However the students willingly gave the most money to strangers when the experimenter was matching their contributions three to one.
… they’re just randomly taking from some people so they can give to others. It’s hard to imagine their motive, unless they just plain enjoy the capricious exercise of power, bestowing good fortune on some and bad fortune on others without any need for a rhyme or reason.
Some things are so stupid that only an academic could believe them.
Why do company donation matches work? Because donors realize that their money is doing more good. If I can bestow $40 worth of good on a stranger when it’ll only cost me $10, why wouldn’t I if I can help it? If my company were voluntarily offering to match my donation 1:1 or 3:1 or whatever, I’d reasonably conclude that the company could afford it, or else they wouldn’t have made the offer. Why couldn’t the students have made the same analysis? And what of the “stranger”? Was it someone obviously in need? I’m not going to give $10 to a stranger for no reason; I can use the $10 just as much as he can. If the stranger is in need, I’ll be more likely to give it to them; $10 to them is more valuable than $10 to me. I’ll likewise be more likely to give the money away if the choice is between $10 for me and $40 for the stranger, especially if the other $30 isn’t going to appreciably harm the giver (and there was no indication that it would).
