Answer: 1. Elbing model
Explanation:
Alvar Elbing is credited with coming up with a model illustrating how two individuals in a family make decisions based on their reference groups, perceived and acceptable alternatives and environmental constraints.
The model shows how family members can affect decisions and how reference groups pay a large role in a person and their decision making.
Answer:
Sandra Wood Scarr.
Explanation:
Sandra Wood Scarr was the developmental psychologist who endorses the idea that genetic endowment provided to children by their parents does not only determines their genetic characteristics but also actively influences their environment.
Sandra Wood Scarr bagged her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in the year 1665 at Harvard University and she was the first female Psychology professor in Yale University. In 1995 she was the chief executive officer of the KinderCare Learning Centers.
She has many publications, few of them are: Understanding Psychology, Caring for Children: Challenge to America,Psychology and Children: Current Research and Practice and so on.
Answer:
Object Permanence
Explanation:
Based on the information provided it can be said that these different responses most likely reflect differences in Object Permanence. This term refers to the understanding that objects still exist even though the individual cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or sense the object in any way. In this scenario, the brother believed that Emanuel was getting rid of the blocks and the 8-month old brother knows that they are still in the chest and wants to continue playing with them. Yet, for the niece, the blocks no longer exist and she just played with the next toy that she could find.
Answer:
Because now you have supplies and a french fort
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) is regarded as a micro sociologist because he developed the process of social development, intermixing the quantitative expansion of groups and social differentiation. He established that the smaller the group, the more vulnerable they were and that is why these groups had to ask their members more focus, effort, and involvement to be successful. On the other hand, the larger the group, the lesser involvement was needed because the members of these groups were diverse and segmented by affinities. In these groups, the relationships were impersonal and cold.
