Do Not Touch by Emma L Brown

DO NOT TOUCH

Designed by: Emma L Brown www.emmalbrown.com Printed & bound by: Ripe Digital www.ripedigital.co.uk Typeset in: PT Serif, Cuprum & Intro

"My consciousness desires the victory of vegetarianism in the whole world, but my unconsciousness dreams about a piece of juicy meat." â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Writer (Stalker, 1979)

“I can resist everything but temptation.” —Oscar Wilde

Contents Introduction p13 The Myth of Odysseus and the Sirens p21 Slayer Rule: Bars to Inheritance p35 Bubble Wrap p47 Resisting Small Temptations in Everyday Transactions p53

Introduction Since watching Andrei Tarkovskiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stalker (1979), I have been most interested in the theme of temptation explored through the lure of the Room. Within an area called the Zone lies the Room which grants a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deepest desires when they enter, although these desires are not limited to conscious ones.

The temptation of the Room and the promise it suggests entices those with ambition to risk their lives travelling through the Zone for the chance to visit the Room. They are guided by the Stalker as it is an ever-changing and dangerous area. The previous Stalker, Porcupine, once entered the Room. His subconscious desire was for the death of his brother. He later hung himself from the guilt.

The interesting thing about temptation, especially in regards to the Room, is that it can often come with consequences. Temptation can strike at any time, and can be anything from the temptation to pick at a healing wound, to the temptation of a bakery window display. For many years, tales of desire and temptation have been told, the

earliest being the story of Adam and Eve. Because Eve succumbed to temptation, both Adam and Eve had to deal with the consequence of a hard life and, ultimately, death. This book explores just some of the themes and history of desire, temptation and consequence.

The Myth of Odysseus and the Sirens

After the conflict with the Cyclops, Odysseus and his men sailed on and on till they came to Aeolia, where dwells the king of the winds, and here they came nigh to good fortune. Aeolus received them kindly, and at their going he secretly gave to Odysseus a leathern bag in which all

“…in the belief that it was full of treasure, they opened it. Out rushed the illwinds!”

contrary winds were tied up securely, that only the favoring west wind might speed them to Ithaca. Nine days the ships went gladly before the wind, and on the tenth day they had sight of Ithaca, lying like a low cloud in the west. Then, so near his haven, the happy Odysseus gave up to his weariness and fell asleep, for he had never left the helm. But while he slept his

men saw the leathern bag that he kept by him, and, in the belief that it was full of treasure, they opened it. Out rushed the ill-winds! In an instant the sea was covered with white caps; the waves rose mountain high; the poor ships struggled against the tyranny of the gale and gave way. Back they were driven, back, farther and farther; and when Odysseus woke, Ithaca was gone from sight, as if it had indeed been only a low cloud in the west!

Straight to the island of Aeolus they were driven once more. But when the king learned what greed and treachery had wasted his good gift, he would give them nothing more. “Surely thou must be a man hated of the gods, Odysseus,” he said, “for misfortune bears thee company. Depart now; I may not help thee.” So, with a heavy heart, Odysseus and his men departed. For many days they rowed against a dead calm, until at length they came to the land of the Laestrygonians. And, to cut a piteous tale short, these giants destroyed all their fleet save one ship, that of Odysseus himself, and in this he made escape to the island of Circe. What befell there, how the greedy seamen were turned into swine and turned back into men, and how the sorceress came to befriend Odysseus, all this has been related. There in Aeaea the voyagers stayed a year before Circe would let them go. But at length she bade Odysseus seek the region of Hades, and ask of the sage Tiresias how he might ever return to Ithaca. How Odysseus followed this counsel, none may know; but by some mysterious journey, and with the aid of a spell, he came to the borders of Hades. There he saw and spoke with many renowned Shades, old and young, even his own friends who had fallen on the plain of Troy.

Achilles he saw, Patroclus and Ajax and Agamemnon, still grieving over the treachery of his wife. He saw, too, the phantom of Heracles, who lives with honor among the gods, and has for his wife Hebe, the daughter of Zeus and Juno. But though he would have talked with the heroes for a year and more, he sought out Tiresias. “The anger of Poseidon follows thee,” said the sage. “Wherefore, Odysseus, thy return is yet far off. But take heed when thou art come to Thrinacia, where the sacred kin of the Sun have their pastures. Do them no hurt, and thou shalt yet come home. But if they be harmed in any wise, ruin shall come upon thy men;

“Now very soon they came to the Sirens who sing so sweetly that they lure to death every man who listens.”

and even if thou escape, thou shalt come home to find strange men devouring thy substance and wooing thy wife.” With this word in his mind, Odysseus departed and came once more to Aeaea. There he tarried but a little time, till Circe had told him all the dangers that beset his way. Many a good counsel and crafty warning did she give him against

the Sirens that charm with their singing, and against the monster Scylla and the whirlpool Charybdis, and the Clashing Rocks, and the cattle of the Sun. So the king and his men set out from the island of Aeaea.

Now very soon they came to the Sirens who sing so sweetly that they lure to death every man who listens. For straightway he is mad to be with them where they sing; and alas for the man that would fly without wings! But when the ship drew near the Sirens’ island,

“…there, close by, were the Sirens sitting in a blooming meadow that hid the bones of men.”

Odysseus did as Circe had taught him. He bade all his shipmates stop up their ears with moulded wax, so that they could not hear. He alone kept his hearing; but he had himself lashed to the mast so that he could in no wise move, and he forbade them to loose him, however he might plead, under the spell of the Sirens. As they sailed near, his soul gave way. He

heard a wild sweetness coaxing the air, as a minstrel coaxes the harp; and there, close by, were the Sirens sitting in a blooming meadow that hid the bones of men. Beautiful, winning maidens they looked; and they sang, entreating Odysseus by name to listen and abide and rest. Their voices were golden-sweet above the sound of wind and wave, like drops of amber floating on the tide; and for all his wisdom, Odysseus strained at his bonds and begged his men to let him go free. But they, deaf alike to the song and the sorcery, rowed harder than ever. At length, song and

island faded in the distance. Odysseus came to his wits once more, and his men loosed his bonds and set him free. But they were close upon new dangers. No sooner had they avoided the Clashing Rocks (by a device of Circeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) than they came to a perilous strait. On one hand they saw the whirlpool where, beneath a hollow fig-tree, Charybdis sucks down the sea horribly. And, while they sought to escape her, on the other hand monstrous Scylla upreared from the cave, snatched six of their company with her six long necks, and devoured them even while they called upon Odysseus to save them. So, with bitter peril, the ship passed by and came to the island of Thrinacia; and here are goodly pastures for the flocks and herds of the Sun. Odysseus, who feared lest his men might forget the warning of Tiresias, was very loath to land. But the sailors were weary and worn to the verge of mutiny, and they swore, moreover, that they would never lay hands on the sacred kine. So they landed, thinking to depart next day. But with the next day came a tempest that blew for a month without ceasing, so that they were forced to beach the ship and live on the island with their store of corn and wine. When that was gone they had to hunt and fish, and it

happened that, while Odysseus was absent in the woods one day, his shipmates broke their oath. “For,” said they,

“…he found them at their fateful banquet; but it was too late to save them from the wrath of the gods.”

“when we are once more in Ithaca we will make amends to Helios with sacrifice. But let us rather drown than waste to death with hunger.” So they drove off the best of the cattle of the Sun and slew them. When the king returned, he found them at their fateful banquet; but it was too late to save them from the wrath of the gods.

As soon as they were fairly embarked once more, the Sun ceased to shine. The sea rose high, the thunderbolt of Zeus struck that ship, and all its company was scattered abroad upon the waters. Not one was left save Odysseus. He clung to a fragment of his last ship, and so he drifted, borne here and there, and lashed by wind and wave, until he was washed up on the strand of the island Ogygia, the home of the nymph Calypso. He was not to leave this haven for seven years. Here, after ten years of war and two of wandering, he found a kindly welcome. The enchanted island was full of wonders, and the nymph Calypso was more than mortal fair, and would have been glad to marry the hero; yet he pined for Ithaca. Nothing could win

his heart away from his own country and his own wife Penelope, nothing but Lethe itself, and that no man may drink till he dies. So for seven years Calypso

“…her voice was like a golden strand that twines in and out of silence, making it beautiful.”

strove to make him forget his longing with ease and pleasant living and soft raiment. Day by day she sang to him while she broidered her web with gold; and her voice was like a golden strand that twines in and out of silence, making it beautiful. She even promised that she would make him immortal, if he would stay and be content; but he was heartsick for home.

At last his sorrow touched even the heart of Athena in heaven, for she loved his wisdom and his many devices. So she besought Zeus and all the other gods until they consented to shield Odysseus from the anger of Poseidon. Hermes himself bound on his winged sandals and flew down to Ogygia, where he found Calypso at her spinning. After many words, the nymph consented to give up her captive, for she was kind of heart, and all her graces had not availed to make him forget his home. With her help, Odysseus built a raft and set out upon his lonely voyage, the only man remaining out of twelve good ships that had left Troy nigh unto ten years before.

The sea roughened against him, but after many days, sore spent and tempest-tossed, he came to the land of the Phaeacians, a land dear to the immortal gods, abounding in gifts of harvest and vintage, in godlike men and lovely women. Here the shipwrecked king met the princess Nausicaa by the seaside, as she played ball with her maidens; and she, when she had heard of his plight, gave him food and raiment, and bade him follow her home. So he followed her to the palace of King Alcinous and Queen Arete, and abode with them, kindly refreshed, and honored with feasting and games and song. But it came to pass, as the minstrel sang before them of the Trojan War and the Wooden Horse, that Odysseus wept over the story, it was written so deep in his own heart. Then for the first time he told them his true name and all his trials. They would gladly have kept so great a man with them forever, but they had no heart to keep him longer from his home; so they bade him farewell and set him upon one of their magical ships, with many gifts of gold and silver, and sent him on his way. Wonderful seamen are the Phaeacians. The ocean is to them as air to the bird, the best path for a swift journey! Odysseus was glad enough to trust the way to them, and no sooner had they set out than a sweet

sleep fell upon his eyelids. But the good ship sped like any bee that knows the way home. In a marvellously short time they came even to the shore of the kingdom of Ithaca. While Odysseus was still sleeping, unconscious of his good fortune, the Phaeacians lifted him from the ship with kindly joy and laid him upon his own shore; and beside him they set the gifts of gold and silver and fair work of the loom. So they departed; and thus it was that Odysseus came to Ithaca after twenty years. [3]

Slayer Rule: Bars to Inheritance

One of the issues in law is whether one who kills and is responsible for death of the decedent, be allowed to inherit from his estate. In many jurisdictions in the United States, the slayer is prohibited by statute from taking by descent from the estate of the one he has killed. Suppose John, being of sound mind, makes a will bequeathing the bulk of his estate to his grandson, Olabisi. Olabisi then murders John. Should Olabisi be allowed to enforce the will and inherit from John? The courts answer no. Because wills never contain an express provision disinheriting the testatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s slayer, traditionally, the answer has been thought to mean that the courts are sacrificing testatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s donative intentions for the interest in deterring murder. Normally, one who thinks there is a danger that someone he names in his Will as a beneficiary will be his killer would not name that person in his will. The rule against allowing the slayer to take, serves the function of providing an implied term to govern remote contingencies. Very few testators if asked whether they would want their killer to inherit from their estate would say yes but, should their desire be honored by the law? Should the Slayer rule apply to accidental, as well as to deliberate, homicides? And should it apply under intestacy?

Howard Mahoney died intestate on May 6, 1961, of gunshot wounds. His wife, Charlotte Mahoney, the appellant here, was tried for his murder in the Addison County Court and was convicted by the jury of the crime of manslaughter in March, 1962. She was convicted to serve a sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 15 years at the women reformatory in Rutland. Howard Mahoney left no issue, and was survived by his wife and his father and mother. His father Mark Mahoney was appointed administrator of his estate which at the present time amounts to $3,885.89. After due notice and hearing, the probate court for the district of Franklin entered a judgment order decreeing the residue of the Estate of Howard Mahoney, in equal shares, to the father and mother of the decedent. The issue before the court is whether a widow convicted of manslaughter in the death of her husband may inherit from the decedentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estate. The general rule of descent provide that if a decedent is married and leaves no issue, his surviving spouse shall be entitled to the whole of decedentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estate if it does not exceed $8,000. Based on the statute, it is only when the testator leaves no surviving spouse or issue, does his estate descend in equal shares to the surviving father and mother. There is no statutory provision in Vermont regulating the descent and distribution of property from the decedent to the slayer. The question presented was one of first

impression in the jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, there are statutes enacted which in certain instances, prevents a person who has killed another from taking by descent or distribution from the person he has killed. Courts in those states that have no statute preventing a slayer from taking by descent or distribution from the estate of his victim, have followed the following principles:

The first principle is to allow the slayer to retain title to property held by him in spite of his crime. The reasoning for so deciding is that devolution of the property of a decedent is controlled entirely by the statutes of descent and distribution; further, the notion is that by denying inheritance to the slayer because of his crime would impose an additional punishment for his crime not provided by statute, and would violate the constitutional provision against corruption of blood.

Under the second principle, legal title will not pass to the slayer because of the equitable principle that no one should be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or

take advantage and profit as a result of his own wrong or crime. Such decisions have been criticized as creating an exception on the statute of descent and distribution and being â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;unwarranted judicial legislation.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

The legal title passes to the slayer but equity holds him to be a constructive trustee for the heirs or next of kin of the decedent. This disposition of the question presented avoids a judicial engrafting on the statutory laws of descent and distribution, for title passes to the slayer. But because of the unconscionable mode by which the property is acquired by the slayer, equity treats him as a constructive trustee and compels him to convey the property to the heirs or next of kin of the deceased.

A constructive trust is a way equity uses to remedy unjustified retention of title to property acquired in such circumstances. The holder of legal title May not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest; Equity to express its disapproval of his conduct, converts him into a trustee, he keeps the property on behalf of the next of kin or heirs of the deceased.

Despite the rules prohibiting the slayer from inheriting from the one he has killed, there are situations where the slayer may not be denied title. The principle that one should not profit by his own wrong must not be extended

"The doctrine of constructive trust is involved to prevent the slayer from profiting from his crime, but not as an added criminal penalty."

to every case where a killer acquires property from his victim as a result of the killing. For example, the slayer who killed while insane is not chargeable as a constructive trustee, or if the slayer had a vested interest in the property, it is property for which he would have been entitled had the killing not occurred. The principle to be applied is that the slayer should not be permitted to improve his position by the killing, but should not be compelled to surrender property to which he would have been entitled if there had been no killing. The doctrine of constructive trust is involved to prevent the slayer from profiting from his crime, but not as an added criminal penalty. The appellant Charlotte Mahoney was convicted of manslaughter and not of murder. She claimed that while the Restatement of Restitution approves the application of the constructive trust doctrine where a devisee or legatee murders the testator, such rules are not applicable where the slayer was guilty of manslaughter and not murder.

In the state of Vermont, an indictment for murder can result in a jury conviction on either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The legislature has provided the sentences that may be passed upon a person convicted of manslaughter, but provides no definition of that offense, nor any statutory distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. On appeal, the court, found that the judgment of the probate court decreeing the estate of Howard Mahoney to his parents, rather than to his widow, was based upon a finding of the felonious killing of her husband by Mrs. Mahoney. Appellees asked the court to affirm the decree below by imposing a constructive trust on the estate in the hands of the widow. The State Supreme Court determined that the probate court did not decree the estate to the widow, and then make her a constructive trustee of such estate for the benefit of the parents. Instead, it decreed the estate directly to the parents, which was in direct contravention of the statutes of descent and distribution. The probate court failed to follow the statutes of descent and distribution; its decree was determined to be in error and therefore, must be reversed. The probate court, in making its decree, used the record of the conviction of the appellant for manslaughter for its determination that the appellant had feloniously killed her husband. The jurisdiction of charging the appellant with a constructive

trust on the estate of Howard Mahoney lies in the court of chancery, and not in the probate court. The Supreme Court determined that the probate court, lacked jurisdiction to impose a constructive trust on the estate in the hands of the appellant since its power does not extend to the establishment of purely equitable rights. In its final ruling, the decree was reversed and remanded, with directions that the proceedings herein be stayed for sixty days to give the Administrator of the Estate of Howard Mahoney an opportunity to apply to the Franklin County Court of Chancery for relief. If application is so made, proceedings herein shall be stayed pending the final determination thereof. If application is not so made, the probate court for the District of Franklin shall assign to Charlotte Mahoney, surviving wife, the right and interest in and to the estate of her deceased husband which the Vermont statutes confer. The courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ruling was based partly on the fact that the appellant was only convicted of manslaughter and not murder and since it is the intent to kill, which when completed, leads to the profit of the slayer, that triggers the application of constructive trust, the court below was in error by giving its ruling based upon a finding of the felonious killing of Howard Mahoney by the appellant. Also, the probate court lacked jurisdiction to impose a constructive trust on the estate due to limited power conferred on it by statute. [2]

Bubble Wrap

The Stevens Institute of Technology reveals that in the late 1950s, Marc Chavannes and Stevens graduate Al Fielding created a textured plastic that was to become a new wallpaper. It failed, but they realised that this “failure” could be used as packaging material. Today, the Sealed Air Corporation, the company these two men founded in 1960, has annual revenues of more than $3 billion. Its original name was Air Cap. Bubble Wrap is a registered trademark of the Sealed Air Corporation. In 1971, Sealed Air laminated Bubble Wrap to paper to make the first Mail Lite shipping envelopes. Bubble Wrap has more than 2 million fans on Facebook. The last Monday in January is Bubble Wrap Appreciation Day. In November 2009, with interest in making their sealed wrap “green,” Salazar Packaging, a competitor of Sealed Air, introduced a bubble packaging that was degradable. Unlike biodegradable products, this bubble packaging has a chemical additive that is blended into the wrap that accelerates the breakdown process when disposed of in landfills. Thus, another manufacturer of bubble packaging makes it a “green” product. [4] In 2013, 366 students in New Jersey set a new world record for the most people popping bubble wrap at one time. [1]

Resisting Small Temptations in Everyday Transactions

The effect of age and sex on criminal and deviant behavior is well documented. The present study was an attempt to study the influence of these variables within the setting of a field experiment in Israel. Bus drivers gave passengers extra change, and an observer watched their behavior. A higher level of temptation increased the deviance among females but reduced it among males. As inflation increased during later observation periods, it was found that passengers paid less attention to the amount of change and that those who did pay attention returned it more often. A major methodological difficulty inherent in the study of moral behavior derives from the typically clandestine nature of unethical acts. From this viewpoint, the student of moral behavior faces a situation similar to that of the police investigator who attempts to unravel crime and delinquency. Whereas the latter is ultimately concerned with the identification of the transgressor, the social scientist is intrigued by the cognitive and normative considerations preceding the deviant act. Moreover, insofar as the role of internalized norms is the focus of interest, attention is given particularly to moral dilemmas that are not strictly within the province of legal regulation. In other words, the identification of moral judgments, as distinguished from calculated deliberations, is more easily obtained in the gray area of informal deviance. Yet, even where the threat of formal sanctions is absent, moral decisions may still be affected by considerations of social disapproval. Consequently, the assessment of genuine moral judgments can best be made under conditions in which the actorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s privacy of action seems safe against any form of vulnerability. Such conditions are not readily available for the student of moral behavior, particularly if he or she wishes to conduct the inquiry as an unobtrusive observer. The relative paucity of experimental studies on moral behavior in natural settings is probably a direct consequence of such difficulties. The goal of this study was to test the effect of the subjectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; age and sex on moral behavior under different temptations to deviate in a natural setting.

Method Independent Variables Because the research design gave priority to the elimination, as far as possible, of any form of obtrusiveness, no attempt was made to secure information about the subjects other than what was accessible by sight alone. Two characteristics of the subjects-age and sex-were accordingly selected as independent variables. Crime and delinquency statistics consistently indicate that males are more frequently and more seriously involved in deviant behavior than are females. This tendency of males does not seem to be an artifact of the crime-reporting system: Datesman and Scarpitti summarized current findings with the following: Self-report studies have indicated for three decades that a great deal of â&#x20AC;&#x153;hiddenâ&#x20AC;? female delinquency exists. However, while male and female crime rates are closer together than revealed by official statistics, males are still much more involved in criminal activities than females. Hoffman claimed that females show better internalization of moral norms than do males, although Maccoby and Jacklin and the field experiments of Farrington and Knight did not confirm this claim. These sex-related differences are explained by several theoretical approaches, including biological-constitutional differences as well as differential child-rearing patterns leading to differential normal development . Notwithstanding the variety of explanations given to the sex-deviance relationship, they all clearly converge to suggest that deviant behavior is generally more typical

of males than of females. There is, of course, a possibility that in Israel, the location of the present study, the cultural gender differences are significantly different from those in other countries. Studies of gender differences in several major social processes-for example, and occupational structure - have, however, yielded results that are quite consistent with the results of North American and European studies, and so have studies of criminal and delinquent behavior. These considerations led us to expect that in situations of moral dilemmas such as the ones confronted by our subjects, honest decisions would be made more frequently by female passengers than by male passengers. Another consistent finding of crime and_delinquency studies is that young persons are involved in deviant behavior far more than adults are. Again, this was found in studies of official crime statistics as well as in studies of self-reported behavior. Two natural experiments that studied the effect of this variable reached a similar conclusion-that young persons are more likely to be involved in deviant behavior. Turning to the specific features of the present experimental situation, we propose that the incentive value of a financial gain for oneself is higher for adolescents than for adults. This proposition derives from the assumption that money is scarcer among adolescents and that its marginal utility is accordingly greater. Consequently, we predicted for this group of subjects a higher proportion of dishonest decisions. In addition to the personal attributes of sex and age, we introduced incentive level as a situational characteristic. This variable was introduced because there are several theoretical attempts to explain deviance by means of rational, quasi-economic considerations. The key concept of this approach is the subjectively expected utility of an act for the actor. According to this theory, better internalization of norms may reduce

deviance by the same mechanism that deterrence uses to achieve its effect: Both are means by which society tries to reduce the overall expected utility of a deviant act for its perpetrator. This approach derives its empirical support from experimental studies as well as from econometric survey studies of crime. Thus, on the basis of studies conducted in other countries, we hypothesized that yielding to temptation would be more prevalent among males than among females, among the young more than among older persons, and under conditions of high temptation more than under conditions of low temptation.

Procedure Bus drivers of the public transportation system of the city of Tel Aviv were provided with money to be used as extra change for passengers who paid their fares with bills larger than the cost of transportation. The observation of the passengersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; behavior was made by a trained assistant who seated himself to have a convenient view of the subjectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s behavior from the moment he or she entered the bus until he or she completed the fare-paying transaction and advanced toward an available seat. The critical moment, therefore, was the reaction of the passenger once he or she received the change. The main task of the observer was, first, to determine whether the overpay was noticed (e.g., the passenger was seen inspecting or counting the money) and, second, if noticed, what he or she did about it (ie., whether the passenger kept it or returned it to the driver). Obviously, to minimize the chances of being noticed, the observer attempted to maintain a low profile. Also, no selection of subjects was made; that is, the bus driver overpaid every passenger who paid with a large bill during the period the observer was aboard the bus.

Two levels of temptation were used. At the lower level, a subject paying for an IS 2.80 ticket was given IS 0.20 of excess change (about 70/0 of the fare). At the higher level, the extra change was IS 1.00 (25% of the fare). To avoid suspicion, this level of temptation was applied only for subjects paying a higher fare (IS 4.(0). As ticket prices increased during the study, it was necessary to change the exact amounts of extra change, but the gap between temptation levels remained roughly the same. As a consequence, the variable of temptation level was consistently contaminated by the ticket price. One may wonder whether these small sums present any significant temptation. Therefore, any finding of temptation effect may also be considered a validation of the experimental procedure. The subjects’ ages were recorded as juvenile (up to 18 years) or adult (20 years or older). Most of the 18 to 20-year-olds are in military service and were not included in the study. An attempt to distinguish a third category, elderly, failed because most of the members of this age group use senior citizens’ passes that they buy at a reduced price. Another variable excluded from the initial design was the sociocultural background of the subjects-whether they were Ashkenazi or Sephardi (the major subdivisions of Israeli Jews). A pretest indicated that this variable could not be observed reliably. During the time this study was conducted, the Israeli economy was characterized by rampant inflation of over 120% annually. We suspected that this factor might affect the passengers’ behavior with regard to both awareness of the extra change and their decision about it. We took advantage of these circumstances to examine the common but rarely tested argument that a prolonged period of inflation results in diminished valuation of the local currency. For this purpose, each week during which observations were made was considered a separate experimental period and was numbered ordinally. Altogether, the observations lasted for 25 weeks. This information was incorporated into the analysis.

Results The major technique for analyzing the data was analysis of covariance. The independent variables (sex, age, and temptation level) were used as variables, and the observation period served as a covariate. One dependent variable was whether the subject noticed the amount of change. For those subjects who paid attention to the change, the second dependent variable was whether they returned the surplus change to the driver. Therefore, the dependent variables were dichotomies, which violates the formal assumption that the dependent variable is measured on an interval scale. It may be argued, however, that a dichotomy is an extreme case of an interval scale (cf. Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Brien, 1979; Cox, 1970), in which case the analysis is permissible. Yet, as a measure of safety, the data were also analyzed by means of Goodmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s log-linear technique. Because the conclusions from both types of analysis were virtually identical, only the analysis of variance, which is easier to describe, is presented here. The analysis showed that three of the four Age x Sex combinations (young males, adult males, and adult females) had the same rate of noticing the amount of change: 16070 of the subjects in each of these groups directed at least a glance at the change they received. Adolescent females, the fourth group, noticed their change much more frequently: 38070 of the subjects in this group looked at their change (see Table 1).

Table 1 Percentage Noticing and Returning Excess Change

Male

Female

Noticing change

Age Young

Adult

Temptation

Returning excess change

Low

High

In an analysis of covariance, the dependent variable was whether a subJect noticed the change; sex, age, and temptation were independent variables, and the observation period was a covariate. The sex, age, and their interactIon were all highly significant (p < .001), and each had a correlation ratio (H) of about .14 with the dependent variable. The effect of the temptation, or ticket price, was somewhat weaker (H = .068) and less significant. The major finding was that the observation period had a significant, negative effect: As time passed and the fare was not raised, fewer people looked at the amount of change they received. The second dependent variable was tested only for those subjects who noticed the amount of change. For them, the dependent variable was a dummy variable indicating subjects who returned the extra change to the bus driver. An analysis of covariance similar to toe one already described was performed and yielded the following results: None of the factors in the analysis had a significant main effect. The only effect observed for these factors was a Sex x Temptation interaction (p < .(05). Malesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resistance to temptation increased with the level of temptation; the percentage returning the extra change increased from 51070 to 64%. Femalesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resistance to temptation decreased with the level of temptation; the percentage returning the extra change decreased from 70% to 57%. Males and females demonstrated effects of exactly the same magnitude (13%) but in opposite directions (see Table 1). An effect of the observation period may be observed. This period has a slight, positive effect (B = .01): The later the period, the higher the probability that a subject would return the excess change.

Discussion Our initial hypotheses led us to expect that adults and females would be the more conforming groups, but these expectations were not confirmed. Young females were far more concerned with the amount of change they received than were either older females or males. A plausible interpretation can be derived from the common observation that girls are typically more strictly supervised and controlled than are boys. Furthermore, they are least likely to have the independence that may allow one to relax rules of conduct. Consequently, even if the incentive value of the change is the same for both groups of adolescents, the level of alertness is probably higher among girls than among boys. A major implication of this study is that the common practice of manipulating an experimental variable and trying to reach generalisations concerning its effects may be futile. The effects of an experimental manipulation on a sample depends on its symbolic meaning to each subgroup. Perhaps this is the explanation for the inconsistency between the findings concerning the effects of sex in studies of criminal behavior as compared with studies of moral judgment and experimental studies of deviance: The situations presented to the subjects and the conditions of the study could have led to differential interpretations and definitions, thereby evoking different response patterns. Our other major finding involved the factor influencing the direction of attention â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the period of observation. In view of the high rate of inflation, this effect was anticipated. The observations were carried out during a period in which the periodical hikes of bus fares (which are controlled by the government) did not keep pace with inflation. (Prices more than doubled within a year; in fact, shortly after the termination of the study, the government institutionalised a monthly hike.) Consequently, the exact change received by the passengers became objectively less and less significant for

them; therefore, the expected utility of checking the change dropped sharply, and, the cost (e.g., going through the motions, diverting attention) remained constant. The explanation of the effect of the period on the probability of returning the money follows directly: As time passes, the monetary value of the returned change (the cost of resisting temptation) decreases. Because the other factors remain rather constant, the net utility of the act for the individual increases. It is more difficult to explain the differential responsiveness of males and females to the temptations offered to them. Although females’ responses varied in the expected direction (more dishonesty with higher temptation), the males’ behavior was in the opposite direction. Our interpretation is based on the similarity between the males’ conformity in the low-temptation condition and the females’ conformity in the hightemptation condition. This similarity seems to suggest that males have a higher response threshold: The incentive value of the sum used in our study was lower for males than it was for females. Consequently, at the lower temptation level, the males did not respond to the monetary incentive at all. They defined the situation in moral rather than utilitarian terms. Alternatively, contrary to the common assumption, women may be less moral than men are. The behavior of the female subjects was directed by instrumental considerations and structural variables such as the extent of control and the magnitude of the temptation. This interpretation is consistent with Sistrunk and McDavid’s finding that under pressure to deviate, subjects of each sex yielded more on items related to the cognitive expertise domain of the other sex. We may describe the males as ready to risk some dishonesty when the sum was very low and may have served only as a token of an ability to avoid organisational demands or when the cost of the honest act (e.g., managing one’s way back to the driver in a crowded bus) may have been higher than the value of the sum involved. When the sum was higher, these viewpoints may have lost their validity.

Finally, we are aware of the limitations of this study. First, the temptation level was not independent of the fare. Second, the mere fact that we focused on passengers of the public transportation system excludes a significant proportion of the Israeli population. Third, the limited range of some of the variables (e.g., fare, age) and our inability to control for others (e.g., socioeconomic status, ethnic origin) seriously limit the scope of this study. [5]

References [1]

Anonymous (2013) Bubble Wrap Popping Sets New Record. Available from: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-uscanada-21241450 .

[2]

Oshunrinade, A. (2011) WILLS LAW AND CONTESTS: Writing a Valid Will, Trust Administration, and Trust Fiduciary Duty. AuthorHouse.

[3]

Peabody, J. Odysseus and the Sirens. Available from: www.talesbeyondbelief.com/myth-stories/odysseussirens.htm .

[4]

Walters, P. the History of Bubblewrap. Available from: www.ehow.com/facts_7345549_historybubblewrap.html .

[5]

Yuchtman-Yaar, E. and Rahav, G., Resisting Small Temptations in Everyday Transactions.

Picture credits Unless otherwise stated, all images are courtesy Emma L Brown. Photograph courtesy OakleyOriginals; 70-71.

temptation temptation â&#x20AC;&#x153;Why resist temptation? temptation temptation temptation temptation temptation temptation temptation temptation

There will always be more.” —Don Herold

ard to say hatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right hen all I anna do is rong.â&#x20AC;? Prince

Drawing inspiration from Tarkovsky's Stalker (1979), Do Not Touch explores temptation through an accumulation of written material, photography & design.