which of the following statement explains why threats are not effective for motivating people?
A. THREAT REDUCE TENSION
B. THREAT ENSURE That APPROPRIATE ACTION ARE NOT ABANDONED
C. THREAT PRODUCT PERMANENT CHANGE
D. THREAT PROVOKE COUNTERAGGRESSION
I'll be glad to check your answer.
The answer to the question is option A: "Threats reduce tension." This statement explains why threats are not effective for motivating people.
To arrive at this answer, let's analyze the options:
Option A: "Threats reduce tension": This statement argues that threats actually decrease tension, which implies that threats may not be effective for motivating people. This is because people are more likely to be motivated by positive incentives or encouragement rather than by fear or negative repercussions.
Option B: "Threats ensure that appropriate actions are not abandoned": This statement suggests that threats help in making sure that people continue with their intended actions. While threats may seem to ensure compliance temporarily, they do not address the underlying reasons for motivation, and therefore, they might not be effective for long-term motivation.
Option C: "Threats produce permanent change": This statement suggests that threats can lead to lasting changes in behavior. However, the effectiveness of threats as a motivator depends on the specific situation and the individuals involved. In many cases, threats can generate only short-lived compliance rather than genuine, long-term motivation.
Option D: "Threats provoke counteraggression": This statement indicates that threats can potentially provoke aggressive responses from individuals. If this is the case, threats can create resistance and inhibit motivation rather than enhancing it.
In summary, the most relevant statement that explains why threats are not effective for motivating people is option A: "Threats reduce tension." One can conclude that threats may not be an effective motivation strategy because they tend to decrease rather than increase motivation in individuals.