A. (2003). Indirect selection and individual selection in sociobiology: My personal views on theories of social behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 859–863. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28, 126–136. Received 29 January 2008; revised version received 5 October 2008
Pages to are hidden for
"The roots of human altruism"Please download to view full document


text:
There are currently no items in your cart.
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 9
Preparatory Studies in Double-Stopping
- Instrument:
- Format:
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 9 (Preparatory Studies in Double-Stopping). Arranged by Alan Arnold. For Viola. Music Sales America. 20th Century. Softcover. 24 pages. Bosworth & Co. #BOE004571. Published by Bosworth & Co. (HL.14029782).
ISBN 1844497593. 20th Century. 9x12 inches.
A collection of over fifty of Sevcik's preparatory studies in double-stopping, arranged by Alan Arnold. Each study can be transposed and played in any of the twelve keys, giving the violist ample material to improve the double-stop technique.
Customers Who Bought Sevcik for Viola - Opus 9 Also Bought:
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 8
Shifting (Changing the Position), O...
Viola Concerto In C Minor - Viola/P...
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 1, Part 1
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 2, Part 1
Preparatory Trill Studies - Part 2
Scale System (for Viola)
Etudes Speciales, Op. 36 - Book 1 -...
HOFFMEISTER: Concerto for Viola and...
Sonata for Piano and Arpeggione A m...
Selected Studies in the First Posit...
Viola Concerto No. 1 in D Major
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 3
Sevcik Viola Studies: School Of Tec...
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 2, Part 2
School of Technique Parts 3 and 4
Suites (Sonatas) - Arranged For Sol...
$25.25 $20.20
Fiddling for Viola
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 9
Preparatory Studies in Double-Stopping
- Explain exactly why you liked or disliked the product. Do you like the artist? Is the transcription accurate? Is it a good teaching tool?
- Consider writing about your experience and musical tastes. Are you a beginner who started playing last month? Do you usually like this style of music?
- Feel free to recommend similar pieces if you liked this piece, or alternatives if you didn't.
- Be respectful of artists, readers, and your fellow reviewers. Please do not use inappropriate language, including profanity, vulgarity, or obscenity.
- Avoid disclosing contact information (email addresses, phone numbers, etc.), or including URLs, time-sensitive material or alternative ordering information.
- We cannot post your review if it violates these guidelines. If you have any suggestions or comments on the guidelines, please email us.
- All submitted reviews become the licensed property of Sheet Music Plus and are subject to all laws pertaining thereto. If you believe that any review contained on our site infringes upon your copyright, please email us.
- Read Sheet Music Plus's complete Privacy Policy
Sevcik for Viola - Opus 9
Preparatory Studies in Double-Stopping
Tell a friend (or remind yourself) about this product. We'll instantly send an email containing product info and a link to it. You may also enter a personal message.
We do not use or store email addresses from this form for any other purpose than sending your share email.
Read our Privacy Policy.
Now you can also view your purchased titles on your iPad with our
free Sheet Music Plus Digital Print Viewer app.
With Digital Print, you can print from your computer immediately after purchase, or wait until its convenient. And our software installation is easy - we'll guide you through the simple steps to make sure you have Adobe Flash Player, Adobe AIR and the Sheet Music Plus AIR application on your computer.
See all System Requirements for Digital Print
Note: Our Digital Print items are purchased solely through our website. By purchasing a Digital Print item, you are authorized by the publisher to print out the purchased number of copies for that particular title. Thus, we are unable to fax, mail or email digital titles in any form or file format (including PDF) as it violates copyright law.
Google Chrome Users: The most recent Google Chrome update is not compatible with Adobe AIR. We recommend using an alternate browser (such as Internet Explorer, Safari, or Firefox) in order to download Adobe AIR and print your music.
Digital Print - Available Instantly!
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Make a wish list for gifts, suggest standard repertoire, let students know which books to buy, boast about pieces you've mastered: Music Lists are as unique as the musician! Easily share your music lists with friends, students, and the world.
To create a music list, please sign in.Existing Accounts
Sign In and Add to My Music ListNew Accounts
See Similar Sheet Music
More by this Composer: Ottakar Sevcik Sheet Music Ottakar Sevcik Viola Sheet Music
Instrument: Viola Sheet Music
Genre: 20th Century Sheet Music
Format: Collection / Songbook


text:
NCAAB Basketball - Preview
|Belmont Bruins vs. Kentucky Wildcats
The Belmont Bruins and the Kentucky Wildcats will both be gunning for a victory on Saturday when they meet at Rupp Arena. In their last action, Belmont was a 90-62 loser on the road against Denver. They failed to cover the 5.5-point spread as underdogs. In their last action, Kentucky was an 82-77 loser on the road against North Carolina. They failed to cover the 3-point spread as underdogs. Belmont:
Team record: 8-4 SU, 3-6 ATS
Current streak: lost 2 straight games.
When playing on Saturday are 6-4
Team record: 8-3 SU, 4-4-1 ATS
is 5-0 SU in its last 5 games at home
When playing on Saturday are 9-1
Belmont at Indiana State, Saturday, December 28
Kentucky home to Louisville, Saturday, December 28


text:
The Top 10 In Action Sports
01These Incredible Photos of 'Unseen New York' Show a Whole New Side to the City
0210 Sketchy Trailside Fixes that Every Mountain Biker Should Know
03Here's The Biggest MX Jumps Ever Hit Collected in 2 Minutes of Video Glory
04This Guy Filmed His Beard Growing As He Walked 3000 Miles Across Asia... It's Strangely Hypnotic
05Here's The Stunning Feature That Shows The Dark Side of Professional Mountain Biking
06Sailing Into A Cyclone: This Has To Be One Of The Most Dangerous Races On Earth
07Ever Wanted To Own Your Own Ski Resort? Now You Can... For Just $900,000
08This is What Happened When Three Pros Tried To Go Mountain Biking on a Glacier
09Dirt Jumps, Zebras and A Motocross Legend: This Red Bull Feature is Essential Viewing For Any MX Fan
10Introducing The Greatest Skateboarder You've Never Heard Of… And He's Only 11 Years Old
Honda Racing Xtreme Academy Episode 2
A Motocross video by hondaeurope - 8,592 views
The Honda Racing Xtreme Academy is designed to equip young riders with the skills needed to compete against the best on the Pro MX scene, in preparation for taking the next step into MX1 and MX2. This video takes a look at the variety of Xtreme Academy Championships being run accross Europe and further afield.
What Do You Think?
Get the best in action sports straight to your inbox


text:
An excursion to the grottoes and the prehistoric park of Réclère is nearly like Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth". The large limestone cave with stalactites and stalagmites gives the excursion the necessary atmosphere and the life-sized dinosaurs in the park are the climax of a fascinating trip through time.
The river Orbe created the Fairy Caves at the Vaudoise town of Vallorbe. The caves constitute a fascinating grotto complex. The round trip tour leads visitors along the subterranean course of the river to stalactites, stalagmites, dripstone structures, columns and to galleries.


text:
Star Fabrics Inc v. Shimmer Clothing Inc et al
|Does, Shimmer Clothing Inc and Eska Inc
|Star Fabrics Inc
|Case Number:
|April 4, 2013
|California Central District Court
|Presiding Judge:
|Jacqueline Chooljian
|Nature of Suit:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed
|Document Text
|November 6, 2013
|(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/13/2013. (jloz)
|March 7, 2014
|ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. (Case Terminated; Made JS-6) (vdr)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status