Using puppies as lures
In law enforcement, there are certain practical experiments that are staged over and over again, usually with the same results.
One takes place in a classroom during police recruit training. Someone suddenly rushes in, grabs something from the instructor or another person or location in the room, then runs out. The students are asked to provide eyewitness accounts and are then embarrassed by how little they’ve observed or how much the various accounts diverge. The test is designed to make young officers more aware of their surroundings, better observers and more understanding of eyewitnesses.
A version of a second classic experiment was recently staged by CNN with grade school children, and the results were equally disturbing.
With their cooperating mothers observing on a monitor, 20 children on a playground were visited by an adult male they didn’t know with a puppy. He asked the children if they’d like to come with him to go feed the dog. While the horrified moms looked on, seven of the kids went along willingly and got into his van. All 20 of the moms had previously taught their children not to go off with strangers. This result is roughly normal for the experiment. Puppies have been found to be an even stronger lure than the traditional incentives of toys or candy.
When questioned afterward, most of the willing children acknowledged having violated their parents’ warnings, but claimed to have done some behavioral profiling of their own. That is, if the stranger was nice to animals, he couldn’t be “mean.”
Clearly, we’ve all got some work to do in explaining that nice behavior by strangers can be a “trick,” and that they could still be mean. This type of education should be taking place not only in the home, but in schools and community groups as well. Just as with police trainees, the more awareness and understanding are stressed in different contexts, the more it will sink in.
That, however, is not enough. The children who refused to walk away with the stranger and his puppy said they had been told by their parents and teachers never to talk to strangers.
But there are times when young children might have to talk to strangers. What if a six-year-old gets lost in a public park or shopping mall? Not talking to strangers will only prolong and exacerbate the terrifying problem. So we do have to teach our children to be junior profilers. In other words, even a five or six-year-old needs to be able to profile who is likely to be a safe stranger in emergency situations.
So who should we direct them to?
Adults in uniform, people with name tags, people behind counters, mothers or fathers with children, pregnant women, male or female sales clerks, all are likely helpers.
Is this foolproof? No, of course not. Predators can still disguise themselves in uniforms, for example. But the odds are way in the child’s favor, particularly since she will be choosing and approaching the adult, rather than vice versa.
This is what we call “profiling for everyday life.” And it’s clear that we need more of it.
Keep the Profiling in everyday life coming..I share via FB
Yes! That’s the very same problem I talked about under another thread with young women thinking if the guy is nice in any way, he must be sincere and mostly nice. I’m telling you, you can’t convince any female under 20 otherwise unless she’s already been a victim. Youth = idealism. People think bad guys are all bad and friendly guys are good, even if they have some other outstanding flaw. It’s crazy.
In a child’s mind – they may or they may not so I allow an option for puppy lures. My mother said they ‘would’ which is an instant no from a child no matter what.
My mother taught me that people will try to ‘steal me’ not they may. Mainly after the Adam case those many years ago. Proved useful as an older man approached me when I was about 11 or so asking me if I needed a ride ..I said no – then he asked me if I needed any money and I said no – then he drove off and the rest of the way – as I was walking – I had to watch my back.