« The health care graph | Main | Why isn't legalized prostitution more popular? »
Markets in everything, food fight edition
Juniors Rachel Whitcomb, Elizabeth Soergel and Taylor Procida are among those who protested an offer last month by the principal of Wilde Lake High School to pay students to identify participants in a cafeteria food fight.
...an intense debate erupted within the Columbia school community over whether administrators should reward students for informing on misbehaving peers. Last month, the student newspaper, the Wilde Lake Paw Print, published three columns by students critical of the principal's offer.
"I find the administration's recent use of monetary incentives considerably more frightening than a food fight," wrote editor Katherine Driessen, a senior.
Have you wondered how corporate scandals can go on for so long?:
Philip Soergel, a parent who complained to Howard schools administrators about the principal's offer, said: "We were aghast. I had never heard of this. Kids are getting these kinds of lessons in how to tattle on one another."
Here is the story. It seems no one has turned in the perpetrators, I guess the price isn't very high.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 12, 2008 at 06:53 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I teach middle school, and it's a tough issue (exacerbated, I suspect, because my school is all boys). There is this tremendous internalized social pressure against telling on people, even if you are the victim and need help dealing with the problem. On the one hand, insofar as it represents an instinct to deal with the problem internally and not be reliant on adults for everything, I admire it (though I suspect my coworkers do not share this feeling, and tend to overestimate adults' ability to intervene successfully, and minimize kids' ability to do so). On the other hand, there are problems that really do need adult powers to be called down, and certainly actions which merit punishments, and our lack of information is a huge problem. Kids are good at only doing things when adults aren't looking.
I think the idea of paying is despicable and ill-thought-through (what if all you incentivize is lying?), but I sympathize with their difficulty in getting good information.
Posted by: Andromeda at Jan 12, 2008 9:31:02 AM
I never really understood why it was considered "bad" to tattle on others. Hell, I'd do it for some cash: money matters more to me than a bunch of hooligans that I don't even know.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Jan 12, 2008 9:49:28 AM
From a microeconomic standpoint, a food fight is a negative externality and is over-produced. The school should raise the cost that the food fighter impose on third parties. The school should reward those to reduce the cost with incentives.
Posted by: Mike Fladlien at Jan 12, 2008 9:58:05 AM
Robert Olsen remember that in a school environment you will have to live with the people you tattle on and their friends. Tattling is not a cost free alternative. You are not tattling on a bunch of hooligans you do not know.
Posted by: spencer at Jan 12, 2008 9:58:39 AM
I'm with Robert. Kids who gang up on tattlers today will grow up to be adults who kill snitches. The hard problem for the school -- probably insolubly hard -- is how to break down the idea that tattling is wrong. Payments don't seem like they're likely to work. Indeed, this seems like a near paradigm case of crowding-out; paying kids to inform undermines the message that informing is an altruistic and noble thing to do.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann at Jan 12, 2008 10:02:26 AM
If you paid people for returning wallets, would you get more wallets? I doubt it. You'd just get a higher cost of decency.
Posted by: bjk at Jan 12, 2008 10:37:43 AM
Robert and James:
Tattling on minor infractions only makes you a wuss. Especially if the injured party is not perceived to be too deserving. (look at this food fight for example!) And if the punishment a tattler would invoke would likely be totally incommensurate with the wrongdoing!
Posted by: anon at Jan 12, 2008 10:47:56 AM
The students could try a counter offer. $30 for each witness to not tattle. There is an information asymmetry the students can exploit. Unlike the administrator they KNOW who the witnesses are!
Posted by: Raul at Jan 12, 2008 10:51:29 AM
Kids get ambiguous messages about tattling right from the start. "Don't be a tattle-tale" is combined with urging to be sure to tell a responsible adult when something really serious is afoot -- but kids might not be all that good at knowing the difference between minor and major infractions, and even very unsafe activity often only raises the probability of something really bad happening from the "very tiny" to the "more probable but still unlikely" range.
Along with seriousness of the offense, another key consideration, as commentators have noted above, is what penalties will be applied to identified wrongdoers. Even juries seem less likely to convict if they suspect that a guilty verdict will bring on a disproportionate punishment.
The recent book "Snitch" by Ethan Brown provides a look at how a reliance upon incentivized informants in the war on drugs (where most of the 'crimes' are consensual) undermines justice.
Posted by: Jim at Jan 12, 2008 11:21:21 AM
Right on Jim!
I live in a University town and the other day I was walking home and saw two somewhat drunk young guys trying to climb the roof of a pretty low university warehouse. Should I have tattled? If I did the cops would probably get them off, give them a variety of tickets probably totaling around $1000 in my assessment. Worse even maybe a criminal history. If I did not, maybe one of them would break a neck; but I discount that probability as too low especially in light of the draconian (and almost certain) outcome in case I did tattle.
Did I tattle? Of course, not!
Here's what I asses in deciding if I tattle: (1) How "deserving" is the injured party and what is the magnitude of its un--restituted injury in case I did not tattle. (2) Is the penalty contingent upon my tattling commensurate or draconian?
I guess the dichotomy arises from a gross mismatch between what most of us consider as appropriate punishment and what the law enforcers do. Happily most legal systems do not impose a "duty" to report infractions!
Posted by: Raul at Jan 12, 2008 11:44:12 AM
I'm disappointed in the school administration but not surprised. Although I am a little pleased that they would bother to try to identify the responsible parties at all. Every principal (or collegiate judicial functionary) I've ever encountered would just punish everyone in the cafeteria at the time and be done with it. There's nothing like collective guilt to make their jobs easier.
This also bring to mind NYC's plan to pay some students for better grades. The objection then was that you would be replacing good incentives with bad. Even if we do want children to inform on their peers (which I don't), shouldn't we be concerned that widespread informant bribes will train people to expect compensation for cooperation with authorities? Wouldn't we rather have children learning to make their own decisions? (Oh, this is in a school, so I guess the answer is "no." Let's just train them to do as their told and not think for themselves.)
And finally, where is this money coming from? Are people paying Howard County property taxes really going to be paying some kid to tell his principal who threw the first hot dog?
Posted by: Jared at Jan 12, 2008 12:34:16 PM
If the adults were paying the slightest bit of attention they would know who the trouble makers were. I'm sure it is quite obvious to the kids.
Really, this pretending that we don't remember what school was like is stupid. It's really not hard at all to know what the kids are doing. I always knew in two seconds what was up with my kids and if they were lying to me, so they learned not to lie to me. If telling the truth is more important than the little clicks in the culture, then it won't be a problem. The idea of having to pay for the truth is a typical perversion of our culture.
We are a sick, sick society.
Posted by: donna at Jan 12, 2008 1:14:45 PM
Robert: the reason why tattling is not more popular is because a reputation for confidentiality is a commodity with value which cannot be purchased, particularly to children in a school environment.
Even if you as a student disapprove of the actions of your classmates in this case, you have other circumstances where you want the confidentiality of your classmates. Confidentiality is valuable in many ways to a young student, for any number of enjoyable if somewhat illicit activities. Investing in not tattling now offers dividends to the student in question should they do anything from cheat on a test to try a beer or make out with someone at a dance.
Money might outvalue the return of having a reputation as a non-tattler. But money cannot offer the students the possibility of future returns that silence can. Therefore, the silent students are making a rational, long-term investment in their own opportunities to bend rules.
Posted by: James Feldman at Jan 12, 2008 1:37:33 PM
Junior-high food fights--one of the highlights of my life.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Jan 12, 2008 2:45:41 PM
The students could try a counter offer. $30 for each witness to not tattle. There is an information asymmetry the students can exploit. Unlike the administrator they KNOW who the witnesses are!
Exactly: nonetheless, isn't this a form of punishment. The coase theorem kicks in & it's almost certainly worth more to the student not to be punished than to the administrator to punish him/her. Nonetheless, by offering as a reward w/e the administrator's WTP in order to punish the student is, they force a student to pay approximately this same price not to be tattled on (assuming the social pressure that also plays a large part were absent). And the administrators don't end up paying the bounty either!: shrewd move.
Posted by: mjk at Jan 12, 2008 7:51:42 PM
Yeah, since when are food fights a BAD thing?
Posted by: Peter at Jan 12, 2008 8:47:55 PM
Another option: Sign this contract with the class bully: "If anyone tattles and I don't bash his face in you win $50"
Schelling anyone?
Posted by: Raul at Jan 13, 2008 4:15:11 AM
If food prices were raised, it would be too valuable to be thrown. It would also generate revenue, if school administrators banned food brought in from the outside. This could be couched as a security issue.
Posted by: js at Jan 13, 2008 10:51:12 AM
To over simplify:
Stanley Milgram's research indicated there are two kinds of people, followers and non-followers.
Followers will take your life on an order, even if they don't believe in the order, non-followers will not.
Non-followers signal a human trust (prisoners dilemma?), a premium advantage.
Followers signal a chimp like/low IQ survival code. Not a premium.
A cop friend of mine told me that "gang-bangers" regularly tattle, prep students rarely do.
Which signaling would you trust?
If tattling is correct than the underground railroad or Germans hiding Jews during WWII in Germany were wrong.
If Tyler is wrong, these things were correct.
I am very, very afraid of living in Tyler's world.
If Tyler is correct the French resistance was wrong, but the Nazi occupation was right.
Very afraid.
Posted by: Lawrence at Jan 13, 2008 1:24:28 PM
More specific (historical) example:
A man (a) lives on a street in WWII Germany. Two doors down a lutheran family is hiding a jewish family.
The man (a), could earn some quick cash for turning in the families.
After WWII is over, the question arises:
Would you rather do business with the man if he, A. Earned the quick cash, or B. Minded his own business?
Signalling? I avoid people who take option A, and so do most Americans (well, back when we still heard people say "it's a free country, isn't it"-which you don't hear much anymore).
Do we really want to live in a world in which we are forced back down the evolutionary tree to the level (proven) of chimps? Or one in which our evolutionary gains are fully realized (freedom).
If you don't understand why "tattling" is such an important signal, then I guess you are pro-devolution?
Posted by: Lawrence at Jan 13, 2008 1:35:13 PM
I think the idea of the potential onlooker evaluating the potential over-seriousness of the punishment is very important. To wit:
1) How many of you know someone who has acquired some MP3s through not-perfectly-legal means?
2) How many of you have ratted them out to the RIAA?
Posted by: A Guest at Jan 13, 2008 1:36:05 PM
Man, the comments on this thread totally made
my day. I learned more about signaling here than
in my econ course.
Posted by: sa at Jan 13, 2008 2:23:11 PM
A Guest:
More examples:
1. If you saw a motorist on a highway driving 10 above the limit would you rat?
2. If you chatted with a guy in a bar, had "a few" (subjective) beers and then saw him drive away; would you rat?
3. The student next to me in the bar had just one beer and is 19 years old. Would I rat?
Are these areas for legislative reform? When an overwhelmingly "representative" (I hope) sample of the population considers laws draconian / irrelevant / unfair is that a valid signal for change?
Posted by: Raul at Jan 13, 2008 3:54:13 PM
For big-time tattling (on government corruption, etc.), visit the Rumor-Mill. The problem is not school cafeterias, but peoples' inability to tell the difference between a useful tattle (to aid society) and a snitch (to help himself or an overbearing bureaucracy).
Posted by: David Zetland at Jan 13, 2008 5:58:13 PM
I don't get why anyone would expect the paid informers to identify the *correct* students. Finger someone you dislike, take the money, and if you're proved wrong, say "hey, it was a really confusing food fight, I thought I saw her throwing the milk. Oops."
Posted by: Anderson at Jan 14, 2008 9:49:31 AM
Anderson:
Maybe they require a quorum? If 3 people claim it was John Doe it was probably John Doe. But has loopholes; one only needs a little collusion to defeat that. What's interesting is what's the equilibrium situation of the model?
Posted by: Raul at Jan 14, 2008 11:57:45 AM
Lawrence: did you *really* just compare tattling on people who started a foodfight, to help others escape
genocide?
I don't even know how to respond to that.
Posted by: Person at Jan 14, 2008 5:57:19 PM
