1993,26, NUMBER2 (summer 1993)

INCREASING RECYCLINGIN OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS:

THE EFFECTS OF SPECIFIC, INFORMATIVE CUES

JOHN AUSTIN, DAVID B. HATFIELD, ANGELICA C. GRINDLE, ANDJON S. BAILEY

FLORIDASTATEUNIVERSITY

We investigated the effects of prompts on the recycling behavior ofapproximately 217 faculty, staff, andgraduate students intwo academicdepartmentsofalargeuniversity. Duringthe inter-vention, two signs wereposted ineachdepartment. One sign prompted recyding(posted above therecyding receptade),and the othersignpromptedproperdisposalof trash(postedabove the trash receptade). Resultsof amultiple baselinedesign acrossthe twodepartmentsindicated that thesign prompt increased recyclingbehavior. Installation of thesignprompts in dose proximity to receptacles in Department A resulted in a 54% improvementover baseline. Posting ofsign prompts over containers 4 m apart in Department B resulted in a 17% improvement, whereas positioningthesignsandreceptaclesindoseproximityresulted ina29%improvementoverbaseline.

DESCRIPTORS: recyding,paperrecyding,prompts

On the average, each American produces one

ton of waste per year, and the amount of waste

generated isgrowing at a drastic rate (U.S. House

of Representatives, 1989). In 1960 the United Statesproduced 7 million tons of solid waste. This figure increased to 160 million tons per year in

1989, and the EPA projects our total solid waste to reach 190 million tons per year

by

2000 (U.S.

House of Representatives, 1989).

Eightypercentofour solid waste is depositedin

landfills.However, in 1989, 40% of existing land-fills were targeted for closure, and new sites are both time consuming and costly todevelop (U.S. House of Representatives, 1989). Of the total amount of municipal solid waste produced each year, recyclable paper and

paperboard

constitute approximately 41% (U.S. House of

Representa-tives, 1989). Businesses are one of the greatest contributors to this mass of recyclable paper and

paperboardwaste.Therefore,greater emphasis must beplaced onincreasingthe rateofrecyclingofpaper and paperboard productsin the workplace.

Numerous studies have been completed

con-We thank Paul Cosentino and Robert Saum for their assistance in data collection, as wellas Nancy Leasureand GeorgeWeaverfor theirassistancewith this research.

Pleaseaddress reprint requests toJohn Austin,Applied Behavior AnalysisResearch Center, Departmentof Psychol-ogy, FloridaStateUniversity,Tallahassee, Florida 32306.

cerning attitudes and beliefs about recycling (De Young, 1986; Kallgren & Wood, 1986; Kok & Siero,1985;Oskampet al., 1991;Williams, 1991),

demographics and otherpossible predictors of re-cycling behavior (Oskamp et al., 1991), and the inconsistencies between recycling beliefs and recy-ding behavior (Kallgren & Wood, 1986). Atti-tudinalsurveys havedemonstratedthat people who recycle (a) are better informed about

which-

ma-terials are recyclable, (b) know where these mate-rials can be recycled, and (c) are better informed about thebenefits ofrecycling on the environment than aretheirnonrecyclingcounterparts (Vining & Ebreo, 1990). All three of these aspects must be combined for a recycling program to be effective

(Oskamp, 1983). Simply knowing where a recy-ding container is located isinsufficientasa prompt to produce high levels of recycling. Likewise, in-formation about recyclable materials becomes meaningless without knowledge of easily accessible

recycling locations, and inconvenient recycling lo-cations increase the response cost of recycling be-havior. Finally, knowledge of the benefits of re-cycling is also insufficient by itself to increase the

behaviors involved in recycling.

Themajority of the recycling literature, however, has focused on behavioral rather than attitudinal measures (Vining&Ebreo, 1990).Jacobsand

Bai-ley (1982) demonstrated that multiple prompts 247

given priortorecycling opportunitiesincreasedrates

of recycling in an apartment community. In con-junction with single or multiple prompting

con-ditions, proximity and accessibility ofrecycling

re-ceptacles have been shown to increase the rate of participation inarecyclingprogram(Reid, Luyben, Rawers, & Bailey, 1976).

Effortstopromoteenvironmentallyconscious be-havior have induded television and radio com-mercials, statements from teachers and public

of-ficials, beautified waste receptacles, and clearly

markedcontainersforappropriatedisposal ofwaste

(Geller, Winett,&Everett, 1982).Information and prompts have proven to be effective means for increasingrecyclingbehaviorinpubliccommunities

andapartmentcomplexes(Jacobs&Bailey, 1982; Jacobs, Bailey,&Crews, 1984;Reidetal., 1976), but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these procedures in the workplace. This is unfor-tunate,because officesgeneratesubstantialamounts ofrecydable paperand paperboard products each year. We sought to supplement and extend the

recycling literature by examiningtheeffects of spe-cific and informative response-approach (Geller, Koltuniak,&Schilling, 1983)promptsonrecycling behavior in an office environment.

METHOD Participants and Setting

Participantsweremembers oftwoacademic

de-partments at a large southeastern university. In

DepartmentA(social sciences), the setting was an enclosedmailroomhousingtwocopymachines and

one mailbox for each faculty, staff, and graduate student in that department (approximately 170

people). In Department B (physical sciences), the

settingwas asmallareajust inside theentrance to thegeneraloffice. Thisareacontained the mailboxes of allfaculty and somestaff members of that

de-partment(n = 47). Thestudywasconducted dur-ing thespring semesterofthe academiccalendar.

InDepartmentA,thereweretwotrashcans(one was 90.17 cm tall, with a diameter of35.56cm,

andonewas74.93 cmtall,withadiameter39.37 cm) and one recycling box (39.37 cm by 26.67

cm by 31.12 cm). The area of interest in Depart-ment B contained one trash can (36.83 cm tall, with a diameter of 35.56 cm) and one recycling box (39.37 cm by 26.67 cm by 31.12 cm).

Data Collection

Data were collected daily (Mondaythrough

Fri-day) by the first, second, and third authors and oneundergraduate psychology major. Data

collec-tionconsistedof counting the number of recyclable materials that were in the trash cans and recycling

boxesonany givenday. On each day after the data were collected, all materials (trash and recyclables) were placed in appropriate containers in a separate area. Each data collection session required 10 to 30 min. Data were collected just before the ex-perimental areas closed for the day in order to minimize interaction between the participants and

the data collectors.

Thenumber of recyclable materials found in the

trash cansand the number of recyclable materials

foundintherecyclingboxesconstituted the primary

dependentvariables. Recyclablematerials were de-fined as any wood pulp-type paper (5.08 cm by 12.7 cm sheets orlarger) not having a glossy-ink

orplastic finish. Recyclable materials encountered

induded business envelopes (without plastic win-dows), manila envelopes and folders, newspaper, copyandbondpaper, memo paper,and magazines withoutglossy pages or glossy covers. Allmaterials consideredrecyclableinthepresentstudy were also acceptedassuchbytheUniversityrecydingservice (Florida State University Recycling Program, 1991).

Allother materials, such as plastic,styrofoam, alu-minum, facial tissue, and paper towels, were

con-sidered trash (i.e., nonrecydable). Newspapers, magazines, or bound manuscripts were counted as

one item each, because number (rather than

vol-ume) of items placed in the containers was the

measure of interest. Independent Variable

The interventioninvolved posting twosigns (ap-proximately48.26 cmby 71.12 cm each) in each

department. A red sign labeled "TRASH" was postedabovethe trashcanand denoted those items

mostappropriately disposedinthe trashreceptade. This signdisplayed a sample of each of the follow-ing categories: plastic, glossy-ink paper, glossy-ink

magazines,and othernonrecyclable items. Agreen sign labeled "RECYCLABLE MATERIALS" was postedabove therecyding box. This sign displayed

samplesof each of the following categories:

news-print, memos,envelopeswithout aplasticwindow,

andmultiple pages withstaples. Asign (21.59 cm

by 27.94 cm) that read "NO PAPER PROD-UCTS" was placed on the remaining trash recep-tacle in Department A.

Interobserver Agreement

Interobserver reliability checks were conducted

during 14 of 51 sessions (27.5%) at Department

A and 12 of 49 sessions (24.5%) at Department

B. Interobserver agreement was computed by

di-viding agreements by agreements plus disagree-ments andmultiplying by 100%.Percentageswere calculated forboth trashandrecycling receptacles. In Department A, mean interobserver agreement

for scoring recydable materials in trash cans as recyclable was 94.7% (range, 84% to 100%) and was96.7% (range, 91% to 100%) formaterials in

the recycling box. In Department B, mean agree-ment on scoring recydable materials in the trash canwas94.2% (range, 79.6% to 100%) and was

96.3%

(range, 88.9% to 100%) on materials in

therecyclingbox.There was no systematic variation

of

reliability

observed during the study.

Research Design

A multiple baseline design across the two aca-demicdepartmentswasimplementedtoinvestigate

the effects of prompts on recycling behavior.

Baseline. In Department A, one trash can was locatedimmediately besidethe recycling box. The

remainingtrashcan waslocatedapproximately 3.5

m away, inthecomer of theroom. Department B contained one trashcan,locatedimmediately beside

the entrance/exit to the area, and one recycling

box, approximately 4mfrom thetrashreceptacle.

The

recyding

box in eachdepartment had a small

(2.54 cm by 5.08 cm) sticker affixedtoitas part ofapreviousuniversity-basedprogram. The sticker

read, "Recyclable Materials Only-Deposit these items: computer printout paper, white and color

bond, letterhead stationery, noncarbon forms, and

Xeroxcopies."

Proximalprompt in Department A. The red and green signswereplaced above the receptades in Department A. Receptades (trash can and

re-cyclingbox) remained besideeach other.

Prompt in Department B. Signs were placed

above the receptades, which remained approxi-mately 4 m apart.

ProximalpromptinDepartmentB. After

sev-en sessionsin the prompt condition, we relocated the recyding receptade and sign prompt to a po-sition immediately beside the trash receptacle, in

ordertoreplicatemoreclosely the proximal prompt

condition in Department A.

Manipulation Check

Datacollectorsconducted a visual inspectionof

thepostedsigns in eachdepartmenteachdayduring

data collection to check for the presence of the signs in proper locations. If signs were misplaced, data collectors were instructed to replace them in the correct locations. Manipulation checks revealedno

instancesof misplaced or missing signs throughout the intervention.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the daily percentage of discarded itemsrecydedineach department during each ex-perimental condition. Department A showed an increase in recycling from 51% (range, 8% to 81%)

duringbaseline to 84%(range, 67% to 98%) dur-ing theproximal promptcondition.DepartmentB showed a mean of 51% (range, 19% to 96%) of materials recyded during baseline. This increased to 60% (range, 25% to 85%) during the initial prompt condition and to 66% (range, 51% to 92%)

during theproximal promptcondition.

Figure 2 shows the median number of recyclable items found per day in the trash and recycling

receptacles in both departments during each ex-perimental condition. During baseline in Depart-ment A, a median of 84 (range, 31 to 258)

re-Baseline 0 ~ ~ ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ 0 01 11111111111111111111111 Baseline 0-0 ~~~~~0

410

0

*%,0(

\*\/

0 i~~~~~~Dprmn

1111111111111111I

. Prompt

-X0

.

*'

Proximal

Prompt

II I \ \

|1

1%n

Ws 0 Deaten 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DAYS

Figure 1. Meanpercentage of items recyded perdayineach departmentacrossconditions. Hatchmarks denote days

onwhich data werenotavailable.

cyclable items was found each day in the trash

receptacleand amedian of84 (range, 31 to 551) items was found in the recycling receptacle.

Re-cydableitems inthe trashwerereducedtoamedian of34 perday (range, 16to 147) duringthe prox-imalpromptcondition,whereasrecydableitemsin

the recycling receptade increased to a median of

170 per day (range, 64to 3,790).

During baseline in DepartmentB, a median of 39 (range, 14 to 99) recydable items was found inthetrash receptadeand amedian of40 (range,

9 to 367) recydableitems was found in the

recy-cling receptacle. During theprompt condition,

re-cyclableitems in the trashwerereducedtoamedian of 24per day (range, 16 to 57) and a median of 42 per day (range, 16 to 146) was found in the recycling receptacle. Recyclable items in the trash

were reduced to a median of 23tper day (range, 16 to43) during the proximalprompt condition, whereasrecydableitems intherecycling receptacle increased to amedian of49 (range, 20 to217).

DISCUSSION

The present study demonstrated the effects of

informational promptsonrecyclingin anoffice en-Proximal Prompt 1 00- 90- 80- 70- 60- 50- 40- 30- 20-1

0--IJ

0 w F-~ z wj 0 cc 1 00- 90- 80- 70- 60- 50- 40- 30- 20-1 0-0- 7

Baseline Recycling Receptacle Trash Receptacle Baseline Prompt Proximal Prompt

IDepartment

A| Proximal Prompt Department B EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

Figure 2. Median number ofrecyclable materials placedinreceptades perexperimental condition,for eachdepartment. Shaded barsrepresentmedian number ofrecyclablematerialsplacedintrashcans.Openbarsrepresentmedian number of

recyclable materials placed in the recycling boxes.

vironment. Both departments achieved substantial

increases in recycling. These results support the

assertion by Gelleretal. (1982)thatpromptsthat

are not accompanied bysome consequence are ef-fective only ifthey (a) make a specific request or appeal, (b) are in close proximity to the area in which the individualsareexpected torespond, and

(c) request responses that are convenient to those

who mustrespond. Thesign prompts usedin the present study met all of the above criteria, and

therewere corresponding increases inrecycling

be-havior. The sign prompts also provided clear in-formation regarding which materials were

recycl-able and which were trash.

Perhaps these sign prompts were effective an-tecedents to recyding behavior because the signs

servedas areminderatprecisely the time whenone wasmostneeded. Locating the signs directly above eachreceptacleprovided appropriate stimuliatthe most critical moment: just as the materials were being deposited in the receptacle.

These stimuli produced obvious changes from baselineconditions, and therefore perhaps increased the level of stimulus control associated with each receptacle. Before and during the study, the uni-versity had arecyclingprogram thatconsisted pri-marily of small (approximately 2.54 cm by 5.08 cm) stickerpromptsonrecycling receptacles. Judg-ing from baseline measures, however, the stickers were minimally effective.

The effectsof this intervention variedacrossthe

two settings. This may have been due to a

com-250 -200

1

1

50

-41 LU 0n U, LL LUI 3 U, 0 Liu

r

z

z

4c LUJ

r

1 00 50 1

50

1 00 50 I

bination of factors. First, Department A housed two copy machines and mailboxes, whereas De-partment B had no photocopymachine. The sign prompts may have increased the recycling of pho-tocopies in Department A, while having an effect on mail recycling similar to that achieved in De-partment B. The dependent measures were not sensitive to this possible difference.

Second, adifferentsocial milieu mayexist in the twodepartments. Each department may have

dif-ferent levels offaculty interaction. The more fre-quently the participants interact, the more likely thatprompting and social contingencies can occur. Thus, the larger effect in Department A might be

attributable tosomesocial elementunique to that

department.

Third, it isdifficulttoassess the similarityof the twopopulations. Although both groups consisted primarily of academics, one department was de-voted primarily to thestudy of social science,

where-asthe otherwasprimarily devoted to thestudy of physical science. It could beargued that these two groups havefundamentally different reinforcement

histories regarding prompts, information, and

re-cycling, and therefore responded differently.

Although the first, second, and fourth authors work in Department A and the head of the de-partmentwas informed ofthe study, none ofthe authorsused thereceptaclesinquestionatanytime during baseline or intervention. In

addition,

data werecollectedunobtrusively,andtheexperimenters werecarefulnottoallowsubjectstoknowwhohad

beguntheprogram. Hence, there islittlereason to believethat theintervention'seffectinDepartment

Awas a reactionto the authors'academic affiliation.

A limitation of the study was the inability to

partition the relative effects of prompting versus

information. Thesign prompt mayhaveserved as a "recycling directory," in that participants were

clearly directed to the appropriate receptacles

by

severaltypesofpostedrecyclableandnonrecyclable materials commonly encountered in each

experi-mental area. Alternatively, the sign prompt may have served merely as a reminder to recycle. The

resultsdonot allowconclusionstobe drawn about

the exact reason for the effectiveness of the

inter-ventions.

Implications of the present study are far-reach-ing. Ifemployees become accustomed to recyding at the workplace, perhaps this behavior will gen-eralize to other environments. Moreover, if em-ployees can be encouraged to recycle at areasonable rate without the use of expensive consequences,

such as money or other incentives, programs can

be implemented and maintained on a large scale at an extremely low cost (if not a profit) to the employer. Future researchshould focus on recycling in office environments and other environments in which large quantities ofpaper are generated. This focus should includebehavioral analyses of prompt-ing andinformational components, addition of con-sequences to the posting ofprompts, and long-term maintenance of programssuch as that described in thepresent study.

REFERENCES

De Young, R. (1986). Somepsychological aspects of

re-cycling: Thestructure ofconservation satisfactions. En-vironmentand Behavior, 18, 435-449.

Florida State University,PhysicalPlantDevelopment. (1991). Solidwaste management/recyclingprogram. Tallahas-see, FL:Author.

Geller, E. S.,Koltuniak, T. A., &Schilling,J. S. (1983). Responseavoidance prompting: Acost-effectivestrategy for theftdeterrence. BehavioralCounseling and Com-munityInterventions, 3, 28-42.

Geller, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Everett, P. B. (1982). Preservingtheenvironment: Newstrategiesforbehavior change. NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Jacobs, H.E.,&Bailey,J. S. (1982). Evaluating partici-pation in a residential recycling program.Journal of EnvironmentalSystems, 12, 141-152.

Jacobs, H. E., Bailey,J. S., &Crews, J. I. (1984). De-velopmentofacommunity-basedresourcerecovery pro-gram.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis, 17,

127-145.

Kallgren, C.A.,&Wood,W. (1986). Accessto attitude-relevantinformationinmemory asadeterminantof

at-titude-behaviorconsistency.Journal ofExperimental

So-cialPsychology, 22, 328-339.

Kok, G., & Siero, S. (1985). Tinrecycling: Awareness, comprehension,attitude, intention, and behavior. Jour-nalofEconomicPsychology, 6, 157-173.

Oskamp, S. (1983). Psychology's rolein theconserving society. Populationand Environment, 6, 255-293.

Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J.,Edwards,T.C., Sherwood, D. L.,Okuda, S. M., & Swanson, P. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment andBehavior, 23,494-519.

Reid, D. H.,Luyben, P. D., Rawers, R. J., &Bailey, J. S. (1976). Newspaper recycling behavior: The effects of prompting and proximity of containers. Environment and Behavior, 8, 471-482.

UnitedStates HouseofRepresentatives, Committee on Ag-riculture. (1989). Recyclable materials science and technology act of 1989.Hearing before the 101st Con-gress, 1stsession on H.R. 500, serialnumber 101-49. Washington, DC: U.S.Government PrintingOffice.

Vining, J., & Ebreo,A. (1990). What makes a recyder? Acomparisonor recyders andnonrecyders.Environment andBehavior, 22, 55-73.

Williams,E. (1991). Collegestudents and recycling:Their attitudesandbehaviors. Journal of College Student De-velopment, 32, 86-88.

ReceivedJune5, 1992

Initialeditorial decision August 10, 1992

Revisionsreceived December 11, 1992;January19, 1993;

- February23, 1993

Final acceptance February24, 1993 Action Editor, Mark Mathews