Answer:
c. epitomized the change in standards of sexual behavior.
Explanation:
The word flappers was used to refer to a popular group of young women in the 1920s who lived for the moment and contrary to what society expects from women as that time. Some of their characteristic features was that they wore short skirts and make-up which were considered sensual, listened to jazz which was a man's thing as at then, they epitomized a change in standards of sexual behavior in that they flouted sexual norms and treated sex in a casual manner.
Question options:
a. internal; external
b. external; internal
c. external; internal
d. internal; internal
Answer:
internal; external
Explanation:
The expectancy theory was developed by J.B. Rotter to explain why people behave the way they do. The theory suggests people take certain actions(behaviour) based on the outcome and value of that behaviour which has been informed by past experiences and learning.
Rotter classified people into two types: internals and externals. Internals according to Rotter are individuals who believe that happenings are a result of their own direct efforts. Externals, on the other hand believe things happen by such things as luck and cannot be controlled by them.
Answer: C. Foreign Corrupt Practises Act (FCPA)
Explanation: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a United States law passed into law in 1977 that prohibits United State firms and individuals from paying bribes to foreign officials in furtherance of a business deal. The FCPA places no minimum amount for a punishment of a bribery payment. Accurate record-keeping of assets is required by the FCPA to ensure that only properly authorized transactions are taken under the purview of company management.
Answer: It's true, this is an example of consumer misbehavior, however there are some factors to consider.
Explanation: Although it is pretty evident that Michelle bought the dress in the first place because she liked it, what was done afterwards can be labeled as misbehavior for her plan to have the money back despite the article she already used for the ocassion she planned to attend with it. However, the cashier plays his/her part with the story because there is no evidence of refusal coming from what Michelle intends to do.