Michaela and Chandra have been good friends for a few years. One afternoon, while they were drinking coffee and talking about their summer plans, Chandra mentioned she might not go on vacation because she couldn't afford it. Michaela responded by saying, "I save money all year so I can go on vacation. I just can't understand people who can't save a little bit each month." Chandra then changed the subject to discuss a mutual friend of theirs. Chandra told Michaela that the friend and her husband were having marital problems and that the husband was thinking about moving out of the house. Then, Michaela told Chandra about her breakup with her boyfriend, and Chandra told Michaela about her current boyfriend. Michaela talked about how hard it had been to break up with Todd, and she said that it was good to be able to talk with someone about it. Chandra listened to Michaela talk and consoled her when she started to cry. Chandra then told Michaela about a bad breakup that she went through as well. After the two discussed this, they decided to meet again next week to talk some more. Respond to the following questions: Four potential risks of self-disclosure include: rejection, chance of obligating others, hurting others, and violating privacy. Explain how "obligating others" can be a risk of self-disclosure.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.