Professor Rochelle told her students that if her door was closed it meant that she was unavailable to them and would be angry if
they knocked on her door. But if her door was open, it meant that she was in a rare good mood and would answer questions at that time. Professor Rochelle's door being open was a ________ for ________.discriminative stimulus; asking questionsdiscriminative response; not asking questionsdiscriminative response; asking questionsdiscriminative stimulus; not asking questionsextinction stimulus; asking questions
The correct answer is A) discriminative stimulus; asking questions.
Professor Rochelle told her students that if her door was closed it meant that she was unavailable to them and would be angry if they knocked on her door. But if her door was open, it meant that she was in a rare good mood and would answer questions at that time. Professor Rochelle's door being open was a <u>discriminative stimulus </u>for <u>asking questions. </u>
A discriminative stimulus, according to Malott, "is the type of stimulus in the presence of which a particular response will be enforced." Discriminative stimulus establishes the atmosphere for behaviors that have been reinforced in past times. In this case, the teacher has had episodes of anger when students interrupt her while her door's office was closed, so students know that when that door is closed, they are not allowed to interrupt.
<span>These differences become more stark when the two groups are competing for the same outcome (or similar outcomes). When there is something that is valued by both groups, any sort of small difference that can be pointed to and exacerbated will be and used against the out-group.</span>
Because during the 19th and 20th centuries the Jim Crow laws were still pretty big and every African American wanted to make a change in the world, for example, racism, voting rights and more
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) was an important decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's protection of the freedom of speech limits the ability of American public officials to sue and recover damages for defamation.