As someone who seriously considered becoming an academic economist, I think you're spot on in your analysis about human motivation except for one thing: altruism.
Altruism does exist, and not just because people want the "good feeling" of having done "good deeds."
I've seen Levitt of the University of Chicago speak several times about an altruism experiment that economists conducted showing the lack of altruism in people. In response, one of the audience members once sent him $20 in an envelope and said, "Explain this."
While that's a facetious example, there's plenty of examples of more self-less altruism towards strangers. I think plenty of research shows the altruistic motive towards families, which is partly motivated by evolution.
But altruism towards strangers?
I think an interesting experiment to conduct would be a double blind experiment regarding altruism. Put someone in a situation where they can help, hurt, or ignore someone in need, and there is no cost to the subject of picking any of the three options. But they get no reward for doing the good deed, and no one is watching.
(Of course this experiment is sort of impossible by design, cuz the experimenter has to be watching)
How many people choose to do the good deed without social affirmation of their good deed?
Maybe I'll reconsider pursuing that PhD in Economics.
You are very quick to dismiss psychological egoism :) (Not that it's a very useful hypothesis, really)
I'm undecided on the matter, but the $20 thing is clearly not self-less altruism. Someone willing to spend $20 to prove they're "right"? I'm just not convinced.
Your experiment sounds interesting. I worry that people would still expect to be judged for it though (I mean, if they know they're participating in an experiment, they're expecting the results to be recorded and/or being watched, as you say). Also I expect that decades of acting a certain way due to being observed by society will form some pretty strong habits. Sounds fascinating none-the-less :)
Simple experiment. Make a website with 3 buttons, and invite 10K people to visit. Make strong assurances of anonymity: and independent 3rd party will select the participants, logs will be destroyed, etc:
* Bill my credit card $20, donate to a pool to send to http://www.againstmalaria.com or somesuch.
* Spend $20 of the researchers' money on fresh vegetables, and throw them in the trash.
* Do nothing.
Altruism does exist, and not just because people want the "good feeling" of having done "good deeds."
I've seen Levitt of the University of Chicago speak several times about an altruism experiment that economists conducted showing the lack of altruism in people. In response, one of the audience members once sent him $20 in an envelope and said, "Explain this."
While that's a facetious example, there's plenty of examples of more self-less altruism towards strangers. I think plenty of research shows the altruistic motive towards families, which is partly motivated by evolution.
But altruism towards strangers?
I think an interesting experiment to conduct would be a double blind experiment regarding altruism. Put someone in a situation where they can help, hurt, or ignore someone in need, and there is no cost to the subject of picking any of the three options. But they get no reward for doing the good deed, and no one is watching.
(Of course this experiment is sort of impossible by design, cuz the experimenter has to be watching)
How many people choose to do the good deed without social affirmation of their good deed?
Maybe I'll reconsider pursuing that PhD in Economics.