Answer:
The correct approach is "Social desirability bias".
Explanation:
- Social bias attributed to the idea however that, instead of in self-reporting, people today most often immediately recognize incorrectly on sensitivity when it comes to issues in good enough condition to recognize themselves from throughout the positive light.
- It may assume the shape of well over of proper performance some under of inappropriate behavior.
The phenomeno is called risky shift. This phenomenon occurs when people make more risky decisions when they participate in group activities when they participate in activities individually. This is because the perception of risk is divided and diluted among the members of the group and therefore the perception of danger is lower.
I hope my answer can help you.
These amendments were intended to guarantee freedom to former slaves and to establish and prevent discrimination in certain civil rights to former slaves and all citizens of the United States.
So your right
The Federalists are advocates who think the American foreign policy should favor British interests while the Democratic-Republicans are advocates who wanted to strengthen ties with the French.
The Federalist Party was headed by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and they called for more national government control. They believed that with the national government having more power than states, they could create a better and more equal United States of America. One of the things they called for was national government regulation of the trade between states. The Federalists believed that such regulation would better protect the rights of states which were otherwise small or in a poorer position to negotiate.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists argued primarily over the issue of the strength of the national government in the newly formed United States. The Federalists sought to strengthen the power of the national government whereas the Anti-Federalists sought to strengthen the power of state governments.
Read more about Federalist
brainly.com/question/26151989
#SPJ1
Answer:
Religion declines with economic development. In a previous post that rattled around the Internet, I presented a scholarly explanation for this pattern: people who feel secure in this world have less interest in another one.
The basic idea is that wealth allows people to feel more secure in the sense that they are confident of having their basic needs met and expect to lead a long healthy life. In such environments, there is less of a market for religion, the primary function of which is to help people cope with stress and uncertainty.
Some readers of the previous post pointed out that the U.S. is something of an anomaly because this is a wealthy country in which religion prospers. Perhaps taking the view that one swallow makes a summer, the commentators concluded that the survival of religion here invalidates the security hypothesis. I do not agree.
Explanation:
The first point to make is that the connection between affluence and the decline of religious belief is as well-established as any such finding in the social sciences. In research of this kind, the preferred analysis strategy is some sort of line-fitting exercise. No researcher ever expects every case to fit exactly on the line, and if they did, something would be seriously wrong.
