The romans most likely traded for horses and wild animals because it could provide them with meat and along that they could also use it for trade
Good luck! Hope this helped
Answer:
De-individuation
Explanation:
De-individuation is the concept of social psychology. It is generally called the loss of general awareness. in a group of people. This is also called the matter of resistance. Many of the social psychologists have studied the concepts if de-individuation but in a different manner.
But on the other hand, the social psychologist is based on the context of the social situation. The social psychologist focused on the internal process of the psychological well being. The sociology focused on the context of the economic, political and social factors.
According to Fiedler's contingency model of leadership, a leader's performance depends on their own styles and how much control and influence they have over the circumstance.
<h3>What is Fiedler's theory of contingent leadership?</h3>
According to Fiedler's Contingency Theory, a leader's leadership style needs to be appropriate for the circumstances in order to be effective. You can use this model to determine your own leadership style, evaluate the situation that calls for leadership, and assess whether you are the best candidate.
Consider a basketball team as a first example of using Fiedler's model, as they have a disciplined work, a low amount of power, and (in theory) good leader-member connections. Instead of a relationship-focused coach giving everyone an equal voice in this situation, you would want a task-oriented coach to define the game strategy.
<h3>What is suggested by Fielder's theory?</h3>
Most notably, Fiedler's theory contends that a leader's personality is not the sole factor in determining how effective they are. Instead, this situational theory contends that when people are in settings that support their particular leadership philosophies, they develop into supportive leaders.
Learn more about Fiedler's Contingency Theory: brainly.com/question/20709656
#SPJ1
Answer:The court’s decision ruled that the laws of Louisiana were not in conflict with the Constitution. The justices wrote that Plessy’s defense wrongly assumed that separate facilities somehow made one race automatically inferior to another.
Further, they ruled that if one race is already socially inferior to another, there was nothing that the Constitution or other acts of legislation could do to fix that. To this end, the majority opinion states that the Fourteenth Amendment “could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.”
Explanation: This comes directly from the answer.
