Your first impression of a new professor is
a. an example of an implicit personality theory.
b. an example of a explicit belief.
c. a naive behavioral explanation.
d. unprofessional and misleading. e) inherently inaccurate.

The first impression you have about a new professor is "a) an example of an implicit personality theory".

Explanation:

To understand this answer we need to analyze all of our options.

First of all, e) inherently inaccurate. For this to be true, we should have to be all wrong about our beliefs about the new professor which could happen but the probability of asserting something is far greater than the probability of been all wrong.

Second, d) unprofessional and misleading. We can't know if it is misleading if we don't know the truth. To be misleading we should know the truth first and then make a false argumentation. However, it is unprofessional if you are a purist of judgments.

Third, a naive behavioral explanation. This is a value judgment because "naive" is a treat of personality that can't be objectively correct for being wrong or right. Instead is a stereotype.

Fourth, an example of an explicit belief could be a very good option if we consider that the first impression is a belief. However, is not explicit because to be explicit we should know all about it and make an argument based on a posture.

The fifth is correct because it is implicit, we have already associated it with the new professor without knowing if it is true or not. However, it describes a certain association, inference or assumption.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

what is the other part to the question