Running Head: SOCIAL NORMS
1
Similarities in Men and Women: Social Norms and the Prevention of Littering
Brian Pochinski
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
SOCIAL NORMS
2
Abstract
Activating social norms is a way to decrease undesired behavior. Much research has been
devoted to determining the variables related to littering behavior and to what is the most
effective way to activate social norms in order to prevent littering. Participants were observed in
front of the entrance to the west wing of the UW-Milwaukee library. Pre-existing litter served as
a descriptive norm and a sign restricting smoking near the library served as a closely related
injunctive norm. Men and women were both observed to litter their cigarette butt 20% of the
time and to properly dispose of their cigarette butt 80% of the time. The low littering rate of
cigarette butts may be due to the closely related injunctive norm.
SOCIAL NORMS
3
Similarities in Men and Women: Social Norms and the Prevention of Littering
Activating social norms may offer a way to decrease undesired behaviors. Littering is an
undesired behavior with adverse environmental and social effects. In order for communities to
effectively activate social norms to reduce littering behavior it must be determined which norms
are most effective at preventing littering. Social norms can be divided into two major categories
which are injunctive norms and descriptive norms (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, 1990).
Injunctive norms specify the rules governing what behavior is approved or disapproved in a
given context whereas descriptive norms refer to how most individuals actually behave in certain
situations. A third category of social norms has been referred to as personal norms and they are
an individual’s internal standards for proper behavior (Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini, 2000).
Because improperly disposed of cigarette butts are an incredibly common form of litter, the
current study is solely focused on the littering behavior of cigarette butts. Prior research has
found inconsistent results regarding whether or not there are gender differences in littering
behavior. Some research has found the men litter more (Schultz, Bator, Large, Bruni, and
Tabanico, 2013) but other research has found mixed results for gender differences in littering
(Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini, 2000). Determining gender differences in cigarette butt littering
behavior and the impact social norms present in environment can have on cigarette butt littering
behavior could offer insight to help keep communities free of litter.
Social norms can be injunctive, descriptive, or personal and they can be activated
implicitly, explicitly, or both implicitly and explicitly simultaneously. De Kort, McCalley,
Midden (2008) examined the how norms and the way in which they are activated can impact
judgments on littering behavior. Participants were asked to read two passages. One passage was
about an ambiguous scenario in which a man litters and second passage about drunk driving in
SOCIAL NORMS
4
order to mask the true purpose of the experiment. A picture was included in the littering passage
and was use to convey an injunctive norm, a descriptive norm, or a personal norm and each norm
was activated either implicitly or explicitly. The explicit activation passages had a sign on a trash
can with a phrase regarding littering behavior and the implicit activation had trash can using
arms gestures to convey a social norm. The sign on the trash can said “This is how it should be
done!” for the injunctive norm condition, “Eindhoven keeps it clean.” for the descriptive norm
condition, and “Do you leave your litter lying around?” for the personal norm condition. The
trash can’s arm gestures chosen to match each corresponding explicit norm were chosen from a
pilot study as the arm gestures that best represented the written statements used. A control group
without any norm activation was included for comparison. A survey used to measure judgments
of littering behavior was given to participants after reading the passages. The descriptive norm
resulted in significantly milder judgments on littering behavior than personal and injunctive
norms as well as the control group. Explicit activation of the social norms resulted in harsher
judgments of littering behavior. Age was also looked at as a covariate in the statistical analysis.
Age turned out to be the best predictor for judgments of littering behavior with older individuals
making the harshest judgments about littering behavior. Applying these results to the current
study suggests that participants may not hold negative attitudes toward the act of littering
because many of the participants are younger but the injunctive norm may be enough to elicit
harsh judgments of littering.
Because the current study was only observational, it was not possible to measure the
personal norms participants held. Personal norms are an individual’s own internal standards for a
particular behavior and they can have a strong influence on littering behavior (Kallgren, Reno,
and Cialdini, 2000). Participant’s personal norms regarding littering behavior were assessed
SOCIAL NORMS
5
using a questionnaire that was given to all students taking introduction to psychology earlier in
the year. In order to collect unbiased data, participants were told they were participating in an
auditory discrimination task that required them to make judgments of tone loudness when a
distractor was present. The distractor was meant to provide either an internal focus by presenting
a video recording of the participant completing the task or an external focus by presenting a
video recording of moving geometric shapes. Participant’s has a pulse sensor attached to their
ear and petroleum jelly paste smeared on their non-dominant hand. The participants were told the
petroleum jell was for a physiological measurement. After the auditory discrimination task was
complete, participants were given paper towel to wipe off the petroleum jelly and were asked to
exit using the stairs. The experimenter recorded littering behavior once each participant had left
the building. Participant’s that both rated themselves as feeling more personal obligation to
properly dispose of their waste and were in the internal focus condition were significantly less
likely to litter the paper towel. However, of greater relevance to the current study, it was found
that when littering behavior was examined for participants with the external focus there was no
significant relationship between personal norm score and littering behavior. Because the current
study did not involve an internal focus, it is unlikely that personal norms could confound the
results.
Norm activation is not limited to the visual domain. Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008)
used auditory activation of a social norm to induce littering in participants. The study took place
in the Netherlands where there is a well-known law that it is illegal to set off fireworks in the
weeks before New Year’s Eve. Flyers were attached to participant’s bicycles in order to make
sure everyone had an opportunity to litter. Firecrackers were used out of sight of participants in
the experimental group but well within hearing distance in order to activate the descriptive norm
SOCIAL NORMS
6
that it is illegal to light fireworks but people do it anyways. Participants that heard the fireworks
littered their flyer 80 % of the time compared to the 52 % littering rate in participants that did not
hear fireworks. The activation of a descriptive norm does not need to occur visually in order to
have a significant impact on behavior nor does it need to be directly related to the behavior.
Similarly, Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) found that activating injunctive norms closely
related to littering can reduce littering.
Because the current study is focused on the littering of cigarette butts, it is important to
look at how the littering of cigarette butts compares other items that are littered. Schultz, Bator,
Large, Bruni, and Tabanico (2013) offer a large scale study on littering behavior with 9,757
participants from 130 locations in ten different states. Each state included urban, rural, and
suburban areas. Cigarette butts were the most common pre-existing litter found and they were
the item observed to be littered the most by participants. Smokers littered their cigarette butt 65%
of the time compared to the 17% littering rate that was observed for general litter. The only
significant participant variables predictive of littering were age and sex with men littering more
than women and older people littering less than younger people. Individuals in the age range of
eighteen to twenty nine were observed to litter more than any other age group. The amount of
pre-existing litter at an observation site and the number of available waste receptacles was also
predictive of littering behavior. Participants were significantly more likely to litter in areas where
there were high levels of pre-existing littering and participants were significantly less likely to
litter in areas where there were more waste receptacles present. The large sample size gives the
results a high degree of statistical power. It is therefore likely that the current study will also find
more men littering their cigarette butts than women. It is however not necessarily clear what
SOCIAL NORMS
7
behavior will be selected when there is a conflict between a high rate of pre-existing litter and an
abundance of proper waste receptacles.
Patel, Thomson, and Wilson (2013) examined the littering rate for individuals walking in
an urban area. Participants were followed at a minimum distance of five meters to allow for
discrete observations. Waste receptacles were found to be an average of twenty four meters apart
but no data was recorded for how far away the nearest waste receptacle was when the act of
littering occurred. Participants were observed to litter their cigarette butts 76.7% out of the 219
observations. Littering was observed significantly more in the evening compared to the
afternoon. It is possible that the high rate of littering was due to the potential for a long distance
between the smoker and the nearest waste receptacle at the time the smoker was finished with
their cigarette. All waste receptacles in the current study were well within twenty-four meters of
each other and the entrance to the library. It is also worth noting that individuals in the current
study were not walking through their environment but instead stayed in one area while smoking
their cigarette.
The current study is focused on the differences in littering behavior between men and
women given the same environment and the same social norm activation. Injunctive norms can
lead to harsher judgments of littering behavior than descriptive norms and younger individuals
tend to have milder judgments of littering behavior than older individuals (de Kort, McCalley,
and Midden, 2008). Even using a closely related injunctive norm can reduce an undesired
behavior such as littering (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, 1990). The closely related injunctive
norm in the current study is the sign appearing on both of the ashtrays which says “No smoking
within thirty feet of Building”. Personal norms can affect behavior but they do not have a
significant effect on littering behavior if the individual is not given an internal focus (Kallgren,
SOCIAL NORMS
8
Reno, and Cialdini, 2000). Because no internal focus is provided in the present observation, it is
unlikely personal norms will confound the results. Individuals walking through their
environment have an exceptionally high rate of cigarette butt littering (Patel, Thomson, and
Wilson, 2013) but because all participants observed in the current study were stationary in front
of the observation area to smoke there cigarette, it is unlikely the high littering rates of Patel,
Thomson, and Wilson (2013) will be observed. It is also unlikely that cigarette butt littering rates
will reach the 65% found by Schultz, Bator, Large, Bruni, and Tabanico (2013) because the
closely related injunctive norm on the ashtrays should decrease littering behavior. The current
study offers men and women the same amount of pre-existing litter and the same number of
waste receptacles. It is hypothesized that men will litter significantly more cigarette butts than
women and the total littering rate for both men and women will be less than 65%.
Methods
Participants
Participants were all observed in front of the west wing of the University of WisconsinMilwaukee library. Participants were likely to be either students or employees at the UWMilwaukee but no demographic information was collected to verify this. Most participants
appeared to be traditional college students in their early twenties and the majority of them were
Caucasian. One participant appeared to be a maintenance worker for the UW-Milwaukee. Data
collection ceased when data was recorded for twenty participants that were men and twenty
participants that were women. No participants were allowed to have behavioral data recorded
more than once. All participants stayed in the same area while smoking their cigarette and when
they disposed of their cigarette butt.
Procedure
SOCIAL NORMS
9
The observation was made on Tuesday the 12th during the month of February in the year
2013. The observation occurred from 11:20 A.M. to 12:50 P.M. Data was only recorded when a
participant’s behavior could be clearly observed. Participants were counted as having properly
disposed of their cigarette butt in a waste receptacle if they either placed their cigarette butt in an
ashtray or a garbage can. Participants were counted as having littered their cigarette butt if their
cigarette butt was placed on the ground. Every behavior observed clearly fit into either littering
behavior or proper disposal behavior.
Participant data was recorded in a text message application on a smart phone instead of
paper in order to prevent data collection from being obvious to participants. Numerous students
are seen using a smart phone outside of the library so it is unlikely that smart phone use provided
any cues to participants that may have led them to believe they were being observed. While data
was being recorded, two participants were overheard discussing the use illegal drugs and
underage drinking lending support to the assumption that participants were unaware of being
observed.
Observations were made from the bench closest to the west wing entrance at the UWMilwaukee library. The bench was approximately thirty feet from the entrance. There was one
ashtray directly to the right bench where observations were made. On the opposite side of the
adjacent ashtray was an ashtray approximately fifteen feet away from the bench. Between the
bench and the entrance to the west wing was a garbage can which also counted as a proper waste
receptacle. The garbage can was approximately five feet from the bench and approximately
twenty-five feet from the entrance to the library. Both ashtrays had a sign on them that said “No
smoking within 30 feet of building” and had a black line drawing of a lit cigarette with a red
circle that had a diagonal line crossing through both the circle and cigarette. The signs on the
SOCIAL NORMS
10
ashtrays served as a closely related injunctive norm. Due to the nature of how the ashtrays and
the garbage can were situated, it is likely that even individuals who were observed to use the
garbage can as a waste receptacle were exposed to the signs on the ashtrays and thus the closely
related injunctive norm.
The ground in front of the library was heavily littered with cigarette butts and to a lesser
extent with other garbage such as food wrappers and empty containers. The heaviest
concentration of cigarette butts was approximately five feet from the entrance to the west wing
and approximately twenty feet away from the garbage can. All waste receptacles had a high
prevalence of littered cigarette butts within a one foot radius of them. The high prevalence of
littered cigarette butts serves as a descriptive norm implying that many individuals litter their
cigarette butt even when proper waste receptacles are nearby.
Results
There was no statistically significant difference in the littering behavior between men and
women (χ² (1, 40) = 0.00, p = 1.00). Men disposed of their cigarette butt in a proper waste
receptacle 80% of the time and littered their cigarette butt on the ground 20% of the time. The
results for the littering rate in women was identical to that of men with women properly
disposing of the cigarette butt in a waste receptacle 80% of the time and littering their cigarette
butt on the ground 20% of the time. The total cigarette butt littering rate of 20% is well below
65% cigarette butt littering rate.
Discussion
The results from the current study are in stark contrast to the hypothesis that men would
litter their cigarette butts more than women. Men and women both littered their cigarette butt
20% of the time and properly disposed of their cigarette butt 80% of the time. The results for
SOCIAL NORMS
11
gender differences are far from significance. The total cigarette butt littering rate was however
well below 65%. The low level of cigarette butt littering may be due to the signs on the ashtrays
activating a closely related injunctive norm.
Although the results are interesting, they may be confounded by limits in the design of
the present study. The results of the present study may be due to the small sample size or the use
of a single setting. Data collection stopped for men and women when twenty observations were
made for each gender adding up to a total of forty participants. Also, data was only collected in
front of the entrance to the west wing of the UW-Milwaukee library. In contrast, Schultz, Bator,
Large, Bruni, and Tabanico (2013) use a sample of 9,757 participants which included urban,
rural, and suburban areas in ten different states. It is possible that including a rural and a
suburban setting to the current study would have led to more men littering their cigarette butts
than women. It may also may the case that certain states have gender differences in littering
behavior while other states do not. It is also possible that a sample of forty participants is simply
too small to find a difference in the cigarette butt littering behavior of men and women.
Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008) found that activating a norm regarding the legality
of fireworks can lead to an increase in littering behavior. The change in littering behavior was
observed despite the fact that no participant observed any one littering, thus there was no
possibility for modeling behavior. A major flaw in the present study is the possibility for
modeling behavior. No participant was ever the only person in front of the library. Furthermore,
there were very few instances where there was only one person was smoking a cigarette leaving
open the potential modeling behavior. Nothing was done in in the current study in order to
control modeling of either littering or proper waste disposal behavior.
SOCIAL NORMS
12
Whereas Keizer, Lindenberg, and Steg (2008) used a closely related norm to induce
littering behavior, Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) showed that a closely related norm can
reduce littering behavior. It is possible that the relatively low levels of cigarette butt littering
observed in the current study are due to the closely related injunctive norm of the signs on the
ashtrays restricting cigarette smoking near the building. It is however also possible that the
relatively low level of cigarette butt littering was due to the small sample size. If the small
sample size may have caused there to be no difference in littering behavior between men and
women then it is possible the small sample size is what caused the low overall cigarette butt
littering rate.
Future research will hopefully continue to offer more insight into how activating social
norms can reduce cigarette butt littering behavior. It may be advantageous to compare the effect
of a directly relevant injunctive norm, a closely related injunctive norm, and no injunctive norm
on cigarette butt littering. It may also be of interest to determine the most effective way to
activate an injunctive norm in order to prevent pre-existing litter from activating a descriptive
norm that is accepting of littering behavior. Future studies could also increase the number of
participants to increase power and include different settings in an urban environment to make the
results more generalizable. Adding more observations in rural and suburban regions could also
expand the generalizability of cigarette butt littering studies.
The current study has found and equal cigarette butt littering rate for men and women.
Men and women were both observed to litter their cigarette butt 20% of the time and to properly
dispose of their cigarette butt 80% of the time. The relatively low rate of cigarette butt littering
may be at least in part due to the activation of a closely related injunctive norm for not littering
cigarette butts
SOCIAL NORMS
13
References
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., and Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct:
Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of
Personality and social Psychology. 58(6), 1015-1026.
de Kort, Y.A.W, McCalley, L.T., and Midden, C.J.H. (2008). Persuasive Trash Cans: Activation
of Littering Norms by Design. Environment and Behavior. 40(6), 870-891.
Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R. and Cialdini, R.B. (2000) A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct:
When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 26(8), 1002-1012
Keizer, K, Lindenberg, S., Steg, L. (2008). The Spreading of Disorder. Science. 322, 1681-1685.
Patel V., Thomson, G.W., and Wilson, N. (2013) Cigarette Butt Littering in City Streets: A New
Methodology for Studying and Results. Tobacco Control. 22(1), 59-62
Schultz1, P.W., Bator, R.J., Large, L.B., Bruni, C.M., and Tabanico, J.J. (2013). Littering in
Context: Personal and Environment Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environment and
Behavior. 45(1), 35-59.