The result? Cynical, without question. Compared with volunteers who were wearing authentic Chloé glasses, those who had been told that they were wearing knockoffs saw other people as more dishonest, less truthful and more likely to act unethically in business dealings.
So what’s going on here? Ironically, as the scientists reported in the May issue of Psychological Science, wearing counterfeit glasses not only fails to bolster our ego and self-image the way we hope, it actually undermines our internal sense of authenticity. “Faking it” makes us feel like phonies and cheaters on the inside, and this alienated, counterfeit “self” leads to cheating and cynicism in the real world.
Counterfeiting is a serious economic and social problem, epidemic in scale. Most people buy these fake brand-name items because they are a lot cheaper than the real deal, but this research suggests that a hidden moral cost has yet to be tallied.
This article was originally published with the title Faking It.
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add CommentWere the participants aware that the other participants had "real" or "fake" glasses? Since both were presumably free, the participants who received the "fake" glasses could feel unlucky or cheated, leading to reciprocal dishonesty. This isn't a problem when the glasses are priced accordingly, as there's a significant discount for knockoffs. Was there a control group that received nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this shows some people are disposed to pretense, fakery, and chicanery, while others are not, rather than showing that wearing knock-offs "makes" a person less honest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this shows some people are disposed to pretense, fakery, and chicanery, while others are not, rather than showing that wearing knock-offs "makes" a person less honest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this shows some people are disposed to pretense, fakery, and chicanery, while others are not, rather than showing that wearing knock-offs "makes" a person less honest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the end of the study, did they at least tell the test subjects that the sunglasses were real?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ HelmutMusberger - My question exactly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ ernieschell - They controlled for this by randomly designating some glasses to be "fake". The participants did not choose the supposedly "fake" glasses.
@ HelmutMusberger - My question exactly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ ernieschell - They controlled for this by randomly designating some glasses to be "fake". The participants did not choose the supposedly "fake" glasses.
I find it interesting how something as simple as wearing knock-off sunglasses instantly changes one's propensity to lie, cheat and steal. But the numbers are significant (30% to 70%) and the implications are scary. Since one of the professors is from Harvard Business School, I wonder if the study was designed to create a marketing or psychological profile. And why isn't there a link to the publication of the study? The sample of "young women" is also very skewed. Sounds like a couple psyche 101 profs got together with the chicks in a marketing prof's class and did this study just for the yucks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't care about fashion. I just don't want to look stupid.
Sorry, didn't bother to read the second page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know from experience, that the cognoscienti aren't fooled by fakes, only those who can't afford the real stuff are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why bother, if it's at the risk of your "immortal soul"?
@ernieschell: your statement would be correct, assuming it hadn't been controlled for. The implication of your statement (as I take it anyway) is that those who would CHOOSE to wear fake sunglasses have a higher propensity for lying and cheating. This would imply a correlation without a causation, and I would agree entirely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the participants of this study didn't get a choice, they got a pair of glasses and were then told they were fake. At first blush it seems counter intuitive that simply wearing fake sunglasses would change personality, but it obviously does make some difference. Someone who is sporting something they know is fake and is denying to be fake has already setup a precedent in their minds to lie. More, it's a precedent that they're, at least to some degree, constantly aware of when they're around others.
I'm reminded of my car in college. It was a rusty old beater, but it was a strong runner (put half a million miles on it in 5 years delivering pizza). I tried to convince myself and others that it was a better car than it really way, though. A thought I was consciously aware of every time I drove it.
@vagnry: because those that would wear fakes don't hang around with the cognoscienti? They hang around with those who are fooled by fakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe results seem counterintuitive to me. A knock-off given to someone alters their integrity? Or was it sold to the person? If sold, was taking the test a requirement for purchasing the sunglasses? If so, might people feel more ingratiated to the testers if they thought they were given a great deal on a real pair of glasses, and so did a more conscientious job?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sample size was said to be "large." How large?
What a clever way to discourage people from buying knockoffs. Presuming of course they even CARE about being unethical...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe lack of political will in this nation to do the right thing; address the mushrooming debt, raise taxes, have a true green agenda, etc, can also be traced to this phonied sense of self and others! Why else would the majority of the public VOTE for X, Y or Z candidate when analysis of their positions would tell you they cannot possibly deliver? We must love to be entertained and be lied to!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI call BS. Clearly there is a different systemic effect happening here that they are not noticing or willfully ignoring. A few people in the above comments have suggested possibilities for this systematic defect. It's impossible to say what it is without seeing the study, but it's very obvious that it's there. I hope nobody is fooled by this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if there were any controls before handing them the knockoffs, like a pre test of honesty just to see that both groups where at the same level of honesty!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalthough 70 vs 30% seems like a lot we should see what the baseline was, remember that 1 experiment does not prove anything, thing should be able to be replicated many time by other teams to show that what ever hidden variables could exist do not account for a different result
We are programmed to enjoy narratives around campfires. The story's the thing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are also programmed to seek status, by our hundreds of status-seeker ancestors who survived by cozying up to food, child care and protection. Learn to use it in socially useful ways, in this new niche.
Combine this phenomenon with the Tyranny of Choice and you can see why Americans are a very unhappy lot amid unparalleled abundance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow how does the test show something that was'nt tested? And Not show what was tested? Did you Read the Article? dont post idiotic things like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing treated in a way that is subpar undermines confidence. Those people knew the real things existed, and they were having the counterfeits, like a dunce cap. When people are less confident, they do not seek to impress, or answer questions correctly. They seek to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy and hoard whatever is lacking and thereby causing those feelings (if you're wearing fakes, you probably wish you had more money)... This is why allowing extreme poverty is so damaging to a society as a whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid they test the honesty of the participants prior to handing out the sunglasses? There's no baseline here and too many variables. Also, people might buy a knock off because they like the style, not necessarily the brand. There is a difference in attitude. The conclusions of the research are of interest only, not conclusive proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you kidding me? Whether they are knock-offs or the real thing, the whole mindset of materialism is sick. Are you saying that by buying the "real" product makes you mentally more healthy? are you really saying that? are you insane?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid the participants get to keep the shades, or did any perhaps think they would at the time that they were self-scoring their payout? If so, I wonder if some thought they were already getting a good payout in the form of the shades and so were less motivated to push the value of the payout.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder what the result would be if both groups thought the glasses were of the same monetary value, e.g. both the "real" and "fake" groups are told the glasses they are wearing are worth $X, but the "fake" group is told that authentic glasses would be worth so many times more.
By giving participants fake glasses these scientists have sent them a message "cheating is OK" without words. They just found out that if you tell people that they are allowed to cheat they would cheat more often. Wow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychological research has a storied history of producing unusual and unexpected results. However, I am at least somewhat skeptical of this particular finding. Indeed, while I won't question the results of this study I still think that the particular conclusions drawn by its authors are questionable at best (see the link at Norton's web page for the article pdf http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=pub&facEmId=mnorton@hbs.edu).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question I would like to ask is: what increased the unethical behavior of participants? Was it simply the act of wearing counterfeit sunglasses (as the researchers surmised) or was it an experimental artifact associated with the manipulation (i.e. a difference in how participants felt they were treated by experimenters as a result of the manipulation). In particular, it doesn't seem at all unlikely that participants might behave differently based upon how they were assessed by experimenters and/or the condition to which they were assigned. For example, in experiment 1a a sham "preference test" (used to determine whether participants "preferred" real or counterfeit glasses) was conducted. Participants were then randomly assigned a particular condition and told "it seems you have a relative preference for counterfeit [authentic] products" depending on which assignment they received. This rather complicated deception was largely used in order to convince participants that they had "chosen" a particular set of sunglasses. Perhaps being told they "preferred" cheap knock-offs affected how these participants behaved.
While the rather questionable nature of this deception is eliminated in all further experiments (participants were told they would be randomly assigned to wear either "real" or "counterfeit" sunglasses) I still have to ask: isn't it possible that participants acted less ethically because they were placed in a less desirable experimental condition (i.e. received counterfeit sunglasses), rather than as a result of wearing the counterfeit sunglasses?
Whatever the reason for these findings, I think something is clearly off here. Despite the somewhat exaggeration scope of these findings ("Just putting on fake sunglasses makes you a liar!"), the authors of this study never make any mention of possible alternative explanations for their results. Moreover, in light of the rather unexpected findings of this research, I think their reviewers should have been a little more critical of this particular paper before accepting its submission.
It is unclear what the participants knew. I am assuming that they were aware that the glasses were given by the same people who conducted the tests. It may be that the duplicitous nature of giving knock off glasses influenced the participants and gave them "license" to behave with regard to the testers in the same manner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have long suspected an ulterior motive for the mag Scientific American. This article discusses a study where buying "fake" goods instead of the "real" name brand is mentally unhealthy for you... isn't the whole idea of wanting to buy name brands mentally ill? The whole idea of commercialism and materialism and how people define themselves as "consumers"? Isn't it all sick to begin with?... wow...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey conclude that it is "cheating" and "lying" to buy the "fake" brands. That it is dishonest. Uh, its just a pair of sunglasses. Maybe we should be more worried about why people think they need to be so obsessed with material things.
Don't the makers of the "fake" sunglasses lie in their commercials?
"Wear are brand and you will be someone important, someone sexy and glamorous. "Our sunglasses give you value. Wear them and people will find you a better person."
Is this an attempt by Scientific American to make people feel guilty for buying "fake" products and to make those who buy "real" sunglasses" angry at those that do buy the "fake" ones. This is the psychotic doing psychoanalysis on the other mental ward patients.
So, Sciam, keep telling us that fossil fuels is the only logical alternative. Keep telling us that the technology for alternative energies is decades away. And keep telling us to define ourselves as "consumers" instead of free citizens. Help keep the status quo for your advertisers.
My apologies to Sciam. I see the original article was done by Huffington Post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a real statement of observation of the present condition of our society when two researchers can make conclusions from their studies about the mental health of individuals engaged in an activity framed within the omnipresent deception of commercialism. A commercialism which has soddened the fabric of our society to such a point that it is accepted at such a deep level it is considered a "healthy" baseline of normal society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost times, I feel very alone in my observations about the behaviors and the morals of our society; the unquestioning acceptance of what I consider so bizzare that I often feel like a visitor from another planet. But, its more likely that those who share my view have learned that it is safer not to upset the "crazies" and therefore, wisely, say nothing.
If this is true (which I suspect it is), this is yet another (quoting the article) "serious ..social problem, epidemic in scale" and "suggests there may be a hidden moral cost yet to be tallied".
So that's the reason why Chinese economy is growing so fast, consider most of their product for example telecom equipments all are inspired(that's the most diplomatically correct word i can use in this context) from Telecom giants like CISCO, ALCATEL etc. the people working in these companies know they are unethical and i believe that's what driving them towards success...!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@tulcak, you are not alone. Inherent to your valid stance is the desire to disassociate from such a 'culture'. Consumer product manufacturers enjoy the financial strength to 'shout' louder than dissenters through advertising and government and media manipulation, quashing any substantive debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonesty and good will can not triumph short-term in such a match-up. However, like the author, Don Delillo, asks, 'Who would win in a battle: a tiger or a polar bear?' His character answers, 'Depends on whether they are fighting in the arctic or the forest.' When the surroundings change, maybe so will the victor. As the middle and working classes are finally swindled of the last of their cash and credit, and the well dries entirely, each will be forced to look inward at the empty place where self-identity should reside. And then the cycle can begin again.
I believe the conclusion the researchers came to are wrong. I think they missed a key idea The law of reciprocation . I would be willing to bet most people start at the low end of honesty and would have cheated if given a control experiment to determine the base line "cheating" level. The act of giving people real high quality items produced the reciprocation effect and caused them to become more honest. It was not that cheap knock off's lowered honesty, but giving someone an expensive "gift" increased honesty. They did not take into account the "gift giving" effect of their experiment. Just my $0.02...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the conclusion the researchers came to are wrong. I think they missed a key idea “The law of reciprocation”. I would be willing to bet most people start at the low end of honesty and would have cheated if given a control experiment to determine the base line "cheating" level. The act of giving people real high quality items produced the reciprocation effect and caused them to become more honest. It was not that cheap knock off's lowered honesty, but giving someone an expensive "gift" increased honesty. They did not take into account the "gift giving" effect of their experiment. Just my $0.02...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the conclusion the researchers came to are wrong. I think they missed a key idea “The law of reciprocation”. I would be willing to bet most people start at the low end of honesty and would have cheated if given a control experiment to determine the base line "cheating" level. The act of giving people real high quality items produced the reciprocation effect and caused them to become more honest. It was not that cheap knock off's lowered honesty, but giving someone an expensive "gift" increased honesty. They did not take into account the "gift giving" effect of their experiment. Just my $0.02...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it just as likely that the group who received "counterfeit" glasses were less pleased with the research study than the ones who received real glasses?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I went into a research study and got an authentic pair of luxury sunglasses I'd be much more inclined to be generous, fair, and honest. If I went into a study and was given a cheap fake knockoff, I'd be less pleased and probably more inclined to look for ways to make the study worth my time.
It's like having a research study where one group of people are given $1000 and another group are given $1, and then both are assessed for honesty by seeing how much they lie to get an extra $5. I'd guess the group that got $1000 isn't going to care as much about the extra $5 as the group that got $1.
Ultimately this study proves nothing and the conclusion is flawed.
I wonder if the reason those who were told their sunglasses were real were less inclined to cheat was because they felt financially more secure at the time. They had just been given $200 to $300 worth of merchandise at no cost. The others who were told their glasses were "fake" had their attention drawn to the fact that they did not have the money to actually support the image that was being portrayed. This could trigger financial insecurity which could make these individuals more likely to compromise ethical standards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article "The Psychology of Knock Offs: Why 'Faking It' Makes Us Feel (and Act) Like Phonies" ends with your conclusion of:
"Counterfeiting is a serious economic and social problem, epidemic in scale. Most people buy these fake brands because they are a lot cheaper, but this research suggests there may be a hidden moral cost yet to be tallied."
Isn't the whole idea of wanting to buy name brands mentally ill? The whole idea of commercialism and materialism and how people define themselves as "consumers"? Isn't it all sick to begin with?
The reseachers conclude that it is "cheating" and "lying" to buy the "fake" brands. That it is dishonest. Well, its just a pair of sunglasses. Maybe we should be more worried about why people think they need to be so obsessed with material things.
Don't the makers of the "real" sunglasses lie in their commercials? Isn't this the dishonesty that we should really be worried about? Maybe its this behavior that has caused (quoting you) "a serious ..social problem, epidemic in scale" and "suggests there may be a hidden moral cost yet to be tallied".
"Wear our brand and you will be someone important, someone sexy and glamorous. "Our sunglasses give you value. Wear them and people will find you a better person."
Is this an attempt to make people feel guilty for buying "fake" products and to make those who buy "real" sunglasses" angry at those that do buy the "fake" ones. This is the psychotic doing psychoanalysis on the other mental ward patients.
It is a real statement of observation of the present condition of our society when two researchers can make conclusions from their studies about the mental health of individuals engaged in an activity framed within the omnipresent deception of commercialism. A commercialism which has soddened the fabric of our society to such a point that it is accepted at such a deep level it is considered a "healthy" baseline of normal society.
Most times, I feel very alone in my observations about the behaviors and the morals of our society; the widespread unquestioning acceptance of what I consider so bizzare that I often feel like a visitor from another planet. But, its more likely that those who share my view have learned that it is safer not to upset the "crazies" and therefore, wisely, say nothing. If this is true (which I suspect it is), this is yet another (quoting you again) "serious ..social problem, epidemic in scale" and "suggests there may be a hidden moral cost yet to be tallied".
Sincerely,
Tom Ulcak
San Marcos, TX (recently from the CZ)
Since the sample population consisted of young women, recruited by three researchers associated with universities, one could guess that all were young female college students, perhaps even studying psychology, sociology or marketing. This may not be a group that represents a universal human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYoung female college students attending Southern universities (for example) may tend to be more concerned about the personal perceptions of their peers than personal integrity - who knows?
These results obtained in these tests of this special group of subjects can't be universally applied to combat soldiers or airline employees...
I'm really disappointed with this article. If this was from some gossip internet junk it would be acceptable but for a publication like SciAm to give credibility to such a charade it's appalling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the author wants us to believe that just by wearing some sort of sunglasses that people were TOLD were knockoffs and that were GIVEN to them to wear will alter their moral behavior? Really? Can you write that with a straight face?
I'm surprised Mr. Herbert could finish typing this "article" without rolling on the floor laughing.
BTW, you forgot to add a disclaimer: paid by the high end overpriced apparel manufacturers association.
I thought SciAm was a publication about science but apparently not.
Principals are fine things to have. Provided you can afford them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about that, for a minute.
To: Quinn the Eskimo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, morals are based on money?
tulcak - Panhandlers can 'earn' a sustainable income, but first they must sacrifice their dignity and self-respect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the world depression of the 1930s many once proud people stood in line to receive food handouts. Surviving banking institutions maintained high moral standards while foreclosing many families' homes, farms and businesses.
Those who have survived desperate circumstances can evaluate the actual cost of maintaining moralistic standards. Those who have not cannot.
Dishonesty is a cultural construct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou find the volunteers dishonest for being venal.
You do not find the researchers dishonest for deceiving the volunteers.
You do not find a French dress-design firm dishonest for selling off-the-hook clothing under its name established by custom-tailored clothing.
You do not find a Swiss conglomerate dishonest for purchasing the name of the French firm, or for marketing goods other than clothing under its name.
Welcome to the world of Pierre Cardin bubble gum. Let us research, with all honesty.
Dishonesty is a cultural construct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou find the volunteers dishonest for being venal.
You do not find the researchers dishonest for deceiving the volunteers.
You do not find a French dress-design firm dishonest for selling off-the-hook clothing under its name established by custom-tailored clothing.
You do not find a Swiss conglomerate dishonest for purchasing the name of the French firm, or for marketing goods other than clothing under its name.
Welcome to the world of Pierre Cardin bubble gum. Let us research, with all honesty.
I believe the woman were trying to compensate themselves with taking more money then alloted, due to the fact of them feeling "cheated" out of having real sunglasses. They should have observed the woman in different ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ jtdwyer: sacrificing dignity and self-respect to survive is something someone would say who was too proud. buying "fake" sunglasses or buying "real" sunglasses defines you as a willing participant in a society built by the deception of commercialism... its not a real world. its fake. to define your value as a human being by what you buy is to make yourself valueless. can you imagine yourself defined by real human qualities? compassion. creativity. understanding. warmth. honesty. kindness.... any of these things? you are just another valueless (but brandname) commodity in the big machine of commercialism. and the sad and scary part is you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ @ jtdwyer: and by the way, real human beings who had nothing have chosen morals over climbing their way out of abject poverty. it happens more than it doesn't. people choose values over comfort, they selflessly choose to help others in need around them NOT to further themselves, but actually leaving themselves in a worse state than before BECAUSE they felt it was the right thing to do, the human thing to do. The majority of people on this planet behave this way: selflessly. you assume the majority act selfishly as yourself because you do not have the capacity to imagine it and all you hear about is the ones that act selfishly - because they are the ones that have the money and resources to boast about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study is deeply flawed. If you tell someone "Based on your answers, and relative to other people in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisour study, it seems that you have a relative preference
for counterfeit products." (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/gino%20norton%20ariely.pdf), thereby putting them down one group before the testing phase, telling them they are phonies, then of course they will be resentful, prone to cheating, and cynical. Why on earth did they introduce a bias like that, when they could have simply told them that the assignment of counterfeit/genuine was random?
The study is deeply flawed. If you tell someone "Based on your answers, and relative to other people in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisour study, it seems that you have a relative preference
for counterfeit products." (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/gino%20norton%20ariely.pdf), thereby putting them down one group before the testing phase, telling them they are phonies, then of course they will be resentful, prone to cheating, and cynical. Why on earth did they introduce a bias like that, when they could have simply told them that the assignment of counterfeit/genuine was random?
tulcak - Don't presume too much without some sort of evidence. I still recall returning from a year in Viet Nam at 19, seeing the pride people took in their clothes and appearance. Meanwhile, I relished using flushing toilettes and having privacy for myself and especially everyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, people can be good in bad circumstances, but when it comes to survival we all struggle for ourselves. Have you ever had to beg or fight for your life? Don't lecture those you don't really know.
jtdwyer: a person buying designer sunglasses is not just trying to survive. If you were asked in Vietnam whether you would want a real toilet or designer sunglasses, I wonder which one you would have chosen? and, if you were to sell one, which one would make you more money then?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the participate do not care about the brand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not pay lots attentions to fashion stuff.
What would go?
maybe female are more artificial, hypocritical...
tulcak - What's your point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWTF. So the moral here is you better pay hundreds of dollars for a cheap peice of plastic and glass instead of ten dollars for a similar looking cheap piece of plastic and glass or your morals will decline. Where's the study that shows that people who are gullible enough to think that designer sunglasses build self-esteem are idiots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWaveyDavey - Again, these results could have something to do with the sample subjects - young women recruited by university professors: an ideal target group for marketing stylish stuff to attain peer group status.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the actual experiment. Participants were assigned sunglasses after taking a brief survey and then being told the survey showed they had an inclination toward either “authentic” or “counterfeit” products. So, this study is disgustingly misleading. The dishonest behavior of participants was not related to the sunglasses worn, but to the suggestion they had a preference. Those told they are “authentic” were probably a little more honest then they might have been other wise; while those told they are “counterfeit” were probably a little less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the actual experiment. Participants were assigned sunglasses after taking a brief survey and then being told the survey showed they had an inclination toward either “authentic” or “counterfeit” products. So, this study is disgustingly misleading. The dishonest behavior of participants was not related to the sunglasses worn, but to the suggestion they had a preference. Those told they are “authentic” were probably a little more honest then they might have been other wise; while those told they are “counterfeit” were probably a little less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/gino%20norton%20ariely.pdf
WenDidIt - Great!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the authors state in the abstract that: "...we show that wearing counterfeit products makes individuals feel...", the are generalizing the results obtained in a study of young female university students to all populations.
Presumedly the guys at the neighborhood fire station would feel exactly the same way... These kinds of studies on unqualified subjects is improper and inadequate.