In a slightly unsettling psychological experiment, researchers set out to test whether young children would cheat less on a task if they believed they were being watched, not by a teacher, a parent, or even a camera, but by a completely invisible and fictional presence: Princess Alice. The results, while initially charming in their whimsy, open a much deeper and darker question: Are our moral foundations built not on empathy or understanding, but on surveillance whether real or imagined?
The Study
In this study, children aged 5 to 6 and 8 to 9 were asked to complete a rule-following task under one of three conditions:
(a) Told that a magical invisible figure named Princess Alice was present and watching them,
(b) Monitored by a real adult,
(c) Left entirely unsupervised.
Children were covertly videotaped after the researcher left the room. The researchers found that older children followed the rules more easily, but both age groups were just as likely to purposefully cheat. However, the presence of Princess Alice, if believed, had a measurable effect: children who thought she was real delayed or avoided cheating, often to the same degree as those observed by a physical adult.
Skeptical children behaved differently. They only cheated after first testing the reality of the invisible being, typically looking around or speaking to “her” and receiving no response. These children were then excluded from some of the analysis, allowing the researchers to isolate the inhibitory effect of belief itself.1
The All-Seeing Eye and the Shaping of Conscience
The idea that morality can be induced by the illusion of surveillance has a long and troubling history. Ancient myths, modern religions, and state apparatuses have all drawn upon this same formula: behavior improves when people think they’re being watched. In this sense, Princess Alice is not a fantasy, she is a miniature moral god form, created in the lab to mimic the moral authority of the omnipresent deity.
This echoes earlier studies on adults, such as those by Norenzayan and Shariff (2008), which found that religious priming (even subtle references to God) can increase prosocial behavior.2 The “Princess Alice” study brings that logic to children, suggesting that the seed of this effect is planted early, and perhaps is less about belief per se and more about compliance under implied observation.
But if our morals depend upon watchers, real or imagined, are we truly moral?
The Problem with “Skeptical” Children
Notably, the study’s interpretation takes a problematic turn when it excludes skeptical children from analysis to highlight the efficacy of belief. These skeptics, far from simply disbelieving, actively tested the claim about Princess Alice. This behavior represents not a moral failure but early critical reasoning. These are children who require evidence before accepting metaphysical claims. In any other context, we might praise that as scientific temperament. Yet here, their rational doubt is removed from the dataset to make the numbers cleaner.
This is an important omission. The very act of skepticism is a form of intellectual autonomy. By sidelining it, the study suggests, perhaps unintentionally, that moral behavior is preferable when it is unexamined, and that doubt disrupts ethical formation. This trades a vision of moral growth for one of obedient performance.
Methodological and Cultural Limits
There are also methodological issues that limit the broader implications of the research:
Measurement of Belief: The study does not clarify how belief in Princess Alice was assessed. Young children blend fantasy and reality constantly, their verbal affirmations may not reflect a deeply held belief but rather imaginative play or social compliance.3
Cultural Framing: “Princess Alice” is a deeply Western, fairy-tale-inflected figure. How would this experiment fare with children raised in cultures with different mythologies, or those unfamiliar with the trope of magical princesses? The study risks confusing a culturally coded symbol with a universal psychological truth.
Short-Term Behavior vs. Moral Development: Even if Princess Alice delayed cheating, does this signify a true moral inhibition or simply a pause? Would the child return to cheating if the illusion wore off? The study offers no insight into the long-term moral consequences of such manipulation.
Ethics of Invisible Oversight
Finally, the study raises a more abstract ethical dilemma: Is it right to manipulate children into behaving morally through deception? To be sure, the experiment reflects real-world patterns. Parents often invoke Santa Claus, angels, or even God to curb bad behavior. By invoking these authority figures, they create a compelling framework for encouraging positive actions and discouraging misbehavior, instilling values in a way that resonates deeply with young minds. However, this study frames such moral training as behavioral engineering, not emotional or spiritual development.
The panopticon, a metaphor used by philosopher Michel Foucault to describe a society of internalized surveillance, seems eerily close. When children behave well only because they think they’re being watched, we must ask ourselves, Have we truly nurtured moral children, or have we merely instilled in them a fear of stepping outside the lines?
Whose Morality Are We Building?
The “Princess Alice” experiment should not be read as a simple endorsement of invisible oversight as a moral training tool. It is more accurately a cautionary tale, a demonstration of how easily behavior can be bent to another’s will under false supervision, and how quickly skepticism is treated as an obstacle to virtue.
Real moral development, one rooted in empathy, reasoning, and mutual respect, requires far more than a mere observer. It requires the courage to act rightly even in the absence of observation. If Princess Alice must be watching for a child to behave, then perhaps we have not built a moral foundation but merely constructed a puppet stage.
References
- Bering, J. M., McLeod, K., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Reasoning about Dead Agents Reveals Possible Adaptive Trends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(5), 340–349. ↩︎
- Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality. Science, 322(5898), 58–62. ↩︎
- Harris, P. L. (2000). The Work of the Imagination. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ↩︎
