A strong since of personal expectations and beliefs.
This question is missing the options. I've found them online. They are the following:
A. response reinforcing
B. dissonance
C. balance
D. feedback
E. fear appeal
Answer:
In an attempt to use B. dissonance to convince people to stop smoking, government officials have proposed removing all brand identification from packs of cigarettes, replacing it with graphic images of damaged lungs and cancerous mouths.
Explanation:
It is natural for us to try to remain in a state of cognitive consistency in order to function mentally in the real world. Cognitive consistency is a state of harmony between our beliefs and our behaviors. On the other hand, <u>cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we feel when our beliefs and behaviors are not in harmony. That happens when we receive new information that goes against our previous belief.</u>
<u>By replacing brand identification with graphic images or damaged lungs, officials are trying to provoke cognitive dissonance in smokers</u>. Once they see the pictures and receive the information that smoking is the cause behind those diseases, they begin to question their own behavior. <u>Suddenly, smoking may feel less enjoyable, since they are aware that their actions are causing them to get sick.</u>
Hagia Sophia was built at Constantinople, which is currently known as Turkey during the past centuries. It is established with two floors which a high ceiling together with other smaller domes. Its dimensions are formidable, like any structure that is not built with steel. The primary purpose of Hafia was for Islamic worship, but it was transformed into a museum.
Therefore, the building of Hagia Sophia leads to great revolt that affected Constantinople significantly leading to riots in the city by Byzantine culture.
Answer:
All of them
Explanation:
The king condemning his own peaceful actions to be the cause of violence is in complete contradiction to one another. An oddity occurs and the action is in complete contrast to the outcome. One cannot justify that the corresponding actions may have led to the specific outcome. such is also the case in the example:
a; condemning a robbed man for having too much money does in no way justifies the action of robbing. Blaming a source that was done only for the reason of ones own satisfaction.
b; condemning Socrates for his truth to force people to make him drink the hemlock, is as absurd as the above example.
c; condemning Jesus for his devotion to God shows that the intention of the action was completely different but the outcome was in complete contrast.
Answer:
elaboration is the correct answer.
Explanation: