1.

The Freudian theory of deviance is based on the idea that human behavior is influenced by
unconscious drives and conflicts, especially those related to sexuality and aggression. According to
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, the human psyche consists of three parts: the id, the
ego, and the superego. The id is the source of instinctual impulses, such as hunger, thirst, sex, and
violence. The ego is the rational part of the mind that mediates between the id and the external reality.
The superego is the moral part of the mind that represents the internalized values and norms of society.

Freud believed that deviance occurs when there is an imbalance or a dysfunction in the relationship
between these three parts of the psyche. For example, if the id is too strong and the ego and superego
are too weak, the person may act on their impulses without regard for the consequences or the moral
standards of society. This may result in criminal or antisocial behavior, such as theft, rape, or murder. On
the other hand, if the superego is too strong and the ego and id are too weak, the person may repress
their impulses and develop anxiety, guilt, or neurosis. This may result in self-destructive or abnormal
behavior, such as suicide, addiction, or mental illness.

To summarize, the Freudian theory of deviance explains deviant behavior as a manifestation of the
unconscious conflicts and desires that stem from the interaction of the id, ego, and superego. This
theory also suggests that deviance can be treated by psychoanalysis, a method of therapy that aims to
uncover and resolve the underlying causes of the psychological problems. However, this theory has
been criticized for being unscientific, sexist, and deterministic, as it relies on subjective interpretations,
assumes that male sexuality is the norm, and ignores the role of social and environmental factors in
shaping human behavior.

2.Labelling theory of deviance is a sociological perspective that argues that deviance is not inherent in
an act, but is rather the result of how others react to and label that act12. According to this theory,
individuals become deviant when they accept the deviant label that is imposed on them by the agents of
social control, such as the police, the courts, the media, and the public34.

The label of deviance can influence an individual’s behavior in several ways. First, it can create a stigma,
which is a negative stereotype that isolates and devalues the labelled person12. Second, it can alter the
person’s self-concept and identity, making them see themselves as deviant and act accordingly12. Third,
it can affect the person’s opportunities and relationships, limiting their access to conventional roles and
resources, and pushing them towards deviant subcultures and peers12.
To summarize, labelling theory of deviance explains how deviance is socially constructed and maintained
through the process of labelling and its consequences. This theory challenges the assumption that
deviance is a fixed and objective phenomenon, and instead emphasizes the role of power and
interaction in defining and responding to deviance12.

Hello, this is Copilot. I can help you with your request. Here is a summary of the topic:

3.Action research and basic research are two types of research methods that have different purposes,
processes, and outcomes.

Action research is a research method that aims to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue in a
specific context, such as a classroom, a workplace, or a community. It is often conducted by
practitioners, such as teachers, social workers, or managers, who want to improve their own practices or
address a problem they face. Action research is usually collaborative, participatory, and reflective,
involving multiple cycles of planning, acting, observing, and evaluating. Action research does not seek to
produce generalizable theories or findings, but rather to generate local and practical knowledge that can
be applied immediately.

Basic research is a research method that aims to develop and test educational theory and derive
generalizations from empirical data. It is often conducted by researchers, such as academics, scientists,
or scholars, who want to contribute to the existing body of knowledge or advance a scientific field. Basic
research is usually systematic, rigorous, and objective, following a set of steps, such as defining a
problem, formulating a hypothesis, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. Basic
research seeks to produce generalizable theories or findings that can be applied to various contexts and
situations.

Some of the similarities and differences between action research and basic research are:

Table

Criteria Action ResearchBasic Research

Objectives To find solutions to problems in a specific context To develop and test educational
theory and derive generalizations

Training Limited training is needed in research methodology Intensive training is needed in

Hypothesis Specific statement of the problem Highly specific hypothesis are developed

Statistical treatment Generally grouping of raw data using descriptive statistic is enough
Descriptive and inferential stats are required to test for statistical significance

Conclusions Findings are local and specific Conclusions may be in form of generalizations and
developing theories

Application of results Findings are used immediately in the specific context by participating
practitioners The generalizations have broad applicability to various contexts and situations

I hope this summary helps you understand the topic better. Please note that this is not a complete

Plagiarism

Explore

Ethics of research and plagiarism are two important concepts that every student and researcher should
know. Ethics of research are the moral principles that guide researchers in conducting their studies in a
responsible and ethical manner. Plagiarism is the act of using someone else’s work or ideas as your own,
without giving proper credit or acknowledgement.

Some examples of ethics of research are:

Obtaining informed consent from all participants before the research begins

Protecting the privacy and confidentiality of participants

Avoiding any harm or risk to participants or society as a whole

Reporting the methods and results honestly and transparently

Acknowledging the contributions of others

Some examples of plagiarism are:

Copying someone else’s words or sentences without quotation marks or citation

Using someone else’s ideas, data, images, or code without citation

Submitting someone else’s work as your own

To summarize, ethics of research and plagiarism are related but different concepts. Ethics of research
are the moral rules that researchers follow to ensure that their studies are conducted in a respectful and
beneficial way. Plagiarism is the dishonest practice of using someone else’s work or ideas as your own,
without giving proper credit. To avoid plagiarism, students and researchers should always cite their
sources and use their own words and thoughts1234

Fortune-telling

Explore

The short answer is no, scientists cannot prove that fortune-telling and mind reading do not work. This is
because science is not based on proving or disproving anything, but rather on testing hypotheses and
gathering evidence1

Science operates on the principle of falsifiability, which means that any scientific claim must be testable
and potentially refutable by observation or experiment1 For example, if someone claims that they can
read minds, a scientist would design an experiment to test this claim under controlled conditions. If the
results show that the person cannot read minds better than chance, then the claim is falsified. However,
this does not mean that the person can never read minds, or that mind reading is impossible. It only
means that the evidence does not support the claim in this particular case.

Similarly, if someone claims that they can predict the future, a scientist would test this claim by
comparing their predictions with actual outcomes. If the results show that the person cannot predict the
future better than chance, then the claim is falsified. But again, this does not mean that the person can
never predict the future, or that fortune-telling is impossible. It only means that the evidence does not
support the claim in this specific instance.

Therefore, science cannot prove that fortune-telling and mind reading do not work, because there is
always the possibility that someone, somewhere, somehow, can do these things. However, science can
provide strong evidence that these claims are very unlikely to be true, based on the lack of consistent
and reliable results from many experiments and observations2
To summarize, science is not about proving or disproving anything, but about testing and evaluating
claims based on evidence. Science cannot prove that fortune-telling and mind reading do not work, but
it can show that there is no good reason to believe that they do123