While writing our editorial series on littering (page 1, April 8), we wondered who litters and why they litter.
Is there a common characteristic of litterbugs? Are they young or old? Male or female? Rich or poor? After all, most littering is intentional, not accidental.
So we did some research on the psychology of littering.
In the 1980s, the Institute for Applied Research in Sacramento found that people in Texas who did the most littering were 18-to 35-year-old, pickup-driving males who liked country music and didn’t like authority. This was the demographic, and the Institute called them “Bubba.” Sound like a stereotype?
Perhaps, but in subsequent surveys, people observed in the act of littering were found to be in two different age groups: 72 percent of all deliberate litterers were under the age of 30; 71 percent of accidental litterers were age 30 or over.
Nationally, males were responsible for 72 percent of all deliberate littering and 89 percent of all accidental littering.
However, most people litter either accidentally or deliberately when they’re not being watched.
“It seems the reason people litter is not because they think it’s OK,” says Joshua Rottman, assistant professor of psychology at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. “It’s because they think it’s the easy thing to do. It’s a moral hypocrisy. People think it’s wrong, but they do it because it’s easy.”
Wesley Schultz, a psychologist at California State University San Marcos, says the emergence of social norms against littering in the 1960s and '70s was a game changer. The crying Native American ad campaign was effective in raising litter consciousness. So was the “Don’t Mess with Texas” campaign targeted at “Bubba.”
But with littering, Schultz’s research showed that people most often break that taboo for practical reasons.
“We found that the distance to a trash receptacle was the strongest predictor of littering,” Schultz told The Allegheny Front, a public radio program in Pennsylvania. “So the farther away you are from a trash can or a recycling container, the more likely you are to litter.”
Additionally, psychologists have observed that the presence of existing litter was strongly predictive of littering behavior. So if you’re in a place that’s already highly littered, you’re much more likely to litter than if you’re in a place that’s free of litter.
In an interview with a digital publication at Point Park University in Pittsburgh, Rottman said people must face the harm littering causes as well as the sanctity of the environment.
In his study “Hindering Harm and Preserving Purity: How Can Moral Psychology Save the Planet?”, he concludes that if litterbugs are confronted with the outcome of their actions they may strive to change their tendencies.
In 1997, the Beverage Industry Environment Council commissioned a report in Australia that found that some people simply neglect to dispose of garbage while others purposely litter the environment. Of those that litter, researchers found there were specific ways people did it.
The first type of litterer is the one who tries to find a place for the disposable object that still leaves the area looking clean. "Wedgers" attempt to tuck the object into cracks or other places where it won’t be blown away.
Another strategy is "undertaking." These litterers try to bury the object, but it later reveals its ugly itself.
The report also discovered those who make the effort to get to a trash bin, but fail to get all the garbage inside. "Foul shooters" miss the can and leave the trash on the ground.
Some people were discovered to be "90 percenters," who properly dispose of large objects, but leave behind less conspicuous objects.
Then there are those who do not fear public sentiment when it comes to littering. "Flagrant flingers" are those who litter in the open without any attempt to conceal their actions. This is a stark contrast to "inchers," who take a quick look to make sure they’re not being watched before placing the litter beside them and slowly inching away.
No matter how a person litters, it still has negative repercussions on the environment. “Potentially, people think it’s OK because they don’t see the direct harm,” Rottman said.
In Rottman’s research, he found that framing environmental conversation as an issue of purity may prove to be beneficial. He explained that violations of environmental purity are usually met with disgust, which may deter people from hurting the environment. His final point was that if people can be made to view the environment as a sacred place then people will be less likely to litter.
