Packaging Persuasion: The Incorporation of Social Marketing into
Brown University's Recycling Communications

Jeff Klein
Bachelor's of Arts in Environmental Studies
May 2001

As Americans, we consume more than any other nation in the world per capita. Research in the 1980s indicates that Americans generate more than 150 million tons of trash. One possible solution to these troubling numbers is to increase recycling efforts nationwide. In the 1980s, people began studying tactics to increase recycling participation by focusing a bit more on persuasive communication and social marketing as a mode of change. Social marketing uses the fundamentals of commercial advertising for social good. Examples range from seatbelt campaigns to Smokey the Bear to anti-smoking ads. In this study, I considered the effectiveness of two social marketing tactics in a Brown University dormitory. I compared these two approaches to a regulatory message and traditional environmental communication, using both quantitative and qualitative evaluations.

Methods

I divided a large dormitory into four groups. Each group received a new recycling bin along with a different communication about recycling on Brown's campus. Group 1 received a traditional environmental communication, telling them only what to recycle. Group 2 received a regulatory message requiring them to recycle and threatening monitoring. Group 3 received a social marketing message which employed the commitment building strategy. A final group, Group 4, received another social marketing message, which used appeals to conscience and norms. A baseline survey was given at the beginning of the study to determine the attitudes and behaviors of students before any communications were given out.

After the communications were sent, I recorded ethnographic observations on each floor, looking to see how students were using their bins. The second phase of communications were sent out in February. At this point, every student received a letter asking them print out a recycling sign and put it on their door. Again, I recorded ethnographic observations on each floor and counted the number of signs each floor had. A week later, the final survey, resembling the baseline survey but pointed more toward recycling, was sent to all students on all floors. This data was compared with the baseline survey to detect changes in attitude and behavior on each floor. Finally, the survey asked students to volunteer for a focus group to discuss these issues. I pulled out themes from this hour-long focus group and triangulated them with the more quantitative data from the survey.

Findings and Recommendations

Survey data indicated that students felt recycling was a priority in dorm and 90% of respondents claim to recycle in dorms. However, they correctly identified recyclable items only 54% of the time. Students showed significant preference for the social marketing letters over regulation and traditional letter, but knowledge did not significantly vary among floors after treatment. The focus group corroborated this idea that regulating students would not be helpful or practical. The regulatory floor was more likely to get rid of the new bins, probably as a backlash. The focus group also indicated that email is an effective form of communication and the >30% response rate for both surveys confirms this.

Students in the focus group thought that the use of prompts was also a very effective method to encourage recycling in the dorms. This was also observed in the number and distribution of posters put up during the commitment test. Posters were put in clusters, implying that students were reminded by the initial poster to put one up themselves. Facilities Management could capitalize on this by establishing "dorm leaders," who remind students to recycle on a regular basis. Their constant presence would prompt students to recycle. Finally, focus group data along with the number of survey responses by email indicate that email can be an effective communication in moderation. Facilities should send out varied information, such as feedback mechanisms, sporadically to achieve maximum effect. Using these findings and recommendations, Brown may be able to substantially increase its recycling rates in the coming years.