The Washington Post

One in four trick-or-treaters is an unscrupulous candy thief, study finds

From the spooky, scary Wonkblog crypt (known on days that are not October 31 as our 2012 archives), we bring you this frightful blog post on what research tells us about trick-or-treating candy thieves. 

(AP Photo/Earl Neikirk)

They're a staple of trick-or-treating: Bowls of candy left outside a house with an instruction to take one piece of candy. But can they possibly work?

Turns out, they can — and psychologists have the research to prove it.

Back in 1976, a team of four psychologists decided to investigate the idea. Their big takeaway, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Left to their own devices, it's mostly kids who trick or treat in groups who steal additional treats.

The psychologists ran the experiment on more than 1,000 trick-or-treaters in Seattle between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. The kids would show up at a house in a neighborhood, where a woman greeted them. She would then excuse herself, saying she had work to do, and that each child should take one piece of candy. There was also a bowl left out with nickels and dimes in it, also left unsupervised.

Most children actually did follow the instructions: 69 percent took a piece of candy and went on their way. Of those who stole, 65 percent took an extra candy (on average, between 1.6 and 2.3 additional pieces). Thirteen percent pocketed some of the change. One in five kids took both money and candy.

A few other interesting findings about trick-or-treating behavior: Kids who went out in groups were about twice as likely to steal additional candy as those who went candy hunting solo. Some of that was due to a sort of modeling effect: In 85 percent of the cases observed, kids would mimic the behavior of whoever dug into the candy first. If he took an extra piece, the friends routinely did the same.

Rates of stealing also went way, way down when the experimenter asked each kid his or her name and where he or she lived prior to leaving the room. The researchers thought of this as the "non-anonymous" condition: Although kids didn't write down fully identifying information, there would be some details for the experimenter to work on should she want to track down the thieves.

The takeaway, for those looking to ward off candy thieves, seems to be: Get a kid's name before you let them dive into the goods.

Show Comments

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.