643 8612 , Mitt-"ligan f :3 0“ HM ‘ Q . - H ._,....... ' -- sc- .- «I This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SURVEY OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMALS presented by William Francis Siemer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degree in Fisheries and Wildlife 1;? £21 £274, Major profey/ Date May 28, 1986 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES m - RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. SEP 2 3 W31 u avg-nab Mk? I“; ‘ JA!‘ {5 a?" 3" “7‘7 p; d 1 251533 10 (.302 "3 A SURVEY OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMALS by William Francis Siemer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlif 1986 ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMALS by William Francis Siemer Public schools provide an opportunity to expose students to a broad range of attitude perspectives, and increase their ability to make natural resource management decisions which balance environmental quality with other societal needs. .But the selection and presentation of wildlife-oriented, and other environmental education.materia1s is directly linked to classroom teacher attitudes, information, and skill. To assess Michigan teachers' attitudes toward wildlife, Steve Kellert's national survey instrument was adapted for teachers and mailed to a sample of 1200 K-lz Michigan educators in January, 1985. When compared to Kellert's survey of the general public, Michigan teachers held stronger naturalistic, ecologistic, and moralistic, and weaker utilitarian and negativistic attitudes. Their attitude profile suggests a perspective unlike that of the general public, but similar to other college educated citizens. Strong male/female differences may allow development of workshops which reflect a teacher's existing attitudes and values, yet contain information to broaden that perspective. To my family ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend.a deeply felt thank you to Dr. Ben Peyton. The quality and merit of this project is in large part due to his skilled guidance and ability as a teacher. I would also like to thank Dr. Joseph Fridgen and Dr. William Taylor for their valuable contributions as graduate committee members. ' For their support and assistance in mailings I wish to thank Becky Stout, Gloria Torello, and Tom Wessels. Special thanks are also extended.to Gayle Wescott, who among other things served.as'a‘continual source of encouragement and a good friend. For use of his survey instrument and scale scoring procedures I am indebted to Dr. Steven Kellert. For their assistance in providing a teacher sample, I am indebted to Herb Sertman, John Elliot, George Garver, Tom Mclennan and John Pegan. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Daniel Stynes for his help in determining survey sample size. I*would also like to express my gratitude to Larry Gigliotti for his invaluable contributions as a computer consultant. Finally, I would like to thank my family, whose total and continued support allowed the attainment of this goal. Research funding was provided by the M.S.U. Agricultural Experiment Station (Project #3248) and a grant from the National Rifle Association. on In TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................... xii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ........................... Teachers and Society .......................... The Goals of Environmental Education .......... The Purpose of Teacher Attitude Research ...... o\ur4 H Chaptarz LITEMWRE REVIEW ......COOCOOOCCOOOOOOO 10 Chapter Organization .......................... 10 Theoretical Framework of the Instrument ....... 10 Reliability and Validity of the Instrument .... 12 National Attitude Survey Results .............. 16 The Role of citizen Values in Wildlife Issues .. 26 Influence of Teacher Attitudes on Teacher Behavior and Student Learning ................. 31 Using Attitude Measures to Predict Behavior ... 35 Influencing Teacher Attitudes ................. 36 Summary ....................................... 37 ChapterB ETHODS ...-......OOOOOOOOOOOO0....0.... 40 Research Objectives ........................... 40 A Description of the Instrument ............... 41 Selection of the Sample ....................... 42 Obtaining the Sample .......................... 43 Administration of the Survey .................. 44 Estimating Nonresponse Bias ................... 45 DataAnalysis..n.u.n.un.u.n.uu.u.u.u. 46 Scope and Limitations ......................... 46 Chapter4 RESULTS .....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOO 49 The Respondents ....................... ........ 49 The Mean Teacher Profile ...................... 52 The Nonrespondents ............................ 52 Demographic Variables ......................... 58 sex 0 C O I O O C C C O O O O C O I C C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O ..... 5 8 Race 0 O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 3 Age 0 I O O O O O O I O O O O I I O O O O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 7 0 Education ................................ 70 Science Teaching ......................... 74 Grade Level .............................. 80 Urban/Rural Background ................... 85 Region ................................... 89 Environmental Education Workshops ........ 93 IV Animal Related Activity Groups Anti-hunters, Nonhunters and Hunters Ang Birdwatchers Club Members lers 0.0.0.0..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Mean Attitude Scale Scores for Select Teacher Subgroups Attitude Profiles Methods Summary of Important Findings Chapter 5 The The The The The The The The Naturalistic Ecologistic Humanistic Moralistic Scientistic Utilitarian Dominionistic Negativistic Dona in O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 Domain ................. Dona in O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 Dana in O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 now in O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O Dona in O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O O 0 Dana in O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Domain ................. A Conceptual Framework for Estimating the Frequency and Composition of Distinct Uniformly Low Primary Profile Uniformly High Primary Profile High Naturalistic - Ecologistic High Humanistic - Moralistic High Naturalistic High Ecologistic High Humanistic High Moralistic Low Naturalistic Low Ecologistic Low Humanistic Low Moralistic High Ecologistic - Moralistic DISCUSSION Important Findings and Their Implications ...... Finding 1 Finding 2 Finding 3 Finding 4 Conclusions Implications for Workshop Development .......... Future Research LITERATURE CITED Appendix 1 Appendix 2 COMPLETE SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............. COVER LETTER 1 97 101 101 106 106 106 106 108 108 108 112 112 112 112 112 118 122 122 123 123 124 124 124 125 125 125 126 126 127 129 129 129 129 135 136 139 140 144 148 154 167 Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix woodman-e- POST CARD REMINDER .................... COVER LETTER 2 ........................ NONRESPONDENT COVER LETTER AND SURVEY . SURVEY QUESTIONS BY ATTITUDE SCALE .... CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHER SUBGROUPS .. CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHER PROFILE TYPES CHARACTERISTICS OF NONRESPONDENTS ..... vi 183 219 232 Number 2.1 LIST OF TABLES Attitude scale questions and scaling (Kellert 198°) 00......00.00.000.000.......OOOOOOOOI...O Survey response rates by sample group ......... Sex ratios for respondents, nonrespondents, and tQQChar subsamplas 0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A comparison of the general public to K - 12 Michigan teachers by 95 % confidence intervals onaattituda domains ....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0. A comparison of select characteristics for respondents and nonrespondents .u.u.u.u.n. Standardized attitude scale means for selected teaCher groups 0.0.0.0.........COOOOOOOOOO...O. Summary of analysis of variance for selected teacher characteristics ....................... A comparison of select characteristics for mal‘. and. temalas 0.........OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO Analysis of variance on males and females for 8 attitude domains 0.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A comparison of select characteristics for respondents of different race ................. Analysis of variance of black vs. white teachers for 8 attitude domains n.u.u.u.u. A comparison of select characteristics for 24-34, 35-45, 46-56, and 57-67 year old teachers ...... Analysis of‘variance.of 24-34, 35-45, 46-56, and 57-67 year old teachers for 8 attitude domains OO...O.......OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO...... A comparison of select characteristics for teacners with a 8.8., M.S., or Ph.D. 0.00....- Analysis of variance of teachers with a 8.8., M.S., or Ph.D. for 8 attitude domains ......... A comparison of select characteristics for science and nonscience teachers .u.n.n.u.u Page 15 50 50 53 57 59 61 64 65 67 68 71 72 75 76 78 A comparison of select characteristics for vfi primary and secondary science teachers ....... Analysis of variance of science and nonscience teachers for 8 attitude domains u.u.n.u.u Analysis of variance of primary and secondary science teachers for 8 attitude domains ....... A comparison of select characteristics for lst-3rd, 4th-6th, and 9th-12th grade teachers . Analysis of variance of lst-3rd, 4th-6th, and 9th-12th grade teachers for 8 attitude domains A comparison of select characteristics for urban, suburban and rural teachers Analysis of variance for 8 attitude domains of teachers who grew up in a community below 5000, 10,000-100,000, or above 100,000 people, for 8 attitude domains A comparison of select characteristics for teachers from Michigan's upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula and southern lower peninsula Analysis of variance on 8 attitude domains for teachers who grew up in Michigan's upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula, or southern lower peninsula A comparison of select characteristics for teachers with vs. without an environmental education workshop experience Analysis of variance on 8 attitude domains of teachers with vs. without an environmental education workshop experience u.u.u.u.u.u A comparison of select characteristics for hunters, nonhunters, and anti-hunters .".u Analysis of variance of hunting, nonhunting, and anti-hunting teachers for 8 attitude domains .....OOOOOOIOOOO...OOOIOOOOOCOIOOOOOOOI A comparison of animal related activity rates for 5 activity groups and 2 nonactive groups .. A general description and frequency estimate of 13 profile types in the teacher population .... vfii 83 86 87 90 91 94 95 98 99 102 103 105 119 Number 5.1 ' Characteristics Attitude scale Pearson correlation matrices for Michigan teachers and the general public ...... Characteristics of all respondents (n-666) ... Characteristics of male respondents (n-272) u. Characteristics of female respondents (n-391)u of black respondents (n-48) u. Characteristics of white respondents (n-596) u Characteristics of respondents age 24 (n-105) - 34 Characteristics of respondents age 35 - 45 (11.272) ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOIOOOOO. Characteristics of respondents age 46 -»56 (11-203) OOOOOOOO0.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... Characteristics of respondents age 57 -67 (11-58) 00.00.00.000.............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Characteristics of respondents with a 8.8. d.gr.. (“-201) 00.000.000.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Characteristics of respondents with an nus. degree (IA-201) 0.00............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Characteristics of respondents with a Ph.D. (fl-201) 0.00.0...00.000.000.00.0.0.0.0000...COO Characteristics of science teaching respondents (11.197) ......OOOOOOIOO.......OOOOOOOOOOOO0.... Characteristics of nonscience teaching respondents (11-469) .0.........OOOOOOOOOOOOO... Characteristics of lst-6th grade science teaching respondents (n-108) Characteristics of 9th-12th grade science teaching respondents (n-32) u.u.u.u.n.u.. Characteristics of respondents who teach environmental education (n-60) Characteristics of respondents who teach 1st- 3rd grade (n-126) Characteristics of respondents who teach 4th- ix 142 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 6th grade (n-102) Characteristics of respondents who teach 9th- 12th grade (11-197) 00............OOOOOOOOOOOOO. Characteristics of respondents who grew up in a population of less than 5000 people (n-164) u. Characteristics of respondents who grew up in a population of 10,000-100,000 people (n-202) Characteristics of respondents who grew up in a population of more than 100,000 people (n-212). Characteristics of respondents who reside in the upper'peninsula (n-24) . Characteristics of respondents who reside in the northern lower peninsula (n-31) u.uu.u.. Characteristics of respondents who reside in the southern lower peninsula (n-636) Characteristics of Detroit respondents (Wayne county, (ti-274) I..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Characteristics of respondents who have attended at least one environmental education workShOP (11-317) .........OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.... Characteristics of respondents who have not attended an environmental education workshop (11.349) ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Characteristics of anti-hunting respondents (11-135) ......OOOOOOOO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI Characteristics of nonhunting respondents (n-336) Characteristics of hunting respondents (n-88)u Characteristics of angling respondents (n-322). Characteristics of birdwatching respondents (11-303) 0.0.0.0000.........OOOIOOOOOOOOOOO...I. Characteristics of respondents who belong to conservation clubs (n-182) Characteristics of respondents who own pets (n-463) ......OOOOOOOOOOIOOO......OOOOOOO. X Page 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 Number 8.1 Respondents with low naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic scores (n-113) ..... Respondents with high naturalistic,ecologistic, humanistic and moralistic scores (n-58).mumu Respondents with high naturalistic and ecologistic, and low humanistic and moralistic scores (n-49) 000............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Respondents with low naturalistic and ecologistic, and high humanistic and moralistic scores (11-43) 0.00..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Respondents with high naturalistic and low ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic scores (n-52) ........................................ Respondents with high ecologistic, and low naturalistic, humanistic, and moralistic scores (n-35) ........................................ Respondents with high humanistic, and low naturalistic, ecologistic and moralistic scores (n-64) ........................................ Respondents with high moralistic, and low naturalistic, ecologistic and humanistic scores (n-42) ........................................ Respondents with low naturalistic, and high ecologistic, humanistic and moralistic scores (n-lS) ........................................ Respondents with low ecologistic, and high naturalistic, humanistic and moralistic scores (n-32) ........................................ Respondents with low humanistic, and high naturalistic, ecologistic and moralistic scores (n-29) ........................................ Respondents with low moralistic, and high naturalistic, ecologistic and humanistic scores (n-29) ........................................ Respondents with low' naturalistic and humanistic, and high ecologistic and.moralistic scores (11-12) C0.00.00.........OIOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Characteristics of nonrespondents (n-84) ...... xi Page 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 Number 2.1 LIST OF FIGURES Primary hunter and anti-hunter types (Kellert 1980a) 00............O.........OOCOOCOOOOOOOOO. Relative frequencies of American attitudes towards animals, as represented by mean attitude scores (Kellert 1980a) ............... A map of response rate by county .............. Mean attitude scores for teachers and the general public (Kellert 1980a) H.A.n.u.u.. Mean attitude scores for teachers and BLM biOlogiSts (Peyton 1985) OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Mean attitude scores for male and female teaChers .....IOOIOCOOOOOO......OCOOOOIOOOOOOOO Mean attitude scores for black teachers and Whit‘ teacners 00.00.000.000.00000000000000000. Mean attitude scores for 4 age groups ......... Mean attitude scores for teachers holding a 3080' M080, or PhOD ......OOOOOOOOCOOOO00...... Mean attitude scores for science and nonSCience teacners 000.00.00.00...00.000000... Mean attitude scores for primary and secondary seience teacners 0.0.00.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Mean attitude scores for lst-3rd, 4th-6th, and 9th-12th grade teacners OOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO. Mean attitude scores for teachers who grewwup ina.community below 5000, 10,000-100,000, or above 100,000 people 00.0.0.0.........IOOOOOOOI Mean attitude scores for teachers in Michigan's upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula, and southern lower peninsula ...................... Mean attitude scores for teachers who have , or have not attended.an environmental education workShop ..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..OOOOOOOOO. Mean attitude scores for hunting, nonhunting, and anti-hunting teachers ..................... xfi Page 23 25 51 54 55 66 69 73 82 84 88 92 96 100 104 . Number 4.15 Mean naturalistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean ecologistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean humanistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean moralistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean scientistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean utilitarian scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean dominionistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. Mean negativistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a).. xiii 107 109 110 111 113 114 115 116 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Teachers and Society In a quote used commonly in educational literature, James Adams states," A teacher affects eternity: he can never tell where his influence stops "(Ryans 1953, pg. 371). More than 150 years later we are only beginning to understand the mechanism of that influence. Research on the development of political attitudes in children indicates that teachers are strong socializing agents. They socialize their pupils through direct addition of information, activities, and attitudesi(accumulation model), or by inadvertantly providing a role model for the pupil to imitate (identification model)(Hess 1967). Teachers may change their students' attitudes by verbal reinforcement of "correct" attitudes. They can provide new, discrepant information, forcing the, student to accommodate new concepts with existing beliefs. They force the student to see several sides of an issue through counter attitude role playing, or debating. Teachers can even change student attitudes by arousing fear or anxiety (Hess, 1967). It is a process which eludes precise quantification even today, yet the assumption that teacher attitudes and behavior affect student attitudes and behavior is implicit in all teacher research, and it forms the cornerstone of this research effort. Pettus et al. (1978) state this simple premise behind all teacher attitude research. 2 " If one assumes that teacher"siattitudes towards issues affect their student's attitudes towards those issues, then it is important to give consideration to what the teacher‘s attitudes are" (pg. 357). In the field of wildlife education, as others, it is important that those who develop curricula give consideration to teacher attitudes. Since the consciousness raising of the 1960's, a wide variety of environmental and wildlife education materials have been developed (i.e., "Project Wildfl, "Project Learning Tree", eth. Yet, the extent of their use in the classroom is not fully known, and the degree to which these materials are used effectively may not be known without a better understanding of teacher attitudes. Attitude research might reveal that many teachers hold strong negative feelings towards wildlife, or certain types of wildlife like predators and invertebrates. Negative attitudes could cause teachers to avoid those materials developed around unpopular species. Likewise, disinterested teachers may present wildlife education materials only briefly, or not at all. And even when wildlife education is given a significant place in a curriculum, the information conveyed is subject to teacher bias. This is well illustrated by a wildlife education program called "PROJECT WILD". The program contains a number of exercises illustrating wildlife management, ecology, population dynamics, and natural resource issues. But each exercise can be selected or presented to convey the teacher's personal bias (i.e., 3 hunting, anti-hunting, preservation, exploitation, etca. The goals of Environmental Education Though a cross sample of teachers were studied, this research was motivated primarily by a desire to assist those teachers who are or would like to be environmental educators. They may be formal environmental educators, working through a science curricula, or nonformal environmental educators teaching nonscience disciplines developed around current environmental issues. But regardless of the vehicle they use, environmental educators share several common goals. Broadly stated, the mission of environmental education is the achievement of a dynamic equilibrium between the quality of life and environmental quality'(Harvey 1977). The mission of environmental educators is to help the citizenry become aware of, fully'comprehend, and take action to resolve environmental problems (Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conf. Report 1978). Hungerford et al. (1980) operationalized these foci into 4 specific goals. The first goal is to supply the student with a firm basis of ecological understanding; Once the student.has a firm foundation from which to make ecologically sound decisions, the next goal is to make he or she aware of "how individual and collective actions may influence the quality of life and the quality of the environment“. [and] also how these actions result in environmental issues which must be resolved through investigation, evaluation, values clarification, decision making and finally, citizenship 4 action" (Hungerford et al. 1980, pg. 204). The third goal is to teach students how to effectively investigate and evaluate environmental issues. In this stage students are introduced to the value components that are associated with each environmental issue. They are taught how to identify and clarify their own values and the values of others in an issues The final goal is to teach the student how to take actions which help achieve optimum tradeoffs between environmental quality and the quality of life. In other words, the ultimate goal of environmental education is the development of students who are."better“ decision makers, where better decisions are defined as those which reflect the evaluation and selection of alternatives based on all known consequences and values. An essential component of both the second and third goals is'values education. In order to effectively'deal with environmental problems students must be able to identify the values associated with a given course of action, and realize how that course of action will affect the environment and their lives. If the process was successful, the student should choose a course of action based on carefully identified, prioritized, and evaluated sets of values, and the educator hopes, consistant with an optimal level of lenvironmental quality. During this process of values clarification the educator serves as a moderator, providing new information, values, and ].evels of problem complexity as needed. Throughout the 5 process the educator strives to maintain a "value fair" environment: an environment where new values and positions can be presented and evaluated with as little bias as possible. Instead of being given the "correct " answers to problems, the students are presented with the complex of components forming an environmental issue and then guided not to a direct solution, but through a process of personal moral reasoning. For example, one of these approaches to values education (moral reasoning) is based on Kohlberg‘s theory of moral development. The theory holds that reasoning occurs at 3 levels. In the first (preconventional)level notions of right and wrong center around personal gain (right) or loss (wrong). At the second level concepts of right and wrong are based on society‘s set of rules, norms, and laws. At the third (postconventional) level personally developed norms and rules may override those described by society as a whole, so that an individual may not deem an act to be morally wrong even when it breaks the given laws of society. In using Kohlberg's theory as an approach for environmental education, the desired- outcome is not a particular decision, but the process used to arrive at that decision (Kauchak et al. 1978). The outcome of the process may or may not be desirable from the educator's viewpoint. However; it is assumed that by and large students who have been helped to a high (postconventional) state of moral reasoning make decisions and take actions based on a more comprehensive thought process. 6 The critical component underlying this whole process is an educator who is willing and able to provide students with a value fair environment. Curricular materials, no matter how fine, may not effectively achieve wildlife education goals if classroom teachers are strongly negativistic towards animals, lack the motivation to utilize the materials, or do not have the balanced perspective necessary to use them effectively. An accurate assessment of teacher's attitudes towards animals will allow us to determine the extent to which these problems exist, and where teacher training might help teachers provide their students with a broader range of attitude perspectives, and thus become more effective environmental educators. It is proposed here that an awareness and tolerance of the full range of attitude positions surrounding an issue would provide two primary benefits. First, teachers who are aware of a wide range of attitude positions will be better able to provide their students with opportunities to see these divergent perspectives. Second, it is proposed that students or teachers who are able to acquire this kind of perspective balance will become better resource management decision makers, because their choices and actions can reflect the evaluation and selection.of alternatives based on a wide range of known consequences and values. The Purpose 2; Teacher Attitude Research Educational planners and wildlife management agencies 7 need information on teacher attitudes for at least five reasons. Perhaps the most basic reason is to learn more about how teachers perceive wildlife and wildlife management. Existing research indicates that teacher perceptions, and perceptions of Americans in general, may be inaccurate. For instance, in a California study Hooper (1983) found that California teachers do hold misconceptions about the role of hunting as a management tool, and they maintain negative attitudes toward and low participation levels in hunting. In a Virginia study Taylor and Samuel (1975) found that science teachers and senior science education majors had little knowledge of game animals, hunting regulations, and game management principles. Kellert (1978) found that the general public generally holds low knowledge of animals and seem to be more aware of and concerned.with emotional issues (like seal hunting) than with more ecologically important issues (like habitat loss). Kellert (1978) and Bart (1972) indicate that Americans' best like large furred animals and often dislike invertebrates and snakes. IFurthery Americans seem indifferent to the protection of endangered plants, insects, and many small nongame animals (Kellert‘ 1978). Basic information on these kinds of perceptions is vital to effective education programs. Next, planners need to know if teachers reflect a cross section of American society. In their studies on political attitude development in children, Hess and Torney (1967) state that: "Teachers as an occupational group, are not representative of the general population and may be expected 8 to hold dissimilar views in several important respects" (pg. 27). Third, we need to know more about what teachers value. The 1983 study by Hooper dealt with specific attitudes toward consumptive use, but did not investigate the range of stronger, critical values incorporated into attitude formation concerning animals (wildlife) in general. Investigating this set of values (discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter) is a main objective of the proposed study, and may be more diagnostic in predicting teacher perceptions of not only wildlife issues, but many types of resource issues. A knowledge of teacher attitudes will allow us to fulfill a fourth need, the need to improve curricula development and teacher training workshops. Due to the increasing popularity and awareness of environmental education occurring in recent years, a variety of classroom environmental education materials have been developed. Information from the proposed study should indicate how these materials might incorporate a sensitivity to teacher animal perceptions, thus increasing their usefulness and longevity. Finally, the study should provide insight into the roles played by classroom teachers in resolving many of the wildlife related issues facing society today (e.g. blood sports controversies, land use management issues). Certainly, classroom educators have the potential role of change agents in our society, and the extent to which their 9 attitudes reflect various positions in society is of considerable interest. As the demands on our wildlife resources continue to increase, the role.of environmental education must keep pace to insure a sound basis for resource decisions. Findings from this study should help public and private organizations achieve this increased pace through better adapted educational programs. Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter Organization The chapter is organized into 5 segments, which support the study's underlying assumptions. The literature review begins with a review of the theoretical framework which was used to study teacher attitudes. The second segment proposes Kellert's survey instrument as a tool functioning within this framework to assess and define teacher attitudes towards animals. Based on work by Kellert and others, the third segment argues that effective public participation in resource management is best achieved by citizens with a broad base of wildlife values. The fourth segment of the review discusses some of the work indicating that teacher attitudes do impact teacher behavior and student learning. It further presents literature suggesting that careful attitude research can in fact be a valid means of predicting behavior. The last segment of the literature review documents the assumption that after learning’more about teacher attitude profiles, effective means exist to strengthen and broaden those profiles with resultant improvements in wildlife education. Theoretical Framework 3; the Instrument Attitudes are a mental process combining beliefs and evaluations of objects, attributes or events (Peyton 1984). 10 11 ”In strictly social-psychological terms, attitudes refer to broadly integrated feelings, beliefs and values possessed by individuals" (Kellert 1980b, pg. 31). Kellert states that they are rarely entirely consistant with an individual's behavior, but that in nearly all cases some evidence of attitude-behavior consistency is expressed. The interrelationship of beliefs, values and attitudes dictates that any understanding of one component stems from an understanding of the others. Values are defined here as those underlying standards and ideals which serve to influence one's evaluations, preferences and behaviors (Peyton 1984). Combined with beliefs,or that which the individual holds to be true, they form the basis of an expressed attitude. Both.beliefs and ‘values exist in systems, with some being more central and important than others. Individuals hold many values simultaneously, and many values exert influence over any given attitude. Yet, these value sets are not equally weighted or ranked. In the process of attitude formation ‘values are identified and prioritized (Peyton 1984). And because heirarchal values are expressed through attitudes, we can use these attitudes to identify the primary values in society, and the behaviors likely to accompany those values. Kellert's typology of attitudes towards animals is an effort to "facilitate an understanding of the competing wildlife values in society"(Kellert 1980b, pg. 32), and is proposed here as an adequate tool to analyze wildlife values involved in individual teacher perceptions. 12 Reliability and Validity of the Instrument Kellert's typology of attitudes was originally developed in 1974, largely on the basis of content analysis of open- ended interviews with a small (n-64) but diverse group of persons directly involved with animals. The group contained 16 women and.49 men from across the country' (with mean age 45) involved iJ1*various occupations and avocations (iieu, artists, birders, conservationists, ecologists, farmers, horsemen, hunters, pet owners, scientists, vegetarians, veternarians, writers, and zoo personel). These individuals were assigned to attitude categories based on their responses in the interview. ‘Validity of the attitude classifications was supported by a statistical technique called multiple discriminant function analysis. For this validity test the respondents were clustered using their answers to 20 close-ended questions. Their answers were compared to the average response pattern of their assigned attitude group to determine how "correct" the assignment was. The discriminant analysis in fact yielded fairly distinct clusters, by and large confirming the validity of the classifications and attitude typology. The attitude typology was modified in the course of a 1975 small scale study, adding the utilitarian attitude domain. In 1978 the negativistic attitude domain was separated into negativistic and neutralistic domains,but later was again collapsed into 1 domain. An aesthetic 13 domain was also developed, but no useful way of measuring it was created. The refined typology became part of a large national study on American attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife and natural habitats. Before developing the survey for his study, Kellert conducted an extensive literature review, and conferred with representatives of over 50 federal, state, and private wildlife management agencies and conservation organizations. Critical issues and research priorities were then determined based on an assessment of their potential relevance to the studies' goals and objectives. During the survey construction.process more than 1500 attitude, knowledge and behavior questions were developed and reviewed. Each of the survey‘s sections underwent 5 to 7 pretests. There were 5 survey sections: attitudes (both basic attitudes towards animals and feelings about specific issues), knowledge of wildlife, animal related activities and behavior, parent or grandparent experiences with wildlife, and social demographic characteristics. For this study of Michigan teachers only the attitude, animal related activity and demographic sections were used. In the development process Kellert used a variety of question types: closed and open-ended response formats, simple statements, more elaborate scenario-type questions, and Likert scales with 5 to 9 response alternatives. Attitude questions were omitted if any of the following flaws were substantially present: too general, double negatives, two part questions, too esoteric, difficult wording, 14 questionable intelligibility to the least educated person, or too idealized or simplistic. Whenever possible questions involving protection of wildlife or habitats included tradeoffs involving various types of socioeconomic impact and sacrifice. The attitude scales were developed based on Kellert's (1976) typology of 9 basic attitudes toward wildlife and the natural world. Cluster and other correlational analyses were used to construct the scales. Sixty-nine attitude questions were used with the smallest scale ( the ecologistic ) consisting of 6 items while the largest scale (the utilitarian) include 13 questions. Whenever appropriate, the strength of the response (e.g., strongly versus slightly agree/disagree) was included. Scale scores ranged from 0 to 11 for the ecologistic scale, to 0 to 27 for the utilitarian (Table 2.1). Useful scales were developed to measure the presence and strength of all attitudes except the neutralistic and aesthetic attitudes. The independence of the other 8 attitude scales was partially indicated by relatively small intercorrelations: 14 under .20: the smallest, .04, the largest negative correlation, -.42,° and the largest positive correlation, .40 (Kellert and Berry 1980a, pg.s 129-133). The final instrument allows individuals or groups to be characterized by attitude profiles depending on the relative strengths of the following attitudes. 15 Table 2.1. Attitude Scale Questions and Scaling (Kellert 1980) Attitude Number Scoring Domain of Questions Range NATURALISTIC 8 O - 16 ECOLOGISTIC 6 O - 17 HUMANISTIC 6 O - 13 MORALISTIC 10 O - 20 SCIENTISTIC ‘ 10 o - 13 UTILITARIAN 13 O - 27 DOMINIONISTIC 8 O - l8 NEGATIVISTIC 8 O - l7 16 Naturalistic: Primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors. Ecologistic: Primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitats. Humanistic: Primary interest and strong affection for individual animals, principally pets. Moralistic: Primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals. Scientistic: Primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals. Utilitarian: Primary concern for the practical and material value of the animal's habitat. Dominionistic: Primary interest in the mastery and control of animals typically :hi sporting situations. Negativistic: Primary orientation an active avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike or fear. ( Kellert 1980a, pg.42) National Attitude Survey Results It is assumed that an adequate tool exists to assess and define the attitudes that Americans' hold towards wildlife. Steve Kellert's national survey instrument (1978) is proposed here as such a tool. Kellert's survey instrument was the final product of an extensive literature review, open-ended personal interviews, and thorough pretesting. Its usefulness as an attitude measure is demonstrated by Kellert's results and by a replication study-using the instrument on BLM biologists (Peyton 1985). Peyton (1985) found the instrument a sound tool, yielding comparable and useful results, with exception of the utilitarian scale 17 scores. He suggests that utilitarian scores be interpreted cautiously because the scale seems inversely related to attitudes on the left end of the spectrum. The following is a discussion of Kellert's national attitude research, which provides basic comparitive data for the research presented here. Kellert assessed the knowledge of and attitudes towards animals in American society using a probability random sample of 3107 Americans age 18 and older. Data were collected by personal interviews of approximately 1 hour in length. Comparison of the study sample to census statistics indicated that the sample drawn was in fact.a good representation of tha American population. The knowledge segment of the survey consisted of 33 true/false and multiple choice questions, as well as a group of questions to access the respondent's awareness of 8 important wildlife management issues of the day. These issues were: killing baby seals, pesticide effects on birds, steel leghold traps, the endangered species act, livestock killing by coyotes, the tuna-porpoise controversy, the Tellico Dam snail darter issue, and using steel vs. lead shot. In phase 3 of his 5 phase report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kellert reported that survey results indicated that most Americans have little awareness of wildlife management issues, or the relative ecological importance of those issues. " A number of impressions can be derived from these results. First, the public was not especially 18 aware of any of the issues, with no issue recognized to a moderate or very knowledgeable extent by a majority of those surveyed. Secondly. as suggested in a previous report, when comparing the most with the least recognized issues, the public appeared to be far more aware and, in all likelihood, concerned about relatively'emotional issues involving specific, attractive, large and phylogenetically 'higher' animals, than issues involving indirect impacts on wildlife and dealing with biologically unfamiliar and 'lower' animals. Finally. a wide desparity appeared to exist between the public and the professional wildlife manager regarding the most important wildlife issues. For example, to most wildlife managers, the baby seal controversy is of minor, superficial significance, whereas to the public, this issue was most recognized. In contrast, the steel vs. lead shot controversy appeared to be of marginal relevance to the general public, although this issue represents a very important concern of contemporary wildlife management " (Kellert and Berry 1980a, pg. 10). The 33 knowledge questions used in Kellert's survey also yielded results important to wildlife managers. Kellert's results indicated that most Americans have a very limited understanding of animals. They seem to know least about endangered species, invertebrates, and animal taxonomy. Americans seemed most informed about injurious and domestic animals. The groups who scored highest on the knowledge questions were males, college educated respondents, and residents of Alaska or the Rocky Mountain region. .At the other end of the spectrum, recording the lowest knowledge scores, were blacks, city dwellers, those under 25 or over 76, and those with less than an 11th grade education. More than half of the respondents with very high knowledge scores were college educated. High scorers were likely to be involved in an animal related activity such as birdwatching , conservation 19 club membership, or hunting (to be close to nature). Those with high knowledge scores also tended to have very strong naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes, combined with low utilitarian scores, indicating their strong interest in animals as parts of natural systems, and their willingness to sacrifice economic benefits to protect wildlife and natural habitats (Kellert and Berry 1980a, pg. 27). Kellert's knowledge measure indicates a number of interesting possibilities, and provides useful insights on the publitfls perception of animals, but the knowledge portion of the instrument was not included in the adapted survey used here. Kellert found that several demographic variables have significant affects on knowledge and attitude expression. Among these variables are: age, sex, race, residence, education, and animal related activities. 'The following is a brief summary of the contribution of each variable to knowledge level and attitude formation. Age: Kellertfls research indicated that those from 18 to 25 were generally more appreciative and affectionate, but less utilitarian towards animals than older persons. They also exhibited the highest humanitarian attitudes of any age group. Those over 75 seemed to be highly utilitarian and negativistic towards animals. Both the 18-25 and 75 and over groups exhibited animal knowledge below other ages and the national mean. The data hint at two interesting possibilities: attitudes may become more utilitarian as one 20 grows older. and more naturalistic as society becomes more urbanized, affluent, and separated from the land. Sex: As a group, females held high moralistic and humanistic attitudes. This seems to account for strong representation of women in anti-hunting and humane organizations. Men were generally found to hold lower humanistic, moralistic and negativistic attitudes than women. They tended to hold higher naturalistic and utilitarian attitudes than women. Males also seemed to be more knowledgeable and interested in animals and animal related activities than women. Race: As a whole, blacks exhibited lower interest for habitat, lower naturalistic attitudes, and lower knowledge than other racial groups. They also exhibited very low participation in animal related activities, high negativism towards animals, and the lowest ecologistic attitudes of any demographic group. The knowledge gap between races remained pronounced even when blacks and whites were compared at high education and socioeconomic class levels. Residence: Rural residents held higher naturalistic and ecologistic , and lower moralistic and negativistic attitudes than urban residents. Rural residents also tended to have higher knowledge scores and participate in more animal related 21 activities. Urban residents showed a general animal knowledge below the national mean, and tended to be more opposed to utilitarian animal activities (iJL, hunting, trapping, predator control). Education: Kellert found education to be " the most sensitive indicator of appreciation, knowledge and respect for animals" (Kellert and Berry 1980a, pg. 71). The correlation between knowledge and education was strong, linear and direct. Increased education directly correlated with a reduction of utilitarian and negative attitudes . College education seems to be a critical event in developing concern for animals. Activities: Although animal related activity groups exhibited a variety of attitudes, in general, those involved in animal related activities showed higher ecologistic and naturalistic attitudes, and lower negativistic attitudes than the general public. They also generally showed higher animal knowledge than the general public. Birdwatching, conservation club membership, and hunting were all associated with high knowledge, while zoo visitation , pet ownership, and anti- hunting were all associated with low knowledge scores. Kellert also reported information.on the characteristics of hunters which, "more than any other single subject, provided a kind of barometer for assessing people's much broader understandings of the natural worldfi (Kellert 1978b, pg. 2). Thirty-two percent of the population in this national 22 study had hunted at some time: 5.5% hunted often. As a group, hunters showed lower negativistic and higher naturalistic attitudes than nonhunters. They also showed higher knowledge scores, higher scientistic attitudes, more desire for wildlife contacts,and more interest in the outdoors than nonhunters. Demographicallyy hunters were more likely to have a rural background, be over 30, and live in the Rocky Mt., Southeastern, or West/Central states than nonhunters. The hunting population was predominantly male. Kellert identified.3 primary attitudes which motivate hunters as utilitarian, dominionistic, and naturalistic. These factors are listed in Figure 2.1, in order of decreasing frequency. Twenty-nine percent of the population in the study declared that sport hunting is wrong, and may be labeled as anti-hunters (Kellert 1978b). As a group, anti-hunters held high humanistic and very high moralistic attitudes. Demographically, anti-hunters were more likely to come from an urban background, be under 30, and live in the Pacific coast or mid-Atlantic regions than hunters. The anti-hunting population was largely female. Kellert identified 2 primary attitudes which motivate anti-hunters as moralistic and humanistic. These factions are also listed in Figure 2.1,:h1 order of decreasing frequency. Kellertfls results indicate that the most prevalent attitudes in American society are: interest and affection for individual animals (humanistic), concern for the right and 23 HUNTERS Utilitarian Dominionistic Naturalistic 43 % of all hunters. Primarily concerned with obtaining meat, harvesting game, trapping for profit or predator control. Animal seen as a harvestable commodity. 39 % of all hunters. Primarily concerned with competition, achievement, skill, prowess. The animal is seen as a symbol of success and achievement. 18 % of all hunters %. Primarily concerned with intimate involvement with animals, union with nature, and contact in a natural setting. The animal is viewed with interest, affection, and respect. ANTI-HUNTERS Moralistic Humanistic 88 % of all anti-hunters. Primary concern is for the ethical treatment of animals. Believe hunting is cruel and immoral. The animal is viewed reverently. Death is justified only by necessity, and hunters take life otherwise are deemed degenerate. ll % of all anti-hunters. Primarily concerned for the suffering ofindividual animals. Empathy is felt not for the species, but for individuals. The animal is assumed to feel human fear and pain. Figure 2.1. Primary hunter and anti-hunter types as defined by Kellert (1980a). 24. wrong treatment of animals (moralistic), concern for the practical and material value of animals (utilitarian), and indifference, dislike or fear of animals (negativism). The least prevalent attitude in our society seems to be interest in the physical traits and biological functioning of animals (scientistic). 'An ecologistic concern for wildlife species, their habitats, and the environment as a system (ecologistic) seems weakly present in many Americans, though it is "rarely manifest in a highly committed fashion" (Kellert andBerry 1980a, pg. 46). The reported relative frequency of each attitude is shown in Figure 2.2 ( Kellert 1981, pg. 38). Kellert feels that the prevalence of humanistic, moralistic, utiltarian, and negativistic attitudes may infact be at the heart of today's wildlife issues (Kellert and Berry 1980a, pg. 43). Those individuals whose primary orientation is toward moral treatment of animals, are in direct opposition to those individuals who see animals primarily for their usefulness or material worth. In the same fashion, those primarily oriented toward individual animals, often on which they convey human affection and attributes, have little understanding for those in society who dislike or even fear the very same animals. The failure of simple information campaigns to resolve many wildlife issues is consistant with the idea that such difficult issues involve widely disparent value components which must also be addressed if the issues are to be resolved. Kellert also expressed some specific concern over the prevalence of humanistic and moralistic attitudes in much of \ 25 HUMANISTIC MORALISTIC NEGATIVISTIC UTILITARIAN NATURALISTIC ECOLOGISTIC DOMINIONISTIC SCIENTISTIC 10 20 3O 40 Mean % of Total Possible Figure 2.2. Relative Frequency of American Attitudes Toward Animals (as represented by mean attitude scores) (Kellert and Berry 1980) 26 the American populus. He contends that such an emotional, rather than an intellectual basis for concern and decision making can actually become an impediment to resolving *wildlife.issues. He feels such an attitude profile "can lead to an over emphasis on a narrow segment of wildlife (i.e., the large attractive animals) and overlook more basic considerations of ecological relationships between wildlife and their natural habitats" (Kellert and Berry 1980b, pg. 60). On the other hand, Kellert expressed a degree of optimism in light of a seeming increase in naturalistic and ecologistic sentiments in society. The young, the educated, and western residents seem to be oriented toward this end of the attitude spectrum. Kellert feels that these groups may signal the expansion of naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes in America. His review of historical attitude trends over the last century also tend to support the notion that Americans may become increasingly oriented toward an appreciation for wildlife and natural habitats (Kellert 1981). The Role of Citizen Values in Wildlife Issues Peyton (1984) has suggested that resource issues consist of 1 to 3 important components (science/technology, public beliefs, and public values) and may be classified as 4 general types. In the simplest resource issues science has adequately described the problem and the various publics have similiar 27 value priorities. In these issues the problem centers on a conflict in beliefs. For example, the issue which developed around the preservation of the California condor did not involve scientific or value components. Biologists had adequate information to explain the condor's decline, and all groups agreed that the bird should be saved from extinction, but management agencies and private organizations continue to disagree on the method. Others, like resource allocation issues, may contain only value conflicts. Issues between sport and commercial fishermen, anglers and canoeists, or loggers and wilderness preservationists serve as good examples. A third type of issue contains conflicts in beliefs and ‘values. Peyton suggests the anti-hunting'controversy'as a prime example» Both hunters and anti-hunters have inaccurate conceptions about the effect of hunting on wildlife populations. But more importantly, the issue remains unresolved because the two have such divergent value priorities. IHunters seem motivated primarily by utilitarian, dominionistic, or naturalistic attitudes,‘while:most anti- hunters seem motivated primarily by moralistic and humanistic values (Kellert 1980). But the most common issues involve all 3 components. These issues involve significant gaps in scientific understanding, conflicts in beliefs, and conflicts in values. One such issue is toxic waste disposal. The health risks and environmental consequences of disposing of substances like 28 dioxins or PCB's are not fully known to scientists, and the general populus has only a vague, often erroneous perception of their effects and risks. Further, some publics will accept some environmental risk as a consequence of economic gain while others will not accept any level of risk despite associated benefits (Peyton 1980). Peyton (1985) has suggested that public involvement offers several advantages in resolving these issues that autocratic government policies cannot provide. Yet to be useful public involvement has to be rational, and to be rational it should be based on a broad set of carefully evaluated and prioritized beliefs and values. "From a resource manager's position it is more desirable to have user attitudes formed by thorough, rational processes even if the positions differ from those of the manager. When individuals or groups with hastily formed attitudes take positions based on strong value concerns but with inadequate belief systems and unclear value priorities, they tend.to engage in defending value concerns rather than seeking effective resolution to the issue"(Peyton 1985,pg. 16). Frequently as issues emerge people become involved before they have much information about either side of the issue (Rankin 1969, Kasperson 1969, Murch 1971). A disruptive issue emerges because the resource manager cannot allocate the resource equally to every user group and at this point the groups are too polarized to negotiate a compromise. Resolution of the conflict depends on a compromise forged through the acceptance of new information and the consideration of opposing values. The process is illustrated by a case history of the Bay of Fundy herring fishery .29 (Kearney 1984). The Bay of Fundy's herring fishermen were faced with economic crisis in the mid 1970's resulting from over fishing, poor marketing, intense competition, and intermittent over production. There were conflicts between weir fishermen and seine fishermen, fishermen and processors, and fishermen and managers. At the same time advisory committees (made of fishermen, processors, and government officials) existed to give advice to government officials. However, these groups were not afforded much consideration in policy decisions and they did little to improve the situation or give fishermen a voice in their fisheries' management. But in the winter of 1975-76 the fishermen embarked on a course of co-management, through a new fisheries policy striving to involve the fishing industry in the regulation process. The new involvement was built on a series of meetings among the 3 existing fishermen organizations, followed by intense consultations with government officials. The meetings culminated in temporary subsides, a government study of the problem, and reformed regulations of fish meal production which all groups were able.to quickly agree to. By starting on a process of cooperation between themselves and with the government, the fishermen had a real affect on their industry. It was this cooperation which translated into marketing and harvest strategies which restored prices, the local economy, and more equitable income among all fishermen. 30 " The fishermen themselves took action that launched them on a totally new course in their relations with one another. In the first place, the intense consultations had brought two ancient enemies, the purse seine fishermen and weir fishermen, in close contact with one another on a continuing basis. The mutual understanding that developed through this process did much to improve the relationship between the two groups"(Kearney 1984, pg. 174). Unfortunately, within a short time the meeting process was discontinued, and once again fishermen felt they had no way to influence policy or their own fate. Soon the groups were again polarized and further agreements were frustrated. This brief experiment in co-management supports the contention that the public can have a positive impact on management, but their successful participation depends on organized, rational, continual involvement (Kearney 1984). Token involvement, intermittent involvement, and unrepresentative involvement are at best frustrating and at worst a loss of time, money, and agency reputation. Managers find themselves in a predicament. Informed public involvement may be the best way to serve societal needs and develop publically acceptable policies. Yet, managers face a public which is typically uninformed and by and large nonparticipatory (Schatzow 1977). Ironically, though effective participation depends on a well informed public, several studies indicate that the most likely persons to become involved are those whose information level is low, while those who become more informed grow less active and more moderate in their viewpoints (Kasperson 1969, Rankin 1969, Murch 1971, Tichenor et al. 1971, Ramsey and Rickson 1976). So while educators and managers may find 31 encouragement in the evidence that accepted information can have the moderating influence necessary for cooperation among publics, the task of informing the public and motivating these more informed, more moderate citizens still represents a formidable challenge. The Influence of Teacher Attitudes on Teacher Behavior and Student Learning Work by Stern and Keisler (1977) indicates that teacher attitudes impact behavior and student learning for a variety of attitudes and situations. In a recent review they report the highlights of their 3 volume report on teacher attitudes and attitude change. Over 5000 references were consulted and a complete literature review on teacher attitudes was performed. In the concluding segment of their review the authors state: ”Two important points derive from the research reviewed: Teacher attitudes 93 make a difference in the teacher-learning process: Attitudes can be altered, although certain attitudes are— more resistant to modification than others" (Stern and Keisler 1977, pg. 74). Nowhere is the impact of teacher attitudes on student outcomes more evident than in teacher attitudes about race, class, and other student attributes. The classic illustration of a teacher attitude which affects student achievement is the pygmalian affect or self-fulfilling prophecy pioneered by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). The Rosenthal-Jacobson study created much controversy, and since itfls completion many studies have probed the impact of teacher expectancies on student achievement. The majority of 32 later studies do in fact support the notion that teacher expectations have a significant affect on student achievement (Ashby 1978, Crano and Mellon 1978, Lichter and Johnson 1969, McArthur and.Eisen.l976, Nash 1972, Palardy 1969, Rubovitz and Maehr 1971, Seaver 1973, Taylor 1979). Existing research suggests that teacher attitudes concerning subject matter can have an affect on student achievement and learning. particularly if those attitudes are negative. Research by Bybee (1973) and Shrigley (1974) suggest that good teacher relations and enthusiasm may be even more influential to the learning process than the teacher”s knowledge of the subject matter. Heil et al. (1960) also asserts that interested teachers can be more effective, and he states that his findings "confirm this common-sense assumption" (pg. 67). "Children's achievement in specific subjects are correlated with the academic interest of the teacher's personality and such personality is in turn characterized by certain academic interest. The difference in academic interest appears to be sufficiently great to overcome weaknesses that may be present in the personality structure of the teacher and in the teacher's functioning" (Heil 1960, pg. 67). Some research indicates that negative teacher attitudes may have significant affects on student attitudes. Negative teacher attitudes have been shown to result in decreased student achievement (Rist 1970: Pidgeon 1970, Van de Walle 1973). Stern and Keisler (1977) state that, "more fine grained analyses seem to indicate that, while a teacher with a positive attitude may have little influence, the 33 teacher with a negative attitude can have an aversive affect" (pg. 65). They state that a negative attitude toward change, per se is a major stumbling block of non-traditional subjects which many teachers are required to teach, such as sex, religion, career opportunities, and substance abuse. "In these non-traditional subject areas there is a great deal of teacher resistance, with accompanying negative attitudes" (Stern and Keisler 1977, pg. 65). To this list we might easily add wildlife or environmental education, noting that negative attitudes towards environmental education as a new and unfamiliar subject could be further compounded by those teachers with a highly negativistic attitude toward animals. Kellert (1982) provides direct evidence that teachers broaden the child's range of attitudes. Kellert found that students (2nd through 12th) who had learned about animals in the previous two years had significantly higher naturalistic and scientistic attitudes than children without this experience. In the sample of 4800 7th through 12th graders in the Michigan public school system, Pomeranzt (1977) found that 70% of these students indicated that a teacher had influenced their interest in wildlife in some degree. In a similar study on young Michigan hunters, 58% indicated that a teacher had influenced their interest in wildlife (Langenau and Mel lon-Coyle 1977). Because teachers have such potential to develop important attitudes and reduce others, Haney (1964) feels that an analysis of science teacher attitudes is especially'important: "Pupils cannot learn attitudes that their teachers 34 donit have. It may be that the first step in meeting this challenge to science education will consist of an inward look upon our knowledge and value systems" (99- 35)- However. more recent research.(Schofield 1981) can be found which is contrary to this popularly held belief that, "teachers who like the subject and are good at it readily stimulate positive student attitudes necessary for learning, while teachers who dislike the subject or are not competent are likely to infect their pupils with similar feelings of dislike and a similar cognitive incompetence" (Schofield 1981, pg. 492). Schofield suggests that very little evidence actually supports this hunch. He sites Aiken (1970) as finding no evidence of this in a review of attitudes toward mathmatics. Some researchers have even found a negative correlation between the teacher's rank of attitudes toward subject material and the rank of pupil attitudes toward the same material (Gilbert and Cooper, 1976). Schofield's research results are consistent with the assumption that teacher enjoyment of the subject (math in this case) is positively related to student achievement. However, they do not support the idea that this occurs directly through the transmission of favorable attitudes. In fact, they directly oppose the idea that a favorable attitude is essential to master a subject and that teachers without the right attitude will be unable to transmit these attitudes to their pupils. "In summary, despite insufficient evidence and results at times contrary to expectations, the fervent conviction that there is a direct positive relationship emanating from teacher attitudes (and 35 achievement) leading to pupil attitudes and thence to pupil achievement remains unshaken" (Schofield 1981, pg. 463). Using Attitude Measures 39 Predict Behavior Can a study like the one undertaken here reflect or predict actual classroomfibehavior? Encouragingly. recent research indicates that within given constraints it can. Research by Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) indicates that if the attitude measure is tailored to the degree of specificity which the experimenter wishes to probe, then the measure can be a fairly accurate predictor of behavior. In other words, general attitudes are predictive of general behaviors while specific attitudes are better predictors of specific behaviors. Work by Ajzen and Fishbein (1974, 1975) and Weigel (1976) supports this theory. Fishbein and Ajzen were instrumental in explaining why previous research showed such little attitude-behavior consistancy. Their work on specificity led to a "multiple act theory" which organized discouraging results into a predic table pattern. Stated briefly below, the theory holds that: "A person's attitude towards an object need not be related to any single behavior that may be performed with respect to the object (i.e., may not permit prediction of single act criteria). However, it should be related to the overall pattern of his behaviors (i.eu it should predict multiple-act criteria)" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1974, pg. 61). Along with specificity, a number of other variables have been identified which affect the relationship between attitudes and behavior. Among these variables are: intentionality (Fishbein and.Ajzen 1975), ambiguity (Fazio ‘36 and Zanna 1981), intensity (Sherif et al. 1973), self- monitoring (Snyder and Monson 1975), and vested interest (Sivacek and Crano 1972). If one considers these factors in designing an attitude measure, and evaluates study results in light of them, general behavioral predictions should be possible. Influencing Teacher Attitudes If teachers are found to have profiles strongly skewed toward some attitudes, or strongly lacking in others, it is important to determine if their attitudes can be strengthened or broadened to improve wildlife education. Research by George (1967) indicates that conservation attitudes in teachers could be altered by a 1 week workshop. "The three educational experiences analyzed showed that in each case significant change could be identified.and.associatednwith the experience" (pg. 206). This change was attributed to "interest, motivation, and exposure to conservation knowledge" (pg. 206). Post tests revealed that these attitude changes persisted as much as a year after the workshop. Such conclusions "indicate the value potential of extension type conservation as an integral part of the education experience for youth, students, and adults" (pg. 209) . Several other studies reveal the effectiveness of training programs in changing teacher attitudes and classroom behavior. Hounshell and Liggett (1976) report that a 10 week, four phase inservice training session did alter teacher 37 knowledge and attitudes in the 36 sixth grade teachers studied. Further, this change was shown to affect student learning. Teacher cooperation and enthusiasm were noted to be vital to training success. Similarly, Jous (1978) found that teachers who received a 60 hour course on environmental education had a much more positive attitude about teaching such materials than untrained teachers. Several other studies reveal the effectiveness of training programs in changing teacher attitudes and classroom behavior'(Almase 1973, Andrews 1979, Milson 1973, Pempek and Blick 1973, Thelen and Litskey 1972). Summary Two hypotheses were tested in this study. The first holds that Michigan teachers are not representative of society in general. The second holds that at present, public classroom educators in Michigan do not have a balance of attitudes necessary to prepare students to rationally cope with wildlife management issues. The study involves several assumptions which are supported by the proceeding literature review. 1. An adequate means exists to assess and define the attitudes (reflecting values) which may be held towards wildlife. 2. Rational participation in wildlife management issues is facilitated by citizen s who possess a balanced awareness of the differing value perceptions in an issue, and the consequences of decisions based on those values. 3. The attitudes of teachers impact on teacher behavior and student learning; strong teacher biases may prevent achieving wildlife education goals. 38 4. Effective means exist to strengthen and broaden teacher attitude profiles towards animals and therefore to improve wildlife education efforts. Kellert's national survey results indicate that Americans generally hold limited knowledge about animals and animal related issues. Their primary orientation towards animals is typically moralistic or humanistic, with relatively few individuals expressing strong naturalistic, ecologistic, or scientistic attitudes. His research also indicates that age, sex, race, residence, and animal related activities significantly affect these attitudes. Extensive pretesting, revision, and statistical validation techniques indicate that Kellert's national survey instrument is a reasonable tool for assessing Americanfls attitudes towards animals. Replication of Kellert's survey by Peyton (1985) also indicates that, with some reservation about the utilitarian scale, the instrument yields reliable results. Research by Kellert and others indicates that imbalanced attitude profiles may inhibit effective wildlife management and issue resolution, because such profiles do not allow a careful prioritization of all opposing beliefs and values. The question of attitude balance is especially important in teachers, because of their potential influence on students. This brief review of the literature does strongly indicate that teacher attitudes are important in teacher behavior and have "a profound influence directly upon the student" (Stern and Keislar 1977, pg. 63). It also indicates 39 that some actual behavior may be predicted if important variables are carefully considered during research. ‘However, a similiar review of the educational and psychological literature reveals that much remains to be learned about the attitude-behavior link. Schofield (1981) reminds us that although we may be aware of the positive correlation between teacher attitudes and student achievement we still don“t really understand the mechanism causing this phenomenon. Finally, the literature contains a great deal of evidence showing that in-service training and workshops can create attitude change which may persist at least a year after training. CHAPTER 3 METHODS Research Objectives The following are the research objectives , to be achieved through the collection and analysis of a mail survey. 1. Determine the profile of attitudes towards animals and attitude towards hunting held by Michigan K-12 teachers, as indicated by Kellert's (1980a) attitude categories. 2. Compare the attitudes of Michigan K-12 teachers with the attitudes of various groups in Kellert's (1980a) national survey: a. general public b. hunters, nonhunters,anti-hunters 3. Determine the relationships that exist between attitudes and: a. teaching discipline b. teaching grade level c. environmental education training 4. Determine the relationship between teacher attitudes toward animals and demographic variables including: a. age b. -education level c. urban-rural background d. race ‘40 41 e. animal related activities 5. Discuss the teacher training and curriculum development implications of these findings for environmental educators, general educators, wildlife management agencies (I & E) and conservation organizations. A Description of the Instrument The actual survey instrument was an adaptation of the instrument used in Kellertfls national study of American attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors towards wildlife (Kellert 1978) (Appendix 1). Of the five segments in Kellert's instrument, two were used: attitudes (towards animals, specific issues), and animal related activities. A third segment was adapted to obtain social demographic characteristics of Michigan teachers. Each of these 3 segments is discussed in further detail below. Teacher Attitudes:- The bulk of the questionnaire consisted of questions probing teacher attitudes on animals and specific issues. The attitude segment consists of 69 questions which are used to classify a respondent's attitudes according to Kellert's typology of 8 basic (and statistically separable) attitude domains. Each attitude domain consisted of 6 to 13 questions (Table 2.1). Some of the questions were Likert type questions with 7 response alternatives: others were close- ended multiple choice questions. Questions from all 8 attitude scales were mixed throughout the survey. Questions '42 are itemized by attitude domain in Appendix 6. The point score possible differed from scale to scale (Table 2.1, pg.15 ). Scale scores ranged from 0 to 11 for the ecologistic scale, to 0 to 27 for the utilitarian scale. Scale scores were then standardized for comparison. Animal Related Activities: Questions 48 through 70 were close-ended simple response questions concerning animal related activities. These questions allowed respondents to be classified as hunters, nonhunters, anti-hunters, anglers, club members, pet owners, and birdwatchers. Social Demographic Information: The last 15 questions of the survey were used to collect personal and professional background informathmu Demographic items were presented in a straight forward, simple response format. The survey included many of the demographic variables Kellert found to be important factors affecting attitude expression. Among the demographics gathered were: age, sex, race, education, and urban/rural background. In addition to these items several others were added to profile each teacher's professional background. Answers from these questions identified the teacher's grade level, discipline, college minors,college majors, environmental education training, and school district. Selection 2; the Sample The study population was defined as those Michigan 43 teachers who teach grades kindergarten through twelve. This population includes approximately 110,000 individuals in Michigan. Limited time and funds dictated that the data on this population be obtained through a small, yet representative sample. An optimal sample size of 1200 was determined by 2 factors. First, the sample had to be large enough to allow reliable statistical analysis on sample subgroups. The study includes more than 10 such subgroups (i.e., race, sex, teaching discipline, etc.). Consultation with a resident statistician indicated that in order to assure ample subgroup membership for all analyses, approximately 700 useable returns were needed. Second, the sample had to be large enough to allow for nonrespondents, and still provide the 700 useable returns necessary for analysis. Because response rate was estimated at approximately 60%, sample size was accordingly raised to 1200. Obtaining the Sampie A statewide teacher sample was taken from 4 teacher listings. A majority of the sample was obtained from the Michigan Education Association (MEA) , a teacher union with over 90,000 members statewide. From it's membership roster the MEA provided a computer generated random sample of 740 MEA members. Originally, the sampling strategy called for the remaining subsample to come from the Michigan Federation of 44 Teachers (MFT), a teacher union including approximately 10,000 teachers in southeastern Michigan. However, the MFT does not presently record its enrollment by computer, and it could not provide staff to hand draw a random sample. Neither does it allow public access to its enrollment list, and so the remaining subsample was taken from other sources. A subsample exclusively representing teachers‘of southeastern Michigan was obtained from 3 listings. To ensure representation of Detroit teachers a random sample of 220 teachers was obtained from the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), which includes approximately 10,000 teachers in the Detroit school system. The sample was hand drawn, using a random numbers table (Steel and Torrie 1980). To ensure adequate representation of areas surrounding Detroit. 2 suburban Detroit school districts were sampled. Random samples of 130 teachers were provided by both Livonia and Dearborn school districts. These 4 subsamples are itemized below. Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT)....220 Livonia School District.................130 Dearborn School District................130 Michigan Education Association (MEA)....720 total.........1200 Administration 2; the Survey The survey was administered through 3 mailings, including: an initial survey , postcard reminder, and a second survey for nonrespondents. All mailings were sent by bulk mail method. Return postage for the surveys was «45 guaranteed to assure an accurate estimate of undeliverables. Return postage was prepaid. The first mailing was made on January 11, 1985. Each teacher in the sample was mailed a 6" by 9" envelope including a cover letter and a booklet form of the 12 page survey. The cover letter used several appeals to encourage response (Appendix 2). It emphasized the importance of the data, its value to the teacher. and its value to the student. Complete confidentiality was guaranteed. On January 28, approximately 2 weeks after the first mailing, a postcard reminder was sent to all teachers in the sample. The postcard emphasized the importance of each respondentfis views and participation regardless of his or her interest in wildlife education (Appendix 3). Three weeks later. on February 19, a final letter and survey were mailed to nonrespondents. The cover letter enclosed again reassured the respondent of complete confidentiality, and reiterated his or her importance in assuring representative results, with real benefit for Michigan educators (Appendix 4). Estimating Nonresponse Bias A nonrespondent follow-up study was conducted with half of the 381 nonrespondents. On July 11, 1985 a cover letter and shortened form of the survey instrument were mailed to all 190 of the MEA's 205 nonrespondents (Appendix 5). Detroit, Dearborn and Livonia nonrespondents were not included because summer contact with these teachers through 46 their school addresses was questionable. Data Analysis Data were key punched on to computer cards by Michigan State University Key Punch Services. Data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Statistical treatments are discussed by research question in chapter 4 (Results). Scope and Limitations To ensure generalizability of the results the sample was taken from across the state. However, because no single listing of all Michigan teachers was accessible, a.sample‘was taken from separate listings of teachers across the state. Unfortunately this sampling strategy may prove problematic when trying to generalize results. Because the MEA teacher list included more southern Michigan teachers than anticipated, the study sample includes an unexpectedly high number of teachers from southern Michigan, and relatively’few teachers from the northern portions of the state. Generalizations about teachers in the northern part of the state are thus cautious and guarded. Further, the rosters used in collecting the teacher sample also created some problems with the sampling frame. That is to say, some variation existed between the defined population (i.e., K-12 teachers), and the list of population members obtained in the sample. Because the 2 union rosters and 2 district payrolls included individuals other than K-12 47 teachers, any sample from those lists should include some individuals outside the sampling frame. In the sample drawn for this study, 72 individuals identified themselves as counselors, principals, professors, or librarians. To reduce the possibility of frame error the results from these 72 surveys were separated from the rest of the sample. In one instance measurement error may have resulted from a typographical oversight. Because of this oversight survey question #26 was discarded from the analysis. Question 26 is one of several questions which determine what Kellert terms the utilitarian attitude domain (discussed in chapter 2). Its removal from the survey changes a respondent's possible score in this domain, and in doing so, hinders comparison of the utilitarian scores found here and those found in Kellert's 1980 national survey. Later in the survey, loss of information resulted from the omission of an answer category in 3 questions. These questions inquired as to the population in the town where the respondent: grew up, lives, or teaches. Ten response categories were provided, ranging from below 500 to more than a million. However, the response category ranging from 25,000 to 49,999 was omitted. To compensate for the errors that may have resulted data from these questions were clumped into 4 groups for analysis: below 500: 5000-9999: 10,000- 99,999; and 100,000 and above. Conclusions about the influence of urban-rural background on teachers' attitudes about animals must therefore be made cautiously for those 48 teachers who teach, live or grew up in areas of 10,000 to 100,000 residents. A number of methods were used to minimize other errors inherent in survey research. Interviewer effects which would alter question response have been minimized by using a mail survey. The sponsor"s name on the survey may have caused some response bias, but past research indicates that a survey's author may affect response rate more than response accuracy (Tull and Hawkins 1980). .Also, Tull and Hawkins (1980) indicate that response bias of this type is reduced when the sponsor is a noncommercial source. Errors related to questionnaire design have been minimized by an extensive amount of pretesting by Steve Kellert (l979,1980a,1980b). Kellert's research and questionnaire design are further discussed in chapter 2. Repeated mailings and a fol low-up nonrespondent study were used in an attempt to minimize nonrespondent bias. Nonrepondents were mailed a shortened form of the survey designed to encourage their response and gain some important insights on their characteristics. Chapter 4 RESULTS The Respondents The survey instrument was mailed to 1200 members of 4 teacher associations. Eighty-one surveys were non-deliverable. The overall response rate was 65 % (738 returns). Seventy-two respondents were not active teachers (i.e., principles, counselors, etc.) and were deleted from the analysis. The response rate for useable teacher surveys was 64 % (666 returns). Teachers from the Michigan Education Association (MBA) and Dearborn listings had the highest response rate (69 %); Detroit Federation teachers (DFT) had the lowest response rate (42.4 %)(Table 4.1 . The sample was 38 % male and 61 % female (Table 4.2). Ninety-one percent of the respondents were from the southern half of Michiganls lower’penninsula (Figure 4.1). Respondents were predominantly female.(58:7 %), of urban or suburban residence (70 %), and white (89.5 %). All had at least a bachelor's degree: 68.5 % had a higher degree. Their mean age was 44 (median age - 43). About 1 in 5 respondents taught biological or earth science, and about 1 in 10 taught environmental education. Over 35 % had attended at least 1 short environmental education workshop. IMost respondents (69.5 %) owned pets. Nearly half fished (48.3 %) and 45.5 % birdwatched in the last two years. Over a quarter (27.3 %) had belonged to some type of conservation club in the last two years. Thirteen percent of the respondents hunted as 49 Table 4.1. Survey response ‘50 rates by sample group Sample Non- Percent Group Respondents Respondents Response Detroit Fed. 86 203 42.5 % of Teachers Livonia Schools 75 113 66.4 % Dearborn Schools 83 119 69.7 % Michigan Educ. 422 612 69.0 % Association (MEA) Total 666 1047 65.0 % Table 4.2. Sex ratios for respondents, nonrespondents, and teacher subsamples. Group Males Females 2 l a .95. Nonrespondent Subgroups Detroit 18 (17 %) 84 (80 %) Livonia 22 (50 %) 22 (50 %) Dearborn 18 (47 %) 20 (53 %) M.E.A. 76 (37 %) 124 (60 %) All Nonrespondents 134 (35 %) 250 (65 %) All Respondents 272 (40 %) 391 (58 %) Total Sample 406 (39 %) 641 (61 %) UPPER PENINSULA III-31 (41) n-ZB (41) NORTHERN LOWER PENINSULA 0-607 (912) SOUTHERN LOWER PENINSULA Figure 4.1. M 51 .-.-.-.-.- m"‘T‘::‘.rr"J°“ra".a . i'!1 A map of response rate by county. 52 compared to 10 % of the general population who hunted in the Great Lakes region in 1980 (1980 Fish and Wildlife Survey). Twenty percent of the respondents were anti-hunters, as compared to 37 % in the Great Lakes Region generally (Kellert and Berry 1980b). Mean Teacher Profile The most frequent attitudes found in Michigan teachers were the naturalistic (SE-.29), ecologistic (St-.25), humanistic (x-.39), and moralistic (x-.36).attitudes. The least frequent attitudes found were the scientistic (RI-.06), utilitarian (SE-.10), and dominionistic (Ya.08) attitudes. When attitude scale scores were standardized and compared (using a chi square test at a .05 level of significance) Michigan teachers were significantly different from Kellert's (1980) sample of the general public in 7 of 8 domains (Table 4.3). Teachers held significantly higher naturalistic, moralistic and scientistic scores than the general public. They also held significantly lower utilitarian, dominionistic and negativistic scores than the general public (Figure 4.2). Humanistic attitudes were not significantly different. In comparison to Bureau of Land Management biologists (Peyton 1985), teachers were also quite different (Figure 4.3). The Nonrespondents Three hundred and eighty-one members of the sample did .53 Table 4.3. A comparison of the general public (n-2759) (Kellert 1980) to K-12 Michigan teachers(n=666) by 95 % confidence intervals on 8 attitude domains. Group Mean S n C.I.s Naturalistic G. Public 3.1 2.6 52.5262 (3.002, 3.197) Teachers 4.7 3.2 25.8069 (4.456, 4.937) Ecologistic G. Public 3.1 2.2 52.5262 (3.018, 3.182) Teachers 4.3 2.9 25.8069 (4.130, 4.564) Humanistic G. Public 4.0 2.4 52.5262 (3.910, 4.089) TeRChers 4.3 2.8 25.8069 (4.052, 4.474) Moralistic G. Public 5.5 4.5 52.5262 (5.332, 5.667) Teachers 7.2 5.2 25.8069 (6.765, 7.559) Scientistic G. Public 0.9 1.3 52.5262 (.0414, .9481) Teachers 1.3 1.6 25.8069 (1.223, 1.464) Utilitarian G. Public 5.3 3.8 52.5262 (5.158, 5.441) Teachers 2.3 2.8 25.8069 (2.176, 2.596) Dominionistic G. Public 2.0 2.1 52.5262 (1.921, 2.078) Teachers 1.5 1.9 25.8069 (1.407, 1.689) Negativistic G. Public 4.4 2.7 52.5262 (4.299, 4.500) Teachers 3.2 2.4 25.8069 (2.995, 3.365) 54 50.8- . 338'- 18.3 l MEHN 7. OF TOTHL POSSIBLE NHT‘ Eco“ HUH noa' SCI‘ un' non‘ NEG‘ FITTITUDE DOMHINS ('sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.2. Mean attitude scores for teachers and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 55 j T T 1 T ' I BLH BIOLOGISTS b—-‘\ \ 1 NET ECO HUH HOR SCI UT I 00H NEG MEHN 2 OF TOTHL POSSIBLE HTTITUDE DOMRINS Figure 4.3. Mean attitude scores for teachers and BLM biologists (Peyton 1985). 56 not respond. .A follow-up study was conducted on all 190 nonrespondents from the MEA listing (50 % of all nonrespondents). The remaining 191 nonrespondents could not be reached at their school addresses during the time of the nonrespondent study. Eighty-four nonrespondents returned the shortened survey (22 % of all nonrespondents). These 84 returns indicated that nonrespondents were similiar to respondents in many respects. Chi square tests (alpha - .05) yielded no significant difference between respondents and nonrespondents on: age, sex, race, teaching discipline, population where the teacher grew up, reasons for hunting, participation in hunting or fishing, or conservation club membership (Table 4L4). Significantly fewer nonrespondents had birdwatched in the last 2 years, and nonrespondents were most interested in attractive, likeable animals while respondents were most interested in wild animals (Appendix 9). The similiarity between respondents and this partial sample of nonrespondents suggests that sample bias due to nonrespondents was relatively low, thus statements about the entire sample, based on respondents, can be made with some confidence. However, judging by the types of animals they most prefer, nonrespondents may be less naturalistic and ‘ecologistic, and more humanistic and moralistic than respondents. It also seems likely that nonrespondents were less interested in the survey, its content, or animals in general. To the degree that nonrespondents were less 57 Table 4.4. A comparison of select characteristics for respondents (n=666) and nonrespondents (n-96) (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 0.0479 1 .9900 Age ------- - ----- Race 0.3930 1 .7500 Education ------- - ----- E.E. Workshops ------- - ----- Grade Level 4.7784 2 .1000 Science Teaching .3599 2 .9000 Urban/Rural 2.6500 2 .5000 Hunting 0.0480 1 .9900 Angling 1.1700 1 .5000 Birdwatching 10.1700 1 .0050 * Club Membership 2.3300 1 .2500 Pet Ownership ------ - ----- 1st Reason to Hunt 4.4000 3 .2500 2nd Reason to Hunt 4.5100 6 .7500 58 interested in animals, their exclusion could have biased the results toward higher animal related activity rates, higher naturalistic and ecologistic, and lower humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic attitudes. Demographic Variables The following is a description of teacher subgroups as they fall into 9 categories: sex, race, age, education, science teaching, grade level, urban-rural residence, and region. Each subgroup is briefly described in so far as it differs from the entire sample and other subgroups within its specific category. Subgroup attitude means appear in Table 4.5. Significant differences were determined by chi square tests (a - .05). More detailed descriptive frequencies are provided for each subgroup in Appendix 7. Demographic variables were then further analyzed to determine the extent to which each was associated with attitude differentiation. Significant differences were determined by analysis of variance (a - .05). .All ANOVA results appear in Tables 4.6 - 4.28. With a few noted exceptions, the following discussion involves only those relationships which were found to be statistically significant (a - .05). §£§3 Half the female respondents (n=39l) taught at the primary level, compared to 19 % of the male respondents (n-272). A third of the females taught K - 3rd grade while only 3 % of the males taught Ki- 3rd grade. Males had slightly higher education levels than females, and.more males Table 4.5. teacher groups 59 Standardized attitude scale means for selected Attitude Domain Group n Nat Eco Hum Mor Sci Uti Dom Neg All Teachers 666 .29 .25 .39 .36 .06 .10 .08 .19 Hunters 88 .45 .36 .33 .19 .08 .10 .21 .14 Nonhunters 336 .26 .25 .40 .28 .05 .11 .08 .19 Anti-hunters 135 .29 .22 .36 .63 .06 .08 .04 .20 Anglers 322 .36 .29 .39 .31 .07 .09 .11 .15 Pet owners 463 .30 .28 .44 .37 .06 .09 .08 .16 Birdwatchers 303 .38 .31 .42 .40 .08 .07 .07 .15 Club members 182 .39 .38 .44 .39 .09 .08 .09 .13 Blacks 48 .25 .13 .3o .34 .05 .14 .08 .29 Whites 596 .30 .26 .39 .36 .06 .10 .08 .16 Males 272 .34 .29 .31 .29 .06 .11 .11 .15 Females 391 .26 .23 .44 .40 .06 .09 .06 .18 lst-3rd Grade 126 .24 .23 .40 .36 .06 .10 .06 .20 4th-6th Grade 108 .34 .29 .43 .39 .07 .08 .07 .16 9th-12th Grade 196 .30 .25 .36 .33 .05 .09 .10 .19 Science(lst-6th) 108 .28 .26 .43 .37 .07 .08 .07 .16 Science(9th-12th) 32 .47 .47 .32 .30 .14 .07 .06 .08 Science 197 .34 .32 .36 .37 .09 .08 .07 .15 Nonscience 469 .27 .22 .38 .35 .05 .11 .08 .20 Educ. (3.8.) 201 .30 .26 .42 .33 .06 .10 .08 .16 Educ. (M.S.) 439 .29 .25 .37 .37 .06 .10 .08 .19 Educ. (Ph.D) 18 .26 .25 .35 .35 .09 .12 .ll .16 6() Table 4.5 (cont.) Attitude Domain Group n Nat Eco Hum Mor Sci Uti Dom Neg Region (U.P.) 24 .32 .26 .40 .32 .05 .10 .10 .13 Region (N.L.P.) 31 .43 .37 .35 .28 .08 .06 .14 .15 Region (S.L.P.) 574 .26 .25 .39 .36 .06 .10 .08 .19 Age (24-34) 105 .29 .26 .42 .36 .06 .03 .07 .18 Age (35-45) 272 .29 .26 .38 .37 .06 .10 .08 .18 Age (46-56) 203 .32 .26. .39 .33 .06 .11 .09 .18 Age (57-67) 53 .26 .23 .36 .35 .03 .10 .07 .22 Pop. (-5000) 164 .31 .25 .36 .30 .06 .11 .11 .13 Pop.(lO-100,000) 202 .30 .28 .43 .33 .07 .08 .07 .13 Pop. (100,000+) 212 .26 .23 .37 .38 .06 .11 .08 .20 E.E. Workshop 313 .32 .28 .33 .35 .07 .10 .09 .18 No E.E. Workshop 349 .27 .24 .39 .36 .04 .10 .07 .19 E.E. Teachers 60 .40 .34 .43 .41 .10 .08 .08 .14 E.E. Training 40 .46 .41 .37 .41 .10 .09 .10 .11 Abbreviations stand for Michigan's upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula, and southern lower'peninsula Population of the town where a teacher grew up Teachers who had attended at least 1 environmental education workshop 61 Table 4.6. A Summary of teacher subgroup comparisons by mean attitude scale score in 8 attitude domains Subgroup Attitude Domain Comparisons Nat Eco Hum Mor Sci Uti Dom Neg Hunters vs. Nonhunter * * * * * * * * vs. Anti-hunters Male Hunters vs. 4 4 - 4 4 - 4 - Male Anti-hunters vs. Male Nonhunters Males vs. females 4 4 4 4 - - 4 4 Primary Science vs. 4 4 4 - 4 - 4 4 Secondary Science Female Prim. Sci. vs. 4 4 - - 4 - - 4 Female Sec. Sci. Science vs. ' 4 4 - — 4 4 - 4 Nonscience Female Science vs. - 4 - - 4 4 - 4 Female Nonscience Population: * 4 4 4 - 4 4 - (Below 5000 vs. 10,000-100,000 vs. Above 100,000) Population Levels - 4 - 4 - 4 - - 1 Region 3: ( 3)Below 5000 vs. (R3)l0,000-100,000 vs. (R3)Above 100,000} Grade Level: * 4 - - - - 4 4 (1st-3rd vs. 4th—6th vs. 9th-12th) Females by Grade: * - - - - - - 4 (Female let-3rd vs. Female 4th-6th vs. Female 9th-l2th) Black vs. White - 4 4 - - 4 - 4 62 Table 4.6 (cont.) Attitude Domain Characteristic Nat Eco Hum Mor Sci Uti Dom Neg Female whites vs. - 4 4 - - 4 - 4 Female blacks Region: 4 4 - - - — 4 4 (U.P. vs. N.L.P. vs. S.L.P.) Regions for 1 pop.: * * - - - - 4 _ (Rl-below 5000 vs. R2-Below 5000 vs. R3-Below 5000) Workshops vs. * 4 - - - - 4 4 No workshops Age Groups: - - - - - - - - (24-34 yrs. vs. 35-45 yrs. vs. 46-56 yrs. vs. 57-67) Education: - - - - - - - - (B.S. degree vs. M.S. degree vs. Ph.D.) Population where the teacher grew up Abbreviations stand for Michigan's upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula, and southern lower peninsula Teachers who have or have not attended at least one environmental education workshop * Indicates that subgroups are significantly different in attitude scale mean at the p - .05 level - Indicates that subgroups are not significantly different in attitude scale mean at the p - .05 level 63 were hunters and anglers (Table 4.7 : Appendix 7.2, 7.3). Males and females also had very different attitude profiles. Males were significantly more naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionistic. Females were characterized by higher humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic scores (Table 4.8 : Figure 4.4). The influence of teacher sex on ecologistic, humanistic, and dominionistic attitudes was further indicated by analysis of teaching discipline and grade level. When only females of various disciplines (primary and secondary science) and grade levels (1st-3rd, 4th-6th, 9th-12th) were compared, significant differences in the ecologistic, humanistic, and dominionistic scales were no longer seen. Similiarly, when only female science and nonscience teachers were compared, naturalistic differences were no longer significant. Race: Black teachers (n-48) taught largely at the secondary level, and a higher percentage of black teachers held master's degrees. They were also a highly urban, female group. Blacks showed low participation in hunting (4.2 %), fishing (25 %), birdwatching (29.1 %), clubmembership (4.2 %) and pet ownership (41.6 %). The returns included only 48 black teachers, making interpretation of these findings tentative (Table 4.9 : Appendix 7.4, 7.5). Black teachers were characterized by significantly lower ecologistic and humanistic scores, and higher utilitarian and negativistic scores than whites (Table 4.10 : Figure 4.5). Black/white differences persisted even when teachers of the 64' Table 4.7. A comparison of select characteristics for males (n-272) and females (n-391) (p =- .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex ------- - ----- Age 6.1326 3 .1053 Race 2.6936 1 .1008 Education 11.2889 2 .0035 * E.E. Workshops .4190 1 .5174 Grade Level 94.0959 2 .0000 * Science Teaching .7218 1 .3955 Urban/Rural 5.2964 2 .0708 Hunting 37.7501 1 .0000 * Angling 45.3102 1 .0000 4 Birdwatching .5878 l .4433 Club Membership .1929 1 .6605 Pet Ownership .4298 1 .5121 €35 Table 4.8. Analysis of variance on males(n-272) and females(n=39l) for 8 attitude domains. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic Males 5.40 3.30 1 22.8431 .0000 * Females 4.22 2.96 Ecologistic Males ’ 4.99 3.08 1 24.7288 .0000 * Females 3.89 2.58 Humanistic Males 3.44 2.42 1 43.6753 0 * Females 4.85 2.87 Moralistic Males 5.90 4.96 1 27.1182 0 * Females 8.00 5.19 Scientistic Males 1.34 1.53 1 .0013 .9715 Females 1.34 1.62 Utilitarian Males 2.63 3.06 1 3.4631 .0632 Females 2.22 2.54 Dominionistic Males 2.06 2.24 1 38.8503 0 * Females 1.18 1.39 Negativistic Males 2.64 2.22 1 23.4588 0 * Females 3.55 2.49 66 um‘ Eco’ HUH‘ nor sc1 un non‘ NEG’ FITTITUDE DOMFIINS (’sig. at p=.05) LLJ ..J CD H m V T j T I T U) 0 h 0. 65' 50.0- ,— O 9“ . "FILES / 4 i— I Q\ L O 38.8- \ 9-1 "z' . mans”, LaJ Er” m 10.0- o. z 0: LaJ 2: Figure 4.4. Mean attitude scores for male and female teachers. 67 Table 4.9. A comparison of select characteristics for black (n-48) vs. white (n-596) teachers (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 2.6936 1 .1008 Age 1.2276 3 .1673 Race ------ - ----- Education 6.0924 2 .0475 * E.E. Workshops .0520 l .8196 Grade Level 4.4478 2 .1082 Science Teaching .7265 1 .3940 Urban/Rural 14.7698 2 .0006 * Hunting 2.8996 1 .0886 Angling 10.7112 1 .0011 * Birdwatching 4.5289 1 .0333 * Club Membership 12.3093 1 .0005 * Pet Ownership 17.7977 1 .0000 * (38 Table 4.10. Analysis of variance of black(n-48) vs. white(n-596) teachers for 8 attitude domains. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic Blacks 4.04 2.58 1 2.3578 .1252 Whites 4.78 3.23 Ecologistic Blacks 3.13 2.11 1 9.4758 .0022 * Whites 4.48 2.89 Humanistic Blacks 3.27 2.46 1 6.6452 .0102 * Whites 4.34 2.78 Moralistic Blacks 6.85 4.21 1 .1945 .6593 Whites 7.20 5.29 Scientistic BlaCRS 1.21 1.54 1 .3647 .5461 Whites 1.35 1.59 Utilitarian Blacks 3.29 2.90 1 5.2465 .0223 * Whites 2.33 2.78 Dominionistic Blacks 1.63 1.49 l .1323 .7161 Whites ‘ 1.53 1.85 Negativistic Blacks 4.90 2.94 1 26.9367 .0000 * Whites 3.03 2.34 69 50.8. . 30. 18. 1 um cco‘ Hm" non SH 071' non NEG' MEHN 7. OF TOTRL POSSIBLE HTTITUDE DOMRINS ('sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.5. Mean attitude scores for black teachers and white teachers. 70 same sex or urban/rural background were compared. Age: A large number of 23 to 34 year olds (n-105) were primary teachers (43 %) and fewer held advanced degrees relative to teachers of other ages (Appendix 7.6). Teachers age 35 to 45 (n-272) were likely to live and teach in a suburban community (Appendix 7.7). Teachers age 46 to 56 (n-203) held more advanced degrees and were more likely to teach in urban areas (Appendix 7.8). Older teachers (57 - 67) (n-58) predominantly lived and taught in suburban or urban areas (Appendix 7.9). However, these differences were not significant in chi square tests at a - .05 (Table 4.11). No significant attitude differentiation was found among 4 designated teacher age groups. However, the oldest teachers (55 - 65 years old) were found to hold a slightly lower scientistic score than the youngest teachers (25 --35 years old) (Table 4.12 : Figure 4.6). Education: Generally, teachers with a 8.8. degree (n-201) were less likely than respondents to teach 9th-12th grade. Teachers with a 8.8. also had slightly higher hunting, angling, and pet ownership rates than teachers generally or teachers with a master's degree (n-439) (Appendix 7. 10) . Teachers with advanced degrees were less likely to teach science, lst-6th grade, or own pets (Appendix 7.11). Teachers with .a Ph.D. (n-18) were even more likely to be urban. They taught only at the secondary level and few taught 71 Table 4.11. A comparison of select characteristics for 24-34 (n-105), 35-45 (n-272), 46-56 (n-203), and 57-67 (nu-58) year old teachers (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 6.1326 3 .1053 Age ------ - ----- Race 1.2276 3 .7464 Education 11.5900 6 .0718 E.E. Workshops 5.2052 3 .1574 Grade Level 4.4025 6 .6224 Science Teaching 5.0627 3 .1673 Urban/Rural 8.0905 6 .2315 Hunting 5.8856 3 .1173 Angling 6.9533 3 .0734 Birdwatching 3.2498 3 .3547 Club Membership . 2.8589 3 .4139 Pet Ownership 5.5699 3 .1345 72 Table 4.12. Analysis of variance of 24-34(n-105), 35- 45(n-272),46-56(n=203), and 57-67(n-58) year old. teachers for 8 attitude domains. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic 24-34 4.56 3.28 3 2.0777 .1019 35-45 4.59 3.18 46-56 ‘ 5.13 3.20 57-67 4.10 2.94 Ecolpgistic 24-34 4.51 2.90 3 .4944 .6863 35-45 4.36 2.90 46-56 4.35 2.92 57-67 3.95 2.46 Humanistic 24-34 4.62 2.95 3 .6590 .5775 35-45 4.24 2.73 46-56 4.25 2.73 57-67 4.07 2.83 Moralistic 24-34 7.26 5.23 3 .9670 .4078 35-45 7.50 5.29 46-56 6.67 5.24 57-67 7.12 4.99 Scientistic 24-34 1.41 1.62 3 2.5253 .0566 35-45 1.42 1.59 46-56 1.39 1.66 57-67 .81 1.00 Utilitarian 24-34 1.87 2.17 3 1.6817 .1697 35-45 2.39 2.89 46-56 2.60 2.77 57-67 2.33 2.89 Dominionistic 24-34 1.40 1.79 3 1.0680 .3620 35-45 1.50 1.92 46-56 1.73 1.87 Negativistic 24-34 3.14 2.38 3 .9810 .4012 35-45 3.14 2.50 46-56 3.12 2.21 57-67 3.71 3.11 73 l 1 LsJ .1 CD P“ - D-——024-34 U) U7 A------0 35 - 45 8 see 0...... 45 - 55 ¢'°-°-‘¢ 57 - 67 ..I a u- '5 h- 30.8L O .. .\’ 2 10.8} CI: LJ 2 NFIT ECO HUN NOR SCI UTI 00H NEG RTTITUDE DOMHINS ('sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.6. Mean attitude scores for 4 teacher age groups. 74 science (Table 4.13 7 Appendix 7.12).- Though Kellert (1980) found education to be one of the strongest factors associated with attitude differences, no significant differences were found between teachers with the least amount of education (B.S. degree) and the most education (M.S. or Ph.D.) (Table 4.14 : Figure 4.7). Similiarly, teacher profiles could not be strongly differentiated by college major, though science majors had significantly higher ecologistic and scientistic scores than nonscience majors. Science: Science teachers (n-l97) were more likely to teach at the primary level and more likely to attend an environmental education workshop than nonscience teachers (n-469). Science teachers also exhibited higher rates of hunting(l9 %), birdwatching(54 %), club membership(36 %), and pet ownership(76 %) (Table 4.15 : Appendix 7.13, 7.14). Primary science teachers (n-108) were predominantly fema1e(77.8 %) (Appendix 7.15). Secondary science teachers (n-32) were predominantly male(78.1 %) and exhibited higher animal related activity rates than primary science teachers or teachers as a whole (Appendix 7.16). The small sample of secondary science teachers make these percentages difficult to interpret (Table 4.16). Science teachers were found to have significantly higher naturalistic, ecologistic, and scientistic scores than nonscience teachers. Nonscience teachers held higher utilitarian and negativistic scores . Aside from '75 Table 4.13. A comparison of select characteristics for teachers with a 8.8. degree (n=201), M.S. degree (n-439), or Ph.D (n=18) (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 11.2889 2 .0035 Age 11.5900 6 .0718 Race 6.0924 2 .0475 Education ------- - ----- E.E. Workshops 4.2146 2 .1216 Grade Level . 12.2977 4 .0153 Science Teaching 1.3621 2 .5061 Urban/Rural 5.4953 4 .2401 Hunting 4.6739 2 .0966 Angling 4.7747 2 .0919 Birdwatching .7520 2 .6866 Club Membership .3740 2 .8294 Pet Ownership 6.3810 2 .0411 76 Analysis of variance of teachers with B.S.(n-201), M.S.(n-439), or Ph.D(n-18), for attitude domains. Table 4.14. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic 8.8 4.75 3.18 2 .2257 .7980 M.S. 4.70 3.19 Ph.D. 4.22 2.44 Ecologistic 3.8. 4.41 2.92 2 .0572 .9444 M.S. 4.33 2.81 Ph.D 4.28 3.41 Humanistic 3.3. 4.60 2.87 2 2.1853 .1133 M.S. 4.12 2.69 Ph.D 3.94 2.75 Moralistic 8.8. 6.69 5.09 2 1.2508 .2870 M.S. 7.39 5.27 Ph.D. 7.11 5.18 Scientistic 3.8. 1.31 1.60 2 1.1190 .3272 M.S. 1.33 1.57 Ph.D 1.89 1.84 Utilitarian 3.8. ' 2.29 2.67 2 .3563 .7004 M.S. 2.38 2.69 Ph.D. 2.83 3.69 Dominionistic 8.8. 1.63 2.04 2 .6394 .5279 M.S. 1.50 1.75 Ph.D. 1.89 2.19 Negativistic 8.8. 2.97 2.27 2 1.5177 .2200 M.S. 3.30 2.50 Ph.D. 2.83 2.64 77 - o—c 8.5. 7 sn—qans. 50. Zr o----o Ph.D 38.0% 10.0- 1 1 NET ECO HUN NOR SCI UTI DON NEG MEHN 7. OF TOTFIL POSSIBLE HTTITUDE DOMHINS (‘sig at p=.05) Figure 4.7. Mean attitude scores for teachers holding a B.S., M.S., or Ph.D. ‘78 Table 4.15. A comparison of select characteristics for science (n-197) vs. nonscience (n=469) teachers (p a .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex .7218 1 .3955 Age 5.0627 3 .1673 Race .7265 1 .3940 Education 1.3621 2 .5061 E.E. Workshops 16.5597 1 .0000 Grade Level 45.7118 2 .0000 Science Teaching ------- - ----- Urban/Rural 3.3945 2 .1832 Hunting 7.5668 1 .0059 Angling 1.7105 1 .1909 Birdwatching 9.8932 1 .0017 Club Membership 11.6563 1 .0006 Pet ownership 5.1140 1 .0237 '79 Table 4.16. A comparison of select characteristics for primary science (n-108) and secondary science (n-32) teachers (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 31.4975 1 .0000 Age 2.9444 3 .4003 Race .1138 l .7358 Education 5.4740 2 .0648 E.E. Workshops .0151 l .9021 Grade Level ------- - ----- Science Teaching ------- - ----- Urban/Rural .2110 2 .8999 Hunting 8.6255 1 .0033 Angling 5.2309 1 .0222 Birdwatching 10.4456 1 .0012 Club Membership 19.2485 1 .0000 Pet ownership .6275 1 .4283 80 naturalism, science/nonscience differences persisted in a comparison of all female respondents (Table 4.17 ; Figure 4.8). Secondary science teachers held significantly higher naturalistic, ecologistic, scientistic, and dominionistic scores than primary science teachers. Primary science teachers were found to hold a significantly higher humanistic and negativistic scores (Table 4.18 ; Figure 4.9). Several differences among science teachers and between science and nonscience teachers are explained by controlling for teacher sex. However, female science teachers were still more ecologistic, scientistic, and utilitarian than female nonscience teachers, and female secondary science teachers were still more ecologistic and scientistic than primary science teachers. Grade Level: Early primary teachers (lst - 3rd) (n-126) were nearly all female (92 %) and a large percentage were involved in science teaching. They also had comparatively low rates of hunting'(7.l %).and angling (36.5 %)(Appendix 7.18) Fourth through sixth grade teachers (n-108) were even more likely to teach science and more teachers at this level had attended environmental education workshops. They were also more likely to own pets (78.7 %) than other teachers (Appendix 7.19). ‘ .Relatively'few secondary teachers (n-l96) taught science or attended environmental education workshops. Secondary Table 4.17. 81 Analysis of variance of science(n-l96) and nonscience(n-470) teachers for 8 attitude domains. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic Science 5.48 3.26 1 17.4907 .0000 Nonscience 4.37 3.06 Ecologistic Science 5.39 3.17 1 39.0417 .0000 Nonscience 3.91 2.59 Humanistic Science 4.47 2.74 1 1.6170 .2040 Nonscience 4.17 2.74 Moralistic Science 7.44 5.04 1 .8087 .3688 Nonscience 7.04 5.29 Scientistic Science 1.99 1.73 1 49.6324 .0000 Nonscience 1.07 1.43 Utilitarian Science 1.87 2.19 1 9.7025 .0019 Nonscience 2.60 2.95 Dominionistic Science 1.45 1.68 1 .7103 .3997 Nonscience 1.59 1.93 Negativistic Science 2.48 2.05 1 23.4248 .0000 Nonscience 3.47 2.52 82 NEHN 2 OF TOTRL POSSIBLE 437— :an 4}»: .5. 5&1: uh: .5. is. RTTITUDE DOMHIN (‘sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.8. Mean attitude scores for science and nonscience teachers. 83 Table 4.18. Analysis of variance on primary(n-108) and secondary(n=32) science teachers for 8 attitude domains. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Natugalistic Primary Sci. 4.53 2.75 2 28.7295 .0000 * Secondary Sci. 7.59 3.15 Ecologistic Primary Sci. 4.56 2.75 2 36.5874 .0000 * Secondary Sci. 8.00 3.08 Humanistic Primary Sci. 4.73 2.61 2 5.4456 .0211 * Secondary Sci. 3.53 2.36 Moralistic Primary Sci. 7.52 4.87 2 2.2591 .1351 Secondary Sci. 6.06 4.61 Scientistic Primary Sci. 1.64 1.54 2 24.7885 .0000 * Secondary Sci. 3.25 1.75 Utilitarian Primary Sci. 1.97 2.25 2 .5090 .4768 Secondary Sci. 1.66 1.99 Dominionistic Primary Sci. 1.28 1.53 2 5.0817 .0258 * Secondary Sci. 2.00 1.80 Negativistic Primary Sci. 2.81 2.03 2 11.8662 .0008 * Secondary Sci. 1.50 1.34 84 LJ 4 F T T 1 T 7 T I an H m r- g SECONDHRY SCIENCE 0. 58.8» ..I m n- S I— 38.8'- B_ _ 4’ '5 PRIHHRY SCIENCE .\’ 2 18.8} a __ CE LL] 1 1 L 1 L 1 L 1 2 m' ECO’ Hun' NOR SCI‘ un non“ NEC‘ HTTITUDE DOMFIINS (*sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.9. Mean attitude scores for primary and secondary science teachers. 85 teachers were predominantly male (60.1 %) and more likely than primary teachers to hold an advanced degree. They also exhibited a slightly higher rate of hunting (16.2 %) and angling (56.9%)(Appendix 7.20), but this may simply be attributed to their smaller sample size (Table 4.19). Among lst - 3rd, 4th - 6th and 9th - 12th teachers, 4th -6th grade teachers had the highest naturalistic and ecologistic scores. Ninth through twelfth grade teachers also held significantly higher dominionistic scores than 1st - 3rd grade teachers (Table 4.20 : Figure 4.10). Again, differences in ecologistic and dominionistic attitude scores were eliminated when teacher sex was controlled, indicating the importance of the male/female ratio in determining the profile of teacher subgroups. UrbanARural Background: Teachers were classified as having grown up in rural (below 5000 people), suburban (10,000 - 100,000 people), or urban (100,000 people or more) environments. Teachers raised in a rural community (n-164) were also likely to live and teach in a rural area. The group contained more males (48.7 %) than other areas and a higher rate of hunting (23.3 %) (Appendix 7.21). Teachers who grew up in a town of 10,000 to 100,000 (n-202) were also likely to live and teach in such a community. More of these teachers were conservation club members than teachers from urban or rural areas (Appendix 7.22). 86 Table 4.19. A comparison of select characteristics for 1st- 3rd (n-126), 4th-6th (n8108) and 9th-12th (n=196) grade teachers (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 94.0959 2 .0000 * Age 4.4025 6 .6224 Race 4.4478 2 .1082 Education . 12.2977 4 .0153 E.E. Workshops 13.0469 2 .0015 * Grade Level ------ - ----- Science Teaching 45.7118 2 .0000 * Urban/Rural 4.6436 4 .3259 Hunting 5.9003 2 .0523 Angling 12.7468 2 .0017 * Birdwatching .1373 2 .9336 Club Membership .7108 2 .7009 Pet Ownership 7.4720 2 .0238 87 Table 4.20. Analysis of variance of lst-3rd(n=126), 4th- 6th(n-108), and 9th-12th(n-l97)grade teachers for 8 attitude domains. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic lst-3rd 3.94 2.55 2 7.3393 .0007 4th-6th 5.47 3.17 9th-12th 4.80 3.34 Ecologistic lst-3rd 3.94 2.44 2 3.7957 .0232 4th-6th 4.95 2.75 9th-12th 4.44 3.02 Humanistic lst-3rd 4.39 2.79 2 2.5655 .0781 4th-6th 4.72 2.64 9th-12th 4.01 2.63 Moralistic lst-3rd 7.27 4.67 2 2.1788 .1144 4th-6th 7.85 5.41 9th-12th 6.59 5.32 Scientistic lst-3rd 1.40 1.62 2 3.0352 .0491 4th-6th 1.64 1.51 9th-12th 1.18 1.59 Utilitarian lst-3rd 2.44 2.96 2 1.1567 .3155 4th-6th 1.89 2.37 9th-12th 2.20 2.70 Dominionistic lst-3rd 1.21 1.55 2 4.5330 .0113 4th-6th 1.33 1.45 9th-12th 1.80 2.17 Negativistic lst-3rd 3.40 2.34 2 3.0664 .0476 3rd-6th 2.69 2.08 9th-12th 3.28 2.56 88 Lu -J T T W T W 7 T f 00 H m . 8 0. 58.8» .J xA‘~ 4th-5th E ’ , lst-3rd o \ 9th-lath r— 38.8- LC. c) . .\° 2 10.0 c: w l L l l L J. ._L L 2 NM" cco‘ HUN NOR SCI un non' NEC‘ FITTITUDE DOMFIINS (‘sig at p=.05) Figure 4.10. Mean attitude scores for lst-3rd, 4th-6th, and 9th-12th grade teachers. 89 Teachers who grew up in areas of 100,000 persons or more (n-212) also tended to live and work in urban areas. Urban teachers were less likely to be science teachers and slightly less likely than other groups to hunt (10.2 %), fish(38.2 %), or own pets (64.7 %) Black teachers were almost exclusively from urban areas (Table 4.21 : Appendix 7.23). Teachers of rural background were more naturalistic than those of urban background. They were also less moralistic, more utilitarian, and more dominionistic than other teachers. Teachers raised iJl suburban communities had significantly higher ecologistic and humanistic scores than those from larger cities. Urban raised teachers held lower naturalistic and ecologistic scores than other teachers (Table 4.22 : Figure 4.11) . When only teachers of region 3 (southern lower Michigan) were compared, naturalistic, humanistic, and dominionistic differences were no longer seen. This may be due to small, largely male samples in northern Michigan. When these small males groups are not in the comparison, differences associated with sex ratio do not appear. It seems most likely that urban/rural background is best associated with differences in ecologistic, moralistic, and utilitarian attitudes. Region: Respondents from Michigan's upper peninsula (n-24) were all white and predominantly male (57.1 %). They were more likely to have grown up, lived, and taught in small 9C) Table 4.21. A comparison of select characteristics for urban (n3212), suburban (n=202) and rural (n=164) teachers (p =- .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 5.2964 2 .0708 Age 8.0905 6 .2315 Race 14.7698 2 .0006 * Education 5.4953 4 .2401 E.E. Workshops 1.1678 2 .5577 Grade Level 4.6436 4 .3259 Science Teaching 3.3945 2 .1832 Urban/Rural ------ - ----- Hunting 19.1623 2 .0001 * Angling 11.7525 2 .0028 Birdwatching ' .9021 2 .6369 Club Membership 4.2820 2 .1175 Pet Ownership 6.5914 2 .0370 * 91 Analysis of variance for 8 attitude domains on teachers who grew up in populations below 5000(n-164), 10,000-100,000(n-202), or above Table 4.22. 100,000(n-212) people. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic Below 5000 4.96 3.43 2 4.0769 .0175 10-100,000 4.84 3.14 100,000 + 4.14 2.77 Ecologistic Below 5000 4.23 2.82 2 4.2234 .0151 10-100,000 4.66 2.88 100,000 + 3.88 2.57 Humanistic Below 5000 - 4.02 2.39 2 3.2961 .0377 10-100,000 4.67 2.95 100,000 + 4.09 2.83 Moralistic Below 5000 6.01 4.86 2 5.2735 .0054 10-100,000 7.58 5.32 100,000 + 7.56 5.35 Scientistic Below 5000 1.26 1.70 2 .6909 .5015 10-100,000 1.45 1.52 100,000 + 1.32 1.58 Utilitarian Below 5000 2.74 2.74 2 4.2787 .0143 10-100,000 2.00 2.65 100,000 2.64 2.72 Dominionistic Below 5000 1.88 2.15 2 3.2521 .0394 10-100,000 1.39 1.84 100,000 1.50 1.71 Negativistic Below 5000 2.96 2.15 2 2.1177 .1212 10-100,000 3.10 2.45 100,000 + 3.46 2.61 92 o—o BELOH saaa a--—-e 10,008 - 108,088 58.8- o—----O HBOVE 108,080 J 18.8- MEFIN 7. OF TOTHL POSSIBLE NFIT'I ECO’ HUN‘ NOR’ SCI U‘I’I'I DON’ NEG FITTITUDE DOMFIINS (Isig. at p=.05) Figure 4.11. Mean attitude scores for teachers who grew up in a community below 5000, 10,000-100,000, or above 100,000 people. 93 communities, and less likely to hold an advanced degree, or teach science than teachers from the lower peninsula. Upper peninsula residents also had comparatively high animal activity rates, though their small sample size (n: 28) makes interpretation difficult (Appendix 7.24). Similiarly. teachers from.the upper half of the lower peninsula (n-3l) were all white, strongly associated with small communities, largely male and relatively young (mean age - 36.8 years). They were less likely than more southern teachers to hold advanced degrees, but more likely than teachers of other state regions to participate in animal related activities, or environmental education workshops (Appendix 7.25). Most (90 %) teachers were from southern Michigan (n=574) and so their statistics are nearly identical to those of the all teacher group (Table 4.23 : Appendix 7.26). Residents of the upper half of Michigan's lower peninsula were more naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionistic than teachers of southern Michigan. Regional differences (except negativistic differences) persisted when only teachers from small communities were compared. However, it should be noted that small samples from both northern regions may not have allowed detection of all true differences (Table 4.24 ; Figure 4.12). Environmental Education Workshops Teachers who had attended at least 1 environmental education workshop (n=313) were more likely to work.at the 94. Table 4.23. A comparison of select characteristics for teachers from Michigan's upper peninsula (n-24), northern lower peninsula (n-31) and southern lower peninsula (n-574) (p - .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 4.3600 2 .1130 Age 9.9940 6 .1249 Race 4.8053 2 .0905 Education 32.9150 4 .0000 E.E. Workshops 5.6502 2 .0593 Grade Level 2.9642 4 .5638 Science Teaching 6.0299 2 .0490 Urban/Rural 13.5253 4 .0090 Hunting 32.1568 2 .0000 Angling 9.0323 2 .0109 Birdwatching 5.2143 2 .0737 Club Membership 14.6785 2 .0006 Pet Ownership 10.0959 2 .0064 Table 4.24. 95 Analysis of variance for 8 attitude domains for Teachers who grew up in Michigan's upper penninsula(n-24),northern lower penninsula(n-3l) or southern lower penninsula(n=574). Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic U.P. 5.17 2.79 2 8.1617 .0003 N.L.P. 6.93 3.55 S.L.P. 4.12 3.14 Ecologistic U.P. 4.54 2.72 2 7.9467 .0000 N.L.P. 6.29 2.99 S.L.P. 4.24 2.80 Humanistic U.P. 4.38 2.63 2 .3184 .7274 N.L.P. 3.90 2.94 S.L.P. 4.30 2.77 Moralistic U.P. 6.42 4.69 2 1.5608 .2108 N.L.P. 5.74 4.70 S.L.P. 7.30 5.31 Scientietic U.P. 1.13 1.29 2 1.2580 .2849 N.L.P. 1.74 1.71 SeLePe ' 1e33 1.58 Utilitarian U.P 2.42 1.74 2 1.4198 .2426 N.L.P. 1.55 1.88 S.L.P. 2.38 2.76 Dominiopistic U.P ' 1.79 2.30 2 4.8177 .0084 N.L.P. 2.52 3.00 S.L.P. 1.49 1.73 Negativistic U.P. 2.29 1.90 2 3.2148 .0408 N.L.P. 2.52 1.93 S.L.P. 3.28 2.48 96 MERN 2 OF TOTRL POSSIBLE NBT‘ ECo‘ HON NOR SCI U‘I’I 0011’ NEG' FITTITUDE DOMFIINS ('sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.12. Mean attitude scores for teachers in Michigan's upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula, and southern lower peninsula. 97 primary level, teach science, and participate in animal related activities than teachers without such workshop attendance (n-349)(Tables 4.25 : Appendix 7.28, 7.29). Teachers who had attended at least 1 environmental education workshop were significantly more naturalistic, ecologistic, and scientistic than teachers who had not attended such a workshop( Table 4.26 : Figure 4.13). Animal Related Activity Groups Five groups of participants in animal related activities were analyzed,including: hunters»(n-88), anglers.(n-322), pet owners (n-463), birdwatchers (n-303), and clubmembers (n-182). Antihunters (n-l35) and nonhunters (n-336) were also analyzed for comparison with hunters. These 7 groups were not mutually exclusive. Anti-huntersy Nonhunters, and Hunters: Teachers who disapproved of all 4 types of hunting suggested in the survey (hunting for sport, meat, recreation, or trophy) were classified as anti-hunters. Anti-hunting teachers were largely female (74 %) and held a slightly higher level of education than hunters and nonhunters. They were comparatively more urban than hunters and a higher portion were black. Anti-hunters showed a lower participation rate in angling (27 %) than other activity groups or teachers as a whole (Appendix 7.30). Teachers who approved of at least 1 type of hunting but had not hunted in the last 2 years were classified as nonhunters. Nonhunting teachers were similar to the teacher 98» Table 4.25. A comparison of select characteristics for teachers with (n=3l7) vs. without (n-349) an environmental education workshop experience (P = -05) Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex .4190 l .5174 Age 5.2052 3 .1574 Race .0520 1 .8196 Education 4.2146 2 .1216 E.E. Workshops ------ - ----- Grade Level 13.0469 2 .0015 * Science Teaching 16.5597 1 .0000 * Urban/Rural 1.1678 2 .5577 Hunting 3.8938 1 .0485 4 Angling 8.0252 1 .0046 * Birdwatching 15.3738 1 .0001 * Club Membership 13.6400 1 .0002 * Pet Ownership 6.4576 1 .0111 Table 4.26. E39 Analysis of variance on 8 attitude domains of teachers with vs. without an environmental education workshop experience. Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic Workshop 5.12 3.29 1 11.5323 .0007 * No Workshop 4.30 2.99 Ecologistic Workshop 4.76 2.94 1 12.9147 .0004 * No Workshop 3.97 2.72 Humanistic . Workshop 4.22 2.84 1 0.1179 .7314 No Workshop 4.29 2.71 Moralistic Workshop 7.16 5.33 1 .0001 .9930 No Workshop 7.16 5.12 Scientistic Workshop 1.65 1.65 1 24.8891 .0000 * No Workshop 1.05 1.46 Utilitarian Workshop 2.40 2.69 l .0172 .8958 No Workshop 2.37 2.83 Dominionistic Workshop 1.71 1.87 1 5.1695 .0233 * No Workshop 1.39 1.82 Negativistic Workshop 3.04 2.57 1 1.9793 .1599 No Workshop 3.30 2.30 100 58.8+ 38.8- NO WORKSHOP I 10.0L ‘ NHT‘ Eco‘ HUN NOR SCI UTI non‘ NEG‘ HTTITUDE DOMHINS (*sig. at p=.05) MEHN X OF TOTHL POSSIBLE Figure 4.13. Mean attitude scores for teachers who have, or have not attended an environmental education workshop. 101 sample as a whole (Appendix 7.31). Teachers which indicated they had hunted in the last 2 years were classified as hunters. Most hunters were male (73.5 %), and nearly all were also anglers (94.1 %). Many hunters were also pet owners (76 %) and clubmembers (54 %). They were more rural and less likely to hold an advanced degree than other teachers,and had the highest environmental education workshop attendance of any group (Table 4.27 7 Appendix 7.32). Significant differences existed among hunting, nonhunting, and anti-hunting teachers in all domains. Hunters were more naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionistic than nonhunting or anti-hunting teachers. Anti-hunting teachers were characterized by their high moralistic and negativistic, combined with low ecologistic scores. Nonhunters were significantly different from hunters in most domains. They were less distinguishable from anti- hunters, differing significantly in only the moralistic and dominionistic domains (Table 4.28 : Figure 4.14). AESAEEE Many teachers who had fished in the last 2 years were also hunters (26.6 %) and birdwatchers (51.5 %). About a third (34.9 %) also belonged to conservation clubs and 55.7 % were male (Table 4.29 : Appendix 7.5). Birdwatchers Birdwatchers showed a strong rate of club membership (41.2 %), but only an average rate of hunting (16.3 4) (Appendix 7.6). 1(32 Table 4.27. A comparison of select characteristics for hunters (n-88), nonhunters (n=336), and anti- hunters (n-135) (p =- .05). Variable Chi Sq. D.f. Sig. Sex 47.0920 2 .0000 Age 5.5539 6 .4750 Race 13.6293 2 .0011 Education 10.5677 4 .0319 E.E. Workshops 4.0854 2 .1297 Grade Level 6.7431 4 .1501 Science Teaching 8.6206 2 .0134 Urban/Rural 34.4371 4 .0000 Hunting ------- - ------ Angling 97.7134 2 .0000 Birdwatching 4.6594 2 .0973 Club Membership 45.3163 2 .0000 Pet Ownership 3.9635 2 .1378 Table 4.28. 1053 Analysis of variance nonhunting (n-336), teachers for 8 attitude domains on and anti-hunting(n-l350) hunting (n-88), Subgroup Mean Std. dev. D.f F Sig. Naturalistic Anti-hunters 4.61 3.09 2 36.5293 .0000 Nonhunters 4.15 2.88 Hunters 7.24 3.43 Ecologistic Anti-hunters 3.79 2.56 2 25.1787 .0000 Nonhunters 4.15 2.55 Hunters 6.23 3.36 Humanistic Anti-hunters 4.46 2.92 2 3.5897 .0282 Nonhunters 4.36 2.72 Hunters 3.55 2.51 Moralistic Anti-hunters 12.56 4.59 2 159.7114 .0000 Nonhunters 5.57 4.06 Hunters 3.92 4.27 Scientistic Anti-hunters 1.38 1.60 2 4.9020 .0078 Nonhunters 1.17 1.44 Hunters . 1.74 1.87 Utilitarian Anti-hunters 1e98 2035 2 203906 00085 Nonhunters 2.58 2.91 Hunters 2.36 2.44 Dominionistic Anti-hunters .68 .92 2 92.2320 .0000 Nonhunters 1.52 1.57 Hunters 3.76 2.70 Negativistic Anti-hunters 3.44 2.69 2 5.5955 .0039 * Nonhunters 3.16 2.27 Hunters 2.40 1.93 104- 38.8- T 18.8L i 1 HUN 7. OF TOTRL POSSIBLE um' ECO" HUN" noa‘ SCI’ UTI’ non‘ NEc‘ FITTITUDE DOMHINS (‘sig. at p=.05) Figure 4.14. Mean attitude scores for hunting, nonhunting, and anti-hunting teachers. 1(35 A comparison of animal related activity rates for 5 activity groups and 2 nonactive groups Table 4.29. Activitx( % ) bird club own Group n hunt fish watch member pets Anti-hunters 135 0 27.0 42.9 23.7 62.9 Nonhunters 336 0 50.5 42.4 21.1 69.2 Hunters 88 100 94.1 53.9 53.9 76.1 Anglers 332 26.6 100 51.5 34.9 75.3 Birdwatchers 303 16.3 55.2 100 41.2 76.0 Club Members 182 26.8 61.5 67.8 100 82.9 Pet Owners 463 14.5 53.6 49.7 32.4 100 1065 gieb members Teachers who had belonged to a conservation club in the last 2 years were more likely than hunting or angling teachers to birdwatch (67.8 %), or own a pet (82.9 %). Clubmembers also had relatively strong rates of hunting (26.8 %) and angling (61.5 %). Mean Attitude Scale Scores For Select Teacher Subgroups The attitude scale scores of specific teacher subgroups are presented below. The extreme scores for each domain are presented and compared with the general public (Kellert and Berry 1980) and BLM biologists (Peyton 1984) The Naturalistic Domain: The teachers with the highest naturalistic scores were those involved in animal related activities (hunting, conservation club membership, birdwatching, and fishing). The teachers with the lowest naturalistic scores were females, nonhunters, those of urban background, and blacks. All teachers had naturalistic scores higher than the general public, but lower than BLM biologists (Figure 4.15). The Ecologistic Domain: The ecologistic subgroup scores were similiar to the naturalistic subgroup scores. Hunters, science teachers, and birdwatchers held the highest ecologistic scores. Females, 1st - 3rd grade teachers, anti- hunters and blacks held the lowest ecologistic attitudes. Again, all teachers held higher scores than the general public, but considerably lower than BLM biologists (Figure 1 O 7 NATURALISTIC DOMAIN BLM BIOLOGISTS "' “"""‘] SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) J HUNTERS ;I N. LOWER PENINSULA __J CONS.CLUB MEMBERS j BIRD WATCHERS .j ANGLERS J7 4TH-6TH GRADE MALES SCIENCE TEACHERS UPPER PENINSULA ENv. ED. WORKSHOP P0P. BELOW 5000 PET OWNERS WHITES P0P. 10-100,000 9TH-12TH GRADE ALL TEACHERS ANTI-HUNTERS SCIENCE TEACHERS (1-6) NONSCIENCE TEACHERS N0 ENv. ED. WORKSHOPS FEMALES NONHUNTERS S. LOWER PENINSULA P0P. ABOVE 100,000 BLACKS I lST-3RD GRADE _;] GENERAL PUBLIC! j L4L%_ Figure 4.15. Mean naturalistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 108 4.16). The Humanistic Domain: Pet owners, females, and.4th'- 6th grade teachers had the highest humanistic scores. Closely following were birdwatchers, anti-hunters, those with a B.S. degree, and those who grew up in towns of 10,000 to 100,000. The lowest humanistic scores were held by hunters, males, and blacks. .All teachers held slightly higher'humanistic scores than BLM biologists, but as a whole teachers were not significantly different from the general public (Figure 4.17). Lhe Moralistic Domain: Anti-hunting teachers obtained an extremely high moralistic score, separating them widely from other teacher subgroups. Birdwatchers, females, and conservation club members also received high moralistic scores. Anglers, those of rural background, and males held the lowest moralistic scores. The general public and BLM biologists both held moralistic scores lower than any teacher subgroup (Figure 4.18). The Scientistic Domain: Scale scores indicated that scientistic interest in animals was weakly present or completely absent in most teachers. Nearly half (46 %) the sample scored 0 on the scientistic scale. All teacher subgroups held relatively low scientistic attitudes, though all were slightly higher than the general public. Science 1 O 9 ECOLOGISTIC DOMAIN BLM BIOLOGISTS “‘ "1 SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) 1 .N. LOWER PENINSULA ;CONS.CLUB MEMBERS EHUNTERS J gBIRD WATCHERS .AJ‘ sENv. ED WORKSHOP I iMALES ‘ :ANGLERS 4TH-6TH GRADE P0P. 10-100,000 PET OWNERS SCIENCE TEACHERS TWHITES SCIENCE TEACHERS(1-6) UPPER PENINSULA 9TH-12TH GRADE ALL TEACHERS N0 ENV. ED. WORKSHOP P0P. BELOW 5000 s. LOWER PENINSULA NONHUNTERS NONSCIENCE TEACHERS FEMALE isT-3RD GRADE P0P. ABOVE 100,000 ANTI-HUNTERS J BLACKS GENERAL PUBLIC Figure 4.16. Mean ecologistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 110 HUMANISTIC DOMAIN PET OWNERS FEMALES 4TH-6TH GRADE CONS. CLUB MEMBERS POP. 10-100,000 SCIENCE TEACHERS(1-6) BIRD WATCHERS ANTI-HUNTERS SCIENCE TEACHERS NONHUNTERS IST-BRD GRADE UPPER PENINSULA WHITES ALL TEACHERS NO ENV. ED. WORKSHOPS ANGLERS ENV.ED. WORKSHOP NONSCIENCE TEACHERS POP. ABOVE 100,000 S. LOWER PENINSULA POP. BELOW 5000 GENERAL PUBLIC 9TH-12TH GRADE N. LOWER PENINSULA HUNTERS fiTfi SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) 4:] MALES j BLACKS (J [ELM BIOLOGISTS ‘I Figure 4.17. Mean humanistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 1 1 1 MORALISTIC DOMAIN ANTI:HUNTERS BIRD WATCHERS FEMALES CONS. CLUBMEMBERS ,4TH-6TH GRADE SCIENCE TEACHERS(1-6) SCIENCE TEACHERS PET OWNERS POP. 10-100,000 POP. ABOVE 100,000 lST-3RD GRADE S. LOWER PENINSULA ALL TEACHERS NO ENV. ED. WORKSHOP WHITES ENV. ED. WORKSHOP NONSCIENCE TEACHERS BLACKS 9TH-12TH GRADE UPPER PENINSULA ANGLERS POP. BELOW 5000 SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) MALES N. LOWER PENINSULA NONHUNTERS GENERAL PUBLIC BLM BIOLOGISTS HUNTERS .‘J ~41. I I]— Figure 4.18. Mean moralistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 112 teachers had the highest scientistic score: nonscience teachers held the lowest. All groups held lower scores than BLM biologists (Figure 4.19). The Utilitarian Domain: Blacks, those of rural or urban background, and males had the highest utilitarian scores, while anti-hunters, birdwatchers and conservation club members held the lowest utilitarian scores. Overall, scores were uniformly low and all subgroups scored lower than the general public and higher than BLM biologists (Figure 4.20). T_h_e Dominionistic Domain: Most teachers also held lower dominionistic scores than the general public. The exceptions to this were hunters and males. Females, primary teachers, and anti-hunters had the lowest dominionistic scores (Figure 4.21) . The Negativistic Domain: Most teacher subgroups held lower negativistic scores than the general public. Black teachers were significantly more negativistic than other groups, and females, anti-hunters, and urban teachers also held high negativistic scores. Birdwatchers, science teachers, hunters and clubmembers held the lowest negativistic scores (Figure 4.22). A Conceptual Framework for Estimating the Frequency and CompositiOn e; Distinct Attitude Profiles ip the Teacher Population In order to better approximate and describe the types of profiles in the teacher population, teachers were categorized 1 1 3 SCIENTISTIC DOMAIN {BLM BIOLOGISTS “‘ “‘ “"“' “' “‘_:1 BSCI. TEACHERS(9-12) yr :SCIENCE TEACHERS ] ;CONS. CLUB MEMBERS T iBIRD WATCHERS :N. LOWER PENINSULA gHUNTERS fSCIENCE TEACHERS(1-6) E4TH-6TH GRADE iENv. ED. WORKSHOP ANGLERS POP. 10-100,000 I 1ST-3RD GRADE PET OWNERS ANTI-HUNTERS ‘ALL TEACHERS lPOP. BELOW 5000 WHITES P0P. ABOVE 100,000 MALES FEMALES s. LOWER PENINSULA 9TH-12TH GRADE BLACKS NONHUNTERS UPPER PENINSULA NONSCIENCE'TEACHERS NO ENV. WORKSHOP GENERAL PUBLIC J Figure 4.19. Mean scientistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 1 1 4 UTILITARIAN DOMAIN GENERAL PUBLIC ——_—_—-—_ " "‘1 BLACKS ‘ 1 POP. BELOW 5000 gJ MALES POP. ABOVE 100,000 NONHUNTERS NONSCIENCE TEACHERS HUNTERS 1ST-3RD GRADE ENV. ED. WORKSHOP NO ENV. ED. WORKSHOP ALL TEACHERS UPPER PENINSULA S. LOWER PENINSULA WHITES 9TH-12TH GRADE ANGLERS FEMALES PET OWNERS I POP. 1o-100,000 ANTI-HUNTERS SCI. TEACHERS(1-6) 4TH-6TH GRADE SCIENCE TEACHERS CONS. CLUB MEMBERS BIRD WATCHERS I SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) j N. LOWER PENINSULA .1 | BLM BIOLOGISTS J Figure 4.20. Mean utilitarian scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980a). 115 DOMINIONISTIC DOMAIN BLM BIOLOGISTS HUNTERS N. LOWER PENINSULA GENERAL PUBLIC SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) MALES ANGLERS ! POP. BELOW 5000 9TH-12TH GRADE UPPER PENINSULA CONS. CLUB MEMBERS ENV.ED. WORKSHOP BLACKS NONSCIENCE TEACHERS ALL TEACHERS PET OWNERS S. LOWER PENINSULA NONHUNTERS WHITES POP. ABOVE 100,000 NO ENV. ED. WORKSHOPS BIRD WATCHERS SCIENCE TEACHERS POP. 10-100,000 4TH-6TH GRADE SCIENCE TEACHERS(l-6) FEMALES 15T-3RD GRADE ANTI-HUNTERS I Figure 4.21. Mean dominionistic scores for all respondents, teacher subgroups, BLM bio logists (Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980). 116 NEGATIVISTIC DOMAIN BURKS 4...; GENERAL PUBLIC 1 FEMALES I lANTI-HUNTERS ‘POP. ABOVE 100,000 NONSCIENCE TEACHERS 1ST-3RD GRADE 9TH-12TH GRADE NO ENV. ED. WORKSHOP s. LOWER PENINSULA ALL TEACHERS NONHUNTERS POP. 10-100,000 ENV. ED. WORKSHOP WHITES POP. BELOW 5000 SCIENCE TEACHERS(1-6) I PET OWNERS 4TH-6TH GRADE ANGLERS MALES BIRD WATCHERS N. LOWER PENINSULA SCIENCE TEACHERS HUNTERS I UPPER PENINSULA SJ CONS. CLUB MEMBERS I SCI. TEACHERS(9-12) .J IBLM BIOLOGISTS J Figure 4.22. Mean negativistic scores for all respondents,teacher subgroups, BLM biologists(Peyton 1985), and the general public (Kellert 1980). 117 according to the strengths and weaknesses of the four'most frequent attitudes in the population. According to the strength of the overall mean, and the presence of the attitude across individual respondents, the most frequent attitudes are the naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic. Respondents were grouped using the mean scale scores of all teachers (n-666). Those at or below the mean were assigned a neutral sign (-) for that scale, while those above the mean were assigned a positive value (+). For example, using this classification about 9 % of the population was above the mean on all four scales (++++), and might be labelled as having a "uniformly strong primary profile". The first four attitudes in the profile were chosen because of their frequency and distribution in the population. Their lower frequency and uniformity of scoring made the scientistic and dominionistic scales more difficult to analyze with this method and they were not used. Further, the scientistic domain has fewer implications for wildlife managers, though it may be an important domain by some other criterion. The utilitarian scale was not employed because of an error in the survey which altered the tabulation of the utilitarian score. Further, some reservation about the validity of the utilitarian scale has been expressed earlier (Peyton 1985). The use of these four attitudes does not imply that other attitudes are less important or that profiles developed around the strengths and weaknesses of other scales would not 118 be useful. They were selected simply because of the nature of the data, the researcher's interest in naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes, and because it was possible to simply categorize most teachers in the population based on these four attitudes. They serve to illustrate the utility of this type of analysis. The following are brief descriptions of the characteristics of 13 distinct attitude profiles in the population (summarized in table 4.30). Ninety percent of all respondents fall into one of these profiles, which range in size from 2 % to 16 % of the population. Uniformly Low Primary Profile(- - - -): The most frequenty occurring profile (n-113 , or 17 % of all respondents) was made up by teachers at or below the mean on all four primary attitudes. They held higher than average dominionistic and negativistic scores. The group closely resembled respondents generally in sex ratio, education, grade level, teaching discipline, workshop attendance, and urban/rural background. However, fewer taught science, hunted (8 %), fished.(32 %), birdwatched.(25 %), owned pets (47 %) or belonged to conservation clubs (4 %). Eleven percent of the members were black. Twenty-five percent of all black.respondents were found here. This profile represents a large part of the population who seem relatively uninterested in and detached from animals. Their scores were lower than the general public on 6 scales (naturalistic through utilitarian), and higher than Table 4.30. A estimate of 13 profile types in the teacher population. 119 general description and frequency n % of Pop. General Group Characteristics 113 58 49 43 52 16.9 LOW PRIMARY PROFILE (high neg.) 58 % female. This mean group resembles the all teacher group in sex ratio, race, education, grade level, and urban/rural background. But, fewer teach science and they are less likely to participate in animal related activities. HIGH PRIMARY PROFILE (low neg.) 64 % female. High rates of fishing, birdwatching, club membership and pet ownership. 1 in 10 hunt. More than the average number teach science. (Active Females) HIGH NATURALISM-ECOLOGISM (high dom.) 86 % male. Typically a highly involved male, likely'to hunt, fish. birdwatch, and belong to cons. clubs. More likely than the average teacher to attend env. ed. workshops and teach science, but less likely to have an advanced degree or come from an urban background. (Dominionistic Hunters) HIGH HUMANISM-MORALISM (low dom.) 81 % female. Most own pets, but are unlikely to attend workshops or participate in other animal related activities. Fewer than average are science teachers. None hunt. Typically they are suburban nonscience teachers. (Uninvolved Females - Antihunters) HIGH NATURALISM (high uti,dom,neg) 75 % female. Typically a nonscience teacher who does not hunt or belong to cons. clubs, but does own a pet. Isn't highly involved, but secondary attitudes indicate approval of these activities by others. (Humanistic nonhunters) 120 Table 4.30 (cont.) Primary Profile N E H M % of Pop. General Group Characteristics 35 64 42 15 32 29 29 5.2 6.3 HIGH ECOLOGISM (High uti,dom,neg) 60 % male. High rate of hunting and fishing: other activity rates low. HIGH HUMANISM (high uti, dom, neg) 75 % female. Typically a nonscience teacher. Most own pets, but other activity rates are low. (Low Interest Nonhunters) HIGH MORALISM (low dom., high neg.) 74 % female. Typically an urban nonscience teacher with low activity rates. 1 in 5 are black teachers. (Moralistic Anti-hunters) LOW NATURALISM (low uti., dom.) 80 % female. None hunt and only 1 in 4 fish, but all own pets, and more than half birdwatch and belong to cons. clubs. ‘Most are young and urban.*with only a B.S. degree. (Nonconsumptive Activists) LOW ECOLOGISM (low uti., dom.) 78 % female. Most are urban, own pets, and teach primary grades. Fewer than 1 in 10 hunt or belong to cons. clubs. LOW HUMANISM (low uti., dom., neg.) 52 % female. More active than the average teacher in hunting, fishing, birding, workshop attendance, and cons. club membership, but about average in pet ownership. (Ecologistic Hunters) LOW MORALISM(low uti., dom.) 55 % female. The typical member has high participation rates in hunting, fishing, birding, club membership and workshop attendance. All own pets and a higher number than average are science teachers. (Naturalistic Hunters) 121 Table 4.30 (cont.) Primary % of General Group Profile n Pop. Characteristics NEHM* - + - + 12 1.8 HIGH ECOLOGISM - MORALISM (high sci, low dom) 50 % female. Typically white, young, with at least a master‘s degree. Few have a rural background. Low animal related activity rates and workshop attendance. None hunt. (Ecologistic Anti-hunters, Nonhunters) * The attitudes comprising the primary profile are the naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic. They are symbdized by the letters N, E, H, and M respectively. Indicates that individuals in the group scored above the sample mean on this attitude scale Indicates that individuals in the group scored at or below the sample mean on this attitude scale 1:22 the general public in the negativistic scale. As a group, blacks, nonscience teachers and teachers age 57 to 67 also held this type of profile. Uniformly High Primary Profile (+ + + +): .Approximately 9 % (n-58) of the respondents were above the mean on naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic and moralistic scales. They held higher scientistic, and lower dominionistic and negativistic scores than the average teacher or the general public. Thirty-eight percent taught science. Fewer than average hunted (10 %) , but they held high rates of fishing ( 60 %), birdwatching (79 %), clubmembership (50 %), and pet ownership (95 %). They include a strong female component (64 %). Birdwatchers, science teachers, 4th-6th grade teachers, and suburban raised teachers also held this type of mean profile ,and all were more than half female. High Naturalistic Z Ecologistic (+ + - -): About 7 % of the respondents held high naturalistic and ecologistic scores combined with mean or lower humanistic and moralistic attitudes. Teachers of this profile also held higher scientistic and dominionistic scores than the average teacher or the general public. They held the highest hunting (47 %) and fishing (76 %) rates of any profile type, and were also more likely than the average teacher to birdwatch (67 %), belong to conservation clubs (61 %), and attend environmental education workshops. In comparison to the mean group , fewer had an urban background or held advanced degrees. Other 123 groups who held mean profiles of this type included: hunters, males, secondary teachers, secondary science teachers. and teachers from.the northern lower peninsula. All these groups are more than 50 % male. High Humanistic Z Moralistic (- - + +): .Approximately 6 % (n-43) of the respondents held low naturalistic and ecologistic scores combined with high humanistic and moralistic scores. Members held low dominionistic and a high negativistic means. Most members were female (81 %) and all were non or anti-hunters. Relatively few taught biology (5 %) or environumental educatien (5 %), and few attended environmental education workshops. Nearly half (48 %) lived and taught in a suburban population (10,000 - 100,000). They had low fishing (28 %), club membership (21 %), and birdwatching (40 %) rates, but a high pet ownership rate. The groups whose mean scores fell in this profile‘wereiall predominantly female, and included: 1st-3rd grade teachers, females, and anti-hunters. High Naturalistic (+ - - -): Nearly 8 % (n-52) of the respondents had high naturalistic attitudes, but mean or lower ecologistic, humanistic and moralistic attitudes. These teachers also had high dominionistic scores. Many were male (58 %), hunted (25 %), and fished (73 %). But, fewer than average were pet owners (60 %) or biology teachers (10 %). The only group found to have this type of mean profile were teachers raised in towns of less than 5000 people. 124 High Ecologistic (- + - -): Five percent (n-35) of the respondents held high ecologistic scores but average or lower scores cnI the other primary attitudes. Their mean utilitarian and dominionistic scores were also high. Sixty percent were male, 77 % had master's degrees, and 35 % were biology teachers. They had above average rates of hunting (20 %) and fishing (57 %), but other activity rates were below average. They were less likely than the average teacher to live or work in an urban community. High Humanistic (- - + -): Nearly 10 % (n-64) of the respondents had profiles whose only high primary attitude was humanism. Most (75 %) were female nonscience teachers. Members also held above average utilitarian, dominionistic, and negativistic scores. Few attended environmental education workshops, hunted (5 %), birdwatched(25 %), or belonged to conservation clubs (11 %). However, 89 % were pet owners. Their profile would indicate that while they don't become very involved with animals, except as pets, they probably don"t strongly oppose use of animals for sport, food, or other products. High Moralistic (- - - +): Similiarly, teachers whose only strong primary attitude was moralism also tended to be female (74 %). About 6 % (n-42) of all respondents held this type of profile, which was accompanied by low dominionistic and very high negativistic scores. None of them hunted and all were opposed to some kind of hunting. They were less likely than the average teacher to be anglers ( 14 %), 125 birdwatchers (29 %) or club members (43 %), and less than half owned pets. About half were of urban.background, and few taught science or attended environmental education workshops. Nineteen percent were black. As a group, teachers who grew up in urban populations (above 100,000) exhibited this type of profile. Low Naturalistic (- + + +): Only 2 % (n-15) of the respondents had a low naturalistic score while other primary scales were above average. Most were young (2-36), urban females (80 %). They did not hunt and few fished (27 %), but they did.have high.participation rates in other activites, especially pet ownership (100 %). Teachers age 24 - 34 and primary science teachers held this mean profile. Low Ecologistic (+ - + +): Approximately 5 % (n-32) of the respondents held high primary attitudes except on the ecologistic scale. Members of this profile held utilitarian and dominionistic scores below the mean. Most members were female (78 %) and of suburban or urban background. Few hunted (6 %) or belonged to conservation clubs (9 %), but most owned pets (84 %). They were likely to teach primary grades and 31 % taught biology, but their environmental education workshop attendance was below average. Low Humanistic (+ + - +): Aproximately 8 % (n-52) of the respondents held low humanistic scores with otherwise high primary attitudes. These teachers also held low utilitarian, dominionistic and negativistic means. Their sex 126 ratio was about evenly spilt between males and females. The group held above average animal activity rates, except as pet owners (67 %). Their workshop attendance was above average and 27 % taught biology. Low Moralistic (+ + + -): Twenty-nine teachers (4 %) held low moralistic combined with high naturalistic, ecologistic and humanistic scores. About half were female (55 %). The group held more science teachers than average. They exhibited high participation rates in environmental education workshops as well as the other forms of animal related activity covered by the survey. Their low utilitarian and dominionistic scores , along with high naturalistic and ecologistic scores suggest hunters with this profile might be "naturalistic hunters" (Kellert and Berry 1980b). They seem to feel strongly about animal suffering (humanistic), but don't seem to see hunting as morally wrong based on that suffering. High Ecologistic 2'. Moralistic (- + - +): The smallest group selected contained only 12 (2 % of all) respondents. These teachers might be labelled "ecologistic anti-hunters". They were equally likely to be male or female, and most (83 %) had a master's degree or higher. They had low rates of fishing (33 %), birdwatching (l7 %), club membership (8 %), pet ownership (42 %), and workshop attendance. None hunted. As a group they were white, young (2534) and suburban or urban. Their primary profile was combined with high scientistic, and low dominionistic and negativistic scores. 127 They appear to have a rather detached, if scientifically informed view towards animals. Summapy 2; Important Findings * * 13 % of all respondents hunted. 20 % were anti-hunters. The most frequent teacher attitudes were the naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic. The typical male teacher profile was highly naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionistic. The typical female teacher profile was highly humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic. These patterns were strong and consistent throughout the study. The typical black teacher held low ecologistic and humanistic, and high dominionistic and negativistic scores. Most were urban and uninvolved in animal related activities. Whether science or nonscience instructors, most primary teachers were female (77%). Most secondary teachers were male (78%). An urban background was associated with low naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes. Teachers with a rural background had high naturalistic, utilitarian, and dominionistic, and lower moralistic attitudes than urban raised teachers. The highest ecologistic scores were seen in teachers who had grown up in a population of 10,000-100,000. Hunters differed from non or anti-hunters in most attitude domains. Hunters were highly naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionistic. Anti-hunters were strongly moralistic and negativistic, but weak in the ecologistic attitude. Most hunters were male (74 %), while most anti-hunters were female (74 %). Hunting, fishing. birdwatching, conservation «club membership, env. ed.*workshop attendance, and special training in env. ed. were associated with high naturalistic and ecologistic scores. Most groups with high naturalistic and ecologistic scores, combined with low humanistic and moralistic scores were predominantly male. Highly humanistic and moralistic groups were predominantly female. Anti-hunters were significantly more moralistic than any other group. 128 Despite higher mean education, teachers were no more humanistic than the general public. All teachers held relatively low utilitarian scores in comparison to the general public, but blacks and males were the most utilitarian subgroups. Males and hunters held dominionistic scores higher than other teacher subgroups or the general public. Black teachers held negativistic scores significantly higher than any other group. Females and anti-hunting teachers also held high negativistic scores. The mean teacher profile closely resembled the profile of those with a college education in Kellert and Berry's national survey (1980a). Teachers with special environmental education training had higher naturalistic, ecologistic, and scientistic about the same humanistic and dominionistic, and lower negativistic attitudes than the general public. Biology and environmental education teachers also had high naturalistic, ecologistic, scientistic, and low utilitarian and negativistic scores. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION Finding A: The similiarity between respondents and a partial sample (22 %) of nonrespondents suggests that nonrespondent bias was low, and statements about the entire sample can be made with some confidence. However, judging by the types of animals they most prefer, nonrespondents may be less naturalistic and ecologistic, and more humanistic and moralistic than respondents. It also seems likely that nonrespondents were less interested in the survey and animals in general. To the degree that nonrespondents were less interested in animals, their exclusion could have biased the results toward higher animal related activity rates, higher naturalistic and ecologistic, and lower humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic attitudes. Finding g: The results found here were quite consistent with those reported by Kellert et al. (1978b, 1980a, 1980b) concerning the relationship between attitudes and animal related activities, and between attitudes and demographic characteristics. These consistencies support Kellert's instrument as a valid and reliable tool for measuring attitudes towards animals. Activities: The review of literature suggested that Michigan teachers might have low participation rates in 129 130 animal related activities, especially hunting. A study by Hooper (1983) indicated that teachers in California were largely uninvolved in or opposed hunting. However, this may simply reflect the generally low level of hunting in California (7 % according to the U.S. Dept. Int. 1982). Michigan teacher respondents were found to have a slightly higher rate of hunting (l3 %) than midwesterners in general (10 % : USDI 1982). Only 20 % of the respondents opposed all types of sport hunting, compared with 37 % of the public in the midwest region (Kellert and Berry 1980b). Some of the strongest attitudinal differences in the study occurred between hunters, nonhunters, and anti-hunters. Both sets of data indicate that of the variables analyzed, a person's status in this activity may be the best single predictor of his or her attitudes and behaviors toward animal related issues in general. Further, the present analysis of individual profiles support Kellert's (1980b) description of hunter and anti-hunter types. Specifically, the attitude profiles presented here suggest that the highly utilitarian and dominionistical 1y oriented hunters are much more common than naturalistic hunters. And, as Kellert would suggest, most anti-hunting teachers appear to oppose hunting on moralistic grounds. Very few appear to oppose hunting based on strong ecological concerns. For managers, this information strengthens the contention that resolving conflicts between hunters and anti- hunters demands more than an information campaign designed to alter existing knowledge. Judging by their attitude profile, 131 people either hunt or oppose hunting in part because of fundamentally different attitudes, values, and beliefs. The attitude research we have at present indicates that the most important areas of conflict involve disparate feelings on the utilization of animals, animal rights, and man's control of animals. The implication for wildlife managers is that lasting conflict resolution between hunters and anti-hunters can only occur if campaigns to alter existing beliefs (information campaigns) are combined with efforts to increase each faction's tolerance of conflicting value priorities. Values education and cooperative citizen involvement programs are two of the techniques that might be employed to achieve this end. Findings suggest that Michigan teachers may be reflecting the national increases in nonconsumptive wildlife activities, especially birdwatching, suggested by the 1980 national survey of hunting and fishing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Their attitude profiles are consistent with the high naturalistic and ecologistic scores which Kellert and Berry's (1980) data predict for groups with high animal related activity rates. Teachers who fished, birdwatched, or belonged to conservation organizations all had high naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes. Their naturalistic and ecologistic scores suggest that contact with wildlife, whether consumptive or nonconsumptive, is associated with strong concern, interest, and affection for animals and their 132 natural environment. To the degree that increased levels of naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes encourage better wildlife stewardship, incorporating direct contact with wildlife may be an important way to improve wildlife education experiences. Demographics: The present data were consistent with the attitudinal tendencies Kellert and Berry'(1980) suggested for males and females. Male/female differences were the strongest and most consistent found in the study. Any teacher subgroup with high naturalistic and dominionistic attitudes was likely to include more than 50 % males. Groups with high humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic scores were likely to include more females. Sex, like hunting status, appeared to be a very reliable indicator of a respondent's attitude profile. Blacks were found to participate in few animal related activities, and hold low ecologistic and high negativistic attitudes. These characteristic differences are noted elsewhere in the literature (Kellert and Berry 1980: Nilon 1985) and should represent an important concern to wildlife managers and environmental educators. The data also supported Kellert and Berry's (1980) findings relating to urban/rural background. In both studies respondents of rural background were more naturalistic and less negativistic than respondents of urban background. ZHigh ecologistic and low utilitarian scores were found when respondents were associated with suburban residence 133 (population 10,000-100,000) . Kellert contends that the rural resident's closer link with the land may explain these attitudinal differences. The rural resident is part of a community that directly earns its living from.the land and animals. Deep humanistic and moralistic concern would have to be reduced to accommodate the strong utilitarian nature of individual livelihoods and the local economy. Familiarity with animals in agricultural or natural settings would also serve to reduce negative feelings. The urban resident , on the other hand, probably has little contact with the land or animals, and his or her lower utilitarianism and increased moralism may reflect this. The urbanites' high negativism may be based only on experience with captive, domestic, or pest animals. Finally, the suburban resident experiences a mixture of influences. He/she has access to more open space and at least semi-natural land, but does not earn a living directly from utilization of that land. Kellert and Berry (1980) suggest that the relationship may allow the higher ecologistic and lower utilitarian scores of suburban respondents. Age and education were associated with significant attitude profile differences in the general public, but similiar changes were not seen between various age and education groups in Michigan teachers. However, since teachers represent a highly educated group, and occupy a narrower range of ages than the general public, there is 134- little reason to expect variance in attitudes to be explained by age or education variables. IMoreover,the high overall naturalistic and ecologistic scores of teachers in Michigan are predicted well by education, and to a lesser degree, by age. Kellert noted that ,"region emerged as an extremely sensitive differentiator of public perceptions and understanding of animals", and that these strong differences "suggested the value of designing management programs in ways consistent with the particular views and needs of diverse sections of the country" (Kellert and Berry 1980a, pg. 89). The differences were not as dramatic when teachers from 3 regions of Michigan were compared. Residents from the 2 northern regions (northern lower, and upper peninsula) of Michigan were more naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionistic than teachers from the southern region. However. regional differences may have occurred because small northern samples were more than half male, and contained highly active members. When only male respondents were compared between regions, dominionistic differences dissappeared. In summary, Kellertfis findings on age, education, sex ratio, income, residence, race, and animal related activity rates were largely supported by similiar analysis of Michigan teachers. Further, the data again suggest that of the factors examined to date, participation in (or opposition to) hunting, level of education , and sex seem to be the most 135 consistent and important predictors of attitudes towards animals. Finding g; The data suggest that Michigan teachers are a unique group with an overall attitude profile significantly different from the one identified for the general public by Kellert and Berry (1980a). Their profile does, however, bare a strong resemblance to the highly educated respondents in Kellert's study. Kellert's highly educated respondents held high naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic attitudes, combined with low utilitarian, dominionistic and negativistic attitudes. In similiar fashion, Michigan teacher's strongest attitudes were naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic. Their scientistic score was also significantly higher than the mean score of the general public. Teachers and the general public were significantly different in all but the humanistic attitude. Kellert reported that education accounted for no significant differences on the humanistic scale. The consistency among humanistic scores would support Kellert and Berry's contention that "increasing education largely effects interest, affection (i.eq. naturalism] and knowledge of wildlife, but has minimal impact on emotional [humanistic] attachment" (Kellert and Berry 1980, pg. 75). Their similarity in racial composition and sex ratio make it unlikely that the attitudinal differences between 136 teachers and the general public were related to these variables (both groups were approximately 58 % female, 89 % white, and 8 % black). However, their uniform income, education, and age strongly differentiated teachers from the general public. Their overall profile was very similar to young and college educated respondents in Kellert and Berry's national study, and their low utilitarian scores were comparable to those respondents with a similar annual income. Education is arguably the primary factor influencing teachers' strong feelings toward the environment as a system and their interest for wildlife and the outdoors. Yet, other plausible explanations for this profile can be made based on methodological errors or extraneous variables. One possibility is that respondents' answers were influenced by their knowledge of the survey's sponsor. Michigan State's Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife was clearly identified as the sponsor, as were its intentions to use the information gathered to improve teacher effectiveness. Their desire to provide responses which the sponsors would find favorable, may have induced respondents to show an artificially high interest in animals and animal related activities. A second possibility is that in the 7 years that have passed since Kellert and Berry's national survey in 1978, Americans as a society have changed their basic perceptions toward animals, and teachers are reflecting that change. Finding i : 137 It is proposed here that in order to give students opportunities to objectively consider all value dimensions of wildlife issues, teachers would be more effective if they themselves recognized the broad range of values represented by Kellertfis attitude domains. Such a broad perspective would also enhance a teacher's ability to objectively consider and discuss value conflicts in wildlife management situations. If teachers were found to have strongly skewed profiles or profiles weak in all domains, there would certainly be reason for concern. But when viewed as a group, the profile of attitudes exhibited by the sample is encouraging. Concern for the health of the environment and the well being of individual animals are both well represented , and negativistic attitudes are low in the sample. Mean profiles for environmental educators, and science teachers generally were also encouraging. Their high moralistic concern for animals was accompanied by a strong interest in and concern for natural habitats and animals as components of larger environmental systems. Their negativistic scores also indicated less fear of, and/or indifference to animals than expressed in the general public. Almost half of the respondents (n-313) said they had attended at least one environmental education workshop, and many of these were nonscience teachers. Interestingly, they showed higher than average naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes, though the other components of their profile were 138 not unlike teachers as a whole. Most interesting was the profile of teachers with special training in environmental education (i.e., 3 or more credit hours, but less than a college minor). Though it contains several strongly developed attitude domains, their overall profile seems reasonably balanced. They exhibit very strong naturalistic, ecologistic and moralistic and scientistic attitudes. But these are complemented by levels of dominionism and humanism as strong as those expressed by the general public. When the respondent group was broken down by sex, subject and grade level taught, attitude profiles were not always so well balanced and well developed. Female, primary and nonscience teachers were comparatively weak in the naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes, while male teachers were comparatively weak in the humanistic and moralistic attitudes. While evidence exists that most attitudes are represented in Michigan teachers statewide, in some groups the opportunity exists for teachers to display a broader range of attitude perspectives to their students. The opportunity to expose teachers to new or broader attitude perspectives is more evident when teachers are grouped according to strengths and weaknesses in their primary profile (idh, naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, and moralistic domains: Table 4.30, pg.119). Michigan teachers appear to hold a wide variety of profiles for these four attitudes, with no profile representing a large 1:39 proportion of the population. About a fourth of the respondents were strongly developed in one of the fOur attitude perspectives. About a sixth were primarily concerned with two of these attitudes. Still another sixth seemed comparatively disinterested in animals, and showed low scores in all four domains. This range of perspectives suggests that most teachers could undergo a broadening of attitudes which would better enable them to present their students with alternate vieWpoints and a value-fair learning environment. Conclusions: The results and discussion presented here lead to two conclusions. First, Kellertfis survey instrument seems basically sound. Many of the findings and relationships discussed for Michigan teachers were also found to hold true in Kellert's original study, indicating that the instrument is reliable. The instrument's design also allows for quick and easy replication by other researchers. Further, it appears to be a useful tool for at least the next few years, and one that can provide valuable baseline data on our perceptions towards animals and the changing frequencies of those perceptions in society. Second, it can be concluded that Michigan teachers are a distinct demographic group who's attitude profiles are not reflective of the general populus, although some of their characteristics, behaviors, and influences are similiar. 140 Michigan teachers were not unlike the general population in age, sex, and race. They also reflected the general publitfls interest in hunting, fishing, birdwatching, and pet ownership. The attitude profiles associated with these variables appeared in teachers just as they had in the general public, and both groups showed about the same level of humanistic attitudes. Yet, Michigan teachers held.an attitude profile quite unlike the mean profile of the general public. Their uniqueness was expressed as scores significantly different in all but the humanistic attitude domain. As a group they showed high naturalistic, ecologistic, and moralistic attitudes, and correspondingly low utilitarian, dominionistic, and negativistic attitudes. There is a strong probability that differences in education, occupation, and/or income contribute to the unique attitude profile of the teacher group. Their similiarity to Kellert's college educated respondents supports the hypothesis that education largely explains the attitude profile seen in Michigan teachers. Implications for Workshop Development The research related here measured actual attitudes held by Michigan teachers towards animals. It cannot be assumed that holding a skewed attitude profile necessarily means an individual is unaware of other attitude components and could not present these for consideration by students. ‘However, there is reason to suspect that this may sometimes be the 141 case and that teachers with good representation in all attitude domains might.be better able to function in value fair educational processes. The ethics of attempting to modify teacher attitudes towards animals may certainly be questioned, but the ethical considerations are beyond the scope of this report. Whether or not they should be changed, the findings of this study provide some evidence of where changes may be implemented. Correlation matrices indicate that there is an upper limit to the amount of attitude change that can occur in a given individual. For example, there was a negative correlation between the moralistic and dominionistic scales (Table 5.1), indicating that even if it were desirable to strengthen both of these perspectives, strengthening one may weaken the other. It can be assumed that many teachers holding weak attitudes are less likely to be aware of the role of those attitudes in wildlife resource issues, and an important implication of this study is that room exists for increasing awareness of all 8 attitude domains in many teacher subgroups. Therefore, the findings may be useful in developing curricula and workshops with the intention of encouraging teachers to expose their students to the whole range of possible attitudes and their roles in natural resource issues. If curricula developers and environmental educators incorporate only one of these findings into their curricula, workshops or thinking. it should.be the strong attitudinal 142 Table 5.1. Attitude Scale Pearson Correlation Matrices For Michigan Teachers (above slashes) and The General Public (below slashes) (Kellert and Berry 1980a) NAT ECO HUM MOR SCI UTI DOM NEG NAT |||||| .488 .020 .199 .379 -.232 .052 -.429 ECO liéi|l |||||| .006 .105 .344 -.145 .019 -.400 HUM .142 Egiill |||||| .259 .015 -.264 -.228 -.211 MOR .339 .170 liiill |||||| .142 -.239 -.448 -.090 SCI .369 .282 .051 EiHLII ||||||-.151 -.075 -.267 UTI -.290 -.l76 -.257 -.285 -!iiill |||||| .345 .300 DOM -.040 .044 -.210 -.376 -.045 liii'l |||||| .099 NEG -.418 -.279 -.249 -.146 -.272 .348 liiill |||| 143 differences between males and females. Female groups consistently held strong humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic attitudes. Groups made largely of females always showed these tendencies. Likewise, male dominated groups reflected the male tendancy toward higher naturalistic, ecologistic, and dominionist scores. These clear, extensive divisions suggest the potential success of workshops designed to accomodate differences in attitude types. If the sample is representative. it appears that most primary teachers in the state are female (77 %),while most secondary teachers are male (78 %). These relationships also hold true for primary and secondary science teachers. Because they are so distinctly different in sex composition, when preparing curricular materials or workshop experiences it may be as fruitful to segment teachers by grade level as it would be to separate them by sex. For example. in order to encourage the acceptance and use of curricular materials by primary science teachers, the content and marketing strategies could appeal to the stronger humanistic and moralistic attitudes of this group. However, the curricula could also be designed to include the naturalistic and ecologistic perspectives weakly represented or lacking in female teachers. Most importantly, this would expose the female teacher to alternate value perspectives. .A secondary use of this strategy is that it may also bring about an actual change in the teacher‘s attitudes, by a 144 gradual process where new information is tailored and accomodated to fit with existing belief and value systems. Attitude associations also exist with race, participation in hunting, urban/rural background, and region. The data indicated that attitudinal differences associated with race and state region were less extensive than those associated with teacher sex. The relationship of attitudes to urban/rural background also appears important but the exact nature of its influence still needs to be defined. However the information is used in designing workshops, these associations between attitudes and various teacher characteristics do seem to hold value for making workshop experiences more effective in teacher training. Future Research As one of few assessments of teachers' attitudes towards animals this study provided an approximate mean attitude profile for teachers, it strengthened some of the assertions Kellert and others made about the factors associated with attitude expression, and it provided some insights for creating more effective, personalized environmental education workshop experiences. But important gaps in knowledge remain to be filled by future research. The Kellert survey seems reliable and the proposed attitude domains can be shown to have considerable utility in many resource management and educational aspects. However, some work may be needed to refine the validity of the scale constructs. 145 When the instrument was used with teachers some of the correlations between attitude scale scores were relatively high. Four correlations were above .40 (i.e., naturalistic - ecologistic, naturalistic - negativistic, ecologistic - negativistic, and moralistic - dominionistic). Further, the validity of several scale scores is weakened by particular items. For example, the moralistic scale includes two items which were also used to classify anti-hunters, and the naturalistic scale includes items on hunting and fishing. The interdependence between scales created by these types of items should be investigated. The instrument could be improved and made a more valid measure of independent scales if new items and/or scoring systems were developed. Though concern was expressed earlier in regard to the utilitarian scale (Peyton 1985), no obvious anomalies or contradictory patterns occurred here, and no argument for or against the validity of the scale can be made from the present study. An error in the utilitarian scale of the teacher survey also precluded confident statements of scale comparison. The profile types presented at the end of chapter 4 were only an approximation of the attitude sets in the population and the characteristics associated with a given profile. The hypothesis that only a few basic attitude profile types would emerge was not supported by the analysis technique used here, but the characteristics associated with the wide range of profiles in the population have some interesting implications 1446 for managers and environmental educators. Further description of attitude types is needed to determine where true profile clusters exist, and if they are meaningful as ways to develop a small number of individualized teacher training experiences. Though samples of black teachers and those from northern Michigan were limited, the differences that did emerge were similiar to those Kellert found, and suggest that important racial and regional differences exist and are worth exploring further. Further research is also needed on the relationship between the attitude profiles which teachers express, and the range of attitudes of which they are aware. It is possible that an individual may not express certain attitudes, and yet be aware that those attitudes exist. For example, a teacher who expresses a weak utilitarian attitude may still be aware of that attitude in others. Even so, it remains to be determined whether that teacher is as likely to present the utilitarian perspective as a teacher with a strong utilitarian attitude. It is important to establish whether teachers who express a narrow range of attitudes towards animals are still aware of other attitude perspectives, and.to what extent they can effectively present these alternate viewpoints to their students. Perhaps most importantly. more research is needed on the relationship between teacher attitudes, student attitudes, and cognitive learning. It seems generally accepted in the 147 education community that teachersfl attitudes affect students' attitudes and behavior, but clear documentation of this relationship is very limited. The availability of Kellertus instrument may provide an opportunity to investigate these relationships for at least this group of attitudes. One fruitful study would be an analysis of the attitude orientation stressed by teachers in the use of widely accepted wildlife curricular packages. For example, primary science teachers could be analyzed to determine the attitudes they stress in their presentation of "Project Wild" activities. If primary teachers were found to emphasize humanistic and moralistic attitudes towards wildlife, this would add validity to the recommendations offered here. Further, a measurement of their students' attitude profiles might help clarify the association of teacher attitudes and student attitudes. By continuing to monitor attitude changes through the future, resource managers and environmental educators will be better able to provide teachers and the general public with experiences that better prepare them to make informed resource decisions, decisions which optimize the quality of life and the quality of the environment. Continuing assessment of our societies' changing perceptions of animals represents an important component of environmental management that accurately reflects the needs and wants of society. LIST g: REFERENCES Aiken, LR. 1970. - Attitudes towards mathmatics. Review of Ed. Research. 40: 551-596. Almaze, A.G. 1973. Modification of teacher behavior through an inservice biology methods course. Dissertation- Abstracts. 34: 6, p. 3173A. Andrews, D.M. 1979. Effect of a values-oriented environmental education unit on the attitudes of preservice education. Dissertation Abstracts. 40: 6, p. 3216A. 222 p. Ashby, M.S. and B.C. Wittmaier. 1978. Attitude changes in children after exposure to stories about women in traditional or nontraditional occupations. J. of Ed. Psych. 70: 945-949. Bart, W.M. 1972. A hierarchy of attitudes toward animals. J. of Env. Ed. 3: 4-6. Bybee, R.W. 1973. The teacher I like best: perceptions of advantaged, average, and disadvantaged science students. School Science and Math. 73: 384-390. Campbell, J.R. 1973. Pattern analysis - a macroscopic development for interaction analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Nat. Asso. for Research in Sci. Teaching. Detroit. Crano, W.D. and P.M. Mellon. 1978. Causal influence of teacher's expectations on children's academic performance: a cross-lagged panel analysis. J. of Ed. Psych. 70: 39-49. Fazio, R.H. and M.P. Zanna. 1981. Direct experience in attitude - behavior consistancy. In L. Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1974. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single act criteria. Psych Review. 81: 59-74. ----- 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Gilbert, C.D. and D. Cooper. 1976. The relationship between teacher/student attitudes and the competency levels of sixth grade students. School Sci. and Math. 6: 469- 476. George, R.W. 1967. A comparative analysis of conservation 148 149 attitudes where conservation education is a part of the educational experience. Trans. of the 32nd N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. pp.199-210. Haney. ILE. 1964. The development of scientific attitudes. The Science Teacher. 31: 33. Heil,L.M., Powell, M. and I. Feifen. 1960. Characteristics of teacher behavior and competancy related to the achievement of different kinds of children in several elementary grades. New York: Office of Testing and Research, Brooklin College. Hess,R.D. and J.V. Torney. 1967. The development of political attitudes in children. Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, New York. Hooper, J. 1983. Hunting - an American tradition. American Hunter. April: 18-19. Hounshell, FAB. and L. Liggett. 1976. Inservice education: it can make a difference. School Sci. and Math. 76: 493-498. JOus,ILH. 1978. The effect of environmental education. Science Education. 62: 79-84. Kasperson,R.E. 1969. Political behavior and the decision making process in the allocation of water resources between recreational and municipal use. Natural Resources Journal. 9: 176-211. Kearney, J.F. 1984. The transformation of the Bay of Fundy herring fisheries 1976-1978: an experiment in fisherman- government co-management. In Atlantic Fisheries and Coastal Communities: Fisheries Decision-Making Case Studies. Ed. C. Lamson and AHJ. Hanson. Dahlhousie Ocean Studies Programme. Nova Scotia Canada. Kellert, 54R. 1976. Perceptions of animals in American society. Proc. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 41: 533-545. ----- 1978a. Policy implications of a national study of American attitudes and behavioral relations to animals. Govt. Printing Office #024-010-00482-7. ----- 1978b. Attitudes and characteristics of hunters and anti-hunters and related policy suggestions. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf.. 43: ----- 1979. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat issues. Govt. Printing Office #024-010- 00-624-2. 150 ----- 1980. Contemporary values of wildlife in American society. In Shaw, W.W. and E.H. Zube (ed.). Wildlife Values. Center for Assessment of Noncommodity Natural Resource Values, Inst. Series Report # l. Kellert,S.R. and J.H. Berry. 1980a. Knowledge, affection, and basic attitudes towards animals in American society. Govt. Printing Office #204-101-00-625-1. ----- 1980b. Activities of the American public relating to animals. National Technical Information Service, accession # PB-80-194525. Kellert, S.R. and M.o. Westervelt. 1981. Trends in animal use and perception in 20th century America. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service. ----- 1982. Children's attitudes, knowledge and behaviors towards animals. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service. Langenau, E.E. Jr. and P.M. Mellon-Coyle. 1977. Michigan's young hunter. Mich. Dept. of Nat. Res. Wildl. Div. Report # 2800. Lichter, J.H. and D.W. Johnson. 1969. Changes in attitude toward negroes of white elementary school students after use of multi-ethnic readers. J. of Ed. Psych. 60: 148- 152. McArthur,L.Z. and S.V. Eisen. 1976. Achievements of male and female storybook characters as determinants of achievement behavior in boys and girls. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 33: 467-473. Milson, J.L. 1973. Change as a result of a short course on environmental quality. Paper at the annual meeting of the Nat. Asso. Research in Sci. Teaching. Detroit, Mi. ED 077 683. Murch, S.W. 1971. Public concern for environmental pollution. Public Opinion Quarterly. 35: 100-106. Nash, R. 1973. Measuring teacher attitudes. Ed. Research. 14: 141-146. Nilon,c. 1985. Access to urban greenspace and urban black's attitudes toward wildlife. Presentation at the 47th Midwest Fish and Willife Conference. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Dec. 18. Palardy, J. 1969. What teachers believe - what children achieve. Elem. School J. 69: 370-374. Pempek, L.C. and.D.J. Blick. 1973. An Evaluation of elementary teacher's behaviors and attitudes in the use .1— 151 of inquiry-oriented science programs. School Sci. and Math. 73: 414-419. Pettus, A.M., Frary, R.B., and T.G. Teates. 1978. The attitudes of science and social science teachers toward environmental issues. J. of Research in Sci. Teaching. 15: 367-372. Peyton, R.B. 1984. A typology of natural resource issues with implications for resource management and education. Paper presented to the Michigan Academy of Science, Wildlife Section, March 23. ----- 1985. Mechanisms affecting public acceptance of resource management policies and strategies. Int. Symposium on Stock Assessment and Yield Prediction (ASPY), Great Lakes Fish. Comm.. Quetico Centre, Atikokan, Ontario. Michigan AES Journal #11809. Peyton, R.B. and E.E. Langenau Jr. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM biologists and the general public towards animals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 117-120. Pidgeon, D.A. 1970. Expectaions and pupil performance. Slough: NFER. Pomeranz, G.A. 1977. Young people's attitudes toward wildlife. Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Wildl. Div. Report #2781. Ramsey, C.E. and R.E. Rickson. 1976. Environmental attitudes. J. of Env. Ed. 8: 10-18. Rankin, R.E. 1969. Air pollution control and public apathy. J. of the Air Pollution Asso. Aug.: 565-569. Rist, R. 1970. Student social class and teacher expectation: the self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Ed. Review. 40: 411-412. Rosenthal, R. and L. Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston. Rubovitz, P.C. and M.L. Maehr. 1971. Pygmalion analyzed: towards an explanation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings. J of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 19: 197-203. Ryans, D.G. 1953. The investigation of teacher characteristics. Ed. Record. pp. 371-376. Schatzow, S. 1977. The influence of the public on federal environmental decision-making in Canada. In Sewell, W.R.D. and J.T. Coppock (ed.). Public Participation in Planning. John Wiley and Sons. London. pp. 140-158. 152 Schofield, H.L. 1981. Teacher effects on cognitive and affective pupil outcomes in elementary school mathmatics. J. of Ed. Psych. 73: 462-471. Seaver, W.B. 1973. Effects of naturally induced teacher expectancies. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 28: 333-342. Sherif, C.W., Kelly, M., Rodgers, H., Sarup, G. and B.I. Tittler. 1973. Personal involvement, social judgement, and action. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 27: 311-327. Shrigley, R.L. 1973. The correlation of science attitude and science knowledge of preservice elementary teachers. Paper, annual meeting of Nat. Sci. Teachers Asso., Detroit, Mi.. . Sivacek, J. and W.D. Crano. 1972. Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 43: 210-221. Snyder, M. and T.C.Monson. 1975. Persons, situations, and the control of social behavior. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 32: 637-644. Steel, G.D. and J.H.Torre. 1980. Principals and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach, 2nd ed. McGraw- Hill Book Company. New York. 633 pp. Stern, C. and E.R. Keislar. 1977. Teacher attitudes and attitude change: a research review. J of Res. and Dev. in Ed. 10: 63-76. Taylor, A.L. 1965. Teacher attitudes, pupil behavior, and content attributes in relation to the use of programmed science materials at the 4th grade level. V. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mi.. Taylor, M.C. 1979. Race, sex, and the expression of self- fulfilling prophecies in a laboratory teaching situation. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 37: 897-912. Taylor, S.E. and D.E. Samuel. 1975. Wildlife knowledge and attitudes of public school teachers. Proc. 29th Conf. Southeastern Asso. Game and Fish Comm. 29: 759-765. Thelen, L.J. and W. Litsky. 1972. Teacher attendance at a summer institute and high school student achievement. Sci. Ed. 56: 293-302. Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A., Olien, C.N., and J.K. Bower. 1971. Environment and public opinion. J. of Env. Ed. 2: 38-42. Tull, D.S. and D.I. Hawkins. 1980. Marketing research: measurement and method, 2nd ed.. Macmillan Publishing Van 153 Co., New York. 795 pp.. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Census. 1982. 1980 National survey of fishing. hunting. and*wildlife associated recreation. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C.. de Walle, 33A. 1973. Attitudes and perceptions of elementary mathmatics possessed by 3rd and 6th grade teachers as related to student attitude and achievement in mathmatics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathmatics. Houston, Texas. Ed 076 425. Weigel, R. H. and L.S. Newman. 1976. Increasing attitude- behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 33: 793-802. Appendix 1 COMPLETE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 154 A SURVEY OF EDUCATORS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS WILDLIFE RESOURCES A PROJECT OF: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1222 Adapted from a survey (American Attitudes. Knowledge and Behaviors Toward Wildlife and Natural Habitats) Developed by Dr. S.R. Kellert, Yale University 155 Please indicate the two types of animals which interest you the most. Indicate which of the types below would be your first and second choice by placing the letters on the appropriate line. Note that the emphasis is on the type of animal, not the specific examples. 1. FIRST CHOICE 2 SECOND CHOICE A. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN MOST ANIMALS B. BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, FOR EXAMPLE, BUTTERPLIES, PEACOCKS C. USEFUL ANIMALS, FOR EXAMPLE, COWS, SHEEP D. SCIENTIFICALLY FASCINAIING ANIMALS, FOR EXAMPLE, DESERT PUPFISH, ARMY ANTS E. ATTRACTIVE AND LIKEABLE ANIMALS, FOR EXAMPLE, C0 KER SPANIELS, CHIPMUNKS F. COMPETITIVE, SPORTING, TROPHY ANIMALS, FOR EXAMPLE BUCKING BRONCOS, BIG HORN SHEEP G. ANIMALS IN THE WILD, FOR EXAMPLE, ANTELOPE, HAWKS H. ANIMALS IMPORTANT TO PARTICULAR ECOSYSTEMS, FOR EXAMPLE TURKEY VULTURES, DUNG BEETLES I. NO OPINION The next set of questions asks your opinion about various animal- related issues. There are no right or wrong answers. If you have a strong opinion about the statement, you should circle "STRONGLY AGREE" or "STRONGLY DISAGREE". If you agree or disagree with the statement in general but not completely, you should circle "AGREE", "SLIGHTLY AGREE", "DISAGRBB" or "SLIGHTLY DISAGREE". If you do not have an Opinion, circle "N0 OPINION". >9 >- >92!) 2:! >933 a 4 .12: B .3:s C: {- 3—2: _ 3.3:: 4:4 S 5.. 532 i as E33 a: tug Hm V1 35!) {"0 J 44.: ...:1—4 1-4 3...)..4 m < < :n < I” a a m e 3. If I were going camping, I l 2 3 4 5 6 would prefer staying in a modern campgromd than in a isolated spot where there might be wild animals around. N0 N OPINION I 4. U] s 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 156 I find most large dogs frightening. I have little desire to study vertibrate zoology or population genetics. . I think love is an emotion which people should feel only for other people, not for animals. I admire a person who works hard to shoot a big trophy animal like a 600-pound bear. I would be afraid to touch a snake. . I am generally more inter- ested in pet animals than wild animals. I think rats and cock- roaches should be eliminated. I care mre about the suffering of individual animals than I do about species population levels. I have owned pets that were as dear to me as another person. I dislike most beetles and spiders. I think a person sometimes has to beat a horse or dog to get it to obey orders properly. I have little interest in learning about the taxonomic classification of animals. STRONGLY *‘ AGREE I.) N mm: k) ‘0 I») I9 IQ SLIGHTLY 9’ AGREE k.) SLIGHTLY "‘ I)! SAGRICE *\ ‘\ ts ‘\ ‘\ ”l SACKl-IE U! U. U! U) U! ST RUN ( :IX DISMSREE 0‘ N0 ‘4 \l \O OPINION 157 >- >- >21 :13 >-'al r.3 ..3 .33: :.-.I .52.: g - 9 a z z e x - a: :3 a33 -=:.= 2 as. a as} a: 31:75 a: 53:13 _ I-‘J 2.? £23 Ju-v - .h— 3:. 03¢ < vac-n: 2. 93:2: 16. I have little desire to see 1 2 3 A S 6 7 wild animals in places like the jungles of South America or New Guinea. 17. A dog trained at a task, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 like herding sheep, is generally a better dog than one owned just for companion- ship. 18. I know little about eco- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 systems or the population dynamics of wild animals. 19. I dislike having most 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 animals physically close to me. 20. Watching birds as a hobby l 2 3 4 S 6 7 strikes me as a waste of time. 21. I approve of firmly l 2 3 A 5 6 7 disciplining a dog so that it strictly obeys every command. 22. I find most insects fascinat- l 2 3 a S 6 7 ing. 23. A large coastal city has an unemployment problem. A major manufacturer wants to build a new plant on a marsh it owns which could employ 1,000 people, but conservationists claim this will destroy land needed by a rare bird. Do you agree that this plant should be built, even if it endangers the bird species? 24. I see nothing wrong with l 2 3 4 5 6 7 using steel traps to capture wild animals. 25. I think its all right to l 2 3 4 5 6 7 kill whales for a useful product as long as the animals are not threatened with extinction. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 158 . If oil were discovered in Yellowstone Park, it would have to be destroyed even if it meant harm to the Park's wildlife. Before the government per- mits the trapping of wild animals, there should be proof that these animals will not be endangered by this trapping. Zoos should provide more natural conditions for their animals even if this means much higher entrance fees. I approve of building on marshes that ducks and other non-endangered wildlife use if the marshes are needed for housing development. The Federal government should spend very little time and money on trying to educate the public about wildlife issues and problems. we must even use pesticides harmful to wildlife if they are needed to maintain the country's food production at present levels. I think it's all right to kill an animal to make a fur coat as long as the species is not endangered. It has been suggested that 5 million acres of national forest land be STRONGLY AGREE lo AGREE IQ SLIGHTLY AGREE SLIGHTLY DISAGKEE p ‘_\ DISAGRIEE UI UI STRONGLY I)! SAGRI‘IE N0 0‘ OPINION \3 set aside so that the endangered grizzly bear remain undisturbed. The timber industry objects, saying that jobs and needed lumber will be lost. Would you agree to protect the endangered grizzly bear even if it resulted in the loss of some jobs and building material? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _ 4 - 159 >- >- >-:.1 a: >.;_-_; ...} ..I .53 2:.) £23 2 L3 5- 9.x 1 1.3:: a 2A 2! 22:323.: 13 2:: h-s’ a a a are c < < a < z 22’. z. —-:: u—ntl) m 1.7) -‘ a s 3 a a 4 ~ ~— yl~ o a n < < In 4 :n = .2 a a :z a 34. I see nothing wrong with l 2 3 4 S 6 7 farmers shooting golden eagles if the eagles kill their sheep. 35. Natural resources must be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 developed even if the loss of wilderness results in much smaller wildlife pepulations. 36. I would rather pay a higher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 price for tuna fish than see the tuna industry continue killing porpoises in their nets. 37. The goals of most environ- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 mentalists are a threat to the continued economic prosperity of our country. Some ranchers claim substantial economic loss because coyotes kill their sheep. Which methods would you approve of using to correct this situation? a: m: a 8 8 >3 :3:: m: :33: :1: x 4 z: E V? 8 235:: an '33.. h. Sii c: 8 x 5 < :: 3 E z a3a. a. -.a. —ou: a: 23a: - E-“u-o :- 49. .1— H {—qu m < ‘e ua<: m = c: 93:: 2.: 38. Shooting or trapping as l 2 3 4 5 6 7 many coyotes as possible. 39. Poisoning, because it is l 2 3 4 5 6 7 the least expensive solution even though other animals besides coyotes may be killed. Of the following reasons for hunting, which do you approve of or Oppose? 160 >- >- >- >- 5 m m .4 m .4 g z 23 z 22:33 1:3 42:3 s c z i 3 E 3 c c E a z 2:. :.. H3... —¢.‘_. 2.. 1:. u— I—:‘_ :- 41. .4:- :- I—LDQ va< < m, > > :2: ’ 5.: :3 a :2 C> g 52>:a. a. 33- 8 52 s 525% t 8% E are. n. o—oa. 1"!) m arm I-l g—s. % JG- ._1--0 '-‘ I-‘I-O On- a < a:<: m a :3 u::: z<= 44. Water diverted to cool 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 industrial plant machinery. 45. Water dammed to provide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hydroelectric power. Please indicate the first and second most important reasons for the endangerment and extinction of the greatest number of wild species in the United States during the past 22 years. 46. 1081' IMPOHANT REASON 47. SECOND 3051' IMPORTANT REASON A. CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION B. HUNTING AND TRAPPING C. LOSS OF WILD LAND TO LOGGING, MINING, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES D. ELIMINATION OF PREDITORS SUCH AS EAGLES AND WOLVES E. HUMAN OVERPOPULATION RESULTING IN LOSS OF LAND TO COMMERCIAL AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT P. SPREAD OF AGRICULTURE G. INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE ANIMALS 161 48. Have you personally owned any pets in the past two years (excluding birds and horses)? N0 —->Go to question 53 YES In general, what were your first and second main reasons for owning a pet in the past two vears? PET ONE: 49 . FIRST REASON 50. SECOND REASON PET TWO: 51. FIRST REASON 52. SECOND REASON A. GOOD FOR FAMILY AND CHILDREN B. SPORT OR SHOW C. COMPANIONSHIP AND AFFECTION D. BEAUTY OF THE ANIMAL E. WORK F. PROFIT G. PROTECTION H. BREEDING I. GIFT FROM SOMEONE J. OTHER 53. Have you personally owned a pet bird in the past two years? NO —>Go to question 56 YES In general, what were your first and second most important reasons for having a pet bird? 54. FIRST REASON 55. SECOND REASON A. GOOD FOR FAMILY AND CHILDREN B. PROFIT C. COMPANIONSHIP AND AFFECTION D. SCIENTIFIC STUDY E. BEAUTY OF BIRD F. UNUSUAL OBJECT G. BREEDING H. GIFT FROM SOMEONE I. OTHER -7- 162 56. Have you personally owned a horse at any time in your life? No—O-Go to question 59 YES In general, what were your first and second most important reasons for owning a horse? 57. FIRST REASON 58. SECOND REASON A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. BEAUTY or rat ANIMAL SPORT 0R saow PROFIT _ COMPANIONSHIP AND metros RECREATIONAL RIDING you to car CLOSE TO NATURE coon FOR FAMILY AND CHILDREN BREEDING OTHER 59. Have you hunted in the past two years? NO—e-Go to question 62 YES What were your first and second most important reasons for hunting in the past two veers? 60. FIRST REASON 61. SECOND REASON A. B. C. D. E. F. G. FOR MEAT TO ELIMINATE PROBLEM ANIMALS TO BE WITH FAMILY OR FRIENDS FOR SPORT OR RECREATION TO GET CLOSE TO NATURE OR SOLITUDE TO OBTAIN A TROPHY OTHER 62. Have you gone fishing in the past two vears? N0-—>Go to question 65. YES —1 163 What were your first and second most important reasons for fishing in the past two years? 63. FIRST REASON 64. SECOND REASON A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. TO CATCH A BIG FISH TO GET CLOSE TO NATURE OR SOLITUDE FOR SPORT OR RECREATION TO EAT FRESH FISH TO CATCH A LOT OF FISH FOR PROFIT TO BE WITH FRIENDS 0R FAMILY FOR RELAXATION OTHER 65. Have you gone birdwatching in the past two years? NO—o-Go to question 68 YES What were your first and second most important reasons for bird watching in the past two years? 67. FIRST REASON 68. SECOND REASON A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. BIRDS ARE PRETTY TO LOOK AT HOBBY SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO SEE AS MANY BIRDS AS POSSIBLE TO BE CLOSE TO NATURE OR SOLITUDE TO DO SOMETHING WITH FAMILY 0R FRIENDS GOOD FOR THE CHILDREN PERSONALLY FASCINATED BY BIRDS OTHER 68. Have you or your spouse belonged to any conservation or animal related organization(s) in the past two years? N0 —-Go to question 71 YES “1 11311 What are your first and second most important reasons for belonging to these organizations? 69. FIRST REASON 70. SECOND REASON A. EDUCATIONAL B. SCIENTIFIC STUDY C. PRESERVE WILDLIFE HABITAT D. TO FURTHER SPORTING INTERESTS E. LOVE ANIMALS F. ETHICAL OR MORAL CAUSE G. TO GET MAGAZINE H. TO BE WITH FRIENDS OR FAMILY I. GOOD FOR CHILDREN J. OTHER 71. Please indicate the grade level(s) which you instruct. A. KINDERGARTEN H. 7th B. lst I. 8th C. 2nd J. 9th D. 3rd K. 10th E. 4th L. 11th F. 5th . .. 12th C. 6th 72. Indicate the discipline(s) which you instruct. A. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE F. LANGUAGE ARTS B. EARTH SCIENCE G. MATHEMATICS c. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION H. PHYSICAL EDUCATION D. FINE ARTS I. SOCIAL SCIENCE E. INDUSTRIAL ARTS J. OTHER (specify) 73. What is the highest level of education you have attained? A. D.A. OR B.S. B. M.A. OR M.S. C. PH.D. OR ED.D. - 10 - 165 Of the following disciplines, in which did you major or minor during college or graduate studies? 74. MAJOR(S) 75. MINOR(S) A. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE B. EARTH SCIENCE C. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION D. FINE ARTS E. INDUSTRIAL ARTS LAN GUAGE ART S MATHEMATICS PHYSICAL EDUCATION SOCIAL SCIENCE OTHER (specify) Lat-43:0") 76. In which of the following disciplines do you have special training (3 courses or more) other than a major or minor? A. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE P. LANGUAGE ARTS B. EARTH SCIENCE G. MATHEMATICS C. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION H. PHYSICAL EDUCATION D. FINE ARTS I. SOCIAL SCIENCE E. INDUSTRIAL ARTS J. OTHER (specify) How manv workshops have you attended of various lengths which dealt with some aspect of environmental education? 77. WORKSHOPS LASTING LESS THAN I DAY 78. WORKSHOPS LASTING 1 TO 3 DAYS 79. WORKSHOPS LASTING OVER 3 DAYS 80. Approximately how many people lived in the town where you spent the most time growing up (before 16)? A. FEWER THAN 500 G. 50,000 - 99,999 B. 500 - 1,999 H. 100,000 - 249,000 C. 2,000 - 4,999 I. 250,000 - 999,999 D. 5,000 - 9,999 J. 1 MILLION AND OVER E. 10,000 - 24,999 K. DON'T KNOW 81. Approximately how many people live in the town where you presently live? A. FEWER THAN 500 G. 50,000 - 99,000 B. 500 - 1,999 H. 100,000 - 249,000 C. 2,000 - 4,999 I. 250,000 - 999,999 D. 5,000 - 9,999 J. 1 MILLION AND OVER E. 10,000 - 24,999 K. DON'T KNOW -11- 11363 82. Approximately how many people live in the town where you presently teach? A. FEWER ran 500 0. 50,000 - 99,000 a. 500 - 1,999 a. 100,000 - 249,000 c. 2.000 - 4,999 I. 250,000 - 999,999 0. 5,000 - 9,999 J. 1 MILLION AND 0vra a. 10,000 - 24,999 x. DON'T KNON 83. What is your sex? A. MALE B. FEMALE 84. What is your age? 85. What is your race? A. BLACK B. WHITE C. ORIENTAL D. OTHER (specify) 86. What is the name of your school district? YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME Thank you for your cooperation. To return this form, please staple and mail - no envelope is needed. -12- Appendix 2 COVER LETTER 1 167 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 09W 0! Elm AND WILDLIFE EAST LWSING . MICHIGAN . sears-nu: NATUIAL "SOURCES BUILDING (3m ”$467? January 11, 1985 Dear Colleague: We need your help. As a professional educator you are aware that the most important resource in educating our youth is the teacher. To be effective, a good curriculum must meet the needs of the teacher as well as the student. We are conducting a study of Michigan educators to guide us in designing environ- mental education curricula and teacher training experiences. We are asking you and a small sample of Michigan teachers to fill out the enclosed survey. We need your cooperation, whether or not you have an active interest in environmental education. The enclosed questionnaire was adapted from a larger survey which has been used nationally to assess public attitudes toward wildlife resources. It should take less than 20 minutes to complete. We are aware of your busy schedule and appreciate your time and effort in responding. If we did not have reason to believe this information will be valuable to the education of Michigan's youth we would not ask you to participate. You are guaranteed complete confidentiality. No attempt will be made to associate your name with any of the responses. To return the instrument,simply staple or tape it closed and mail it. Postage is prepaid. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you wish information on the outcome of this project or on other environmental education matters, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, R. Ben Peyton Associate Professor Environmental Education #4)” W Bill Siemer Research Assistant RBszg Enc. MSL' is an .V/iMc-e Ariana. Equal Wan.” lulu-lone Appendix 3 POST CARD REMINDER 168 POST CARD REMINDER Dear Educator: Recently a questionnaire seeking your attitudes about wildlife resources was mailed to you. If you have already completed and returned it to us, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please fill out the survey today. The survey was sent to only a small but representative sample of educators in the state. Thus, it is important that your views are also included in this study. This is true, whether or not you have an active interest in wildlife education! Thank you for your assistance. @fl R. Ben Peyton Environmental Education Appendix 4 COVER LETTER 2 169 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY sum 0' FISHER!!! AND mun EAST LANSING 0 KICHNAN 0 dud-I211 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING i3l7l 535-447? February 4, 1985 Dear Colleague: Several weeks ago we wrote you seeking your attitudes regarding wildlife resources. As of today we have not received your completed questionnaire. He are writing you again because your response to “Educator's Attitudes Towards wildlife Resources” is so important. Your participation in this study is necessary to assure that our results are truly representative of Michigan educators. The main purpose of this survey is to guide us in designing curricula and teacher training experiences adapted to your special needs and attitudes. He can only achieve that goal with your help. Enclosed is another questionnaire in case the first one was misplaced. Please be assured that your responses are completely confidential. This is strict university policy. Hhen we receive your completed questionnaire, all means of identifying you individually will be destroyed. He sincerely believe this information will help us design better environmental education and teacher training experiences. He thank you again for your cooperation, and we hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, yea/5.4.. R. Ben Peyton Associate Professor Bill Siemer Resea 22p Assistant /.{4// 1,62 L! ,l L/ RBP:mg MSL' is an Alfie-laws Acme/Boast Opp-flees" Issue-nee Appendix 5 NONRES PONDENT COVER LETTER AND SURVEY 170 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND 'IIDUI'R EAST LANSING P MICHIGAN 0 «cu-ma NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING HID ”3447? July 23, 1985 Dear Educator, Please, we need your help. He understand your busy schedule-did not allow you to complete the lengthy survey we sent you last January. However, we desperately need to get your responses to Just a few items, so that our study of Michigan educators will be effective. 0n the back of this letter you will find a very brief set of survey questions. Please take the time to respond to these questions and drop them in the mail at your earliest convenience. The Survey will take Just a few minutes to complete. and it will help insure that our results are truly useful for educational planners in Michigan. Sincerely, R. Ben :2jton Associate Professor Bill Siemer Research Assistant RBP/BS:cb MSU a a MW Amos/Equal Opponaeuy Inns-(en 171 l ~a..c.w.e .ao:ua each .a saw. as. a. ..a: a»..u.a«. «mg—a .a n¢_u..ao .u u—.:: .- uued- .c ~ouec each a. gas: III A... case .. ..aa uacxu‘ .- uaau .u mu.—