What impact did the bubonic plague have socially, economically, and culturally

Advanced Placement (AP)

2 answers:

sergejj [24]2 years ago

7 0

Answer:

The Bubonic Plague killed more than 60% of Europe's population, causing a labor shortage. As a result, people needed to create ways to make up for that shortage, which came with innovation and technology.

Simora [160]2 years ago

4 0

The bubonic plague did many horrors to the world, firstly for social:

- It killed many populations and wiped out humans around the European and part of Asian continent, it destroyed relations between countries because of fear of being contaminated and killed by the plague.

Economically:

- It destroyed any trade by land, restricted trade and fishing, killed many merchants and other important business people. It also restricted people buying goods outside of their home.

Culturally:

- Many people thought that the plague was the end of the world, and that god had sent it to eradicate mankind. You would see the King and Queen being questioned of their authority. (Kings and Queens were supposedly picked by god, and were thought invincible and righteous) Many thought that the plague punished all who have sinned and turned to the church for definite answers and the plea to save themselves. The church was questioned as well, and people recurred to different tactics to not get infected. Most common, the crow mask. (Looks like a crow, has onions in it.)

You might be interested in

1. A psychologist conducted a study at her home during an annual activity of children wearing masks and

Musya8 [376]

Answer:

a) The dependent variable is defined as the variable that is being tested. The dependent variable here is the percentage of children who collected extra candy.

b) The data does not support the hypothesis 1 of the psychologist which states that the children would take more candy when they were alone. In the graph, percentage of children that took extra candy was higher when they were in group than when they were alone.

The data supports the hypothesis 2, which states that the children would take more candy when they were masked. From the graph, the percentage of children who took extra candy was higher when they were masked than when when they were unmasked.

c) The psychologist cannot generalize her findings to all children because she didn't use a random sampling procedure and she used children only from her neighborhood which doesn't represent the general population of children.

d) This study is not a naturalistic behaviour because the psychologist is dealing with subjects. She may also choose to manipulate the variables. Therefore we cannot call this study a naturalistic behaviour.

e) Modeling: This may play a role in the children's behaviour because the children may try to imitate what others did. The children may take extra candy because they saw others collecting extra candy.

Deindividuation: Here, the children's behaviour may be influenced by a feeling of anonymity. The children may take extra candy because they feel anonymous. Deinvuduated children feel anonymous due a feeling of loss of identity.

This explains why the percentage of chidren who took extra candy when in group was higher than that of the children who were alone.

Note: The graph is attached