-N" '. :"':.~ 2373') .1 x,:,‘l;t:3'.;:.;§’.,;.v ,, 3; ‘ vim-3??» “'3’ - J“ .":I 'II'"I"c'$I'9Y‘;F' 1912' .“J' 'I ' 'Jh‘v “ km "LISA; "‘ ‘59,? I. I. . if"? -I.' 13:) “uh-S. £1 '. .. fié‘ qr! h V.‘,,,'..I,“{ H . ~‘ I, ’."L 1;; ‘r; 13”“; , 3.3,}th In ' II- ' "1 J" ‘I 3"}: 9 ' -..“ T'-I'.h? ‘3') nil I'd—9:1 - li' -. I fun-13$" g I? V. ' i .I [5’3 141'” -, £31 ..I; (L- . ‘ “ .7: \ r 1 - *1 L} :. I, ,r ' . 'Iéa ,xmafi brizo'gx £131» ijfin fig, \‘sn' "I W. .2 mey I . WI! .5“ ‘H pd” a v41A;LI g 3;: Q: W :1; )5 C’I'JI‘ 1354 11‘ )‘og LI: 3.7 3-". - .,;;.I.; .:;.' J-' ‘I L , "-'iI"‘“"."'*"-.;ET 19‘5"- ‘I. I " :" -'1‘m' 31;”? I‘ In 33»: "". rfi'"*«a§,f- ;._.-‘,::I ‘55 -5. éaii; 34:? 133’“ 3" ' E777;- --_ ‘17“: . L: 755 fig .351). ’3'" "‘1' ' .l:l-: 'I' 'I'II: "I I I 'l «I' tun VJ -‘: MI :1; I‘ 1;“.1' J : ...“ .. :l ‘“W\ 5km, ,N "jflvz'? «a $334 "t", -I' ' .. W 43:3 I‘m ‘ .ILIIIIIII; .351" "ll ‘: ..‘l"l"q. :0 :‘;'lh".'AII)\“' ." ,. ' H w“: $‘fi ' H. "35.1. ‘5, x Hg»..u33} 43* ifigfiwfiququg gg ' V¢Vmum 13.191. 1': I I1‘K'¥"_E;.;I,., J“ 1+ ”i 1"." g? ‘I'l 5"“ g; 'I" L. «A :5...’ I 4‘": lid-3" .f'.l I k 'M'. 1"}: .-.. 3.39:? ' ‘ 3.:.'.' H' "'3'," J. "53' m" 5“ ,. 35.4 wfl§§ .' 13"." 'élw' fig.“ 1.".'Il."'y1""."».'1“." LIIII‘V .,} IMNWI"$MflI”'!M~qI .§%.. iIfiIWL flay“. 31:“); (1.93:: I "'3' (I ."3 I. /"" ,ng $311123Iflhu-mi; ! .I ;; I,“ p.111; 3.33:4“ I.I . III 0' ' I ,If-. I'j. . :I') . .. . , . .‘3 'T"’I"". 311'} , . A ‘9' . _ ‘ . ‘ ' 'l I! .‘l. < \‘4z‘ I . ' g 0 . I -‘ . . ' II .‘_I . $1,. '4 { _ I a .'_ .'.' '»_ ‘ ‘ ' ' ‘ .' I " ‘ I 'V‘ Ir 0“.I‘ .U; " I I” 4/, 'Z?) 3 ' W .. "'l' "I '39-, I'U ' ' " ' It?!) ‘ p‘.‘ "1 ' “II. ..‘I '.III‘ -' . "I ‘I 3‘, .' .(I .,. ‘ ‘3‘, I.' '.‘ " 'I X ‘ ' ',‘.I . ll ‘ ‘3 1'1?» '-"I"'""\"-'I'I¢‘?" '. ,.‘. "7" ’fi' "' . b . " . I .‘ r. ., I'\" K”, ' ' . .'i'-‘?35 3:? I' ' ' Is-’ ..' I'I " 'I " " ' ‘1 I. '1"! ' I H ' "‘ "‘: 5 "7 . .DI . - " ' ' ’5"; '1)”. A- Mtg" I . " I ‘3'" ‘t~:~5' Q ' --o'I “3133"." | 3' 3.: i. A a A“. -f Li“. a? 1‘ . .1, .. H ,E ‘7 4 & I’- 0r "n’r }’*I— .41.“ \ .f- ‘N I. J . . a; - A“ .J . .. I» I1 I "'“I' '1: - "'1' [3%th ' . . 'I I‘ 'H'ii“i;'1_,"' 'I1I " “'3': N 'é‘l‘;m' "I” :' "En 31ft... ' ‘ I 'Il." III-5' '2' I. ' ' 'I 'I“ I I I I. ‘.' ' . \‘ ". . 'o "" q I ~ ""I' ‘IU.'1I"JIZX{' "q". "ng mi" I“ ”flat“, :3. :ff'f','.\v;-;E:~;I‘- . 3% 'Qi“‘t>§‘u wfi 'II‘. ('0‘; 3‘le h S k mu}? ' . II " ..‘ ”I: 'l'_"."';3 IIL‘;,i;II I ' ' " j "3'71 ac. li'lflI'fiu—lflgluAfi II, IS 11%;. “ERR, {2‘3 3 "N I .. 1 II, . I I 4" .‘ 3'0... ““1." ‘,. '.| |"I‘ J . “- III I" “III ... M5 ’ 335353 ~ ...I I1. .~ ... '3" {'II'£ 1"" "5"?" 31%.?“ 'iiVE- .I::w‘l. 1"“, k‘ Q; r ;'\';'J'I'1"“" Li‘.‘ I'E': "$3" ' H" II.' ':I ' I, H IL" ..I I3{"' “I In...I s...“ .: “‘I. A. ' ' '3".'.'U':I..‘I.-‘3I'i" ‘I‘III '3'“ IIII' ,, ."I‘I; " ."II I. ”:6”... .’I'"" '£"""".1'II"'I':‘\ ‘3'"? .I""'~'~ ’91; 12' "I I 'I'JI. "I"I4'VJ'\':;' "'3' ' l 313'" I" by. , I ' ;“II'_'~: . l‘ "‘ “1.1+ "‘I'F'KJ‘ y"" :kfi'lk 1‘. ‘I‘ . ‘. "r'L'Ij' ,. " .I 1:90“ ‘0 A" . I} In 01.1‘.“| “I [:1‘IcI‘.".‘:. I“ ' - ‘ .. "'1! "I". 1-: ' '9 "I'H ’ . M ' “WW“ *N13II.I,I '.5.\:'I"-; ('55-, "f: I "I. “fig-I" “T1 I 1“". ;:|1[::’, t |-_‘ | ”(‘1 m I 3"... , “I”. ?,l|.‘ J'H'tl' “15:11“ 3'93”, .11.": "§.I.€,\"J “1AA" Lg 3:? ”\I. “0 HWVVfi1MIWV” m: q.$5p~ IflwIwu. wfi *I ‘.-' _. ‘.."'IIII ... “12%“ IM‘. ”W I_ . ,, "th' 3,, ,“IM'... o I, :'I ‘ ‘l"| ‘ 'I' ['Y I‘.‘ “I I: I I:" '0 MM ! II'IJII'J-p: {Il'fi ' 3"" . 3'9" W! "I' ': ""H ‘5' ""1" "';:‘,.I~:.I.;,-,:|:IIJIIIII 3:3 ..IIII.“’I .,'III " ,w.‘ I ’I N“ "I “I “ .I::II‘I:::. V Hi,IwT, I.N%fl& ¢ II' "J“ ‘Ijil' ,I'UI “4' .'.| I ' "I LII . ,, ' II; ‘I {7“ 3:11 1» r3313 4,3; H" ' "' ." II " I” I. . ' "“1"": MW" 'I'I'N" 433% V II 'II‘ I 3 $ 'é'l'fl ‘ ..rIIIII I ; l 'r‘i: .31", 3' :3I.”HI,-:,,-,.I«..;Ii,[ «#3??va NW ”HT ,1’ \"': Ht” “#3:; gig: ltflllu: '33: '21P?!" 0:4 '0' “1 II .“ If. 'II. 3' ,: ‘ ‘;IIII"3'rII 'I I "I.- I!” 114‘". "l'iw ‘ NW "N" 4:3: “"3 "f'lI'l ‘1'!“ ltd flip” fut! 'I‘II g3 «V I' ‘ . II. II ' I .. ' TA s‘gIII 'I I, III '1'} ,gIIIIII I’I ‘EI'I'QfI W» M 3' 3’3" ,3, I H;",I'II ,‘“.‘ ‘3II,'.'-" ‘1, I“? 301‘"! \I- ‘I, 3'1“ ... Iwflfiilu I ”I ‘ I‘ ‘ WJ'éWHWHJHbemW&Mk'“L”Wn”ww”mwg¥fl £Wfi. LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL AS A PREREQUISITE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TAKING: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS presented by Barbara Ann Miller has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degreein Fisheries and Wildlife Environmental Conservation Education Major professor Date June 6, 1980 0-7 639 MSU LIBRARIES 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. a: 55-559; 13632003 INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL AS A PREREQUISITE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TAKING: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS By Barbara Ann Miller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1980 my} 0, «a ...{b ABSTRACT INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL AS A PREREQUISITE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TAKING: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS By Barbara Ann Miller The locus of control (L of C) theory suggests that citizens with an internal L of C may be expected to be more autonomous and better informed problem solvers than externals, and to more frequently participate in environmental action. The L of C theory is reviewed and is used as a basis for a paradigm of environmental action. Some dimensions of the environmental action paradigm were tested. The study involved 318 Michigan youth in a paper and pencil assessment of their L of C, concern for environmental issues, and involvement in environmental action. A key objec- tive was to determine the influence of the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) experience on participants' L of C and to identify relationships among the dependent variables. Findings indicated that YCC had no influence on L of C as measured in the study. However, internal L of C and the relative importance participants attribute to environmental issues, are positively correlated with the extent to which participants engage in environmental action. This relationship supports a basic premise of the proposed paradigm. Further, females in the study were significantly more internal than males. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research study is the combined efforts of many individuals. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all those who gave so willingly to this study. Foremost, I should like to thank Drs. Steven Kinzel and R. Ben Peyton. They have guided my professional development with their counsel and expertise, and encouraged my personal development through their support and friendship. Dr. Kinzel has aptly served as my graduate committee chairman and has provided the financial assistance which has allowed me to attempt such an undertaking as this study. To Dr. Peyton, who first introduced me to the locus of control theory, I owe a sincere thank you. His competence in environmental education and research design were invaluable. I should also like to acknowledge Mr. Ross Dodge, for without his cooperation and efforts this research could not have been completed. Dr. Stan Zarnoch has provided consultation concerning the data analysis. I wish to give a very special thank you to my family for their constant love and support. Finally, to my Mother and to Zach, because each in your own way have encouraged me to be me . . . you are forever alive in my heart. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Developing an Internal Locus of Control as a Prerequisite to Environmental Action Taking Abstract Introduction Locus of Control Construct Factors Influencing Locus of Control Implications for Environmental Education Summary: A Paradigm of Environmental Behavior References An Investigation of the Impact of the Youth Conservation Corps on the Locus of Control of Participants Abstract Introduction Research Design Instrumentation Locus of Control Issues Ranking Environmental Action Checklist Research Subjects YCC Participants iii vii \I\O\lwt—‘l—‘H 28 28 28 31 34 34 36 36 37 37 Non-Selected Applicants Non-Applicants YCC Treatment Limitations Results Discussion Summary References Appendix A - Research Instrument and Instructions for Administering Appendix B - Letters of Communication iv 37 39 41 43 45 62 7O 72 75 85' LIST OF TABLES Demographic Data of YCC Participants Demographic Data of Control Groups Comparison of Ordinal Post Scores Between Pre-Post (04) and Post Only (02) Control Groups (Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Ran Sum W Test Comparison of Environmental and Social Issues Ranking Between Pre-Post (O4) and Post Only (05) Control Groups (Parametric T-Test) Comparison of Pre- and Post-Ordinal Scores of the Pre-Post Control Group (03 vs 04) (Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed Ranks Test) Comparison of Pre- and Post-Issues Ranking by the Pre-Post Control Group (03 vs 04) (Matched Pairs T-Test) Comparison of Gain Scores in I, P, and C Scales and Total Internality Score (INTSCR) Between YCC Participants and Pre-Post Control Group (Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) Comparison of Gain Scores in I, P, and C, and INTSCR Variables Among 5-Day Residential, 7-Day Residential, Nonresidential Camps and Pre-Post Control (Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) Comparison of Issues Ranking by YCC Participants (02) and Non-Selected Applicant Controls (04, 05) (T-Test) Comparison of YCC Applicants (01, O3, 05) and Non-Applicants (0 ) on Locus of Control Measures (I, P, C, and INTSCR) and Total Action Score (ACTSC) (Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) 38 4O 46 47 48 49 51 53 54 '55 Comparison of Issues Ranking by Applicants (01, O3, 05) and Non-Applicants (06) to the YCC Program (T-Test) Correlations Between ACTSC and I, P, C, and INTSCR Variables (Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients) Variance of I, P, C, INTSCR and ACTSC Variables Attributable to Age (Kruskal-Wallis l-Way ANOVA) Differences in I, P, C, INTSCR and ACTSC Variables Attributable to Sex (Mann- Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) Ranking of Categories of Environmental Action Participation Reported by YCC Applicants (N=223) vi 56 58 6O 61 63 LIST OF FIGURES Anatomy of an Environmental Behavior 18 and 31 vii DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL AS A PREREQUISITE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TAKING Abstract. Principles of the locus of control theory (L of C) and supportive research findings are reviewed. A citizen's L of C may have important implications for environmental education in promoting the ultimate goal of responsible environmental action. A paradigm.of environmental behavior is proposed. Introduction It is generally accepted by educators that the major goal of environmental education (EE) should be to produce "an environmentally literate citizenry that is both competent to take action on critical environmental issues and willing to take that action" (Hungerford and Peyton, 1976, p. 11). Many writers have stressed the importance of extending EE beyond the awareness level to the citizen participation level (Balzar, 1971; Childress and Wert, 1976; Ginzbarg, 1971; Harvey, 1977; Hawkins and Vinton, 1973; Hungerford, et al., 1979; UNESCO, 1977). Educational efforts to produce environmentally literate citizens have been largely based on the postulate that a 1Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 IQ linear relationship exists among cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude), and conative (behavioral) domains. Accordingly, EE programs often present awareness and knowledge of ecology and/or environmental issues, and assume that this awareness and knowledge will lead to the desired attitude development and, ultimately, to the necessary environmentally ethical behaviors. Findings of current research into the relationships that exist among the cognitive, affective, and conative domains indicate that these relationships are far more complex than previously assumed (Borden and Schettino, 1979; Burrus-Bammel, 1978; Heberlein, 1977; Ramsey and Rickson, 1977). Increased awareness and/of knowledge do not necessarily lead to positive attitude formation or to environmentally ethical behavior. Nor is there evidence to indicate the extent to which experi- ences such as values clarification, increased environmental sensitivity, or acclimatization, generate increased participa- tion in environmental action taking. Indeed, little empirical research exists in EE which identifies the variables respon- sible for a specific environmental action, nor the relationships among these variables. Certainly, a number of variables may interact in promoting environmental action taken by an individual, including the individual's knowledge (beliefs) about the issue, attitudes toward the components of the issue, and environmental action skills, An additional variable which has not been considered by environmental educators in this context is an individual's perception of whether or not he/she has the ability to bring about change through his/her own behavior. This variable - locus of control - suggests that an individual with the neces- sary environmental knowledge, values, and skills, may not engage in environmental action taking if he/she perceives an individual inability to bring about change in such a situation. Evidence indicates that this perception may reflect more than a lack of confidence in the action itself. Some individuals do not attempt to bring about desired change because they attribute change to chance or powerful others (e.g. God, parents, government, "they", etc.) rather than to their own behaviors. The theoretical construct of locus of control (L of C) has been frequently researched in the behavioral sciences. However, research exploring the role of L of C in EE is almost non-existent (Smith, 1979). The purpose of this paper will be to: 1. review the principles of the L of C theoretical construct; 2. describe the potential implications of the theory of L of C for BB; and, 3. propose a paradigm to guide further research into the variables impinging on environmental action taking. Locus of Control Construct Julian B. Rotter was one of the first to propose and define the theoretical construct known as locus of control (1966). His theory developed as a result of analysis of patients in psychotherapy. ...clinical analysis of patients suggested that while some patients appear to gain from new experiences or to change their behavior as a result of new experiences, others seem to discount new experiences by attributing them to chance or to others and not to their own behavior or charac— teristics (Rotter, 1966, p. 2). Rotter proposes that an individual’s actions can be predicted on the basis of one's values, expectations, and the nature of the situation. Rotter's basic formula for predict- ing an individual's behavior in a specific situation is presented as: [the potentiall [the expectancy of I rthe value I for behavior is a the occurrence of placed on (X) to occur function reinforcement (A) and reinforce— in relation of following behavior ment (A) to reinforceé (X) [ment (A) _J | J l ._J This approach to predicting behavioral outcomes places equal emphasis on expectancy, reinforcement value, and the psychological situation. It is the expectancy of reinforcement which reflects an individual‘s L of C. Rotter et a1. (1972) define expectancy as the "probability held by the individual that a particular reinforcement will occur as a function of a specific behavior on his part in a specific situation (p. 12)." Reinforcement value is "the degree of the person's preference for that reinforcement to occur if the possibili- ties of occurrence of all alternatives were equal (p. 13).” Rotter has identified two attitude positions which an individual may have with respect to expectancy for reinforce- ment (L of C). When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our culture, it is typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him... [We] have labeled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behavior or his own relatively perma- nent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control (Rotter, 1966, p. l). (Emphasis added) For purposes of clarification, Rotter's formula may be used to predict whether an individual will take a specific environmental action. If the desired action is writing a letter to a Senator with regard to an Alaskan land bill, the probability of the individual writing the letter may depend on: (a) his/her expectancy that the letter writing will indeed con- tribute to the preservation of Alaskan lands, and (b) the value which the individual places on preserving Alaskan lands. Given that the individual values Alaskan land preser- vation, an individual who perceives an internal L of C is more likely to write a letter expecting to gain the desired reinforcement. Alternatively, an external individual attri- butes change in the Alaskan land situation to chance or powerful others and fails to take action. Rotter (1966) describes the L of C construct as a distribution of individuals on a continuum according to the degree to which they accept personal responsibility for what happens to them. Other writers have emphasized the importance of viewing L of C not as a trait or personality type, but as an individual's more common tendencies to expect events to be contingent or noncontingent upon his/her actions (Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976). Locus of control has been shown to operate as both a generalized expectancy covering many diverse situations, and as a specific expectancy directed toward a class of situations. When an individual is confronted with a novel or ambiguous situation, the individual's behavior is more likely to reflect his generalized expectancy for control. If a familiar situa- tion is encountered, behavior will predictably follow the individual's specific expectancy for control in that situation (Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976). ‘Many paper and pencil instruments have been developed to measure an individual's L of C. Both generalized and specific expectancies have been assessed in a variety of age groups, populations, and topic areas (Crandall et al., 1965; Dean, 1969; James, 1957; Mischel et al., 1974; Nowicki and Strickland, 1973; Reid and ware, 1974; Tomera, 1979). The L of C instrument which has received the most recognition in the field was developed by Rotter (1966). His Internal- External Control Scale includes 29 forced-choice items which measure generalized expectancy across a range of situations. Several researchers have developed instruments intended to distinguish between different types of external control (Crandall et al., 1965; Kleiber et al., 1973; Levenson, 1972). In their view, important differences exist between the individ- ual who believes outcomes are in the control of other people, and the individual who believes outcomes are a result of fate or chance. Levenson (1972) devised a L of C instrument which further distinguishes among externals as attributing control to either "powerful others” or "chance". Her Internal, Powerful Others, Chance Scale has been used with some success in supporting these factors as independent orientations. Factors Influencing Locus of COntrol There has been considerable research to identify the factors which.inf1uence the development of an individual's L of C. L of C appears to be influenced by familial origins, ethnicity, social class, and mental age. Research pertaining to familial origins of L of C seem to indicate that family environment, consistency of parental reinforcement, and ordinal position in the family affect L of C. In general, a warm, supportive, nurturing environment encourages internality (Davis and Phares, 1969; Katkovsky et al., 1967; Shore, 1967). Earlier born children tend to be slightly more internal than later born children in large families (Chance, 1965; Crandall et al., 1965; Eisenman and Platt, 1968; MacDonald, 1971). Studies on the social antecedents of L of C indicate expectancy of reinforcement is related to ethnicity and social class, Lefcourt (1976) reviewed the literature and reported a trend for blacks to be more external than whites, and showed lower socioeconomic status to be associated with externality. Gurin et a1. (1969) question the benefits attributed to internality, They propose that internality may have negative implications especially among minority groups and the econom- ically deprived, and suggeSt that individuals in such groups are better adjusted when able to attribute failures to chance or powerful others. An internal individual who experiences repeated failure could suffer from self-derogation and self- blame. Although an individual’s L of C has been shown to be relatively consistent when measured over short durations, several researchers have been able to demonstrate shifts in L of,C over longer periods. Bailer (1961) and Penk (1969) suggest a positive relationship between age and internality. However, Bailer's study indicates mental age rather than - chronological age is the salient aspect with regard to increases in internality. Abundant literature exists pertaining to L of C. Although not exhaustive, this review of the literature has outlined the L of C theoretical construct and identified some of the factors found to influence the development of an individual's L of C. In summary, L of C is the degree to which an individual per- ceives reinforcement to be contingent (internal) or noncontingent (external) upon his/her actions. L of C seems to operate as both a broad, generalized expectancy and as a situation specific expectancy. Further, an individual's perceived L of C appears to be stable over short durations, and may be influenced by familial origins, ethnicity, social class, and mental age. Implications for Environmental Education Several generalizations which may be inferred from research on L of C may have important implications for ER. These generalizations and their potential implications are presented in this section along with a brief review of the supporting research. A word of caution is in order here concerning the nature of the supporting research. ‘Many of the reported findings are based on correlational studies. Certainly these are legiti- mate methods of research; however,care must be taken not to infer causation between variables which Show a significant correlation. For example, a significant relationship‘has been reported between having an internal L of C and resistance to subtle manipulation. It follows that internals may tend to be more discriminating in accepting information for use in problem solving - a desirable trait in an environmentally literate citizen. However, it does an_necessarily follow that making externals more internal would also make them more resistant to manipulation. This infers a causal relationship between the two variables which has not yet been substantiated by research. In addition, the research reported here is limited by the problems of research design and population constraints which are commonly inherent in behavioral research. However, even with the recognized limitations of available research findings, it is proposed that sufficient evidence exists to warrant 10 consideration and further investigation of these potential implications by environmental educators. l. Internals more frequently participate in productive action taking than externals. Several researchers have reported evidence that internals are more often the initiators of social action and change, or participate more actively than externals in attempting to control their environment (Brown and Strickland, 1972; Rosen and Salling, 1971; Ryckman, Martens, Rodda, and Sherman, 1972). Gore and Rotter (1963) measured black college students' willingness to participate in various kinds of social actions at the height of a social protest movement. Internal blaCks stated a greater willingness to become personally involved in a more active form of civil rights behavior. Strickland (1965) measured the degree of actual participation by blacks in the civil rights movement and reported a positive correla- tion between internality and participation. Some discrepancies with regard to activism and L of C have been reported. Lao (1970) found that externals who blamed discrimination on the social system tended to participate and become more personally involved in civil rights activities than internals. Gurin et a1. (1969) present a thorough review of L of C in blacks and propose that a more complex relation- ship exists between L of C and behavior. They report that when internal-external control refers to blacks' conceptions of their condition as blacks, it is the external rather than the internal orientation that is associated with more 11 effective behaviors. Internal blacks who tended to see the cause of blacks' problems in personal inadequacies of blacks, rather than in the social system, supported the view that individual self-betterment is the best approach to dealing with the problems. Thus, these internals did take action, but the actions were individual rather than group actions. Both studies by Lao and Gurin et al. reported a preference for collective action rather than individual action by externals who tended to blame the system. The relationship between internality and individual action takimghas strong implications for BB. Achieving the goals of EB depends on developing individuals willing to initiate posi- tive, rational environmental action taking. In view of the generalizations reported here, this would seem to make internality desirable. 2. Internals differ from externals in their ability to recall relevant material, and in how actively they seek additional information. In a study by Wolk and DuCette (1974), internals were found to demonstrate performance superior to externals on assigned tasks which involved recall of relevant information. Seeman (1963) presented prison inmates with three categories of information varying in relevancy to the parole process. Six weeks later he found that internals recalled significantly more of the relevant information than externals. The relationships among L of C, knowledge, and informa- tion seeking behavior were investigated by Seeman and Evans 12 (1962). Results of their study involving 43 internal-external pairs of white male tuberculosis patients indicated that internals were more knowledgeable about their illness, were ‘more inquisitive with the hospital personnel about the disease and their own condition, and expressed less satisfaction with the amount of information they were receiving. Research supporting these findings were reported by Davis and Phares (1967) and Williams and Stack (1972). Having greater recall of relevant material and more actively seeking additional information are certainly impor- tant abilities for effective environmental problem solving. If it is accurate that becoming more internal leads to inereases in the above characteristics (causal relationship), then developing an internal L of C among citizens may be an important goal of EE. 3. Internal individuals are superior to externals in their utilization offinfBrmation. Phares (1968) compared the utilization of information in decision making by internals and externals. Subjects were provided with information about four men and were asked to match each of the men with suitable occupations and mates, After the task was completed, internals provided over 50% more reasons to justify their matches than externals. When only correct reasons were counted, internals provided three times as many correct responses as externals. Rational, objective problem solving would be enhanced by an increased ability to accurately apply information. If 13 the relationship between this characteristic and internality is a causal one (i.e., becoming more internal would cause a greater utilization of information), citizens' perception of L of C should be an important consideration of environmental educators. 4. Internal individuals are more resistant to subtle manipu- lation and are less influenced by high-prestige individuals than externals. Studies concerning an individual's tendencies to conform indicate that internals are more trusting of their own judgment, and are less apt to conform to the influence of others (Biondo and MacDonald, 1971; Crowne and Liverant, 1963; Doctor, 1971; Getter, 1966; Gore, 1962; Hjelle and Clouser, 1970; Lefcourt, 1967; Odell, 1959; Strickland, 1970). Further studies have revealed that internals are not simply resistant to influence, but are more discriminating in what influences they will accept. Ritchie and Phares (1969) reported that both internals and externals shifted their views as a result of a persuasive message. However, externals were found to shift their opinions more when the message was attributed to a high-prestige, rather than a low-prestige source. Prestige of the source was not as influential in shifting the attitudes of internals as the content of the message. Other studies with similar findings have been reported by Ryckman, Rodda, and Sherman (1972). These findings also seem to have important implications for producing rational, objective environmental problem solvers. 14 It is essential that the value positions and credibility of informational sources be carefully assessed when investigating the dimensions of an environmental issue. It seems reasonable to expect internals to be more capable and/or willing to reject information which comes from biased or prestigious, but uninformed sources. 5. Internal individuals exhibit a superior capacity to delay gratification in order to attain greater, long-term gains. Using normal and mentally retarded youth, Bailer (1961) found a significant positive correlation between internality and capacity to delay gratification. Strickland (1972) tested both black and white sixth graders and found that internals exhibited more delay behaviors than externals, but only among the white subjects. A later study (Strickland, 1973) reported internality was significantly and positively correlated with delayed, larger rewards in white, middle class youth. ‘Mischel et a1. (1974) reported that internality was positively corre- lated with an individual's ability to persist in a task to obtain greater rewards. These studies seem to substantiate the greater capacity of internals to delay gratification in order to attain more significant, long-term gains. Solving environmental (and other social) problems, often requires behaviors that sacrifice short-term rewards for the attainment of greater, long-term gains. If EE is to produce citizens capable and willing to adopt behaviors to improve and/or maintain environmental quality, increased internality may be an important part of the process. 15 6. Internals respond differently to those tasks which they perceive togbe skill-related, than to taSks they perceive to be chance-determined. In studies which ignored L of C, Phares (1957) and James and Rotter (1958) demonstrated that if a task is perceived to be solvable through skill, individuals will seriously use experience and feedback as a basis for making future decisions. However, individuals will ignore feedback and tend to gamble on outcomes if the task is perceived to be chance—determined. Other researchers who measured L of C have reported that internals devote more attention to decision making concerning skill-related matters, and less attention in chance-related situations than do externals (Julian and Katz, 1968; Lechurt et al., 1968; Rotter and Mulry, 1965). Davis and Phares (1967) presented each of three groups with a different reason for success or failure in an upcoming task (Skill, chance, or no such instructions). Internals showed a decrease in participation in the chance-instructed group, whereas externals participated more. Internals participated significantly more than externals in the skill and no instruction situations. In view of the above findings, it appears important for BB to present citizens with the perception that the outcomes of environmental actions are skill—related and not due entirely to chance events. 16 7. An individual's perceived L of C is susceptible to change. Gorman (1968) and McArthur (1970) measured changes in L of C following contemporary political events relevant to control expectancies. In each study the experimental group had a vested interest in the outcome of the event. The failure of the desired outcome to materialize did not rein- force an internal L of C. In both studies, the experimental group showed a greater shift toward the external end of the continuum; however, no indication exists as to the permanence of this shift. deCharms (1972) established a teacher training program specifically aimed at encouraging personal causation (inter- nality) in the students involved. Evidence showed that the teachers' training did indeed increase the students' sense of personal causation. Further, deCharms was able to demonstrate that these shifts have persistence when measured over a period of up to two years, and that additional exposure to trained teachers has a cumulative effect in increasing the students' internality. Other researchers reported similar shifts toward internality following training and substantiated the cumulative effects of training reported by deCharms (Martin and Shepel, 1974; Nowicki and Barnes, 1973). Rowe (1973) has investigated the impact science education methods may have on students' L of C. She suggests that: ...science appropriately taught may contribute to improving the sense of fate control and that this improvement, in turn, will increase the amount of voluntary learning and investigating that people will engage in (p. 300). 17 Rowe reports evidence that teaching techniques such as divergent questioning, sufficient wait time, and inquiry models shift students' perception of fate control (L of C) toward internality. Given that an internal L of C in citizens is accepted as a desired perspective in an environmentally literate individ- ual, it is significant that L of C is responsive to training and experience. The nature and extent of such training to be offered by EB are by no means defined clearly as yet. However, the implication seems evident that environmental educators should begin to examine EE curricula and teaching methods to determine how an internal L of C may be best developed in citizens. In summary, the research reviewed here indicates that internals may be expected to be more autonomous and better informed problem solvers than externals, and to more fre- quently participate in environmental action taking. Given that Rotter's formula for predicting an individual's potential for behavior is viable, and that environmentally responsible behavior is the ultimate goal of EB, it follows that the L of C theory has important implications for BB. Summary: A Paradigm of Environmental Behavior The model in Figure 1 attempts to graphically relate the many variables and processes which impinge on environmental action taking by citizens (e.g., writing a letter about the Alaskan lands issue). The left side of the model includes 18 ANATOMY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR Knowledge of environ. Knowledge of action skills; case Alaskan lands Knowledge of natural systems studies of effective issue (ecology; vulnerability; etc.) action // I M P I N G I N G V A R I A B L E 5 (new kgowledge and ggperiences) : Affective Knowledge of Experiences experiences Knowledge of trade off costs with effective (wilderness value (economic, social, decision making experience) positions etc.) and action FRAME OF REFERENCE 1 An evolving frame of reference (pre-existing values, beliefs and attitude systems) accomodates and assimilates new knowledge and experiences (Beliefs concerning (Beliefs concerning (Beliefs concerning (Beliefs concerning desirability of consequences of the tactics of env. own ability to land preservation) land preservation) aetion taking) bring about change) \AIB/ATTITB 0033\A/ (Attitude concerning the (Perception2 of ability to unportance ~ value ~ of bring about change in this preserving Alaskan lands) type of situation - LOCUS OF CONTROL) If A1 is week If A1 is strong 6"‘::’fi3r££'INTERNAL If A, is EXTERNAL \Afn TEEN Low probability High probability of Low probability of action action (e.g., letter of action writing to senator re Alaskan land bill) G O A L O F E E Figure l 19 those impinging variables (knowledge and experiences), beliefs (B1 and BZ)’ and attitudes (Al) which EE has traditionally dealt with. More recently, EE literature has encouraged including a knowledge of, and experiences with, envirOnmental problem solving as reflected by the impinging variables on the upper right side of the model. The review of the L of C theoretical construct presented in this paper, supports the inclusion of such recent trends in EE, and further suggests that citizens be given diverse, positive experiences with effective decision making and action. In addition, L of C implies that other beliefs (B3 and B4) and attitudes (A2) are important considerations in bringing about a specific environ- mental action. The processes involved as precursors to an environmental action are implied by the frame of reference component. The paradigm assumes that a citizen has a frame of reference which reflects all past learning experiences, values, beliefs, and attitudes, and which serves to process any new knowledge and/or experience. Some of this new input is modified to ”fit” into the existing frame of reference (assimilation). In other cases, the frame of reference itself is adjusted to accept new perspectives (accomodation). The result is a constantly evolving frame of reference comprised of new beliefs and and attitude systems. The attitude systems prevailing at any given time will determine the types of behaviors, if any, that are engaged in, 20 The model in Figure 1 attempts to recognize many components which are necessary to achieve the desired environmental behavior by the citizen. An internal L of C is not proposed as the panacea to correct our past failures in EE, but rather as an additional component which may contribute to future successes. The relationships proposed by Figure 1 have been useful in suggesting a number of recommendations for EE cur- riculum development, teaching methods and research. For example, the needs for research suggested by the paradigm include the need to ... l...develop valid and reliable instruments which ‘measure situation specific (i.e., L of C in environmental problem solving) rather than generalized expectancy of reinforcement. 2...determine the types of experiences and know- ledge needed to develop general and situation specific internal expectancies. 3...identify variables (knowledge, experiences) which impinge on environmental action taking and the extent to which each variable contrib- uteS” to action. 4...determine the extent of causal relationships which may exist between internal L of C and various problem solving attributes. The paradigm and literature reviewed further suggest that environmental educators should 5...provide citizens with experiences intended to develop or reinforce an internal L of C in environmental problem solving by: (1) using case study involvement which models effective action taking; (2) avoiding action taking experiences which reinforce externality in citizens because of unreasonable expectations or through lack of positive feedback; (3) using ‘methods such as positive feedback, inquiry teaching, and student participation in decision making which enhance student self-image and confidence in problem solving abilities. 21 .provide citizens with evidence that achieving results with environmental actions is skill-related rather than chance-determined. .consider the L of C of citizens when dealing with environmental action components so that the most productive teaching methods may be selected. .develop students' internal expectancies of control in specific classroom situations which will transfer to similar life style situations related to environmental quality. 22 REFERENCES Bailer, I. "Conceptualization of Success and Failure in Mentally Retarded and Normal Children". Journal of Personality, 29:303-320, 1961. Balzar, L. ”Environmental Education in the K-12 Span". American Biology Teacher, 15:220-224, 1971. Biondo, J. and A. P. MacDonald. "Internal-External Locus of Control and Response to Influence Attempts". Journal of Personality, 39:407-419. 1971. Borden, R. J. and A. P. Schettino. "Determinants of Environ- mentally Responsible Behavior". Journal of Environmental Education, lO(4):35-39, Summer 1979. Brown, J. C. and B. R. Strickland. "Belief in Internal- External Control of Reinforcement and Participation in College Activities”. JOurnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38:148, 1972. Burrus-Bammel, L. L. "Information's Effect on Attitude: A Longitudinal Study". J. of Environmental Education, 9(4):41-50, Summer 1978. Chance, J. E. "Internal Control of Reinforcements and the School Learning Process". Paper presented at meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, March 1965. Childress, R. B. and J. wert. "Challenges for Environmental Education Planners”. J. of Environmental Education, 7(4):2-6, 1976. Crandall, V. C., W. Katkovsky, and V. J. Crandall. ”Child- ren's Beliefs in Their Own Control of Reinforcements in Intellectual-Academic Achievement Situations”. Child Development, 36:91-109, 1965. Crowne, D. P. and S. Liverant. "Conformity Under Varying Con- ditions of Personal Commitment". J. of Abnormal an Social Psychology, 66:547-555, 1963. Davis, W. L. and E. J. Phares. ”Internal-External Control as a Determinant of Information-Seeking in a Social Influence Situation". J. of Personality, 35:547-561, 1967. 23 Davis, W. L. and E. J. Phares. "Parental Antecedents of Internal-External Control of Reinforcement". Psychologi— cal Reports, 24:427-436, 1969. Dean, D. G. Dynamic Social Psychology: Toward Appreciation and Replication. RandomeOuse, New York, 1969. deCharms, R. ”Personal Causation Training in the Schools". J. of Applied Social Psychology, 2:95-113, 1972. Doctor, R. M. "Locus of Control of Reinforcement and Respon- siveness to Social Influence". J. of Personality, 39:542-551, 1971. Eisenman, R. and J. J. Platt. "Birth Order and Sex Differences in Academic Achievement and Internal-External Control”. J. of General Psychology, 78:270-285. 1968. Getter, H. "A Personality Determinant of Verbal Conditioning". J. of Personality, 34:397-405, 1966. Ginzbarg, H. ”Environmental Education for Political Action". J. of Environmental Education, 3:26-27, 1971. Gore, P. M. "Individual Differences in the Prediction of Subject Compliance to Experimenter Bias". Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1962. Gore, P. M. and J. B. Rotter. "A Personality Correlate of Social Action". J. of Personality, 31:58-64, 1963. Gorman, B. S. "An Observation of Altered Locus of Control Following Political Disappointment". Psychological Reports, 23:1094, 1968. Gurin, P., G. Gurin, R. C. Lao, and M. Beattie. "Internal- External Control in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth". J. of Social Issues, 25:29-53, 1969. Harvey, G. "A Conceptualization of Environmental Education”. A Report of the N. American Regional Seminar on Environ- 'mental Education, SMEAC Information Center, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Hawkins, D. E. and D. A. Vinton. The Environmental Classroom. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 19731 Heberlein, T. A. "Social Psychological Assumptions of User Attitude Surveys: The Case of the Wilderness Scale". J. of Leisure Research, 5:18-33, 1973. 24 Hjelle, L. A. and R. Clouser. "Susceptibility to Attitude Change as a Function of Internal-External Control". Psychological Record, 20:305-310, 1970. Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. Teaching‘Environmental Education. J. Weston Walsh, Portland, Maine, 1976. , R. Wilke, and R. B. Peyton. "A Framework for EE Curriculum Planning and Development". J. of Environmental Education, (accepted for publication, July, 1979). James, W. H. "Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement as a Basic Variable in Learning Theory!“ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1957. and J. B. Rotter. "Partial and 100 Percent Rein- forcement Under Chance and Skill Conditions". J. of Experimental Psychology, 55:397-403, 1958. Julian, J. W. and S. B. Katz. "Internal Versus External Control and the Value of Reinforcement". J. of Personality and Social Psychology, 8:89-94, 1968. Katkovsky, W., V. C. Crandall, and 8. Good. "Parental Antece- dents of Children's Beliefs in Internal-External Control of Reinforcements in Intellectual Achievement Situations”. Child Development, 38:765-776, 1967. Kleiber, D., D. J. Veldman, and S. L. Menaker. "The Multi- dimensionality of Locus of Control". Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, Wash. D.C., 1973. Lao, R. C. ”Internal-External Control and Competent and Innova- tive Behavior Among Negro College Students". J. of Personality and Social PSychology, 14:263-270, 1976. Lefcourt, H. M. "The Effects of Cue Explication Upon Persons Maintaining External Control Expectancies”. J. of Personality and Social Psychology, 5:372-378, 1967. . Locus of Control: Current TrendsiJITheoty and Research. 'Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ,'1976. , L. Lewis, and I. W} Silverman. "Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement and Attention in Deci- sion Making Tasks". J. of Personality, 36:663-682, 1968. Levenson, H. "Locus of Control and Other Cognitive Correlates of Involvement in Anti-Pollution Activities". Unpubl. doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA 1972, 25 MacDonald, A. P. ”Birth Order and Personality”. J. of Con- sulting and ClinicalPsychology,_36:17l-176, 1971. Martin, R. D. and L. F. Shepel. "Locus of Control and Dis- crimination Ability with Lay Counselors". J. of Consult- ing and Clinical Psychology, 42:741, 1974. McArthur, L. A. "Luck is Alive and Well in New Haven". J. of Personality and Social PaychOIOgy, 16:316-318, 1970. Mischel, W., R. Zeiss, and A. Zeiss. "Internal-External Control and Persistence: Validation and Implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale". J. of Personality and Sacial Psychology, 29:265-278, 1974. Nowicki, S. and J. Barnes. "Effects of a Structured Camp Experience on Locus of Control Orientation". J. of Genetic Psychology, 122:247-252, 1973. and B. R. Strickland. "A Locus of Control Scale for Children". J} of Consulting and Clinical PsycholOgy, 40:148-154, 1973. Odell, M. "Personality Correlates of Independence and Conform- ity". Unpubl. master's thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1959. Penk, W; E. "Age Changes and Correlates of Internal-External Logus of Control Scale". Psychological Reports, 25:856, 19 9. Phares, E. J. "Expectancy Changes in Skill and Chance Situations”. J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54:339-342, 1957. ."Differential Utilization of Information as a Func- tion of Internal-External Control". J. of Personality, 36:649-662, 1968. .LOcus of COntrol in Personality. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ 1976. Ramsey, C. E. and R. E. Rickson. "Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes”. J. of Environmental Education, 8(1):10-18, 1977. Reid, D. and E. E. Ware. "Multidimensionality of Internal Versus External Control: Addition of a Third Dimension and Non-Distinction of Self Versus Others”. Canadian J. of Behavioral Science, 6:131-142, 1974. 26 Ritchie, D. E. and E. J. Phares. "Attitude Change as a Func— tion of Internal-External Control and Communicator Status". J. of PerSonality, 37:429-443, 1969. Rosen, B. and R. Salling. "Political Participation as a Function of Internal-External Locus of Control". Psychological Reports, 29:880-882, 1971. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement". Psychological Mono- graphs, 80, (1, Whole No. 609), 1966. , J. E. Chance, and E. J. Phares. Applications of A Social'LearningTheOry of Personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1972. and R. C. Mulry. "Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement and Decision Time". J. of Personality and Social Psychology, 2:598-604, 1965. Rowe, M. B. Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry. McGraw Hill, New York, 1973. Ryckman, R. M., J. L. Martens, W. C. Rodda, and M. F. Sherman. "Locus of Control and Attitudes Toward WOmen's Liberation in a College Population". J. of SOcial Psychology, 87:157- 158, 1972. , W. C. Rodda, and M. F. Sherman. "Locus of Control and Expertise Relevance as Determinants of Changes in ‘ Opinion About Student Activism". J. of Social Psychology, 88:107-114, 1972. Seeman, M. "Alienation and Social Learning in a Reformatory". Am. J. of Sociology, 69:270-284, 1963. and J. W. Evans. "Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Setting". Am. Sociological Review, 27:772-783, 1962. Shore, R. E. "Parental Determinants of Boys‘ Internal-External Control". Unpubl. doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univ., Syracuse, New York, 1967. Smith, J. M. "A Study of the Variables Associated with Environ- mental Action and Locus of Control Among Four Dissimilar Populations". Unpubl. master's thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 1979. 27 Strickland, B. R. "The Prediction of Social Action From a Dimension of Internal-External Control". J. of Social Psychology, 66:353-358, 1965. "Individual Differences in Verbal Conditioning, Extinction, and Awareness". J. of Personality, 38:364- 378, 1970. ”Delay of Gratification as a Function of Race of the Experimenter". J. of'PerSOnality and SOCial Psychol- ogz. 22:108-112, 1972. . "Delay of Gratification and Internal Locus of Con- trol in Children". J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 40:338, 1973. Tomera, A. N. "Environmental Locus of Control Instrument". Unpubl. institutional research, Department of Curriculum, Instruction and Media, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 1979. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza— tion. "The Tbilisi Declaration". Connect, (Paris, UNESCO), 3(1):1-7, January, 1978. Williams, J. G. and J. J. Stack. ”Internal-External Control as a Situational Variable in Determining Information Seeking by Negro Students". J. of Consulting and Clinical PaychOIOgy, 39:187-193, 1972. WOlk, S. and J. DuCette. "Intentional Performance and Inci- dental Learning as a Function of Personality and Task Directions". J. of PerSOnality and Social Psychology, 29:90-101, 1974. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS ON THE LOCUS OF CONTROL OF PARTICIPANTS Abstract. An assessment of the impact of the Youth Conservation Corps experience on participants' locus of control (L of C) indicated that YCC had no influence on L of C as measured in the study. However, the data suggest that internal L of C and the relative importance participants attribute to environ- mental issues, are positively correlated with the extent to: which participants engage in environmental action taking. Further, females in the study were significantly more internal than males. Introduction Environmentally responsible behavior is the ultimate goal of environmental education (EE). If environmental educators are to achieve this goal, it is essential that the factors impinging on behavior be identified. J. B. Rotter (1966) has suggested two factors by which one can predict an individual's behavior in a given situation. One influencing factor is the value the individual places on the expected reinforcement. Equally important is the individual's expectancy that this reinforcement will actually occur as a result of his/her actions. The individual's expectancy of reinforcement reflects his/her locus of control (L of C). 28 29 An internal L of C is the degree to which an individual perceives reinforcement to be contingent upon his/her own actions. External L of C refers to those individuals who attribute outcomes to chance or to someone they perceive to be more powerful (powerful others). L of C operates as both a broad, generalized expectancy and as a situation specific expectancy (Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976). In a novel situ- ation,the individual would tend to rely on his/her generalized expectancy. Conversely, in familiar situations, the situation specific expectancy would prevail. Further, an individual's L of C appears to be stable over short durations, and may be influenced by familial origins, ethnicity, social class, and mental age (Bailer, 1961; Chance, 1965; Crandall, et al., 1965; Davis and Phares, 1969; Eisenman and Platt, 1968; Gurin et al., 1969; Katkovsky et al., 1967; MacDonald, 1971; Penk, 1969; Shore, 1967). L of C has also been shown to be susceptible to change due to experiences and training (deCharms, 1972; Gorman, 1968; Martin and Shepel, 1974;'McArthur, 1970; Nowicki and Barnes, 1973). The attributes of an internal L of C would appear to have important implications for the attainment of the goal of EE. Internals may be expected to be more autonomous and better informed problem solvers than externals, and to more frequently participate in environmental action taking. A more thorough review of the theoretical construct of L of C and its poten- tial implications for BB have been presented by Peyton and Miller (1980). 30 In their review of L of C, Peyton and Miller introduce a paradigm (Figure 1) which reflects the implications of the L of C theory. The paradigm attempts to graphically relate many components which impinge on environmental action taking by citizens. Included in the paradigm are those variables (knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and attitudes) traditionally dealt with in EE to encourage effective environmental action taking. The paradigm proposes that both of the attitudes described by Rotter must also exist to increase the probability that a citizen will exhibit an environmental behavior. The citizen must place a strong value on the expected outcome or reinforce- ment (e.g., preserving Alaskan lands) and must also have an expectancy that this outcome or reinforcement will result from his/her own behavior (e.g., writing a letter to a Senator). The task of environmental educators, therefore, is to identify and assess the variables necessary to achieve the development of these attitudes in citizens. Among the variables which are proposed to influence an individual's perceived ability to bring about change (L of C) are knowledge of environmental action skills and experiences with effective decision making and action taking. The research reported here investigated the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) to determine whether this type of experience would have an impact on the L of C of YCC participants. It was hypothesized that the YCC experience would make both.the generalized and situation specific expectancies of participants more internal. 31 ANATOMY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR Knowledge of environ. Knowledge of action skills; case Alaskan lands Knowledge of natural systems studies of effective issue (ecology: vulnerability; etc .) act ion / I X P I N G I N G V A R I A 3 L E 5 (new kgowledge and experiences) Affective Knowledge of Experiences experiences Knowledge of trade off costs with effeccive (wilderness value (economic, social, decision making experi nce) positions etc.) and action ' 3. FRAME or REFERENCE E An evolving frame of reference (pre-existing values, beliefs and attitude systels) accoumodates and assimilates new knowledge 33d expgiegtes 1 - I (Beliefs concerning (Beliefs concerning (Beliefs concerning (Beliefs concerning desirability of consequences of the tactics of env. own ability to land preservation) land preservation) action taking) bring about change) \/ATTITUDES\/ ‘1 A2 (Attitude concerning the (Perception of ability to unportance - value - of bring about change in this preserving Alaskan lands) type of situation - LOCUS / or comer.) If A1 is week If A1 is strong If A7 is INTERNAL If A2 is EXTERNAL \AND/ THEN Low probability High probability of Low probability writing to senator I of action action (e.g., letter i of action re Alaskan land bill)! G O A L O F E E Figure l 32 The prediction that YCC would shift participants' L of C was based on the nature of the YCC experience. In the YCC program, 15 through 18 year-old youths are involved in up to ten weeks of individual and group decision making, particularly on the work sites. In addition, participants in residential programs engage in decision making in the group living situ- ation (e.g., in interpersonal relations, in camp government, and in recreational opportunities). It was anticipated that this exposure to personal decision making would alter the youths' generalized expectancy of reinforcement. YCC participants are also exposed to environmental issues and actions which could potentially shift the indiVidual's specific expectancy for reinforcement in environmental situations. Participants are required to engage in ten hours of environmental education experiences each week. Further, the work projects are usually ecomanagement actions aimed at 'maintaining and/or improving the environment (e.g., landscaping for erosion control, reforestation, clearing a nature trail, timber stand improvement). Thus, it was anticipated that participants' specific expectancy for reinforcement concerning environmental situations would be altered. Research Design The research involved paper and pencil testing of 15 through 18 year-old youths who were (1) participants in a Michigan YCC program during the summer of 1979, (2) non-selected YCC applicants, or (3) non-applicants to the YCC Program. The 33 testing instrument included items designed to measure the subject's L of C, degree of concern for environmental issues in comparison to other social issues, and extent of involvement in environmental action. Research questions for the study were: 1. Does participation in YCC produce a more internal locus of control in participants? 2. Do 5-day residential, 7-day residential, and non—residential camps differ in their effects on participants' L of C? 3. Does involvement in YCC influence the importance attributed to environmental and other social issues by participants? 4. Do individuals who apply for YCC differ signifi- cantly from.those who do not apply for YCC on the dependent variables? 5. What relationship exists between L of C and reported involvement in environmental action taking? 6. How are L of C and involvement in environmental action taking affected by sex and age of subjects? 7. What types of environmental actions are most frequently reported by YCC applicants? The research design could be represented in the following manner: Pre- YCC Post- test Experience test YCC Participants (N=149) 01 X 02 Non-Selected Applicants (N=36) 03 04 Non-Selected Applicants (N=38) O5 Non-Applicants (N=95) 06 In the above diagram, "0” represents an observation of the 34 dependent variable by means of the testing instrument, and "X" represents the treatment (the YCC experience). The experimental subjects (YCC participants) completed the research instrument within the first two weeks of the program (01) and again during the final week (02). Pre/post control subjects (non-selected applicants) were mailed the instrument in mid-June (O3) and again in mid-August (04). Post only control subjects (non-selected applicants) completed the instrument in mid-August only (05). All of the non-applicant subjects were tested in October (06). Instrumentation The first section of the testing instrument (see Appendix) collected data concerning age, sex, and extent of YCC experi- ence. The other three sections assessed subjects’ L of C, ranking of social issues, and involvement in environmental action which will be briefly described below. The instrument also contained several other measures not being reported here, which added to the length of the form. A preliminary version of the research instrument was administered to several local high school classes. Based on the findings of this pilot study, the instrument was revised to its present form. Locus of COntrol: The L of C instrument employed in this study was adapted from Levenson (1972). Her scale is a combination of items from several L of C scales, with the addition of a set of statements written specifically for the new scale. This L of C instrument provides a more adequate measure of external control because it distinguishes external 35 controllnrpowerful others as separate from external control by fate or chance. This 24-item IPC (Internal, Powerful Others, Chance) Scale allows the subjects to attribute causa- tion to each of these factors. Items for the scale are divided equally among the three orientations (I, P, and C). The specific content areas tapped by the items appear equally for all three orientations and a high degree of parallelism exists within each triad of items. To enhance its predictive capabilities, Levenson made a personal/ideological distinction so that all the statements refer to only the subject himself/herself. Pretesting the instrument indicated a high internal consistency within sub- scales and revealed it was not correlated with a measure of social desirability (Levenson, 1972). Levenson used her Likert-type, three factor measure with some success in support- ing internal, powerful others, and chance as independent orientations. In the research being reported here, the subjects used the same 6-point Likert scale to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the 24 attitude statements. Subjects were given an individual score for the eight "internal" (I) items, a score for the eight "powerful others" (P) statements, and a score for the eight ”chance" (C) items. A total inter- nality score (INTSCR) was computed by a summation of the scores for all 24 items (P and C scores were transformed so that resulting high scores indicated an internal L of C). 36 Issues Ranking: This instrument assessed how important the subjects felt environmental issues were, relative to other social issues. Subjects were presented with six social issues (Crime Rate, Drug Abuse, U.S. and Wbrld Economy, Environmental Issues, Discrimination Against Race, Sex, Religion, Age, and Capital Punishment). Crime rate was assigned a score of 500. Subjects rated the other issues using crime rate as a point of reference (e.g., if the subject was twice as concerned about drug abuse as he/she was about crime rate, drug abuse was given a score of 1,000). Environmental Action Checklist: This section assessed.the extent to which subjects had been involved in environmental action. Subjects were presented with 16 statements of environ- mental action which reflected Hungerford and Peyton's (1976) categories of environmental actibn (persuasion, consumerism, political action, legal action, and ecomanagement). Addition- ally, statements concerning fund raising and information seeking were included. The statements varied in degree of commitment from passive actions ("I have read articles ... and/or listened to programs ... about environmental problems.") to more active actions ("I have helped to start and/or distribute a petition concerning an environmental problem."). This self-report measure indicated the subject's extent of voluntary participa- tion (Never, Occasionally, Often, Regularly) for each action statement. A score was calculated for each statement with "Never" given a value of 0, up to "Regularly" which was 37 assigned a value of 3. The total environmental action score (ACTSC) was a summation of the individual's score for each Statement . Research Subjects The subjects used in the study were 15 through 18 year- old males and females. Experimental subjects were participants in a Michigan YCC program during the summer of 1979. One control group (non-selected applicants) consisted of individuals who applied for a position in the 1979 YCC program but were not selected to participate. A second control group included individuals who had never applied for the YCC program (non? applicants). YCC Participants: Participants for the 1979 YCC program were randomly selected by a computer. Only sex, zip code of residence, and type of camp preferred were used in the selec- tion process to insure random distribution reflecting the applicant population. Recruitment for participation in the 7-day residential camp programs was state-wide; 5-day programs (both residential and non-residential) recruited from.within commuting distance of the sponsoring agency (Ross Dodge, Office of Manpower Programs, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; personal communication). The study involved 149 Michigan youth participating in six YCC programs. The demographic data are presented in Table 1. Non-Selected Applicants: Seventy-four youth who were not selected by computer to participate in the 1979 YCC program 38 mano poms mums muoonnsm moose .Aaov announced msw>ao>nw momhamnm was re .mp0: pouuoaoa no: ucoaumouu coaquSpo Housmanoufi>co aowoomm w now means osu omonu mo uso pouooaom kHEOpaon mama moaoaom be one monE was mes Hence cameo - as an - an mm - on am we one an Hence mm monEom or mean: xom an Hmuoe a me aa aa m no em «a saw was ass as Hence mm m o N m a m a a H N co» nuance secewmm HmwuaopwmoMISOZ mmaum on m o a s m m a o N n cos mason swam maeammam am on a a a a as o a a m vow po>em masseuse Hmaucmnamme am:-m mm as H m o m me o m a m «om» mean one: mN on N N. m a me a m a m sou» mean when mm «N o a w a «H o e a e cos coecmuuaao Hmaucmeamme ema-a mz .25). A significant difference in the ranking of social issues was found only for U.S. and world economy (Table 4). Post only control (05) subjects ranked this social issue higher than pre-post controls (04). As a further validity check and to serve as an indication of instrument reliability, pre and post scores of the pre-post control group were also compared (03 vs 04). Results of the Wilcoxon Match-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test and the Matched Pairs T-Test (used for Issues Ranking) are presented in Tables 5 and 6. While differences in ranking the issue, U.S. and world economy, were found between pre-post (04) and post only (05) controls, these differences were not observed between pre (03) and post (04) tests of the former group. No significant 46 Table ; Comparison of Ordinal Post Scores Between Pre-Post (0 ) and Post Only (05) Control Groups (Mann-Whitney U - ' . Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) Mean Post Mean 1 2-Tailfd Variable Score Rank 2 Prob Internal Scale 04 37.86 40.4 05 35.92 37.4 1.15 .25 Powerful Others Scale 04 24.72 37.5 05 24.55 37.5 .01 .99 Chance Scale 04 25.28 40.0 05 23.61 35.1 .99 .32 Total Internality Score , 04 95.81 36.8 05 95.68 38.2 -.29 .77 Total Action Score 04 15.61 35.3 05 16.97 39.6 -.88 .38 N (Pre-post control group) = 36 N (Post only control group) = 38 a=.05 1Corrected for ties 47 Table i Comparison of Environmental and Social Issues Ranking Between Pre- Post (04 ) and Post Only (05 ) Control Groups (Parametric T- Test) =: m Standard 2-Tailed Variable Mean Deviation T DF Prob Drug Abuse 04 543.1 352.6 05 618.2 320.7 -.96 72 .34 U. S. an nd World Economy 04 559.7 344.7 05 726.7 319.9 -2.16 72 .03* Environmental Issues ,. 04 586.1 365.6 05 742.3 445.0 -1.64 72 .10 Discrimination Against Race, Sex, Religion, Age 04 471.0 377.9 05 616.6 318.3 -l.80 72 .08 Capital Punishment 04 495.2 415.0 05 421.7 301.9 .87 72 .39 N (Pre-Post Control) = 36 N (Post Only Control) = 38 a3.05 *Significant Table 5 48 Comparisons of Pre- and Postrprdinal Scores of the Pre- Post Control Group (03 vs 0A) (Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs S1gned- Ranks Test) Mean 1 2-Tailid Variable Mean Rank Z Prob Internal Scale Pre 37.6 17.1 Post 37.8 14.3 -.2160 .83 Powerful Others Scale Pre 25.4 16.0 Post 24.7 20.7 -l.1968 .23 Chance Scale Pre 25.0 16.8 Post 25.3 17.2 - .5092 .61 Total Internality Score Pre 99.2 19.7 Post 95.8 14.7 -2.2685 .02* Total Action Score Pre 16.0 18.0 Post 15.6 14.1 -.4311 .66 N a 36 0.8.05 *Significant Corrected for ties 49 Table g Comparisonof Pre-land Postrlssues Ranking by the Pre-Post a~ww-Control Group (03 vs 04) (Matched Pairs T-Test) Standard 2-Tailed Variable Mean Deviation T‘ DF Prob Drug Abuse Pre 602.7 266.7 Post 543. 352.5 1.07 35 .29 U.S. and World Economy Pre 708.3 404.8 Post 559.7 344.7 1.79 35 .08 Environmental Issues Pre 736.1 446.1 Post 586.1 365.6 1.69 35 .10 Discrimination Against Race, Sex, Religion, Age Pre 595.8 422.8 Post 470.9 377.8 1.45 35 .06 Capital Punishment Pre 413.2 299.0 Post 495.2 414.9 -1.13 35 .26 N = 36 013.05 a1 be CC Si th in Re: 811C Par thr 50 differences were found between 03 and 04 with the exception of the total internality score (INTSCR). This variable shows a significant decrease in internal L of C which suggests some lack of instrument reliability when used under the conditions of this study. The decrease may also be due to effects of history or maturation. Since analysis of the internality (I), powerful other (P), and chance (C) scales individually show no significant change, it is also possible that the change in the INTSCR variable represents a Type I error. In spite of some evidence to the contrary, the findings of the analysis reported here are accepted as indication that internal validity threats due to instrument effect, history, or matura- tion do not exist. Research Question 1: Does participation in YCC produce a more internal L of C in participants? Gain scores on each of the three L of C scales (I, P, C) and the total internality score (INTSCR) were compared between participants in the YCC camps (02 - 01) and pre-post controls (04 - 03). Results are summarized in Table 7. No significant differences in gain scores were found indicating that the YCC camp experiences in this study did not have an effect on participants' L of C as measured by the research instrument. Research Question 2: Do 5-day residential, 7-day residential, and non-residential camps differ in their effects on partici- pants' L of C? Gain scores on I, P, C and INTSCR were compared among the three types of camps and the pre-post control groups. Results 51 Table 7 Comparison of Gain Scores in I, P, and C Scales, and Total Internality Score (INTSCR) Between YCC Participants and Pre-Post Control Group (Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) Mean Mean 1 2-Tailid Variable Gain Score Rank Z Prob I YCC -.06 92.8 Control .25 93.7 -.09 .93 P YCC -.52 93.9 _ Control .72 89.4 .45 .65 C YCC .05 91.8 Control .31 97.8 -.60 .55 INTSCR YCC -3.67 93.2 Control -3.39 92.2 .10 .92 N (YCC) = 118 N (Control) = 36 a=.05 1Corrected for ties 52 (Table 8) indicate no significant differences exist in how each of the camp experiences influenced L of C as measured by the instrument. Nor are the results from any of the camps significantly different from the pre-post control group results. Research Question 3: Does involvement in YCC influence the importance attributed to environmental and other social issues by participants? Post scores on the Issues Ranking instrument were compared between YCC participants (02) and non-selected applicant controls (04, 05) using T-tests. Results (Table 9) indicate that the YCC experience did not alter how partici-4 pants ranked the five categories of social issues. Research Question 4: Do individuals who apply for YCC differ significantly from those who do not apply for YCC on the dependent variables? For purposes of this analysis, pre-test data from each of the YCC camps (01) were collapsed with the pre-post (03) and post-only (05) control data to serve as the applicant variable. Applicants were compared with the non-applicant control group (06). Findings of this analysis are reported in Tables 10 and 11. Applicants were found to be significantly more internal than non-applicants on the total internality score (INTSCR). Even though highly significant on the INTSCR variable, this difference did not appear on either the I, P, or C scales. Therefore, the inference that applicants are more internal than non-applicants must be viewed with caution. Table 8 53 Comparison of Gain Scores in I, P,,C, and INTSCR Variables Among 5-Day Residential, 7-Day Residential, 7 Nonresidential Camps and Pre-Post Control ‘ ”'(Mann-Whitney U.- Wilcoxon Rank«_ " § 1Corrected for ties Sum.W Test) Mean Gain Mean 1 1 Variable Score Rank N Chi-Square Significance I 5 day res. - .35 58.8 37 7 day res. .10 68.3 68 Non-resid. - .46 59.6 13 1'54 '67 Control .25 61.2 36 P 5 day res. 2.11 72.3 37 7 day res. -1.42 63.7 68 Non-resid. -1.07 53.2 13 5'43 '14 Control .72 54.6 36 C 5 day res. 3.16 70.4 37 7 day res. -l.06 62.0 68 Non-resid. - .31 52.3 13 3’28 ‘35 Control .31 58.6 36 INTSCR 5 day res. -9.38 50.2 37 7 day r83. ’1.59 64.9 68 6 59 09 Non-resid. -3.31 70.4 13 ' ' Control -3.39 69.7 36 c=.05 54 Table g Comparison of Issues Ranking by YCC Participants (02) and Non-Selected Applicant Controls (04, 05) (T-Test) Standard 2-Tailed Variable Mean Deviation DF T Prob Drug Abuse YCC 636.9 950.3 Control 581.6 336.4 190 .48 .63 U.S. and World Economy YCC 693.8 1281.0 Control 645.5 340.5 190 .32 .75 Environmental Issues YCC 664.6 958.3 Control 666.3 413.0 190 -.01 .99 Discrimination Against Race, Sex, Religion, Age YCC 600.3 935.8 Control 545.7 353.8 190 .48 .63 Capital Punishment YCC 498.8 694.1 Control 457.5 360.7 190 .47 .64 N (YCC) = 118 N (Control) a 74 a'.05 Comparison of YCC Applicants (0 , 0 on Locus of Control Measures (1, and Total Action Score (ACTSC) (Mann- Table Lg 9 05) and Non-Applicants (0 P, C, and INTSCR) Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank 55 Sum W Test) Mean 1 2-Tailed Variable N Mean Rank Z Prob I Applicants 223 36.6 161.7 Non-applicants 95 36.3 154.4 .64 .52 P Applicants 223 24.9 155.6 Non-applicants 95 25.8 168.6 -1.16 .25 C Applicants 223 24.5 161.4 Non-applicants 95 23.8 155.0 .57 .57 INTSCR Applicants 223 98.4 168.1 Non-applicants 95 94.3 139.3 2.55 .01* ACTSC Applicants 223 16.7 182.7 Non-applicants 95 10.3 105.1 6.89 .00* on“ .05 *Significant 1 Corrected for ties 6) 56 Table L_ Comparison of Issues Ranking by Applicants (01, 0 , 05) and Non-Applicants (06) to the YCC Program (T-Test) Standard 2-Tailed Variable Mean Deviation DF Prob Drug Abuse Applicants 591.7 313.2 Non-applicants 606.5 345.6 316 .37 .71 U.S. and World Economy Applicants 753.4 1021.8 Non-applicants 811.7 1050.3 316 .46 .65 Environmental Issues Applicants 737.1 808.6 Non-applicants 630.8 553.1 316 1.17 .24 Discrimination Against Race, Sex, Religion, Age Applicants 711.3 1092.6 Non-applicants 783.0 1450.8 316 .48 .63 C 't 1 P33 sfiment Applicants 509.3 794.8 Non-applicants 604.9 988.8 316 .91 .36 N (Applicants) = 223 N (Non-applicants) = 95 a=.05 57 A highly significant difference in environmental actions reported were also found between YCC applicants and those who had not applied. This indicates that individuals interested in the YCC experience are more involved in environmental concerns. This is borne out by a comparison of social issues ranking. Applicants ranked environmental issues second only to economic concerns (U.S. and World Economy; Environmental Issues; Discrimination Against Race, Sex, Religion, Age; Drug Abuse; Capital Punishment). Non-applicants ranked the environment third among their list of issues (U.S. and World Economy; Discrimination...; Environmental Issues; Drug Abuse; and Capital Punishment). However, a statistical comparison of importance scores attributed to the issues by each group shows no significant difference. Research Question 5: What relationship exists between L of C and reported involvement in environmental action taking? Pre-test data from the YCC participants (01) and the pre- post controls (03) were combined and analyzed to determine Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients (Spearman r). Findings (Table 12) indicate a positive correlation exists between the expressions of internality measured by the research instrument and the total action score (ACTSC). A small but highly significant positive correlation was found between INTSCR and ACTSC (Spearman r = .18; p < .01). A significant positive correlation also exists between the I scale and ACTSC (Spearman r = .21; p < .01). Correlations between the P and C scales and ACTSC variable 58 Table 12 Correlations Between ACTSC and I, P,~C, and INTSCR Variables (Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients) Variable Spearman r Significance Level I .21 .002* P1 -.10 .08 c1 -.07 .16 INTSCR .18 .006* N = 185 018.05 *Significant 1A high score on either of these scales indicates a low ginternal locus of control. Coding on the P and C scaIes was reversed to calculate the total internality score (INISCR). 59 were not statistically significant, but they were negative, and thus support the inference that individuals who are internal, may be more environmentally active. It is important to note that for the YCC applicants, a positive and significant correlation was also found between the importance attributed to environmental issues (environ- mental issue ranking score) and reported actions (ACTSC). A Spearman r of .21 was found to be significant at the .00 level. Research Question 6: How are L of C and involvement in environmental action taking affected by sex and age of subjects? Pre-test data from both the YCC participants (01) and the applicant controls (03, 05) were combined for this analysis (Tables 13 and 14). Significant differences in the P scale and INTSCR variable were found across age groups. A trend (Table 13) exists for internality to increase from ages 15 through 17 and then to decrease at age 18. The trend is supported in all four measures of L of C, but was significant only in the P and INTSCR variables. No signifi- cant difference exists among age groups in total action score. Females were significantly more internal than males on the P, C, and INTSCR measures (Table 14). Females show higher, but statistically insignificant scores on the I scale also. There is also a slight, but statistically insignificant trend for females to report more environmental actions than ‘males. 60 Table 1 ~ Variance of I, P, C, INTSCR and ACTSC Variables Attributable to Age (Kruskal-Wallis l-Way ANOVA) - , Mean 1 1 Variable Age Mean N Rank Chi-Square Significance 15 36.3 68 106 16 37.1 80 113.2 I 17 36.5 61 111.2 2°56 '46 18 35.3 14 136 15 27.2 68 130.6 16 24.7 80 108.8 P 17 22.9 61 92.5 11°98 '00* 18 25.9 14 124.6 15 25.4 68 120.1 16 24.1 80 106.5 C 17 24.2 61 105.0 4°08 '25 18 27.3 14 134.5 15 95.8 68 95.8 16 100.3 80 116.5 INTSCR 17 101.4 61 125.7 7'62 °°5* 18 97.0 14 105.1 15 15.4 68 100.6 . 16 16.5 80 119.2 ACTSC 17 17.0 61 114.8 3'25 '35 18 15.8 14 114.4 a=.05 *Significant 1Corrected for ties 61 Table t4 Differences in I, P, C, INTSCRanuiACTSC Variables Attributable to Sex (Mann-Whitney U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Test) Mean 1 2-Tailed Variable Sex Mean Rank Z Prob Male 36.38 109.8 I Female 37.05 113.7 - .44 .66 Male 26.88 129.5 P _Fema1e 23.55 99.0 3.5 .00* Male 26.58 127.2 C Female 23.27 100.7 3.04 .00* INTSCR Male 94.92 94.6 Female 102.22 124.9 -3 46 .00* Male 15.54 106.0 ACTSC Female 17.48 116.4 -l.18 .23 N (Male) = 95 N (Female) - 128 018.05 *Significant 1Corrected for ties 62 Research Question 7: What types of environmental actions are most frequently reported by YCC applicants? Mean scores for each of the action categories were calculated for YCC participants (01) and applicant controls (03, 05). These means were used to rank the categories. The three most reported actions are picking up litter, seeking information about environmental problems, and conservative use of resources. The least reported action is persuasion of other individuals and/or agencies to take environmental action. Findings are summarized in Table 15. Discussion This study investigated the impact of the Youth Conserva- tion Corps experience on participants' L of C. Additionally, the study probed the relationships among L of C, the extent of environmental action taking, and the relative importance of environmental issues (Issues Ranking). The changes in INTSCR from 03 to 04 (pre-post control group) casts some doubt on the reliability of the instrument used to measure L of C. However, since no significant differences were observed between 04 and 05 (post comparisons of the two control groups), it may be that the increase in externality of the pre-post control group is a function of maturation, history, or a Type I error. Since no correspond- ing change exists in the individual I, P, and C scales for this group, and L of C results in other group comparisons are consistently that of no significant change, the instrument reliability and validity threats are viewed as minimal. Table L2 63 Ranking of Categories of Environmental Action Participation Reported by YCC Applicants (N=223) Mean Action Action Category Score 1. I pick up litter. 1.800 2. I have read articles (newspaper or magazine) and/or listened to programs (TV or radio) about environmental problems. 1.600 3. I have made an effort to use some products as little as possible to conserve resources or avoid environmental damage (e.g. reduce consumption of electricity, reuse paper and/or plastic products, limit the use of a car, etc.). 1.500 4. I have talked to my friends about environmental problems. 1.290 5. I have participated in a litter clean-up drive. 1.270. 6. I recycle paper, glass, and/or metal. 1.250 7. I have taken steps to improve the environment for plants and animals such as erosion control, improve wildlife food and shelter, stream improvement, etc. 1.233 8. I have refused to buy a product because of the environ- mental problems it might cause. 1.170 9. I have joined organizations which are concerned about environmental problems. .700 10. I have signed a petition which encourages a person/group/ organization to take some action which I felt would improve environmental quality. .616 11. I have helped raise money to improve the environment. .604 12. I have reported a violation of an environmental law to appropriate officials (e.g. turned in someone for illegally dumping garbage, polluting, illegally burning, etc.). .425 13. I have helped to inform the public about an environmental problem (news release, distribution of literature, public talk/slide show, picketing, demonstrating, etc.) .421 14. I have acted to influence the passage of a law which I felt would have important environmental effects. .406 15. I have helped to start and/or distribute a petition concerning an environmental problem. .380 16. I have contacted persons/officials/groups/company/agency to encourage their action on an environmental issue. .370 64 Findings generally indicate YCC had little impact on the dependent variables measured. The investigation indicates the YCC programs participating in the study, had no measurable impact on the L of C of participants. It had been predicted by the researcher that many policies of the YCC program would encourage the development of an internal L of C if fully implemented. However, results indicate that the YCC programs in the study may not have maximized the opportunities to encourage the devel- opment of internal expectancies of reinforcement. That the above could indeed be true is supported by events observed by the researcher which actually could be viewed as encouraging externality. In one instance, poor communication between the local park work coordinator and park supervisor resulted in a (YCC) completed project being torn out and reconstructed by another YCC crew. Even though the park person- nel later accepted full responsibility for the miscommunication, the observed impact on the YCC crew members was a feeling of control by powerful others and ineffective personal action. In another instance, the YCC work crew members viewed their work assignment as destroying wildlife habitat, in opposition to the objectives of YCC. The central problem was that the crew members did not understand the role which their efforts played in the total management plan of the area. This experience seemed to have similar effects on crew members' feelings of lack of control. Both of the above experiences could have been avoided if more attention had been paid to the YCC directives concerning work project 65 communication and environmental impact assessments of the work projects by the appropriate YCC staff members. Certainly there may be many factors or situations present in a YCC program which reinforce internality. However, the effects of these positive experiences may be neutralized by other situations which reinforce an external L of C. It is recommended that YCC staff members be made aware of the need to avoid and/or help participants deal with these latter types of experiences. When compared with non-applicants, YCC applicants were more internal in the total internality score (INTSCR), but not on the I, P, or C scales individually. This provides some suggestion that the applicants to YCC may have already been somewhat more internal than those who did not apply. If this is the case, it may help to explain the lack of observed impact on L of C by the YCC experience. It may also be that changes in participants' L of C were situation specific, and therefore not detected by the generalized instrument used in this study. Other studies on YCC have indicated the YCC participants and their parents personally perceive the experience did give the participant long-term benefits similar to traits attributed to an internal L of C (U.S. Dept. of the Interior and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1979). For example, partici- pants and their parents perceived that positive changes occurred as a result of the YCC experience such as "more 66 willing to take on challenges" (youth - 89%; parents — 90%), "greater confidence in personal opinions and decisions" (88%; 88%), "more self-confidence in ability to accomplish new tasks or overcome problems" (87%; 91%). It may be that such changes need time to develop and had not yet been assimilated into the participants' self-image when asked to complete the present researcher's post-test instrument during the final week of the YCC program. The present investigation indicates that YCC had no measurable impact on participants' ranking of environmental issues relative to other social issues. It must be noted. however, that prior to the YCC experience, the applicant group rated environmental issues second among the list of issues used. It may not be reasonable, therefore, to expect YCC to significantly increase participants' ranking of environ- mental issues. The data do indicate that, as measured by the instruments, a positive correlation exists between expressions of internality and the total number of environ- mental actions reported. The findings also show a positive correlation between the number of actions reported by the participants, and the value given to environmental issues relative to other social issues. Thus, it may be inferred from the data that YCC applicants who placed a higher value on the environmental issues (Issues Ranking) and also had a higher expectancy of reinforcement (total internality score), were more likely to engage in actions to improve and/or 67 maintain environmental quality. If accurate, this inference supports Rotter's (1966) formula for predicting behavior in a particular situation. Individuals who applied for the YCC program reported taking more environmental actions than non-applicants. The four actions most frequently reported by applicants reflected ecomanagement, information seeking, consumerism, and persua- sion actions. Indeed, these four modes of action were reflected in the top nine reported actions. Those actions reported most often are less demanding (e.g., "I pick up litter", "I have read articles ... and/or. listened to programs ... about environmental problems", "I have made an effort to use some products as little as pos- sible ..."). There was relatively little involvement reported in political or legal action which often connotes a higher level of commitment and/or knowledge. However, it is not possible to infer from the data whether the youth actually did not take actions which are more demanding because they: (a) did not have the necessary level of personal commitment; (b) were not aware of the different types of actions possible; or (c) did not possess the necessary environmental action skills. Further research is necessary to establish the relative importance of these factors. Not only are the most frequently reported actions less demanding, but they are also individual actions rather than group actions. Hungerford and Peyton (1976) propose that 68 important differences exist between individual and group actions in terms of the scope of concern, effectiveness, and power base. The findings reported here suggest youth typical of those applying to the YCC program, are not making use of effective group environmental action taking. Again, it can only be speculated that this may be due to the lack of knowledge and appropriate action skills. In an investigation of environmental action taking, Peyton (1976) found that in-service teachers reported taking few actions. Of those reported, most were individual, unsophis- ticated actions (ecomanagement). The teachers attributed their low level of environmental action taking to a lack of appropriate action skills. If these teachers are representa- tive of the general public, it may be inferred that the YCC applicants do not take sophisticated or group actions for the same reasons. The present research assessed the extent of environmental action taking prior to YCC and no attempt was made to assess the longitudinal effects of the YCC experience on participants' involvement in environmental issues once they returned to their home environment. In a longitudinal study, the USDI and USDA (1979) asked participants to rate the degree to which YCC influenced their increased involvement in environ- mental issues. Several action items used in the survey are similar to those.used in the present study. Findings of the USDI and USDA study indicate YCC participants became more involved in environmental issues upon their return home. It 69 is noteworthy that participants reported that they are more involved in political actions and group actions. Even though political and group actions were notably lacking from the actions reported in the present study, it appears that YCC does have an impact on participants' environmental involvement. Locus of control has been shown to be affected by age (Bailer, 1961; Penk, 1969). Results reported here support these findings. Internality increased from age 15 to age 17 and decreased at age 18. Crandall, et a1. (1965) found similar decreases in internality for success in males. They suggest the decline may be due to uncertainties provoked in the 18 year-old by the impending transition of entering an adult world. Results indicate that sex and internality are related. Females were significantly more internal than males on the P, C, and INTSCR scales, and, although not significant, a similar trend existed on the I scale. This finding has not been commonly reported in the literature. Levenson (1972) found a difference between males and females only on the P scale. Males had higher P scores (mean = 18.85) than did females (mean 14.64). The relationships between sex (and age) and L of C may have some implications for program design in YCC and other EE efforts. Research should be initiated to confirm this relationship between sex and internality. 70 Summary The study found no evidence that YCC experiences in general, influence L of C development in participants. Nor were differences in impact observed among the types of camp attended by the YCC participants. Findings did support Rotter's model of behavior. Signi- ficant, positive correlations were found between the number of actions taken and both the internality of participants, and the importance they gave to environmental issues on the Issues Ranking task. This implies that the degree of environ- mental concern (value) and internality (expectancy of reinforcement) both contribute to action taking. Some evidence was found that applicants to the YCC program were more internal than non-applicants. Applicants also reported taking more environmental actions. The types of actions most often reported involved action other than legal, political, or group actions. Research findings showed a tendency for females to be more internal than males. A slight relationship between age and internality was also indicated. The following recommendations are based on the study reported here. 1. A need exists to develop reliable and valid instruments to measure L of C, specific to environmental action situations. 2. YCC should be evaluated with situation- specific instruments to more accurately assess the impact of the experience on participants' L of C in environmental situations. 71 YCC staff members and other environmental educators should be made aware of the L of C theory, its implications for environmental action taking, and experiences which may impinge on the development of an internal L of C. Further research should be initiated to deter- mine the types and quantity of experiences necessary to encourage the development of an internal L of C and subsequent involvement in environmental concerns. 72 REFERENCES Bailer, I. "Conceptualization of Success and Failure in Mentally Retarded and Normal Children". J. of Personality, 29:303-320, 1961. Bammel, L. L. and G. Bammel. "The Use of Psychophysical Scales in Environmental Education Research". Current Issues V: The Yearbook of Environmental Education and EnvironmentaI Studies, ERIC, The Ohib’State Universify, Columbus, Ohio, p. 129-135, 1979. Chance, J. E. ”Internal Control of Reinforcements and the School Learning Process". Paper presented at meeting of Society for Research in Child DevelOpment, Minneapolis, March,1965. Crandall, V. C., W. Katkovsky, and V. J. Crandall. "Children's Beliefs in Their Own Control of Reinforcements in Intel- lectual-Academic Achievement Situations”. Child Deyelop- ment, 36:91-109, 1965. Davis, W. L. and E. J. Phares. "Parental Antecedents of Internal-External Control of Reinforcement". Psychologi- cal Reports, 24:427-436, 1969. deCharms, R. "Personal Causation Training in the Schools". J. of Applied Social Psychology, 2:95-113, 1972. Eisenman, R. and J. J. Platt. "Birth Order and Sex Differences in Academic Achievement and Internal-External Control". J. of General Psychology, 78:270—285, 1968. Federal Register. Dept. of the Interior, Vol. 43, No. 178, p. 41004:41008, September 13, 1978. Gorman, B. S. "An Observation of Altered Locus of Control Following Political Disappointment". Psychological Reports, 23:1094, 1968. Gurin, P. G. Gurin, R. C. Lao, and M. Beattie. "Internal- External Control in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth". J. of Social Issues, 25:29-53, 1969. Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. Teaching Environmental Education. J. Weston Walsh, Portland, Maine, 1976. 73 Katkovsky, W., V. C. Crandall, and 3. Good. "Parental Ante- cedents of Children's Beliefs in Internal-External Control of Reinforcements in Intellectual Achievement Situations”. Child Development, 38:765-776, 1967. Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. *Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., HilIsdale, NJ, 1976. Levenson, H. "Locus of Control and Other Cognitive Correlates of Involvement in Anti-Pollution Activities". Unpubl. doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA, 1972. MacDonald, A. P. "Birth Order and Personality". J. of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 36:171-176, I97I. Martin, R. D. and L. F. Shepel. "Locus of Control and Dis- crimination Ability with Lay Counselors". J. of Consult- ing and Clinical Psychology, 42:741, 1974. McArthur, L. A. "Luck is Alive and Well in New Haven". J. of Personality and Social Psychology, 16:316-318, 1970. ' Nowicki, S. and J. Barnes. "Effects of a Structured Camp Experience on Locus of Control Orientation". J. of Genetic Psychology, 122:247-252, 1973. Penk, W. E. "Age Changes and Correlates of Internal-External Locus of Control Scale". Psychological Reports, 25:856, 1969. Peyton, R. B. An Assessment of Pre- and Inservice Teachers' Awareness of EnvironmentaI ActiOn Skills. Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 1976. Peyton, R. B. and B. A. Miller. "Developing an Internal Locus of Control as a Prerequisite to Environmental Action Taking". Paper presented at National Associa- tion for Environmental Education Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May, 1980. Phares, E. J. Locus of Control in Personality. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, 1976. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement". Psychological Monographs, 80, (1, Whole No. 609), 1966. 74 Shore, R. E. ”Parental Determinants of Boys' Internal- External Control”. Unpubl. doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univ., Syracuse, New York, 1967. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. "YCC at Work: the 1978 Program Year". Washington, D.C., October, 1979. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Research Instrument and Instructions for Administering APPENDIX A 75 Research Instrument MICHIGAN YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS - Y.C.C. l979 Survey Following this page is a series of questionnaires designed to get your Opinion on a number of important questions. Your c00peration is a necessary part of our research project to evaluate the effectiveness of the l979 Michigan Y. C. C. program. We are not attempting to evaluate you personally. The information you provide us will be kept confidential and destroyed when the project is completed. It is hoped that you will give each item your serious consideration. ' Once the research is completed, we will be happy to share more details of the procedure and our results with you. If you are interested in knowing more, provide your name and address in the space below. Results will probably be available in l980. Thank you for the considerable time and effort you are providing. Barbara Ann Miller Name and Address: Dr. R. Ben Peyton Fisheries and Wildlife Dept. Natural Resources Bldg. Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan k332h BACKGROUND INFORHATION Name Age Hale Female Grade level in 2978-79 school year Y.C.C. Experience: Have you ever applied for the Y.C.C. program? Yes No Are you presently (Summer I979) a member of Y.C.C.? Yes No Have you been a member of Y.C.C. in the past? Yes No - If'you were or are now a Y.C.C. member, please check the type of camp: D 7-day residential S-day residential non-residential Name of Y.C.C. camp 76 ATTITUDE STATEMENT SURVEY Directions: Below is a series of attitude statements. Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers. You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others. Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the number in front of each statement. The numbers and their meaning are indicated below: If you agree strongly, circle +3 If you agree somewhat, circle +2 If you agree slightly, circle +l If you disagree slightly, circle -l If you disagree somewhat, circle -2 ' If you disagree strongly, circle -3 First impressions are usually best in such matters. Read each statement, decide if you agree or disagree and the strength of your opinion, and than circle the appropriate number in front of the statement. Circle ygur Opinion o_n_ m statement. If you find that the nwmbers to be used in answering do not adequately indicate your own opinion, use the one which is closest to the way you feel. Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree +3 +2 +1 -l -2 -3 1. Whether or not I get to be a leader in life depends mostly on my ability. +3 +2 +1 -I -2 -3 2. To a great extent my life is controlled by acci- dental happenings. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 3. People in power mostly determine what will happen in the lives of people like me. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 4. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. +3 +2 +1 -I -2 -3 5. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 6. Often there is no chance of protecting personal interests from bad luck happenings. This survey continues on the back of this page. Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 77 +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 7. When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 8. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 9. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am, +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 10. I have often found that what is going to happen ‘ will happen. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 11. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 12. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 13. Persons like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. +3 +2 +1 -l -2 «3 14. It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of ' good or bad fortune. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 15. Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 16. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I'm lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 17. If important peOple were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn't make many friends. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 18. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. +3 +2 +1 —1 -2 -3 19. I am usually able to protect my personal interests. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 20. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 21. When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 22. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of peOple who have power over me. ' +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 23. My life is determined by my own actions. +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 24. It's chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends. 78 ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFIABILITY The hex? fwo pages presen+ a llsf of 8 sfafemenfs descrlblng slfuaflons whlch mlghf have an lnfluence on solvlng our envlronmenfal problems. For each s+a+e- ment, we would llke fwo oplnlons from you. Flrsr, lf no+hlng ls done about +he alfuaflon, do you feel +he slruaflon descrlbed could be IMPORTANT ln prevenflng our envlronmen+al problems from belng solved? Clrcle the number whlch best repre- senfs your oplnlon. ln rho second column, clrcle +he number +ha+ besf describes wheiher or no? you feel +he problem could be SOLVED ln order To lmprove or main- +aln envlronmenfal quallfy. Below ls an example +0 show how to use The scorlng sysfem on +he hex? Two pages. For fhls example, assume you are havlng.a hard ilme siar+lng your car. lS IT IMPORTANT? CAN IT BE SOLVED? Ask yourself whether +he Now ask yourself whofher slfuerlon descrlbed we could solve fhls could prevenf us from problem ln order to sfar+lng your car, lf sfar? your car. nofhlng ls done abouf the slfuaflon. E t at Q» g m a a u g gs an a g a >s m a us w: p... u: §g- p-Ea t:>' 53" th- g; 33 $3 5 s, as as as (h 3% h% zh 33 3% 2% fit I. The gas ‘l'ank ls emp‘l‘y.. 0 l 2 3 O l 2 3 ln +he very slmple example glven, if is easy to see that The emp+y tank ls an lmporfan? facf whlch can pm wenf sfarflng +he car. The problem can be solved by addl ng gasollne. We would llke your oplnlon on the elghf sfafemenfs— which follow. They wlll no? be as easy +o answer as our "empfy tank" example, but The methods for scorlng are the same. lf you fhlnk any of the slfuaflons descrlbed ln fhe elghf s+a+emen+s ARE NOT TRUE, you can score them as "nod lmpor+an+" (O), and as solvable problems (3). 79 A.u:~e=ocw>:s use we puma meow uumaosa on “newcm o»:_ “as use camwoa 3a. a gem ca mung» axe» xv: u. .m.mv .xu__n:c —aa:ma=oup>=m m>oga§_ ..wz :o—gz mmcmgo mouoccm ecu oamuoa an Easy you c» upzowuu_o mw up Nana oouaop_asoo ace a_a om use msmumxm _uo:ma=cm>om sac ..oN. Ns._u=c .eacoscog_>:m cmuugmas so o>ouasw cu goose c. sa_n loan m—mm o>pom.mmm o—aoo so opzoo Axumwoomv a: segues: spamcaoz «we go: wau>acm mm h~ z=o spawn“ -=_as sou» m: usu>ou o_=ou own—comma :o_aa:u_m use Nosamsz m_mmcaox xm< ~hzoa xmssamm .s A.moou:ommc omega m>gmmmga an ace: :Nsumgmpm ocn .msmoczg .muox_; u_.=3 .mummsom .a:o_ua: use :. mmuszomog «so am: on new: mmfiuamaocp cmos:_ can m:_:_z .a.ov .ucmscoc_>:o sac :_~u:_ms can mm: o_:o:m «3 3o: azwcsmocoo sumwoom use :. mos—es can mumosmu=_ mcwuo¢_m:ou xcaa use mumgp N N _ a N N _ c mhmwmmwz_ az_co_suzoo .N .:o_u:p_oa gown: oca gva mgozo_ govgz u=m5a_=cm ..aum:_ cu acumzo=_ so; ooc_=amc ma o_:o3 mue__oo mo m:o_—~_: .m.mv .uspmcma :xm xgo> on ...: x»._e:o ~ua:m§=og_>=m a=p>ogae_ use a=_:_cu:waz N N p o m N p o >mzcz no xo:m News mun «cosh m N p o m N _ c muauozczx mo xu<4 .— .dqu 1.49 1.:. can. .dNJ .1.) .1.) .d.J ll aw wm an WW mm mm mm mm as nut. no Ann" A" nsnv 1| .AHN ltd An Al 0!. N 39 3.... N1. I 33 3 I... N N I... “me mmww mm mu .3 a“ m“ a. «In... N3 N hu 0 1AA" 1‘1. I. 3 3 G :o_ua=a_m 80 A.acms:os_>:o msu :. «mama: cam—oac No sm_fl -ocq as“ mmuamco :mgu em—ooca aagmcm ego No ace; m>_om o» cmzo. cam—on: mcwma .m.mv .msm_aoga .mucmazoc_>:m ~n=o_u_ooc wocmco ace Em_noca ~eu:ms=ou_>=m =a m>_om cu sac—ozsomu go: a m:_m= wswsaoxa scm :wau -=_NE co m>oc:s_ ou msovuoa oxau on wz_44_= yo: mum mco~wupo ace: mzm-h~u auh<>_~oz me xu<4 .322... pmuzmcaoczcm 5355: .5 39.9.; 3 c.2538 Jamm— ._nu_a._oa .m.ov mcopuoe mxau cu 3o: 3oz; we: so mamN_u_o xcmz mzuN_h~u mam:m =_mucpma so u>oca§_ o» muaauaua :»_3 ”om—ccou :. m_ mmouaomm; neuzucc m=_m: so xsocoom Lao mo guzoum use acoaazm ow new: map >zozoum omhzm_zclzhzozw m N _ o m N — o 33 In... IS 33 .6 IS IS .0 3V N0 N7 0V 8m N1 N1 8% ..JN .dN .01 «IN 3 . Jaud 4...... 3N .1 Mac. Home nuuu an qlnu 1un. Anna «Jab not. numw asnu Nd nun" nuuu zany 13 A0 .A 01. mm 33 3|. Mi .1 1.33 as "N mm A5 NW N 8 3 3 3.. ma n... 3 .... a a a mm.h 1.1. 1. Au Au 1. as nu .cowumzuwm ..auv Nu.~.=a peaco5=oc_>:o cpau=_as so o>ocaew a» gauge a. emhm -oca m_ma o>_om_mmm.m—=oo so o_:oo Azummoomv a: cogumgs m—omgaox awe 3oz ~am>4om mm h— zca acme—mu capes gout m=.mmmmmmm o_:oo oonmcummo :o.»~:u.m ago gmgumsz $_omu=oz xm< sz<~moaz_ N. m_ 81 SOCIAL ISSUES OPINIONAIRE Directions: A list of social issues is provided which you may be concerned about. “Crime rate" has been given a value of 500. Please consider the items, and using "crime rate" for a comparison, assign a value to each of the other issues. In other words, if you are twice as concerned about "drug abuse" as you are about "crime rate" you would give "drug abuse" a value of lOOO. Other issues which you are less concerned about than crime rate would get values less than 500. 500 crime rate drug abuse U.S. and world economy environmental issues discrimination against race, sex, religion, age capital punishment ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OPINIONAIRE Now try these ... Part A These three statements refer to the quality of an environment. If the "present condition of the U.S. environment“ is given a value of 500, how would you rate the other descriptions of environmental quality? In other words, if you think the quality of the environment 400 years ago was twice as good as the quality is today, you score the North American environment 400 years ago as "lOOO". . SOO present condition of the U.S. Environment the quality of the North American environment 400 years ago, before European man settled here an environment which cannot support life of any kind Part B Using the scale you set up in the three statements above, give a value to the two statements below. In other words, if you PREFER an environment like the present condition of the U.S. environment, you would give the first statement a value of 500. Or you might PREFER an environmental quality somewhere between the present condition and the quality of 400 years ago, so the value you give the first statement below would be somewhere between the value given those qualities above. the quality you would PREFER our environment to have the environmental quality our society will most likely SETTLE FOR. 82 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES CHECKLIST Please check the appropriate box (Never, Occasionally, Often, Regularly) for those activities which you have done VOLUNTARILY (not as part of your job or a class assignment). "Environment" means any of your surroundings and would include such things as your neighborhood or community, as well as streams, lakes, forests, fields, air, etc. Occasionally Regularly Never Often I have read articles (newspaper or magazine) and/or listened to programs (TV or radio) about environmental problems. I have joined organizations which are concerned about environmental problems. I have helped raise money to improve the environ- ment. - I have talked to my friends about environmental problems. 5. I have helped to inform the public about an environmental problem (news release, distribution of literature, public talk/slide show, picketing, demonstrating, etc.) 6. I have contacted persons/officials/groups/company/ agency to encourage their action on an environ- mental issue. ' I have acted to influence the passage of a law which I felt would have important environmental effects. I have signed a petition which encourages a person/group/organization to take some action which I felt would improve environmental quality. I have helped to start and/or distribute a peti- tion concerning an environmental problem. \ullllll : \l l." “souffle: \\ . a Never Occasionally Often Regularly 83 .”4~*ud-<~—‘—VO‘~V~—..~_‘-.- -.. --.—...... . - 10. I have reported a violation of an environmental law to appropriate officials (e.g. turned in someone for illegally dumping garbage, polluting, illegally burning, etc.). ll. I have refused to buy a product because of the environmental problems it might cause. I have made an effort to use some products as little as possible to conserve resources or avoid environmental damage (e.g. reduce consumption of electricity, reuse paper and/or plastic products, limit the use of a car, etc. ). - 13. I have taken steps to improve the environment for plants and animals such as erosion control, improve wildlife food and shelter, stream improvement, etc. I have participated in a litter clean-up drive. l l I pick up litter. l 16. I recycle paper, glass, and/or metal. - Please list any other environmental actions you have taken: 84 DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE MICHIGAN YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS 1979 SURVEY Please allow students 30+ minutes to complete the survey form. Directions are written at the beginning of each task and students should answer the items to the best of their ability. Either a pen or pencil may be used in filling out the form. Please encourage the students to take this survey seriously, as the results generated may have implications for the Youth Conservation Corps and in the field of environmental education. A sincere thank you to those teachers that have donated their class time for my research project. APPENDIX B Letters of Communication APPENDIX B Letters of Communication , 85 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING June 29. 1979 Dear Y. C. C. Camp Director: Thank you for cooperating in our research project. We appreciate the time, effbrt and inconvenience required of you. Enclosed are the first forms we would like you to administer to your Y. C. C. participants. It should require 30-h5 minutes for the forms to be filled out. The forms should be filled out at the earliest pgssible time, no later than July 6. A second set of the forms will be sent to be used during the last week of your Y. C. C. Camp. Please encourage your Y. C. C. participants to take the forms seriously. We understand the demands placed on your campers' time and the tempta- tion to dismiss such tasks as "busy work". When the forms have been completed, please send them back to me at this address. If you have any questions concerning the use of the instrument please call me (SlT-3SS-hh77). Thank you. Sincerely, R. Ben Peyton Environmental Conservation Education RBP:faf Enclosed 86 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT or menses AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MlClllGAN ' ‘33“ NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING June 29, 1979 Dear Volunteer: Thank you for agreeing to participate in our Y.C.C. evaluation project! Your name has been selected as one of those volunteers who will receive the research opinionaire only once. It will be mailed to you sometime in August of this summer. Again, we greatly appreciate your cOOperation in this project. Have a nice summer. Sincerely, n? m... @A R. Ben Peyton Environmental Conservation Education RBP/dlb 87 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING August 1, 1979 Dear Y.C.C. Camp Director: Thanks for your cooperation in this Y.C.C. research project! Enclosed is the final set of instruments for your Y.C.C. campers to fill out. Please have your group complete these forms as late as possible during the 1979 Y.C.C. season (hopefully no sooner than 10 days before they leave camp). We realize the final week of camp is sometimes hectic, and you will have to select a time best suited to your schedule. Again, please encourage the Y.C.C. campers to take the instrument seri- ously. The opinionaire is somewhat tedious to complete and we sincerely appreciate their efforts. Once the instruments are completed, use the mailing label to return them at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, fl? 127m .774». R. Ben Peyton Environmental Conservation Education RBP/jt Enclosures MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 88 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING August 13, 1979 Dear Volunteer: YOUR COOPERATION HAS BEEN WONDERFUL! Nearly everyone promptly returned the first opinionaire completely filled out. Many thanks! Now, here is the second copy. It may seem odd for us to ask you to fill out the same forms again, but if our research results are to be meaningful, it is absolutely necessary that you give this task the same close attention you did the first time. Again, when you have finished all sections, please put the Opinionaire into the envelope provided and mail it back to us at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Your patience and cOOperation have meant a great deal to our project. Sincerely, .9 2?... 9.4. R. Ben Peyton Environmental Conservation Education RBP/dlb Enclosure MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING August 13, 1979 Dear Volunteer: Earlier this summer, you volunteered to help in a Y.C.C. research project. The enclosed Opinionaire is part of that research and we would like you to fill it out at your earliest convenience. We greatly appreciate the time, effort and thought you are giving to the project. Filling out the Opinionaire is not always easy, but your opinions are very important to our research. When you have finished all of the sections, please put the Opinionaire into the envelOpe provided and mail it back to us at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, R. Ben Peyton Environmental Conservation Education RBP/dlb Enclosure "lllllllllllllllls