Littering as a Function of Prior Litter and The Presence or Absence of Prohibitive Signs¹

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect on littering behavior of (1) two types of antilitter signs and (2) the condition of the environment (littered vs. unlittered). It was hypothesized that a sign with a threatening message (i.e., “Littering is Unlawful and Subject to a $10 Fine”.) would induce psychological reactance and therefore would be less effective than one emphasizing cooperation (i.e., “Pitch In!”). It was also predicted that littering would occur more frequently in littered than in nonlittered areas. The study was conducted on six levels of a city parking garage, each floor of which was exposed to a randomly selected combination of the sign and litter treatments. Relative to a no sign control condition, signs had the overall effect of reliably reducing the litter rate, but the “Pitch In” message was not found to be more effective than the “Unlawful” one. The littering rate was, as predicted, lowest in a clean environment. Finally, the impact of the signs was reliably influenced by the day of the observation. This finding was interpreted in terms of reactance theory and led to the conclusion that prior exposure is an important variable determining the effectiveness of signs.

Enhanced solid waste management by understanding the effects of gender, income, marital status, and religious convictions on attitudes and practices related to street littering in Nablus – Palestinian territory

“…In developed countries, many studies have been conducted to evaluate and apply strategies to reduce pollution by behavioral control of littering (Paltes and Hayward, 1976;Meichenbaum et al 1968;Burgess et al, 1971;Reich and Robertson, 1979;Reiter and Samuel, 1980;Cialdini and Reno, 1990;Singhapakdi and LaTour, 1991). In developing countries, on the other hand, littering behavior has received relatively little research attention.…”

Who Gives a Hoot?: Intercept Surveys of Litterers and Disposers

“…Durdan et al were somewhat surprised that their mildly negative messages (i.e., "Please don't litter") resulted in a significant increase in litter, yet they consider reactance to be the motivating factor behind this behavior change. Reiter and Samuel (1980) examined how littering rates in a parking garage are affected by the use of signs as well as manipulations of differential amounts of litter in the setting. They compared a threatening sign (i.e., "Littering is Unlawful and Subject to a US$10 Fine") to one that emphasized cooperation (i.e., "Pitch In") as well as a control condition with no sign present.…”

The power of a bad example: A field experiment in household garbage disposal

“…A series of experimental studies have provided evidence supporting this idea. In these studies, researchers experimentally induced variation in the amount of litter present at places like grocery stores (Geller et al 1977), picnic areas (Crump et al 1977), a waiting room for participants to a lab experiment (Kraus et al 1978), a parking garage (Reiter and Samuel 1980, Cialdini et al 1990, and Reno et al 1993, an amusement park (Cialdini et al 1990), the lobby of a dormitory on a university campus (Cialdini et al 1990), an academic department's common room (Ramos and Torgler 2010), and an alley in a large shopping area (Keizer et al 2011). 1 With a few exceptions (Crump et al 1977 andReno et al 1993), these experimental studies find that people litter significantly more often in littered environments as compared to clean 1 Finnie (1973) and Schultz et al (2013) also study littering in clean and dirty areas, but the cleanliness of the area is not experimentally varied, making it impossible to infer causal relationships.…”