Persuasive Technology Against Public Nuisance – Public Urination in the Urban Nightlife District

  • Randy Bloeme
  • Peter de Vries
  • Mirjam Galetzka
  • Paul van Soomeren
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10171)

Abstract

Assumptions of the goal framing theory are applied to the specific context of a nightlife environment. Focusing on public urination as specific and often occurring antisocial behaviour in nightlife environments, this research explored how choice behaviour of potential public urinators can be influenced in a positive way. One boundary condition was to intervene in choice behaviour without negatively affecting the widely appreciated attractive and stimulating character of nightlife environments. Five experimental forms of nudging and priming are conducted to facilitate alternative social behaviour and to further stimulate potential public urinators to perform social behaviour. This was done by activating positive emotions, presenting visible and accessible alternatives and influencing subjective norms. Facilitating social behaviour reduced public urination by 41%, while additional interventions reduced public urination up to 67%. The results contribute to an extension of goal framing theory to specific contexts like nightlife environments.

Keywords

Field experiment Goal framing theory Nudging Priming Public urination 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Hubbard, P.: The geographies of ‘going out’, emotion and embodiment in the evening economy. In: Davidson, J., Bondi, L., Smith, M. (eds.) Emotional Geographies. Ashgate, Aldershot (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jayne, M., Valentine, G., Holloway, S.L.: Alcohol, Drinking, Drunkeness: (Dis)orderly Spaces. Ashgate, Aldershot (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eldridge, A.: Public panics: problematic bodies in social space. Emot. Space Soc. 3, 40–44 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Liempt, I., Van Aalst, I.: Urban surveillance and the struggle between safe and exciting nightlife districts. Surveill. Soc. 93, 280–292 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goossens, F.X., et al.: Het Grote Uitgaansonderzoek. Trimbos Instituut, Utrecht (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwyer, W.O., et al.: Critical review of behavioural interventions to preserve the environment: research since 1980. Environ. Behav. 25, 275–321 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgess, R.L., Clark, R.N., Hendee, J.C.: An experimental analysis of anti-litter procedures. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 4, 71–75 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think And Do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindenberg, S., Steg, L.: Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behaviour. J. Soc. Issues 65, 117–137 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruglanski, A.W., Köpetz, C.: What is so special (and non-special) about goals? A view from the cognitive perspective. In: Moskowitz, G.B., Grant, H. (eds.) The Psychology of Goals, pp. 25–55. Guilford Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schultz, W., Tabanico, J.: Self, identity, and the natural environment: exploring implicit connections with nature. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1219–1247 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cialdini, R., Trost, M.: Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology. pp. 151–192. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R., Cialdini, R.B.: A focus theory of normative conduct: when norms do and do not affect behaviour. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26(8), 1002–1012 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steg, L., De Groot, J.: Explaining prosocial intentions: testing causal relationships in the norm activation model. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 725–743 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bamberg, S., Schmidt, P.: Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 35, 264–285 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harland, P., Staats, H., Wilke, H.: Explaining proenvironmental intention and behaviour by personal norms and the theory of planned behaviour. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29, 2505–2528 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Measham, F.: Play space: historical and socio-cultural reflections on drugs, licensed leisure locations, commercialisation and control. Int. J. Drug Policy 15, 337–345 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giancola, P.R., et al.: Alcohol myopia revisited: clarifying aggression and other acts of disinhibition through a distorted lens. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 265–278 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Momsen, K., Stoerk, T.: from intention to action: can nudges help consumers to choose renewable energy? Energ. Policy 74, 376–382 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Camerer, C., et al.: Regulation for conservatives: behavioural economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism’’. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 151, 1211–1254 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dijksterhuis, A., van Baaren, R.: Inspiratielijst Voorkomen Zwerfafval In: De Openbare Ruimte. Zwerfafvalcongres (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A.: The silence of the library: environment, situational norm, and social behaviour. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 18–28 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J.: The perception-behaviour expressway: automatic effects of social perception on social behaviour. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 1–40 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J.: Congruency of scent and music as a driver for in-store evaluations and behaviour. J. Retail. 77, 273–283 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz, P.W., et al.: Littering in context: personal and environmental predictors of littering behaviour. Environ. Behav. 45, 1–25 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steidle, A., Werth, L.: In the spotlight: brightness increases self-awareness and reflective self-regulation. J. Environ. Psychol. 39, 40–50 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Küller, R., et al.: The impact of light and colour on psychological mood: a cross-cultural study of indoor work environments. Ergonomics 49, 1496–1507 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lerner, J., Tiedens, L.: Portrait of the angry decision maker: how appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. J. Behav. Decis. Making 19, 115–137 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randy Bloeme
    • 1
  • Peter de Vries
    • 2
  • Mirjam Galetzka
    • 3
  • Paul van Soomeren
    • 1
  1. 1.DSP-groepAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Psychology of Conflict, Risk, and SafetyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Communication ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations