Answer:
I think it's A Preterm infants reach motor milestones later than do full-term infants
Explanation:
The maturational view of motor development highlights the role of biological processes more than environmental influence. According to this view, motor development is driven by the maturation of the nervous system. Thus, the statement that preterm infants reach motor milestones later than full-term infants is consistent with this theory.The correct option is A.
The maturational view of motor development emphasizes inherent biological processes over environmental influence. It suggests that development is driven primarily by maturation of the nervous system, and thus, is not significantly influenced by individual experiences.
This does not mean that a certain amount of movement and practice isn't essential, but the maturation theory posits that this happens within the child's innate timetable.
From the given options, the statement that is consistent with the maturational view would be 'a. Preterm infants reach motor milestones later than do full-term infants.'
It is assumed under this theory that because preterm infants' nervous systems haven't matured to the same level as those of full-term infants, they will reach motor milestones later.The correct option is A.
#SPJ2
Answer:
Chemical weathering changes the composition of a mineral to break it down. Water chemically weathers rock in hydrolysis. Carbon dioxide chemically weathers rock by creating acids. Oxygen chemically weathers rock by combining with a metal
Explanation:
correct me if im wrong
Answer:
D. Organizational learning
Explanation:
Organizational learning can be defined as the process of creating, and the retention, and transfer of knowledge within an organization. As an organization gets to be improved with time, it is able to gain more experience. It is through this experience, that knowledge is able to be created.
Such an organization is able to modify its behavior so as to show new knowledge and gained insights.
This question is incomplete, here´s the complete question.
Wei-Chin designed a self-report inventory to measure how intimate partners express affection and hostility toward each other. The inventory is a list of positive behaviors (e.g., back rubs, holding hands) and negative behaviors (e.g., slamming doors, raising voices). After having a wide range of couples complete the inventory, Wei-Chin finds that happy couples endorse all the affection items and unhappy couples endorse all the hostile items. Which of the following problems prevents him from concluding that happy couples exchange more affectionate behaviors than unhappy couples?
1. sentiment override
2. item-overlap problem
3. correlation does not imply causation
4. social desirability effect
Answer: 3. Correlation does not imply causation.
Explanation:
Correlation is a statistical technique that evaluates how much two variables are linearly related, meaning they change together. However, two variables being correlated does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. Causation states that any change in a variable will cause a change in another variable.
The fact that happy couples endorsed all the positive behaviors, and unhappy couples the negative ones, shows that there´s a correlation, but it doesn't necessarily mean that unhappiness causes couples to exchange more negative behaviors, or vice-versa.
Decsion making ability is based on logics and explanations. Jennifer's conclusion may be based on the availability heuristic making her thoughts to be biased.
The availability heuristic is a biased nature that depends on rapid instances that influences the decision-making ability when the specific topic related to the situation or the person comes to mind of the person.
Gary's insensitive nature and personality makes Jennifer biased in her thought and tricks her into thinking that he is not good for her.
Deductible reasoning is the progression of the opinions towards the conclusion and anchoring bias is based on the information presented first.
Therefore, Jennifer's conclusion may be based on the availability heuristic.
Learn more about the availability heuristic here:
Answer:
reaction formation
Explanation:
Reaction formation: In psychology, the term "reaction formation" is referred to as one of the different psychological defense mechanisms whereby an individual tends to go beyond denial and often behaves in an opposite manner to what she actually feels or thinks. The conscious behaviors are being adopted to "overcompensate" the anxiety of an individual associated with the "socially unacceptable" unconscious emotions or thoughts.
In the question above, the given statement represents reaction formation.
O Janus
O Ceres
O Mars
0Jupiter
Answer:
your answer is; Mars
Explanation:
In ancient Roman religion and myth, Mars (Latin: Mārs, pronounced [maːrs]) was the pagan god of war and also an agricultural guardian, a combination characteristic of early Rome. He was the son of Jupiter and he was the most prominent of the military gods in the religion of the Roman army.
In Stanley Milgram’s obedience research, the person playing the part of the “learner” was an accomplice, or Confederate of the experiment.
Conclusively, we can say that in Stanley Milgram’s obedience research, the person playing the part of the “learner” was an accomplice, or Confederate of the experiment.
Learn more from:
In Milgram's experiment, the 'learner' was actually a confederate, or an accomplice. The 'learner' was secretly part of the research team and helped to manipulate conditions to study obedience to authority. Confederates acted as if they were receiving shocks to convince real participants they were causing harm.
In Stanley Milgram's obedience research, the person playing the part of the "learner" was an accomplice, or a confederate, of the experiment. He was aware of the true purpose of the research, never received shocks, and was acting according to Milgram's instructions.
Milgram's research was to test obedience to authority, inspired in part by Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann's defense of "just following orders." The experiment demonstrated that many people would inflict perceived harm on others if instructed by an authority figure. Confederates, who were a part of the research team, pretended to be participants and helped manipulate the research conditions.
The term confederate in this context refers to a person who is informed about the experiment and works for the researcher, manipulating social situations as part of the research design. In this experiment, the confederates would act as if they were receiving shocks when given incorrect answers, further convincing the true participants of the illusion.
#SPJ11