The lost dollar: Situational and personality determinants of a pro- and antisocial behavior1

The Perceived Value of Small Coins

“…This difference may be due, however, to either the mock bank note not being sufficiently realistic or to the money having an apparent owner (the addresses on the envelope). Indeed, as Penner et al (1976) showed, it is the ownerlessness of money that most often determines whether it shall be taken and retained.…”

“…They found that the return rate for stamped letters was significantly higher than the return rate for unstamped letters but that the amount or existence of money had no effect on return rate. In a quasilaboratory study, Penner, Summers, Brookmire, and Dertke (1976) saw to it that students found a "lost dollar" contained in either another person's wallet, an envelope belonging to an institution, or without any identifiable owner in one of three settings-a laboratory, a campus evaluation testing room, or a campus washroom. They found that the dollar in the wallet was returned more often and taken less often than the others, whereas the ownerless dollar was taken more often and returned less often than the other two dollar bills.…”

Return of the lost letter

“…Add to this game parameters that can be construed as inviting prosocial behavior, and the potential for a substantial framing effect exists; put simply, it is possible that the altruism observed in experiments is in part the product of a combination of (i) the knowledge that an experiment is being conducted, (ii) awareness of norms of prosociality, and (iii) the presence of an opportunity to behave altruistically (Bardsley, 2008;Levitt and List, 2007; see also Barclay, 2006;Kurzban et al, 2007). Consistent with this possibility, Penner et al (1976) found that subjects were more likely to return an apparently lost dollar when it was located in a university laboratory or university office, both of which were entered by participants in the context of participating in research, than when it was located in the stall of a university restroom (which they entered for the usual purposes); moreover, return rates were higher in the laboratory setting, where research was actively undertaken, than in the office setting, where the connection to the research activity was less direct.…”

Dishonesty, Indifference, or Carelessness in Souvenir Shop Transactions

“…Other techniques that have been used include leaving money in a phone booth (Bickman, 1971;Franklin, 1973;Kleinke, 1977;Stroufe, Chaikin, Cook, & Freeman, 1977), leaving dollar bills in predetermined locations (Penner, Summers, Brookmire, & Dertke, 1976), giving people a chance to claim money that was said to have been dropped on the street (Feldman, 1968;Farrington & Kidd, 1977), and overpaying store clerks and cashiers (Feldman, 1968;Gabor, Strean, Singh, & Varis, 1986;Hays, 1980). Dishonesty rates among the samples of populations and situations studied have ranged from a low of 16% using the overpayment methodology with convenience store cashiers (Gabor et.…”