Ian Sherrill

Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1
Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers: this saying implies that people are entitled to keep any
belongings they may find laying around. Our goal in this study was to examine the idea that
people are generally good natured and, if presented with the opportunity, will return belongings
to their owner (specifically a $20 bill in this case).
According to Korte, People are often placed in situations where behavior that can assist other
people is restrained by certain variables. (Goldstein, Minkin, Baer, 1978, p.465). An individual
may be distracted or influenced by a number of different variables that may impact their decision
or ability to return belongings. Some states have laws that limit an individuals rights to keep
something they find. The law does not sanction the childish rhymefinders keepers, losers
weepersbecause property remains with the owner until he voluntarily disposes of his title to
the property (Simeone, 2009, p. 170). In Missouri the laws concerning this matter are clearly
defined: Property may be separated from the owner by being abandoned, or lost, or mislaid. In
the first instance, it goes back into a state of nature; or as is most commonly expressed, it returns
to the common mass and belongs to the first finder, occupier, or taker. In the second instance, to
be lost, it must have been unintentionally or involuntarily parted with, in which case it is also an
object which may be found, and the finder is entitled to the possession against everyone but the
true owner. But, if it is intentionally put down, it is not lost in a legal sense, though the owner
may not remember where he left it, and cannot find it; for the loss of goods in legal and
common intendment, depends upon something more than the knowledge or ignorance, the
memory or want of memory, of the owner at any given moment (Simeone, 2009, p. 171).

Ian Sherrill
Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1
Even though race, gender, and past offenses may influence if the person returns lost valuables,
we posit that people are generally good natured and will return valuables if given the
opportunity.

Methods
Participants
Participants in this research were chosen at random based on their proximity to the researchers.
Both women and men, and all age groups were included in this research. The youngest
individual included in the research was an 18 year old female and the oldest was a 58 year old
male. An overwhelming proportion of the participants were UNCC students due to the fact that
the research was done on campus at UNCC. No ethnicity was excluded from the research.
Measurements
The data that was recorded from each participant included age, sex, place of residency, and
ethnicity. Participants success in this study was evaluated based on them returning or not
returning a $20 bill ,which was found on the ground, to the researchers. Some participants were
too engaged in other activities to notice the money on the ground and were not included in the
data.
Procedure
The researchers walked around the University of North Carolina of Charlotte college campus.
All three of the researchers walked together and observed varying groups of people throughout
campus. One of the researchers would pick out a random target group in the immediate area. The
other two researchers would strategically place themselves in the vicinity of the target group.

Ian Sherrill
Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1
One researcher would walk past the target and drop a twenty dollar bill. The other researchers
would watch to see if the target would pick up the money and return it, or if the target would
grab the money and keep it. If the target picked up the money and didnt return it the other
researchers walked up a politely informed the target that there was an experiment in progress.
After the researchers explained the experiment to the target, the participant returned the money
to the researchers, and the data groups that were explained earlier were recorded.
Results
The results of the research turned out fairly close to as originally anticipated. The vast majority
of participants were more than willing to return the money. There were some outlying factors
that affected the participants response to the money being dropped. A large number of
participants were too distracted in their current engagement to even notice the money, but those
people were not included in the data. The only participants that were included in the data were
those that had one of four responses: they saw the money drop and returned it, they saw the
money drop and attempted to take it, they did not see the money drop but attempted to find an
owner anyway, or they saw the money drop and continued about their business with no response.
The table below shows all of the participants that had one of the four responses previously
mentioned.
Age

Sex

Place of Residency

Ethnicity

Returned money

19

Female

Off

Caucasian

Yes

22

Female

Off

Caucasian

Yes

45

Male

Off

Caucasian

Yes

22

Female

Off

African American

Yes

Ian Sherrill
Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1
22

Female

Off

African American

Yes

18

Female

On

Indian

Yes

22

Male

On

African American

Yes

28

Male

Off

African American

Yes

26

Male

Off

African American

Yes

58

Male

Off

African American

No

26

Female

Off

African American

Unresponsive

18

Female

On

Caucasian

Yes - Did not see

drop but attempted
to return anyways

21

Female

Off

Caucasian

Yes

???

Male

???

African American

Saw drop but did

not attempt to
return

???

Male

???

African American

Saw drop but did

not attempt to
return

21

Male

Off

Caucasian

Yes

22

Male

On

Caucasian

Yes

29

Female

Off

Caucasian

Yes

19

Male

On

African American

Yes

34

Male

Off - Works at UNCC

Caucasian

Yes

23

Male

Off

African American

No

19

Male

Off

Caucasian

Yes

Ian Sherrill
Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1
Aside from whether or not the participant returned the money, there were four main data groups
that were recorded: Age, sex, place of residency, and ethnicity. Of these four data groups there
were two that seemed to be non-significant to the ultimate action of either returning or not
returning the money; the two data groups deemed non-significant were age and place of
residency.

Ian Sherrill
Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1

Discussion
According to the results of the experiment there were many factors that contributed to whether or
not the participant returned the money that was dropped. Some people did not attempt to even
pick up the money that was dropped because they simply didnt want to, meaning either they
were too lazy, they were too busy to return it or they were waiting for the owner to disappear and
take it.
There is a slight correlation between on-campus living students and returning the money.
Although there were only two participants who tried to take the money, they both lived offcampus. Campus living seems to have an impact on how people will respond to these situations.
When people live off campus they are typically living a life that isnt monitored much allowing

Ian Sherrill
Cole Wagner
Timothy Goncharov
11/5/14
Draft #1
them to do whatever they want. When a person is unmonitored, typically, bad decisions will be
made. The bad decisions made off campus will affect how people act on campus.