Hostname: page-component-686fd747b7-b5n4f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T11:17:52.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prompts and Posted Feedback: In Search of an Effective Method of Litter Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Robyn S. Dixon ,
Tony Knott ,
Helen Rowsell ,
Linda Sheldon  and
Dennis W. Moore
Robyn S. Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Auckland
Tony Knott
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Auckland
Helen Rowsell
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Auckland
Linda Sheldon
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Auckland
Dennis W. Moore
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Auckland
Get access

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of prompts (signs) and posted feedback as litter control strategies in two university cafeterias. Patronage and litter rates were monitored daily throughout the second term of the academic year. Prompts, prompts and posted feedback, and posted feedback were presented sequentially within a multiple baseline across settings experimental design. While litter rates initially declined in the presence of prompts, the addition of posted feedback did not have an additive effect; however, subsequent removal of prompts produced further reductions in litter rates, which were still evident during follow-up 5 weeks later. Results suggest that posted feedback is an effective and inexpensive method of Utter control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 2 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baltes, M.M., & Hayward, S.C. (1976). Application and evaluation of strategies to reduce pollution: Behavioral control of littering in a football stadium. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 501–506.Google Scholar
Brehm, S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, R.C., Clark, R.W., & Hendee, J.C. (1971). An experimental analysis of anti-litter procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finnie, W.C. (1973). Field experiments in litter control. Environment and Behavior, 5, 123–144.Google Scholar
Geller, E.S. (1973). Prompting anti-litter behaviors. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 8, 901–902.Google Scholar
Geller, E.S., Chaffee, J.L., & Ingram, R.E. (1975). Promoting paper recycling on a university campus. Journal of Environmental Systems, 5, 39–57.Google Scholar
Geller, E.S., Witmer, J.F., & Tuso, M.A. (1977). Environmental interventions for litter control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(3), 344–351.Google Scholar
Hayes, S.C., & Cone, J.D. (1977). Reducing residential electricity energy use; Payments, information, and feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 425–435.Google Scholar
Hayes, S.C., & Cone, J.D. (1981). Reduction of residential consumption of electricity through simple monthly feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heberlein, T.A. (1975). Conservation information: The energy crisis and electricity consumption in an apartment complex. Energy Systems and Policy, 1, 105–117.Google Scholar
Krauss, R.M., Freedman, J.L., & Whitcup, M. (1978). Field and laboratory studies of littering. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 109–122.Google Scholar
La Hart, D.E., & Bailey, J.S. (1975). Reducing children's littering on a nature trail. Journal of Environmental Education, 7, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, J.W., & Sanders, D.Y. (1976). American graffiti: Effects of authority and reactance arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, S.M., & Samuel, W. (1980). Littering as a function of prior Utter and the presence or absence of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Houton, R., & Nau, P. (1981). A comparison of the effects of posted feedback and increased police surveillance on highway speeding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Houton, R., & Nau, P. (1983). Feedback interventions and driving speed: A parametric and comparative analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 383–395.Google Scholar
Van Houton, R., Nau, P., & Marini, Z. (1981). An analysis of public posting in reducing speeding behavior on an urban highway. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Houton, R., Nau, P., & Menigan, M. (1981). Reducing elevator energy use: A comparison of posted feedback and reduced elevator convenience. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar