The walls in some public bathrooms seem to attract scribbles and markings. But one researcher found a completely effective method to stop graffiti for practically no cost whatsoever.

The story of Professor T. Steuart Watson is recounted in a recent article:

Each day, Watson and his minions meticulously counted how many marks were on each wall.

New graffiti popped up every day, in every one of the restrooms.

But “after treatment was implemented”, Watson reveals, “no marking occurred on any of the walls, and they remained free of graffiti at a three-month follow-up”. No marking at all. None. Not a jot. Cleanliness uninterrupted. This was complete, utter success.

The treatment was simple: “Taping a sign on the wall that read, ‘A local licensed doctor has agreed to donate a set amount of money to the local chapter of the United Way for each day this wall remains free of any writing, drawing, or other markings’.”

The success of this project is remarkable. These were restrooms where new graffiti appeared every day and where the walls were frequently repainted. The amount of the donation was not included on the sign, so Watson set the amount at a measly five cents per bathroom per day. How could a single piece of paper have such a tremendous influence on behavior?

That same question is posed in the article:

Why was the treatment so very – nay, completely – effective? Watson speculates that “prior to posting the signs, bare walls appeared to function as discriminative stimuli for graffiti, perhaps because it was not apparent that anyone cared. Posting the signs was evidence that a prominent citizen (a doctor) was prepared to pay for results.”

“An alternative explanation,” he says, “is that the presence of the observers prompted restroom users to refrain from writing on walls.”

Both of Watson’s theories suggest that the sign influences motivation. If bathroom visitors feel inspired by the donation, they choose not to leave graffiti because it feels good to support the philanthropic cause. If bathroom visitors feel scrutinized by the notion that someone is checking the wall each day, they are acting out of fear and guilt.

But as The Methodology Blog recently discussed in Joy from Tedium, perhaps we should look not just at the outcome but the context. Going to the bathroom, after all, is a routine task. This is a “job” that requires a few minutes of our time and is not particularly exciting. Reading the sign encourages bathroom visitors to contemplate the impacts of graffiti, and allows them to take some credit for helping a worthy cause. Going to the bathroom may be a tedious job, but this distraction helps it be a little less boring.

The objective of this study was to cut down on unwanted graffiti. In reality though, the program may have first reduced general malaise or enhanced individual guilt, thus leading to the desired result. At work, we should be conscious of the effects as well as the causes. After all, the office is a place where we actually want employees to be creative. No organization can succeed if the walls always remain bare.

❖ ❖ ❖