Cognitive dissonance, is a term used in psychology that explains the feeling of discomfort by a person who is facing two situations that contradict each other.
An example used to explain it, is the story of the fox who very much wants to eat a bunch of grapes that is in a very high place. As the Fox can not find a way to reach it, she gives up using the excuse that the grapes are green and bitter.
To alleviate cognitive dissonance, one can:
1- Change the behavior to relieve the situation of discomfort.
2- Try to justify the discomfort with new ideas
3- Justify the discomfort.
The answer is A: The development of the first mathematical system of perspective
<span><span>The Espionage Act of 1917
was created to forbid intrusion of military operations and military
recruitment. It was also intended to
stop insubordination in the military, and to check the assistance of enemies of
the United States during times of war. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court </span>solidly
declared through Schenck vs. United States that
the act did not disregard the freedom
of speech of those sentenced under its provisions. The case of Charles Schenck who was the
general secretary of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party who
distributed leaflets exhorting men not to obey the draft because
they considered involuntary servitude.
Schenck and a fellow named were convicted because the court defended the
decision because the situation during times of war require stricter measures
compared to times of peace of the presence of dangerous forces.</span>
The correct answer is B) Averting behavior.
Environmental economists seek to implement a study to examine public preferences for alternative forest landscapes. Respondents are asked to choose one of several plans that depict environmental changes from the baseline condition of forests. The nonmarket valuation method that describes this study is Averting behavior.
When trying to find answers in this type of research to know the preferences of the public regarding alternatives to help the forest, the Avertin behavior method helps researches to find useful answers. When applying this research model, researches presume that people interviewed are prone to participate and do something that prevents the consequences mentioned in the question. It takes into consideration that people will do what it takes in order to limit or avoid the negative consequences presented.
Answer:
It is not always necessary to lie.
Explanation:
Lying is not "always" a necessity. Most times, people tell lies to get away from a situation: to deny allegations, to escape punishment or even to escape from shame of the moments. people that lie, if properly investigated, have something they are hiding or they usually have a bad situation (although not always) they want to get away from. This is why people lie. More so, some people also lie to cover their excesses or to gain advantage over a situation. This is the reason why when a person lies, he or she has broken the trust put in him or her by friends, family, colleagues and even bosses. So can we now say that, it is justifiable to break the heart of our loved ones because lie is a necessity? No! When a person is caught lying, trust goes out the window in most cases, and it has to be rebuilt again, all in the name of lie necessary.
From the situations stated above, it can therefore be concluded that, lying is not necessary if people are willing to face the consequence of their actions or if they can stand the shame of their actions also.
