Human Behavior Experiments Stealing and Children

8/7/2019 Human Behavior Experiments Stealing and Children

1/15

TREAT AND A TRICKTitle of Experiment: Effects of

Deindividuation Variables on Stealingamong Halloween Trick-or-Treaters


2/15

To assess the effects of several variables

on stealing by children, including

anonymity versus nonanonymity in bothindividual and group activities, and

assigning to one child the accountability

for the actions of the others.


3/15

The subjects were some 1,300 children

who arrived at 27 homes on Halloween to

trick-or-treat. The entry hall in each ofthe homes was arranged with a low table.


4/15

It contain a large bowl of individually

wrapped candy bars at one end and a

bowl filled with nickels and pennies atthe other end. Overlooking the table was

a backdrop with a peephole, behind

which was camouflaged an observer.


5/15

A female experimenter greeted the

children at the door, smiling and

remarking on their costumes. She thentold each child or group of children, "You

[or each of you] may take one of the

candies. I have to go back to my work in

another room


6/15

." The instructions were repeated if a

child asked about the money or had any

questions about what he was supposed todo. She then left the room, and the

observer noted for each child how much

candy he took and whether he took any

money from the other bowl.


7/15

In some of the cases, the neighborhood

children, all unknown to the

experimenter, were asked their namesand addresses (nonanonymous

condition). In these instances, the

experimenter repeated the information

to be sure that the children knew that sheremembered it.


8/15

In other cases, none of the children were

asked their names, and thus all remained

anonymous. In still other cases, theresponsibility of the members of the

group of children was altered by making

only one child responsible for the actions

of the others (altered responsibility).


9/15

This was done by selecting the smallestchild in the group and asking his or hername and address. It was felt that if the

smallest child were chosen, he or shecould be made the scapegoat by theothers, and also he or she would have theleast power to influence the actions of theothers. To this child was given theresponsibility of seeing that each of theothers took only one candy.


10/15

Conclusions: Of the more than 1,300

children unwittingly taking part in this

experiment, 416 of them transgressed. In65% of these cases, extra candy was

taken; in 14% the child took only money;

and in 21% of the cases, the child took

both extra candy and money.


11/15

When the experimenter knew the

identities of all of the children in a group,

stealing of candy and/or money occurredin over 20% of the cases, but when trick-

or-treaters arrived alone and were

identified by name, stealing occurred in

only 7.5% of the cases.


12/15

When children arrived alone and remainedanonymous, transgressions occurred in 21%of the cases, but when they arrived in

groups and remained anonymous, stealingoccurred in over 57% of the cases. Finally, inthe groups where all children remainedanonymous except for the smallest child,

who was given responsibility for the actionsof the others, stealing occurred in 80% ofthe cases.


13/15

first, that under conditions of anonymity,

more antisocial behavior was likely to

occur, because the fear of being caughtwas reduced;


14/15

second, that because of the feeling that

there is safety in numbers, children are

more likely to commit transgressions ingroups than if they are alone;


15/15

finally, that by making the child least

likely to influence others supposedly

responsible for their actions, stealingwould increase, because the others

would feel that they themselves were not

responsible.

Documents

Human Behavior Experiments Stealing and Children