Date of Award

2025

Degree Type

Open Access Dissertation

Degree Name

Psychology, PhD

Program

School of Social Science, Politics, and Evaluation

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

P. Wesley Schultz

Dissertation or Thesis Committee Member

Jason T. Siegel

Dissertation or Thesis Committee Member

Jeanne Nakamura

Dissertation or Thesis Committee Member

Magnus Bergquist

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont.

Rights Information

© 2025 Stasie D Dear-Ferguson

Keywords

Behavioral intentions, Littering behavior, Manipulation, Salience, Social norms

Subject Categories

Psychology

Abstract

The dissertation builds on prior research highlighting the importance of descriptive norms on littering behavior (Bergquist et al., 2021; Cialdini et al., 1990). Previous research has shown that people are more likely to litter into already littered environments than into sites free of litter. There is contradictory research on the impact of a single piece of litter in an environment, the effects of posted anti-littering messages, and whether individuals perceive the influence of the descriptive norm. The dissertation is a series of three studies designed to replicate and extend prior research on the influence of descriptive social norms on littering behavior. The first study was a replication and extension of Bergquist and colleagues’ (2021) replication of Cialdini and colleagues’ (1990) studies. Drawing on the Prolific cloud research panel, participants viewed four videos (all pictures either clean, a single piece of litter, or fully littered) across four sites (one each from a post office, parking garage, park, and supermarket). Participants then answered questions about litter salience, the descriptive norm, the injunctive norm, behavioral intentions, and underdetection. Results indicated higher salience in the fully littered and single piece of litter conditions, than in the clean environment. The descriptive norm was weaker in the one-piece litter environment and clean environments compared to the fully-littered environment. In Study 2, Prolific participants viewed a series of two videos (all pictures either clean, a single piece of litter, or fully littered) across two sites (parking garage or post office) with either a sign indicating the anti-littering norm or no sign. Study 2 had similar results to Study 1 in regards to salience of the anti-littering norm, the descriptive and injunctive norms, behavioral intention, and underdetection. Additionally, there was no effect of the anti-littering sign in either the post office or parking garage condition. In Study 3, Prolific participants viewed the same three litter conditions and two additional site conditions (lake and hiking trail). Study 3 results were similar to study 1 results. The anti-littering norm was more salient in natural locations compared to built locations, though the perceived descriptive norm for littering was weaker in the natural locations compared to built locations. Finally, a series of exploratory analyses examined the question of underdetection, whether participants attribute their intention to litter to the descriptive norm. Prior research has indicated that people do not identify a social norm as the reason for engaging in a behavior. However, when researchers try to predict behavior, the norm was one of the strongest predictors of behavior (Nolan et al., 2008). Results of Study 1 indicated that underdetection occurred in all four locations. Results of Study 2 indicated that underdetection did not occur when an anti-littering sign was present. The results of Study 3 indicated that underdetection occurred in natural locations but not in built locations. The key findings of this replication extension indicated that for Study 1 the anti-littering norm was salient in all four locations (contrary to Bergquist et al., 2021), the descriptive norm was weaker in the clean environments than in the fully littered environments or single piece of litter environments, the injunctive norm was not stronger when others littered in clean environments than fully littered environments, though participants did expect more disapproval when they littered in single piece of litter environments than fully littered environments. For Study 2, the anti-littering sign did not influence the salience of the anti-littering norm, the perceived descriptive norm, and the injunctive norm. For study 3, the anti-littering norm was more salient in the natural locations than in the built locations, while the perceived descriptive norm was weaker in the natural locations than in the built locations. There was no difference in the injunctive norm base due to natural or built environments.

ISBN

9798273313132

Download

Included in

Psychology Commons

Share

COinS