An evaluation of three litter control procedures--trash receptacles, paid workers, and the marked item technique.
A one-dollar marked-item token system slashed litter in an ID residential home while trash cans and paid crews did nothing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers tested three ways to cut litter in a home for adults with intellectual disabilities. They compared trash cans, paid clean-up crews, and a marked-item token system. In the token system, staff marked random pieces of trash. Residents who turned in a marked item earned one dollar and had their photo posted on a public board.
The team used an ABAB reversal design. They rotated each method in and out to see which one really worked.
What they found
Only the marked-item token economy made a clear dent in litter. Trash cans and paid workers did almost nothing. When tokens were active, litter dropped sharply. When tokens stopped, litter shot back up. The pattern repeated every time they switched.
How this fits with other research
Hayes et al. (1975) first showed the marked-item trick in community settings. They saw 55–88% less litter. The 1980 study copies that success inside a residential facility for people with intellectual disabilities.
Burgess et al. (1971) paid children to pick up trash in theaters. They hit over 90% clean-up, beating signs, extra cans, and films. The new study lines up: small cash plus social praise beats hardware or hired help.
Tracey et al. (1974) paired the same one-dollar token and public posting with staff job completion. It worked there too. The tactic travels across behaviors and populations.
Why it matters
If you run a group home or day program, skip the extra trash cans and don’t bank on paid clean-up crews. Instead, mark a few pieces of litter, offer a small token, and post the winners’ faces. You will likely see fast, large drops in litter with almost no extra cost. The same dollar-plus-praise package can power other resident or staff goals.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Mark five pieces of litter before breakfast, tell residents each returned mark earns a dollar and a photo on the wall, and count litter at lunch.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study assessed the effectiveness of three litter control procedures on the grounds of a residential retardation facility. Fifty-seven areas were divided into five groups according to the amount of litter they contained. Daily litter counts were made in one randomly chosen area for four of the groups and weekly litter counts were made from one randomly chosen area from the fifth group. After the baseline period, trash receptacles were placed a high traffic areas on the grounds of the facility. This was followed by the payment of two resident workers for picking up trash. In the next phase, marked pieces of litter were placed on the grounds, and residents voluntarily collected litter and turned it in at a central location. When a marked piece was turned in, that resident received $1.00 and had his or her picture taken and posted. This phase was followed by a return to the trash receptacles phase and then a return to the marked item phase. The results indicated that the marked item procedure was effective in reducing the amount of litter on the campus grounds, but the use of trash receptacles and the payment of resident workers for picking up litter did not noticeably reduce the amount of litter. The results are discussed in terms of the cost effectiveness of the procedures.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-165