Answer:
The Hawthorne effect
Explanation:
The Hawthorne effect was an experimental effect that was developed by researcher Henry A. Landsberger in the 1950s. According to this effect, the working efficiency of workers was analyzed. Certain aspects of the working environment were looked such as lighting, break timings, working hours, etc.
<u>The productivity level of a company or industry increases when the supervisors gave attention to the workers and it decreases with their lack of attention</u>.
<u>In the given case, the explanation of the scenario will be related to the Hawthorne Effect</u>.
<u>So, the correct answer is the </u><u>Hawthorne effect</u>.
Answer:
Human rights are basic rights that belong to all of us simply because we are human. They embody key values in our society such as fairness, dignity, equality and respect. They are an important means of protection for us all, especially those who may face abuse, neglect and isolation
Explanation:
mark me brainliest : )
THANK YOU!!!
Answer:
Confirmation
Explanation:
In scenarios whereby an individual gives more credence to the his or her existing belief while failing to give consideration to happenings or possibilities which may say otherwise. We might see this a an act of being rigid on a certain piece of information or belief to the extent than one dispels all possible scenarios which may prove the otherwise to the belief. In the scenario above, Carmellas existing belief thatbtge inability to deliver at work is only based in incompetence of the worker while filing to examine the possibility whereby the tasks being dished out to the worker might be difficult.
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.
