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.
<span>Biological perspective
The biological perspective is a way of looking at psychological issues by studying the physical basis for animal and human behavior. It is one of the major perspectives in psychology and involves such things as studying the brain, immune system, nervous system, and genetics.</span>
The C. Speaker of the House is the official who chairs the proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Answer:All investments involve some degree of risk. If you intend to purchase securities - such as stocks, bonds, or mutual funds - it's important that you understand before you invest that you could lose some or all of your money. ... The reward for taking on risk is the potential for a greater investment return.
Explanation: hop i got this right :)
