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.
I would say a seems like the most fitting because the aztec religion wasnt very populat
Answer:
D
Explanation:
Because Germany has a highly developed countrie not Russia
Point out that your roommate has just experienced hindsight bias or the I knew it all along phenomenon.
Hindsight bias is the tendency to believe only after learning the outcome that one would have foreseen it beforehand. In simpler terms, hindsight bias is believing that you knew something only after you heard it or that you would've known it before hearing about it.
Hope this helps!
The Jury decides if a convicted criminal is sentenced to death.
