Week 5 Social Neuroscience and Intergroup Relations Discussion Post

User Generated

ivnirevgnf

Writing

Description

Respond in one or more of the following ways:

  • Ask a probing question.
  • Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
  • Offer and support an opinion.
  • Validate an idea with your own experience.
  • Make a suggestion.
  • Expand on your colleague’s posting.


Please view the example before you start!
Please include at least one references in the response.
10%-18% tips will be given to excellent work!


📍 Post 1: Write a 50-100 words response to the post below:
Social Neuroscience, and Intergroup Relations

When discussing social neuroscience, in the context of social processes, this approaches refers to the the study of the brain (Amodio, 2008). One of the strengths of the use of social neuroscience is understanding implicit race bias and intergroup response regulation via sociocognitive substrates. The second strength of social neuroscience in intergroup relations is that the social neuroscience approach aids in the reduction of prejudice.
The limitations of the social neuroscience approach of intergroup relations is that the problems and phenomena within social psychology cannot be fixed with social neuroscience (Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008). The second limitations of the social neuroscience approach of intergroup relationships is the over-interpretation of of social neuroscience findings due to lack of familiarity with enthusiasm or measures to "embrace convergent scientific findings" (Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008, p. 252).

I believe that social neuroscience will be influential in the way individuals hold themselves accountable for responsibility and choice in intergroup relationships. The important word here is "accountability". There is a possibility that the social neuroscience approach does have a role in the a person's behavior, but it should not be a substitute for a person holding themselves accountable for the sense of personal responsibility and choice in intergroup relations.

References:

Amodio, D. M. (2008). The social neuroscience of intergroup relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 1–54. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Dovidio, J. F., Pearson, A. R., & Orr, P. (2008). Social psychology and neuroscience: Strange bedfellows or a healthy marriage? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(2), 247–263. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.



📍 Post 2: Write a 50-100 words response to the post below:

Social Neuroscience and Social Change

Neuroscience can provide a very positive impact on intergroup relations because it can paint a picture as to what parts of the brain are engaged when an individual is dealing with any form of relation in a social situation. The impact it can have on the understanding of the science can be very important. Neuroscience can help individuals with PTSD as it shows the researcher what parts of the brain become engaged when they encounter a trigger, it demonstrates that the amygdala shines bright during the test which is the center for fear (Hughes, & Shin, 2011). This process can also be useful when attempting to understand social intergroup relations, as a researcher can see whether relating to someone outside or even in the group triggers what portions of the brain. This would be the primary reason as to why neuroscience is a tool that should be used during this process to help scientist identify what emotional response the brain plays in that interaction. By understanding this treatments can be developed to assist in managing and changing that brain chemistry or the response that is produced by the brain.

References

Hughes, K. C., & Shin, L. M. (2011). Functional neuroimaging studies of post-traumatic stress disorder. Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 11(2), 275–285. doi:10.1586/ern.10.198




Unformatted Attachment Preview

Predicting Behavior During Interracial Interactions: A Stress and Coping Approach Sophie Trawalter University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jennifer A. Richeson Northwestern University, Evanston, IL J. Nicole Shelton Princeton University, Princeton, NJ The social psychological literature maintains unequivocally that interracial contact is stressful. Yet research and theory have rarely considered how stress may shape behavior during interracial interactions. To address this empirical and theoretical gap, the authors propose a framework for understanding and predicting behavior during interracial interactions rooted in the stress and coping literature. Specifically, they propose that individuals often appraise interracial interactions as a threat, experience stress, and therefore cope—they antagonize, avoid, freeze, or engage. In other words, the behavioral dynamics of interracial interactions can be understood as initial stress reactions and subsequent coping responses. After articulating the framework and its predictions for behavior during interracial interactions, the authors examine its ability to organize the extant literature on behavioral dynamics during interracial compared with same-race contact. They conclude with a discussion of the implications of the stress and coping framework for improving research and fostering more positive interracial contact. Keywords: intergroup interactions, prejudice, stress and coping, nonverbal behavior A s the racial demographics of the United States continue to shift, interracial contact is becoming increasingly frequent. Indeed, it is projected that, by 2050, White Americans will no longer compose the racial majority group in the United States, making interracial interactions virtually inevitable for many individuals (Feagin & O’Brien, 2004). Although increases in interracial contact will undoubtedly have positive effects on intergroup attitudes in the long term (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2007), considerable research suggests that increased contact across racial lines may also come with a host of negative consequences, at least in the short term. For instance, examinations of relatively brief interracial encounters have revealed that White individuals often feel anxious, self-conscious, and uncomfortable during interracial interactions (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Moreover, recent work has found that interpersonal interactions with members of racial minority groups can induce a state of physiological threat in some White individuals (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001; Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002; Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008). Similarly, research has shown that the psychological and physiological health of racial minorities may be compromised by interracial contact with Whites. There is considerable research documenting Black individuals’ anecdotal accounts of racism and prejudicial responses Authors’ Note: This article was written, in part, while the first author was a postdoctoral fellow at Cells to Society: The Center on Social Disparities and Health at the Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. Corresponding Author: Sophie Trawalter, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 3270 Davie Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. Email: trawalt@email.unc.edu PSPR, Vol. 13 No. 4, November 2009 243-268 DOI: 10.1177/1088868309345850 © 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 243 244   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW during interactions with Whites (Essed, 1991; Feagin, 1992), and, consequently, some Blacks feel anxious about and during interactions with Whites (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; Crocker et al., 1998; Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002; MendozaDenton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002). Like other stressors, these experiences with race-related stressors can yield negative cardiovascular outcomes (for reviews, see Clark et al., 1999; Harrell, Hall, & Taliaferro, 2003; Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2006). For instance, studies have shown that self-reported history of experienced racism (Clark, 2000), exposure to racially provocative movie scenes (Armstead, Lawler, Gorden, & Cross, 1989), and perceived racial mistreatment (Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001) significantly and positively predict cardiovascular reactivity among Black individuals. Considered in tandem, these two lines of research suggest that interracial interactions can be a source of stress for both Whites and racial minorities. Despite these two lines of work, research has rarely considered how the stress associated with interracial contact may shape behavioral dynamics during interracial encounters (cf. Blascovich, Mendes, & Seery, 2002; Mendes, Blascovich, Hunter, Lickel, & Jost, in press; Olson & Fazio, 2007). Instead, research has largely examined differences in behavior during interracial compared to same-race interactions, assuming that racial biases result in and are revealed by negative behavior. Although this approach has been fruitful, the findings regarding who will display negative behaviors during interracial contact, and when, are equivocal at best. Sometimes, White and Black individuals behave anxiously; for instance, they fidget during interracial interactions (McConnell & Leibold, 2001; Shelton, 2003). At other times, individuals avoid their interaction partners by creating interpersonal distance and averting their gaze (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Fugita, Wexley, & Hillery, 1974; Goff, Steele, & Davies, 2008; Ickes, 1984; Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum, Pura, & Ariely, 2006; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). And still at other times, individuals behave extremely positively during interracial interactions (Hyers & Swim, 1998; Hofmann, Gschwendner, Castelli, & Schmitt, 2008; Ickes, 1984; Mendes & Koslov, 2009; Shelton, 2003; Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004). Adding further complexity to these behavioral dynamics, many White individuals exhibit both positive and negative behaviors during interracial contact. Specifically, their nonverbal behaviors are negative whereas their verbal behaviors are positive (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). Research on individual differences has not been able to provide a unified theoretical account for the wide range of behaviors that individuals display during interracial contact (for a similar critique, see Dovidio, Hebl, Richeson, & Shelton, 2006; Olson & Fazio, 2007). It has not been able to explain why behavior during interracial interactions is sometimes positive and engaged whereas, at other times, it is negative and withdrawn. Some work finds that the behavior of low-bias Whites is more positive than that of high-bias Whites during interracial contact (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Fazio et al., 1995; McConnell & Leibold, 2001). Other work finds just the opposite; that is, some work finds that the behavior of high-bias, compared to low-bias, Whites is more positive during interracial contact (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005). Similarly, research on Whites’ concerns about appearing prejudiced and behavior during interracial contact has yielded mixed results. In some studies, concerns about appearing prejudiced result in positive behavior (Shelton, 2003), whereas in other studies concerns about appearing prejudiced can result in negative behavior (Plant, 2004; Plant & Devine, 2003; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004). Thus, the primary goal of the present work is to offer a framework that can contribute a theoretical grounding to make sense of these divergent findings. Specifically, we propose that the stress and coping literature may provide a useful framework for understanding and predicting how individuals are likely to behave during interracial interactions. Given the extant research documenting intergroup anxiety with both self-report and physiological measures, it certainly seems reasonable to consider the extent to which the behaviors individuals display during interracial interactions reflect stress reactions and coping responses to these encounters. In support of this claim, we first review Lazarus’s (1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) wellknown model of psychological stress and coping. Then, we present an adapted version of Lazarus’s model that pertains to stress and coping during interracial compared to same-race interactions. In the bulk of the article, we review the literature on interracial contact. We consider the extent to which existing data are consistent with the claims of the framework that individuals app­ raise interracial contact as a threat, experience stress, and subsequently cope via engagement, antagonism, avoidance, or freezing to reduce this stress. This literature review provides post hoc evidence for the utility of a stress and coping framework for understanding and predicting behavior during interracial interactions. Last, we propose future directions for research based on the predictions of the model and discuss some of the implications of this approach for the dynamics of interracial contact. We believe that, by adopting a stress and coping approach, research on interracial contact will have Trawalter et al.   245 new leverage from which to make predictions as well as new avenues for interventions to promote positive interracial contact experiences. Overlap With Previous Models of Interracial Contact Although our approach has not previously been fully articulated, it is not completely novel. Blascovich and colleagues have argued for the relevance of threat in shaping individuals’ psychological motivational states and subsequent physiological reactivity during interracial interactions (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002). Most of this work, however, has focused on the perspective of White majority group members, and the focus has not squarely been on behavioral dynamics. Hence, the present work seeks to build on this perspective, extending and modifying it to understand the vast array of behavior often displayed during interracial interactions. Similarly, recent reviews in the social stigma literature have adopted a stress and coping framework to understand stigmatized group members’ responses to intergroup contact (e.g., Major & O’Brien, 2005; Miller & Kaiser, 2001). These reviews, however, have focused on the enduring experience of stigma, across time and social interactions. As Major and O’Brien (2005) noted, “[They] were unable to review several important areas of research, such as . . . the impact of stigma on social interactions” (p. 394). The present work thus builds on this perspective, examining how stigmatized group members’ stress during intergroup contact shapes their behavior during these social interactions. Because nonstigmatized group members (i.e., Whites) are also susceptible to stress during intergroup contact, we also consider how they may cope in the face of intergroup contact (also see Shelton, Richeson, & Vorauer, 2006). In short, the proposed work seeks to marry and extend the theoretical and empirical work of Blascovich and Major to provide a framework for understanding the behavior of majority and minority group members during interracial contact; for although these two perspectives are clearly complimentary, they have not been formally integrated. Moreover, although these two perspectives have implications for behavior during intergroup contact, both stop short of articulating how stress and coping with intergroup contact shape the behavioral dynamics of such encounters. In this article, we also forward an alternative to (and extension of) the individual differences approach to the study of intergroup behavior. We believe that our understanding of the behavioral dynamics of interracial contact will benefit from greater attention to and incorporation of the stress and coping literature, as the work of Blascovich and Major suggests. To that end, in the next section we offer a brief review of research on stress and coping before outlining an adapted model in the subsequent section that applies more directly to the case of interracial contact. We then use this adapted model for understanding and predicting behavior during interracial interactions. Psychological Stress and Coping Richard Lazarus and colleagues developed a model of psychological stress and coping premised on the fact that stress arises from “a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). According to this model, in other words, the appraisal of the environment in relation to the self is critical to the experience of stress. Because stress is an aversive psychological state, individuals are motivated to reduce it (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, individuals use various coping strategies to manage their psychological stress. Psychological stress. Since Lazarus’s (1966) original formulation, most stress researchers have adopted his transactional perspective on stress, recognizing the importance of individuals’ appraisals of a potential stressor rather than the features of a stressor per se (Bernard & Krupat, 1994; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993). According to this perspective, when faced with a potential stressor, individuals make two types of cognitive appraisals: primary and secondary appraisals.1 During primary appraisals, individuals evaluate the demands of the potential stressor; they evaluate the stakes at hand. Primary appraisal is tantamount to asking, “Is this important to my wellbeing or to the well-being of a relevant other (e.g., a loved one)?” At this stage, individuals’ primary appraisals can result in one of three appraisals: irrelevant, benign, or stress appraisals. If the potential stressor is deemed to be irrelevant or to have only benign or good outcomes, individuals do not experience psychological stress. They are not motivated to cope. If, instead, the potential stressor could result in negative outcomes, then individuals experience stress and go on to secondary appraisals to cope with the stressor. During secondary appraisals, individuals evaluate their resources to cope with the stressor. Resources can be physical and/or psychosocial so long as they facilitate one’s ability to change the situation, mitigate negative outcomes, and/or generate positive outcomes. Secondary appraisal is tantamount to asking, “What resources do I have to deal with this stressor?” Perceived resources 246   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW refine individuals’ appraisals of the stressor (i.e., their primary appraisals). If individuals perceive the demands of the stressor as exceeding their available resources, then they expect harm; they appraise the stressor as a threat. If individuals perceive their resources as exceeding the demands of the stressor, however, they expect gains (e.g., growth and development). They appraise the stressor as a challenge. Coping. Similar to research on psychological stress, contemporary research on coping has also adhered to Lazarus and colleagues’ original formulation. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding resources of the person” (p. 141). Coping involves the effortful self-regulation of emotion, cognition, behavior, and/or physiology as well as the regulation of the environment to diminish psychological stress (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Guthrie, 1997; Koolhaas et al., 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Skinner, 1995). Coping responses can thus be differentiated from stress reactions in at least two ways. First, coping responses are goal directed; they serve to manage and reduce stress reactions. Second, coping responses require self-regulation; accordingly, coping responses are resource demanding (e.g., Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), whereas stress reactions are not (Compas et al., 2001).2 Although there has been a proliferation of research on coping during the past 40 years, this proliferation has led to little consensus regarding the ways in which people typically cope with stress. In fact, a recent review of the coping literature reported more than 400 discrete ways of coping (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). As mentioned in the previous section, coping responses to stressful situations are inherently tied to the specific demands of the situation and the resources available to individuals. Consequently, there indeed could be infinite ways of coping with the infinite variations of stressors. Individuals’ responses to a stressor such as chronic pain (e.g., cancer, AIDS, serious injury) or past traumatic life events (e.g., divorce, rape, natural disaster) are likely to differ from the ways in which they cope with the stress associated with an ongoing interpersonal interaction. Individuals are not able to seek professional help during the course of an interpersonal interaction, for example. Nevertheless, a careful review of the coping literature does offer guidance regarding the “ways of coping” that individuals are most likely to employ during stressful interpersonal interactions. Bio-behavioral approaches have outlined broad categories of behavioral coping resp­onses that are relevant to coping with stressful interpersonal interactions (e.g., Cannon, 1929, 1932; Engel & Schmale, 1972; Frijda, 1986; Gallup & Maser, 1977; Henry, 1992; Koolhaas et al., 1999; Marks, 1987; Taylor, Klein, Lewis, & Gruenewald, 2000). These approaches maintain that humans have an evolved capacity to detect threats in their environment and coordinate their responses to those threats depending on the severity of the threat and the availability of resources (e.g., Gray, 1988). Specifically, stress engenders primary action tendencies to (a) fight, (b) flight, (c) freeze, or (d) “tend and befriend” (Taylor et al., 2000). Interestingly, these action tendencies are strikingly similar to the four coping responses originally formulated by Lazarus (1966), coping responses he also termed “directaction tendencies.” Specifically, Lazarus identified four direct-action tendencies: (a) attack, (b) avoid, (c) inactivity, and (d) positive actions to increase one’s coping resources, corresponding loosely to fight, flight, freeze, and “tend and befriend,” respectively. In the context of interpersonal interactions, for our purposes, we call these action tendencies (a) antagonism, (b) avoidance, (c) freezing, and (d) positive engagement, respectively (for similar responses to ostracism, see Williams, 2009; for three of these four responses to threatened belonging, see Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). According to Lazarus’s original formulation, which coping response is generated depends on a number of factors, including (a) the appraisal of the stressor as a potential threat or challenge to the self or a relevant other such as loved one and (b) the extent to which resources are available. When individuals appraise their resources as meeting or slightly exceeding the demands of the interaction, they feel challenged rather than threatened (also see Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002; Tomaka et al., 1993). Challenged individuals typically feel able to “manage” stressful encounters, and, consequently, they engage in planful problem solving to increase their resources. In other words, they approach the challenge as an opportunity for growth (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1966; Tomaka et al., 1993). We call this type of coping response positive engagement. As an example of this type of coping, consider a job applicant giving a job talk. If she has prepared adequately, she may appraise the job talk as a challenge rather than a threat. She is then likely to cope by engaging—by giving her talk to her audience, competently and enthusiastically. Interestingly, individuals will also cope through enga­ gement in at least some situations in which the demands are greater than the resources (i.e., threatening situations). Individuals will cope with threat through positive engagement when the threat is perceived to be significant to relevant others, not just the self (also see Crocker & Garcia, 2009; Taylor et al., 2000). Consider, for example, that same job applicant giving a talk in Trawalter et al.   247 front of an audience of people whom she greatly admires and respects. Imagine that the applicant in question is concerned about the implications that her performance may have for her audience—she may be concerned that her performance will disappoint them or that her characterization of their work will displease them. In this case, she may try to give her talk competently and enthusiastically, to engage her audience, despite the fact that she may be feeling quite threatened. Her engagement, however, may be strained and inauthentic, perhaps overdone. This type of engagement—engagement under threat—may be better characterized as overcompensation at times. When the demands of an encounter exceed available resources and the threat is perceived to be directed at the self (rather than a relevant other; e.g., an audience), individuals will use different coping responses depending on the available resources relative to the perceived threat. As decades of research on the “fight or flight” response have generally revealed (Cannon, 1929, 1932; Durant, 2000; Engel & Schmale, 1972; FitzGibbon & Lazarus, 1995; Gray, 1988; Henry, 1992; Koolhaas & de Boer, 2008; Lazarus, 1966; Scherer, Zentner, & Stern, 2004), organisms including humans will “fight” in the face of threat if resources are deemed sufficient to defeat the threat. If resources are deemed to be insufficient, they will take “flight.” Sometimes, however, neither “fight” nor “flight” is possible because of extremely low resources and/or exhaustion. In that case, organisms will freeze in response to threat. Freezing offers a viable alternative to “fight or flight” that allows for the conservation of scarce resources. To put these coping responses in context, consider once again a job applicant. On at least some occasions, she is likely to appraise a job talk as a threat, specifically, a threat to her academic or professional selfconcept. If appraised resources are relatively high (albeit insufficient to appraise the talk as a challenge), she may respond to the threat of a job talk with antagonism (i.e., a “fight”), accusing her audience of being malicious, unfair, and/or incompetent. Although this response is socially inappropriate and perhaps disconcerting, research has shown that threats to the self-concept such as social rejection and negative feedback can elicit anger and even aggression among some individuals. For instance, research finds that individuals with high self-esteem antagonize others after receiving negative feedback to bolster, protect, or repair their sense of self-worth (Heatherton & Vohs, 2000; for a review on aggression in response to interpersonal threats more generally, also see Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; and Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). Just like high self-esteem individuals antagonize others to cope with self-threats, our job applicant may antagonize her audience to rescue her academic selfconcept from threat. However, she will do so only given sufficient resources (e.g., confidence in the quality of her job talk, the professional backing of a revered advisor, and/or the security of other job offers). Without sufficient resources, she may not be in a position to antagonize and successfully “defeat” the threat to her academic self-concept. If appraised resources are more moderate, she may avoid (i.e., take “flight”) instead. She may disengage from the talk and avoid her audience’s gaze and/or their questions. She may even leave the room. In other words, she may distance or (if possible) extricate herself from the threatening situation. Although less than ideal, especially in this social context, when resources are not sufficient to remove or defeat the threat itself, avoiding or escaping the threatening situation can provide an effective means to reduce stress. Finally, if appraised resources are especially low, she will be unable to do much of anything because taking action would require resources that she does not have. Given exceedingly low resources, she is thus likely to freeze, perhaps failing to utter even a word. Although this coping response is socially awkward and undesirable, it can be effective at reducing stress. At the very least, the job applicant can find comfort in the knowledge that she has not actively done or said anything wrong. In addition, she can conserve what little resources she has to sustain her through the interview (or until she can escape or avoid, defeat, or engage). In sum, the stress and coping literature highlights the importance of cognitive appraisals in shaping behavior in response to stressful encounters. More precisely, behavioral coping responses depend on how the stressor is appraised, the direction of the threat (self or other), and what resources are available. These coping responses range from freezing to antagonism and engagement. Whether coping is successful is determined solely by the extent to which stress is reduced (also see Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986). If stress is reduced, minimized, or altogether eliminated, then coping is successful (albeit to varying degrees). If stress persists unabated, then coping is unsuccessful. Furthermore, these coping responses can lead to either positive or negative intra­ personal and interpersonal outcomes independent of stress reduction.3 Given the well-documented experience of stress and anxiety during interracial contact, we examine the extent to which the stress and coping literature can account for the range of behavior that individuals display during interracial interactions. Specifically, we examine the extent to which individuals’ behavior during interracial interactions reflects stress and coping through engagement, antagonism, avoidance, and freezing. We believe that the predictions for when individuals are likely to use particular coping responses, as outlined above, may 248   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW Primary (Demands) Appraisal Relevant to Self>Partner Relevant to SelfResources) (DemandsResources) (Demands
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached final. Cheers~~!!!contact of you need anything thanks

Surname 1
Name
Institution
Instructor
Date
Reponses
Discussion 1
For neuroscience to effectively work in inter-group interactions there is the need for
accountability...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags