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
9 Permanent Impact
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Emotional 1
0 Theft
Response 9
Temporary Impact
Vandalism
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
On-Friend On-Stranger Off-Friend Off-Stranger
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
5
Permanent Impact
4
3
2
1
Cognitive
Theft
0
Vandalism
Temporary Impact
5
Response
4
3
2
1
0
On-Friend On-Stranger Off-Friend Off-Stranger
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