←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: 0s | 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. ACow_Adonis ◴[20 Jun 19 21:11 UTC] No.20237434[source]▶
zero sense, really? a lost wallet has been handed in, and at least one other person has witnessed the wallet being handed in (not even assuming cctv, other people, or supervisors).

you don't know if the wallet owner or that original person will turn up and make enquiries as to what happened, and of you just keep the money, there is a real risk your actions being discovered.

whereas at least if you TRY to return the wallet, when you do eventually keep the money, you have an angle of both plausible defense, and arguably, natural justice on your side...