Observer bias relates mainly to
"Researchers" whereas observer effects stem from
"participants".
Observer bias<span> which otherwise is known as experimenter bias or research bias etc. is an
inclination to observe what a researcher wishes to see. It states that the
researcher has a prior knowledge about the experiment group while observer effect
refers to the act in science when the act of observing will manipulate the experience
being observed.</span>
<span> </span>
Because they all have a lot of moisture in them
A word element at the end of the root that changes or adds to its meaning is a suffix.
Like prefixes, suffixes are a type of affix. This means that when added to a word base, they create a derivative or inflectional form of this word, with a new meaning.
For example,
- adding the suffix<em> -ly</em> to an adjective makes it an adverb (<em>commercial - commercially</em>);
- adding the suffixes <em>-able</em> or <em>-ible</em> to a verb makes it an adjective which means "fit or liable to be ..." (<em>break - breakable</em>)
Rescorla's cognitive theory proposed that the real reason Pavlov's dogs salivated to conditioned stimuli was that these stimuli allowed them to <u>predict what food would come</u>.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Pavlovian theory explains that the stimulus is related with the conditioned response. To prove this Ivan Pavlov conducted some experiments regarding stimulus with his dogs. In this experiment he found that the objects or events are capable of triggering the conditioned response. A bell is used as a neutral stimulus in the experiment designed by Pavlov.
The change that occurs in the associative strength between the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus is well explained by Rescorla’s theory.
The dog under experiment is presented with stimulus and food, and this process is repeated for several numbers of times. Finally the dogs started to salivate in response to the stimulus.
Answer:
dude but i need free so be nice
Explanation: