21059-1415_3451916_33361166_Final_Year_Project

of 37
A REPLICATION: LAMPS
ARE THE BEST POLICE:
DARKNESS INCREASES
DISHONESTY AND SELF-
INTERESTED BEHAVIOUR.
Autilia Antonucci
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the BSc
(Hons) Psychologydegree, Leeds Beckett University, 2015.

of 37
I declare that this work is my own and has been completed within the University regulations.
I consent for my Final Year Project to be made available to other FYP students in the future on the
understanding that no material contained within the document will be reproduced or photocopied.
I confirm that the word count of the main text is 7651 words.
Signed: A. Antonucci.
Date:08/04/2015

of 37
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my supervisor Jeanette Garwood, for all your help, and always going above and
beyond to support me and the team.
Special thanks to Emma Simpson, Charlotte Boyce and Katie Gartside. It has been a pleasure working
alongside you all.
Thank you to Julie Heaton for your patience and help with our ethics.
To the whole of the Psychology Department at Leeds Beckett,thank you for equipping me with skills
and knowledge I have needed to complete my FYP.
Finally, a huge thank you is in order, to all those who gave their time, and participated in the study.
I really appreciate all the help and support that I have received from everybody, during the process of
conducting the study, and writing this report.

of 37
A Replication: Lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested
behaviour.
Abstract:
The current paper is a replication of Zhong, Bohns and Gino’s (2010) study into the effects of
darkness on dishonesty and self-interested behaviour. The findings showed that participants
wearing clear glasses (N=29), reported lower levels of anonymity (M= 21.29, Z= -4.40, p=
.00; p≤.05) and gave a higher proportion of money for the recipient (M= £37.98, Z= -2.15, p=
.03; p≤.05), in a one shot dictator game. This is in comparison to participants wearing tinted
glasses (N=35), that reported higher levels anonymity (M= 41.79) and gave a lower
proportion of money for the recipient (M= £27.96). In line with the findings of Zhong Bohns
and Gino (2010), tinted glasses caused participants to report higher levels of anonymity and
leave less money for the recipient. However, the current study found no significant difference
(Z= -1.85,p= .07; p≥ .05) in the amount of money left for a recipient, by participants
reporting high levels (≤ 22) of anonymity, compared to participants reporting low levels
(≥21) of anonymity. These results implicate variables outside of the proposed ‘illusory
anonymity’ (Zhong, Bohns and Gino, 2010). The findings suggest that anonymity is not the
underlying factor causing the disinhibited acts of self-interested behaviour. The author
suggests that situated procedural embodiment, alongside media representations and
personality factors, account for the effect, within a framework of inactivity in the Behavioural
Inhibition System (BIS) (Gray, 1982, cited in Hirsh, Galinsky and Zhong, 2011).
Introduction:
Participants have been noted to engage in cheating behaviour (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, &
Kelem, 1976; Zhong, Bohns, & Gino, 2010) and selfish behaviour (Hoffman, McCabe, &
Smith, 1996) more frequently under conditions of anonymity.
Zhong, Bohns and Gino (2010) reported that participants that experienced darkness, in two
conditions: a ‘dimly’ lit room or through wearing tinted glasses, expressed more self-
interested behaviour. Within literature darkness has been implicated in morally-deviant
behaviour (Sherman and Clore, 2009 cited in Brandt, Ijzerman and Blanken, 2014). This
phenomena may account for the increase in violent crimes between 18.00 h and midnight
(Mayhew et al., 1993 cited in Painter, 1996), when conditions are darker. Hamlin, Wynn and

of 37
Bloom (2007, cited in Brandt, Ijzerman and Blanken 2014) concluded that perceptual
stimulators, such as light, are intertwined in moral concepts.
Darkness can induce a sense of ‘illusory anonymity’, where participants believe that they are
less recognisable to others, due to the impairment to their own sight. (Zhong, Bohns and
Gino, 2010) This is often a misguided generalisation to the subjective experience of others.
For example, in a condition where light is limited due to wearing sunglasses, illusory
anonymity still occurs, despite the fact on-lookers will not have the same visual impairment.
The mechanisms behind this phenomena are discussed later.
Various overlapping theories have been postulated within literature to account for the
emergence of self-interested behaviour induced by an absence of sufficient lighting, thus
impairing vision, and creating a sense of anonymity.
It is important to recognise that even apparent, surface altruistic acts, can be self-serving.
This is of significance, as prosocial behaviour can be observed in dimly lit scenarios.
Egocentrism in Moral Development
Piaget defined egocentrism as an ‘unconscious confusion of one’s own point of view with
that of the other’, (1995, p.279). This mind-set places dominance over parts, i.e. individuals,
as opposed to the ‘whole’, or in social terms society as a whole. Piaget (see Chapman, 1998,
cited in Boom, 2011) argued that morality is based upon cooperation and reciprocity, which
requires the decentred collection of individual interests taken together as a whole. This is in
contrast to a centred approach where an individual's own interests are taken to be the whole,
without any acknowledgement that other people have differing interests and perspectives. To
illustrate this phenonmena, Piaget and Inhelder (1956) developed the ‘three mountains task’,
which demonstrated that children take an egocentric approach when asked the viewpoint of a
doll. The young children displayed a lack of understanding that the doll would have a
different perspective from themselves. Thus the world can be said to be seen as an extension
of oneself- this is vital in morality, and alturistic acts, where the existence of others is
fundamental. Lickona (1976 cited in Ferreira, 2008) suggested that the change in objective to
subjective responsibility evident in child morality, is reliant on the transition from
egocentrism to decentrism, This occurs alongside a more general cognitive improvement and
a maturation in social relations, “from a submission to adult constraint to co-operative social
relations with peers” (Ferreira, 2008).

of 37
In normal development egocentrism is replaced by an ideal of reciprocity, which is regarded
as a cognitive source of moral development (Boom, 2011). The course of development is
aided by increased possibilities of experiences and perspectives which are more effectively
cognitively organised. Thus linking back to morality and alturism being rooted in the
existence of others-the more an individual can understand and organise the differing
perspectives, interests and actions of others, this provides the basis for reciprocity. To put
simplistically, once an individual can begin to decentre, they can understand the implications
of their actions, and how they impact on others. In this sense others are no longer seen as an
extension of oneself, but rather free agents, who can be affected by our own free agency. This
organisation of perspectives is fundamental to moral development, as it is inherently
relational. Role taking and interaction is important in moral development as they lead not
only to better awareness of others and their perspective, but also lead to more self-awareness.
Habermas (1990, cited in Boom, 2011) claimed that to be human is to conjure our own sense
of identity and personality. However this can only be achieved through communication
within our intersubjective relations. Our personal attributes we ascribe to ourselves must be
validated by recognition from others. Thus moral rules are constructed with the function to
maintain and protect our identities and networks. (Habermas 1990, cited in Boom, 2011). For
example, attributing oneself as a ‘good’ person, can only be validated through the recognition
for our ‘good’ actions by others.
Zhong, Bohns and Gino, (2010) proposed that egocentrism functioned in creating illusory
anonymity in dimly lit settings, thus inducing self-interested behaviour. This occurs by
participants egocentrically generalising their experience of impaired sight, to the perspective
of others. However upon reflection of the functionality of morality previously mentioned,
egocentric biases may go further than just aid anonymity. It may start to account for why this
sense of anonymity can cause a relapse in moral judgement. Because our sense of self is tied
up in intersubjective relations, when we are not in the presence of others, any negative
actions cannot be recognised and attributed to our character by on-lookers. Therefore our
positive sense of self is not threatened, leading to the decrease of inhibitions.
Situated procedural embodiment
Construal Level Theory suggests that our ability to think about distal objects occurs via the
formation of abstract mental construals. Distal objects are things which are not in our

of 37
immediate capacity, and can include thinking about the future, past, remote location, taking
on a different perspective or making predictions. There are high and low construal levels.
High construal levels are more abstract representations which are selected according to the
relevance to our personal goals. They contain less concrete details which are sacrificed for
more general meaning, and information about the value and relations of the stimuli in relation
to others. For example, a mobile phone can be conceptualised in two different ways,
according to the particular goals. When the goal is to contact a friend, it can be cognitively
organised as a ‘communication device’. The functionality of the mobile is the most important
factor here, and it could be replaced by a computer with internet access to fulfil the goal. The
size of the mobile phone is irrelevant under this particular goal. Changing the goal to a
pickpocket, the size suddenly becomes of importance. In this case the phone can be mentally
represented as a small valuable object, and could be interchanged for a wallet. The function
in this case is irrelevant. (Trope and Liberman, 2010)
Steidle, Hanke and Werth (2011, cited in Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013) stated that
darkness is linked with abstract processing thus high construal level. This is an example of
procedural embodiment phenomena, where the concrete entity of darkness is associated with
the procedure of abstract processing. This embodied procedure (darkness-abstract construals)
has been implicated as a possible effector of behaviour. (Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013).
Darkness may be implicitly associated with abstract construals due to the differences in
visual perception under differing light conditions. In light conditions cone photoreceptors
produce a detailed and coloured perception, aiding a more concrete and detailed mental
representation. In darkness, rod cones provide a less vivid perception (Bruce at al 2003, cited
in Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013), leading to an abstract construal due to the vague nature
of visual perception in dark conditions. Abstract processing style has been noted to transfer
from the perceptual to conceptual level (Fӧrster and Denzler, 2012 cited in Steidle, Hanke
and Werth, 2013). This shift from perceptual to conceptual level defines two distinct
processing styles. At the perceptual level, experiential cognitive system processing occurs. It
is fast, effortless and holistic in nature. (Epstein, 2014, p. 12 cited in Pashko, 2014). Malcolm
Gladwell (2005 cited in Pashko, 2014) described the process as ‘thinking without thinking’,
demonstrating the ‘effortless’ nature of the experiential cognitive system. This is in contrast
to the conceptual level which involves rational cognitive processing, which seeks deliberate
and logical solutions. Put simplistically, in darker conditions our sight is impaired, thus our
perception can be regarded as more uncertain or ‘abstract’. This leads to an abstract

of 37
processing style, which is a higher construal level, and thus leads to rational cognitive
processing of information. This higher construal level symbolises the ambiguity of an object,
due to our impairment of visual stimuli, leading us to have to make predictions in our
perception.
Construal levels affect behaviour through the mechanism of self-construal, which is the
perception of the self in relation to others. There are two forms: Independent Self-Construal,
where the self is defined in terms of intrinsic and stable attributes, and Interdependent Self-
Construal. (Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013). The interdependent self-construal contains
indistinctive self-descriptions, has less specific information about the self and bases the self
in relation to others. It is therefore more abstract, hence why it is thought to be the strand of
self-construal which is promoted in darkness. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, our
perception in darkness is limited, therefore can be described as more ‘abstract’, indicative of
a higher, more abstract construal level. Furthermore, use of an interdependent self-construal,
complies with the rational cognitive information processing style, which is characteristic of
the conceptual level. The rational-cognitive system uses analytical methods of cause and
effect, (Epstein, 2014, p. 12 cited in Pashko, 2014) in order to produce a sense of self,t hus,
in the same manner as the interdependent self-construal, relies on our external behaviours and
interactions with others.
Interdependent self-construals have been found to lead to prosocial behaviour (Steidle, Hanke
and Werth, 2013). However darkness only promotes the use of interdependent self-
construal’s when it is relevant to do so. These situations are ones in which interactions
indicate potential long term cooperation, thus have collectivist interests (Steidle, Hanke and
Werth, 2013).
The prospect of future cooperation is an important factor in producing interdependent self-
construal’s, which will promote pro-social behaviour and cooperation. Burnham (2003) in a
similar study using the dictator game framework found that seeing a picture of the ‘recipient’,
increased the monetary value left by participants for their recipient counterparts. It was
suggested that this occurrence has evolutionary underpinnings, as recognising the face of an
individual in ancestral times, where communities were small and stable, was likely to be
positively correlated with a ‘high number of future interactions’ (Burnham, 2003). Therefore
it can be implied that the participants in Burnham’s (2003) study left more money for the
recipient because seeing the photograph of them triggered an evolved mechanism. This can

of 37
be assumed to cause the participant to unconsciously expect furture interactions with this
person. This opportunity for future cooperation, promoted the use of the participant’s
interdependent self-construal. The use of the interdependent self-construal led the participant
to act selflessly, as their actions were being self-assessed in relation to others. Acting
cooperatively creates a positive self-image in light of our social relations. Further, altruistic
and prosocial acts are likely to have the opportunity to be reciprocated; therefore these
surface selfless acts can be seen as self-serving. The nature of the Zhong, Bohns and Gino
(2010) study which is being replicated in this study, does not create a mutual
interdependence. Consequently effects such as anonymity or other relevant processes should
override the interdependent self-construal.
In conclusion, in instances of darkness, where some mutual dependence and opportunity for
reciprocity occurs, the interdependent self-construal should guide behaviour. Abstract
thinking and high construal levels which are components of the interdependent self-construal,
are associated with positive affect (Isen and Duabman 1984 cited in Steidle, Hanke and
Werth, 2013) and increased perception of similarity between participants (Fӧrster, Liberman
and Kuschel, 2008 cited in Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013). A combination of these effects
should promote prosocial behaviour in dark conditions (Fischer, 2009; Isen, 1999, cited in
2008 cited in Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013).
Devindividuation and Anonymity
Devindividuation was defined by Singer, Brush and Lublin (1965) as a “subjective state in
which people lose their self-consciousness”. It is an intraindividual phenomenon where a loss
of self-observation and self-evaluation occurs, alongside a lowered concern for social
evaluation. The summation of these, is an increased likelihood of expressing uninhibited
behaviour. Zimbardo (1970, cited in Diener 1997) proposed ten input variables which lead to
changes in the perception of the self and others, ‘the inferred subjective state’. These in turn
produce the displays of disinhibited behaviour. Amongst the ten postulated input variables
was anonymity. However anonymity does not just serve to conceal the identity of a subject,
but should also act to minimize accountability (Wallace, 1999 cited in Nogami and Yoshida
2013). Based on this definition, a person cannot be held accountable for his or her behaviour
from a third person’s point of view (Nogami and Yoshida 2013). Further evidence supporting
the role of anonymity in deindividuation, leading to uninhibited behaviour comes from a
study conducted by Gergen, Gergen and Barton (1973). It was found that anonyimity induced

of 37
by total darkness led participants to touch one another more and express increased sexual
excitement. This demonstrates that anonymity does not just produce antisocial behaviour,
rather it produces a broad spectrum of disinhibited behaviour, including sexually disinhibited
behaviour. Literature has tended to focus on deindividuation and anonymity occurring in
group settings. Diener et al (1976) found that the effect of anonymity is present even when
participants are alone. Furthermore, it was found that in anonymous conditions, material self-
interest, such as financial rewards, increases the frequency of unethical decision making
(Loe, Ferrell, & Mansfield, 2000 cited in Nogami and Yoshia 2013). These studies are of
particular relevance to the current study, as participants will be alone, and due to the nature of
the dictator game, will have material self-interest. In light of this literature, it will be expected
that participants should act in a more selfish manner, and leave less money for their paired-
recipient.
The aim of the current research is to replicate the study by Zhong, Bohns and Gino (2010) to
further investigate the effect of ‘illusory anonymity’. It is hypothesised that participants will
be more dishonest and selfish in the conditions where their vision is impaired by the lack of
light due to wearing sunglasses. Dishonesty and self-interested behaviour will be
operationalised, and measured by the amount of money the participant decides to share
between themselves and an unknown ‘recipient’.
Hypothesis (1): Participants wearing tinted glasses will report significantly higher levels of
perceived anonymity than participants wearing clear glasses
Hypothesis (1i): Participants that report higher levels of anonymity will leave a significantly
lower proportion of money for the recipient, than those who report lower levels of anonymity.
Hypothesis (2): Participants wearing tinted glasses will leave a significantly lower proportion
of money for the recipient, than those wearing clear glasses.
The significance of separating the two hypotheses allows the current research to differentiate
the effects mentioned in previous literature. In particular, if hypothesis (1) is rejected, but
hypothesis (2) is accepted, this should indicate whether situated procedural embodiment is
occurring, or whether deindividuation is causing the self-interested behaviour. If there if
wearing tinted glasses leads to a difference in the amount of money left by participants, but
there are no significant differences in the reported levels of anonymity- then this would
indicate that situated procedural embodiment is contributing to the observed effect. Following
this it can be assumed as anonymity has been ruled out as a contributing factor, therefore

of 37
cannot induce deindividuation. Therefore by process of elimination situated procedural
embodiment may explain the increase in self-interested behaviour. If both hypothesis (1) and
(1i) are accepted then this provides some support for the role of anonymity and
deindividuation in self-interested, uninhibited acts.
Methodology:
The study replicated two components of Zhong Bohns and Gino’s (2010) Study- ‘Experiment
2: “Shades” and Self-Interested Behaviour’ and ‘Experiment 3: “Shades and Perceieved
Anonymity’. The executive decision to not replicate their initial ‘Experiment 1’ is grounded
in previous literature which supports self-interested behaviour is induced in ‘darker’
conditions. Furthermore, Experiment 2 provides a more interesting phenomena, where
participants egocentrically generalise their experience of impaired sight caused by wearing
tinted glasses. The grounded for this assumption is that sunglasses should have no effect on
actual anonymity, on the on-line dictator task, without face-to-face interaction (Zhong, Bohns
and Gino, 2010). This ‘illusory anonymity’ is a phenomenon which is lacking in previous
research. Furthermore it is easier to replicate Experiment 2, rather than trying to reproduce
the ‘Dim’ conditions in Experiment 1. A ‘dim’ room, is subjective - at what point does a
room’s lighting qualify as ‘dim’? Sunglasses however, can have their impairment on sight
more objectively measured, by the ‘percentage of tint’ the glasses have.
Variables:
Dependant (1): The amount of money left in the envelope by the participant to be
‘assigned to the recipient’. This will be measured in GBP. The construct of self-interested
behaviour is being operationalised as the amount of money the participant chooses to
undeservingly award to themselves. This amount is calculated by the amount left in the
concealed envelope by the participant for the ‘recipient’. It is assumed that the less money the
participant leaves, the more ‘selfish’ the behaviour is.
Dependant (2): The perceived level of anonymity experienced by the participant. This
was calculated by adding the scores from a 5 question 7-likhert-scale questionnaire
completed by each participant. Scores of 5 indicated complete perceived anonymity, ranging
up to 35, indicating complete absence of perceived anonymity. Upon completion of the study,
during the stages of analysis, it was decided to split anonymity scores into ‘high’ and ‘low’.

of 37
A median split was conducted: scores of 21 and below were classified as ‘low anonymity’,
whilst scores of 22 and above were grouped as ‘high’. This permitted the use of Mann
Whitney U for analysis.
Independent: Participants will be assigned to one of two conditions. In the first
condition they will wear tinted sunglasses, in the second condition they will wear clear
glasses. Sunglasses are a means of creating a subjective experience of reduced lighting. This
will only lead to illusory experience of anonymity, if participants are egocentric and apply
their subjective experience of obscured light perception, onto the perception of others. This is
in contrast to a dimmed room, where all hypothetical ‘others’ within the room would
experience the same impairment of vision due to the lack of sufficient lighting.
Materials:
- Presentation:
The presentation containsstep-by-step standardised instructions for
participants to follow to carry out the experiment. This was created, firstly to
ensure the participant could be left unattended in the room to participate in the
dictator task- thus allowing for anonymity. Furthermore the standardised
instructions enable consistency between participants, even when participants
were seen to over a period of time conducted by the different experimenters.
This method of delivering the standardised instructions made replication
effective within the study, and will assist future replication studies.
The presentation consists of nine pages (see Appendix vi) . Page 1 welcomes
the participant to the study and introduces them to the use of the ‘next’ button,
that will direct them through the presentation. Page 2 asks participants to
complete the word search. (see Methodology – Materials – Word search).
Page 3 presents the ‘wage game’ and explains that the participant will be
digitally paired with another person. Pages 4 -7 are designed to give the
illusion of searching for a person for the participant to be matched with, and
then ‘randomly’ assigning the participant to the dictator role, which is
described as the ‘initator’. Page 8 instructs participants to divide the money
between themselves and their ‘paired participant’- leaving the money for them
in the envelope. Page 9 concludes the experiment and tells the participant they
are welcome to leave.

of 37
Dictator task (‘wage game’): Hoffman, McCabe, Shachat and Smith (1994,
cited in Frohlich, Oppenhiemer and Moore 2001) developed the dictator game
in order to research into self-interested decision making. The nature of the task
requires the participant and recipient to remain anonymous to each other. In
this particular experiment, the recipient did not actually exist, rather
participants were deceived into believing that they are randomly being paired
to another person in a remote location. The nature of the dictator task in this
study means that no long term cooperation is required between the participant
and false ‘recipient’. The significance of this is that there are no collective
interests, nor a mutual interference, which, as aforementioned, should prevent
the formation of an interdependent self-construal, thus should not promote
cooperation.
- Sunglasses/ Clear Glasses: (See Methodology – Variables – Independent)
- Consent forms (see Appendix iv): Consent forms are an integral part of ensuring the
ethics are maintained to a high standard in the study. Participants are informed of their
rights, and the Data Protection Act is included for them to read.
- Debrief (see Appendix v): Participants are issued debrief forms in order to explain the
deception that was necessary in the study in order to produce reliable results. If
participants were told the true nature of the study, their behaviour may change in
accordance of what they believe is expected of them. Furthermore the debrief includes
contact details of the researchers that the participants can use if there are any
concerns.
- Participant Information Sheet (see Appendix vii): Contains information for the
participant about what to expect in the study, and how their data will be used.
Furthermore it includes contact details of researchers.
- Questionnaire (see Appendix i): Consisting of five questions aiming to determine the
perceived level of anonymity experienced by participants in the experiment.
Measured on a likert scale from 1-7, in order to numerically represent the level of
perceived anonymity.
- Unsealed envelope with £2 in 5 pence pieces: Using 5ps allows for a greater level of
variance when it comes to the analysis of results, compared to using higher
denominations.

of 37
- Unsealed envelope: This allows the participant to keep their decision as to the amount
of money they leave for the ‘recipient’ unknown from the experimenter. This should
reduce any social desirability effects caused by the presence of the experimenter.
- Word search (see Appendix iii): A pilot study was conducted, and the word search
was taking longer than anticipated, in a response to this the word search was reduced
from ten to five words. This was to ensure that the nature of the word search as a
distractor task did not over consume the participant’s attention, thus leaving the
dictator game aspect neglected. The importance of the word search was to distract
participant’s from the true nature of the experiment, by suggesting that the aim of the
experiment was to ‘test the...glasses’ (Zhong, Bohns and Gino 2010)
Participants:
- Demographic: A total of 64 participants took part in the study (F=35, M=29). All
participants were undergraduate university students from the Leeds area. The age of
participants ranged from 18 -26 years (M=20.44, SD=1.097).
- Recruitment: Participants for the study were recruited through the use of poster
advertisements placed around the university, emails sent to psychology
undergraduates and opportunistic approaching of students in public university spaces.
- Sampling: The study used a between participants experimental design- participants
assigned to each condition on an opportunistic basis. Condition appointment relied on
an alternating system depending on the condition the previous participant of the same
sex had been allocated to. This was in an attempt to assign even numbers of females
and males in each condition
Procedure:
Participants are scheduled to meet with experimenters on a one-to-one basis, at a convenient,
private location with access to a computer. The participant is invited into the computer lab,
given two copies of the consent form to read and sign, a word search, questionnaire, an empty
envelope, and another unsealed envelope containing £2.00 in 5 pence pieces. Depending on
which condition the participant has been assigned to, (see Methodology – Participants –
Sampling) they will be given either clear or tinted glasses. The experimenter explains to the
participant that they are to read the consent form, and if they still wish to proceed, they are to
sign then follow the instructions on the PowerPoint. (see Methodology – Materials –
Presentation). The experimenter then leaves the room, so the participant is in privacy to

of 37
complete the experiment at their leisure. On completion of the study the experimenter issues
the participant with a debrief sheet to read, and gives the participant the appropriate means of
contact to discuss any issues regarding the study. This information is also included in the
debrief sheet, which is for the participant to keep, along with one of the two consent forms
they signed previously. The experimenter makes sure that the participant leaves with both of
these documents. Upon the exiting of the participant, the experimenter notes on the
questionnaire, which of the two conditions the participant had been assigned to (‘sunglasses’,
‘clear glasses’), the age and sex of the participant, and the amount of money left in the
envelope for the recipient.
Ethics:
An important ethical consideration to take into account when conducting this study is the
relationship between experimenter and participant. Owing to the sensitive nature of the study,
indicating self-interested behaviour, are results that the experimenter may wish to be
protected from if they know the participant personally. This also applies the other way round,
where the participant may wish for the results about displays of self-interested behaviour to
be reserved from the experimenter. Even in cases where there is no prior relationship between
experimenter and participant, upon reading the debrief, which discloses the true nature of the
study, participants may wish to withdraw from the study. The parameters surrounding the
participant’s right to withdraw are outlined in the consent form, and further reiterated in the
debrief. As aforementioned, the experimenter will make sure that at the end of the study, each
participant is given a debrief sheet, one copy of their consent form, and means of contact with
any queries to do with the study.
Results:
Initially, Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was conducted, in order to test
assumptions underlying analysis of variance. A significant result (p= .001; p> .05) was
recorded, suggesting that the variance of the dependent variable across the groups was not
equal. Following this it was decided that non-parametric to exploratory analysis was more
appropriate. This was concluded due to the insufficient levels of variance that were possible
to be achieved, owing to the discrete (as opposed to continuous) nature of the 5 pence pieces
used as the monetary reward.

of 37
The executive decision was made to individually test each hypothesis, using non parametric
statistical analysis, as results from the Levene’s test indicated that other variables may be
mediating the effect of clear/dark glasses on perceived anonymity and the wage game.
Hypothesis (1): Participants wearing tinted glasses will report significantly higher levels of
perceived anonymity than participants wearing clear glasses. The results from the current
study provide supporting evidence. A Mann Whitney U test was conducted, (Z=-4.404,
p=.000; p<.05) indicating a significant difference in the reported anonymity score, between
the two conditions within the independent variable of type of glasses. Those in the condition
‘tinted glasses’, reported higher levels of perceived anonymity (M = £41.79), compared to
participants in the ‘clear glasses’ condition (M= £21.29).
Hypothesis (1i): Participants that report higher levels of anonymity will leave the recipient a
significantly lower proportion of money than those who report lower levels of anonymity.
Non-parametric Mann Whitney U Test was applied, (Z= -1.847, p= .065; p>.05) results
indicated that there is no significant difference in the amount of money left for a ‘recipient’
between those categorised as ‘not experiencing anonymity’ (M = 36.92) and ‘experiencing
anonymity’(M = 28.35). The two categories were created by a conducting a median split of
anonymity scores. Scores of 22 and above were categorised as ‘experiencing anonymity’,
whilst scores of 21 and below were categorised as ‘not experiencing anonymity’.
Hypothesis (2): Participants wearing tinted glasses will leave the recipient a significantly
lower proportion of money than those wearing clear glasses. The results from the Mann
Whitney U test (Z= -2.152, p= .031; p<.05) indicated a significant difference in the amount
left for the recipient by participants between the two conditions of ‘sunglasses’ (M = £27.96)
and ‘clear glasses’ (M = £37.98). In line with Hypothesis two, the findings of the study
showed that participants wearing the tinted glasses left less money for the recipient than
participants wearing clear glasses.
Discussion:
The results of this study provide support for Hypothesis (1) and Hypothesis (2). The
significance of the results not corresponding to Hypothesis (1i), suggests that anonymity is
not implicated in the higher levels of self-interested behaviour exhibited in the sunglasses
condition.

of 37
One possible explanation for the discrepancy in the amount of money left for the recipient
under conditions of reported anonymity, fits into the framework of Gray’s (1982, cited in
Hirsh, Galinsky and Zhong, 2011) model of behavioural inhibition. The basis of this theory
is that the the inactivity of a particular brain network, coined the Behavioural Inhibition
System (BIS), leads to disinhibition. The BIS activation functions to inhibit behaviours that
may lead to potentially negative consequences. BIS activation occurs under conditions of
potential perceived threat, or more significantly for the current study; in situations where the
appropriate response is unclear. (McNaughton and Gray, 2000 cited in Hirsh, Galinski and
Zhong, 2011). Under this proposed model, disinhibition occurs when the relative strength of a
competing potential response is reduced, thus allowing for the most salient action to be
expressed without interference from the BIS. The heightened experience of anonymity in the
current study, would lead to a reduction in concerns regarding social desirability- due to the
absence of ‘others’. Therefore, this would decrease any conflict between acts self-interested
behaviour and socially-desirable behaviours, thus leading to the inactivity of the BIS. In this
situation, the most salient response will be expressed by the individual. This response can be
internally triggered, or externally triggered. Both of which will be discussed further, as a
possible explanation for the results observed in the present study.
Internally triggered responses, would depend on personality factors, therefore may account
for the differences in money left for the ‘recipient’.
In one-shot dictator games, where participants must divide a sum of money between
themselves and a passive ‘recipient’, incentives are claimed to affect behaviour (Ben-ner,
Kramer and Levy 2008). When monetary incentives are offered, as opposed to asking to
share a hypothetical sum of money, participants were found to share less generously
(Forsythe et al., 1994, cited in Ben-ner, Kramer and Levy 2008). The impact of monetary
incentives on the generosity of a participant is complex, with many factors to take into
account, which lead to the huge variation, often evident in economic literature, between
individuals (Ben-ner, Kramer and Levy 2008). Ben-ner, Kramer and Levy (2008) linked
individual differences in behaviour observed in dictator experiments to agreeableness and
extraversion, which are both personality traits from the NEO five-factor inventory (Costa and
McCrae, 1985). In particular they found that participants that scored high on extraversion
were generous when monetary incentives were hypothetical, but distributed the money in
favour of themselves when the incentives were real. Participants described as ‘kind,
cooperative, unselfish, trustful, and generous’ gave more generously when there was actual

of 37
money compared to the hypothetical scenarios. (Ben-ner, Kramer and Levy 2008). The
significance of this research highlights the importance of controlling for individual
differences.
As aforementioned, individual differences have been found to affect self-interested displays
of behaviour, observed in dictator tasks. The study in hand aimed to look at the effect of dim
lighting/tinted glasses on self-interested behaviour, therefore the study should have controlled
for individual differences to ensure that any observed effects were not confounded.
The current study used a between participants design, using random allocation to each
condition, which has just been outlined as a problem due to individual differences between
participants being uncontrolled for. There is a possibility that the randomly assigned
participants in one condition were all of a predisposition to exert more selfless behaviour than
participants randomly allocated to condition two. This would give a false impression that the
experimental condition was affecting the behaviour observed, when in actual fact it was
personal traits. One means of overcoming issues of individual differences would be to use a
matched-pairs experimental design, pairing participants in each condition according to their
corresponding characteristics. This would require pre-experimental research to determine
which characteristics affect self-interested behaviour, thus should be controlled. Furthermore
there would need to be a consideration for how these traits would be measured.
In light of the current findings, it is suggested that anonymity does not underpin the observed
difference in money left for the recipient. Situated procedural embodiment was postulated in
the introduction as an alternative mechanism by which this observed phenomena occurs.
Situated procedural embodiment would suggest that the perceptual ambiguity induced in the
darkness, caused by twearing the tinted glasses, would lead to the use of an abstract construal
(Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013). This represents a change in the state of thought processes.
This change in the type of thinking engaged in, shapes self-perception. The use of a higher
construal level translates in to an interdependent self- construal, where our sense of self is
based on our interactions with others. The present study involves the detachment of the
participant from ‘others’. Due to this lack of social engagement, there is no basis in order to
form a positive sense of self through prosocial interactions. This observed effect could also
occur through the inactivity of the BIS, due to the reduced saliency of acting in a socially
desirable way in order to promote a positive self-image through an interdependent self-
construal, as aforementioned.

of 37
Furthermore the use of self-construal’s as the basis of self-interested behaviour, can be
applied to explain the findings of current study. The acts of self-interested behaviour
observed may suggest that an interdependent self-construal is not being used by participants.
This can be assumed on the basis of past research, indicating that interdependent self-
construals lead to selfless and prosocial acts. This is likely to be due to the nature of the study
not requiring, nor suggesting that future cooperation will be possible. As mentioned in the
introduction, an interdependent self- construal, which is thought to occur under conditions of
ambiguity, for example in darkness, only occur when future cooperation is expected.
The introduction outlines that under conditions of induced darkness (i.e wearing sunglasses),
the abstract construal level moves from the perceptual to conceptual, (Fӧrster and Denzler,
2012 cited in Steidle, Hanke and Werth, 2013), which in turn determines the cognitive
processing style used. It can be assumed that participants wearing sunglasses would rely upon
the rational cognitive system. This can account for the observed self-interested acts of sharing
the money in their own favour. As implied in the name the ‘rational’ cognitive system
constitutes a logical and emotion free approach to problem solving. This relates to the field of
study, economics, that use dictator games, on the assumption that human beings are
‘rational’. Therefore in economic studies, it is expected that individuals will display
behaviours that are payoff maximizing, thus keeping all the money, and assigning nothing to
the recipient (Franzen and Pointner, 2012). In part this is observed in the current study-
participants do tend to award themselves a higher proportion of money when wearing
sunglasses, thus in the condition where they are thought to be using the rational cognitive
system in order to make this decision. However, this effect is mediated by other factors, for
example personality, as discussed in the body of this report.
As previously mentioned, the inactivity of the BIS will lead to the expression of the most
salient response, which will be either be internally or externally triggered (Hirsh, Galinsky
and Zhong, 2011). Internal triggers, such as personality factors have been discussed,
therefore potential external triggers in current study shall now be explored.
A study conducted by Johnson and Downing (1979 Cited in Hirsh, Galinsky and Zhong,
2011) demonstrated the strength of environmental factors, namely the effects of different
outfits on shaping behaviour. Participants in the study either wore a nurses’ outfit, or an outfit
that resembled the attire worn by the Ku Klux Klan. Participants wearing the Ku Klux Klan
outfit administered higher shocks to a ‘learner’, in contrast to participants wearing the nurses’

of 37
outfit, who administered a lower intensity of shock. This phenomenon can be translated to the
current study- sunglasses are frequently portrayed in the media, as representing ‘bad cop’, in
contrast to the ‘good cop’. Figure 1 shows an example, of this media representation in the
LEGO Movie (Lord and Miller, 2014). The ‘bad cop’ wears dark sunglasses, whereas the
‘good cop’ wears clear glasses. Therefore participants in the current study may exert more
self-interested behaviour due in response to the sunglasses acting as a situational cue for
behaviour. Within the BIS framework, due to the absence of ‘others’, there is no conflicting
social desirability, thus the BIS is not activated, hence allowing a state of disinhibiton. The
competing response of acting in self-interest, by taking more money, is made the more salient
response, due to wearing the glasses that act as an external trigger, by representing the ‘bad
cop’ stereotype. ‘Bad cops’ are seen in media to act without regarding the feelings of others,
which mimics self-interested behaviour- hence why participants may feel more inclined to
express self-interested behaviours when wearing the tinted glasses. With the increase in
saliency of acting in self-interest, the likelihood of BIS activation is decreased, thus allowing
disinhibition.
. Figure 1. ‘Good cop’ and ‘bad cop’ portrayed in LEGO
Movie. (Lord and Miller, 2014)
Real World Applications: Are lamps the best police?
Situational crime prevention relies on the implementation of physical measures, such as
increased street lighting (Balemba and Beauregard, 2013). This is opposed to tackling crime
prevention at a social level. The aims of situational crime prevention methods are to reduce
the frequency of crime. The assumptions underlying these methods are that criminals engage
in cognitive evaluations of perceived costs and perceived benefits, before committing a

of 37
crime. Therefore it is hoped that the measures implemented will increase the perceived costs,
thus reducing the likelihood of the individual engaging in criminal behaviour.
The results of this study would indicate that in areas that are not well lit, a higher construal
level will occur. This will have relevant two effects: (i) individuals will refer to an
interdependent self-construal; (ii) the use of the rational cognitive system will be initiated.
Firstly, the first noted effect (i) shall be discussed in the context of situational crime
prevention. The use of the interdependent self-construal in dark conditions depends on the
perceived likelihood of future interactions. Therefore it can be postulated that in areas of dim
lighting, crimes against victims are more likely because the victims’ identity is more
concealed. Thus, leading that the criminal is less likely to engage in an interdependent-self
construal, that would usually promote prosocial behaviour in darkness. (Steidle, Hanke and
Werth, 2013). This is in contrast to a large pool of research that suggests that the increased
likelihood of criminal offences occur because of the criminal’s own increased sense of
anonymity. The current findings did not support previous literature that suggests anonymity
is implicated in self-interested behaviour.
The second effect (ii), with regards to using situational crime prevention methods, namely
installing more street lighting, should lead to improvement in the reduction of crime. The
very basis that situational crime prevention is founded on, is that criminals make cognitive
effort to weigh up the perceived pros and cons of committing the intended crime (Balemba
and Beauregard, 2013). This is characteristic of information processing within the rational
cognitive system. Therefore by increasing lighting, the perceived cost should be increased.
Such as: the difficulty to act out a criminal offence without getting caught, thus increasing the
likelihood of punishment. Therefore due to the increased costs, the criminal will be less likely
to commit the crime, because the perceived costs will more likely outweigh the perceived
benefits.
Methodological Evaluations:
- Problems with the construct of self-interested behaviour:
This study operationalised self-interested behaviour as allocating a larger sum of money to
themselves compared to the amount left for the ‘recipient’. However, helping others has been
identified by Batson, Van Lange, Ahmad, & Lishner (2003) as a form of self-interested

of 37
behaviour. Nogami and Yoshida (2013) expanded on this idea suggesting that people benefit
others, even when reciprocation is unlikely, in order to gain psychological benefits, including
empathic joy (Hoffman, 1981 cited in Nogami and Yoshida 2013).
The construct of self-interest has often been operationalised in the same fashion as the current
study in much economic research. In literature, dictator games have led to findings where
participants do not display entirely self-interested behaviour, (not keeping all the money for
themselves) as economics may like to assume, on the basis that people will act in a self-
interested manner. Rather, as postulated by Hoffman, McCabe and Smith (1998 cited in Ben-
ner, Putterman, Kong and Magan, 2004), people act with reciprocity in mind, which ties in
with evolutionary psychology, which was previously mentioned. (See: Intro - situated
procedural embodiment). In the evolutionary history, humans lived in small communities
which required cooperation, sharing and reciprocity, in order to aid survival. These three
qualities would have contributed to the successful defence against threats, such as predators.
Sharing in particular would have increased survival potential, by the division of food from
hunts. Cosmides and Tooby, 1993 cited in Ben-ner, Putterman, Kong and Magan, 2004).
Again this reiterates how apparent altruistic acts of sharing behaviour, are potentially an
evolutionary mechanism, which by its very nature is self-serving. The title of Richard
Dawkin’s (1976) book on evolution: ‘the selfish gene’ serves to illustrate the fact all
evolution is ‘selfish’.
Furthermore, with regards to statistical analysis, the operationalization of self-interested
behaviour using 5ps leads to problems with the levels of variability which can be achieved,
because 5ps are not continuous. Therefore parametric tests cannot be used, hence the
application of non-parametric Mann Whitney U in the current study. This however does raise
concerns with the appropriateness of the parametric means of analysis conducted in the
original paper by Zhong, Bohns and Gino (2010).
- Problems with sampling:
One major limitation of the study was the breadth of participants who took place in the study.
The current study made use of undergraduate students in the Leeds area, however this is not
an accurate representation of larger populations. Furthermore, due to the form of recruitment
methods, the overall sample was not even representative of the student population, much less
the wider population of ‘young people’, or even wider populations. The study gained a large
response from psychology students, due to the channel of contact via department emails, and

of 37
the incentive of gaining participation points- which only first and second year psychology
students would have any need for.
However, one strength of the sample, is that the participants in the study fairly closely
mimicked those that participated in the original Zhong, Bohns and Gino (2010) experiment.
This allowed for a more direct comparison, which may implicate to cultural differences
between English and American students to attribute to any differences in results.
Suggestions for future research:
In consideration of the current study, future research may wish to conduct similar replications
that can improve on the drawbacks, which have been identified in the body of the discussion.
Personality factors have been acknowledged as a contributing factor to the observed effect of
self-interested behaviour. It may be beneficial to control for personality factors, such as
extraversion, by conducting pre-experimental self-measure questionnaires to measure various
personality factors. Questions from Costa and McCrae’s (1985) NEO five-factor inventory
may be useful. Participants can then be assigned to the two different conditions, in a matched
pairs design, or a repeated measures experimental design.
Another suggestion for future research may be beneficial to test the proposal that increased
criminal activity in darkness is due to the reduced visibility of the victim, rather than
concealment of the criminal’s own identity (See Discussion – Real World Applications: Are
lamps the best police?). This could be tested using the same one-shot dictator game design,
but showing participants a photograph of the ‘recipient’. The independent variable in this
instance would be the visibility of the ‘recipient’ in the photograph. In one condition, the
photograph of the ‘recipient’ would be taken in the dark, therefore less visible. In the second
condition the photograph would be taken in clear, well-lit conditions.
Finally, in light of the limitations due to the use of discrete 5p intervals, it may be useful for
future research to use a continuous means of monetary incentives. This could be achieved by
using online banking transfers into the participant’s own account. However ethical
considerations with regards to confidentiality and security must be taken into account. If
ethical clearance can be achieved, it may be an interesting area of study, which is relevant
alongside the recent technological advances in banking and handling money.

of 37
Concluding Comment:
The name of this paper is ‘A replication: Are Lamps the best police: Darkness increases
dishonesty and self-interested behaviour’. The replication of Zhong Bohns and Gino’s (2010)
original study has been successfully executed. In line with the findings from the original
paper, participants were found to exhibit more self-interested behaviour in the tinted glasses
condition, compared to participants in the clear glasses condition. However, in light of the
theoretical literature available, the current author does not attribute findings to ‘illusory
anonymity’, as proposed by Zhong Bohns and Gino (2010). This is further supported by the
rejection of Hypothesis (1i). With regards to situational crime prevention, ‘lamps’ are
considered as a useful intervention. The underlying psychological mechanisms that lead to
the effectiveness of street lighting as a useful crime intervention, is left uncertain. The author
therefore proposes recommendations for future research to investigate the matter further.

of 37
References
Balemba, S., and Beauregard, E. (2013). Where and when? Examining the spatiotemporal
aspects of sexual assault events. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19 (2), 171-190.
Batson, C. D., Van Lange, P. A. M., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2003). Altruism and
helping behavior. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology.
London: Sage Publications.
Ben-ner, A., Kramer, A., and Levy, O. (2008) Economic and hypothetical dictator game
experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (5),
1775-1784
Ben-ner, A., Putterman, L., Kong F., and Magan, D. (2004). Reciprocity in a two-part
dictator game. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 53(3), 333- 352.
Boom, J. (2011). Egocentrism in Moral Development: Gibbs, Piaget, Kohlberg. New Ideas in
Psychology, 29, 355-363.
Brandt, M. J., Ijzerman, H., and Blanken, I. (2014). Does Recalling Moral Behavior Change
the Perception of Brightness? A Replication and Meta-Analysis of Banerjee, Chatterjee, and
Sinha (2012). Social Psychology, 45, 3,246–252.
Bruce, V., Green, P. R., and Georgesen, M. A. (2003) Visual Perception: physiology,
psychology and ecology. New York: Psychology Press.
Burnham, (2003). Engineering altruism: a theoretical and experimental investigation of
anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50, 133-144.
Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive Evolution: Origins and Development of Piaget’s thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., 1993. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: Barkow, J.,
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (Eds.), The Adapted Mind. Oxford University Press: New York, 63–
228.
Costa, Paul T.; McCrae, Robert R. (1985). "The NEO personality inventory manual". Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dawkin, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press: New York.

of 37
Diener, E. (1977) Deindividuation: Causes and Consequences. Social Behavior &
Personality: an international journal, 5(1),143-155
Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation
variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 178–183
Epstein, S. (2014). Cognitive-experiential theory. New York, NY: Oxford.
Ferreira, N. (2008) Putting the Age of Criminal and Tort Liability into Context: A Dialogue
between Law and Psychology. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 16, 29–54.
Fischer, I. (2009) Friend or foe: Subjecive expected relative similarity as a determinant of
cooperation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 341-350.
Fӧrster, J., and Denzler, M. (2012) Sense creative! The impact of gloval and local vision,
hearing, touching, tasting and smelling on creative and analytic thought. Social Psychological
and personality Science, 3(1), 108-117.
Fӧrster, J., Liberman, N. and Kuchel, S. (2008). The effects of global verus local processing
styles os assimilation versus contrast in social judgement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(4), 579-599.
Frank, M. G., and Gilovich, t. (1989). Effect of memory perspective on retrospective causal
attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 399-403.
Franzen, A. and Pointner, S. (2012). Anonymity in the dictator game revisited. Journal of
Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 81, 74-81.
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J., and Moore, J. B. (2001) Some doubts about measuring self-
interest using dictator experiments: the costs of anonymity. Journal of Economic behaviour
and organisation, 46, 271-290
Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., Barton, W. H. (1973) Deviance in the dark. Psychology Today,
7, 129-130.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Boston, MA: Back Bay.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.

of 37
Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, B., and Zhong C. (2011) Drunk, Powerful and in the Dark: How
General Processes of Disinhibition Produce Both Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviour.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(5) 415- 427.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., and Smith, V. (1994). Preferences property rights
and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behaviour, 7 (3), 346-380.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior
in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Smith, V. (1998) Behavioral foundations of reciprocity:
experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Economic Inquiry, 36 (1998), 335–
352
Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 121–137.
Habermas, J. (1990). Justice and Solidarity: on the discussion concern Stage 6. In. T. Wren.
(Ed), The Moral domain: essays in the Moral consciousness and communicative action.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature,
450, 557–559
Isen, A. M., (1999) Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish and M. J. Power (eds.), Hankbook of
cognition and emotion. New York: Wiley.
Isen, A. M. and Daubman, k. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1206-1217.
Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on
prosocial and antisocial behaviour. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 37(9),
1532-1538.
Lickona , T. (1976). Research on Piaget’s theory of moral development . in T,. Lickona (ed.)’
Moral development and behaviour: Theory, research and social issues’. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Loe, T.W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing
ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185–204.

of 37
Lord, P. (Director) and Miller, C. (Co-director). (2014). The LEGO Movie.[Motion Picture]
U.S.A: Warner Bros. Entertainment.
Mayhew, P. M., Aye, M., Mirlees-Black, C. (1993). The 1992 British Crime Survey Home
Office Research Study, 132HMSO, London (1993).
McNaughton, N., & Gray, J. A. (2000). Anxiolytic action on the behavioural inhibition
system implies multiple types of arousal contribute to anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders,
61, 161–176
Nogami, T. and Yoshida, F. (2013) The pursuit of self-interest and rule breakingin an
anonymous situation. Journal of applied social psychology, 43, 909-916
Painter (1996) The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian
street use, after dark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2-3, 193-201.
Piaget, J. (1995) Sociological Studies. (L. Smith Trans.) London: Routledge.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The Child's Conception of Space. London: Routledge.
Pashko, S. (2014). Conceptual Versus Perceptual Information Processing: Implications for
Subjective Reporting. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 7(4), 219–226
Sherman, G. D., & Clore, G. L. (2009). The color of sin: White and black are perceptual
symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science, 20, 1019–1025.
Singer, J. E., Brush, C. A., and Lublin, S. C. (1965) Some aspects of deindividuation:
Identification and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 356-378.
Steidle, A., Hanke, E., and Werth, L. (2011). You can’t see much in the dark@ Darknss
affects construal level and psychological distance. Social Psychology, 42(3), 174-184.
Steidle, A., Hanke, E., and Werth, L. (2013). In the dark we cooperate: The situated nature of
procedural embodiment. Social Cognition, 32(2), 275-300.
Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance.
Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Wallace, K. A. (1999). Anonymity. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 21–31
Zimbardo, P. G. (1970) The human choice: Individuation, reason and other order versus
deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold and D. Levine (eds), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Neb.

of 37
Zhong, Bohns and Gino, (2010). Lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty
and self-interested behaviour. Psychological Science, 21, 311-314

of 37
Appendix I
Participant Questionnaire
Now that you have completed the first part of the experiment, we would like you to fill in this
short questionnaire about how you felt about your anonymity during the study. The questions
are scored on a scale of 1 – 7, 1 indicates strongly disagree with 7 indicating strongly agree.
Circle the number that you most feel correlates with the statement. For questions 1 and 5 the
scores are reversed 1 indicates strongly agree and 7 indicates strongly disagree. Thank you
once again for participating.
 I was watched during the study.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 I was anonymous during the study.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 My choice went unnoticed during the study.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 My identity was not known to others during the study.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 Other were paying attention to my behavior during the study.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

of 37
Appendix III
Places
A S F I R E L A N D E E D F F
E F V R T U D A S D F G O J P
D R H F U I F S N M M J L I I
F A U G H Q V D S P A I N N W
G N I J G S B F C V B N O N A
H C P O F C B G H W C Q I F L
J E L O P F N H U D E A J C E
K D K P O H M J J F E S A D S
I F G L L N K K K G D D S V E
N G G K K K H L I H F G D B R
H B Q V G K Y Y G B G U F G U
T J F C V O R H E C H M G H J
F I R X D K S C O T L A N D V
C O A S O I I U H E D Z J Z F
D O N A A F G H J O L O O P L
France
Spain
Wales
Scotland
Ireland

of 37
Appendix IV
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Project title: Replication of: Good Lamps Are the Best Police.
Investigators:
 Autilia Antonucci
 Charlotte Boyce
 Emma Simpson
 Katie Garside
Universitytutor overseeing the project:
 Dr Jeanette Garwood
Chair of local research ethics committee:
 Dr Andrew Wilson
Please tick all boxes and sign where indicated below:
1. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet for the above study and
understand what is expected of me.
2. I understand that my participation is completely voluntary.
3. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at anytime up to the point that I
leave the investigators today.
4. I confirm that I have been given the opportunity to ask questions regarding the study,
and if asked, my questions were answered to my full satisfaction.
Data Protection Act
I understand that data collected from me during this study will be stored on computer and
that any computer files containing information about me will be made anonymous. I also
understand that this consent form will be stored separately from any data that I provide.
I agree to Leeds Metropolitan University recording and processing my data and that these
data may be used for an assignment. I understand that my data will be used only for these
purposes and my consent is conditional upon the University complying with its duties and
obligations under the Data Protection Act.
Your name (print) …………………………………
Your signature ………………………………… Date ………………..
Researcher’s name (print) …………………………………
Researcher’s signature ………………………………… Date ………………..
Thank you for this information. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any
questions.

of 37
Appendix V
De-brief
Thank youfor yourcooperationincompletingthisstudy.The true purpose of thisstudywasto
ascertainandinvestigate whetherdarknessinducedillusoryanonymity.We were unabletoreveal
the true nature of the study as thiswouldhave confoundedthe results.
Those whowore clear glasseswere the control groupwhose resultswe usedasa baseline,whilst
those withsunglasseswereusedtotestillusoryanonymity.The twogroupsdirectlycomparedwith
each other.Itwas predictedthatthe groupwhowore sunglasseswouldshow increasedsignsof
dishonestyandself-interestedbehaviourthroughoutthe research.Thesebehaviourswere expected
and completelynormal underthe circumstancesanddonotindicate deviantpersonal attributes.
In takingpart inthisstudyyou have contributedtoourunderstandingof anti-social behaviour
occurringat nightandhopefullythiscanbe usedtocombat crime ratesat night.Thisstudyhas
implicationsoncriminal activities- asdarknessreducesmoral transgressionsanddisinhibitscriminal
acts whichwill hopefullybe provenbythe resultsof today’sresearchandassistthe justice system.
All researchresultsare keptanonymousandatno pointwill anyof the participantspersonal
informationbe usedinthe research.Youhave the rightto withdraw yourresultsfromthe study
afterthe de-briefinghoweverafterthistime due tothe anonymousnature of the studywe will be
unable todifferentiateyourresultsfromotherparticipantsto remove them.
Our studywasa replicationof Zhongetalsstudytitled:Goodlampsare the bestpolice:darkenss
increasesdishonestyandself-interestedbehaviour.If youwishtoreadoverthisto gainmore
knowledge andunderstandingof thisstudy.Itmayhelpease anyanxietiesexperiencedoveryour
responsestothe studyas theirstudyfoundthatmanyparticipantsdisplayeddishonestandself-
interestedbehaviourunderthe same conditions.
If you are at all concernedwith:the purpose behindthisstudy,yourrightsasa participantor simply
wishto speaktothe researchersdirectlyaboutthe implicationsof thisresearchplease email:
c.boyce2789@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk, a.antonucci5898@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk,
k.gartside6946@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk,e.simpson6366@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk.
SupervisingthisstudywasJeanette Garwood J.Garwood@leedsbeckett.ac.uk

of 37
Appendix VII
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
Project title: Replication of: Good Lamps Are the Best Police, study three.
Researchers:
 Autilia Antonucci
 Charlotte Boyce
 Emma Simpson
 Katie Garside
University supervisor overseeing the project:
-Email: J.Garwood@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
-Telephone:
-Email: A.D.Wilson@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
-Telephone: 0113 812 5581
Invitation to participate:
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Taking part in this study is completely
voluntary; it is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. It is important for you to
understand what the research is about and what it will involve. Please take time to read the
following information carefully. If anything is not clear to you or you would like more
information please ask any of the investigators.
What is the project about?
Today you are being asked to take part in a research study aiming to replicate the
experiment of Good Lamps Are the Best Police, as part of the researchers’ undergraduate
degree course in Psychology at Leeds Beckett University and is part of their final year
project module. If you do not wish to take part in the study this will not affect the
investigators’ final grade, so do not feel obliged to volunteer for this reason or any other.
What will I be asked to do in the study?
You will be asked to take part in an experiment that should take no longer than 30 minutes.
In the first part of the experiment you will be asked to wear a pair of glasses while
completing a word search. One the word search has been completed you will be engaging in
a ‘wages’ allocation task. No face-to-face contact with other participants will be required at
this stage in the experiment. In the task you will be randomly assigned a role of initiator or
recipient. If you are assigned the initiator role you will be required to allocate £2 between you
and the recipient. At the end of the experiment you will be asked to complete a form
including demographic information, and asked to rate five items on a 7-point scale
(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Once this has been completed your participation
within the study is complete.
Please be aware that you are free to withdraw from the study at any point before you leave
the research venue, and your data will not be included. You do not have to give any reason
for withdrawal.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of taking part?

of 37
Firstly there is opportunity to keep the ‘wages” that you acquire during the study. Secondly
you may also enjoy the experience of taking part in the study as sciencem as well as helping
the student learning of the student researchers’. If you are a first or second year psychology
student you can also get a research point for your own access to the research pool for your
own final year project. As a ‘thank you’ for taking part, participants will also receive free
cake and hot chocolate.
How will my information be used?
The information is being collected for the final year project module that the researchers have
to undertake as part of their course. Data collected during the experiment will be analysed
and written up in a research report by the researchers as part of their module requirement.
These assignments have potential to be published using the data collected from this study.
Information collected from you during the study will not be personally identifiable to you in
any way through these activities. All information will be stored securely and only the
researchers themselves will have access to your data; we will not keep any identifying
information about you.
Will my information be confidential?
No information that makes your data identifiable to you will be kept.
Who can I contact for further information?
If you require further information or have any issues with the experiment after you have been
debriefed do not hesitate to contact us for further information. You can contact the following
people if you require further information or help:
The Researchers
 Autilia Antonucci - A.Antonucci5898@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk
 Charlotte Boyce - C.Boyce2789@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk
 Emma Simpson - E.Simpson6366@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk
 Katie Garside - K.Garside6946@student.leedsbeckett.ac.uk
Supervisor overseeing the project:
- Email: J.Garwood@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
- Telephone: 0113 812 3256
- Email: A.D.Wilson@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
- Telephone: 0113 812 5581
What happens next?
Think carefully about whether you still wish to take part based on the information you have
been provided with. If you still wish to take part in the experiment, please complete the
consent form provided to you by the researchers.
Thank you for considering participating.

21059-1415_3451916_33361166_Final_Year_Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Featured

Featured (20)

21059-1415_3451916_33361166_Final_Year_Project