pranks on a college campus: why pranks are perceived differently from crimes tracy krebs and sarah...

Pranks on a college campus: Why pranks are perceived differently from

crimes

Tracy Krebs and Sarah Opichka

Hanover College

Crime and Pranks

Crime- act forbidden by law (Bennett-Johnson, 1997)

Prank- harmless act of fun (Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996)

Often illegal

Society distinguishes between crimes and pranks

Previous Research

Individuals perceive criminal actions based on the circumstances involved in the crime. (Oliner & Manel, 1973).

Circumstances include: Perception of offender Act itself

Previous Research Cont.

Perceptions of the crime vary depending on how close the victim is to the offender (Situ, 1992)

Prank can be considered an appropriate act if it inspires humor (Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996)

Hypotheses

Crimes that are committed on-campus would be viewed as “pranks” and thus would elicit less of an emotional response (less serious more humorous, less annoyed, less angry) and be viewed as more acceptable than the same crime committed off-campus.

Hypotheses cont.

If the victim was a friend of the offender, the victim would have less of an emotional response and would find the action more acceptable than if the offender was a stranger.

If the action was perceived as having a temporary rather than a permanent effect, the victim would experience less of an emotional response and find the action to be more acceptable.

Method

Participants 135 total participants 102 Hanover and 33 Xavier students 37 males and 98 females

Underclassmen (fresh/soph)- 75 participants Upperclassmen (junior/senior)- 60 participants

Method contd.

Average lived on campus- 4 semesters

58% Greek affiliated

50% of the participants had a family income over $70,000 per year

Materials

Surveys (8 total scenarios) On-campus condition (68 participants) Off-campus condition (67 participants)

Independent variables: Within Subject

Crime (Theft or Vandalism) Offender (Friend or Stranger) Impact (Temporary or Permanent)

Between Subject Location (On/Off-Campus)

Materials cont.

On-Campus Scenario

Imagine your friend took your radio (worth around $50) from your dormitory room on your college campus, but you later found it in his/her dorm room and took it back…

Variables: Friend, Theft, Temporary

Materials cont.

Off-Campus Scenario

Imagine someone you do not know carved pictures with a pocket knife all over the desk (worth around $50) in your room in your house…

Variables: Stranger, Vandalism, Permanent

Materials cont.

Dependent Variables: Serious, Humor, Anger, Annoyed (combined

into emotional reaction) Acceptable (Cognitive reaction) Crime/Prank

Results/Discussion

Mixed Factorial Repeated Measures ANOVA for Emotional Reaction

2 (offender) x 2 (impact) x 2 (type of crime) x 2 (on/off campus)

4 way interaction for emotional response (p<.001)

Negative emotional reaction to all scenarios except actions that were temporary and done by a friend

Exception- Theft committed off-campus

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

On-Friend On-Stranger Off-Friend Off-Stranger

Theft

Vandalism

Emotional

Response Temporary Impact

Permanent Impact

Results/Discussion cont.

Repeated Measures ANOVA for Acceptability

4 way interaction for acceptability of the deviant behavior (p<.001)

Temporary acts committed by friends (especially vandalism) are more acceptable

Exception- Theft committed off-campus not acceptable

0

1

2

3

4

5

On-Friend On-Stranger Off-Friend Off-Stranger

0

1

2

3

4

5

Theft

VandalismCognitive

Response

Permanent Impact

Temporary Impact

Results/Discussion cont.

Nonparametric Cochran’s Q Used to examine whether the situation was

perceived as a crime or prank

Found significance: Cochran’s Q = 347.08, df=7, p<.001

Crime = theft, stranger, permanent Prank = vandalism, friend, temporary

Further Research

Compare different ages (non-college age)

Content of scenarios

Compare students living on-campus to students living off-campus