IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Are Academics Messy? Testing the Broken Windows Theory with a Field Experiment in the Work Environment

  • Jo�o Ramos
  • Benno Torgler
Registered author(s):

    We study the broken windows theory with a field experiment in a shared area of a workplace in academia (department common room). We explore academics' and postgraduate students' behaviour under an order condition (clean environment) and a disorder condition (messy environment). We find strong support that signs of disorderly behaviour triggers littering. In the disorder treatment 59% of the subjects litter compared to 18% in the order condition. The results remain robust when controlling compared to previous studies for a large set of factors in a multivariate analysis. When academic staff members and postgraduate students observe that others violated the social norm of keeping the common room clean the probability of littering increases ceteris paribus by around 40 percent.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2009-21.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.crema-research.ch/abstracts/2009-21.htm
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA) in its series CREMA Working Paper Series with number 2009-21.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: Sep 2009
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cra:wpaper:2009-21
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Gellerstrasse 24, 4052 Basel
    Web page: http://www.crema-research.chEmail:


    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

    1. Economic Logic blog

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cra:wpaper:2009-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anna-Lea Werlen)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.