if...

I...

J
.n
.

.A...

1'. (11:;
vot'.( vb VIII)!
‘ 0‘

 

v .:»11..
. .o..35€;‘la C».
fr; .3

t... .a .3

f. 7.1.... . .|
3.. u 24’. .7.
L

I"~ .l-’\¢“OI‘
t¢.,..v..l|....l€.el
I) . . nil‘

 

7‘15“ MIC IGANSTATEU UNIV

I: l “HIJIIIHUIIHIHI)!JHIUIHM

193 00791 4561

 

h

                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

HUMAN DISPOSITION MD HAZARDS:

TESTING THE ENVIRGWIENI'AL APPRAISAL INVENTORY
presented by

Cynthia Joseph Fridgen

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph°D° degree in

 

 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

     

Major professor

Datej'jy" 7,2

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

    

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU to An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Indltution
ammo-o:

HUMAN DISPOSITION TOWARD HAZARDS:

TESTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL INVENTORY

BY

Cynthia Joseph Fridgen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1992

ABSTRACT

HUMAN DISPOSITION TOWARD HAZARDS:
TESTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL INVENTORY

By

Cynthia Joseph Fridgen

This study investigates the person-environment interface between the
appraisal of risk and the commitment to a quality environment, as well as the
behavior necessary to maintain a quality environment. Using an expanded version
of the Environmental Appraisal lnventory—EAI (Schmidt and Gifford 1989), a
sample of Michigan residents were tested to determine the relationship between
their perception of risk and their subsequent behavior. Michigan residents, like
residents of all 50 states, are faced with the proliferation of small quantities of
hazardous materials (less than 200 pounds per month) being discharged into the
environment. These wastes are not regulated; therefore, ”best practices” must be
voluntary. Some of the complications for educators are citizens' (1) lack of
awareness of the problem, (2) uncertainty regarding the risks involved, (3) lack of
knowledge about "best practices," and (4) lack of opportunity to act on
knowledge. The educational assumption is that appropriate information from a
credible source and a legitimate opportunity to act will result in action. The goal
of this research was to determine the relationship between disposition toward
environmental threat or hazard and an expressed commitment to, or action taken
to, protect the environment from contamination. The expanded and retested
version of the EAl (Schmidt and Gifford 1989) was used to measure the disposition

toward environmental risk to self and to the ambient environment. The EAI was

also used to measure the control (confidence) individuals feel in being able to
méilgva/trerenvironmental hazards and the level of personal responsibility individuals
feel for the existence of those environmental hazards. The objectives of this
research study were to expand the work done by Schmidt and Gifford (1989),
confirm the validity and reliability of the EAI in a new context, and explore the
relationship between people’s disposition toward environmental hazards and their
commitment to protecting the environment. A secondary objective was to explore
the relationship between people's disposition toward environmental hazards and
their demographic characteristics as well as experience with environmental
pollution. These findings are then presented in support of environmental education

program planning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of a dissertation causes one to reflect on the process and the
milestones along the way. For some it is a relatively organized and predictable
path and for others, such as myself, it is unpredictable and plagued by many
starts, stops, and delays. Although the path has been challenging for me, it has
been challenging also for those who have supported me over the years. I will
never forget them nor cease to be grateful.

I want to thank the chairman of my guidance committee, Ben Peyton, for
agreeing to lead my doctoral effort. His patience with the lengthy and sometimes
frustrating process has made it possible for me to achieve a long-desired goal. I
want to extend special gratitude to my dissertation director, Mary Andrews, who
spent countless hours working with me as I struggled to bring this community
project through the research process to the pages of this dissertation. Her collegial
approach kept my spirits high and sustained me through the difficult times. Not
only has she been a mentor and a colleague, but a role model of professionalism
that I will strive to emulate always.

I want to thank Glenn Dudderar for bringing to the table his Cooperative
Extension Service expertise. His firm grip on practicality and usefulness had a

profound effect on the final product.

I also want to extend a sincere thank-you to Steve Yellon who has been
supportive throughout this process. His clear respect for students and no
nonsense approach to problem solving will affect the way I work with students
throughout my career.

My most special and sincere thanks go to Joe Fridgen who not only provided
professional support through many reviews of both my plans and my results, but
contributed immeasurably to my belief that l was on the right track. His
encouragement and unfailing confidence that I could do it made all the difference.

A special thank-you goes to Nancy Gendell who unselfishly contributed her
time and expertise in order to make this dissertation read as it should. As a
professional text editor, she was able to add a degree of excellence that would not
have been possible without her involvement.

I want to thank Lois Gage for her patience and willingness to help when I
needed her most.

I also want to extend a very special thank-you to Frank Fear who made it
possible for me to pursue this project while a member of the faculty in the
Department of Resource Development. As department chair, he supported my
efforts and created a working environment of such security and positivism that I
could not help but succeed.

Finally, I want to thank the W.K. Kellogg Foundation without whose funding
support through the Groundwater Education in Michigan (GEM) program this

project would not have been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I RESEARCH PROBLEM AND PURPOSE .................. 1
PROBLEM ......................................... I
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................ 3
RESEARCH PURPOSE ................................. 4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................... 7
PROGRAM RESPONSE ................................. 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ............................ 11
RISK APPRAISAL ................................... 1 1
THREAT RESPONSE ................................. 16
THE DISPOSITIONAL APPROACH ........................ 18
APPRAISAL OF THREAT UNDER UNCERTAINTY ............. 19
RISKS VS BENEFITS ................................. 21
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMITMENT AND ACTION ........ 21
DECISION MAKING .................................. 22

CHAPTER III METHODS ................................... 26
RESEARCH SETTING ................................. 26

vi

SURVEY PROCEDURES ...............................
Th m l ..................................
M ilin Pr r .............................

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT--THE QUESTIONNAIRE .............

Envirenmentel Experienee .........................
D m r hi V ri l ...........................

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: .............................

CHAPTER IV RESULTS ....................................

REVIEWING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE ............
VALIDITY ........................................
RELIABILITY .......................................
MULTICOLLINEARITY ................................
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL INVENTORY SCALES ..........
HYPOTHESES .....................................
RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR THE YOU SCALE . . . .
RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
SCALE ......................................
RESULTS OF THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE CONTROL

SCALE ......................................

vii

29

34

42

55

56

RESULTS OF THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE

RESPONSIBILITY SCALE ......................... 56

- SUMMARY ....................................... 58
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION .................................. 60
SUMMARY ....................................... 60
r h i n .............................. 61

r h I ............................. 61

m I P I i n .............................. 61

m r m Pr fIl ............................. 62

h l I l n ri I n ...................... 63
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS RELATED TO THE HYPOTHESES ..... 66
SCALE SUMMARY .................................. 75
PROGRAM DESIGN RESPONSE ......................... 76
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ............................. 81
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............. 82

APPENDIX GUIDE TO HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS AROUND THE HOME

SURVEY ......................................... 84

LITERATURE CITED ...................................... 95

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3.1: Questionnaire components ........................ 30
TABLE 4.1: Survey Delivery and Response Rates ................. 37
TABLE 4.2: Sample Age Distribution Compared to Michigan Population . . 38
TABLE 4.3: Demographic Profile--Respondents vs Michigan Residents
Income .......................................... 39
TABLE 4.4: Summary of Factor Analysis ....................... 41
TABLE 4.5: Comparison of Scale Characteristics Across Studies ....... 42
TABLE 4.6: Alpha Reliability Coefficients of the Four EAI Scales ....... 43
TABLE 4.7: Correlation Matrix for the Four EAI Scales .............. 43
TABLE 4.8: MANOVA for Environmental Threat Appraisal Scales ...... 45
TABLE 4.9: MANOVA Using Commitment as an Independent Variable . . . 47

TABLE 4.10: Scale Scores for Different Levels of Environmental
Commitment ...................................... 48

TABLE 4.1 1: Scale Scores for Different Levels of Environmental Action

..................................................... 51
TABLE 4.12: Repeated Measures MANOVA - Test of the Relationship
between Environmental Action and Scale Scores ............. 52
TABLE 4.13: Correlation Matrix -- Scales and selected Variables ....... 53
TABLE 4.14: Regression Analyses for the YOU Scale .............. 54
TABLE 4.15: Regression Analyses for the ENVIRONMENT Scale ....... 55
TABLE 4.16: Regression Analyses for the CONTROL Scale ........... 56

TABLE 4.17: Regression Analyses for the RESPONSIBILITY Scale ...... 57

TABLE 4.18: Summary of Regression Analyses ................... 58

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l: Conceptual Framework .............................. 4

Figure ll: Variable Relationships ............................... 6

xi

CHAPTER I

RESEARCH PROBLEM AND PURPOSE

PROBLEM

The continuing proliferation of chemicals on the market and the increased
incidents of adverse health effects and environmental damage resulting from
unsafe toxic management practices have heightened community concerns
regarding exposure to hazardous materials. Excluding pesticides, more than 1,000
new chemicals are introduced into the marketplace each year and well over 60,000
are already on the market (Rassbach, 1988). Consumers, often unaware that over-
the-counter household products may contain toxic chemicals, have often disposed
of such products in a potentially unsafe manner. When the products are no longer
wanted by the purchaser, they become a waste.

Other problems with hazardous materials are the use and storage of these
materials. Containers, stored over a long period of time, may begin to leak and
pose a fire hazard or a contact hazard for humans or animals. Some chemicals if
mixed together can cause an explosion or a toxic gas emission that can affect
human health.

Small quantities of hazardous waste materials are generated by individual

householders, farmers, and small business owners and managers. This type of

2

hazardous waste is described as ...discarded material that creates, by itself or in
conjunction with other materials, a verifiable level of toxicity that adversely affects
health or the environment" (Cassel and Ehrenfeld, 1988 p. 4). In terms of actual
volume, household hazardous waste (HHW) would not appear to be so critical. A
Los Angeles study (Kinman and Nutini, 1988) found only 2.69 pounds of HHW per
ton of garbage. However, it is not volume that determines impact in the case of
toxic materials. A small amount of toxic residue leaching into an aquifer under a
landfill can contaminate a town’s drinking water. Confusing messages are being
disseminated in the popular press about the impact of small quantities of toxic
materials in the environment, thereby causing citizens to make decisions about
their behavior under conditions of uncertainty.

Citizens who generate very small quantities of hazardous substances are not
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); they are
designated as conditionally exempt generators. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that it would be virtually impossible to regulate
all the small quantity generators in the country. Instead, EPA is looking for
education and assistance programs to gain voluntary compliance with best
practices. This compliance will have to be voluntary and long term. Citizens are
being asked to appraise the magnitude of the threat to themselves and their
environment and to take positive action. State and federal agencies and
educational institutions are implementing education and assistance programs to

aid citizens in their decisions about the purchase, use, and disposal of small

quantities of hazardous materials. If these programs are to be effective, educators

3

must better understand what variables are involved in the decision to respond to

environmental problems as they relate to threat situations.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This research is based in large part on the work done by Faye N. Schmidt
and Robert Gifford at the University of Victoria, British Columbia in 1989. Schmidt
and Gifford's work focuses on the physical environment. They developed the EAI
to investigate how people evaluate or appraise environmental hazards. People's
reactions, emotional or behavioral, to perceived threats are based in important
ways upon how they perceive the potential threat. The work of Schmidt and
Gifford, through the development of the EAI, explores the nature of the perceptual
response to threats due to environmental hazards. One of the common responses
to perceived threat is stress. Stress may be seen as being comprised of three
components: (a) the stimulus; (b) the individual's appraisal of the situation and (0)
some form of response to the stimulus (Lazarus, 1966). Paterson and Neufeld
point out the importance of the mix of characteristics present in each person
environment interaction (1987). Some characteristics of the interaction between
the person and the environment in hazard situations is how serious is the threat,
can the threat be mitigated with available resources, is there a personal relationship
to the threat situation. Schmidt and Gifford build on these observations by
conceptualizing. . ." the cognitive features arising from the situation, such as
perceived control and the predictability of the stimulus" (1989,57). This
conceptual relationship becomes the basis for future research. Recognizing that

the decision making process is highly complex and situational this research study

4

expands the conceptual framework of Schmidt and Gifford's study to include the
role of responsibility for environmental hazards. Although there are many variables
involved in a person's rational decision to respond, this additional variable creates
a more expansive framework for study of the relationship between appraisal of
threat and the human response to that threat. Figure I illustrates the conceptual

framework used in this study.

STIMULUS

I

PERCEPTION

I

APPRAISAL

I

INTERNAL STRESS RESPONSE

I

OVERT BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE

Figure I: Conceptual Framework for study

RESEARCH PURPOSE

The specific purpose of this research is to determine the relationship
between disposition toward environmental threat and commitment, or action taken
to protect the environment. Educators have traditionally assumed that given

appropriate information from a credible source and a feasible way to act,

5

individuals in fact, will ”do the right thing." However, some individuals will utilize
the information and some will not. The purpose of this study is to better
understand the variables that affect people's appraisal of and subsequent
behavioral response to elements of environmental threat or hazard. Threat is
defined as something indicating harm or loss and hazard is defined as something
indicating danger, peril, risk or difficulty, (Random House, 1973). For the purpose
of this research, the term threat is preferred but in the literature the two are often
used interchangeably. Two other important elements affecting decisions about
personal behavior are assessment of control (how much difference a single
behavior will make) and responsibility (what is the citizen's obligation to solve the
problem).

Based on the literature in the field of Environmental Psychology, two main
sets of variables are used in this study to represent the factors affecting the
decision to act responsibly toward information about the management of hazardous
materials. The first set is an attitudinal construct and falls into four dispositions
toward environmental threat. The categories, as used by Schmidt and Gifford

(1989), are:

1. The appraisal of risk to self from environmental hazards or
technology.
2. The appraisal of risk to the environment from a variety of hazards or

technologies.

3. The confidence that one’s actions will make a difference.

6

4. The level of personal responsibility one feels about the existence of

the threat caused by the hazards.

The second set of variables include such demographic variables as gender,
age, income. and education. In addition, experience can play an important role in
the decision to take action or not. "Action” in this study is the ultimate behavioral
response; but given that the opportunity for action may be limited for the
population in this study, another measure of behavioral response was included.
This second measure was a ”commitment to act” or a "perceived intent to act."

Figure ll illustrates the major relationships investigated in this study.

AGE
GENDER
INCOME

EDUCATION

EXPERIENCE
§CALES (EAI) ,

 

V
' COMMITMENT

ACTION

Figure ll: Variable Relationships in study

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The research objectives for this study include:

1. An extension of the work begun by Schmidt and Gifford to include
(a) an application of their scales to a different test population, (b) the
modification of their scales for application to an additional
environmental problem area, i.e. the threat of small quantities of
nonregulated hazardous materials, and (c) the development of an
additional scale, the RESPONSIBILITY Scale, used to assess
individuals’ perceptions of their personal responsibility for various
environmental hazards.

2. Exploration of the relationship between environmental disposition
scales and people's commitment and action taken to safeguard the
environment.

3. Exploration of the relationship between the respondents appraisal of
environmental threat and their demographic Characteristics,
experience with pollution, commitment to the environment and overt

acflon.

PROGRAM RESPONSE
It is hoped that the findings of this research study will contribute to
decisions about educational program design. The following are a set of

researchable questions and what the answers could mean to program designers.

8

1. What role does the appraisal of environmental threat play in action or
attitude change? This question deals with the issue of appraised threat both to
self and to the environment, which may be parallel to short-term versus long-term
threat. People who view the threat as a personal health hazard may take a positive
environmental action based primarily on concern for personal well-being. This does
not eliminate concern for the environment as a motivator of action toward
environmental threat. In fact, the concern for the environment is closely linked to
concern for self due,in part, to evidence (e.g. Times Beach, Love Canal, etc.) that
many human health problems may stem from environmental pollutants. The answer
to this question could help an environmental education program designer determine
that a greater portion of resources should be directed to documentation and
dissemination of factual information that indicates risk levels and risk comparisons.

2. What role does assessment of control over environmental threats play in
response behavior? This question deals with the perception of control, or more
specifically confidence, that an individual has the ability to affect environmental
threats. This assessment of control could stem from having access to adequate
services that support amelioration of environmental threats, or it could stem from
confidence in government programs that are responsible for monitoring and
correcting environmental degradation. If pe0ple feel confident that they can make
a difference through their actions, then perhaps a greater portion of resources
should be spent on local community service and assistance programs.

3. What role does perceived personal responsibility for environmental hazards
play in response behavior? Not all listed environmental hazards in this research

study have been generated by individuals, many are generated by the cumulative

9

behavior of individuals. Some are acts of nature and are not caused by people at
all. If however peOpIe do in fact feel responsible for the existence of people
generated environmental threats, then perhaps a greater portion of resources
should be directed to awareness level programming which links the threat to
personal behavior.

4. What role does past experience play in response to environmental hazards?
This question deals with the impact that life experiences may have in setting an
environmental ethic. Youth experiences, family values, and the like may have a
great impact on one's response to environmental threats. The answer to this
question might suggest that more resources should be directed to youth programs
and elementary teacher training programs, as well as parent/child environmental
education programs.

5. What role do current socio-economic circumstances play in environmental
response? This question deals with the demographics that have often been used
to set a profile of the responsible environmental decision maker. Based on
Maslow's Hierarchy, individuals would be expected to place the first priority on
basic survival (Rokeach, 1981). Once basic needs are satisfied people move on to
higher levels of need. It is at these higher levels that individuals turn their
discretionary resources to responsible environmental activities. Does this dictate
a more focused educational effort aimed at that segment of the population that will
ultimately be able to contribute resources and time to environmental protection?

This study will attempt to profile the individuals who access the Hazardous
Materials Information line and to determine if those who took positive

environmental action and/or indicated strong environmental commitment have a

10

different profile than those who did not take action. The Hazardous Materials
Information (HMI) hotline is a service instituted through the Michigan State
University Cooperative Extension Service, supported by the Groundwater Education
in Michigan (GEM) program to serve Michigan citizens as they make decisions
about the purchase, use, storage and disposal of small quantities of hazardous

materials. The time frame of this study is November 1, 1989 to July 31, 1990.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The precedent literature for this study will be discussed in Chapter II. The

review is organized in seven main categories representing the following concepts:

1 . Appraisal of risk

2. Response to risk and threat

3. The dispositional approach

4. Appraisal of risk and threat under uncertainty

5. Risk and threat vs benefits

6. The relationship between commitment and action
7. Environmental decision making

RISK APPRAISAL

A major focus of this study is the examination of the relationship between
the appraisal of environmental threat and behavior, incorporating two intervening
variables into the study: (1) perception of control over the threat and (2) perceived
moral responsibility for the presence of the risk. In using this theoretical construct
it should be made clear that the concept of risk and the concept of threat are being

used interchangeably.

11

12

In an extensive review of risk appraisal, Mary Douglas (1985) addresses risk
acceptability as a social issue and explores the role that culture plays in
determining risk perception. Her expansive treatment of the subject includes an
analysis of the cognitive construct that determines decision making. The work of
Douglas expands our understanding of the underlying factors in the relationship
between social influences and risk perception.

Douglas believes that:

1. " Education of the public must narrow the disagreement” (Douglas
1985, 21). Although all decisions are made under some uncertainty,
there is a better Chance of reduced conflict and more efficient
implementation of societal needs if uncertainty is reduced.

2. " The new subdiscipline of risk perception emerges in response
to...important concerns. It is constituted of three different
disciplines: 1) there is the engineering approach, extended from the
analysis of risk to the analysis of perception; 2) there is the
ecological approach; 3) there is the cognitive science approach.
Theoretically sophisticated, but naive in social thought, each
discipline transferred only a small part of its traditional methods to
the new field (Douglas 1985, 22)." The eclectic and interdisciplinary
approach to risk appraisal is essential if we are going to understand
the complex response to threat and deal with it through social and
political policy development. The issue of citizen participation in

decision making has a history of ebb and flow in the United States

13

and when participation is being reduced by federal policy, citizens
respond negatively to the uncertainty they feel and demand more

opportunities for participation.

Most current studies related to understanding risk appraisal address the
perception of the public as they evaluate the risk of technologies that have been
presented as options (Hatfield 1989: Thomas 1981; Zeckhauser and Viscusi
1990). Some examples of these are nuclear power, leaded gasoline, seatbelts,
etc. For the most part, the technologies listed are not under the control of the
general public. It then becomes a matter of assessing the social acceptability of
the inherent risks as they are presented. One of the issues that Douglas
emphasizes is the distributive impact of involuntary risk. The observation that we
as a nation export the externalities of public goods to the poor is well documented
in the literature (Douglas 1985; Fischoff 1980). ”In some professional analyses
the existing allocation of risks is taken to imply an accepted norm of distributive
justice sustaining the moral fabric of society" (Douglas 1985, 6). Another method
of distributive justice that is addressed in the literature is that of intergenerational
responsibility. Golding (1972) points out that it is the immediate future generation
that has the most influence on the decision to mortgage future generations. It is
difficult for individuals to deter selfish decisions if the intergenerational obligation
is too distant. Therefore, there is need to relate impacts to the immediate living
family rather than unborn generations.

The concept of moral responsibility is treated in some detail by Van Liere

and Dunlap (1978) as they address the issue of awareness of consequences and

l4

ascription of responsibility. They bring to light the understanding that the appraisal
of threat to the environment, which was once the elitist perspective and supported
the birth of such organizations as the Sierra Club, has expanded to include threat
to humans as a primary motivator of Changed behavior. It is this perception of
unacceptability that creates a state of cognitive dissonance. It is important to
determine whether cognitive dissonance is reached more rapidly if the threat is
perceived as more detrimental to self or to the environment. Cognitive dissonance
is defined as disagreement or incongruity within the self (Random House 1973).
Since this incongruity has the effect of reducing the quality of life, people will want
to reduce it through action. The question then becomes, what prompts the action?

The relationship between cognitive dissonance and action is clearly part of
the morality question and the intergenerational responsibility issue. Van Liere and
Dunlap (1978) state, "Of course, individuals may often be aware that they are
faced with a moral choice, but because of other considerations, e.g. personal costs
of time, money, or psychological well-being, may not comply with the expected
behavior. Expected behavior in this case is that which corrects the immoral or
socially unacceptable behavior (p. 176)." The relationship between cognitive
dissonance and social norms has been interpreted by Heberlein (1975) and
Schwartz (1970), who point out two mechanisms for negating social norms; one
is re-interpretation or denial of the normative expectation or through a
disassociation of responsibility. If the social norm or expectation in the ambient
environment for a certain behavior is interpreted to satisfy the self then dissonance
can be reduced without any change in behavior. The other mechanism of

disassociation is a denial process as well, and more clearly relates to personal

15

protection or fear of social censure. In this case the individual simply reduces or
negates his or her role as a contributor to environmental degradation.

The responsibility concept has not been explored to any great degree in the
literature, probably due to the concern for the accuracy of self-reported perceptions
on personal morals. Heberlein (1975) has tested a normative model of effects on
environmental behavior. His work focuses primarily on emerging environmental
norms and the need for specific information on consequences and responsibility as
norms are being formed. This formative or emerging model becomes particularly
important as new information becomes available as to the long-term consequences
of negative environmental behavior. As outlined by Schmidt and Gifford (1989),
" the . . . appraisal process is dependent on Characteristics of the situation, the
individual, and interactions between individuals and situations" (p. 57). The
appraisal of risk and the appropriate behavioral response is indeed a complex
construct. Other elements that enter into the equation, as outlined by Starr (1969),
are risk acceptability (when trade-offs seem to be advantageous to the individual),
natural hazards (out of individual control), voluntariness (the ability to select or
refuse the risk situation), and chronic risks (those that people have gotten used to
because they are always around).

The risk associated with an industry that is the primary employer in a
community is often perceived as less than that of an industry in an adjacent
community which does not employ the townspeople, even though ambient air
pollution may be equally attributable to both industries. Appraisal is Clearly a

situational variable and there are limits of acceptability within a range.

16

Natural catastrophes are often perceived as less of a risk primarily because
the level of control is low. There is an almost fatalistic response to such risks as
earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions. The understanding
that the individual has very little control over these threats is clear. In fact, there
is evidence that the cognitive denial process is particularly strong where natural
disasters are concerned. Historical examples include the New Jersey coastline
where families rebuild homes after every hurricane, or the outer banks of North
Carolina where families have lived for generations in spite of the need to evacuate
nearly every year due to threats from the weather. Inhabitants on the west coast
are no better, as they build expensive homes on earthquake faults and unstable
hillsides in order to get a view of the Pacific Ocean. Another important aspect of
these decisions are that they constitute a voluntary exposure to risks, unlike the
exposure to nuclear power or smoke stack emissions which is involuntary. People
choose to live in these locations and cope with the risks, whereas power facilities
may locate after residency takes place or necessary public service infrastructure

may pollute.

THREAT RESPONSE

The response to environmental threat can be exhibited as direct action or
as some form of declaratory response. Threat response can be the result of a
number of stimuli or it can be prompted by one stimulus that has a profound affect
on an individual. First, an individual must perceive enough positive or negative
stimulus from the environmental threat to be aware of the need to respond.

Second, the threat must pose enough of a problem to warrant the complex

17

response behavior. Third, the individual must perceive the response as an effective
action to mediate the threat situation. Fourth, the individual must feel some sense
of responsibility for or obligatory relationship to the threat situation (Paterson and
Neufeld 1987).

Accepting a risk/threat requires that the acceptor has entered the relevant
data and computed a personal cost benefit analysis which is sometimes referred
to as a ”personal risk budget.” The grounded theory for this process tells us that
a risk (R) is the product of the probability (P) that some type of harm (H) will occur,
R = PXH (Campbell 1980). As tradeoffs are conceptualized, the cost/benefit model
emerges. The perceiver decides that the probability of some harmful event
happening is offset by the potential benefit one may gain. "A thoroughly logical
person presumably compares the benefits with the related risks, accounts for the
economic or other costs, if any, and makes a decision (Campbell 1980, 2468).

The historical work on the riskiness of gambles was done by Von Neumann
and Morgenstern (1953). They found that the relationship between gambling and
appraisal of personal loss is related to probabilities. Specifically that the risk taken
Should probably result in a "gain" and not a loss. Probabilities in this case refer to
the perceived utility of accepting certain types of risk. If the risk or threat to the
individual indicates the possible gain of extensive rewards, then the risk may be
worth it to some people. For example, the risk of siting a landfill near one’s home
may be reduced by the economic gain of an increased tax base or even the
monetary gain one enjoys through the sale of land to a waste management
company. However, the disdain of one's neighbors for "selling out” to the waste

management company may alter the marginal utility and make the risk

18

unacceptable to the landowner, causing him or her not to sell. This example of
assessment exemplifies the complexity of the risk appraisal process, in that it
points out the situational setting within which many risk-related decisions are
made.

The perception of risk is often altered by some past experience that affects
one's judgement. Two individuals appraising the same risk are individually affected
by a past experience that one had which resulted in a loss of health or reputation
or some other more concrete asset. This relationship between threat and utility
comes out of the Pareto-Optimal theory of economic studies and is Clearly
developed in the Schmid and Samuel's book Law and Economics: An Institutional

Perspective (1 981 ).

THE DISPOSITIONAL APPROACH

Kerry Thomas (1981) describes the results of a survey of beliefs and
attitudes toward various energy-generating facilities. Thomas explains that
perception and eventual action is not only guided by information but by feelings as
welI--in other words, a dispositional measurement of risk perception. "By
describing risk perception in terms of beliefs (the information base), feelings, and
attentional phenomena, all of which are seen as underlying action...points to a
substantial convergence with attitude theory” (Thomas 1981 , 37). The attitude is
what so often determines behavior.

The work that has most influenced this research is that of Faye N. Schmidt
and Robert Gifford done at the University of Victoria, Canada. Their work in

developing the Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI), which attempts to

19

measure the relationship between the person and the "risky" environment within
which they live, is landmark. Using McKechnie's Environmental Response
Inventory (ERl) (McKechnie 1974), which is a personality measure and Rotter's
Internal-External Locus of Control (l-E) (Rotter 1966) which is a measure of
confidence to cope with the environment in a social sense, Schmidt and Gifford
developed a three-scale inventory of risk events that could be used to determine
disposition toward risk. Several variations of hazard categories were listed: those
that pertain to natural and technological hazards, those that are at the global and
local scale, and long- and short-term hazards.

Several important findings resulted from the Schmidt and Gifford study: (1)
" ...the pattern of intercorrelations among the three EAI scales suggests that the
perception of threat from hazards and perceived control over them are separate
constructslpg.64); (2) ...the appraisal of threat to oneself and to the environment
are relatedlpg.65); and (3) ...a significant difference was found between the self
and Environment "means” with hazards in general appraised as more threatening

to the environment than to the self (66)." (Schmidt and Gifford 1989)

APPRAISAL OF THREAT UNDER UNCERTAINTY

Behavioral decision theorists such as SloviC, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein
(1983) have put the response to environmental threat into a rational decision
making model and attempted to contrast documented behavior with rational
behavior based on best possible information about the threat. This cost benefit
model is often implemented under conditions of uncertainty. The condition of

uncertainty arises as a result of incomplete information or lack of confidence in the

20

source of information, or perhaps as a result of variable background situations that
create inconsistent feedback such as a negative experience with environmental
stressors1 in one Situation and no significant impact of stressors in others.
Gallagher and Smith (1985) address the issue of Measuring Values for
Environmental Resources under Uncertainty by comparing certain outcomes with
uncertain outcomes. They use as an example the regulations affecting disposal
practices related to hazardous wastes. "Given our knowledge of the residence
time in the ambient environment and properties of landfill disposal technologies,
no regulation governing the land-based disposal of these substances will guarantee
that households living near the facility will have no risk of exposure to the
substances" (Gallagher and Smith 1985, 132). This lack of assurance that current
hazardous waste landfill design can protect human health corresponds to the
uncertainty in information about the impact of small quantities of hazardous
materials on environmental quality. Some experts have stated that the 2.5% of
the waste stream that contains hazardous materials presents no threat to the
environment, that in fact the volumes of other waste materials in landfills actually
absorb these chemicals effectively, and that it is a better method of amelioration
than isolating this component (Kinman and Nutini, 1988). Other experts, however,
have documented the contamination of an entire aquifer (no longer potable) due

to a small infusion of waste oil.

 

‘ The action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or
deformation results.

21
RISKS VS BENEFITS

A number of authors have explored the concept of risk and benefit
perceptions (Gallagher and Smith, 1985; Keller et al., 1986; Lopes, 1984; Slovic
et al., 1983: Wartofsky, 1983). Much of the research and analysis is focused on
the relationship of resources to risk perception. The assessment of risk appears
to be based on such concepts as risk understanding, credibility of the source of
information, method of information dissemination, need of the receiver, and other
situational variables related to demographics. Wartofsky states, " For humans
risk is defined in relation to perceived values; and these in turn are possible only
for a self-conscious creature who is capable of estimating present actions either
in the light of norms or general principles, or of future outcomes”(Wartofsky 1983,
131). As Fischhoff, Svenson, and Slovic point out in their extensive treatment of
the subject ”...peOple seldom just accept money in return for an increased chance
to die but they might accept money and risk as part of a job promising fulfillment,

advancement, and the like (1987, 1109)."

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMITMENT AND ACTION

The appraisal/action paradigm is explored by Johnson in his development of
a causal model of evacuation decision making during a nuclear reactor emergency.
”The model is premised on the proposition that evacuation planning must be based
on the behavioral intentions of the group that perceives itself at risk (Johnson Jr.
1985, 405)."

Although Johnson's research explores the response to a crisis Situation (as

perceived by the affected population) involving a technology over which the

22

general public has minimal control, it presents some of the same interrelationships
addressed in this study. Johnson calls for acknowledgment of intended behavior
as a basis for hazard planning. "The theory of reasoned action posits that
intended behavior is the best indicator of actual behavior if the intention does not
change before an individual has the opportunity to act. This is the key to
understanding the interface between deliberate action and stated commitment.
Applications of this theory show the proposition to be valid for a range of social

behaviors" (Johnson 1985, 405).

DECISION MAKING

The framework for deliberative thought affecting decisions is situation-
neutral, although studies using this framework have shown that the time and
investment individuals are willing to commit to a desired outcome does affect the
decision making process. The general framework for decision making is taken from

Fischhoff, Svenson, and Slovic (1987) as follows:

1. Identify all possible courses of action (including, perhaps, inaction)

2. Evaluate the attractiveness and/or aversiveness of the consequences
that may arise if each course of action is adopted

3. Assess the likelihood of each consequence actually being realized
(should each possible course of action be adopted)

4. Integrate these evaluations and assessments in order to select the

best course of action

23

It is this framework that underlies the design of most education for
behavioral Change programs. The dissemination of the best and most current
information is directed at step one. This awareness-level information dissemination
is necessary to expand people's options but is not adequate for decision making.
Step two begins the process of assimilating the information into one’s cognitive
structure. In order to evaluate the attractiveness or aversiveness of the
consequences of a decision, pe0ple bring their own set of beliefs and attitudes to
the perception of viability.

As mentioned earlier, in the case of risk-related information, Studies
(Edwards 1954; Johnson Jr. 1985; Lopes 1984) have relied heavily on the theory
of rational decision making and address a relatively new concept, the ”personal risk
budget." This concept begins to pull together the situational and conceptual
variables involved in the decision to accept or reject risk. Situational variables as
outlined by Hance (1988) are (1) the credibility of the disseminator,(2) the method
of dissemination, and (3) the need of the receiver. It is the need factor that is
most dependent on the conceptual variables that drive the rational decision making
model.

The rational decision maker weighs each decision as described above for its
utility to her/him at the point in time at which the decision must be made. This
utility maximization theory is grounded in historical philosophy and economics.
Jeremy Bentham and later James Mill held that the goal of human action is to seek
pleasure and avoid pain. As Edwards Clearly describes, "Every object or action
may be considered from the point of view of pleasure- or pain-giving properties.

These properties are called the utility of the object; pleasure is given by positive

24

utility and pain by negative utility. The goal of action, then, is to seek the
maximum positive utility” (Edwards 1954, 382).

If it is indeed maximum utility that drives individuals to assess the tradeoffs
and make the decision to act (or not act) toward a certain stimulus, then we need
to understand more about the underlying cognitive structure of individuals (their
dispositions) as they process information about risk and threats to themselves and
their environment. We also need to understand the contextual framework within
which individuals perceive themselves making a difference by their action, since
it is this perception that is also reflective of a satisfactory and pleasure-giving
outcome. And of course it also becomes essential to understand the relationship
between a sense of moral responsibility and the considered action, since the no-
action option could cause a great deal of negative utility if a deep sense of
responsibility felt. Because cognitive dissonance is often'the turning point at
which individuals change a course of action, it is essential to understand what
brings individuals to a high enough degree of dissonance that they change their
behavior rather than experience negative utility.

The urgency of exploring individual action decisions as related to
environmental issues becomes evident when we realize that the ambient
environment is a common good. Individuals have a direct impact on this common
good both negatively and positively depending on their perception of their role at
a point in time. The personal risk budget is determined by many factors. Some
of these factors have been explored--socio—economic levels, demographics,
liberalism vs conservatism, etc. However, the integrated study of the individual's

appraisal of these decisions has been hampered by the absence of instruments that

25

could adequately measure perception of risk, as well as the conceptual variables
related to (1) control or confidence to make a difference and (2) a sense of
personal responsibility. This study attempts to contribute to the work of others,

most explicitly Schmidt and Gifford (1989).

CHAPTER III

METHODS

This chapter outlines the procedures, instruments and variables developed
and used in the study. First, the general procedures of the study are discussed.
Second, the survey procedures are explained, the research variables are defined
and operationalized, and the scales developed and used in the study are delineated,

Finally, the statistical analyses used in the study are discussed.

RESEARCH SETTING

In March of 1989 the Kellogg Foundation through the Groundwater
Education in Michigan Project (GEM) funded a proposal titled: Improving Water
Quality through the Control of Unregulated Hazardous Wastes. As a result of this
funding, a three year program was implemented. Recognizing that small quantities
of hazardous materials are not monitored nor is the disposal of them regulated, a
State wide assistance and education program was initiated to aid Michigan citizens
to better manage small quantities of hazardous materials. The primary goal of the
program was to provide a convenient, non-threatening, low-cost contact for
Michigan citizens to gain information about hazardous materials and to gain

assistance in the proper disposal of these materials. Household members, farmers,

26

27

and operators of small business enterprises were the target audiences. These
citizens purchase or dispose of small quantities of pesticides, herbicides, solvents,
oils, and paints on a regular basis. In addition to appropriate disposal information
citizens need current information about best consumer behavior, safe use practices
and how to organize their community to address the pervasive problem of
managing small quantities of hazardous materials.

As a result of the funding and with assistance from the Michigan State
University Cooperative Extension Service, four full-time professionals were hired
as District Hazardous Materials Management Agents. These agents were located
in L’anse (Baraga County), Cheboygan (Cheboygan County), Pontiac (Oakland
County) and Lansing (lngham County). An 800 information line was installed in
each location. An Information Management Program (IMP) was developed. The
IMP computer software enabled the four HMM agents to provide Michigan Citizens
with current information about the disposal of hazardous materials. In this way the
agents could respond quickly to requests for information from callers. In addition,
the contact with the caller gave the agent the opportunity to offer educational
materials and to alert the caller of upcoming workshops on hazardous waste
control. In this way both passive and active education was provided. At the
conclusion of the conversation, callers were asked if they would be willing to
participate in a longer survey at a later date. Approximately 80% percent of those
asked said yes. Their names and addresses were then entered into a database
management file.

Public service announcements, newspaper articles, and presentations to

local clubs and organizations brought the assistance program to the attention of

28

a wide range of potential Clients and increased their awareness of the hazardous
materials issue. Citizen questions focused on four issues: 1) The desire to purchase
the least toxic product to clean or care for something (6%). 2) Understanding and
interpreting directions on labels (9%). 3) Discarding or disposing of a product no
longer needed (78%). 4) Setting up a community collection day or holding an
educational workshop (7%). At the time of the study over 3000 of Michigan's
citizens had accessed the Hazardous Materials Information Line (HMIL). This
research describes the characteristics, perceptions, and environmental profile of a
sample of Michigan citizens who used the HMIL service and tests their appraisal

of a variety of environmental threats.

SURVEY PROCEDURES
Th m l

(1 ) The study population consisted of 482 callers who contacted the service
between November 1, 1989 and July 31, 1990. (2) All users of the HMIL during
that period were included in the study and were mailed questionnaires. (3) A total
of 288 usable surveys were returned and could be included in the analysis. The
time range for sampling callers eliminated the early months of the HMIL service
(April 1989 to November 1989, since the Pontiac office was not staffed until
August 1, 1989) to assure consistency. Service in the early months of HMIL was
inconsistent due to set-up problems and lack of experience on the part of the MSU
Cooperative Extension District Hazardous Waste Agents. The months just prior to

the mailing of the survey were eliminated in order to give respondents adequate

29

time to have acted on the information received. The research area was all of

Michigan as calls were received via 800 lines from all parts of the state.

M ilin Pr r

The first mailing of the questionnaire was done on November 15,1990.
Pe0ple were asked to return the questionnaire within two weeks. Potential
respondents were offered an incentive in the form of a book, THE GUIDE TO
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS AROUND THE HOME (1989), if they returned the
questionnaire. A follow-up first Class letter was mailed three weeks after the
questionnaire was sent, this letter encouraged their participation and reminded
those who had not returned the questionnaire that their book was still waiting, and
if they did not return the questionnaire within ten days, their name would be
removed from the list and they would not be approached again. These non-
respondents were also told that if their questionnaire had been lost or in some way
made unusable, they could call a telephone number and leave their name and a

new questionnaire would be sent to them immediately (see appendix D).

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT--THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The eight page questionnaire contained four parts. The first part consisted
of four scales. These four scales represented an expanded Environmental
Appraisal Inventory. The second part consisted of social welfare questions such
as ”How far are you willing to drive to dispose of hazardous materials?" The third

part consisted of demographic and personal background questions, and the fourth

30

part consisted of environmental experience, commitment and action questions.

Table 3.1 is a listing of the variables and scales.

TABLE 3.1: Questionnaire components

 
   

~ w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Threat to YOU scale Wtems
Threat to ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT 28 items
CONTROL of env. threat CONTROL 28 items
RESPONSIBILITY for env. threat RESPONSIBILITY 28 items
Part 2 Social welfare Vlfillingness to act 4 items
Part 3 Demographics Age 1 item
Gender 1 item
Income 1 item
Education 1 item
Part 4 Environmental Commitment Commitment 8 items
Environmental Action Action 1 item
Environmental Experience Experience 3 items

 

 

 

Note: Items appearing in the questionnaire (see Appendix A) and not listed here were
not included in the analysis.

The first four pages of the questionnaire consisted of the four scales of 28

items each. The specific items were identical across scales but with a different

lead-in question for each scale. The remainder of the questionnaire contained 28

single item questions resulting in a total of 140 responses per questionnaire. It is

estimated that the questionnaire took approximately 30 to 40 minutes to complete.

A cover letter explaining how the respondents were selected was included in the

mailing. Assurance of confidentiality was made and printed on the inside cover of

31

each survey instrument. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was enclosed for use

by respondents.

Scales

Three of the four scales used in this study were based upon the work of
Schmidt and Gifford (1989). These three scales in their original form were
developed to make up the Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI). The fourth
scale (Responsibility) was developed for this research. Although the items and
response format are duplicated across scales, they are differentiated by the lead-in

questions. These lead-in questions were:

1. Please rate how threatening the following problems are TO YOU by
marking the response that best describes your position. (YOU scale)

2. Please rate how threatening the following problems are TO THE
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT by marking the response that best
describes your position. (ENVIRONMENT scale)

3. Please rate how much CONTROL you could personally exercise
against each problem if it became a serious threat to you. (CONTROL
scale)

4. Please rate how much PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY you feel for the

existence of this hazard. (RESPONSIBILITY scale)

The responsibility scale was added with this research to expand the model
and explore the idea of conscience as a motivator of positive environmental action

and commitment to environmental quality. In addition, four items were added to

32

the original scales of 24 items to localize and personalize hazard experience. These

added items were:

25. Groundwater pollution from landfill seepage
26. Air pollution from waste to energy incinerators
27. Surface water contamination from discarded motor oil

28. Ocean pollution from dumping municipal solid waste

The resultant four scales contain 28 items each, and collectively comprise
the expanded environmental appraisal inventory. The format was seven point
Likert type scales. In each case the low score was ”no threat" or ”no control” or
”no responsibility". The high score was ”extreme threat" or "extreme control" or

”extreme responsibility".

Emmet
Please rate how threatening the fol/o wing problems are to YOU by marking

the response that best describes your position.

 

No Very
Threat Minimal lVlild Moderate Strong Strong Extreme
1 . Water Pollution ...... O O O O O O 0

Commitment
Commitment in this research is a measure of cognitive obligation. It is the
act of pledging or engaging oneself in an idea. In this case it is a self reported

measurement of intentions.

33

A measure of commitment was based upon the mean score of the following
items:
Do you contribute money to environmental causes?

(1 =no to 7 =Substantial amount)

Will you make different consumer decisions as a result of the information
you received from the Hazardous Materials Information Line?

(1=no to 7=yes)

How would you rate your personal commitment to preventing environmental
pollution?

(1=low to 7=high)

Would you be willing to drive miles to dispose of ...?

(1 =5 miles to 7 = 30+miles)

Would you be willing to wait minutes to dispose of ...?

(1 =10 minutes to 7 = 70 or more minutes)

Would you be willing to Spend dollars to dispose of ...?

(1 =1 dollar to 7 =30 or more dollars)

Would you be willing to make phone calls to dispose of...?

(1 =1 call to 7=7 or more)

34
Action
A single question was used to indicate " action”. Respondents were asked
to report if they had acted on the information they had received from the HMIL.
An open ended follow-up question was asked to determine what type of action

was taken. The answers were used to clarify the yes/no action response.

nv' n n l r' n
Experiences were measured by asking the respondents: "Have you or
anyone in your family been affected by environmental pollution?" Responses to this

question were recorded on a seven point Likert type scale.

Qemegreghie Verieblee

Personal background information was included in the study for the following
demographic variables: age, income, education. A variety of options were given
for each demographic variable. Although information on a wider variety of
demographic variables was collected not all this information was used in this study

but instead will be held for future study on this population.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

The data were analyzed several different ways. Response rates were
reported and discussed. A probability level of < .05 was considered significant.
Descriptive statistics were used to provide an overall profile of the sample
obtained. In addition, statistical tests were used to compare the demographic

profile of the respondents in the sample with data for Michigan based on the 1990

35

US. census. Validity and reliability of the scales were assessed using descriptive
and test statistics along with data reduction techniques such as factor analyses.

Finally, the hypotheses were tested using MANOVA and regression analyses.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This Chapter reports the results of instrument development and hypotheses
testing. A total of 482 surveys were mailed to the selected population. The
population was all Michigan citizens who had contacted the Hazardous Materials
Information Line within a predetermined period of time. Only those who agreed,
during the telephone conversation, to participate in the study were included. As
indicated on the survey cover; a reward was offered for participation. Of the
surveys mailed out, 1 1 could not be delivered, yielding a total of 471 surveys being
placed in the hands of potential respondents. After a follow-up letter to
nonrespondents and the removal of one invalid return questionnaire the study
sample consisted of 288 useable questionnaires. The response rate was 61.2

percent of surveys delivered, (Table 4.1).

36

37
TABLE 4.1: Survey Delivery and Response Rates

 

 

’ NUMBER Peach-mil

 

Total Surveys Mailed 482 100
Delivered Surveys 471 97.7
Returned Non-Deliverable 11 2.3

Returned Surveys 289 61.4 of Delivered

 

 

 

 

Useable Surveys 288 61.2 of Delivered

 

REVIEWING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE

Respondents were almost evenly divided between males and females (49.5
percent females, 50,5 percent males); the age of the respondents was similar to
Michigan's population; residents under 18 were not sampled. After aggregating
age categories to best parallel 1990 census categories, the largest percentage of
respondents was (51.6 percent) in the 18-44 year category, as are Michigan
residents with 44.8 percent in the 17-44 year category. The sample population
had a higher percentage of people in the 45-65 age category than does the
Michigan population, and slightly more in the 65+ age category than does

Michigan (see subtotals and 65+ rows respectively).

38
TABLE 4.2: Sample Age Distribution Compared to Michigan Population

 

 

 
 
 
  

_ MI

16 or less 24.7%
18-25 3.2% 17-21 7.9%
24-35 18.3% 22-44 36.9%

35-44 30.1%

‘ '" SAMPLE

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subtotal 51:3:1:559:73:>1~..xi;:e::~_ti:-e;;—.;::;<;.=i:;- subtotal Li’i‘iif‘f?f7ifiii?75519127?5575::
1844516/o 1744448/o

45-55 15.4% 45-64 18.6%
55-65 15.8%

subtotal subtotal
if};.s;;§;;§'j;21345.5.551;‘1‘57;._;§il‘f=;‘_:_..}~ 7131f:1.1.15}{igj‘j3:1;,+ 21%;}:3? gig;331;:if}555Q5égfiiiiigfijL132}; ’i}:,7;:i._.f, IgiI-fig};£18];6%;1f.§;é1
65+ 17.2% 65+ 11.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The study sample size equals 288 respondents.

Source: 1990 Michigan census estimates by CACI, a marketing consulting
firm, Arlington, VA.

With respect to income, respondents represented a cross section of income
categories. Only 6.5 percent reported incomes of $10,000 or less. The largest
percentage of respondents reported having incomes between $20,000 and
$30,000 (24.5 percent). Comparing incomes of the study sample with Michigan's
population, it is clear that respondents in the study sample had higher incomes.
Sixty-six percent of the sample reported incomes under $50,000, while 78 percent
of Michigan residents report having incomes under $50,000 (t= 4.5; df=
1000286; p< .000). Thirty-three percent of the sample reported incomes over
$50,000; in contrast, only 21.2 percent of Michigan respondents reported having

incomes as high (t= 4.4; df= 1000286; p< .000).

39

In the case of education, 96.4 percent of the respondents had a high school
education or higher. Indeed, slightly over half reported having completed college
or some graduate or professional schooling beyond high schooll51.5 percent). No
parallel data were available for Michigan residents as a whole, but these
respondents appear to have higher educational achievement than the population

as a whole.

TABLE 4.3: Demographic Profile--Respondents vs Michigan Residents Income

 

   

Ismaeo I

 

< $10,000

6.5%

< $15,000

 

$10,000-$20.000

10.5%

' s15,ooo-S25,ooo

 

$20,000-$30.000

24.5%

$25,000-$35.000

 

$30,000-$40,000

13.7%

$35.000-$50,000

 

$40 000- $50, 000

11.2%

 

subtotal

ea 4%

under $50 000 flijfiiifi: fiz‘i‘:<';1-:,‘f;5-:

2;"; under $50 000 :3}.:{1:515:351.};“51ii};'1:‘i_j}~.i:'?ji:}§}fi1.333;:

 

$50,000-$60,000

16.2%

$50,000-$75,000

 

$60,000-$70,000

7.6%

over
$75,000

 

 

 

over $70, 000

subtotal
over $50 000

 

3 335/

 

9.7%

subtotal
over $50 000

Note: Sample size equals 288 respondents.

Source: 1990 Michigan census, CACI, a marketing consulting firm, Arlington,

VA.

 

2x

 

 

40
VALIDITY

Schmidt and Gifford supported construct validity for the original
Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI) using Campbell and Fisk's multitrait-
multimethod test (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). In this study strong correlations
were found between the EAI and selected scales from McKechnie's (1974)
Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) and with Rotter's (1966) Internal-External
Locus of Control (E-I).

Because the EAI was expanded in this study by adding a fourth scale and four
additional items to each scale, it was treated as a new instrument and re-evaluated
for validity and reliability.

A principal component factor analysis, using a varimax rotation, was performed
on each scale of 28 items to assess construct validity. This statistical technique
was used to determine whether or not the items held together as a single
construct. The factor analysis suggested that the addition of the four items did
not reduce the internal validity of the scale and in all cases a single dominant factor
emerged. For each scale, the first factor explained 43 percent or more of the
variance (Table 4.4). This level of variance accounted for by the four scales was
high enough to consider the scales as valid representations of the constructs as
described. Additional factors contributed small amounts of variance, with no single
factor contributing enough variance to warrant additional factors being included in
the study. No single additional factor contributed more than nine percent of the

total variance explained.

41

TABLE 4.4: Summary of Factor Analysis for the four scales

 

 

’ FanACToRI FACTORS

   

 

 

ENVIRONMENT 12.15 43.4 5 68.8
CONTROL 13.50 48.2 4 65.1

RESPONSIBILITY 14.54 51.9 4 67.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence of content validity was obtained by pretesting the instrument with
13 experts in the field of environmental protection. Twelve pretest surveys were
returned and none of the respondents indicated that they had difficulty
understanding the scales or questions as presented. Informal telephone interviews
with the twelve experts confirmed that the items represented the constructs as
conceptualized. All indicated that the questionnaire was understandable and
"made sense."

Concurrent validity was established through a comparison between the
Schmidt and Gifford study and the present study. Schmidt and Gifford sampled
a mixed population of 126 college students and general public. The results of the
current study are based on a respondent sample of 288 usable surveys. As can be
seen in Table 4.5, the descriptive statistics for the two groups are very similar for

each scale and presented a similar pattern across scales.

42

TABLE 4.5: Comparison of Scale Characteristics Across Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s... pas Sea a l]
x - 3.7 3.41
SD 1 . 1 4 0.96
ENVIRONMENT
x 4.4 4.3
SD 1 .1 2 0.93
CONTROL
x 2.9 2.9
SD 1 .16 1 .07
RELIABILITY

Schmidt and Gifford assessed the reliability of the EAI through an
examination of the internal consistency of each scale. In the Schmidt and Gifford
study, as in this study, internal consistency was assessed using the Cronback
Alpha. In Table 4.6, it can be seen that the Alpha scores for each of the three
scales used in this study are high all above .9; alpha scores at this level are
considered adequate for scaling purposes. The observed Alpha scores in this study
are higher than the internal consistency measures observed in the original Study
completed by Schmidt and Gifford (1989). The Alpha value for the new scale

(RESPONSIBILITY) is similar to that of the other three scales.

43

TABLE 4.6: Alpha Reliability Coefficients of the Four EAI Scales

 

 

 

 

 

bat Study." ’It-zttn? “madam,w1,;.;;¢...,~xj
SCALE ALPHA ALPHA
YOU .93 YOU .95
ENVIRONMENT .92 ENVIRONMENT .95
CONTROL .95 CONTROL .96
RESPONSIBILITY N/A RESPONSIBILITY .96
MULTICOLLINEARITY

Schmidt and Gifford reported high correlations among the scale scores. In
this study, Pearson Correlation coefficients on the expanded EAI scales also Show
significant positive correlations between scales. This is an important matter to

consider when choosing appropriate statistical analyses. The correlations among

the scales are reported in Table 4.7.

TABLE 4.7: Correlation Matrix for the Four EAI Scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU .
ENVIRONMENT .67’ *

CONTROL .36" .29“

RESPONSIBILITY .27” . .19" .31 ”

 

 

 

“ Significantly different from zero; p< .05

44

Since the correlations were statistically significant and moderately large in
size, multicollinearity was a legitimate concern. Therefore, hypothesis testing was
done using a repeated measures MANOVA technique which would control for

multicollinearity.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL INVENTORY SCALES

The four scales making up the Environmental Appraisal Inventory were the
dependent variables tested in this study. The results of the repeated measures
MANOVA, t-tests along with the means and standard deviations for the four scales
can be seen in Table 4.8. Means for the scales ranged from a high of 4.40 for the
ENVIRONMENT scale to 2.10 for the RESPONSIBILITY scale. Standard deviations
were similar for all four scales. To investigate differences between the scales, the
repeated measures MANOVA mentioned previously was conducted on the four
scales. The results of the analysis were significant suggesting that the hypothesis
of equal scale means was rejected. Given the significance of the MANOVA, the
next step was to determine which scale means were different from each other.
To determine difference between individual scales, a dependent pairs t-test was
conducted on each pair of scales (Table 4.8). These results indicate that each

scale is significantly different from each of the other scales.

45

TABLE 4.8: MANOVA for Environmental Threat Appraisal Scales

 

‘ " “ 7’7?“7‘4?f-iiEiLfEi iii-YOU

* ““5?‘i‘i‘ig;t23:?itiiiifi'isirjifizséif-SiIISbt‘tftbbifiiia;%ji:%:-i:;i;;%iffit:iii:‘1=3*if‘:i?i>‘i?:l*Iii-21:???

 

 

 

 

aesPoNsueum-YI

 

Mean

SD

N

3.73
1.14

269

 

4.40

1.12

269

2.90

1.16

269

2.10 I

0.99

269

 

Paired t-tests:

You & Control

 

You & Environment

You & Responsibility
Control & Environment
Control & Responsibility
Responsibility & Environment - t(obs)

- tlobs)
- t(obS)
- t(obs)
- tlobs)
- tlobs)

-11.91, df
10.29, df
20.75, df

-17.94, df
11.30, df

-28.02, df

Note: F = 4624.64; df = 1,268; p< .0001.

270, p <
270, p < .
284, p <
269, p <
269, p <
269, p <

.0001

0001

.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001

 

HYPOTHESES

H1: r of hHMLwiIIt

hm rnll m

Significant differences between the scale means support the first hypothesis

and suggest that respondents felt that most of the perceived threat was focused

t-nt twiffr I

r hr whi h ff

upon the environment and less on themselves.

Respondents felt that there was a moderate level of threat posed by the
various items contained within the two scales. The highest level of threat was

reported for the ENVIRONMENT scale (5! = 4.40). The mean for the YOU scale

was lower at 3.73 (Table 4.8).

. nv'ro-nmn I r::

h I‘IVI nmn.

 

H2: r of h HMIL ill :99 ° : u'r u I t r .Iv' . u: .1 hr
tiff-n1 hn : 'll 599 : w 'r :--on~ol for I: z . :- z .
nv'r n n I r

Based upon the means for the CONTROL and RESPONSIBILITY scales, as
seen in Table 4.8, respondents indicated a greater sense of control over
environmental threats as compared to their assessment of their responsibility for
environmental threats.

The mean for the RESPONSIBILITY scale was 2.10; and in the case of the
CONTROL scale, the mean was higher at 2.90. The t-tests revealed that there was
a significant difference between the CONTROL and RESPONSIBILITY scales.
Respondents felt that they had little responsibility for the existence of the threats
compared to a stronger sense of control over the threats. This finding supports the

second hypothesis.

H3: Time will

 

:HI'I: If n'rnmn I t. :_ . l-II’ . Im' : . n r-n

Qualitx

For the scales to be useful, it is important that they be related to other key
environmental variables such as pro-environmental action, commitment to
environmental quality, or other types of environmental concern. In the original work
of Schmidt and Gifford (1989), the scales were found to be related to other
environmentally sensitive scales and indices. One of the goals of this current study
was to investigate the relationship between the scales and more direct measures

of environmental concern. One way to indicate whether the scales can contribute

47

to a better understanding of environmental concern and action is to test the
relationship between the scales and self-reported environmental commitment. This
was done using the repeated measures MANOVA.

The results of the repeated measures MANOVA can be seen in Table 4.9.
As Shown, the main effect of commitment has an F value of 37.27 and is
significant at p < .0001. There is no interaction between commitment and the
scales within the subjects (p<.521), so the effect of commitment can be
interpreted directly. These results suggest that there is a different pattern of mean
scores for the scales depending on the level of commitment expressed by the
respondents. Those respondents who have high commitment scores also have

higher scale scores on each scale respectively.

TABLE 4.9: MANOVA Using Commitment as an Independent Variable

Amoxt Stem-ctr

 

Between-Subjects

Constant 5205.58 .000

Commitment 37.27 .000

Between and Within .11 .953
Interaction (Hotellings) Between and Within .75 .521
Repeated Effect (Hotellings) 333.63 .000
Within-Subject

Scales 333.63 .000

Commitment by scales .82 .482

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Total sample size = 269, 20 cases were not included in the analysis due to
missing data.

The commitment index was transformed into an ordinal measurement by

dividing the range of scores at the mean -- 4.3. The group means, standard

48

deviations, and mean differences between the high and low commitment groups
by scale are presented in Table 4.10. In this table the pattern of the relationship
between commitment and the scales can be seen. Indeed, in the case of each
scale, as commitment increases, the average scale score increases as well. The

third hypothesis was supported.

TABLE 4.10: Scale Scores for Different Levels of Environmental Commitment

 

   
  

             

 

 

 

SCALE GROUP ’ ‘ DEVIATION _, _ (HIGH-LOW) ............................................

YOU Low 3.40 1.122 143

4.0-3.4=.6 -5.29‘
YOU High 4.03 1 .08 146
ENVIRONMENT Low 4.09 1.12 131

4.1-4.7=.6 -4.44’
ENVIRONMENT High 4.68 1 .06 140
CONTROL Low 2.59 .98 131

3.2-2.6=.8 -4.37'
CONTROL High 3.19 1 .24 140
RESPONSIBILITY Low 1 .89 .69 139

2.3-1.9=.4 -3.59‘
RESPONSIBILITY High 2.32 1.17 146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ Significant, p = <.05.

As indicated in the literature review, people do have a concern that their
individual behavior will have little impact on environmental threats (Paterson and
Neufeld 1987). Therefore, special attention was given to the relationship between
control and commitment. The decision was made to test the relationship between

the control variable, levels of commitment, and the remaining three scales. Means

49

were compared and tested using ANOVAS for high and low commitment groups
within the remaining three scales, while holding CONTROL constant. In the case
of the YOU scale, CONTROL was found to be a significant covariate (F=41.07;
df = 1,268; p< .0001). Yet it was observed that there was a significant difference
between the YOU scale scores for groups with different levels of commitment,
while controlling for CONTROL (F = 12.41 ;df = 1,268; p< .0001). In the case of the
ENVIRONMENT scale, CONTROL was found to be a significant covariate
(F = 25.62; df = 1,267; p< .000). It was also observed that there were significant
differences for the ENVIRONMENT scale between groups with different levels of
commitment, while holding constant scores on the CONTROL scale,(F=11.53;
df=1,267; p< .001). In the case of the RESPONSIBILITY scale, CONTROL was
found to be a significant covariate (F = 29.63; df = 1,267; p< .000). Yet here again,
it was observed that there was a significant difference in the scale scores between
levels of commitment while controlling for CONTROL (F=5.24; df=1,267;
p< .023).

The set of means within each scale by commitment (low, high) were
significantly different for the other three scales (YOU, ENVIRONMENT and
RESPONSIBILITY). The variable CONTROL was found to be a significant covariate
in each case, yet even though statistically holding constant the effects of control,

commitment is related to the appraisal of threat.

4:T--o-.~~rwilin'fi:_ 9° ' :=-I .'.':A:: = 0010.:1‘:.H:‘a
f n ir m l hr i r i h
v'r m

The most important focus of these analyses was environmental action. This
is the goal of much modern environmental research -- trying to identify variables
that are directly related to taking positive environmental action, (Fischoff, Svenson,
and Slovic 1987). In this study the relationship being investigated is between the
appraisal of threats as portrayed in the Envirionmental appraisal inventory and
action taken in regard to the information received as a result of the phone call
made to the HMIL. As indicated in the literature review, past research has been
mixed in terms of success in identifying variables that predict or are consistently
related to environmental action. Descriptive data presented in Table 4.1 1 indicate
how similar the scale scores are for those taking environmental action and those

taking no environmental action.

TABLE 4.1 1: Scale Scores for Different Levels of Environmental Action

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU yes 3.72 1.14 177
ENVIRONMENT no 4.34 1 .15 83
ENVIRONMENT yes 4.40 1 .12 177
CONTROL no 2.90 1.1 1 83
CONTROL yes 2.88 1.18 177
RESPONSIBILITY no 2.08 1 .02 83
RESPONSIBILITY yes 2.12 .99 177

 

 

To test this relationship between environmental action and the scales, a
repeated measures MANOVA was conducted using the four scales as dependent
variables and environmental action as the independent variable with two levels
(Action/No Action). The results of the analysis can be seen in Table 4.12. There
was no interaction between action and the scales within subjects, so the effect of
action can be interpreted without concern for interaction effects. As can be seen
in Table 4.12, the action effect was not significant, therefore this hypothesis could

not be supported.

52

TABLE 4.12: Repeated Measures MANOVA - Test of the Relationship between
Environmental Action and Scale Scores

 

i

 

Between-Subjects

 

 

 

 

Constant 3799.83 p< .0001

Action .07 .787
Interaction (Hotellings) Between and Within .11 .953
Repeated Effect (Hotellings) 213.30 p<.0001
)Mthin-Subject

Scales 276.24 p < .0001

Action by scales .12 .949

= fl

 

 

17:3 .no I’ 90”.: :‘g: .n o : :0 .01 g'nozf ;_ in kn . I

it n I i

The final hypothesis refers to a further investigation of how well these
newly developed scales relate to other key variables. To assess these potential
relationships, a linear regression was performed for each of the scales, with the
scale being the dependent variable. In this survey, respondents were asked to
provide data on several other variables that should be related to scales focusing on
environmental concern and perceived environmental threats to self and the
environment. These included past experiences with environmental pollution,
environmental action, and commitment. The repeated measures MANOVAs
discussed above have already shed light on these relationships. The regression
provides another look at these relationships, taking into account demographics,
personal experience, and commitment, along with more recent environmental

acflon.

53

TABLE 4.13: Correlation Matrix -- Scales and selected Variables

 

wwRJGMCMbJCWEJfi &fe ®Ub

 

You
Env
Con
Resp
Com

Act

seem
see
18

.03 .23

._2__4_ .23 -.__5 .29 .07

-._5 -.;§ -._2_A_ -.19_ -.01 -.__5

.04 .12 .03 .07 .05 .16 -.18

.18 .03 .03 .21 .08 .01 -.18 -.09

Inc .04 -.06 .04 .03 .00 -.08 -.03 -.10 .31 .05

Exp
Age
Ed

Gen

BSIEIBBIRBBB

 

 

 

1 tailed significance .01, bolded -.001, underlined Minimum pairwise N of cases: 257

 

The relationships displayed in the correlation matrix (Table 4.13) point out the
pattern of interrelationships that exists between scales, and demographic and
environmental variables. Correlations larger than .21 with the sample sizes
approaching 250 were significantly different from zero at the .001 level. These
correlations suggest that demographic and environmental variables could be useful
predictors of scale scores.

Four separate regression analyses were conducted, one for each scale with
the scale being the dependent variable. The independent variables in each analysis
were action, commitment, gender, age, education, and experience. The variables
gender and action were treated as dummy variables and were coded as 1 =

Female, 0 = Male; 1 = Action, 0 = No Action.

54
RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR THE YOU SCALE

The regression analysis for the YOU scale was significant, with an F value
of 21.08, p< .0001. The R2 is the percentage of variance accounted for in the
dependent variable by all the independent variables in the equation. In the
regression for the YOU scale, 21 percent of the variance in YOU was accounted
for by experience, commitment, and age (Table 4.14). Each variable contributes
to this variance. The standardized beta weights take into account the other
variables in the equation and provide another comparison of how the independent
variables contribute, relative to each other. There is consistency in the order of the

contribution of each variable in the prediction.

TABLE 4.14: Regression Analyses for the YOU Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w ‘ _ : -_ _ .; } *sm...m'zmi* jJ;:i;;;
INDEPENDENTVARIABLES. ; g x , me'wbbbts isswttbr: -‘ 32
EXPERIENCE .25 .09 .06
COMMITMENT .20 .06 .04
AGE -.19 .06 .04
= 13.12; df 7,261; p<.0001; R2 = .15

 

 

 

Experience contributes the most, commitment and age are similar in their
contributions. It can be seen in Table 4.14 that Age had an inverse relationship
with the YOU scale. In this test, based upon the square of the beta weights, the
experience variable contributed approximately 1.5 times as much of the variance
as the other two variables. Yet it should be remembered that in total, only 21

percent of the variance was explained.

55
RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SCALE

The regression analysis for the ENVIRONMENT scale was also significant
(Table 4.15). In this analysis, three independent variables again entered the
equation and accounted for 15 percent of the variance in the ENVIRONMENT
scale. The variables to enter the equation were experience, age and gender, in

that order.

TABLE 4.15: Regression Analyses for the ENVIRONMENT Scale

 

 
     

 

 

 

 

EXPERIENCE

AGE -.13 .07 .03
GENDER .33 .04 .02
F= 13.12, df 7,261; p < .0001: R2 = .15 R2=15

 

 

 

Note: The equation for predicting ENVIRONMENT scores would be:

Envirn = 4.36 + .16 * (Exp) -.13 * (Age) + .33 * (Gender)

In this regression, like that of the previous one, experience is the largest
relative contributor to the equation, explaining over two times the variance in the
dependent variable compared to the other variables entering the equation. It is
important to note that age again showed as an inverse relationship. Gender entered

the equation providing the smallest contribution to the variance.

56
RESULTS OF THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE CONTROL SCALE

Regression equations for the CONTROL scale included only two of the
independent variables - age and commitment. The significant contributing variables

accounted for 11% of the variance explained (Table 4.16).

TABLE 4.16: Regression Analyses for the CONTROL Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:; I~bbte~be~tthbtes bmwe'bbt summer:
AGE -.23 .05
COMMITMENT .21 .06 .04
F= 14.45, df 7,261; p < .0001, R2=.11

 

 

 

Note: The equation for predicting CONTROL scores would be:

CONTROL = 263+ -.16 * (Age) + .22 * (Commitment)

Commitment again becomes a significant variable in this regression equation
contributing meaningfully to the variance explained in the CONTROL scale. Yet,
age was the recurring variable accounting for the most variance explained. The
equation and regression analysis affirms the persistent inverse relationship between

the scale scores and the age of the respondent.

RESULTS OF THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY SCALE
In the regression analysis for the RESPONSIBILITY scale, only two

independent variables entered into the equation — age and experience. The

regression was significant, with these two variables accounting for 1 1 percent of

the variance in the dependent variable.

57
TABLE 4.17: Regression Analyses for the RESPONSIBILITY Scale

        

STANDARDIZED
JilNoEPENDENTVARIABl-ES2'ije7515511171521?Lit-If. BETAWEIGHT-Ixéf 515?.SIMFLEET-3131592 ifflgils’tZITf'iiiii'fi‘f?

AGE -.22 .07 .05

 

 

EXPERIENCE .20 .06 .04
F= 14.79, df 7,261; p < .0001, R2=.11 ll

 

 

 

 

Note: The equation for predicting RESPONSIBILITY scores would be:

RESPONSIBILITY =2.37+ -.15 * (Age) + .11 ’ (Experience)

Age and experience were the strongest variables for this equation as they
were in the other regressions. Age is found to be inversely related for this scale;
experience is positively related.

Looking across the regression analyses, several variables were contributors,
but in no equation were correlations of determinations (R2) larger than .21. The
equations, while significant, yielded only slight explanatory power.

More information can be drawn from the pattern of the variables that
entered into the regression equations. In Table 4.18, it can be seen that age was
a variable that contributed some explanatory information in all four equations.
Experience and commitment entered equations in two of the four cases. What is
just as interesting are the variables that did not enter into the equations. Action
and several demographic items such as education and income did not enter into the

regression equations.

58
TABLE 4.18: Summary of Regression Analyses

 

 

11111 ‘ o

R2 .21 .15

    

Var. entered 3 3 2 2
Entered first" Exp. Exp. Age Age

Entered

Age yes yes yes yes
Commitment yes no yes no
Experience yes yes no yes
Gender no yes ' no no
Education no no no no
Income no no no no
Action no no no no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Computer-generated step-wise regression procedures.

These regression analyses do indicate that the scales are related to variables
such as experience, commitment, gender and age, but not in a consistent manner
across each of the scales.

The relatively small amounts of total variances determined in each of the
equations indicate that many other factors and variables are needed or should be
included in order to fully explain the variation in the scales. Eighty percent or more
of the variance associated with the scales was not accounted for. This provides

a substantial opportunity for future research.

SUMMARY
In this study the Environmental Appraisal Inventory was expanded by four

scale items. In addition, a fourth scale was added to appraise respondents’ feeling

59

of responsibility for the existence of environmental threats. Using a different
population and a larger sample, this research supported the findings of the Schmidt
and Gifford study (1989) that the EAI is an internally consistent and valid
instrument. Three of the five hypothesis were supported. The fourth hypothesis,
that there is a positive relationship between appraisal of threat and action to
protect the environment, was not supported. The fifth hypothesis, stating that a
relationship existed between demographic and socio-economic variables, was
supported in part. Experience with environmental threats, age, and commitment
to positive environmental behavior entered the regression analysis most often;
gender only entered the regression analysis for the ENVIRONMENT scale. Also, like
Schmidt and Gifford, this study found that the highest level of threat was
appraised for the ENVIRONMENT scale, and the strongest relationship between the
scales was between the YOU scale and the ENVIRONMENT scale.

The relationship between environmental threat, as stated in the EAI, and
commitment was explored. In each case, as the level of commitment increased
the average scale scare increased. Even controlling for the CONTROL variable

revealed a significant difference in scale scores.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

This chapter contains a brief overview of the research objectives,
procedures, and results that have been detailed in previous chapters. Following
the overview is a discussion of the research findings and implications for future
research. In addition the research findings are applied to programming

considerations as presented in Chapter I.

SUMMARY

The primary contributions of this research are (lithe expansion and testing
of a methodology for evaluating a person's appraisal of environmental threat, (2)
documentation of the relationship between appraisal of threat and action, (3) the
identification of intervening variables in the threat appraisal process. A secondary
contribution of this research is to link the cognitive structure called commitment
to action since intended action is often the best predictor of action itself Ii.e.
behavior). Commitment is defined as a pledge or, more specifically a personal

obligation to follow a code of behavior or planned action.

60

61
R rh in

The general question in this research has been: Is an individual's appraisal
of environmental threats related to a commitment to protect the environment?
When there are no regulations mandating precise behavior, the need exists to be
sure that programs are designed and information disseminated in such a way as
to reach the internal cognitive structure of individuals, called beliefs, and that

programs interface with those beliefs to activate positive behavior.

R h ' iv

The specific purpose of this research has been to determine the relationship
between disposition toward environmental threat and commitment or action taken
to protect the environment. This research also profiled the individuals who called
the Hazardous Materials Information Line (HMIL) to determine if those who took
environmental action and/or indicated strong environmental commitment had a

different profile than those who did not take action or indicate commitment.

m I I i n
The sample population was identified as a result of calls made to the HMIL.
After questions were answered by the Hazardous Materials Management Agent,
the callers were asked if they would be willing to participate in a survey. Those
who said yes were added to the list of persons to receive the research
questionnaire. A response rate of 61.2 percent was obtained. Although a higher
response rate was desired, this rate was considered adequate and acceptable.

Babbie (1989, 241i cites as a typical model a case study done by the University

62

of Hawaii in which a 40 percent return rate was realized on the first mailing, an
additional 20 percent on the second mailing, and an additional 10 percent return
on a third follow up. In this study, 61.2 percent falls into the ”Good” category
(Babbie 1989, 242). Time and money did not permit additional mailings to gain
additional returns. Another factor which limited further efforts to solicit additional
responses was the content of the letter sent to non-respondents as a second
mailing. The letter stated that if the survey was not returned by a certain date,
the name of the potential respondent would be removed from the coded list;
consequently, the University Committee on Research of Human Subjects (UCRHS)
would not allow a third mailing. As always, the disadvantage of not getting a
higher return rate means that there is no information about 38.8 percent of the

sample group.

Qemggraphig Profile

The demographic profile of respondents compared to Michigan residents
illustrates that the respondents in this study were above the norm in Michigan in
terms of income and education. While the problem of hazardous waste is not a
new problem, the issues surrounding the management of small quantities,
especially the waste management problems of small businesses and households,
has only recently received national and statewide attention. Media discussions of
the problem are pervasive and the HMIL BOO-information line is current and well
publicized. It would be expected that callers to the 800 line would probably be
what communication researchers call ”early adopters” (Rogers and Schumacher,

1971). The socio-economic profile of early adopters is usually higher than the

63

population as a whole. People in this category usually read more, travel more, and
are considered community leaders. In light of previous research, it seems
reasonable that early adopters would be the type of citizen who would access the
HMIL and would adopt behaviors that protect the environment. Results of other
environmental attitude studies also indicate that the socio—economic profile of
people sensitive to the environment is higher than for those who have less

sensitivity to the environment (Dunlap 1981).

M h i I n r' i n

This research was based on the work of Schmidt and Gifford (1989). Their
work"... develops and describes the Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI),
which was designed to measure three dimensions of environmental appraisal: (a)
threat to self, (b) threat to the environment posed by environmental hazards, and
(c) perceived control over environmental hazards” (Schmidt and Gifford, 1989, 57).
The EAI, as tested by Schmidt and Gifford, had "...good psychometric properties,
represents a previously untapped aspect of person-environment relations, and
should prove useful as a mediating variable in several areas of environmental
psychology" (Schmidt and Gifford, 1989, 57). As a result of an extensive
literature review, it was apparent that the part of the person-environment interface
that was not explored in the Schmidt and Gifford study was the concept of
responsibility. Schmidt and Gifford clearly indicate that..."the importance of a
range of contextual variables that mediate the reciprocal relationship between the
person and the physical environment" (Schmidt and Gifford, 1989 57), but they

do not address the internal value structure of the individual that may contribute to

64

reciprocity and, ultimately, changed behavior. Although perceived threat to self
and environment was tested using a 24-item scale and perceived control was also
explored based on Rotter's Locus of Control paradigm (Rotter, 1966), the ability
of the scales to more explicitly explore the internal cognitive structure called
”conscience” was not part of the original study. As pointed out in the literature
review, since each individual is attempting to maximize pleasure in life and
minimize pain, it becomes essential to understand the relationship between
individuals' personal responsibility for environmental externalities as they exist and
their own personal behavior. In other words, it becomes necessary to understand
the relationship between a sense of moral responsibility and a considered action,
since the no-action option could cause a great deal of negative utility if a deep
sense of guilt is felt. That is the reason for the addition of the fourth scale to the
EA), titled RESPONSIBILITY, that explores a person’s feeling of responsibility for
the existence of the environmental threat.

The original three scales were 24 items in length; four additional items that
depicted current human-generated pollution concerns were added to these original
24 items. The purpose of adding these four items was to expand the conceptual
framework of threat. Since the program being considered was one where
individuals should have been concerned about human-generated pollution, it was
necessary to provide an opportunity for the respondents to react to pollution-
related items. The addition of the four new items changed the scales so that in
this study, the EAI was treated as a new instrument and re-evaluated for validity
and reliability. The expanded instrument held up under testing. Based upon the

factor analysis the instrument maintained construct validity. The fourth construct

65

of personal responsibility was found to be a strong single construct. In a
comparison of scale means and standard deviations between the new instrument
and the Schmidt and Gifford scales, evidence of concurrent validity was obtained.
The strongest concern focused on the problem of multicollinearity. Since high
interscale correlations were observed, it was possible that the scales were
accounting for similar portions of variance. On the other hand, the results of a
dependent pairs t-test indicated that the scale means were significantly different
from each other, again reflecting evidence of each being a unique construct. The
final test of instrument integrity, reliability, was assessed using CronBach's Alpha;
values were all above .95 indicating that the individual scales displayed strong
internal consistency.

As Schmidt and Gifford point out, there is a significant need to develop and
use standardized tools that can assess the person- environment interface. The
results of this study expand the EAI as a research instrument. Evidence of
reliability and validity was observed. The expansion of the instrument to the realm
of threats from pollution increases the utility of the instrument in a broader arena
of environmental studies. In addition, the preliminary work to extend the
conceptual framework of the instrument to include the moral issue of responsibility

for environmental quality expands the usefulness of the EAI.

66
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS RELATED TO THE HYPOTHESES

1' :‘0 1: il :H'.01::1 °3l°lll$li 1:2‘411
:1: 1: 9: on: omvau . :z- ihff Izziim

This hypotheses was supported. The respondents viewed items as listed in

the expanded EAI as greater threats to the environment than to themselves,
personally. Current popular literature does highlight environmental degradation
more than personal health deterioration as a result of environmental pollution. The
EAI is really assessing threat perception responses in three areas: natural disasters,
person-generated hazards, and technological hazards. These are the topics that are
most often covered as disasters in the popular media (magazines, newspapers, and
television). It would appear that respondents to this survey are less likely to be
exposed to the threats listed since they are predominantly middle class and have
adequate resources to avoid them. The people that are characterized in the press
as being affected by many of these threats are often limited-resource populations.
Our respondents simply don't relate; they may feel that it happens to somebody
else. In addition, many of these threats are natural disasters, such as earthquakes
or technological disasters, such as nuclear energy plant spills; such disasters are
clearly damaging to an extensive environmental area but seldom result in large
death tolls. When they do cause many deaths, it is most often in developing
countries where systems for survival are not as sophisticated as in the United
States. Therefore, the respondents to this survey may have examples of
environmental disasters in mind that rightly or wrongly, make them feel that the
threat will not influence them personally. Although there was a high correlation

between the YOU scale and the ENVIRONMENT scale, the differences between the

67
means for the ENVIRONMENT scale and the YOU scale were significant. This

finding indicates a perception on the part of the respondents that they are immune

to the effects of threats to the environment.

r thIL :992:1:o 1
.__- rnl hn h H :9! hi r'=--o.~.r for I: n = f
W.

The second hypothesis was supported. The results of the t-test indicates
that there was a significant difference between the CONTROL and
RESPONSIBILITY scales. The respondents indicated more control over the 28
threats as stated than they indicated responsibility for the existence of those
threats. This finding could be attributed in part to the fact that some of the items
contained in the scale are beyond the power of human intervention (e.g., storms,
earthquakes, tidal waves, etc.). Yet, it is interesting that individual respondents
did not see themselves more centrally involved in the development, creation, and
use of products and practices that do cause environmental problems. Of the 28
items listed in the threat scales 15 of them are clearly human-generated threats,
seven are natural disasters (only forest fires could be both), and six are a result of
technologies that few people have any control over. With this preponderance of
human-generated threats in the scales, the measure of personal responsibility for
the existence of environmental threats could have been higher.

These results may reflect a disassociation with the impact of humans on the
environment. As pointed out in the literature review, the work of Swartz (1970)

and Heberlein (1975) supports this finding. They explain that re-interpretation or

68

denial of the normative expectation and disassociation of responsibility are
mechanisms used to reduce cognitive dissonance without changing behavior. The
respondents in this study have indicated a very low level of responsibility for the
existence of threat in spite of the fact that over 50 percent of the threats fall into
the human-generated category.

Taking into account all four scales, the respondents scored much higher on
the threat to ENVIRONMENT and threat to YOU scales than on the CONTROL to
ameliorate or RESPONSIBILITY for existence scales. This same pattern of mean
scale scores was obtained by Schmidt and Gifford (1989). They found means
higher for the ENVIRONMENT and YOU scales than for the CONTROL scale. The
comparable means and variations for the two studies provide some evidence that
these response patterns may be present in the population at large. These results
might indicate a sense of ”powerlessness” and a lack of responsibility among the
sample group. To the extent that these perceptions might generalize to the larger
population, it represents a significant problem for a consumer-oriented, democratic
society. Ultimately, it is each individual in concert with millions of other individuals
who have to ameliorate environmental problems and who must recognize that they
are truly, as a community of individuals, ultimately responsible for the development

and existence of present and emerging environmental problems.

69
I33 19:: =1 H ' 1 =: 01 II0 .0: A i=1 :~Hu.:1'

:Hrllf:.:_v:1' :1: hr :‘-1' vi 'IIMI : 0: 'rrlonua

unlit!-

This hypothesis was supported. Respondents with higher levels of
environmental commitment also had significantly higher scores on each of the four
scales. In all cases the more committed respondents had higher scale scores.
Respondents scoring higher on the four scales were more likely to have a stronger
desire or willingness to properly dispose of hazardous waste, contribute to
environmental causes, or alter consumer decisions to protect the environment.
While those with high commitment felt that environmental threats were more
serious, they also felt they had more control over these threats and were willing

to report that they felt a stronger degree of responsibility for the existence of these

threats.

4- Thr w'll . inifi n .. i'v ch. i I: 1 zoom: '
3.9,‘3.";'f¢Vi°1 ;nlhn:;;‘;o h.i :90 :0; i0 00ft:
W-

The action effect was not significant; therefore, this hypothesis was not
supported. Action in response to information received from the HMIL was depicted
as a dichotomous variable. If people said they acted on the information they
received from the hazardous materials management agent, they were considered
to have acted. However, if people said they did not act, they were considered to
not have acted. In some cases people said they did not act when in fact they

secured the hazardous material and stored it properly. The challenges researchers

70

have had over the years in trying to determine what constitutes action surfaced in
this research as well. PeOple define action in many different ways. A strong
recommendation for future research in this area is that a clear definition for action
be formulated and that several acceptable actions that are clearly related to the
object be established and linked. In this research, it could be argued that the phone
call itself constituted action. If the test results are interpreted as they appear
without concern for methodological problems, then we must conclude that there
is no relationship between appraisal of threat and overt action. If action is not
determined by an interpretation of a situation, it must be determined by something
else or by a combination of input to the cognitive process that is not reflected in
this study. In their extensive treatment of the subject of decision theory,
Fischhoff, Svenson, and Slovic (1987) describe a pattern of decision making prior
to action that utilizes the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) model. The SEU model
helps us understand how people make the decision to act or not to act. The
SEU..."designates probabilities as being subjective and consequences as being
evaluated in terms of utility, a generalized measure of desirability (Fischhoff, et al.
1987, 1123). Appraising the impact an environmental threat has on one and
deciding what to do about it require a very complex set of evaluations that include
both subjective or objective probabilities (will my neighbors find out that I dumped
my trash illegally and if so will they turn me in to the police and what will the cost
be?) and consequences (if all this happens will I lose my job?). People are really
interested in the cumulative impact of a decision on their life style.

The respondents in this research were asked whether they responded to the

recommendations they received from the HMM agent. However, their responses

71

could not be related statistically to their appraisal of threat as measured by the EAI.
This failure of the EAI to predict behavior is related to the complexity of the
behavior response. The appraisal of threat to self and environment, as well as the
feeling of control over the threat and the responsibility for it, are only some of the
variables involved in the decision to act. In addition, knowledge of consequences
must be explored, cost for action or no action must be considered, and opportunity
for action must be assessed.

To return to the example of residents living in a floodplain: although
residents of a floodplain continue to rebuild in spite of what they know might
happen, they are not buying the federally subsidized floodplain insurance and the
question is why not. The probability of a flood affecting them was great and the
consequences could be disastrous, and yet they did not respond to the opportunity
to take action and purchase flood insurance (Kunreuther, 1978). An extensive
survey of residents in floodplain areas determined that the primary reasons for their
decision to act or not act on the opportunity to purchase flood insurance was
whether their neighbors purchased it and whether they trusted the agent (which
most did not).

The use of a tool that measures people's appraisal of risk may be a
preliminary step in determining how people view risk and what their commitment

is to environmental quality, but it may not be a consistent predictor of action.

To assess and define all relationships between these variables, a regression
analysis was used. Stepwise linear regression was used with variables entered
first by levels of significance. A regression was performed for each scale, with the
scale being the dependent variable. The results of the YOU scale regression
indicated that experience contributed the most variance to the equation, with
commitment second. Age was third with an inverse relationship. The strong
appraisal of the scale items as posing a personal threat to self is logical if one has
had personal experience with environmental problems. The R2 was .09 and
accounted for 9 percent of the variance. In contrast, people have a tendency to
underestimate personal risk if they have had no experience. This dichotomy could
be providing inflated measurements for those who have had some experience. For
example, "Drivers who have never had a (serious) accident may not realize how
large a sample of experience is needed to estimate such low probability events
accurately" (Fischoff,et al. 1987, 26). Just one experience with an accident can
sensitize a driver to risks on the highway, in general, and perhaps to other
experiences based on personal performance. This response to a single personal
experience can be explained through a construct first presented by Tversky and
Kahneman (1971) called "belief in the law of small numbers". Indeed experience
may prove to be a valuable tool in value education if it can be simulated in such
a way as to provide cognitive impact that is lasting in a manner similar to personal

experience. Commitment and age contributed about equally to explaining the

73

variance. Commitment to environmental quality as measured by intended behavior
(willingness questions) would indeed be contributing to the variance of appraised
threat to the individual, since it is personal and related to one’s quality of life. The
inverse relationship of age to the scale scores is discussed in more detail below.
It is sufficient to say here that people who have lived longer, and experienced
more, are less likely to appraise threat the same as younger people might.

In the regression analysis for the ENVIRONMENT scale, three independent
variables entered into the equation at a significant level. These variables were
experience, age, and gender in that order. Again age had an inverse relationship
with the dependent variable. Gender made the smallest variance contribution, with
females perceiving more threat to the environment than men. Like the YOU scale
results, if a person has had personal experience with environmental degradation
whether it was a result of human- generated pollution or a natural hazard like an
earth quake--- their belief that the environment is indestructible has been shaken;
the belief in the law of small numbers takes over and a heightened awareness
causes people to respond strongly and exaggerate the informativeness of small
data sets (Fischoff, et al. 1987). Age contributed 7 percent of the variance.

In the regression analysis for the CONTROL scale, only two independent
variables entered the equation accounting for 11 percent of the variance. They
were age and commitment. Again an inverse relationship between age and the
scale scores was observed. Commitment, as measured by social welfare
intentions (willingness to drive, wait, spend), clearly has provided much of the
explanatory power of the regression analysis. As opposed to fear of the negative

consequences of an environmental threat, commitment indicates a positive belief

74

that one can impact environmental problems positively. Since the CONTROL scale
is a measure of a person's confidence that a threat could be ameliorated by him
or herself it is not surprising that this regression indicates a strong relationship
between the independent and the dependent variables of commitment and control.
This relationship might be explored further, but this research at least indicates that
in order to feel confidence to tackle an environmental problem, one must first be
committed to using one's resources (i.e., energy, money, time, etc.) to work on
a problem.

In the regression analysis for the RESPONSIBILITY scale we see two of the
independent variables that we have seen before---age and experience. Again age
was related in an inverse manner. The consistent presence of age as a
contributing variable and always in an inverse relationship may appear to be in
opposition to a common perception of middle-to advanced-age populations as more
knowledgeable and more focused on social issues, with more resources to
contribute, and, therefore, more responsive to environmental threats. These older
people might respond with a higher appraisal score on the YOU and
ENVIRONMENT scales since they have seen more. Older people might feel more
confidence to solve environmental problems since they have more resources and
more experience. They might also feel more responsibility for the existence of
environmental threats since they have been on this earth longer and may recall
some poor decisions in their youth that contributed to environmental pollution.
However, what may be overriding here is the experience of more senior members
of society who have "seen it all”. Older citizens with more experience might be

less willing to endorse the perception that many of these scale items pose a

75

serious threat to the ultimate fate of the environment. In this case their experience
coupled with their advanced age tells them that most declarations of environmental
crises are overdone and that in fact these so-called crises are just one more event
on the life continuum. In other words, as people age they are less sensitive to

threats of any kind and responded to the scales accordingly.

SCALE SUMMARY

The respondents' scores for the ENVIRONMENT scales were the highest.
They indicated that the scale items were more threatening to the environment than
to them personally. This response could be the result, as mentioned earlier, of a
feeling of personal immunity to threat as compared to the more vulnerable
environment, although the strong correlation between the YOU and ENVIRONMENT
scales indicates an understanding on the part of the respondents to the relationship
between humans and the environment. Respondents did indicate a low level of
control over environmental hazards. There are a number of reasons for the
perception of a low level of control. The most obvious is that some of the items
in the scale were acts of nature and clearly out of the control of individuals.
Another reason may have been because some of the items were technology-based
and the method of control was unknown. The strong relationship between the
commitment index and the scale scores does show that if indicated action is a
measure of overt action under certain circumstances, then the relationship between
the scales and action could be explored in new ways.

Probably the most disappointing result of this study was the lack of an

observed relationship between the scale scores and the action variable. It should

76

be noted that the one item YES/NO response to the action variable does not allow
the subtlety of the concept of action to be expressed. For example is it action if
the citizen who contacted the hazardous materials information line took the
information (e.g., a collection day was being held 20 miles away) and did not act
on the specific recommendation but instead carefully wrapped and labeled the
hazardous material and stored it under lock and key in a dry location? Action is
situation-specific and is defined by the individual implementing it. Action to one
person may be non-action to another. At least action should be quantified as an
index. An attempt was made to expand the action concept to an index in this
research. Unfortunately, the pattern of response was such that the additional items
used in the proposed index did nothing to clarify the action variable. The only
response used was YES I took action or NO I did not take action. The variations
on action explored further in the questionnaire were time (how quickly ) and
resources spent (how much). This was indeed a measure of commitment, but not

acfion.

PROGRAM DESIGN RESPONSE

The results of this study have ramifications for a number of programming-
related issues. As community educators design new curricula and modify existing
education materials, their decisions about program structure and content should
be based on research findings. There is a need to better understand how people
view environmental problems, how committed they are to environmental quality,
and what action they are willing to take to protect the environment. The

Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI) was developed by Schmidt and Gifford for

77

the purpose of exploring the contextual variables of the person-environment
relationship. These contextual variables are response to threat, control over threat,
and other variables that should influence personal behavior.

This research has utilized the EAI as a tool to better understand the
relationship between perceived threat and other contextual variables such as
experience with threat, intentions toward environmental threat, and socio-
economic situations. Results of this research can be focused on the following

program design questions:

1. What role does the appraisal of environmental threat play in action
or attitude change?

Individuals perceive threat to the environment as greater than threat to self.
This finding indicates that some members of society do not see themselves as
integral to the environment. This observation is in keeping with the notion that
many people see themselves as ”dominators" of nature and therefore above the
threats that impact the environment. It is also observed that since many sites of
environmental pollution are abandoned by residents due to their concern for
personal health and the health of their families they are able to make a change to
protect themselves. This perceived mobility may give people more confidence that
they can ameliorate the threat situation for themselves but not for the
environment. This finding supports the use of factual data on water quality, soil
viability, and air quality as a base for human habitation.

Residents need to know the impact that human habitation has on the

environment as well as what impact environmental pollution has on human health.

78

It may also support the use of references to intergenerational responsibility as a
motivator of behavioral change. Since factual data on environmental pollution
often is based on longitudinal studies indicating long term impacts, the description

of impacts on family futures as part of program context is reasonable.

2. What role does assessment of control over environmental threats

play in response behavior?

The mean scale score for CONTROL was low. Although the respondents
indicated more control over environmental threats than they indicated responsibility
for them, both mean scale scores were low. Since the measure of control was
defined as confidence to ameliorate environmental problems, we are equating
control with confidence. People in this study seem to feel a sense of
powerlessness when dealing with environmental problems. This finding could
support the use of more program development resources being used to establish
contact points for citizens to gain information and support. It might also support
more resources being allocated to environmental leadership development programs.
Educational efforts that build confidence in the general population would be

advisable based on these findings.

3. What role does perceived personal responsibility for environmental
hazards play in response behavior?

Since the lowest scale mean was that obtained for RESPONSIBILITY, it is

clear that the respondents did not feel responsible for the deterioration of the

environment. This finding might support the use of relational data being used in

79

program curricula. This relational data might include, for example, what the
minimum quantity of oil for aquifer contamination might be, or how much waste
can be diverted from a landfill if everyone recycles just one pound per day. The
extent to which small increments of hazardous materials cumulatively affect the
environment should be included in program text. Although not all listed
environmental threat in this research study has been generated by individuals, but
instead much is generated by individuals collectively and the realities of this
cumulative effect should be clearly represented in program materials. Before it is
effective to provide information about the effects of personal behavior on the
environment people need to understand the relationship of their behavior to
impacts. It is not effective to call on conscience if people do not see the

relationships.

4. What role does past life experiences play in responding to

environmental hazards?

More than any other variable in this research, life experiences emerged as
one of the most powerful contributors to environmental awareness and to people's
appraisal of threat. Respondents to the survey who had personal experiences
related to the items in the EAI scales, scored higher on all scales. Although we
cannot provide environmental crisis experiences for people on demand, it may be
possible to simulate these experiences and provide individuals with a feeling for the
experience. This finding provides strong support for experiential learning. Programs
that take citizens into the community to participate in environmental clean-up and

involve citizens in hazardous waste collection programs and habitat rehabilitation

80

efforts are all examples of planned experiential learning. This finding is also strong
support for parent-child programs that allow children to observe their parents
contributions to environmental quality. Problem solving at the local level that
involves young pe0ple is another possible program response. It is clear that this
finding may prove to be one of the most important, but one of the most difficult
to respond to, since this type of community activity is time consuming and can be

costly.

5. What role do current socio-economic circumstances play in

environmental response?

Based upon the data from this study, socio-economic variables were weak
explanatory variables. Except for the variable age, most were found to be only
moderately related to key constructs in the study. Very little explanation was
contributed by education, income, and other variables. Age was the strongest
contributor to understanding and that was an inverse relationship. Gender (female)
contributed minimally to the concern for environment. In site of the fact that the
socio-demographic profile of the sample population is the upper range other
research has indicated, the trickle-down (Morrison 1988) of environmental
problems has eliminated the class distinctions between those who care and those
who don’t care about the environment. In the past, environmental concerns for
forest preservation and wildlife habitat have been the purview of the affluent who
had the resources to pursue their concerns. Current environmental concerns are
focused primarily on environmental pollution, the depletion of the ozone layer, acid

rain, and other problems that intimately affect the population as a whole.

81

Therefore, it would not appear useful or wise to focus environmental programs on
any particular population but to focus them on the population in general. It is not
expected that all populations will respond in kind, but all levels of society are
impacted.

In general the findings in this research are in line with other research in the
field. However, the use of the EAI as a tool to determine threat appraisal enhances
our ability to develop environmental program materials with additional confidence.
Schmidt and Gifford (1989,57) base their research on the work of Lazarus and the
stress-response relationship. "Stress may be seen as being comprised of three
components: (a) the stimulus, (b) the individual's appraisal of the situation, and (c)
some form of response to the stimulus” (Lazarus, 1984, 17). The desired outcome
of environmental programs is a pro-environment attitude. That response should
be heightened awareness, increased knowledge, and positive practice change.
What stimulates that response is better understood because of the research done
on disposition to hazard appraisal. A direct relationship between citizens' appraisal
of situational variables and their response must be established if educators are to

be effective.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
As in any investigation, foreseen and unforeseen limitations were

encountered. Limitations associated with this study are listed below.

1. The non-random selection technique limits the generalizability of the

study conclusions. Although some general recommendations have

82

been drawn about program implications of this study, anyone
wishing to follow those recommendations should be aware that
implementation of this study in another state or country could yield
different findings. The users of the HMIL represent a unique, small
sub-population of concerned Michigan citizens.

2. The return rate of 62 percent may mean that non-response bias
could exist. Due to study methods and procedures, the extent of
non-response bias could not be assessed.

3. The depiction of the action variable as a yes/no response is probably
the most troublesome limitation of this study. Had the action
variable been a multi-item continuous variable, results from the study
might have been more definitive. Other information was collected on
other aspects of action but it was difficult to interpret. It was used
primarily to determine if the yes or no was reality based. In some
cases, for example, people said they did not act, when in fact they

secured the material and stored it properly.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Now that the EAI has been tested for validity and reliability and holds up as
a conceptually consistent instrument with good psychometric properties, it should
be used in future research, in other applications, and with other samples. It is
suggested that sub-scales be developed (i.e., natural hazards, technological
hazards, individual personogenerated hazards, and indoor workplace-related

hazards). Additional research could expand the sample population to a random

83

selection across states or across cultures. In this way the EAI could be used to
compare perception of environmental hazards between groups with known
differences. Longitudinal studies, as well as pre and post crisis studies could be
conducted using the EAI.

The use of the EAI as a measurement instrument has great potential as a
method for understanding the cognitive/relational interface between people and the
environment. It has the potential to help both government and industry, as well
as non-profit institutions and organizations, gain insights into that which motivates
people to respond to environmental crises and bring that knowledge to the decision
process. The EAI could be compared to other environmental attitude
measurements to determine effectiveness and to further refine the instrument. The
comparative elements of the survey could be expanded especially as related to the
action variable. The EAI could be tested on a random sample of the general

population in Michigan.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

GUIDE TO HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS AROUND THE HOME SURVEY

 

YOUR
RE WA RD

 

 

FOR BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE

Dear Survey Participant:

Within the last 18 months you have contacted one of the Hazardous Materials Information
Services, either in Baraga, Cheboygan, Oakland, or lngham counties. As a result of your
responsible behavior, some aspect of the environment is better protected.

In an effort to improve the quality of our service, we need to better understand you and your
response to the issue of environmental problems.

In return for your time and effort, we would like to send you a copy of the book, Guide to
Hazardous Products Around the Home, shown above.

We would appreciate your return of this questionnaire by November 15, 1990. Thank you.

Cynthia Fridgen
Waste Management Specialist

84

85

Instructions
LIST YOUR ZIP CODE HERE

Please read the question at the top of each set of scales carefully. The scale items are
identical but the question is different. Respond to every item--even if a certain hazard
is not a factor in your life or you have never heard of it, you can choose the response
”no threat.“ Work fairly quickly; do not deliberate long over each hazard.

DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE! You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire; all responses
will be confidential. Your questionnaire is coded for the purpose of documenting its
return and prompting us to send you a copy of A Guide to Hazardous Products around
the Home. At this point the relationship between your name and your questionnaire
will be destroyed. Please direct any questions concerning this questionnaire to Cynthia
Fridgen (517/355-9578). Thank you for your cooperation. Your support will help us
design more responsive environmental education and assistance programs.

Please return this questionnaire to:

Hazardous Materials Management Project
302 Natural Resources Building

Michigan State University

East Lansing MI 48824-1222

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS:

Use a soft black (no. 2) pencil only.
nfl lrmk rmrknhfr.
Circle the answer of your choice.

Erase cleanly when you want to change an answer.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.

22.
23.
24.

25.

86

Please rate how threatening the following problems are TO YOU by marking the

response that best describes your position.

Water pollution ......
Storms—lightning, hurri-
canes, tornados, snow,
etc ...............
Pollution from cars,
factories, and burning
trash .............
Smoking in public
buildings ...........
Acid rain ...........
Pollution from office
equipment, e.g., ozone
from photocopiers . . . .
Number of people—
crowding, increasing
population ..........
Fluorescent lighting
Water shortage, e.g.,
drought, water depletion
Noise pollution .......
Visual pollution—
billboards, litter, etc . . .
Radioactivity in building
materials, e.g., radon
gas ..............
Change to the ozone
caused by pollution
Earthquakes ........
Soil erosion .........
lmpure drinking water . .
Forest fires .........
Floods or tidal waves . .
Germs or micro-
organisms ..........
Radioactive fallout . . . .
Fumes or fibers from
synthetic materials—
asbestos, carpets,
plastics, etc ........
Chemical dumps .....
Video screen emissions .
Pesticides and herb-
icides .............
Groundwater pollution
from landfill seepage

No
Threat

AMinimlmmfimmmum

2

NNNNNN N

MN

NNN

3

com wwwwww OJ 0) (000 00)

OJ (.0 (.0000

4

b# ##hnhhh h

Jib-b

5

010101010101 01

0101

Very

6

0305 03050509030) 0) 0) (DO) (no:

0) 03050)

CD

7

\INNNNN

\IN

87

No Very

26. Air pollution from waste

to energy incinerators . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Surface water contamin-
ation from discarded . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. Ocean pollution from
dumping municipal solid
waste ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ll. Please rate how threatening the following problems are TO THE PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT by marking the response that best describes your position:

No Very
1. Water pollution ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Storms—lightning, hurri-

canes, tornados, snow,

etc ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Pollution from cars,

factories, and burning

trash ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Smoking in public

buildings ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Acid rain ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Pollution from office

equipment, e.g., ozone

from photocopiers . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Number of people—

crowding, increasing

population .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Fluorescent lighting . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Water shortage, e.g.,

drought, water depletion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Noise pollution ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Visual pollution—

billboards, litter, etc . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Radioactivity in building

materials, e.g., radon 4 5 6 7

gas .............. 1 2 3
13. Change to the ozone 4 5 6 7

caused by pollution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Earthquakes ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Soil erosion ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Impure drinking water . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Forest fires ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Floods or tidal waves . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Germs or micro-

organisms .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Radioactive fallout . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

28.

10.
11.

12.

Fumes or fibers from
synthetic materials—
asbestos, carpets,
plastics, etc ........
Chemical dumps .....
Video screen emissions .
Pesticides and
herbicides ..........
Groundwater pollution
from landfill seepage

Air pollution from waste
to energy incinerators . .
Surface water contamin-
ation from discarded
motor oil ...........
Ocean pollution from
dumping municipal solid
waste .............

No
Imam

88

__im_aIMin' mmmmm

NNN

(A) (A) 00 (00000

3

###

4

Very

O) O 0} 03030,

6

7

Please rate how much CONTROL you could personally exercise against each problem
if it became a serious threat to you (mark one response).

Water pollution ......
Storms—lightning, hurri-
canes, tornados, snow,
etc ...............
Pollution from cars,
factories, and burning
trash .............
Smoking in public
buildings ...........
Acid rain ...........
Pollution from office
equipment, e.g., ozone
from photocopiers . . . .
Number of people—
crowding, increasing
population ..........
Fluorescent lighting
Water shortage, e.g.,
drought, water depletion
Noise pollution .......
Visual pollution—
billboards, litter, etc . . .
Radioactivity in building
materials, e.g., radon
gas ..............

No

Control

__ma.Mini Immmmm

2

3

(a) com com

4

5

Very

6

O) 030') CDC)

7

89

No Very
92mm __a_Minim| mummmm ExLLerm

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.

Change to the ozone

Nd

caused by pollution . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Earthquakes ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Soil erosion ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Impure drinking water . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Forest fires ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Floods or tidal waves . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Germs or micro-

organisms .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Radioactive fallout . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fumes or fibers from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

syn-thetic

materials—asbestos,

carpets, plastics, etc . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Chemical dumps ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Video screen emissions . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Pesticides and

herbicides .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Groundwater pollution

from landfill seepage . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Air pollution from waste

to energy incinerators . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. Surface water contamin-

ation from discarded

motor oil ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
. Ocean pollution from

dumping municipal solid

waste ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Please rate how much PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY you feel for the existence of this
hazard (mark one response).

No
Respon- Very
§ibjlj1x Mm.) Mild Meditate Emma 51mm Em m
Water pollution ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Storms—lightning, hurri-

canes, tornados, snow,

etc ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pollution from cars,

factories, and burning

trash ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Smoking in public

buildings . . .' ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Acid rain ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pollution from office
equipment, e.g., ozone
from photocopiers . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

90

No
Respon- Very
£121th __a_Minim| mmmm .zLLeE rm
7. Number of people—
crowding, increasing

population .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Fluorescent lighting
9. Water shortage, e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

drought, water depletion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Noise pollution ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Visual pollution—

billboards, litter, etc . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Radioactivity in building

materials, e.g., radon

gas .............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Change to the ozone

caused by pollution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Earthquakes ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Soil erosion ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Impure drinking water . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Forest fires ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Floods or tidal waves . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Germs or micro-

organisms .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Radioactive fallout . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Fumes or fibers from

synthetic materials—

asbestos, carpets,

plastics, etc ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Chemical dumps ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Video screen emissions . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Pesticides and

herbicides .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. Groundwater pollution

from landfill seepage . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. Air pollution from waste

to energy incinerators . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. Surface water contamin-

ation from discarded

motor oil ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. Ocean pollution from

dumping municipal solid

waste ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Was your contact with the Hazardous Waste Materials information line related to (mark
one)--
[ l Home I I Farm I ] Business

MILES
2. Would you be willing to drive (mark one) I 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 farther] to
dispose of a hazardous material?

91

MINUTES
. Would you be willing to wait (mark one) l 10 20 3O 40 50 60 70 longer I to
dispose of a hazardous material?

DOLLARS
. Would you be willing to spend (mark one) I 1 5 1O 15 20 25 30 more I to
dispose of one gallon of toxic material?

EFFORT

. Would you be willing to make (mark one) I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more phone
calls) to find out the best possible option for disposing of an unwanted hazardous
material?

. Which of the following agencies/service units would you be most willing to contact for
information about the disposal of an unwanted hazardous material? (Please check three
in rank order with one being first choice.)

_ State of Michigan/Department of Environmental Health
__ County health department

_ Michigan Department of Natural Resources

__ Local community college

_ Michigan State University/Cooperative Extension Service
_ Local hospital

_ University of Michigan

_ United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
_ Wayne State University

_ Other, please specify

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order to find out how different people feel about various
issues, a demographic section is included below. Your answers to these questions are

confidenfiaL

Demographics: (Mark one)
I I Female
I I Male

AGE:
I I 18-25
I I 25-35
I I 35-45
I I 45-55
I I 55-65
I I 65+

INCOME: (Total taxable household income)

I I Less than $10,000

I I $10,000 to $19,999

I I $20,000 to $29,000

I I $30,000 to $39,999

I I $40,000 to $49,999

I I $50,000 to $59,999

I I $60,000 to $69,999

I I $70,000 or over

EDUCATION: (Level of education com-
pleted?)
I I Less than high school

I High school graduate

I Some college

I Associate’s or technical degree

I College graduate

I Graduate or professional degree

HHHHH

MARITAL STATUS:
I I Single/separated/divorced
I I Married/permanent relationship
I I Widowed

FAMILY STATUS: (Mark all that apply)
I I No children
I I Preschool children
I I Children K-12
I I Grown children

YOUTH ENVIRONMENT: (Where did you
spend most of your youth?
I I Urban
I I Suburban
I I Rural farm
I I Rural nonfarm

Number of brothers/sisters:
I Only child

I 1 sibling

I 2 siblings

I 3 siblings

I 4 siblings

I 5 siblings

I 6 siblings

I 6 or more siblings

”Hm—HRH”

Your place in the family:
I I Only
I I Oldest
I I Second oldest
I I Specify

 

Please fill in the appropriate answer space.
EXPERIENCES:

1.

Were your parents or grandparents
involved in pro-environmental causes?
Not Very
involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 involved
Don't know _

2. Do you contribute money to
environmental causes?
Substantial
None 12 3 4 5 6 7 amount
3. Have you or anyone in your family
been affected by environmental
pollution?
Not Seriously
affected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 affected
ACTION:

1.

Describe briefly

Have you acted on the information
you received from the Hazardous
Materials Information line?

I IYes I INo

 

 

 

 

2. If yes, did you act on the information

within:
I I 1 day I I 1 month
I I 2 days I I 2 months
I I 3 days I I more
I I 1-2 weeks
3. If no, was it because of:
I I Lack of opportunity
I I Cost
I I lnconvenience
I I Other (explain if you like)

4. Do you feel your action made a
difference in the quality of your
environment?

I I Yes
I I No
5. If yes, rate this difference.

Little Big
difference1 2 3 4 5 6 Difference

93

Give one brief example

6. Will you make different consumer deci-

sions as a result of the information you
received from the Hazardous Materials
Information line?

I I Yes

I I No

 

 

If yes, will these decisions cost more or
less?
Les51234567More

Have you (mark all that apply):
I I spent more
I I traveled farther
I I waited longer
I I made more phone calls

to dispose of hazardous materials than
before you called the Hazardous
Materials Information line?

How would you rate your personal
commitment to preventing
environmental pollution?

Low 1234567 High

94

10. What changes have you made as a result of your contact with the agent responding to
questions on the Hazardous Materials Information Line?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your time and effort. Please return the questionnaire in the self-addressed,
stamped envelope provided and we will send you a copy of the 220-page Guide to Hazardous
Products Around the Home.

LITERATURE CITED

Arbuthnot, J. (1977). The Role of Attitudinal and Personality variables in the
prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environment and
Behavior, 9, 217-232.

Ball-Rokeach, S., Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. W. (1984). The Great American Values
Test: Influencing Behavior and Belief Through Television. New York : Free
Press, 186-211.

Birch, A. L., & Schmid, A. A. (1980). Public Opinion surveys as guides to public
policy and spending. Social Indicators Research, 7, 299-311.

Bruvold, W. H. (1973). Belief and behavior as determinants of environmental
attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 5, 202-218.

Campbell, D.T., and Fiske, D.W. (1959). Covergent and discriminant validation by
the multigtrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Campbell, D.T. (1980) Chemical Carcinogens and Human Risk Assessment,
Federation Proceedings 39:8 June, 2467-2483.

Cassel, S. & Ehrenfeld, J. (1988). Beyond Collections: Managing Household
Hazardous Products, Report, Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Dev.
MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139.

Cassel, Scott, & Ehrenfeld, John (1988). Beyond Collections: Managing
Household Hazardous Products. Draft prepared by Hazardous Substances
Management Program, Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial
Development, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, for the Office of Solid Waste,
EPA.

Cohen, A., Colligan, M. J., & Berger, P. (1985). Psychology in health risk
messages for workers. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 27, 543-551.

Crawford-Brown, D. J., & Pearce, N. E. (1989). Sufficient proof in the scientific
justification of environmental actions. Environmental Ethics, 11, 153-167.

95

96

Cuckovich, W. P.. & Schwartz, S. I. (1989). Deposit-refund systems for managing
hazardous waste produced by small businesses. Journal of Environmental
Management, 29, 145-161 .

De Young, R. (1986). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The role
of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 15(4), 281-291.

Dixon, Wilfrid, J., Massey, Frank J. (1969). Introduction to statistical analysis.
3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY.

Douglas, M. (1985) Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Social
Research Perspectives, Russell Sage Foundation, NY.

Dunlap, R. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes
and actions. Environment and Behavior, 7, 428-451 .

Dunlap, Riley E., et al (1981). Human Values and Pro-Environmental Behavior.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1977). Comments and rejoinders. Journal of
Social Issues, 33, 200-212.

Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51,
380-417.

Fischoff, B. (1980) Clinical Decision Analysis, WM, 28, 28-43.

Fischoff, B., Svenson, O., & Slovic, P. (1987) Active Responses to Environmental
Hazards: Perceptions and Decision Making. In Handbook of Environmental
Psychology, D. Stokols and I. Altman (ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fitchen, J. M. (1985). The importance of community context in effective risk
management. Paper presented at the Society for Risk Analysis meeting,
Washington, D. C.

Fessenden-Raden, J., & Bisogni, C. A. (1985). Enhancing risk management by
focusing on the local level: An integrated approach. Paper presented at the
Society for Risk Analysis meeting, Washington, D. C.

Fessenden-Raden, J., & Fitchen, J. M., (1986). Community perspectives on
communication of risk. Paper presented as part of panel entitled Issues of
Responsibility in Risk Communication, Annual meeting of The Society for the
Social Study of Science, Pittsburg, PA.

Fitchen, J. M. (1987). Cultural aspects of environmental problems: Individualism
and chemical contamination of groundwater. Science, Technology, & Human
Values, 12, 1-12.

97

Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of
probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44-49.

Gallagher, D. R., & Smith, V. K. (1985). Measuring values for environmental
resources under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 1 2, 1 32- 1 43.

Geller, E.S., et al. (1982). Preserving the environment: new strategies for
behavior change, Pergamon Press, N.Y.

Glass, G. V., and Hopkins, K.D., (2nd ED.) (1984), Prentice Hall, NJ.
Golding, MP. (1972) Obligations to Future Generations, Mooist, 56: 85-99.

Gramann, J. H., & Vander Stoep, G. A. (1987). Prosocial behavior theory and
natural resource protection: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental
Management, 24, 247-257.

Guttentag, Marcia, Struening, Elmer L., (Ed) Vol. 2 (1975). Sage Publications, B.J.
London

Hance, B.J. (1988). Improving dialague with communities. Division of Research
and Development, New Jewsey Department of Environmental Protection.

Hatfield, TH. (1989) A Formal Analysis Toward Siting a Hazardous Waste
Incinerator, Journal of Envitonmental Management, 29, 73-81.

Heath, J. S., & Fessenden-Raden, J. (1986). Communicating risk: Factors affecting
community acceptance of information. Paper presented at the Society for Risk
Analysis meeting, Boston, Massachusetts.

Heberlein, T.A. (1975). Conservation information: The energy crisis and electricity
consumption in an apartment complex. Energy Systems and Policy. 1, 105-
117.

Hughes, B. F., & Bisogni, C. A. 1985). Regarding chemical contamination of
drinking water. Paper presented at the Society for Risk Analysis meeting,
Washington, D. C.

Keller, L. R., Sarin, R. K., & Weber, M. (1986). Empirical investigation of some
properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 38, 1 14-130.

98

Hunter, John E. and Gerbing, David W. (1982) Unidimensional measurement,
second order factor analysis, and causal models, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 267-320.

Johnson, J.H., Jr. (1985) A Model of Evaluation - Decision Making in a Nuclear
Reactor Emergency, fieograohioal Review, 75:4, 405-418.

Kachigan, Sam Kash (1982). Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Radius Press, NY.

Keller, R.L., Sarin JR. k., Weber, M. I1986) Empirical Investigation of Some

Properties of the Perceived Riskiness of Gambles, mm
W 38. 114-130.

Kinman, R. & Nutini, D. (1988) Household Hazardous Waste in the Sanitary
Landfill, Chemioal Iimee aoo Tteooe, Pueblo, CO 81009.

Koenig, D. J. (1975). Additional research on environmental activism. Environment
and Behavior, 7, 472-485.

Kunreuther, H., Ginsberg, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P.. Slovic, P., Barkan, B., & Katz, N.
(1978). Disaster insurince protection : Public policy lessons. New York: Wiley.

Lazarus, RS. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, NY:
Springer.

Lopes, L. L. (1984). Risk and distributional inequality. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 465-485 .

Lee, T. R. (1986). Public attitudes towards chemical hazards. The Science of the
Total Environment, 51, 125-183

Mckechnie, GE (1974). Environmental response inventory manual. PoloAlto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Miles, J. C. (1977). The study of values in environmental education. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 9, 5-17.

Mohai, P. (1985). Public concern and elite involvement in environmental
conservation issues. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 820-838.

Morrison, D. E. (1985). Some thoughts toward research on the social dimensions
of toxic/hazardous materials. A proposal for sabbatic leave, MSU.

Morrison, D. E. (1987). A tale of two toxicities. Prepared for the Annual Meetings
of the American Sociological Association, Chicago.

99

O'Riordan, T. (1971). Public opinion and environmental quality: A reappraisal.
Environment and Behavior, 3, 191-214.

Patterson, R. J., & Neufeld R. W. J. (1987). Clear danger: Situational determinants
of the appraisal of threat. Psychological Bulletin, 101 , 404-416.

WWW Unabridged Edition (1973).
Stein, J. ed., Random House, NY.

Rassbach, K. (1988) Annual Generation of Household Hazardous Wastes:
Implications for Long-Term Management, Report, Brown, Vence & Associates,
San Francisco, CA 94104.

Rassbach, Kate (1988). Annual Generation of Household Hazardous Wastes:
Implications for Long-term Management. A 13-page report discussing
importance of collecting household hazardous waste, difficulties with
statistical data, and reduction of toxic materials in products. Brown, Vence
& Associates, 120 Montgomery St., Suite 680, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals.
American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.

Rogers, EM. and Schumacher, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations, The
Free Press, N.Y.

Rotter, Julian B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external

control ofreinforcement. h l i I n r ' rl n Ii 80,
No. 1. APA, Inc.

Samdahl, D. M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental
concern: Specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21,
57-81.

Schmid, A. and Warren, Samuels (1981). Law and Economics: An Institutional
Perspective. STATE.

Schmidt, Faye N. and Gifford, Robert (1989), A dispositional Approach to hazard
perception: preliminary development of the environmental appraisal inventory,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 9, 57-67.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
Slovic, Paul., Fischhoff, Baruch., and Lechtenstein, Sarah. (1983). The

Psychometric Study of Risk Perception in Public Perceptions of Risk, Decision
Research, a branch of Perceptronic Eugene, OR.

100

Starr, Chauncey (1969) Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk, Sojeuoe 165:
1232-1238.

Stokels, D. (Ed.) (1977). Perspectives on environment and behavior: theory,
research, and applications. Plenum Press, NY, Lo.

Stokels, D. Altman, Irwin (eds) (1987). Handbook of Environmental Psychology.
John Wiley & Sons, NY.

Schwartz, SH. (1970). Moral decision making and behavior. In J. Macauley & L.
Berkowitz (Ed), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic.

Thomas, Kerry (1981) Comparative Risks Perception: How the Public Perceives

the Risks and Benefits of Energy Systems, WW
London A376: 35-50

Tull, D.S. and Hawkins (1990). Marketing Research: measurement & methods,
McMillan Co. NY.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). The belief in the "law of small numbers.”
Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110.

Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior:
An application of Schwartz's norm-activation model to yard burning. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology. 8, 174-188.

Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, Oskar (1953) The Theory of Games and
Economic Behavior, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wartofsky, Marx W. (1983) Risk, Relativism and Rationality in Public Perceptions
of Risk, Decision Research, a branch of Perceptronics Eugene, OR.

Wenger, R. B., & Yue, R. (1987). Two fuzzy set models for comprehensive
environmental decision—making. Journal of Environmental Management, 25,
167-180.

Werner, P. D. (1978). Personality and attitude-activism correspondence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 36, 1375-1390.

Willard, D. E., & Swenson, M. M. (1984). Why not in your backyard? Scientific
data and nonrational decisions about risk. Environmental Management, 8, 93-
99.

Wilson, R. (1979). Analyzing the daily risks of life. Technology Review, 41-46.

Zeckhauser, R.J. & Viscusi, W.K. (1990) Risk within Reason. 5.2% 248, 559-
563.

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs