Prompting a consumer behavior for pollution control.

Researchers handed shoppers a small flyer as they entered a grocery store. The flyer simply asked them to buy returnable bottles. Some shoppers also saw a public chart tracking bottle returns. The team switched prompts day-by-day to see which worked best.

All shoppers were typical adults. No one received training or rewards. The only difference was the type of prompt at the door.

Any prompt raised returnable-bottle choices by about 25%. Adding the public chart did not help. A plain handbill worked just as well as the fancy version.

The boost showed up right away and held steady across days.

Houten (1988) later copied this idea at a busy crosswalk. A sign plus painted stop line cut pedestrian-vehicle close calls by 80%. Both studies show a cheap sign can shift adult behavior in public.

Davison et al. (1984) tried a similar nudge in the same grocery world. Calorie labels pushed shoppers toward low-cal veggies but did not cut total meal calories. Like the bottle prompt, the cue helped only the targeted choice.

Lincoln et al. (1988) compared two prompting styles for kids with autism. They also used an alternating-treatments design. Their detailed comparison foreshadows the 1973 test of prompt types, yet in a clinical setting with direct teaching.

You can change eco-behavior with a 2-cent flyer. No extra staff, tokens, or data sheets. Try a simple prompt at the entrance of any setting—school cafeteria, clinic waiting room, staff lounge. State the desired action in one short sentence. Track the target for a week. If it works, keep the prompt. If not, move it or re-word it. Cheap, fast, and client-friendly.