Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Lost wallets are more likely to be returned if they hold cash, researchers say
The cost of seeing yourself as a thief is pretty steep, the results suggest.
- The study involved turning in more than 17,000 "lost" wallets to employees at various businesses in 40 countries.
- Employees were considerably more likely to report wallets with cash than those without.
- Interestingly, the results suggest altruism is not primarily driving this honest behavior.
Would you be more likely to return a wallet you found on the street if it contained cash? A new study suggests you would — not necessarily because you're altruistic, but because you don't want to feel like a thief.
The study, published on June 20 in Science, was designed to explore and compare civic honesty in 355 cities in 40 countries. In each city, a research assistant would turn in a "lost" wallet to banks, museums, post offices, hotels, and police stations. When turning in the wallets at these locations, typically at a front desk or reception area, the research assistant would say:
"Hi, I found this [pointing to the wallet] on the street around the corner. [The wallet was then placed on the counter and pushed over to the employee.] Somebody must have lost it. I'm in a hurry and have to go. Can you please take care of it?"
The research assistant would then leave without providing contact information. Each wallet contained a grocery list in the local language, three identical business cards with a local-sounding man's name, and an email address, and all of the wallets were transparent, meaning employees didn't have to open them to see the contents. Some wallets held no cash while others had about $13.45, or the equivalent in local currency.
Image source: Cohn et al.
The results indicated that, on average, 40 percent of wallets with no cash were reported by employees as found, compared to 51 percent of wallets with cash. People were more likely to report cash-holding wallets in all but two countries: Mexico and Peru. The results surprised the researchers, who wrote that both "non-experts and professional economists were unable to predict this result."
Image source: Cohn et al.
To test whether employees were reporting the cash-holding wallets because $13.45 wasn't enough money to risk stealing, the team conducted several more experiments in the U.S., Britain and Poland — this time with $94.15 instead of $13.45. Surprisingly, employees were considerably more honest when the wallets held more money — an average of 72 percent of employees reported these wallets as found.
So, what explains the behavior? To see the extent to which altruism might be playing a role, the team put a key in some of the wallets. Unlike cash, the key would be valuable only to the wallet's owner. The results showed that wallets with cash and a key were still more likely to be reported as found, but the difference wasn't great enough to say altruism alone is driving people to return the wallets.
To explore an alternative explanation, the team surveyed 2,525 randomly selected people in the U.S., Britain, and Poland. Those people were asked to rate how much it'd "feel like stealing" to keep a wallet with cash and without. As the hypothetical amount of money increased, so did the "feels like stealing" scores. But interestingly, the presence of a key in those scenarios didn't significantly change the scores.
The team reasoned that most people would prefer not feeling like a thief compared to pocketing some extra cash. The researchers write:
"When people stand to heavily profit from engaging in dishonest behavior, the desire to cheat increases, but so do the psychological costs of viewing oneself as a thief — and, sometimes, the latter will dominate the former."
Still, it's unclear how closely these results reflect the civic honesty of the general public in these countries. For one, it's possible that the employees of banks, museums and police stations are, on average, slightly more honest than the general public. What's more, people might behave differently when they're at work, especially if it's a business like a bank. Though, to be sure, the researchers did say the presence of security cameras didn't seem to account for why employees were more likely to return cash-holding wallets.
In any case, the results build upon past research showing that people will go to great lengths to maintain their self-image. So, ultimately, seeing yourself as a thief might cost you far more than $94.15.
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work