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 participants that were chosen for the research could have been anyone
walking around the UNCC campus. A specific ethnicity was not chosen to study, a person of any
nationality could have been a participant in the research. No research was done off campus, so all
of the participants included in the research were found on the UNCC campus.
Measurements
The data that was recorded from each participant included age, sex, place of residency,
and ethnicity. Whether the participant passed the test depended on whether or not the money was
noticed and returned or if the money was noticed and tried to be taken. Some participants were

FINDER KEEPERS

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 observe different groups of people
throughout campus. One of the researchers picked out a random target group in the immediate
vicinity. The other two researchers strategically placed themselves in the vicinity of the target
group. One researcher walked past the target and dropped a twenty dollar bill on the ground. The
other researchers would watch to see if the target would pick up the money and return it, or if the
target would grab the money and keep it. If the target picked up the money and didnt return it,
the other researchers would walk up and politely informed the target that there was a social
experiment in progress and would ask for the money back. 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. When referring to
Table 1, 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

FINDER KEEPERS

money drop and attempted to take it, they did not see the money drop but attempted to find an
owner anyway, or they saw the money drop and continued about their business with no response.
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. The table below shows all of the participants that had one of
the four responses previously mentioned.
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. The following graph shows exactly how many participants by
response type.

FINDER KEEPERS

Age

Sex

Ethnicity

Returned money

Female

Place of
Residency
Off

19

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

18

Female

On

Caucasian

21

Female

Off

Caucasian

???

Male

???

African American

???

Male

???

African American

21

Male

Off

Caucasian

Yes - Did not see

drop but
Yes
attempted to
return anyways
Saw drop but did
not attempt to
Saw
drop but did
return
not attempt to
Yes
return

22

Male

On

Caucasian

Yes

29

Female

Off

Caucasian

Yes

19

Male

On

African American

Yes

34

Male

Caucasian

Yes

23

Male

Off - Works at
UNCC
Off

African American

No

19

Male

Off

Caucasian

Yes

Table 1

FINDER KEEPERS

Figure 1

The graph below shows the percentage of participants who returned the money versus those who
didnt.
Figure 2

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 off-campus.
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. There were some participants who made
decisions that did not align with this presumption, however the majority of the participants did.

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.