Shame and Embarrassment as Deterrents to Noncompliance with the Law: The Case of an Antilittering Campaign

Abstract

The present research draws from theories in criminology which suggest that threats of shame, a self-imposed punishment, and threats of embarrassment, a socially imposed punishment, function much like threats of state-imposed legal sanctions to reduce the expected utility of illegal behavior and, thus, to increase the likelihood of compliance with the law. Antilittering campaigns that appeal to citizens' conscience or sense of community pride are attempts to increase the threats of shame and embarrassment for littering. The antilittering campaign in Oklahoma is such an appeal. A sample of residents of Oklahoma City was interviewed in 1982, five years prior to the initiation of that campaign. Another sample was interviewed in 1989, two years after the campaign began. In 1982, 39% of the respondents indicated they probably would litter in the future, compared to 31% in 1989. In 1982, only 37% strongly agreed that they would feel guilty if they littered, compared to 67% in 1989. Likewise, in 1982, only 8% believed they definitely would lose the respect of others if they littered, compared to 21% in 1989.