Researchers have found that couples who are happy in their marriages make very different attributions for their partners' behaviors than couples who are unhappy. Specifically, couples in happy marriages make , while couples in unhappy marriages make .

A. external attributions for their partners' behavior; internal attributions for their partners' behavior
B. internal attributions for their partners' behavior; external attributions for their partners' behavior
C. external attributions for negative behavior and internal attributions for positive behavior; internal attributions for negative behavior and external attributions for positive behavior
D. internal attributions for negative behavior and external attributions for positive behavior; external attributions for negative behavior and internal attributions for positive behavior

C). External attributions for negative behavior and internal attributions for positive behavior; internal attributions for negative behavior and external for positive.

Explanation:

According to the 'Attribution Theory', 'internal attribution' is demonstrated as the kind of attribution in which a person attributes the personal or internal factors like feelings, characteristics, motivation, or ability to be the cause of a particular behavior or event. While in external attribution, in which the situation is recognized as the key cause for the person's display of changed behavior.

In the couples with happy marriages, 'external attributions' i.e. 'situational attribution' is considered for negative behavior which prevents conflicts while 'the internal attributions' for positive behavior that helps develop love and bonding in the couple and make their relationship happy and long-lasting. The situation is vice-versa in unhappy marriages as 'internal attributions' for negative behavior creates conflicts and misunderstandings and 'external attributions' for positive do not let their conflicts resolve and keep them feel discontented and unhappy. Thus, option C is the correct answer.

freeborn women in ancient rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by roman historians. but while roman women held no direct political power, those from wealthy or powerful families could and did exert influence through private negotiations. exceptional women who left an undeniable mark on history range from lucretia and claudia quinta, whose stories took on mythic significance; fierce republican-era women such as cornelia, mother of the gracchi, and fulvia, who commanded an army and issued coins bearing her image; women of the julio-claudian dynasty, most prominently livia (58 bc-ad 29), who contributed to the formation of imperial mores; and the empress helena (c.250–330 ad), a driving force in promoting christianity.

women in the ancient greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children. this, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient greece one should remember that information regarding specific city-states is often lacking, is almost always from male authors, and only in athens can their status and role be described in any great detail. neither are we sure of the practical and everyday application of the rules and laws that have survived from antiquity. we do know that spartan women were treated somewhat differently than in other states. for example, they had to do physical training like men, were permitted to own land, and could drink wine.