We experimentally investigate people's willingness to intervene in others' decision-making in order to promote a charitable donation. We find that only a minority of those subjects who would donate themselves enforce the donation by banning the selfish choice from the decision-maker's choice menu. Bans are more acceptable if they are implemented only after the decision-makers could choose between the selfish and the prosocial option themselves. Also, many subjects decide against offering decision-makers a monetary incentive to switch from the selfish to the prosocial choice. We discuss potential hypotheses about underlying motivations for the (non-)usage of interventions, with a special focus on the hypothesis that interventions to promote prosocial choice are more acceptable the more they respect the autonomy of others.

我们通过实验研究人们干预他人决策以促进慈善捐赠的意愿。我们发现，只有少数愿意捐款的人通过禁止决策者的选择菜单中的自私选择来强制执行捐款。如果禁令只有在决策者自己可以在自私和亲社会选择之间做出选择之后才实施，禁令才更容易被接受。而且，许多主题决定不向决策者提供金钱上的激励，使其从自私的选择转向亲社会的选择。我们讨论了有关（非）使用干预措施的潜在动机的潜在假设，特别关注以下假设：促进亲社会选择的干预措施越受他人的自治，就越容易被接受。