July 16, 2009
Want to keep your wallet? Carry a baby picture
Hannah Devlin in The Times:
Hundreds of wallets were planted on the streets of Edinburgh by psychologists last year. Perhaps surprisingly, nearly half of the 240 wallets were posted back. But there was a twist.
Richard Wiseman, a psychologist, and his team inserted one of four photographs behind a clear plastic window inside, showing either a smiling baby, a cute puppy, a happy family or a contented elderly couple. Some wallets had no image and some had charity papers inside.
When faced with the photograph of the baby people were far more likely to send the wallet back, the study found. In fact, only one in ten were hard-hearted enough not to do so. With no picture to tug at the emotions, just one in seven were sent back.
According to Dr Wiseman the result reflects a compassionate instinct towards vulnerable infants that people have evolved to ensure the survival of future generations. “The baby kicked off a caring feeling in people, which is not surprising from an evolutionary perspective,” he said.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 05:38 AM | Permalink
Comments
The usual problems with this kind of thing.
We get told that the experiment is evidence for something about genes..adaptation,,babies etc etc ,plus a bit on brain scans and part of the brain lighting up etc etc...therefore..
As one who is fully convinced of the explanatory power of natural selection I'd be shocked if evolution hadn't played a role in how we respond to babies etc. But does anyone think that the experiment in question takes us much beyond the usual speculative EP trip? Dr Wiseman should properly take into account the possibility that there may be other factors involved...but there's little sign of that in the article.
Shouldn't scientists be concerned with how certain characteristics are inherited, instead of this over simple stuff about why some bit of behaviour (here, compassion, supposedly)was evolved to ensure our survival?
Enough of this EP reductionism!
Posted by: Chris Horner | Jul 16, 2009 8:07:07 AM
As usual, 3QD covers a subject that my friends and I were discussing the night prior. I had dropped my wallet a few hours prior and quite quickly received a telephone call reporting it found without any of the money gone. I do have a picture of my infant son and we were curious if it possibly influenced the fact that all $160 remained in the wallet. Of course as Chris points out, it would be rather presumptuous to consider only that possibility. More likely, I was just lucky that the person who found my wallet was not a thief.
Posted by: panoptican | Jul 16, 2009 9:29:30 AM
The raw numbers themselves are fascinating:
"The baby photograph wallets had the highest return rate, with 88 per cent of the 40 being sent back. Next came the puppy, the family and the elderly couple, with 53 per cent, 48 and 28 respectively. At 20 per cent and 15, the charity card and control wallets had the lowest return rates.
Overall, 42 per cent of the wallets were posted back"
Just 28% of elderly couple wallets got returned! Whatever the underlying mechanism, it needs to generate this sort of callousness toward old people - a generic tugging-at-heartstrings explanation won't work.
Posted by: D | Jul 16, 2009 6:08:17 PM
D, I have a theory. If the person who lost the wallet loves his elderly parents enough to go around with their photo, then they probably support him, so money that is clearly his needn't be returned. It will simply be replaced.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jul 16, 2009 6:58:01 PM
And yet, the one time my wallet was stolen, it was stolen out of my diaper bag as I struggled to get my baby and his stroller down a short flight of stairs.
Posted by: DRK | Jul 16, 2009 7:02:00 PM
If you find a baby alone, there is a good chance it belongs to you, making it an effective evolutionary trait, said Dr Wiseman.
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 16, 2009 8:21:13 PM
Cool, I'm just gonna' keep my baby in my wallet then...
Posted by: missvolare | Jul 17, 2009 7:21:23 AM
Post a comment