Sex, Gender, and Popular Culture Spring 2015 Look through popular magazines, and see if you can find advertisements that objectify women in order to sell a product. Alternately, you may use an advertisement on television (but make sure to provide a link to the ad so I can see it!). Study these images then write a paper about objectification that deals with all or some of the following: • What effect(s), if any, do you think the objectification of women’s bodies has on our culture? • Jean Kilbourne states “turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her reasoning? Why or why not? • Some people would argue that depicting a woman’s body as an object is a form of art. What is your opinion of this point of view? Explain your reasoning. • Why do you think that women are objectified more often than men are? • How does sexualization and objectification play out differently across racial lines? • Kilbourne explains that the consequences of being objectified are different – and more serious – for women than for men. Do you agree? How is the world different for women than it is for men? How do objectified images of women interact with those in our culture differently from the way images of men do? Why is it important to look at images in the context of the culture? • What is the difference between sexual objectification and sexual subjectification? (Ros Gill ) • How do ads construct violent white masculinity and how does that vision of masculinity hurt both men and women? Throughout your written analysis, be sure to make clear and specific reference to the images you selected, and please submit these images with your paper. Make sure you engage with and reference to at least 4 of the following authors: Kilbourne, Bordo, Hunter & Soto, Rose, Durham, Gill, Katz, Schuchardt, Ono and Buescher. Guidelines:  Keep your content focused on structural, systemic, institutional factors rather than the individual: BE ANALYTICAL NOT ANECDOTAL.  Avoid using the first person or including personal stories/reactions. You must make sure to actively engage with your readings: these essays need to be informed and framed by the theoretical material you have been reading this semester.  Keep within the 4-6 page limit; use 12-point font, double spacing and 1-inch margins.  Use formal writing conventions (introduction/thesis statement, body, conclusion) and correct grammar. Resources may be cited within the text of your paper, i.e. (Walters, 2013).

Sex, Gender, and Popular Culture Spring 2015 Look through popular magazines, and see if you can find advertisements that objectify women in order to sell a product. Alternately, you may use an advertisement on television (but make sure to provide a link to the ad so I can see it!). Study these images then write a paper about objectification that deals with all or some of the following: • What effect(s), if any, do you think the objectification of women’s bodies has on our culture? • Jean Kilbourne states “turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her reasoning? Why or why not? • Some people would argue that depicting a woman’s body as an object is a form of art. What is your opinion of this point of view? Explain your reasoning. • Why do you think that women are objectified more often than men are? • How does sexualization and objectification play out differently across racial lines? • Kilbourne explains that the consequences of being objectified are different – and more serious – for women than for men. Do you agree? How is the world different for women than it is for men? How do objectified images of women interact with those in our culture differently from the way images of men do? Why is it important to look at images in the context of the culture? • What is the difference between sexual objectification and sexual subjectification? (Ros Gill ) • How do ads construct violent white masculinity and how does that vision of masculinity hurt both men and women? Throughout your written analysis, be sure to make clear and specific reference to the images you selected, and please submit these images with your paper. Make sure you engage with and reference to at least 4 of the following authors: Kilbourne, Bordo, Hunter & Soto, Rose, Durham, Gill, Katz, Schuchardt, Ono and Buescher. Guidelines:  Keep your content focused on structural, systemic, institutional factors rather than the individual: BE ANALYTICAL NOT ANECDOTAL.  Avoid using the first person or including personal stories/reactions. You must make sure to actively engage with your readings: these essays need to be informed and framed by the theoretical material you have been reading this semester.  Keep within the 4-6 page limit; use 12-point font, double spacing and 1-inch margins.  Use formal writing conventions (introduction/thesis statement, body, conclusion) and correct grammar. Resources may be cited within the text of your paper, i.e. (Walters, 2013).

The objectification of women has been a very controversial topic … Read More...
1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

1 | P a g e Lecture #2: Abortion (Warren) While studying this topic, we will ask whether it is morally permissible to intentionally terminate a pregnancy and, if so, whether certain restrictions should be placed upon such practices. Even though we will most often be speaking of terminating a fetus, biologists make further classifications: the zygote is the single cell resulting from the fusion of the egg and the sperm; the morula is the cluster of cells that travels through the fallopian tubes; the blastocyte exists once an outer shell of cells has formed around an inner group of cells; the embryo exists once the cells begin to take on specific functions (around the 15th day); the fetus comes into existence in the 8th week when the embryo gains a basic structural resemblance to the adult. Given these distinctions, there are certain kinds of non-fetal abortion—such as usage of RU-486 (the morning-after “abortion pill”)—though most of the writers we will study refer to fetal abortions. So now let us consider the “Classical Argument against Abortion”, which has been very influential: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is an innocent person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. (Note that this argument has received various formulations, including those from Warren and Thomson which differ from the above. For this course, we will refer to the above formulation as the “Classical Argument”.) Before evaluating this argument, we should talk about terminology: A person is a member of the moral community; i.e., someone who has rights and/or duties. ‘Persons’ is the plural of ‘person’. ‘Person’ can be contrasted with ‘human being’; a human being is anyone who is genetically human (i.e., a member of Homo sapiens). ‘People’ (or ‘human beings’) is the plural of ‘human being’. Why does this matter? First, not all persons are human beings. For example, consider an alien from another planet who mentally resembled us. If he were to visit Earth, it would be morally reprehensible to kick him or to set him on fire because of the pain and suffering that these acts would cause. And, similarly, the alien would be morally condemnable if he were to propagate such acts on us; he has a moral duty not to act in those ways (again, assuming a certain mental resemblance to us). So, even though this alien is not a human being, he is nevertheless a person with the associative rights and/or duties. 2 | P a g e And, more controversially, maybe not all human beings are persons. For example, anencephalic infants—i.e., ones born without cerebral cortexes and therefore with severely limited cognitive abilities—certainly do not have duties since they are not capable of rational thought and autonomous action. Some philosophers have even argued that they do not have rights. Now let us return to the Classical Argument. It is valid insofar as, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But maybe it commits equivocation, which is to say that it uses the same word in multiple senses; equivocation is an informal fallacy (i.e., attaches to arguments that are formally valid but otherwise fallacious). Consider the following: P1) I put my money in the bank. P2) The bank borders the river. C) I put my money somewhere that borders the river. This argument equivocates since ‘bank’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used to represent a financial institution and, in P2, it is used to represent a geological feature. Returning to the classical argument, it could be argued that ‘person’ is being used in two different senses: in P1 it is used in its appropriate moral sense and, in P2, it is inappropriately used instead of ‘human being’. The critic might suggest that a more accurate way to represent the argument would be as follows: P1) It is wrong to kill innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a human being. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. This argument is obviously invalid. So one way to criticize the Classical Argument is to say that it conflates two different concepts—viz., ‘person’ and ‘human being’—and therefore commits equivocation. However, the more straightforward way to attack the Classical Argument is just to deny its second premise and thus contend that the argument is unsound. This is the approach that Mary Anne Warren takes in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. Why does Warren think that the second premise is false? Remember that we defined a person as “a member of the moral community.” And we said that an alien, for example, could be afforded moral status even though it is not a human being. Why do we think that this alien should not be tortured or set on fire? Warren thinks that, intuitively, we think that membership in the moral community is based upon possession of the following traits: 3 | P a g e 1. Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being and especially the capacity to feel pain; 2. Reasoning or rationality (i.e., the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated activity (i.e., activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. Capacity to communicate (not necessarily verbal or linguistic); and 5. Possession of self-concepts and self-awareness. Warren then admits that, though all of the items on this list look promising, we need not require that a person have all of the items on this list. (4) is perhaps the most expendable: imagine someone who is fully paralyzed as well as deaf, these incapacities, which preclude communication, are not sufficient to justify torture. Similarly, we might be able to imagine certain psychological afflictions that negate (5) without compromising personhood. Warren suspects that (1) and (2) are might be sufficient to confer personhood, and thinks that (1)-(3) “quite probably” are sufficient. Note that, if she is right, we would not be able to torture chimps, let us say, but we could set plants on fire (and most likely ants as well). However, given Warren’s aims, she does not need to specify which of these traits are necessary or sufficient for personhood; all that she wants to observe is that the fetus has none of them! Therefore, regardless of which traits we want to require, Warren thinks that the fetus is not a person. Therefore she thinks that the Classical Argument is unsound and should be rejected. Even if we accept Warren’s refutation of the second premise, we might be inclined to say that, while the fetus is not (now) a person, it is a potential person: the fetus will hopefully mature into a being that possesses all five of the traits on Warren’s list. We might then propose the following adjustment to the Classical Argument: P1) It is wrong to kill all innocent persons. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) It is wrong to kill a fetus. However, this argument is invalid. Warren grants that potentiality might serve as a prima facie reason (i.e., a reason that has some moral weight but which might be outweighed by other considerations) not to abort a fetus, but potentiality alone is insufficient to grant the fetus a moral right against being terminated. By analogy, consider the following argument: 4 | P a g e P1) The President has the right to declare war. P2) Mary is a potential President. C) Mary has the right to declare war. This argument is invalid since the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. By parity, the following argument is also invalid: P1) A person has a right to life. P2) A fetus is a potential person. C) A fetus has a right to life. Thus Warren thinks that considerations of potentiality are insufficient to undermine her argument that fetuses—which are potential persons but, she thinks, not persons—do not have a right to life.

The Classic Five-Part Structure 1. Introduce the topic to be argued. Establish its importance. 2. Provide background information so readers will be able to follow your discussion. 3. State your claim (your argumentative thesis) and develop your argument by making a logical appeal. Support your claims with facts, opinions, and examples. If appropriate, mix an emotional appeal or an appeal to authority with your logical appeals. 4. Acknowledge counterarguments and treat them with respect. Rebut these arguments. Reject their evidence or their logic or concede some validity and modify your claim accordingly. Be flexible; you might split the counterarguments and rebut them one at a time at different locations in the paper, or you might begin the paper with a counterargument, rebut it, and then move on to your own claim. 5. Conclude by summarizing the main points of your argument. Then remind readers of what you want them to believe or do. Give them something to remember. The Problem-Solution Structure I. There is a serious problem. A. The problem exists and is growing. (Provide support for argument.) B. The problem is serious. (Provide support.) C. Current methods cannot cope with the problem. (Provide support.) II. There is a solution to the problem. (Your claim goes here.) A. The solution is practical. (Provide support.) B. The solution is desirable. (Provide support.) C. We can implement the solution. (Provide support.) D. Alternate solutions are not as strong as the proposed solution. (Review – and reject – competing solutions.) In both cases, you know before you begin writing whether you will use an inductive (analytic) or deductive (synthetic) arrangement for your argument. The decision to move inductively or deductively is about strategy. Induction moves from support to a claim. Deduction moves from a claim to support – to particular facts, opinions, and examples. This is the preferred form for most writing in the humanities. You can position your claim at the beginning, middle, or end of your presentation. In the problem/solution structure, the claim is made only after the writer introduces a problem. With the five-part structure, you have more flexibility in positioning your claim. One factor that can help determine placement is the likelihood of your audience agreeing with you. When your audience is likely to be neutral or supportive, making your claim early on will not alienate readers (synthetic presentation). When your audience is likely to disagree, placing your thesis at the end of your presentation allows you time to build a consensus, step by step, until you reach your conclusion (analytical presentation).

The Classic Five-Part Structure 1. Introduce the topic to be argued. Establish its importance. 2. Provide background information so readers will be able to follow your discussion. 3. State your claim (your argumentative thesis) and develop your argument by making a logical appeal. Support your claims with facts, opinions, and examples. If appropriate, mix an emotional appeal or an appeal to authority with your logical appeals. 4. Acknowledge counterarguments and treat them with respect. Rebut these arguments. Reject their evidence or their logic or concede some validity and modify your claim accordingly. Be flexible; you might split the counterarguments and rebut them one at a time at different locations in the paper, or you might begin the paper with a counterargument, rebut it, and then move on to your own claim. 5. Conclude by summarizing the main points of your argument. Then remind readers of what you want them to believe or do. Give them something to remember. The Problem-Solution Structure I. There is a serious problem. A. The problem exists and is growing. (Provide support for argument.) B. The problem is serious. (Provide support.) C. Current methods cannot cope with the problem. (Provide support.) II. There is a solution to the problem. (Your claim goes here.) A. The solution is practical. (Provide support.) B. The solution is desirable. (Provide support.) C. We can implement the solution. (Provide support.) D. Alternate solutions are not as strong as the proposed solution. (Review – and reject – competing solutions.) In both cases, you know before you begin writing whether you will use an inductive (analytic) or deductive (synthetic) arrangement for your argument. The decision to move inductively or deductively is about strategy. Induction moves from support to a claim. Deduction moves from a claim to support – to particular facts, opinions, and examples. This is the preferred form for most writing in the humanities. You can position your claim at the beginning, middle, or end of your presentation. In the problem/solution structure, the claim is made only after the writer introduces a problem. With the five-part structure, you have more flexibility in positioning your claim. One factor that can help determine placement is the likelihood of your audience agreeing with you. When your audience is likely to be neutral or supportive, making your claim early on will not alienate readers (synthetic presentation). When your audience is likely to disagree, placing your thesis at the end of your presentation allows you time to build a consensus, step by step, until you reach your conclusion (analytical presentation).

info@checkyourstudy.com
Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statement by Gage? Please explain your response. Gage(1964) argued “that theories of learning have had very little applicability to and influence on educational practice, Whether in educational psychology textbooks, methods courses, or everyday classroom teaching. He argues that theories of learning are inherently irrelevant to problems of instruction

Do you tend to agree or disagree with the following statement by Gage? Please explain your response. Gage(1964) argued “that theories of learning have had very little applicability to and influence on educational practice, Whether in educational psychology textbooks, methods courses, or everyday classroom teaching. He argues that theories of learning are inherently irrelevant to problems of instruction

The Kind of learning that occurs in the classroom is … Read More...
HIST 303 Rebels and Renegades Comparative Paper – Conroy & Drakulic In a well-written analysis of about 3 pages, compare and contrast Conroy’s Belfast Diary or Drakulic’s How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed in response to the following question: It can be argued that in the midst of deprivation and hardship, people still exercise considerable agency—or the power to act within one’s particular socio-political context. In fact, living the ordinary can be considered an act of rebellion against an imposing power. That is, people use and experience their lives as resistance to oppression or war. This is sometimes referred to as the “politics of everyday life”. How does this concept of agency play out in these works? In your response, do not simply list examples, but analyze the examples by the authors in relation to the larger themes of the course. A successful assignment will (this is a checklist, so heed it well!!!): * have a solid introduction with an arguable thesis; * be well organized with coherent paragraphs relevant to the thesis; * have a concluding paragraph that concisely and accurately summarizes the paper; * adequately analyze the histories and their connections to each other; * use relevant evidence to substantiate claims; * be analytic, not descriptive; * properly cite and punctuate quotations and evidence; * be paginated; * have an interesting title relevant to the argument (e.g. “Comparative Paper” is unacceptable); * be well written, well edited and well documented. Author Specific Points that discuss everyday activities as resistance Relate to your other Reading (Williams, Hall, Hebdige, etc.) Conroy Drakulic Working Thesis: _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ****FORMATTING DIRECTIONS: This paper should be 3 – 4 pages (no more), typed, doublespaced, with one-inch margins and 12-point font. This assignment is worth 25% of your grade in this course. You must head your paper with your name and date and include your name and pages (x of x) in a header or footer of each page. At the end of your paper, you must skip four lines then sign with the following: “I attest that the work contained in this document is entirely my own and it numbers x pages.” *****

HIST 303 Rebels and Renegades Comparative Paper – Conroy & Drakulic In a well-written analysis of about 3 pages, compare and contrast Conroy’s Belfast Diary or Drakulic’s How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed in response to the following question: It can be argued that in the midst of deprivation and hardship, people still exercise considerable agency—or the power to act within one’s particular socio-political context. In fact, living the ordinary can be considered an act of rebellion against an imposing power. That is, people use and experience their lives as resistance to oppression or war. This is sometimes referred to as the “politics of everyday life”. How does this concept of agency play out in these works? In your response, do not simply list examples, but analyze the examples by the authors in relation to the larger themes of the course. A successful assignment will (this is a checklist, so heed it well!!!): * have a solid introduction with an arguable thesis; * be well organized with coherent paragraphs relevant to the thesis; * have a concluding paragraph that concisely and accurately summarizes the paper; * adequately analyze the histories and their connections to each other; * use relevant evidence to substantiate claims; * be analytic, not descriptive; * properly cite and punctuate quotations and evidence; * be paginated; * have an interesting title relevant to the argument (e.g. “Comparative Paper” is unacceptable); * be well written, well edited and well documented. Author Specific Points that discuss everyday activities as resistance Relate to your other Reading (Williams, Hall, Hebdige, etc.) Conroy Drakulic Working Thesis: _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ****FORMATTING DIRECTIONS: This paper should be 3 – 4 pages (no more), typed, doublespaced, with one-inch margins and 12-point font. This assignment is worth 25% of your grade in this course. You must head your paper with your name and date and include your name and pages (x of x) in a header or footer of each page. At the end of your paper, you must skip four lines then sign with the following: “I attest that the work contained in this document is entirely my own and it numbers x pages.” *****

Relative analysis of Conroy & Drakulic The Belfast Diary: War … Read More...
the late 1960s and early 1970s were years of turmoil in the U.S. Psychologists thought that rioting was related to temperature, with hotter weather making people more aggressive. Two investigators, however, argued that “the frequency of riots should increase in temperature beyond this level.” To support their theory, they collected data on 102 riots over the period 1967-71, including the temperature in the city where the riot took place. They plotted a histogram for the distribution of riots by temperature. There is a definite peak around 85 degrees. True or false and explain: the histogram shows that higher temperatures prevent riots

the late 1960s and early 1970s were years of turmoil in the U.S. Psychologists thought that rioting was related to temperature, with hotter weather making people more aggressive. Two investigators, however, argued that “the frequency of riots should increase in temperature beyond this level.” To support their theory, they collected data on 102 riots over the period 1967-71, including the temperature in the city where the riot took place. They plotted a histogram for the distribution of riots by temperature. There is a definite peak around 85 degrees. True or false and explain: the histogram shows that higher temperatures prevent riots

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
Question 10 (1 point) In contrast to Freud’s theory, object relations theorists Question 10 options: focus on internal drives and conflicts. are interested in the intellectual and emotional development of the infant. are interested in an infant’s relationship with his or her parents. do not believe that children develop unconscious representations of significant objects in their environment. ________________________________________ Question 11 (1 point) The psychologists who developed the frustration aggression hypothesis used or adapted each of the following concepts from Freudian theory except one. Which one? Question 11 options: displacement sublimation catharsis reinforcement Question 12 (1 point) Although he changed his mind during his career, which of the following did Freud eventually decide was the cause of human aggression? Question 12 options: a death instinct frustration projection unresolved Oedipal conflicts Question 13 (1 point) Freud wrote about all of the following types of anxiety except one. Which one? Question 13 options: reality anxiety neurotic anxiety moral anxiety performance anxiety Question 14 (1 point) Which of the following is true about neurotic anxiety, as conceived by Freud? Question 14 options: It is experienced when id impulses are close to breaking into consciousness. It prevents the ego from utilizing defense mechanisms. It is created when id impulses violate society’s moral code. People experiencing neurotic anxiety usually are aware of what is making them anxious. Question 15 (1 point) One explanation for why aggression leads to more aggression is that it is reinforced by the cathartic release of tension. Question 15 options: True False ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Question 1 (1 point) A man is said to have one personality trait that dominates his personality. Allport would identify this personality trait as a Question 1 options: 1) common trait. 2) central trait. 3) cardinal trait. 4) secondary trait. Question 2 (1 point) Which of the following is true about the trait approach to personality? Question 2 options: 1) Trait researchers generally are not interested in understanding and predicting the behavior of a single individual. 2) It is not easy to make comparisons across people with the trait approach. 3) The trait approach has been responsible for generating a number of useful approaches to psychotherapy. 4) Trait theorists place a greater emphasis on discovering the mechanisms underlying behavior than do theorists from other approaches to personality. Question 3 (1 point) Many researchers fail to produce strong links between personality traits and behavior. Epstein has argued that the reason for this failure is because Question 3 options: 1) researchers don’t perform the correct statistical analysis. 2) researchers don’t measure personality traits correctly. 3) researchers don’t measure behavior correctly. 4) none of the above Question 4 (1 point) Which theorist had a strong influence on Henry Murray’s theorizing about personality? Question 4 options: 1) Gordon Allport 2) Alfred Adler 3) Sigmund Freud 4) Carl Jung Question 5 (1 point) Sometimes test makers include the same test questions more than once on the test. This is done to detect which potential problem? Question 5 options: 1) faking good 2) faking bad 3) carelessness and sabotage 4) social desirability

Question 10 (1 point) In contrast to Freud’s theory, object relations theorists Question 10 options: focus on internal drives and conflicts. are interested in the intellectual and emotional development of the infant. are interested in an infant’s relationship with his or her parents. do not believe that children develop unconscious representations of significant objects in their environment. ________________________________________ Question 11 (1 point) The psychologists who developed the frustration aggression hypothesis used or adapted each of the following concepts from Freudian theory except one. Which one? Question 11 options: displacement sublimation catharsis reinforcement Question 12 (1 point) Although he changed his mind during his career, which of the following did Freud eventually decide was the cause of human aggression? Question 12 options: a death instinct frustration projection unresolved Oedipal conflicts Question 13 (1 point) Freud wrote about all of the following types of anxiety except one. Which one? Question 13 options: reality anxiety neurotic anxiety moral anxiety performance anxiety Question 14 (1 point) Which of the following is true about neurotic anxiety, as conceived by Freud? Question 14 options: It is experienced when id impulses are close to breaking into consciousness. It prevents the ego from utilizing defense mechanisms. It is created when id impulses violate society’s moral code. People experiencing neurotic anxiety usually are aware of what is making them anxious. Question 15 (1 point) One explanation for why aggression leads to more aggression is that it is reinforced by the cathartic release of tension. Question 15 options: True False ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Question 1 (1 point) A man is said to have one personality trait that dominates his personality. Allport would identify this personality trait as a Question 1 options: 1) common trait. 2) central trait. 3) cardinal trait. 4) secondary trait. Question 2 (1 point) Which of the following is true about the trait approach to personality? Question 2 options: 1) Trait researchers generally are not interested in understanding and predicting the behavior of a single individual. 2) It is not easy to make comparisons across people with the trait approach. 3) The trait approach has been responsible for generating a number of useful approaches to psychotherapy. 4) Trait theorists place a greater emphasis on discovering the mechanisms underlying behavior than do theorists from other approaches to personality. Question 3 (1 point) Many researchers fail to produce strong links between personality traits and behavior. Epstein has argued that the reason for this failure is because Question 3 options: 1) researchers don’t perform the correct statistical analysis. 2) researchers don’t measure personality traits correctly. 3) researchers don’t measure behavior correctly. 4) none of the above Question 4 (1 point) Which theorist had a strong influence on Henry Murray’s theorizing about personality? Question 4 options: 1) Gordon Allport 2) Alfred Adler 3) Sigmund Freud 4) Carl Jung Question 5 (1 point) Sometimes test makers include the same test questions more than once on the test. This is done to detect which potential problem? Question 5 options: 1) faking good 2) faking bad 3) carelessness and sabotage 4) social desirability

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...