Running head: FINDERS KEEPERS

Finders Keepers: An Examination of a Persons Willingness to Return Lost Goods

Ian Sherrill, Timothy Goncharov, and Cole Wagner
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

FINDER KEEPERS

Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers: this saying implies that people are entitled to keep any
belongings they may find laying around. Some states actually have laws in place to protect the
rights of the loser of the goods and the potential finder of lost goods. 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).
Despite the fact that depending on the law of the state an individual may be entitled to
keep goods that he/she found, it stands to reason that people will generally return lost goods if
presented with the proper opportunity. Sometimes the situation may not permit an individual the
opportunity to return the lost goods. 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).

FINDER KEEPERS

Character traits undoubtedly play a large role in a persons decision to return or not return
lost goods, however that action cannot always be attributed to a persons character. We
ordinarily suppose that a persons character traits help to explain at least some things that the
person does. The honest person tries to return the wallet because he or she is honest. The person
who pockets the contents of the wallet and throws the rest of the wallet away does so because he
or she is dishonest. The fact that two people regularly behave in different ways does not establish
that they have different character traits. The differences may be due to their different situations
rather than differences in their characters (Harman, 1999, p. 317).
Even though a variety of variables 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. The majority 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;
participants were chosen at random regardless of ethnicity.
Measurements
The data that was recorded from each participant included age, sex, place of residency,
and ethnicity. A variety of responses from the participants were recorded. Success was
determined based on if the participant returned the money or not; more specifically returning the
money was deemed as successful and not returning the money was not successful. Some

FINDER KEEPERS

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 picked out a random target group in the immediate
area. The other two researchers strategically placed themselves in the vicinity of the target group.
One researcher walked past the target and drop a twenty dollar bill. The other researchers
watched to see if the participant picked up the money and returned it, or if the participant
grabbed the money and kept it. If the participant picked up the money and didnt return it, the
other researchers walked up a politely informed the participant that there was a social experiment
in progress. If the participant returned the money he/she was praised for doing so. If the
participant did not return the money he/she received no praise. After the participant returned the
money to the researchers the data groups that were explained previously were recorded.
Results
The results of the research turned out 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 responses 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 as the goal of this study was not to determine if people
would notice the money. 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

FINDER KEEPERS

they saw the money drop and continued about their business with no response. A response of
Yes in the returned money category indicates that the participant saw the money drop and
returned it. A response of No in the returned money category indicates that the participant saw
the money drop and picked the money up and did not return it. The two other responses are
explained in the table. Table 1 shows all of the participants that had one of the four responses
previously mentioned.
Table 1
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

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

FINDER KEEPERS

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

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. The categories that held the greatest impact for participants decision to return or not
return the money were sex and ethnicity. The only participants that picked up the money and did
not return it were black males. Table 2 shows exactly how many participants by response type.

FINDER KEEPERS

Table 2

Table 3 shows the percentage of participants who returned the money versus those who
didnt.
Table 3

FINDER KEEPERS

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. A large percentage of
participants were too occupied with whatever it was they were doing to even notice the money
fall from the researchers pocket to the ground. 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. This
further substantiates the claim in the beginning of this study that circumstance undoubtedly
impact an individuals ability to return lost goods. Variables such as if the participant actually
saw the money fall from the researchers pocket or if they simply just noticed it on the ground no
doubt impacted the results. These findings also show that a persons decision to return lost goods
may not be a result of his or her character, or rather a result of his or her circumstances in
happening upon the lost goods.
There is a strong correlation between students who resided on campus and returning the
money. There were only two participants who tried to take the money, and they both resided offcampus. Residing on campus seems to have an impact on how people will respond to these
situations.
The results of this study correspond with our original hypothesis that, overall, people are
generally good natured and will return lost valuables if presented with the proper opportunity. In
this case the proper opportunity seemed to require the person to not be distracted, and that the
person saw the money fall from the researchers pocket. Ultimately we found that the majority of
participants were more than happy to return lost valuables.

FINDER KEEPERS

References
Goldstein, R., Minkin, B., Minkin, N., & Baer, D. (1978). Finders, keepers?: An analysis and validation of a freefound-ad policy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(4), 465.
Harman, G. (1999). XIV-Moral philosophy meets social psychology: virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution
error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99, 315-331.
Simone, J. (2009). Finders keepers, losers weepers: the law of finding lost property in Missouri. Saint Louis
University Law Journal, 54(167), 170.