Answer: A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss aversion will provide additional motivation
.
Options:
A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss
aversion will provide additional motivation
B. designating a charity should be more effective because it avoids all potential for loss
C. it shouldn’t matter whether one designates a charity or anti-charity
D. self-interest biases generally keep people from choosing the anti-charity
Explanation:
The study of behavioral Economics shows that people are more driven by the loss of fear than the hope of gain. This is known as loss aversion. In commitment contracts where penalty money is promised to a charity or an anti-charity if the goal is not achieved, those who promise their money to an anti-charity tend to achieve their goals more. The same also applies when comparing this group and those who do not have to forego anything if they do not meet their target.
This is because giving to a charity will still seem beneficial while losing the money to an anti-charity will seem like a total loss.
Answer:
- Connections among people that are used for sharing information, knowledge, feelings, and experiences.
- Social ties can be weak, strong, or latent based on the extent of exchanges and interactions between two nodes.
- Specifically, social ties of individuals are multidimensional, maintaining a large portfolio of different types of (in)formal, professional, or romantic ties.
- Individuals that share office space hardly will mutually exchange e-mails but will resort to communication in person.
Explanation:
Is this what you need?
Answer:
First, Missouri would be admitted to the union as a slave state, but would be balanced by the admission of Maine, a free state, that had long wanted to be separated from Massachusetts. Second, slavery was to be excluded from all new states in the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern boundary of Missouri.
Propaganda is your answer! Hope you get a good great!!!!
