IN THE FIRST STUDY, 109 SHOPPERS IN AN EASTERN CITY SUPERMARKET WERE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: ELIGIBLE SUBJECTS WERE UNACCOMPANIED ADUTLS WHO APPEARED TO BE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 20 AND 65 AND WHO ENTERED THE CHECKOUT LINE BEHIND THE 'SHOPLIFTER' (ACTUALLY A MEMBER OF THE RESEARCH TEAM). IN ADDITION, THE SUBJECT WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE OBSERVED THE THEFT. EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT OF THE SUBJECTS WERE FEMALE, 72 PERCENT WERE UNDER 40 YEARS OLD, AND 29 PERCENT WERE STUDENTS. A CONFEDERATE OF THE EXPERIMENTERS STANDING DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SUBJECT EITHER ENCOURAGED REPORTING, DISCOURAGED REPORTING, OR MADE NO COMMENT. SHE THEN REMAINED IN LINE BEHIND THE SUBJECT OR LEFT THE SCENE. WHILE 72 PERCENT OF THOSE WHO WERE ENCOURAGED TO REPORT THE CRIME DID SO, ONLY 32 PERCENT OF THOSE WHO WERE DISCOURAGED FROM REPORTING ACTUALLY REPORTED. THE EFFECT OF SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT IN ITSELF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, ALTHOUGH WHEN COUPLED WITH ENCOURAGEMENT OR DISCOURAGEMENT, THE SURVEILLANCE FACTOR WAS NOT ALTOGETHER INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE SECOND EXPERIMENT INVOLVED 108 FEMALE UNDERGRADUATES AT AN ALL-FEMALE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR. THE SUBJECTS WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WERE TO WATCH A LIVE TELEVISION BROADCAST FROM A SUPERMARKET TO STUDY CONSUMER REACTION TO A PRODUCT DISPLAY. THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS ACTUALLY SHOWN DEPICTED A CUSTOMER SHOPLIFTING; THE SUBJECT WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPORT THE CRIME OVER THE TELEPHONE. A CONFEDERATE OF THE EXPERIMENTERS WAS ALWAYS PRESENT WITH THE SUBJECT; HER ROLE WAS TO EITHER ENCOURAGE REPORTING, DISCOURAGE REPORTING, OR INTERPRET THE EVENT AS NOT BEING A CASE OF SHOPLIFTING. IN HALF OF THE CONDITIONS THE CONFEDERATE WITNESSED THE CRIME, WHILE IN THE OTHER HALF SHE PRETENDED TO HAVE CONTACT LENS PROBLEMS DURING THE THEFT. WHILE 72 PERCENT OF THE SUBJECTS CALLED WHEN ENCOURAGE TO REPORT, ONLY 14 PERCENT CALLED WHEN TOLD THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A CRIME, AND ONLY 8 PERCENT CALLED WHEN DISCOURAGED FROM REPORTING. RESULTS CONFIRMED THAT THE INFLUENCE AGENT NEED NOT WITNESS THE CRIME IN ORDER TO BE INFLUENTIAL. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.