PeerJ publishes an academic study on how to reduce the litter of bags:
Littering constitutes a major societal problem, and any simple intervention that reduces its prevalence would be widely beneficial. In previous research, we have found that displaying images of watching eyes in the environment makes people less likely to litter. Here, we investigate whether the watching eyes images can be transferred onto the potential items of litter themselves. In two field experiments on a university campus, we created an opportunity to litter by attaching leaflets that either did or did not feature an image of watching eyes to parked bicycles. In both experiments, the watching eyes leaflets were substantially less likely to be littered than control leaflets (odds ratios 0.22–0.32). We also found that people were less likely to litter when there other people in the immediate vicinity than when there were not (odds ratios 0.04–0.25) and, in one experiment but not the other, that eye leaflets only reduced littering when there no other people in the immediate vicinity. We suggest that designing cues of observation into packaging could be a simple but fruitful strategy for reducing littering.
Melissa Breyer @ Treehugger.com likes it:
The work of the experiment is based on the idea of “nudge psychology,” a theory that people behave better when the best option, in whatever situation, is presented to them, but they still have a choice of other options as well. By removing the idea of being forced into something, the theory goes, people will often choose to do the “right” thing. The researchers note that this could be a boon in fighting fast-food litter.
“In the fight against anti-social littering, this study could be a real help. Fast food retailers might want to think about using it on packaging to discourage people discarding the wrappers,” says Bateson. “The flip side is, for those handing out leaflets, it could help people take in the messages are they are less likely to throw away a flyer with eyes on.”
Fighting litter, one pair of printed eyes at a time.
I’m left wondering about the durability of the effect (if it’s not just an artifact of some variable). That is, once this effect becomes known in popular culture, it may disappear as people learn to ignore it, or demonize, or turn it into a collectible, or any of a dozen other behaviors.
Another interesting study would be to repeat it in Shanghai, Moscow, and Jakarta. Same results? Different?
