First of all, the answer must first be rounded down to prominent nations in Europe during this time that attempted to practice imperialism. These include Russia, the United States, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Russia and Austria-Hungary practiced similar forms of imperialism, simply expanding into the immediate nearby nations. The "winners of imperialism would first and foremost include Great Britain, who took over approximately 1/3 of the globe at one point, had an extremely populous and powerful overseas empire, and commanded great profits. France comes in next, owning vast portions of Africa and pieces of Asia. The "losers" would first include Austria-Hungary, who definitely achieved minimally. Portugal and Spain both obtained small amounts of territory due to their poor economies, Spain especially losing parts of its empire to America after the 1898 Spanish-American War. Italy is prominently known as the biggest loser; it invaded Ethiopia, and failed, owned no land in Asia, and had one major colony, Libya, which was unprofitable and continually rebelled. Germany was a very powerful nation, yet it failed to gain mus territory for joining the game too late, thought Germany's incredibly able prime minister Otto von Bismark commented that imperialism was a waste of time. Belgium and the Netherlands may also be seen as "winners", both taking territory of a size far greater than their own nation, both of which were highly profitable. Russia would probably be on neither side, having owned a vast territory and much imperialism yet not much of it was incredibly significant. Now, the United States owned little territory, only some in the Pacific and the Caribbean, which was a small amount for the strength of the country, but the nation was typically opposed to imperialism and what it got was VERY profitable, and truly all that the nation desired. So true winners would be Great Britain and France, while losers would be Italy and Austria-Hungary.
In Simons and Chabris’s (1999) experiment, participants are focused on a challengingperceptual task, counting the white team’s basketball passes while ignoring the black team’s basketball passes. Because of the challenging nature of the task:
A. Inattentional blindness is more likely to occur
B. Attentional capture of irrelevant stimuli is more likely to occur
C. Attention shift capacity is less likely to occur
D. The spotlight model of attention is needed to explain the data
Answer:
A. Inattentional blindness is more likely to occur
Explanation:
Inattentional blindness often referred to as Perceptual blindness is a term in psychology which describes the failure of an individual or observer to notice or perceive a fully visible but unexpected object, due to the attention being given or channeled to another task at that moment.
This is a phenomenon that was first coined by Irvin Rock and Arien Mack, in 1992, both are psychologists.
The most common experiments demonstrating inattentional blindness is the "invisible gorilla test" carried out by Christopher Chabris, Ph.D. and Daniel Simons, Ph.D.
In most presidential systems, the president is elected by popular vote, although some such as the United States use an electoral college or some other method.
These are used for the purchase and sales of instruments of equity
and debt. It acts as conduits capital suppliers
and capital users. It is a vital part of
the economy because it is important in making economic output in an economic
system.
