This entire article is based on a self report study of 5,000 people. Self report studies are usually unreliable and never tell a clear story.
In this case, literally all the study can show is that wealthier respondents self-report having knowingly stolen from self checkout. Is this because they are the most likely to do it? Or are they more likely to tell the truth on a survey, maybe if they feel less insecure in their daily life? We don't know if they actually stole, is it possible that the numbers are inflated when the wealthy respondents for some reason say they had stolen when they hadn't?
Self report studies have a use and can be helpful to find potential correlations worth properly studying, but taking a self report study and blowing it up into an article like this is irresponsible journalism in my opinion.
I accidentally stole a drink once because I forgot to scan it, and didn’t realize it until I got to my car. I’m also of income and age that would admit this. It really depends on what question they ask. But ya, self reported surveys are unreliable and can’t be used as real data in even the social sciences.
If I can’t actually scan something, I just hit the help button and it gets taken care of. Not sure what is going on with this question.
Yep, a few times I've ended up with something that hadn't scanned. A bunch of other times I accidentally scanned something twice without realising. Their app was bad at registering whether something had scanned or not; you would scan something again, and then later it would register the first scan.
One time they did a random check on my bag and found one item that hadn't scanned. They didn't accuse me of theft, but they did block me using their self scan app.
This was actually a blessing, as their app was so frustrating and unreliable shopping became more pleasant.
To clarify a bit: In an unscientific survey, those who self-described their household income as > $100,000 were 4% more likely than those with self-described household income < $35,000 to self-report they had not re-scanned an item at self-checkout that had failed to scan successfully.
Rather than speculate on this “result”, I’d consider it statistical noise.
Yeah they dont report standard errors or confidence intervals but I can see the >$100,000 income, stealing group is potentially so small there is just high error compared to other groups.
Back in the 1990s Sainsburys (a UK Supermarket) had a version of self checkout where you had special trolleys and big boxes you took home and put in your car and a hand scanner you walked around and scanned items with. You then took that to a till designated for it and they had an algorithm for when to rescan people. The idea people most of the time till time was very short and it was just payment. Usually people got checked on the first few goes and if items were found that hadn't been scanned then more rescans would appear in the future. It was meant to drop down to about 1 in 20 for rescan.
Within about a year the entire thing collapsed. Almost everyone was caught stealing expensive stuff like nappies and especially alcohol and the algorithm had the system rescanning almost everyone everytime and rescans took longer than people just putting the items on the conveyor belt. The few people who used it honestly found themselves in long queues behind people who stole due to the rescans and the attempt to save supermarket labour ended up costing much more.
Given that happened it amazes me we have the self checkout systems we do now. There is an obvious and clear trade off where people will use self checkout to take items without paying for them however you choose to organise it. As a business they have to decide if those loses pay off compared to the staff cost.
I fantasize about stealing something everytime I get one of these “Unknown item in bagging area” errors forcing me to wait for an attendant to come clear the error. What did I breathe too hard on the scale? The sheer nerve of the retailer both making me do their work and having less than zero trust in me is too much.
When the self checkout machine refuses to scan my item. I am very likely to just steal it. Consider it a payment for my wasted time and doing the work that used to be handled by the cashier.
I think this is an underappreciated reason. Stores have shifted their labor onto the consumers, which ostensibly keeps their costs down, but since it's happening at a time costs are rising, nobody's going to notice if the costs are really rising more slowly.
If you're wealthy, it feels a bit like a subsidy of other people's groceries. You do the work so everyone can have low prices (or at least prices that rise slower), but if you don't care about lower prices, it's an imposition.
Or at least all that would be true were it not for the fact that there are other options to pay money for time. At my grocery store, the fee for having them do the shopping and scanning for you and bring it out to your car is a whopping $3. I can have someone bring it all the way to the front door of my house for a $10 fee and a $5 tip.
It's a long way from required that I waste my time at the self-checkout.
> Consider it a payment for my wasted time and doing the work that used to be handled by the cashier.
These types of justifications seem bizarre to me. Do we steal fuel because attendants no longer pump fuel? Or rob banks due to ATMs? Do we steal software due to frameworks and automation tools?
If you just want to steal things, steal them. The high horse angle seems crazy to me though. I doubt you shopped at the national chain supermarket you probably shop with minimum wage workers in mind previously. But it's a good moral high ground to hold because you now steal as it's easier.
When the machine doesn't work, I have zero recourse. And the single attendant, if available, has none either. Cashiers used to be able to manual pass an item. not anymore. So I can either leave the store without the item, or steal it and leave with what I came for. I choose the second option because it is more convenient. It only happened a couple time so far. The first time the attendant couldn't help me, so I just took it as it was for an urgent repair. The second time I didn't even bother the attendant. I did this in front of the cameras. I would pay if the system let me to.
> If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift, or the Jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well I say, "Cheating is the gift man gives himself."
"There might be even a subconscious kind of thought of: Hey, if I got caught, if I ever did get in trouble, I have the resources — I could hire an attorney, or I could call somebody. I know how to make something happen."
For a wealthy person, this sort of theft is a "misunderstanding", for anyone else, it's a bigger risk.
Readit News
In this case, literally all the study can show is that wealthier respondents self-report having knowingly stolen from self checkout. Is this because they are the most likely to do it? Or are they more likely to tell the truth on a survey, maybe if they feel less insecure in their daily life? We don't know if they actually stole, is it possible that the numbers are inflated when the wealthy respondents for some reason say they had stolen when they hadn't?
Self report studies have a use and can be helpful to find potential correlations worth properly studying, but taking a self report study and blowing it up into an article like this is irresponsible journalism in my opinion.
If I can’t actually scan something, I just hit the help button and it gets taken care of. Not sure what is going on with this question.
One time they did a random check on my bag and found one item that hadn't scanned. They didn't accuse me of theft, but they did block me using their self scan app.
This was actually a blessing, as their app was so frustrating and unreliable shopping became more pleasant.
Rather than speculate on this “result”, I’d consider it statistical noise.
Yeah they dont report standard errors or confidence intervals but I can see the >$100,000 income, stealing group is potentially so small there is just high error compared to other groups.
I doubt it, but the point is the article is not about who steals more. It's about who admits to stealing.
Within about a year the entire thing collapsed. Almost everyone was caught stealing expensive stuff like nappies and especially alcohol and the algorithm had the system rescanning almost everyone everytime and rescans took longer than people just putting the items on the conveyor belt. The few people who used it honestly found themselves in long queues behind people who stole due to the rescans and the attempt to save supermarket labour ended up costing much more.
Given that happened it amazes me we have the self checkout systems we do now. There is an obvious and clear trade off where people will use self checkout to take items without paying for them however you choose to organise it. As a business they have to decide if those loses pay off compared to the staff cost.
If you're wealthy, it feels a bit like a subsidy of other people's groceries. You do the work so everyone can have low prices (or at least prices that rise slower), but if you don't care about lower prices, it's an imposition.
Or at least all that would be true were it not for the fact that there are other options to pay money for time. At my grocery store, the fee for having them do the shopping and scanning for you and bring it out to your car is a whopping $3. I can have someone bring it all the way to the front door of my house for a $10 fee and a $5 tip.
It's a long way from required that I waste my time at the self-checkout.
Deleted Comment
These types of justifications seem bizarre to me. Do we steal fuel because attendants no longer pump fuel? Or rob banks due to ATMs? Do we steal software due to frameworks and automation tools?
If you just want to steal things, steal them. The high horse angle seems crazy to me though. I doubt you shopped at the national chain supermarket you probably shop with minimum wage workers in mind previously. But it's a good moral high ground to hold because you now steal as it's easier.
> If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift, or the Jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well I say, "Cheating is the gift man gives himself."
https://youtu.be/iLzoi1ndQH8?si=iVkvPfvxZhh01wG9
"There might be even a subconscious kind of thought of: Hey, if I got caught, if I ever did get in trouble, I have the resources — I could hire an attorney, or I could call somebody. I know how to make something happen."
For a wealthy person, this sort of theft is a "misunderstanding", for anyone else, it's a bigger risk.