The benefit received from paying less for a good than the maximum amount that the person is willing to pay for it. Thus, if a person is willing to pay up to $3 for something, but the market price is $1, then the net economic benefit for that item is $2.
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.
Idekicoukdnteventellyouthat
Answer:
all your answers are correct.
Explanation:
I took the test
The Seattle Storm, The 12-time All-Star and eight-time All-WNBA selection had previously said she considered retiring after the 2021 campaign, but this past offseason she signed a one-year deal with the Seattle Storm, where she's spent her entire 21-year WNBA career.
