Gender Differences on Littering Cigarette in Public Space - Term Paper Example

Gender Differences of Littering Cigarette in Public Space Introduction Public littering is an environmental and social problem. It is regarded untidy by most persons and harmful to the health of man and wildlife. Annually, communities spend huge amounts of money on tidying up litter. Thus reduction of litter has drawn a lot of attention from scientists and governments. Numerous studies have been carried on the effects of different types of litter reduction strategies. These studies however have used contrasting definitions on what litter is, mainly varying on what is included and excluded. Researchers have set minimum and maximum volumes to be regarded as litter. This makes it futile to combine the results from these studies. In this term paper the following definition of litter is used :‘Those forms of trash that are accumulated by people throwing away or leaving behind artifacts they consider functionless in places not officially intended or designated for such the purpose, or that end up in such places by indirect action or inaction of people.’. Trash therefore means items for which the proper way of disposal would be to put them in a trash receptacle, like an astray or a waste bin. With this limitation it is possible to distinguish some major sub-categories of litter by their nature and how people acquired it, namely: packaging materials and disposables such as coffee cups, leaflets and product remains like cigarette butts. The following three literature reviews attempt to demonstrate and support the hypothesis that males would litter a cigarette butt on public rather than litter on a cigarette receptacle, more than female. In a research article by Chris G. Sibley and James H. Liu entitled “Differentiating Active and Passive Littering” A two-stage design of littering trends in public places differentiated active littering and passive littering. The difference between active littering when a person drops litter and continues walking and passive littering when a person drops litter on a bench and forgets to clear it when leaving depends on the potential when the litter is put in the environment and failure to clear the litter when leaving the premises (Chris and James, 2003). Results from this research suggested passive littering was more defiant to change than active littering. Posted feedback significantly reduced cigarette littering by 19% (21% drop in active littering, 7% rise in passive littering) and non-cigarette littering by 18%. The chances of littering therefore increased with the dormancy when litter was put in the area and when the person left the premise. This supported the hypothesis of littering in public places. In another research article by Reno, Raymond R.; Cialdini, Robert B.; Kallgren entitled “The trans situational influence of social norms.” The research conducts three studies and examined the behavioral effects of a conceptual differentiation between types of social norms: descriptive norms that specify what is done typically in a setting and injunctive norms that specify what is approved in society (Reno et al 1993). Using the social norms in opposition to littering, injunctive norm procedures were huge in their behavioral effects across situations than descriptive norm unique procedures. Focusing the research on the injunctive norm contained littering to manageable levels regardless of how clean the environment was. Conceptual consequences for a theory of normative behavior are discussed with practical consequences for increasing desirable behavior. This research supports the fact that littering in public places by either gender is as a result of social norms and normative behavior. The issue that males would litter a cigarette butt on public rather than litter on a cigarette receptacle more than females is addressed in the article by Ojedokun Oluyinka and Balogun, S. K. “Psycho-sociocultural Analysis of Attitude towards Littering in an Urban City” The study tested the influence of environmental self-efficacy, self-concept, age and gender as determinants of attitude towards littering amongst individuals of some communities in a metropolis. A cross-sectional research design was used for the study(Ojedokun and Balogun,2011). Using a sampling technique, there were one thousand, two hundred and seventy partcipants in the study. Their ages were from 19 to 67 years. Data collection was through a questionnaire. Pearson product-moment correlation and statistical techniques were tools of testing hypotheses. Findings indicated that a combination of self-efficacy, self-concept, gender and age explained 58% of the difference in attitude towards littering. The relative contributions show that environmental self-worth contribute to attitude towards littering. The findings from this research show the link between psychological factors and littering. The study suggests reasons for ineffectiveness of anti-littering campaigns. Thus, the psychological variables in this study have implications for interventions on littering attitude like in the case where males are bound to litter a cigarrete butt in public than females. The results from all these studies therefore support the hypothesis of study. This is an observation paper of Gender Differences class. I set my hypothesis that male would litter a cigarette butt on public rather than litter on a cigarette receptacle, more than female. Below is my observation data; Method: total of 12 male and 10 female were observed at in front of Langson Library, the campus of University of California Irvine. They are all in similar SES status (mostly UCI student), age 18-25, and mostly Asian American or Caucasian. It was unobtrusive observation; I was just sitting on library bench and observed participants carefully. All participants were smoking near the cigarette receptacle; they had a choice to litter their cigarette either on street, or in the receptacle. Data: * Female participants #1, 2 (they were chatting near the receptacle) at 3:45pm -> both littered on receptacle, Looked Asian American #3 (smoke together with male participants #4, 5) at 4:30-> littered on street with her peer, looked Asian #4 smoked alone, littered on street, at 4:35 Latino American #5, 6 smoked together, both Asian American, -> littered on receptacle at 5:05 #7 smoked alone, Latino American-> littered on receptacle at 5:06 #8 smoked alone, Asian American-> littered on receptacle at 5:15 #9 smoked with peer (male participants #11, 12), Asian, -> littered on street at 5:17 #10 smoked alone, Caucasian, -> littered on receptacle at 5:25 Participant Time Result 1 (smoked with #2) 3:45 pm Littered on Receptacle 2 (smoked with #1) 3:45 pm Littered on Receptacle 3 (smoked with Male#4) 4:30 pm Littered on Street 4 (smoked alone) 4:35 pm Littered on Street 5 (smoked with #6) 5:05 pm Littered on Receptacle 6 (smoked with #5) 5:05 pm Littered on Receptacle 7 (smoked alone) 5:06 pm Littered on Receptacle 8 (smoked alone) 5:15 pm Littered on Receptacle 9 (smoked with male #11,12) 5:17 pm Littered on street 10 (smoked alone) 5:25 pm Littered on Receptacle Figure: Female participants *male participants #1, 2, 3 smoked together, all of them were Caucasian, -> littered on street at 4:12pm #4 smoked with female participant #3, both Asian-> littered on street at 4:30 #5 smoked alone, Caucasian, littered on receptacle at 4:33 #6 smoked alone while talking on the phone, Latino American, littered on receptacle at 4:35 #7 smoked alone, Caucasian, littered on receptacle at 5:07 pm #8, 9, 10 smoked together, all of them were Asian, all littered on receptacle, at 5:10pm #11,12 smoked together with female participants #9, all of them littered on street, at 5:17pm Participants Time Result 1 (smoked with #2,3) 4:12 pm Littered on street 2 (smoked together) 4:12 pm Littered on street 3 (smoked together) 4:12 pm Littered on street 4 (smoked with female #3) 4:30 pm Littered on street 5 (smoked alone) 4:33 pm Littered on receptacle 6 (smoked alone) 4:35 pm Littered on receptacle 7 (smoked alone) 5:06 pm Littered on receptacle 8 (smoked with #8,9,10) 5:10 pm Littered on street 9 (smoked together) 5:10 pm Littered on street 10 smoked together) 5:10 pm Littered on street 11 (smoked w/ M#12,F#9) 5:17 pm Littered on street 12 (smoked w/ M#11, F#9) 5:17 pm Littered on street I found out that people tend to litter on receptacle when they're smoking alone. But people tend to follow littering with their peer when they're smoking together with their peer. Result: 75% of male participants littered on street while only 30% of female participants littered on street. Thus, my hypothesis is right that male would litter cigarette on street more than female. However, I found interesting point that regardless of gender, people tend to follow littering habit of their peer. For female participants #3, 9 littered their cigarette on street seemed they just followed their peer. Otherwise, when people are smoking alone, they tend to follow rule (littered on receptacle). *please provide graph based on these data* Male littered cigarette on street (public) more than female. As aforestated earlier on in this paper, that the psychological variables in this study have implications for interventions on littering attitude like in the case where males are bound to litter a cigarrete butt in public than females. The results from my studies therefore support the hypothesis of study. My findings from my observation therefore substantiate the hypothesis as the results from my studies prove that more males than females littered the street with cigarrete butts. Limitation and Weakness A small number of participants were observed. Ethnicity and gender may lead to varying result this is due to cultural differences. Conclusion In conclusion therefore for a reduction in litter disposal worldwide there has to be an adjustment in attitude by both genders to curb the environmental menace. References Read More