It is one thing to let your dog roam and simply not bother to pick up its faeces. However, it is harder to understand what is going on in the mind of someone who carries suitable bags, picks up the turd, ties the bag… and then deposits it somewhere nearby but not in the relevant bin. Something far more disturbing is going on. It suggests a cluster of psychological traits and social dynamics in conflict; an incomplete moral performance, in which social pressure, convenience, and internalised norms jostle for dominance.
Here are a few of the psychological issues such a person is facing…
- Social Conformity without Internalisation
The person likely conforms to the visible part of the social norm—picking up the mess—but not to the ethical or environmental rationale behind it. This split suggests extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation. In other words, they care about being seen to comply but not about doing what is right when unobserved (Ajzen, 1991). - Low Delay of Gratification or Inconvenience Aversion
Carrying a bag of faeces for any length of time may be perceived as unpleasant. Abandoning it nearby could indicate a low threshold for discomfort or a lack of impulse control. This echoes traits seen in the psychology of littering—where convenience outweighs social or environmental responsibility (De Young, 1986). - Moral Licensing
The act of picking it up may feel virtuous enough to justify failing to finish the task. This is a form of moral licensing—a self-justifying loophole where people allow themselves unethical behaviour after doing something ‘good’ (Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010). - Displacement of Responsibility
There may be an implicit belief that someone else (e.g., a council worker) will deal with it. This is a diffusion of responsibility common in shared spaces, akin to the bystander effect (Latané & Darley, 1970). The tied bag may act as a symbolic gesture—”I did my part”. - Psychological Distance
The bag creates a layer of abstraction from the raw excrement. Out of sight, out of mind. Psychologically, it may be less repugnant, thus reducing the moral urgency to dispose of it properly (Trope & Liberman, 2010). - Signalling Conflict
There’s an odd contradiction in both performing the clean-up and still littering. This could indicate an unresolved tension between public self-image and private laziness or indifference. It is an incomplete form of civic virtue.
So, this behaviour suggests a superficial commitment to public norms, shaped more by appearances and discomfort than by consistent ethics or environmental care.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
De Young, R. (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior, 18(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916586184001
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
