Plastic consumption has become an increasingly large problem
over the past decades. In 2017 there was 6.3 billion metric tonnes of plastic
waste (Parker, 2017) and it has been reported that one of the largest sources
of this waste is from drinks bottles. Trowsdale, Housden, and Meier (2017)
reported that 480 billion plastic bottles were sold in 2016 which is the
equivalent of 1,000,000 plastic bottles being sold every minute!
The Marine Conservation Society (2017) found that since
1994, plastic litter has increased by 180%. This growing issue has become even
more apparent since China recently placed a ban on importing plastic waste from
countries including the UK. In previous years, Britain shipped roughly 500,000
tonnes of plastic to China for it to be recycled, but this will no longer be
possible (Harrabin, 2018). There is a growing concern that Britain will be
unable to deal effectively with the excess plastic and therefore it is more
important than ever to start reducing plastic consumption whenever possible.
There has been extensive media coverage about plastic waste
consumption in the news. For example, the Guardian have stated that the amount
of plastic which is produced every year is roughly the equivalent of the entire
weight of humanity (MacArthur, 2017). See Figure 1. for the increase in
global annual plastic production.
Figure 1.- Global annual plastic production increase in million tons.
The government are on board to help reduce plastic waste.
Recently, new measures have been proposed which suggest alternative ways in
which the country could prevent levels of wasted plastic consumption from
worsening. For example, the government have suggested charging each
customer a 25p levy for each plastic cup they purchase. Hopefully this extra
cost would encourage others to cut down on individual plastic waste and the
revenue generated could be put towards maintaining facilities which
ensure other disposable cups are recycled (Environmental Audit Committee, 2018).
Another measure suggested is introducing a deposit return scheme which involves
individuals paying a small sum of money which will be refunded back to the
individual once the bottle has been returned. This already takes place
in several other countries including Germany and the success of this scheme can
be highlighted by the fact that Germany has now reached a recycling rate of
99% (Laville & Zhou, 2017).
In the UK alone, 35.8 million plastic water bottles are used
every single day on average (Refill). However, according to the website Refill,
if just 1 in 10 people refilled their bottle once a week, there would be 340
million less plastic bottles a year. Therefore, we thought that using a
reusable bottle would be feasible for students and staff to do and would have
large wide-reaching benefits.
How we solved the problem:
Stage 1: Where to start
To get the ball rolling we decided to plan a meeting with
Tony Howard (Director of Food and Retail Strategy) and David Chapman
(Sustainability Champion). In this meeting we incorporated two key persuasion
tactics. Firstly, we used the ‘Just Ask’ principle. The Just Ask
principle suggests that if you ask for something, you are likely to get what
you asked for (Hills, 2014).
Secondly, we attempted the ‘Door-in-the-Face’ tactic.
This technique states that one should demand a large favour which will normally
be rejected, but will create a feeling of indebtedness increasing the
chance that a smaller request will be accepted (Pratkanis, 2007). Moreover, due
to the contrast effect, the smaller request will now appear more attractive as
it will be compared to the previous large request (Miller, 1974). We were aware
that the Door-in-the-Face tactic can backfire if future negotiations are
likely; if the people you’re negotiating with realise that you’re using this
tactic, they may see you as less trustworthy and be more likely to switch to a
different person to collaborate with in the future (Wong & Howard, 2018).
However, as we only needed to negotiate once for our funding, we decided that
the door-in-the-face tactic would be appropriate in this case. We decided
that we would ask for funding for 2000 reusable water bottles. This was our big
request. Why 2,000? We needed to create a social norm. We hoped that if
people saw their peers with our water bottles, they would want one too and
would create an expectation that using reusable water bottles on campus is the
norm rather than using plastic water bottles. Creating a social norm will also
create social pressures to conform which will encourage long-term use of the
bottles (Prakanis, 2007). We did not expect Tony and David to accept our
big request, so we had a backup (to ask them to remove plastic straws from SU
outlet bars and only give them to customers who directly request them). This
would have been our small request as it would cost nothing. However, Tony and
David loved our idea to give out reusable water bottles and were happy to help.
Tony even committed to getting rid of single use plastic cups from water
fountains. This meant that we didn’t get chance to offer our small request as
they accepted our big request! Note: we did manage to reduce plastic straw
consumption in Leamington Spa though…(see mini project on plastic straws at the
end of the page).
2. Securing Funding
Having decided how many bottles we would need (2,000), we
then had to research how much they would cost and where we would get the
funding from. We received various quotes of around £1-£2 per bottle. David
helped us get in touch with the SU in order to apply for funding. We applied
for £2,000 from the University Environment and Sustainability Fund in the hope
that we could get 2,000 bottles for £1 each. We did not expect to receive the
full £2,000 but decided to ‘Just Ask’ for it anyway. We then had to attend a
meeting with the Development Exec to answer questions about our application.
The board rejected our request of £2,000 but decided to grant us £500 instead.
We believe that asking for £2,000 anchored them on a high number. This
meant that the amount of money they gave us was still generous. If we had asked
for a lower number, say £500, they might have anchored on this and offered us a
lower amount. Anchoring is a cognitive heuristic which explains how judgements
can be influenced by completely random numbers without individuals being aware
the numbers had influenced their judgement (Wilson, Houston, Etling, &
Brekke,1996). Our £2000 may have acted as a base value for the Development Exec
and helped us to secure a funding of £500. After securing the £500 funding from
the SU, we received a message from Tony stating that he’d managed to secure us
full funding for 2,000 reusable metal water bottles. We added the £500 from the
SU to the funding from the University in order to print both the SU and
University logos onto the bottles.
3. Promoting our campaign
Once we had secured funding for the 2,000 bottles we could
promote our campaign. We designed posters to put up around
campus and ‘Just Asked’ various people to post on Facebook/ email
students in order to get the word out.
The poster we designed used the scarcity principle in
order to encourage staff and students to come and collect their bottles quickly
before they all ran out! The poster said "Limited number of bottles available:
Once they’re gone, they’re gone!". We expected that when people saw there were
a limited number of bottles available, they would rush to get theirs before it
was too late! When items are scarce, they are highly sought after. The concept
of scarcity was demonstrated in a study by Brehm and Weintraub (1977), where
they found that less accessible items were more desired when compared to items
that were more accessible. Another study by Van Herpen, Pieters and Zeelenberg
(2014) found that scarce products were rated more unique and exclusive than
products that were not scarce, leading to more people choosing the scarce
product over the non-scarce one. Highlighting the scarcity of the bottles would
therefore increase their desirability and value, making people want one more.
We also used rhetorical questions in our poster, such
as “Did you know London alone uses 7.7 billion plastic bottles a year?”
According to Burnkrant & Howard (1984), rhetorical questions can increase
processing of a message which results in increased persuasion when the message
is strong, as ours is.
4. Giving out the bottles
Our main persuasion tactic when giving out our FREE reusable
bottles was the reciprocity principle. Over the course of two days, we
gave away all 2,000 bottles. We gave the bottles away for FREE so people would
download a free app called ‘Refill’ designed to show them where they can fill
up their water bottle on campus and parts of the UK. When we are given
something for free we feel obliged to repay the favour as we do not like to
feel indebted to people (Cialdini, 2007). The reciprocity principle is demonstrated
in a study by Burger, Sanchez, Imberi and Grande (2009). A confederate in this
study asked all the participants to fill in a questionnaire and return it in a
few days, whilst also giving half the participants a free water bottle. The
questionnaires were either anonymous or non-anonymous. When the participants
received a favour (the water bottle from the confederate), they were more
likely to return the questionnaire than when they didn’t receive a favour,
regardless of whether the questionnaires were anonymous or not. This was an
important finding for our project as downloading the app at a later date would
be anonymous; we would not know who had downloaded the app and who hadn’t.
Whilst we trusted that people would download the app later, we encouraged
participants to download the app straight after taking a free water bottle
because previous research has found that people are less likely to return a
favour as the length of time increases between the initial favour and the
chance to reciprocate (Burger, Horita, Kinoshita, Roberts & Vera, 1997). For example, Burger and colleagues (1997) found that participants were more inclined to repay a favour when they
were asked 5 minutes after they had received a free drink from the confederate than 1 week later. It was difficult to measure how many people actually
downloaded the app (although some people did it straight away in front of us,
which is evidence that the reciprocity principle worked!). However, it is clear
that the app is becoming much more widely used across campus, likely due to us
asking people to download it. Before the launch of our campaign, there were
only two refill sites on campus. There are now seventeen (and counting)! We
hope that the app will encourage people to continue to use their reusable water
bottles.
Figure 2. Day 1 of giving out the FREE water bottles in
Rootes Grocery Store
We also invoked the principle of written commitment.
We asked people to sign a statement that said, “I will use my reusable water
bottle as much as possible, and will therefore be reducing plastic waste and
helping to save the environment”. This principle is demonstrated in a
study by Deutsch and Gerard (1955). In this study, individuals were split into
three groups and asked to make estimates about the length of lines. One group
was asked to keep their estimates to themselves (in their head) and not write
them down. The second group was asked to write their estimates down but not
show anyone else. The third group was asked to write their estimates down and
show the experimenter. The experimenters then told the participants that their
estimates were incorrect and the participants were given the chance to change
their estimates. The researchers were interested in how many participants
changed their minds once receiving disconfirming evidence. Interestingly, the
group most resistant to changing their minds were those who had written their
estimates down and shown the experimenter, highlighting the power of written
commitments. When people signed our pledge they committed to using their water
bottle as much as possible. We hope that their intention to use their water
bottle as much as possible will transform into actual behaviour of reusing
their water bottle.
Another principle we used when giving out the bottles was social
proof. We used A3 sheets of paper to collect signatures for our pledge in
the hope that when people saw others have pledged to use their bottles as much
as they can, they would too. Cialdini (2007) stated that people are more likely
to conform with an action when they have a lot of proof that it is the correct
thing to do. Moreover, Burger and Shelton (2011) highlighted the power of
social proof in their study. They found that simply placing a sign stating, “more than 90
percent of the time, people in this building use the stairs instead of the
elevator” resulted in the number of people using the elevator falling by 46%.
We kept the full sheets of paper on the table for people to see (see Figure 3).
By laying out the completed signature sheets, people had proof that others are
using reusable water bottles and thus increased the likelihood that they too
would take and re-use a bottle.
Figure 3. The ten A3 sheets of paper, full of signatures of
individuals committing to using their water bottles.
A visual representation of the different stages of
our project
We are confident that our project was a huge success. Warwick University have committed to removing single-use plastic cups from water fountains and 2,000 staff and students at the University of Warwick have committed to using reusable water bottles. If we use what we know from the 'Refill' organisation, this means that if all 2,000 staff and students fill up their reusable bottle once a week, there will be approximately 105,000 less plastic water bottles in circulation every year. That's quite an achievement...
Mini Project: How we reduced plastic straw consumption...
It is not a rare occurrence to be asked if you want a plastic
straw when ordering a drink at a bar. Many people do not understand that
answering "yes" to this question makes them a key contributor to the devastating
amount of plastic being used and dumped in the ocean every day. Over 500 million
straws are used every day in the US (Parker, 2018), making single-use plastic
straw consumption a serious issue. Plastic straw consumption is such a pressing
issue that the UK Environment secretary Michael Gove has urged the UK
government to ban the sale of plastic straws (Independent, 2018).
To reduce commercial plastic straw consumption, we created a
pledge and asked eight local business to sign it. The pledge stated "we will
only give out plastic straws to customers who directly request them". When
showing the managers the pledge, they saw the list of other businesses who had
signed it. Here we enforced the technique of social proof; people
like to follow what others see as correct (Cialdini, 2014). When the business
managers saw that other local companies had signed our pledge, they too felt
obliged to sign it. Therefore, the Leamington business owners likely signed the
straw petition as they believed that if others thought it was the correct thing
to do, then they should too. Furthermore, a previous study looking at social
proof found that people are more likely to conform to what others have done if
the others are similar to them (Hornstein, Fisch & Holmes, 1968). The
Leamington Spa business owners were likely to sign our petition as all the
previous signers were similar to themselves.
Eight business signed our pledge to reduce plastic straw
consumption. Like our water bottle campaign, we also used written
commitment. Written commitment has proven to be an effective method to get
people to behave consistently with their prior beliefs (Levy, 1997). We hoped
that the businesses would stick to their promise and only give straws to those
who have asked for one. Those who didn’t sign the pledge already had steps in
place to reduce plastic straw consumption which is great!
Acknowledgements
We would like to say a huge thank you to Tony Howard
(Director of Food and Retail Strategy) and David Chapman (Sustainability
Champion) who helped us along the way. From securing funding to suggesting ways
we can make our campaign more effective to sourcing environmentally friendly
bottles. We would also like to thank Megan Holland (Marketing Officer) for working
behind the scenes with the marketing of our campaign. Finally, we would like to
thank the SU for their contribution to our funding. It would not have been
possible to do this project without all of these individuals.
By Lottie Devey Smith, Hattie Goodhart and Rebecca Jacobs.
By Lottie Devey Smith, Hattie Goodhart and Rebecca Jacobs.
References
Burger, J. M., Horita, M., Kinoshita, L., Roberts, K., &
Vera, C. (1997). Effects on time on the norm of reciprocity. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 19, 91-100.
Burger, J. M., Sanchez, J., Imberi, J. E., & Grande, L. R. (2009). The norm of reciprocity as an internalized social norm: Returning favors even when no one finds out. Social Influence, 4, 11-17.
Burger, J. M., & Shelton, M. (2011). Changing everyday health behaviors through descriptive norm manipulations. Social Influence, 6, 69-77.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1218-1230.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins.
Cialdini, R. B. (2014). Influence: Science and practice. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Environmental Audit Committee. (2018). Disposable Packaging: Coffee Cups. UK: House of Commons.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., Galgani, F., Ryan, P. G., & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. Plos One, 9, 1-15.
Harrabin, R. (2018, January 1). UK faces build-up of plastic waste. The BBC. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42455378.
Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a model’s feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 222-226.
Laville, S., & Zhou, N. (2017, June 29). Could a money-back scheme clean up the UK’s plastic bottle plague? The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/could-a-money-back-scheme-clean-up-the-uks-plastic-bottle-plague
Levy, R. L. (1977). Relationship of an overt commitment to task compliance in behavior therapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 8, 25-29.
MacArthur. (2017, June 28). A million bottles a minute: world’s plastic binge ‘as dangerous as climate change’. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change
Marine Conservation Society. (2017, November 30). Beach litter rises 10% in the UK, shocking report reveals. https://www.mcsuk.org/press/beachwatch-2017-report
Parker, L. (2017, July 19). A whopping 91% of plastic isn’t recycled. National Geographic. Retrieved from: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/
Parker, L. (2018, February 23). Straw Wars: The Fight to Rid the Oceans of Discarded Plastic. National Geographic. Retrieved from: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/plastic-straws-ocean-trash-environment/
Refill: https://www.refill.org.uk/the-problem-with-plastic/
Trowsdale, A., Housden, T., & Meier, B. (2017, December 10). Seven charts that explain the plastic pollution problem. The BBC. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42264788
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2014). When less sells more or less: The scarcity principle in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 153-160.
Watts, J. (2018, April 18). UK to ban sale of plastic straws and drink stirrers that blight the country’s seas and rivers, ministers say. The Independent. Retrieved from:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plastic-straws-ban-stirrers-gove-commonwealth-a8311301.html
Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387- 402.
Wong, R. S., & Howard, S. (2018). Think twice before using door-in-the-face tactics in repeated negotiation: Effects on negotiated outcomes, trust and perceived ethical behaviour. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29, 167-188.
Burger, J. M., Sanchez, J., Imberi, J. E., & Grande, L. R. (2009). The norm of reciprocity as an internalized social norm: Returning favors even when no one finds out. Social Influence, 4, 11-17.
Burger, J. M., & Shelton, M. (2011). Changing everyday health behaviors through descriptive norm manipulations. Social Influence, 6, 69-77.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1218-1230.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins.
Cialdini, R. B. (2014). Influence: Science and practice. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Environmental Audit Committee. (2018). Disposable Packaging: Coffee Cups. UK: House of Commons.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., Galgani, F., Ryan, P. G., & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. Plos One, 9, 1-15.
Harrabin, R. (2018, January 1). UK faces build-up of plastic waste. The BBC. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42455378.
Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a model’s feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 222-226.
Laville, S., & Zhou, N. (2017, June 29). Could a money-back scheme clean up the UK’s plastic bottle plague? The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/could-a-money-back-scheme-clean-up-the-uks-plastic-bottle-plague
Levy, R. L. (1977). Relationship of an overt commitment to task compliance in behavior therapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 8, 25-29.
MacArthur. (2017, June 28). A million bottles a minute: world’s plastic binge ‘as dangerous as climate change’. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change
Marine Conservation Society. (2017, November 30). Beach litter rises 10% in the UK, shocking report reveals. https://www.mcsuk.org/press/beachwatch-2017-report
Parker, L. (2017, July 19). A whopping 91% of plastic isn’t recycled. National Geographic. Retrieved from: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/
Parker, L. (2018, February 23). Straw Wars: The Fight to Rid the Oceans of Discarded Plastic. National Geographic. Retrieved from: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/plastic-straws-ocean-trash-environment/
Refill: https://www.refill.org.uk/the-problem-with-plastic/
Trowsdale, A., Housden, T., & Meier, B. (2017, December 10). Seven charts that explain the plastic pollution problem. The BBC. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42264788
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2014). When less sells more or less: The scarcity principle in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 153-160.
Watts, J. (2018, April 18). UK to ban sale of plastic straws and drink stirrers that blight the country’s seas and rivers, ministers say. The Independent. Retrieved from:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plastic-straws-ban-stirrers-gove-commonwealth-a8311301.html
Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387- 402.
Wong, R. S., & Howard, S. (2018). Think twice before using door-in-the-face tactics in repeated negotiation: Effects on negotiated outcomes, trust and perceived ethical behaviour. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29, 167-188.
This is awesome, well done girls!
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Giuseppe! Glad to see yours was really successful too!
Delete