AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ANTI‐LITTER PROCEDURES¹

Abstract

This study evaluates the differential effectiveness of six different anti-litter procedures in two neighborhood theaters. The procedures used to encourage individuals in attendance to pick up litter and deposit it properly included: providing litterbags, providing litterbags with instructions to use them, providing extra trash cans, showing a special anti-litter film before the feature film, and providing incentives for the appropriate deposit of litter. In both theaters, the incentive procedures resulted in the removal of over 90% of all litter by the children in attendance, a figure far above that achieved by the other procedures investigated.

PROMPTING A CONSUMER BEHAVIOR FOR POLLUTION CONTROL1

“…Thus, the findings of a similar attempt to apply behavior modification principles on a community level for pollution control were replicated (Geller et al, 1971). The utility of a prompt to influence anti-pollution behavior was also demonstrated when Burgess et al (1971) It is also likely that the crudeness of the dependent, behavioral measure in the present study limited the extent to which differential effects of various prompting procedures could be evaluated. That is, simply dichotomizing individuals into a "returnable" or "nonreturnable" category resulted in a gross index of behavior that was perhaps insensitive to variations in the prompting procedures.…”

“…Hence, future research concerned with the application of behavioral technology in the community should attempt a refinement of the dependent variables. Indeed, the behavioral studies of litter behaviors by Burgess et al (1971) and Clark et al (1972) included very precise measures (e.g., grams of trash, pieces of litter) but did not evaluate the behavioral change of individuals. Ideally, a behavioral approach to altering environmental pollution should record the rate of a given pollution behavior by individuals during independent Baseline, Treatment, and Follow-up periods.…”

“…More specifi-'Summer salaries for the two cally, children attending a movie theater (Burgess, Clark, and Hendee, 1971) and a national park (Hendee, Burgess, and Clark, 1972) collected a much greater proportion of litter from these environments when a pleasant event (e.g., 10 cents, a theater ticket, or a Smokey Bear shoulder patch) was made contingent upon litter-collection behaviors than when such a reward system was not in effect. In addition, Hendee et al (1972) showed that a majority of the returnable soda bottles that littered the campgrounds were collected in the absence of a reinforcement contingency, and concluded that contrived incentives are not needed to induce the gathering of such litter with a "built-in value".…”

Behavior Analysis and Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Potential for More

“…Some early examples include litter control applications at movie theaters (Burgess, Clark, & Hendee, 1971), grocery stores (Geller, Witmer, & Tuso, 1977;Geller, Witmer, & Orebaugh, 1976), shopping centers (Geller, Brasted, & Mann, 1980), football stadiums (O'Neill, Blanck, & Joyner, 1980), camping areas (Crump, Nunes, & Crossman, 1977;Powers, Osborne, & Anderson, 1973), and even prisons (Hayes, Johnson, & Cone, 1975).…”

THE EFFECTS OF A TOKEN REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURE ON BUS RIDERSHIP1

“…Examples of broader application are illustrated by the work of Burgess, Clark, and Hendee (1971), who modified the littering behavior of individuals in a public theater and of Clark, Burgess, and Hendee (1972), who increased anti-litter responses in a public campground.…”