Running head: MORALITY VS.

TEMPTATION

Challenging Peoples Moral Codes When Faced With Tempting Opportunities

Sahl Altalhi, Sami Alzakari, and Mohammed Alonaizan
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

MORALITY VS. TEMPTATION

Introduction:
In this experiment, peoples integrity and honesty are put to the test by providing
an alluring situation in which they are faced with cognitive dissonance. Participants own
self-discipline is being challenged by the presence of opportunities of stealing someones
property with minimal chances of being caught. The experiment is designed to record
how well bystanders react and behave upon witnessing someone passing by and
accidentally dropping their wallet and possibly finding a correlation between peoples
financial situations and their level of moral obligations such as honesty. The meaning of
honesty differs from one person to another (White, 2013). Most people agree on the
definition of honesty as adapting to a certain set of moral and ethical values as ones
lifestyle. An example would be making a conscious decision of telling the truth despite
the consequences. But why be honest? We all have our reasons. Some follow a specific
religion and accept honesty for the fear of divine punishment, and honesty can be one of
its fundamental virtues. Some want to reflect a good behavior on their children. Others
are afraid of normalizing fabrications and eventually becoming pathological liars,
because after telling one lie, you have the need to tell another (Likerman, 2014). Despite
dishonesty seeming unattractive and repelling, in some situations it does have its benefits.
Sometimes you might have to tell a lie to avoid hurting the feelings of those who are
close to you (Likerman, 2014). You might consider being dishonest to climb up the
career ladder (Likerman, 2014).

Methods:

MORALITY VS. TEMPTATION

-

Participants:

The experiment targeted a range of people with different age groups and genders;
the three age groups to participate are children, teenagers, and adults/elders. Also, results
depend on whether the participant was a female or male as well as their financial
situations.
-

Measures:
The location and socio economics statuses have served as key measurements in

the experiment. The neighborhoods in which this experiment took place differed in
income levels. For example, the experiment divided participant into two socio economic
statuses; people who are well-off and financially stable -not necessarily affluent-, and
underprivileged people who live in impoverished neighborhoods and are typically
under the poverty line. Participants appearances (clothes, shoes) played a role in
differentiating ones own financial circumstances. An important aspect of personal
uprightness that this experiment was intended to measure is whether or not wealth, age,
and gender served as real factors in the decision making of such a dilemma. The results
of the experiment is recorded according to whether or not participant return the wallet.
-

Procedure:
Two and more examiners can conduct this experiment. Examiner A would walk past

a certain person or a group of people and deliberately drop a seemingly big wallet. That is
when examiner B would approach the targeted person(s) and ask them if the wallet that was
dropped is theirs or not. Finally, examiner C will observe and take notes from a distance of
the different reactions. If the participants showed honesty by giving back the wallet to
examiner A, then they were rewarded by the examiners with a small card to show gratitude
for their actions.

MORALITY VS. TEMPTATION

Results:
100% of the entire well off females have returned the wallet. Meanwhile, only 50%
of underprivileged females returned the wallet. On the other hand, nearly 67% of privileged
male category have returned the wallet immediately. While only 33% of the underprivileged
males did the same.
More precisely, the experiment categorized the participants by gender; each gender
was subcategorized by age groups (kids, teenagers, and adults/elders) and wealth.
-The female category was more consistent in terms of reaction; 2/2 of the well-off
children, 2/2 teenagers and 2/2 female adults have returned the wallet. While 1/2 of the
underprivileged female children, 0/2 underprivileged female teenagers, and 2/2 adult females
returned the wallet..
-Males who are fortunate: 1/2 children, 1/2 teenagers, and 2/2 adults gave it back.
Meanwhile males who are less fortunate, 1/2 children, 0/2 teenagers, and 1/2 adults gave it
back.

Children

Teenagers

Adults

Well Off

2/2 | 1/2

2/2 | 1/2

2/2 | 2/2

Underprivileged

1/2 | 1/2

0/2 | 0/2

2/2 | 1/2

The pink numerical values represent females while the blue ones represent males.

Discussion:

MORALITY VS. TEMPTATION

The final results werent very far from expectations. This is what we expected to
happen prior to conducting this experiment. Regardless of age, we assumed most of the
fortunate females to return the wallet and that is exactly what happened. Although, we
didnt anticipate the inconsistency in the underprivileged female category. However, our
initial expectations were proven accurate. On the other hand, the only male subcategory
that have returned the wallet consisted of well-off adults. Only a third of the
underprivileged men have returned the wallet and the reason for that is believed to be that
their need for the extra money takes over their tendency of making the right decision
under temptation. In one rather unorthodox situation, where the wallet was dropped near
a homeless man. The reaction was unusual. Not only did the man return the wallet, but he
refused to accept the money that was offered to him as sign of appreciation. The
participants who have returned the wallet were asked why they have done so. The
answers were similar and they all related back to saying that it was the right thing to do
and that it was the way they were raised.

References

MORALITY VS. TEMPTATION

Ahearne, J. F. (January 01, 2011). Honesty. American Scientist, 99, 2, 120-123.
Lickerman, A. (2014, February 23). Why Be Honest? Retrieved from
http://psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201402/why-be-honest/
Toledo-Pereyra, L. H. (January 01, 2006). Integrity. Journal of Investigative Surgery : the
Official Journal of the Academy of Surgical Research, 19, 1.)
White, D. (2013). Does it Really Matter If You Lie?. Psych Central. Retrieved on
December 3, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/06/06/doesit-really-matter-if-you-lie/
Yandell, K. E. (October 01, 1985). Religion and morality: Conflict and
correlation.Sophia, 24, 3, 32-52.

Teachers Comments:
Introduction:

Introduction: Begin with a more general statement, maybe a quote or interesting

question.
Eliminate 1st person (we) and 2nd person (you).
This is a good start for your research, but you need to bring it around to what your
experiment is.

Methods Section:

Write this section in past tense.

Measures section needs to specifically define how you measures participants' responses
to the wallet being dropped.
Participants section needs to be very specific.
Participants are the people who picked up the wallet.
Did you reward people who returned the wallet?

Results & Discussion:

Explain how you know someone is "well off" or "under-privileged" in your procedures.
There should be more to the results. Maybe a table?
Where is the discussion section?

MORALITY VS. TEMPTATION