Answer:
What can you predict in someone's situation (from your point of view) that made them act a certain way? (read last paragraph for shorter explanation)
-
The Correspondent Inference Theory is a psychological model which is used to explain how people infer (predict) the disposition (characteristics) of another person based on that person’s actions, regardless of what the action achieved or any situational factors. Thus, it is an observer attribution model and not a motivational model. It was first proposed by Edward Jones and Keith Davis in 1966
Explanation:
Overall, the question is asking you to recall a memory of watching or observing someone's behavior to see if their reasons for behaving as such were voluntary or involuntary. For example, a waiter at a restaurant. They are polite to you, take your orders, and serve you, but they have to because their job requires them to. The purpose of the theory was to explain why people make the decisions they do; because they want to, or they have to.
example, there is someone speeding at 70 MPH and the limit is 45. You may assume they are in a hurry, or they just want to speed just because. That is until you make an observation as to why they may be speeding. If you can find an answer to this via experience, you will have a simple answer. Any example of behavior will work, such as people being rude to you, or being nice. What can you predict in their situation from your point of view that made them act like that?
+ The attribution theory's purpose also connects to how people explain the cause of behavior and situations... I.e, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because something bad happened ? the whole point in your answer should explain an encounter and know the reason why the other person acted the way they did.
Answer:
A. Democratic reforms.
Explanation:
Human rights has always been tied to the democratic party, so this answer just makes the most sense to me.
The other answers don't make sense because while the UN is connected to human rights, the sentence doesn't check out for it. Supporting human rights does help the UN, but it doesn't really support it. Military allies also makes sense, but again, human rights doesn't support them. The U.S. economic interests doesn't make sense either, because human rights, while needed, are often expensive for the government, which is why they won't do much.
Answer:
the world will be better if optimistic
Explanation:
if we think optimistic then we have hope as long as we are optimistic
Voting and doing your civic duty to stay informed and involved.