Cashier-Free Honesty Cafes – Will They Work?
What if on your next coffee run, you discover that Starbucks has started running on the honor system? All the baristas are gone, and in their place, you find Tupperware filled with coins and bills. Would you pay for your daily soy Latte? Or would you “forget” to shell out the five bucks? Be honest.
This, of course, is only a thought experiment, as I doubt Starbucks will be adopting the honor policy anytime soon. But in another part of the world, it’s a real question that residents are facing on a daily basis. As the New York Times recently reported, the attorney general’s office in Indonesia has been opening thousands of “honesty cafes” as part of its anticorruption campaign.
The idea is that these cashier-free cafes will teach people to be honest and curb the country’s corruption problem (which pervades business, politics, and education) by inducing residents – especially the young – to get into the habit of practicing honesty. As the Times reports, “…the cafes are meant to force people to think constantly about whether they are being honest and, presumably, make them feel guilty if they are not.”
It’s a laudable plan, and a lovely feel-good idea, but will it work? I have my doubts.
First I think that people will also cheat to a certain extent in these honesty cafes (as they do in our experiments). In fact, according to one Indonesian student, they already do: “Some of my friends don’t pay the right amount.”
But that’s not the worst of it. I worry that these cafes won’t just fail to discourage cheating – they will actually lead to more of it. In some of our research, we found that cheating on one occasion makes it easier for people to cheat again on a later task, because it alters their self-concept. (Think of dieting as an analogy: once you break your diet once, it’s that much easier to say, “Oh what the hey, cut me a slice of that chocolate cake; I’ll count calories again tomorrow.”)
With honesty cafés widespread, residents will have more temptations to cheat, more occasion to cheat, and maybe this will make it such that they will find it easier to cheat again in other contexts.
Maybe these cafes are a good idea, maybe it will not have any effect, but I worry that it might make things worse.
The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone - Especially Ourselves
For those who are habitual thieves and have reconciled happily with that fact, it will be an opportunity for more free stuff. But the ones that know ‘honesty is the best policy’, it will stir their minds awake and force them to make a more conscious choice. All will not make the right choice but some will and then they may think more honestly in other areas too. If there is some awareness campaign to supplement these cafes, it could lead to desired outcome.
My own experience in “testing” honesty was at the University of Virginia where there is an honor code. I found that when “closed book” take home exams were given, I often got a median grade. On proctored closed book exams I usually got the highest score (I graduated first in my engineering class).
The only thing that this reinforced for me is that being honorable came at a price. I could sleep at night myself, but it had a tiny negative effect on how I viewed the honesty of others. As such, I tend to agree with you; honesty testing makes cheating easier each successive time.
Have you ever looked at proctored vs. take-home “closed book” tests under university honor systems?
I don’t think that testing one’s honesty can lead to more dishonesty. Only if you consider dishonesty a fundamental flow in one’s character, which I personally don’t believe is the case. I do grant that personal ethics is an important actor to battle one’s reality. A conflict upon its resolution will come the decision to cheat or not. But the fact of the matter is, there is much more going on on that stage than a “linear” judgement of values.
If anything such initiatives would “raise the bar” as far as one personal ethics goes. If you cheat even to get yourself a cup of coffee, where would you cross the line? The battle rages on.
What, I think, will be interesting is to post statistics like ” 95% of the people paid $X” (whether it is true or not) to see whether this improves honesty among the customers. This is to test the conformity bias.
I wonder if reports and anecdotes that people cheat may in fact lead to more cheating.
Maybe peer pressure will help?
I too am inclined to agree. Remember the words in the Lord’s Prayer: And lead us not into temptation.” Perhaps a big sign saying that Buddha (or whoever the local deity might be) is watching might help.
Several restaurants here in Melbourne operate on a “pay what you think it is worth/can afford” basis — the proprietors report that people generally pay more than they would have charged.
In a UK experiment in which daily newspapers were made available with an honesty box system: Christians were more likely to steal than any other group in society… and middle-aged people more likely than younger people (which might support your thesis about habituation).
Personally I think that the USA has a culture of distrust and ‘me firstism’ that encourages dishonesty (just look at those billions that went missing in Irag not to mention the causes of GFC!). Sadly many USA-ians then extrapolate from their own societal mores to those of the rest of the world…
In some countries I don’t think it would be a good idea (for the cafe owners at least)…
Some societies still look at this type of cheaters as “the smart people”. I believe that some people behaving the right way might even be called stupid.
But would it work in smaller environments (inside a company or a school for example)? I believe it would and that may even be a starting point to increase the honesty bar in the overall society…
What if the could control the number of coffees and, at the end of the month, double-check that with the amount of money they should have, to see how many coffees were “stolen”? Of course I assume they already do that.
Then, wouldn’t it be interesting if the put a sign over the tupperware saying:”You have the option of not paying for the coffee; but, at the end of the month, we will notice it; then if in the long-term we see that people is stealing our coffee, we will take the service away. All in all, you might get free coffee for a couple of months maybe.”.
Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe people will get A LOT of free coffee for two months (“we have to use it before they take it away!”).
I agree with Dan, that these honesty coffee shops will act as facilitator for further cheating. Perhaps a more viable idea would be to introduce a concept of randomly checking the amount paid for the coffee, which in turn might actually lead to people thinking that cheating has a possibility of being caught, and this I believe would reduce future cheating on different situations.
Best regards.
I think the government sponsoring the coffee shops should figure out a way to reward those who pay the right price. If people think they can get away without paying – or as your studies suggest, use a “personal fudge factor” of cheating a little, what is stopping people from paying a little less than they should? There needs to be an incentive program.
Based on your books I would think posting an honor code would help. Or if they are christian post the 10 commandments.
I wonder if in this scenario the coffee maker hands the coffee to the person. This would no doubt have an influence in the person’s aptitude to pay.
For instance, if the server handed the person coffee and said something like “Here is you’re coffee sir/maam. I hope I was able to make your coffee as you requested. You are a generous person and thank you for trying out our program.” the person would then have to live up in a way to the status bestowed upon them by the server. In the person’s head, they have now been deemed as noble and mighty and now must act accordingly in a way.
If the server is engaging in dialogue with the coffee receiver, that would most likely make a difference on the person’s attitude towards paying. Obviously, if there was negative interaction instead during the coffee-to-customer transaction, the payment would probably be close to none.
Nevertheless any kind of human interaction would make a difference.
I also wonder what would happen if there were visible signs posted that had information about the person making the coffee. What effect that would have on the person paying. Would they feel obligated to pay now that they are more socially connected to their server?
I know from working at a Target as a cartboy and hearing the baristas at Starbucks say how sometimes people would tip (them even though tipping was not allowed) just because they felt connected with their barista for making their coffees.
I think that the act of tipping would be another interesting topic to study. What causes a person to want to overpay what is expected of them?
Nevertheless, the human mind is an amazing thing and it a marvel to study.
I can’t wait to start blogging about your book over the summer for my school. Your research is fascinating.
Kudos to you Dan on all your work.
Because it seems that one of the biggest hurdles to overcome when battling ingrained corruption is the perception that “everybody is doing it so I had better get mine,” it would be interesting to study the effect of perception in this scenario.
Some shops could post accurate data about what percentage of patrons were being honest while others could post false information on either side of the true data.
Regardless of the results there might be findings that would give officials another tool to use in their struggle.
I agree with Dan (and Carla) – this will likely not work.
The reason is that in societies where corruption is and has been for a long time the “norm”, there is no more social stigma when behaving in a corrupt way.
For example in Greece where I leave, it is generally common to cheat on taxes. There is a sort of “camaraderie” amongst cheaters and scorn for those who don’t cheat.
Plus, there is suspicion for the government who is thought to be responsible for allowing and even encouraging corruption.
I suspect in Indonesia they feel similarly about the government (not necessarily the current, specific one – but as an institution). Therefore, they will not be likely to “do the honest thing” in a government-run honesty cafe system.
What would be interesting to see is if the same people who not cheat and pay the coffee price if a private entity launched a chain of honesty cafes.
I agree with Dan. Borrowing from Covey’s 7 Habits…the mere thought about stealing is likely to lead to stealing itself and that has the potential to lead to the habit of stealing.
I ofen eat lunch at a place that uses a type of honesty code. You take whatever soup, coffee, etc you want and then go up to the cashier and tell them what you ate and they charge you.
What I find myself doing is very similar to most people in your experiments. For example, you are supposed to have a small charge for a roll with your soup. I often “forget” to mention this to the cashier. Also, I may take add things from the salad bar to the soup, like croutons, carrots or peas, without having them weighed or telling the cashier. All in all, I pay about 95% of what I’m supposed to pay, much like your subjects on the tests where they were paid based on the honor code.
The question for the company is: Is it more cost efficient to eat up this bit of mild dishonest, or to pay to strictly enforce the right payment. My guess is that it is more cost effective to be rational and let a little cheating go unpunished.
I wonder why this won’t work in the fullness of time. It may be perceived an idealistic view which is doomed to fail, but if it fails, it will fail because of the scale and common-ness of the idea.
I mean how many of us pick a brochure at unmanned national park without dropping a quarter in it?
I fear the failure of the scheme even as I write it, so how about adding a tinge perpetual motion to this idea? I mean on day 1 (or day 0), you start with N-cup coffee with c cents per cup. The cash/credit collected at the end of the day should be N times c cents. If it is any less, the next day, only that many cups are replenished.
- A naive believer in continued goodness of humankind
I live in a region of Ontario, Canada that is populated by Mennonites, similar to the Amish in Pennsylvania. It is traditional here for farmers to sell their wares at roadside stands. In many cases these are unmanned, and there will be a cash box or piggy-bank sort of arrangement for customers to make payments.
This system works well, has done so for generations, and has played an important role in providing income to this farming community (which generally operates outside the mainstream economy — it’s hard to accept debit cards when you don’t have electricity!).
The customers here are a mix of rural and urban, Mennonite and modern. It would appear that an honour system can work, given the appropriate cultural milieu.
It doesn’t matter if even 99% of the customers are completely honest. There’s always someone who will comes in and help himself to the contents of the Tupperware till. That’s why we have all these ‘laws’ in life – to do something about the tiny minority who spoil it for everyone else.
People steal and are dishonest when they think they will get away with it.
They have forgotten or are not aware that “God” sees all. He will balance the till one way or the other.
Once upon a time i would of had a free coffee these days I know better and would pay. Like me some are slower to learn lifes learns lifes lesson.
The general line of reasoning seems to me to miss the mark. Clear fromt he anecdotal references of a number of comments, honor systems do work. They work sufficiceiently to perpetuate themselves. Certainly there are people who cheat (see Jason) and there are people who contribute the expected price (see Anon A)and those who contribute above expectations (see Ben L). The two questions to be addressed are:
1) do we have a sufficeintly trusting environment to justify using the honor system (as measured by the probability of each of the three category times the contribution by each category)? and
2) how do I build a more trusting environment (which would increase the probable outcome in $ and justify the pricess)?
Because a high-trust environment is less costly (in time and money), it is a worthy AND rational goal. I think ways to build a more trusting environment are suggested by the comments above – not by controlling but by making the envionment more personal, so that the participants feel a voluntary connection to the people and the process.
I just came back from NJ Hot Air Balloon Festival where one paid $25 admission, and you can get as much FREE drink, food, bag, …etc as you want.
For example, the Turkey Hill stand just have all sorts of their brand drinks dispensers and cups. Hey! help your self like a graduation party at your friends home.
So, the best policy to do is for each citizen to pay $25 and have all you can enjoy coffee …
Pay once and enjoy as you wish is the future. Pay per use incur too much overhead. That’s why people enjoy going to party, but not going to cafeteria.
Very true, Wayne. Once I was at Merck where they provide FREE coffee, dozens of flavor, all you can enjoy. And, one colleague drink as much as he like. Later he got heart disease…
——————————–
Wayne
People steal and are dishonest when they think they will get away with it.
They have forgotten or are not aware that “God” sees all. He will balance the till one way or the other.
Once upon a time i would of had a free coffee these days I know better and would pay. Like me some are slower to learn lifes learns lifes lesson.
Dear Mark,
If you know there is “transaction cost” in addition to “access cost”, your trusting environment question is easy to answer.
Also, there is “interval” of the “honesty” that Professor Ariely did NOT count in his MIT Dorm experiment, where he placed 6 coke in the refrig and gone within 72 hours. Why this experiment is not perfect on honesty test?
Because there is “interval”. e.g. Since the “transaction cost” to get a coke at midnight would be much higher than at weekend when student going to supermarket to get coke. So, 72 hours is NOT long enough because many students, sharing the dorm with interval of “one semester”, so “borrow” a coke in refrig, and buy one to return later is an economic way to save the “transaction cost”.
In other words, Professor Airely, “mis sample” the result. I am sure if he went back to check after the weekend, his 6 coke would be back when student who “borrowed” the coke went to supermarket and buy back and return.
So, when you refer to “steal”, you often mean the “access cost” of the item, but smart students like MIT would “borrow” to save “transaction cost”, that’s why they are smart. So, if the interval is “one week”, then Professor Ariely may find his 6 cokes, although NOT the original ones, will still be there.
That’s why if you stay at Hyatt Regency, they charge you $7 for a bottle water, and that $7 is the “access cost” PLUS “the maximum of the transaction cost during your stay”. In other words, sometime at midnight you may drink it.
Now, smart customers may drink it at that “maximum transaction cost moment”, and buy back and return later, say, in day time, when they can grab one much cheaper. That’s MIT student’s practice.
So, later Hyatt place a sensor, as soon as you “touch” the items or water, they will make you pay, regardless if you bought one and place back. That’s Professor Airely’s “honest” standard and the “interval” is “second”, whereas it is NOT college student’s interval.
So, you can see the “interval length” also related to “Social Norm” and “Market Norm” Professor Airely mention in his wonderful book. For “close to 0 time interval” is “market norm”, whereas for “longer time interval” is “social norm”.
So, when you talk about “honesty” you really should make it clear. Are you talking about “Social Norm honest” or “Market Norm Honest”.
So, a more trusting environment would be “longer the interval” or “Social Norm honest system”, whereas “market norm honest” is often hard to exist just like Digital Signal System, when your “sampling frequency” is too short, you catch all the noise, i.e. you think people dishonest, whereas, most people they are not sampling in “real time”.
——————————-
1) do we have a sufficeintly trusting environment to justify using the honor system (as measured by the probability of each of the three category times the contribution by each category)? and
2) how do I build a more trusting environment (which would increase the probable outcome in $ and justify the pricess)?
Cheng,
Whie I see your point about intervals, I think the dorm room case implies an issue of social (not geographical) proximity. I agree that some of the students will very possibly return the cokes when they go to the store. But I don’t think they all would. Because it is easy to make the common refrigerator contents and their owners impersonal, and that frees some people to violate social norms (against stealing). We hav the same theft in our refrigerator at home – my wife buys ice cream and the kids (and me) are tempted to eat more than our share of it, but if mom tells us that she is saving it for Monday after dinner then we are both connected to the personal owner (Mom) and the purpose (Monday dessert). Oh, and they’re also motivated by the threat that mom will hit you with a frying pan if you touch it.
We have this Indian restaurant in Singapore where you can pay as you wish. And I think it’s been around for ages. http://yum.sg/?component=view_restaurant&restaurant_id=38
I think it depends in what part of the world you are. I live in one of the Scandinavian countries now and I can tell you that people here are remarkable honest. I have found these type of coffees not only in the city centre, but also in the school canteen and what I have seen is that people pay the correct amount for their coffee. There is something in the scandinavian culture that we should learn from.
There’s a chiropractor in Hawaii who operates on an honor system. The Dr suggests that patients pay $40 for each treatment, but patients are free to pay whatever they feel is a fair price. Payment is done by dropping money in a locked drop box after treatment has been completed. The Dr has had the honor box system in place for nearly a decade and seems to be doing well.
A real-life quasi-example: Lockheed Martin had a traditional soda machine in their San Diego facility, so sodas cost everyone a dollar and then $1.25, both more and a hassle to pay for.
The Operations manager proposed getting soda in the right mixes from Costco, putting it in a refrigerator and putting a covered can for payment with forty cents the proposed payment. The goal was that the venture broke even — the time to purchase and place the soda in the work rooms was donated. If two months went by when receipts did not cover the costs, the practice would be discontinued.
The fund was routinely “over” as people often put in a bit extra to cover for someone who might not have paid their fair share that month.
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand the value of providing a prime resource for free. I truly loved reading your post. Thanks!
nice post. thanks.