Answer:
It is known as pluralistic ignorance.
Explanation:
Pluralistic ignorance occurs in social situations when an individual does not feel free to express their opinion and makes a wrong inference of what their peers think, so they end up accepting the option they believe the group would choose, even if they disagree.
An example would be: Karla is on the bus, and a person sits next to her, she watches the woman and thinks that looks like a kind person and would like to talk with her for a while, but nobody talks with other people on the bus so avoid talking to her.
The spectator effect is an example of pluralistic ignorance; when an emergency occurs, the larger the group that observed the emergency situation, the less likely someone will help. The individual in the group may think that it would not be right to help, or that he/she should not help because surely another person would help.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
Answer:
NO ANSWER NO PICTURE!
Explanation:
where the picture?
<h2>#CARRYONLEARNING!</h2>
Answer:
It is not reasonable to say there is a correlation because it is categorical data. However if it was quantitative data, correlation doesn’t always mean causation, because there might be athird variable (lurking variable) that may have a better explanation for the correlation.
Explanation:
Is it not reasonable to say that there's a correlation between the type of car you own and the risk that it will be stolen because it is categorical data. However if it was quantitative data, correlation doesn’t always mean causation, because there might be a third variable that may have a better explanation for the correlation and it might as well means that the third-lurking variable affects the correlation; for example, those cars that are most frequently reported stolen may simply be the cars that are more commonly sold because they are cheaper than the cars that are stolen least often, and thus have a higher chance of being exposed to thieves.
