A few years ago I was buying several items from a major retailer, including a child-safety gate (an important item as people tend to think less of you if you let your toddler fall down the stairs).  As the queues were getting pretty long, one of the staff at the information desk beckoned me over to process the transaction there.  As I'm sure many of us do when we're distracted (e.g. by small children) I only gave the amount a cursory glance.  Later on, as I was nearly back home (about 10 minutes away by car), it occurred to me that the amount was smaller than I would have expected.  Double-checking the receipt, I realised that the woman at the information desk had failed to charge me for the gate - presumably she hadn't noticed it as I'd put it down on the floor when I handed over the other items.  I'm sure I showed it to her, but it seems that she herself was distracted.  From memory the gate was something like $80.

I've mentioned this incident to a few people and have had a variety of responses.  Faced with the same situation, some think that they would definitely have gone back, while others argue that it's the retailers' mistake so there's no need to go back.  That set me wondering - how would New Zealanders in general react if faced with a similar situation, and does the value of the goods matter?  In other words, can we put a dollar value on morality?

In a December 2012 survey, we therefore asked SAYit members to consider what they would do in the following situation:

• Imagine you were buying several things from a major retailer like a supermarket or big clothing store.  Five minutes after you leave the shop, you realise that the checkout operator has forgotten to charge you for one of the items.

We then asked people what they would do if the forgotten item was worth $1, $5, $10, $20 or $50 - would they definitely go back, probably go back, probably not go back or definitely not go back?  The results were as follows:

• For a $1 item, 39% said that they would go back and 61% would not. 
• For a $5 item, 54% said that they would go back and 46% would not. 
• For a $10 item, 68% said that they would go back and 32% would not. 
• For a $20 item, 77% said that they would go back and 24% would not. 
• For a $50 item, 79% said that they would go back and 21% would not. 

These numbers clearly show that it's not just a moral question for many of us - we're factoring in the cost of the item and the inconvenience to us.

Being cynical for a moment, I wonder if it's only really fair to compare those who claim they'd definitely go back.  Even those who say they'd probably go back are suggesting that, under some circumstances, they might not.  22% claim they'd definitely go back for a $1 item, 32% definitely would for a $5 item, 43% definitely would for a $10 item, 53% definitely would for a $20 item and 59% definitely would for a $50 item.

• The increase in the number who claim they'd go back between $10 and $20 is bigger than the increase between $20 and $50.  I wonder if we'd included $100 on this list if the increase would again have been small - perhaps items of $10 or less are seen as minor purchases whereas items of $20 or more tend to be seen as relatively substantial?
• The number saying they definitely wouldn't go back drops quickly from 22% for a $1 item to 10% for a $10 item and then stablises (e.g. 8% definitely would not go back for a $50 item).  Could there be a hard core of maybe 5% who would not go back no matter what the price?  Perhaps the number who wouldn't go back eventually increases?

When the dollar values are small, people with low household incomes are more likely than those on higher incomes to say that they would take the items back.

• For a $1 item, 49% of people with household incomes below $30,000 say they'd go back, compared with only 29% of those with household incomes over $100,000.  
• There's a similar difference in the numbers who say they'd go back for $5 items (67% of people with incomes below $30,000, 44% of those with incomes over $100,000) and $10 items (74% of people with incomes below $30,000, 61% of those with incomes over $100,000).
• For $20 and $50 items, however, the difference between these two income groups is not statistically significant (e.g. 78% of those with incomes below $30,000 would definitely go back for a $50 item, as would 78% of those with household incomes over $100,000).

I'd suggest that reason for this is not that people higher incomes are less moral, but simply that $1 probably means less to them than it does to those on lower incomes.  The logic here is that, if a sum of money means more to us, we're more likely to feel guilty about getting it through someone else's mistake.  

Incidentally, in the incident with the gate I did go back.  The look of surprise and appreciation on the woman's face was a nice reward...

So, what do you think?:

• Under what circumstances would YOU go back?  When wouldn't you go back?
• As well as the price of the item, what other factors matter?  The distance you have to travel, the size of the retailer, what the goods are, what other things you're doing at the time?