Shame and Embarrassment as Deterrents to Noncompliance with the Law

The Case of an Antilittering Campaign
  • Harold G. Grasmick
  • Robert J. BursikJr.
  • Karyl A. Kinsey
Part of the The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology book series (SSSC)


The Keep America Beautiful campaign and the events surrounding it in the late 1960s and early 1970s generated concern about the problems created by littering not only among the public and government officials but also among behavioral scientists. The past two decades have produced a wealth of research on littering as well as other environmental behaviors (e. g., Casey & Lloyd, 1977; Clark, Burgess, & Hendee, 1972; Durdan, Reeder, & Hecht, 1985; Geller, Winett, & Everett, 1982; Geller, Witmer, & Orebaugh, 1976; Geller, Witmer, & Tuso, 1977; Gendrich, McNees, Schnelle, Beegle, & Clark, 1982; Krauss, Freedman, & Whitcup, 1978; Levitt & Leventhal, 1986; Powers, Osborne, & Anderson, 1973; Reich & Robertson, 1979; Robinson, 1976). While important insights and policy implications have been developed, the research so far has seemed to overlook the fact that littering is illegal. Thus, researchers have not drawn upon theories from the field of criminology concerning determinants of compliance and noncompliance with the law.


Ordinary Little Square Apply Behavior Analysis Oklahoma City Illegal Behavior Litter Removal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blake, J., & Davis, K. (1964). Norms, values, and sanctions. In R. Fairs (Ed.), Handbook of modern sociology (pp. 456–484). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  2. Casey, L., & Lloyd, M. (1977). Cost effectiveness of litter removal procedures in an amusement park. Environment and behavior, 9, 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, R., Burgess, R., & Hendee, J. (1972). The development of antilitter behavior in a forest campground. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Preface. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. v–viii). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durdan, C., Reeder, G., & Hecht, R. (1985). Littering in a university cafeteria: Demographic data and the use of prompts as an intervention strategy. Environment and behavior, 17, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finnie, W. (1973). Field experiments in litter control. Environment and behavior, 5, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behavior. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Geller, E., Winett, R., & Everett, B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New strategies for behavior change. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  9. Geller, E., Witmer, J., & Orebaugh, A. (1976). Instructions as a determinant of paper-disposal behaviors. Environment and behavior, 8, 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geller, E., Witmer, J., & Tuso, M. (1977). Environmental interventions for litter control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gendrich, J., McNees, G., Schnelle, J., Beegle, G., & Clark, H. (1982). A student-based anti-litter program for elementary schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 5, 321–335.Google Scholar
  12. Gibbs, J. (1975). Crime, punishment and deterrence. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Grasmick, H., & Bursik, R. (1990). Conscience, significant others and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grasmick, H., & Green, D. (1980). Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization as inhibitors of illegal behavior. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (1968). Who litters and why: Summary of survey findings concerning public awareness and concern about the problem of litter. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (1970). Fact sheet: Litter is a national disgrace. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Krauss, R., Freedman, J., & Whitcup, M. (1978). Field and laboratory studies of littering. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levitt, L., & Leventhal, G. (1986). Litter reduction: How effective is the New York State bottle bill. Environment and behavior, 18, 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meier, R., Burkett, S., & Hickman, C. (1984). Sanctions, peers, and deviance: Preliminary models of a social control process. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oklahoma Department of Transportation. (1989). Oklahoma visual litter survey and analysis: 1988–1989. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  22. Powers, R., Osborne, J., & Anderson, E. (1973). Positive reinforcement of litter removal in the natural environment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 573–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reich, J., & Robertson, J. (1979). Reactance and norm appeal in antilittering messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson, S. (1976). Littering behavior in public places. Environment and behavior, 8, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwartz, R., & Orleans, S. (1967). On legal sanctions. University of Chicago Law Review, 13, 73–89.Google Scholar
  26. Tittle, C. (1977). Sanction fear and the maintenance of social order. Social Forces, 55, 579–596.Google Scholar
  27. Tittle, C., & Rowe, A. (1973). Moral appeal, sanction threat, and deviance: An experimental test. Social Problems, 20, 488–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tuck, M., & Riley, D. (1986). The theory of reasoned action: A decision theory of crime. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 156–169). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams, K., & Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law and Society Review, 20, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, K., & Hawkins, R. (1989). The meaning of arrest for wife assault. Criminology, 27, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold G. Grasmick
  • Robert J. BursikJr.
  • Karyl A. Kinsey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations