←back to thread

Civic honesty around the globe

(science.sciencemag.org)
209 points ojosilva | 1 comments | 20 Jun 19 19:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
ppod ◴[20 Jun 19 20:10 UTC] No.20236837[source]▶
Very nice and unintuitive main finding. I wish there was a separate condition where they sent a second experimenter back to the location of the hand-in to ask for the wallet. Just waiting for a contact leaves some room for unpredictable effects: perhaps with no money, the person can't even be bothered to deal with it. With money, there is an incentive to try to contact in the hope that if no response is received within a short period, the money can be kept.
replies(2): >>20236914 #>>20237143 #
ebg13 ◴[20 Jun 19 20:19 UTC] No.20236914[source]▶
> With money, there is an incentive to try to contact in the hope that if no response is received within a short period, the money can be kept.

Your notion makes zero sense. Wanting to keep the money never incentivizes contact. If they wanted to keep the money, the surest way to accomplish that is to just keep it.

replies(2): >>20237222 #>>20237434 #
1. ppod ◴[20 Jun 19 20:50 UTC] No.20237222[source]▶
What's the point of your first sentence?

>Wanting to keep the money never incentivizes contact.

It could in combination with the authors' hypothesis of not wanting to view oneself as a thief. Under that condition, the likely behaviour is to simply let the wallet sit in a lost-and-found drawer. Writing the email starts the clock on a license to take it while giving yourself a rationalization.