pranks on a college campus: why pranks are perceived differently from crimes

1. Pranks on a college campus: Why pranks are perceived differently from crimes Tracy Krebs and Sarah Opichka Hanover College

2. 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

3. Previous Research Individuals perceive criminal actions based on the circumstances involved in the crime. (Oliner & Manel, 1973). Circumstances include: Perception of offender Act itself

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Method contd. Average lived on campus- 4 semesters 58% Greek affiliated 50% of the participants had a family income over $70,000 per year

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. Materials cont. Dependent Variables: Serious, Humor, Anger, Annoyed (combined into emotional reaction) Acceptable (Cognitive reaction) Crime/Prank

13. 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

15. 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

17. 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

18. Further Research Compare different ages (non-college age) Content of scenarios Compare students living on-campus to students living off-campus