10.2190/5EJN-QJH9-VWAW-KL3T 5EJNQJH9VWAWKL3T 5 The Effects of Three Prompting Methods on Recycling Participation Rates: A Field Study 371 379 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 5EJNQJH9VWAWKL3T.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=5EJNQJH9VWAWKL3T 4 Margaret A. Reams Brooks H. Ray Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge This study compares the effects of three commonly used prompting methods on recycling participation rates. These are: 1) the securing of pledges to recycle through direct, personal contact, 2) the securing of pledges through indirect contact, and 3) the dissemination of educational information alone, with no personal contact or pledge. We applied the three prompting methods to residents of married student housing communities at Louisiana State University during a five-week test program. Securing pledges through direct contact led to significantly higher rates of recycling than either gaining pledges through indirect contact or disseminating only educational information. However, pledging, <i>per se</i>, was not shown to result in higher rates of participation. We conclude that the direct-contact prompting raised awareness of recycling, increased peer pressure to recycle, and enhanced delivery of recycling information, and that these effects led to increased participation levels. L. Scarlett, A Forum: Will the U. S. Recycling Approach Work?, <i>EPA Journal, 18</i>:3, pp. 42-43, 1992. D. Foltz, J. Hazlett, and P. Rule, <i>The Design and Management of Recycling Programs: Strategies to Increase Citizen Coproduction</i>, unpublished paper, 1990. J. Vining and A. Ebreo, What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of Recyclers and Non-recyclers, Environment and Behavior, 22:1, pp. 55-73, 1990. J. Jacobs, J. Bailey, and J. Crews, Development and Analysis of a Community-Based Resource Recovery Program, <i>Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17</i>, pp. 127-145, 1984. P. Ester and R. Winett, Toward More Effective Antecedent Strategies for Environmental Programs, <i>Journal of Environmental Systems, 11</i>:3, pp. 201-221, 1982. T. Wang and R. Katzev, Group Commitment and Resource Conservation: Two Field Experiments on Prompting Recycling, <i>Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20</i>:4, pp. 265-275, 1990. R. Katzev and A. Pardini, The Comparative Effectiveness of Reward and Commitment Approaches in Motivating Community Recycling, <i>Journal of Environmental Systems, 17</i>:2, pp. 93-113, 1987. R. Freund and W. Wilson, <i>Statistics</i>, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Publishers, Boston, p. 547, 1993. M. Jantzeff, Seattle's Two-Container Recycling Approach, <i>Waste Age</i>, pp. 107-108, August 1988. J. Glenn, Curbside Recycling Reaches 40 Million, <i>Biocycle</i>, pp. 30-35, July 1990. R. De Young, Exploring the Difference between Recyclers and Non-Recyclers: The Role of Information, <i>Journal of Environmental Systems, 18</i>:4, pp. 341-351, 1990. S. Spaccarelli, E. Zolik, and L. Jason, Effects of Verbal Prompting on Block Characteristics of Participation in Curbside Newspaper Recycling, <i>Journal of Environmental Systems, 19</i>:1, pp. 45-57, 1989.