I have to say that the methodology applied in this research lack basic social and cultural understanding. It is fair to say that Chinese hardly use email as their primary means of communication. Being in the States, I would use email to contact people. But back in China I would rather use WeChat. In addition, the design of the wallet looks weird and I would rather think that is a piece of garbage. Conventionally speaking, a wallet would contain some money, an ID card in some sort, and maybe credit/debit card in a actual wallet. Having a ID card makes thing so much easier: If I were to pick it up, I would just hand it to the Police and they would take care of it because there is a serial number on the ID that helps to context the person. But the design of this so-called wallet is dubious: a plastic warp with a business card ,a shopping list and a key? Hummmmm.
So clearly, this article failed to recognize the uniqueness of the social conditions in China and thus resulted in a biased and distorted conclusion. As a reverend publisher, Science and the editors should have realized the experimental flaws and the confounding variables that presented in this research, yet it still gets published. I hope the publisher should realize this and try their best to prevent it from happening again.