Answer:
The answer is the attribution dispositional and situational
Explanation:
The attributions refer to the judgments that people make on behavior, and this depends on how people perceive the situation.
<em>The attributions are divided into two:
</em>
- Dispositional Attribution
- Situational Attribution
It is known as dispositional attribution when we explain the behavior of people according to their personality characteristics, we make a judgment for the information that we know about them, obtaining an internal attribution about the behavior of the person in the situation.
For example in the case of Gamiel, he did not leave a tip for the waiter and Aliyah attributes this behavior based on the information he knows about Gamiel, who possibly only tips expensive places, Aliyah justifies the action through dispositional attribution.
The opposite of the internal attributions are the situational attributions, these justify the behavior of the people to external events that cannot be controlled but that cause an effect on the behavior of the person. For example, Gamiel and Aliyah had the experience of having a horrible service by the waiter, for which Gamiel does not leave a tip, Aliyah justifies this action to the lousy service received, here she is using situational attribution.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
ANSWER: RELATED TO TASK DIFFICULTY.
EXPLANATION:
Psychologically, OPTIMAL AROUSAL refers to the level of mental stimulation which results to full maximization of learning process, physical performance (such as seen in athletes) or proper wellbeing.
However, research has established that different levels of arousal is generated for different tasks to get optimal performance. It was also established by researchers of this context that lower or optimal level of arousal is generated for difficult tasks to ensue better concentration. In the other hand, tasks with less intellectual demands generates higher levels of arousal in other to increase motivation.
Answer:
Through the diverse cases represented in this collection, we model the different functions that the civic imagination performs. For the moment, we define civic imagination as the capacity to imagine alternatives to current cultural, social, political, or economic conditions; one cannot change the world without imagining what a better world might look like.
Beyond that, the civic imagination requires and is realized through the ability to imagine the process of change, to see one’s self as a civic agent capable of making change, to feel solidarity with others whose perspectives and experiences are different than one’s own, to join a larger collective with shared interests, and to bring imaginative dimensions to real world spaces and places.
Research on the civic imagination explores the political consequences of cultural representations and the cultural roots of political participation. This definition consolidates ideas from various accounts of the public imagination, the political imagination, the radical imagination, the pragmatic imagination, creative insurgency or public fantasy.
In some cases, the civic imagination is grounded in beliefs about how the system actually works, but we have a more expansive understanding stressing the capacity to imagine alternatives, even if those alternatives tap the fantastic. Too often, focusing on contemporary problems makes it impossible to see beyond immediate constraints.
This tunnel vision perpetuates the status quo, and innovative voices —especially those from the margins — are shot down before they can be heard.
