Promoting Recycling Behavior:
What Works.
P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
OCTOBER, 2011
Presentation delivered at the 2011 KAB Re:cycology symposium, Columbus, Ohio.
Recycling Figures
 Average American generates 4.5 pounds of trash per day
 Municipal waste (2008)


Residential, commercial, institutional
Not hazardous, industrial, or construction
 Diversion rates vary widely

CA at 60% diversion
 Many notable programs






Ready-Set-Recycle (competition in Alameda, CA)
Fork it over! (Portland, OR)
Green-Dot (Germany, and Europe)
Anheuser-Bush “Brewing a Better Environment”
Organics recycling in Halifax, Canada
MilwaukeeRecycles.com (Recycle for Good)
Community-Based Social Marketing
 www.cbsm.com
 Effective approach to behavior change
 Origins in behavioral science research
 Five step, data-driven process
 “Community” based
 Removes barriers and enhance benefits
The Science of Behavior
 Osbaldiston & Schott (2011)
 Review of behavioral science
 40 years of data on proenvironmental
behavior (35 with recycling)
 253 experimental treatments (primarily
recycling, conservation)
 10 types of treatments
 Differentiated public recycling, curbside
recycling, central recycling
What Works.
Convenience
Social Modeling
Prompts
Cognitive Dissonance
Justifications
Feedback
Education
Commitment
Rewards
Goal Setting
What Works?
Meta analysis of recycling studies, combined across three types of programs. N=41 public,
N=52 curbside, N=18 central collection. Osbaldiston & Schott (2011)
Different Types of Recycling
Meta analysis of recycling studies, combined across three types of programs. N=41 public,
N=52 curbside, N=18 central collection.
1. Information is (generally) Not Sufficient




Knowledge-deficit model
Knowledge is (often) correlated with
behavior
Education and information can
increase knowledge
Increasing knowledge will
(typically) not result in behavior
change.
2. Pledges and Commitments
 Can be a very useful tool for promoting
recycling.
 Public and durable
 Specific (time, place, material)
 Be mindful of individuals who choose
not to sign.
2. Pledges and Commitments
“We, the residents of the 2nd floor, are willing to
participate in the paper recycling project
sponsored by the Reed College Environmental
Group. It is understood that any recyclable paper
can be placed in the “RECYCLE” garbage can. We
commit ourselves to participating in this recycling
project for the next four weeks.” – Wang & Katzev
I PLEDGE TO:
Learn. about the recycling option in my community. I will find out what
materials are collected for recycling in my community at
americarecyclesday.org.
I PLEDGE TO:
Act. Reduce my personal waste by recycling. Within the next month, I will
start to recycle one new type of material.
3. Financial Incentives
Incentives can change behavior
 Will hear more from John Thogersen
tomorrow
 But:

1.
2.
3.
4.
Framing behavior as transaction creates
expectations
Behavior and context specific
Size matters
Undermining
4. Infrastructure
 Make it EASY
 Reduce uncertainty (shapes of the holes,
signage)
 Allow people to anticipate
 Entry
and exit locations
 Proximal to behavior
 Remove barriers
 for example, lids
5. Signage
 Will hear more from Carol Werner
tomorrow.
 Signs can make a big difference (both
positive AND negative)
 Positive, simple behavior, already
motivated, prompts, proximal
 Mindful of contextual norm
6. Persuasion
 Can have a role, but perhaps limited
 “Behaving people into thinking
differently”
 Some evidence for personal norms
(moral obligation).
 Hard to promote through messaging,
better to induce behavior first
Social Norms
Social Norms
Normative Social Influence
--Curbside recycling
7. Social Norms
 Curbside recycling (Schultz, 1999)
 Mandated by most CA cities in order to meet 50%
diversion requirements set by State.
 Field experiment with 600 households for 8 weeks
 Information, no treatment control, descriptive
normative feedback
 Baseline (4 weeks), intervention (4 weeks), follow-up
(4 weeks)
Normative-based Messages
Normative
Feedback
Information
Only
No Treatment
(control)
Change from baseline to follow-up for the normative feedback condition is significant (p<.05),
and corresponds to a 19% increase in recycling rates!
Source: Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment
of curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36.
Conclusions
 Recycling is a behavior
 Behavioral scientists have been studying
recycling for 35+ years
 Some clear lessons
 Encourage programs to draw on this
knowledge
 Get to know your local behavioral
scientist
Social Norms
Social Norms
References







Bator, R., Bryan, A., & Schultz, P. W. (2011). Who gives a hoot? Intercept surveys of
litterers and disposers. Environment and Behavior, 43, 295-315.
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. (in press). Environmental sustainability and behavioral
science: Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior.
Schultz, P. W., Bator, R., Tabanico, J., Bruni, C., Large, L. B. (in press). Littering in
context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environment and
Behavior.
Schultz, P. W., Khazian, A., & Zaleski, A. (2008). Using normative social influence to
promote conservation among hotel guests. Social Influence, 3, 4-23.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field
experiment of curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36.
Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (in press, estimated 2011). Promoting proenvironmental
behavior. In S. Clayton (Ed.), Handbook of environmental psychology. Oxford
University Press. Oskamp, S., Zelezny, L., Schultz, P. W., Hurin, S., Burkhardt, R., (1996).
Commingled versus separated recycling: Does sorting matter? Environment and
Behavior, 28, 73-91.
Schultz, P. W., & Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when: A review of
personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-121.
Don’t Throw in the Towel!
Note: My appreciation to the team of CSUSM students who worked on this
experiment: Azar Khazian, Michelle Hynan, Joy Francisco, Christine Jarvis,
and Jenny Tabanico.
Old
Message:
Different Rooms
Hotel Study
-- New Message
Social Norm Messages
Hotel Intervention
• Study focused on 132 condo units (separate
studies of hotel)
• Randomly assigned rooms to experimental
(N=102) or control (N=30)
• Total of 794 guest “stays” were analyzed (each stay
= 1 week)
• Number of towels taken from the room
(continuous up to 4)
Results
Number of towels taken out of the room on the first towel
replacement day.
F(1,792)=13.40; p<.001). A 25% reduction in the number of towels used!
Note: Data also tested in HLM with participant “nested” within room.
ICC=.07; At level 2, treatment effect ( γ01=-.57, t(142.14)=-3.25, p<.001)