Answer:
Mahatma Gandhi and Florence Nightingale
Answer:
It is known as pluralistic ignorance.
Explanation:
Pluralistic ignorance occurs in social situations when an individual does not feel free to express their opinion and makes a wrong inference of what their peers think, so they end up accepting the option they believe the group would choose, even if they disagree.
An example would be: Karla is on the bus, and a person sits next to her, she watches the woman and thinks that looks like a kind person and would like to talk with her for a while, but nobody talks with other people on the bus so avoid talking to her.
The spectator effect is an example of pluralistic ignorance; when an emergency occurs, the larger the group that observed the emergency situation, the less likely someone will help. The individual in the group may think that it would not be right to help, or that he/she should not help because surely another person would help.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
It usually does, using direct popular vote
Answer:
The correct answer is ''ability to take the role''.
Explanation:
George Herbert Mead was a social psychologist who explained that the human societies in which we are interested are forest societies. The human individual is a self, only insofar as he takes the attitude of the other towards himself. Insofar as that attitude is that of a certain number of others, insofar as he can adopt the organized attitudes of a certain number of others who are cooperating in a common activity, he takes the group's attitudes towards himself, by taking that or those attitudes, is defining the object of the group that which defines and controls response. For Mead this is possible insofar as people are capable of internalizing the behavior of others, we are capable of acting knowing the behavior that others will do. By internalizing the "generalized other", that is, the attitudes of others, the individual behaves in a certain way.
<span>A. defense, education, and Medicaid</span>
