I believe the answer is: <span>Astrid sends her daughter to her room alone when she misbehaves.
Negative punishment refers to a form of punishment that initiated in order to condition a certain individual to change his/her undesirable behavior.
</span>It could be seen when a person is given a punishment when they're doing something that considered as 'wrong'
True
This view is based on the Existential Theory which is a humanistic view which posits that humans are constantly determined to become the best they can be. According to this view, humans are constantly searching for the meaning of life and what it means to be human
Article 2.
Article 2 states the presidential requirements, duties, vetoing laws, voting, separation of powers, etc. Different sections of Article two state different intended presidential requirements.
Hope this helped!
Answer:
clear informational influence
Explanation:
Stanley Milgram was a famous social psychologist who has researched the "effect of authority" on obedience. Thus, he concluded that individuals obey the authority figures for either of the two reasons including "out of fear" or "out of an aspiration to look cooperative".
Informational influence: The term "informational influence" is described as an individual's conformity under the affirmation of evidence associated with the reality that has been provided by some other individuals.
In the question above, the given statement signifies that "clear informational influence" plays an important role in influencing behavior.
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
