Answer:
True
Explanation:
Symbolic interactionism: In social psychology and sociology, the term symbolic interactionism is defined as a micro-level theory that aims at the relationship between different individuals in a particular society.
George Herbert Mead has introduced the theory of symbolic interactionism. The theory of symbolic interactionism also involves one to one interactions and observations. It is responsible for explaining social behavior that is best described by the way two different individuals in a particular society through symbols.
In the question above, the given statement is true.
Answer:
Parsimonious
Explanation:
Parsimony, to understand it first of all we have to know what is the meaning of these words. This is a word that is used in the late middle age of literature in English. It is an extreme thriftiness economy and frugality. This is the word that means in psychology to an accurate explanation about the cognitive process and the behavior of a person.
We all know that our brain is a complex procedure but we can not make our understanding so complex. Many of the psychologists make it so simple and understandable and unsupported assumptions. So that most of the psychologist prefer parsimonious.
Suffrage wouldn’t have expanded to every US citizen, and may have only been for white land owning males.
America wanted to declare war on Spain after the US warship, the Maine, exploded while visiting Cuba.
Answer:
No impact.
Explanation:
In some countries, states do not have the autonomy to formulate their own laws. The US is not one of those. In the state territory, although there are laws that apply throughout the country, each state can formulate its own laws and these must be followed within the limits of the state and punishable by those who disobey. The law of each state must be judged in its home state and cannot be imposed on another state that does not accept that law as the rule to be followed. Thus, in relation to the above question, we can conclude that if state law in the neighboring state requires that interrogation be recorded on video, that law has no impact on state interrogation that does not require such recording.
