In a study conducted in the 1980s during the height of student protests against apartheid in South Africa (Ross & Stillinger, 1991), students gave high ratings to a plan to divest university funds from South African companies when the plan was presented in the abstract. However, when the same plan was actually proposed by the university administration, students gave it lower ratings because they saw the university administration as "the other side." This is an example of:

As per the circumstances described. The students gave the concept a lower rating because it came from the opposing side, as can be shown. As a result, this is a case of Reactive Devaluation.

This is because Reactive Devaluation is a phrase that refers to a type of mental prejudice directed towards another person.

This occurs when party A devalues a strategy because it originates from party B, which is viewed as an adversary.

About Reactive devaluation:

For more information about Reactive devaluation refer to the link:

link

Reactive devaluation

Explanation:

From the scenario described. It can be observed that the students gave the idea a lower rating because it was coming from the opposing side. Hence, this is am an example of REACTIVE DEVALUATION.

This is because Reactive Devaluation is a term that describes a form of mental bias from one party towards another. This arises when a plan is devalued by party A because the plan comes from party B who is perceived as the opponent.

Hence, in this case, the students' reaction is an example of Reaction Devaluation

no

explanation:

in 342 bc j._c. egypt fell into the hands of the persians, under the reign of nectanebo ii

greek city-states unite in a revolt against the persian empire at the beginning of the fifth century bc. j.-c  

from the year 660 or 659 bc ad, cyrus preached the revolt against the medes to deliver the persians.