!!!!!!!"#$%&'()*!+,"!%()-!."+/"")!")0('&)1")+2%!(3")+(+45!.",20(&'6!2)3! 3"7(6(&)!12-() G By Allison Freed A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Educational Psychology and Educational Technology - Doctor of Philosophy 2015 !!!!!!!!!!!!!ABSTRACT "#$%&'()*!+,"!%()-!."+/"")!")0('&)1")+2%!(3")+(+45!.",20(&'6!2)3! 3"7(6(&)!12-() G By Allison Freed This study was conducted with undergraduate students at a large university to investigate the association between environmental identity , pro-environmental behaviors and environmental decision -making. This study explo red how environmental identity as defined by Clayton (2003) influence d the type of pro -environmental behaviors individuals cho ose to participate in . Environmental decision -making based on KahnemanÕs (200 3, 2011) System 1 and System 2 framework was also assess ed in association with environmental identity. A survey including the Environmental Identity Survey (Clayton, 2003), the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index (Smith -Sebasto & DÕAcosta, 1995), and a Decision Making Questionnaire were administered. A fter administering the surveys, eight participants were chosen for a 60 -minute interview . The quantitative results of the study showed there was a significant relationship between environmental identity and participating in environmental behaviors more often. There was also a significant relation between environmental identity and making the decision to recycle in a fast and automatic way. The inte rview results showed that participants with both a strong and a weak environmental identity recycled often and thought it was a fast decision. The results of this study show that certain components of environmental identity are important, but other factors like the physical environment and social norms influence the thinking that goes into recycling more than environme ntal identity alone. This study provides evidence of the importance of social norms and environmental structures in fostering pro -environment al behaviors and influenc ing the type of thinking that goes into making environmental decisio ns. !!!!!!!!!!!!! Keywords : environmental identity, environmental behaviors, System 1, System 2, recycling !!!!!!!!!!!!!89! I dedicate my dissertation to my late father, Orville Webster. He had an incredible influence on my life, especially when it came to enjoying the natural environment and caring about the world around me. I hope I can have as deep of an impact on my own son . !!!!!!!!!!!!!9!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am thankful for my family including my husband , Jesse , my mother Melodee and my son Liam for their support during the writing process . The process would have been much more difficult without your encouragement, assistance, listening ear s and love. Also, thank you for allowing me to practice presentations and read my papers aloud to you. I also want to thank my advisor, Dr. David Wong. You have been an exceptional advisor, role model, and friend to me over the las t five years. Thank you for always believing in me. I want to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Charles ÒAndyÓ Anderson, Dr. Matt Ferkany and Dr. Kelly Mix. I appreciate your feedback, guidance and support. In addition, I could not have d one this study without the Reflections on Learning and Introduction to Sustainability instructors and students. Thank you for your time and interest. I want to acknowledge Ivan Wu for assisting me with the statistical analysis. In addition, I would like to thank my sister in law, Liz Hutto for her help with law-like arguments . You are a lifesaver! !!!!!!!!!!!!!98!TABLE OF CONTENT S LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURE S xii CHAPTER 1 ÑINTRODUCTION 1 Research Questions 2 Definition of Terms 3 CHAPTER 2 ÑLITERATURE REVIEW 5 Environmental Identity 5 Pro -Environmental Behaviors 10 System 1 and System 2 Thinking 13 Research Questions 19 CHAPTER 3 ÑMETHODOLOGY 21 Participants 21 Procedure 22 Instruments 25 Environmental Identity Scale 25 Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index 28 Decision Making Questionnaire 29 Quantitative Data Analysis 33 Interview Protocol 37 Qualitative Data Analysis 39 CHAPTER 4 ÑRESULTS 43 Quantitative Results 43 Demographics of Study Participants 43 Descriptive statistics for the Environmental Identity Scale, Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire results for entire sampl e 45 Sustainability Participants are Significantly More Environmentally Active than Edu cation Participants 47 Research Question 1: What is the nature of the association between environmental identity and environmentally responsible behavior? 50 Participants with Strong Environmental Identities Participate in Environmentally Responsible Behaviors More Often 50 Research Question 2: How does environmental identity influence how one thinks about making environmental decisions? 52 Descriptive stati stics for the Decision Making Questionnaire 52 Participants with Strong Environmental Identities Make Fast 53 !!!!!!!!!!!!!988!Decisions to Recycle, but Education and Sustainability Participants Use System 1 Thinking Education and Sustainability Participants Use System 1 Thinking when Recycling 55 Qualitative Results 57 Summary 61 Description of interview participants 63 Environmental Identity and Behaviors: What is the nature of the association between environmental identity and participating in pro-environmental behaviors? 65 Theme 1: Families Influence Pro -Environmental Behaviors 67 Theme 2: Values and Priorities Influence Participation in Pro -Environmental Behaviors 72 Theme 3: Participants with Weak Environmental Identities Can Be Influenced to Act in Pro -Environmental Way s 76 Environmental Identity and Systems Thinking: How does environmental identity influence how one thinks about making environmental decisions? 82 Theme 1: Environmental Identity did not Affect the Type of Thinking Used to Recycle 83 Theme 2: The Physical Environment Makes Recycling Easy 86 Theme 3: Recycling Elicits Emotions 89 Theme 4: College Students ArenÕt Political 92 CHAPTER 5 ÑDISCUSSION 96 Quantitative Results Summary 96 Qualitative Results Summary 96 Convenience and the Physical Environment Influence Recycling Behavior 97 Family Values and Social Norms Influence Recycling Behavior 100 Summary 102 CHAPTER 6 ÑCONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 104 Implications for Research and Practice 105 APPENDICES 109 Appendix A. Survey Instruments 110 Appendix B. Interview Protocol 117 Appendix C. Consent Form 121 Appendix D. Instructional Review Board Approval Letter 124 Appendix E. Sample Interview Transcripts 125 Appendix F. Qualitative Coding 163 Appendix G. Additional Qualitative Data 165 !!!!!!!!!!!!!9888!REFERENCES 173 !!!!!!!!!!!!!8:!LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Characteristics of System 1 and 2 16 Table 2. Research questions and corresponding data sources 19 Table 3. Interview participantsÕ pseudonyms and survey scores 24 Table 4. Interview participantsÕ demographic information 24 Table 5. Environmental identity scale constructs and the CronbachÕs alpha 27 Table 6. Environmentally responsible behaviors index constructs and the CronbachÕs alpha 29 Table 7. Survey instrument descriptions and definitions 31 Table 8. Data analysis and reasons for conducting analysis 36 Table 9. Description of codes and themes 40 Table 10. Academic standing of all participants 43 Table 11. Participant gender 44 Table 12. Childhood home location of all participants 44 Table 13. Academic major breakdown denoted by College 45 Table 14. Descriptive statistics for survey results 46 Table 15. Descriptive statistics of survey scores separated into Education Participant and Sustainability Participant groups 47 Table 16. Descriptive statistics for Environmental Identity Scale and Environmentally Responsible Behavior Index Education and Sustainability groups 48 Table 17. ANOVA results for the comparison of the Education participants and the Sustainability participants mean scores on the Environmental Identity Scale and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index 50 !!!!!!!!!!!!!:!Table 18 . Correlation between environmental identity and participating in environmentally responsible behaviors for entire sample 51 Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for the Environmental Identity and Decision Making scales for entire sample 53 Table 20. Correlations between environmental identity and decision making for entire sample 53 Table 21. Descriptive Statistics Environmental Identity Scale and Decision Making Questionnaire for the Education and Sustainability groups 55 Table 22. ANOVA results for the comparison of the mean scores on the Decision Making Questionnaire 55 Table 23. Interview participantsÕ pseudonyms and survey scores 62 Table 24. Interview participantsÕ answers to identity interview questions 64 Table 25. Number of family references during the interview 68 Table 26. Interview participants report of being a teacher of environmental behaviors or a learner of environmental behaviors 81 Table 27. Interview participant pseudonyms and number of references to college 87 Table 28. Qualitative Coding Workbook 163 Table 29. Descriptive statistics for the Education and Sustainability group scores on the Environmental Identity subscales. 165 Table 30. ANOVA results for the comparison of the Education participants and the Sustainability participants mean scores on the Environmental Identity Scale subscales. 166 Table 31. Test of Homogeneity of Variances between Education and Sustainability Environmental Identity subscales 167 Table 32. ANOVA results for the comparison of the Education participants and the Sustainability participants mean scores on the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index subscales. 168 Table 33. Test of Homogeneity of Variances between Education and Sustainability participants on Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index subscales 169 !!!!!!!!!!!!!:8!Table 34. Test of Homogeneity of Variances between the Education and Sustainability groups Environmental Identity Scale and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index scores 169 Table 35. Descriptive statistics for each item on the Decision Making Questionnaire for Education and Sustainability groups 169 Table 36. ANOVA results for the individual Decision Making Questionnaire items comparing the Education and Sustainability groups 170 Table 37. Test of Homogeneity of Variances for the individual Decision Making Questionnaire items 171 Table 38. Mann -Whitney test results for the individual items on the Decision Making Questionnaire 172 !!!!!!!!!!!!!:88 !LIST OF FIGURES !!Figure 1. Fast and slow thinking examples. (Images from Kahneman, 2011) 15 Figure 2. Factor analysis scree plot for the Decision Making Questionnaire 31 Figure 3. Scatterplot showing relationship between environmental identity and frequency of participating in environmentally responsible behaviors 52 Figure 4. Scatterplot showing relationship between environmental identity and type of thinking about environmental decisions. 54 Figure 5. Recycling bins on campus. 99 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;!7,2$+"'!; <()+'&3=7+(&) !! Many studies over the years have shown that the general American population knows there are environmental problems and that individuals are concerned about the environment, especially for future generations (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Kempton, Boster, & Hartley, 1996; Kempton & Holland, 2003). The major question many environmental educators and environmental psychologists are now asking is Òwhy do so few people actually participate in environmentally responsible behaviors and make environmentally sound decisions? Ó This question has been researched and two common answers come out of the findings. One common theme is that people answer survey que stionnaires about the environment in socially desirable ways, yet do not hold strong enough convictions to actually act consistently across contexts . Another common reason is people may hold values or worldviews that are consistent with concern for the env ironment, but those values are not as salient as other social values like showing up the neighbor with a new SUV or sports car. Many times, upholding a social status is much more important than dedicating time and energy to being more environmentally frien dly (Kempton & Holland, 2003). Based on these results, environmental attitudes can influence behaviors, but seem to be weak indicators of the salience of prolonged participation in pro-environmental behaviors and making pro-environmental decision s across a variety of contexts (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995; Stets & Biga, 2003). Attitudes and beliefs are complex constructs that can sometimes be predictors of behaviors (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 1999; Stets & Biga, 2003). According to Diekmann and Preisendoerfer (1992), the discrepancy between environmental attitudes and behavior can be explained using a low cost/high cost model. People choose pro -environmental behaviors that require the least economic and psychological ( i.e. time, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>!effort, motivation) cost. In their study, they found that environmental attitude and pro -environmental behaviors such as recycling were significantly correlated but other pro -environmental behaviors like flying or driving less did not correlate with environmental attitudes. Under certain conditions a strong relationship between attitudes and behavior exists (Stets & Big a, 2003). However, a major criticism of attitude /behavior research is its lack of consideration to oneÕs sense of self and identity ( Clayton, 2003; Stets & Biga, 2003) . According to Stets and Burke (2002), an important assumption in research on identity is that the self is the most important motivator of any behavior (Stets & Biga, 2003). In addition , values and attitudes are a part of an individualÕs identity. A ccording to Zavestoski (2003), attitudes and values are mapped onto the cognitive structure of one Õs self -concept , so logically identity should influence behavior. According to Stets and Biga (2003, p. 420), Òidentity f actors improve our power to predict behavior (compared to attitudes) . In a study conducted by Stets and Biga (2003), the findings showed that when controlling for environmental identity, ecological worldview attitudes had no effect on environmental behavi or. Having an ecological worldview , in turn is not always associated with pro -environmental behaviors. This may be because the worldview is just a set of general beliefs not related tightly to specific behaviors (Stets & Biga, 2003). These findings help to support the use of environmental identity as a variable with important and significant implications for participation in pro-environmental behaviors and possibly environmental decision -making. Research Questions Studying environmental identity has promi se for better understanding why individuals act in particular ways toward the environment. Little has been done to study the direct relationship !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!between identity and pro -environmental behaviors and in particular the link between environmental identity and environmental decision -making. This study will help to answer the following questions that will inform environmental education. 1. What is the nature of the association between environmental identity and pro -environmental behaviors? 2. How does environmental id entity influence thinking about environmental decisions? Definition of Terms Decision -making: is one of the basic cognitive processes of human behaviors by which a preferred option or a course of actions is chosen from among a set of alternatives based on certain criteria (Wang & Ruh e, 2007, p. 73). Environmental identity: is how one views oneself in relation to the natural world. Environmental identity is part of the way in which one forms his/her self -concept and a sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman natural environment, based on personal history, emotional attachment, and/or similar ity. This connection in turn affects the ways in which one perceives and acts toward the world. In other terms, a belief that the environment is important to a person and an important part of who that person is (Clayton, 2003). Ecological identity: refers to all the different ways one can construe oneself in the relationship to the earth and can be manifested in personality, values, actions, and sense of self (Thomashow, 1995). Pro-environmental behaviors or Environmentally responsible behaviors : A personÕs behavior that are consciously chosen to minimize the negative impact of oneÕs actions on the natural and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@!built world (e.g. minimize resource and energy consumption, use of non -toxic substances, reduce waste production)Ó (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) . System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious thinking (Kahneman, 2011). System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious thinking (Kahneman, 2011). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A!CHAPTER 2 ÑLITERATURE REVIEW Environmental Identity Identity is a difficult construct to define and has two conceptual Òcamps.Ó Identity is sometimes thought to be solely individual and it is also sometimes thought of as a social construction . Identities in essence can be broken down into personal and social identities (Gee, 2000). Many personal identities influence how others view individual s and socially imposed identities can change oneÕs individual self-perception (Clayton, 2003). Personal iden tities are based on individual traits, va lues and abilities. Social identities are reflected in oneÕs position in a social network and influence group memberships . Group identities are based on shared attributes which include physical features like skin color and internal features such as val ues and attitudes (Clayton, 2003 ). Group identities are developed through interactions with like -minded people. For example, group membership within political action groups or soccer teams can influence the groupÕs attitudes and values. According t o Ryan and Deci (2003), identities are acquired over time within particular social and political contexts . Society affects identity in many ways. One way in which the social context affects identity is by making certain personality or behavioral attributes more salient and giving the certain attributes more significance over others in particular contexts. This can be seen in some cultures in the way religion and gender is highlighted. Another way social context impacts identity is in the way identities can be fluid or fixed. Identities that are fluid can change depending on time and place and are much more flexible according to societyÕs way of thinking. Fixed identities stay stable and do not change over time. For example, identity choice in Western societ ies is much more fluid today than in the past. This has resulted from the greater flexibility !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B!individuals have in deciding on geographic location, religious affiliation, political ideology, and occu pational identity (Clayton, 2003 ). The concept of identi ty within this study will follow StrykerÕs (1980) position that the self is situated in the context of society and identity comes from social interactions (Stets & Biga 2003). ÒThe self reflects society, resulting in a differentiated self organized into m ultiple parts or identities which are enacted in local social networksÓ (Blatt, 2013, p. 468). In this view, an individual will assume multiple roles within a social network, which results in a variety of situational identities coming from different setti ngs. The identities are all organize d within a salience hierarchy. The identities that are high on the salience hierarchy are more likely to be enacted across contexts (Blatt, 2013). Gee (2000) views identity in a similar way stating , Òall people have multiple identities connected not to their Òinternal statesÓ but to their performances in societyÓ (p. 99). For example, one individual may act and talk in a way that allows him to be a part of a street gang in one context, but in anothe r context like school he acts like an honors student. Identity can be further divided into how one connects with the natural environment and how this connection influences oneÕs self -concept or sense of self. This identity is called environmental identit y. It is developed through interactions with nature, membership with environmental groups, and attached to oneÕs ideology about environmental issues like environmental education and political action for the environment (Clayton, 2003). Environmental iden tity, according to Clayton (2003) is how one views oneself in relation to the natural world. Environmental identity is part of the way in which one forms his/her self -concept. It includes a sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman natural environm ent that is based on personal history, emotional attachment, and/or , similarity. This connection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C!affects the ways in which one perceives and acts toward the world and within social interactions . Ultimately, environmental identity is a belief that the env ironment is important to a n individual and is an important part of who that person is and affects how one acts upon the world (Clayton, 2003). Identity is malleable over time, connected to practice, informed by social interactions, and can be impacted by e ducation al experiences (Gee, 2000; Riggs Stapleton, 2015) Environmental identity is a socially constructed self -concept that is based on the connection and interdependence with the natural world (Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Stets & Biga, 2003). Environmental identity has both social and environmental influences and it can have behavioral implications across situations and contexts (Stets & Biga, 2003). For example, a stronger environmental identity can predict pro -environmental atti tudes and behaviors and is also associated with a desire for animal rights (Clayton, Fraser & Burgess, 2011). Environmental identities are inherently social because identity depend s on a common social meaning and understanding of what nature is and how it is to be Òrevered, reviled, or utilizedÓ (Clayton, 2003, p. 10). According to Clayton (2003), social variables actually affect how much one is able to focus on the natural environment and how one interprets what is seen. Environmental identity is also inf luenced by social interactions. For instance, Clayton and Opotow (2003) mention that environmental identities are influenced by social factors including group membership and other social categories such as political party , values, ideology and in turn affe ct activism behavior in the form of voting and other activism behaviors . As highlighted by Clayton (200 3) and Stets and Biga (2003), identity can play a greater role in influencing behavior than attitudes and worldview . In comparison to attitude theory, identity theory incorporates the social structure of behavior as well as the fact that individuals have multiple identities and roles and positions in a complex society (Stets & Biga, 2003). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D!According to Clayton ( 2003), having an environmental identity mak es one more conscious of oneÕs membership to a Òcollective, interdependent system , including natural ecosystems .Ó Through this understanding, one recognizes the significance of nonhuman members of the environment and that nonhuman rights are limited and ultimately influence d by human actions and behaviors (Clayton, 2003). Clayton (2003) believes environmental identity is a motivating force for individuals to act in ways that protect the environment and in turn their identities will guide social, political, and personal behavior. According to Clayton, this is why people choose to buy an acre of rainforest or pick up trash along the roadways. When the success of a natural entity is made more Òself relevantÓ it is worth more to an individual and worth the effort to take action (Clayton, 2003, p. 60). Recently, studies have investigated the development and overall maintenance of environmental identities in environmental activists, students in an environmental science class, and participants i n a study abroad program. To gain information about how environmental identity is developed, Kitchell, Kempton, Holland, and Tesch (2000) conducted a qualitative study with about 159 members of environmental organizations to investigate the participantsÕ involvement in the environmental movement. Kempton and Holland (2003) developed a model for environmental identity development that included three interrelated stages (Blatt, 2013; Riggs Stapleton, 2015) : 1. Salience, or awareness of environmental problems 2. Empowerment or i dentification as an actor in the environmental context and gaining agency in solving problems 3. Activism , or becoming more knowledgeable about how to engage in environmental action, mentorship and educating less experienced members !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!E!In the sal ience stage, an individual becomes more aware of her relationship with the natural environment, environmental issues, and how others are involved with environmental action (Riggs Stapleton, 2015). In this stage, the individual will likely view herself as harmful to the environment, yet still connected to the environment in some way (Blatt, 2013). In the empowerment stage of environmental identity development, the individual feels li ke a protector of nature as a part of the natural environment and in turn finds the agency necessary to take pro -environmental actions (Kempton & Holland, 2003; Riggs Stapleton, 2015). In the final activism stage, the knowledge attained through environmental action makes the individual an ÒexpertÓ in doing their part to help co mbat environmental issues. As ÒexpertsÓ and knowledge agents, individuals in the activist stage take on mentorship roles. This theory was developed after analyzing the identities of individuals already participating in activist behaviors, so itÕs important to use this with caution when considering undergraduate students that may or may not have strong environmental identities. However, this stage theory provides a structure to use when analyzing how environmental identity influences the types of environmental behaviors one participates in and how frequently individuals participate. In addition it may provide some insight into the connection between environmental identity and how on e thinks about making decisions to participate in environmental behaviors. Zavestoski (2003) conducted a study with participants of a deep ecology workshop in Washington. The workshop participants were at the retreat to further their connection with the environment and to be with other like minded individuals. As part of the study , Zavestoski made observations and asked questions about p articipants Õ self concept and ecological identity. He found that participants had a strong ecological identi ty and in t urn valued the workshop because of the chance to spend time with other likeminded individuals and the chance to become more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;F!connected to the environment. Zavestoski found from his interviews that p articipants chose careers with more of an environmental foc us, many participants practiced spiritual rituals that related to their environmental concerns, and participants were also likely to seek out events and workshops that would allow them to network with similar people. Based on this anal ysis, Zavestoski con cluded that ecological identities much like environmental identities inform the actions and decisions concerning how one conducts oneÕs life including important life choice s such as membership to particular groups, career choice, and religious choice (Zave stoski, 2003). ZavestoskiÕs study upholds ClaytonÕs (2003) theory of environmental identity. It shows that environmental identity is developed through direct experiences in nature and upheld while being with people who have similar identities and values to ward the environment. Pro-Environmental Behaviors Environmental identity can help explain the environmental actions and pro -environmental behaviors individuals choose to participate in (Stets & Biga, 2003). Action , choice, and behavior are all part of oneÕs environmental identity (Thomashow, 1995; Clayton, 2003; Blatt, 2013). Clayton (2003) claims that an environmental identity can influence the actions and behaviors one takes in the social, personal, and political spheres (Thomashow, 1995; Zavestoski, 2003; Blatt, 2013). Behaviors and identities can influence each other in a complex, dialogical manner. The relationship is reciprocal , behaviors can influence identity and identity can influence behavior (Blatt, 2013). According to Clayton (2003 ), an environmental identity can be nurtured and used to encourage conservation behavior when the natural objects being protected are somehow tied to the self. This influence and relationship between environmental identity and behaviors does not mean that they are linked exclusively. It does mean that oneÕs understanding of the varying levels of salience of various identities within an individual can lead !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;!to a firmer understanding of the actions of that individual (Burke, 1980). Heimlich, Mony, and Yocco (2 013) believe pro -environmental behaviors are directed at solving a problem and are determined by those who will carry out the behaviors. In reality, pro -environmental behaviors do not describe an exhaustive set of specific behaviors, but represent a group of behaviors that an individual thinks is environmentally friendly, even though there may be other, more sound environmental behavior s that exist (Heimlic h & Harko, 1994 ). In the study conducted by Stets and Biga (2003) with university students in the northwest United States showed that environmental attitudes and worldview had no effect on pro -environmental behaviors while environmental identity was a significant predictor of such behaviors. Stets and Biga (2003) found that identity was a key motivator for behaviors. This may be because individuals act in a way that verifies upholds , or reciprocates their identity. According to Stets and Biga (2003), Òidentity factors impr ove our power to predict behavior , because identity theory rests on the important sociological assumption that humans are embedded in a social structure in which behavior is chosen, not on the basis of discrete, personal decisions, but on the basis of comp eting demands stemming from the many positions one assumes in societyÓ (p. 420). For instance, a n individual makes a decision to buy organic foods for reasons that are tied to their positions in the world . These positions are inevitably linked to their identity and self concept. These positions could include environmental identity, socio -economic status, career, and/or social group membership. If an individual has a strong environmental identity, he or she will make decisions and behave consistently based on the tenets of his or her environmental identity across situations . Kempton and Holland (2003) found that several types of identity are correlated with civic actions for the environment. In their study, 159 members of environmental ci vic groups were !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>!interviewed to assess the correlation of identity with environmental action. Kempton and Holland were able to code 159 interviews including participantsÕ twenty responses to the ÒWho am I?Ó question an identity instrument and intervieweesÕ responses to the self -report of environmental actions taken . The coding analysis categorized identities into major types. Identity categories consisted of: consumer identity, activist, gardener, environmentalist, etc. Actions were coded into environment al actions such as consumer and citizen actions, Civic environmental actions (writing letters and attending meetings) correlated significantly with the identities activist , environmentalist, and membership in environmental groups. The identity of environm entalist correlated significantly with the number of group memberships one possessed . Knowing only three identities, whether a person is an environmentalist, activist, or animal lover explained 27% of the variance in the number of civic environmental acti ons taken (Kempton & Holland, 2003 ). These findings are promising in making a connection between identity and civic environmental actions and behaviors, however these data only came from individuals already invested in environmental causes and groups. In addition, these identities (i.e. environmentalist) did not correlate with the consumer actions (i.e. recycling and riding a bike) . These findings may not hold up with a group of individuals wi th varying levels of environmental identity . Environmental identity may predict some pro -environmental behaviors. The higher oneÕs environmental identity the stronger likelihood of participating in particular pro -environmental behaviors . This linkage could possibly extend to behaviors that align with more complex environmental behavior s such as becoming an activist for environmental issues (Heimlich et al, 2013). Clayton (2003) found a relationship between participating in environmental behaviors and environmental identity. However, the relationship m ay not include all environmental behaviors. For instance, the results of the Kempton and Holland (2003) study showed that environmental !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?!identity did not correlate with consumer behaviors like recycling. In addition to giving the Environmental Identity Sc ale, Clayton also gave participants a 21 item self report behavior scale in which participants indicated on a five point scale the extent they participated in certain sustainable actions such as turn lights off when leaving a room and donate money to environm ental organizations (Clayton, 2003). The environmental identity scores were significantly correlated with environmental behaviors (r= .64). In addition, the Kempton and Holland (2003) study conducted to better understand how people form identities that include themselves as environmental actors might provide some evidence of the correlation between environmental identity and certain environmental action s. Kempton and Holland (2003) found that there was a relationship between environmental identities and environmental actions taken. On the other hand, the results of the Kempton and Holland (2003) study showed that environmental identities such as activist and environmentalist did not correlate with consumer behaviors like recycling. This was seen in the p articipantsÕ narratives, the list of action s taken, group membership , and the ir description of their relationship between identity and action. What is missing in the literature is the examination of the link between environmental identity and the more comp lex and critical pro -environmental behaviors. System 1 and System 2 Thinking As environmental issues become more complex and imminent, individuals will have to make more challenging environmental decisions for the sake of the Earth and for the survival of the human population . One prerequisite to making well -informed decisions is to be rational, however humans are irrational being s and make decisions in quick and biased ways that can sometimes get them into trouble (Covitt, Dauer & Anderson, in press). Decision making about complex and socially relevant environmental issues can be especially tricky. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@!The sense making process is very fast, intuitive and effortless. These intuitions easily occur and donÕt need to be questioned for accuracy or uncer tainty. These seemingly clear answers are not all that clear and well defined as the one making the decisions may have thought. In fact, what one sees may not be all there is (Kahneman, 2011). In Figure 1, you see two images. One image is of an angry wom an. One can sense her anger because oneÕs System 1 automatically assessed her mood and quickly came to a premonition quickly (Evans, 2008; Kahneman, 2011). The other image has two lines. If one glances at the lines, one would say the top line is longer th an the bottom line. If someone told an individual that the lines were the same length, one may not believe him. One would have to decide to slow down, take a closer look, measure the lines and realize that it is an illusion meant to tap into oneÕs more ana lytical, critical thinking System 2 (Covitt et al., in press). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;A!System 1 System 2 You use System 1 to be ready for what might be coming your way. You use System 2 to determine if these lines are the same length. Figure 1. Fast and slow thinking examples . (Images from Kahneman, 2011 ) According to Kahneman (200 3, 2011) and m any other cognitive researchers , the way individuals make decisions and judgments can be divided into two distinct cognitive processing groups: System 1 a nd System 2 (Stanovich, 1999; Evans, 2008) . System 1 judgments and decisions are fast, automatic, effortless, associative, implicit, and many times emotionally charged (Kahneman, 200 3, 2011). Table 1 outlines the characteristics of System 1 and 2 thinking. Decisions made in System 2 are more conscious, effortful, deliberately controlled, easily flexible, and rule driven (Kahneman, 200 3, 2011). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;B!Table 1. Characteristics of System 1 and 2 System 1 System 2 Fast Slow Effortless Effortful Automatic Conscious and Intentional Does not affect Cognitive Load Affects Cognitive load Thought is Metaphorical Thought is Analytical Emotional Neutral (Evans, 2008; Kahneman, 2011) Intuitive , System 1 , fast thinking can be effortless, but can lead to faulty decisions or errors in judgment, while intuitive thinking can be accurate and powerful , but effortful and time consuming (Kahneman, 200 3). System 1 and System 2 work together to inform decisions. System 1 thinking can be informed by prolong ed study or conscious effort in understanding the problem at hand , in other words System 2 thinking informs System 1 making decisions and performance of skills more effortless and quick (Kahneman, 200 3). Under normal circumstance, System 2 adopts the sugge stions of System 1 with little to no modification. ItÕs only when System 1 runs into difficulty that System 2 must be activated to solve a problem or make a decision. Most of what people think and do originates in System 1, but System 2 takes control when things get challenging (Kahneman, 2011). System 1 is working all the time and System 2 works when itÕs needed. This happens because System 1 is generally good at what it does: its models of familiar situations are accurate as are its short -term predictions . System 1 has biases too It makes systematic errors including answering easier questions than the one asked and it doesnÕt understand logic and statistics. For example, when a skilled nurse intuitively detects heart problems from subtle changes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;C!in heart rate and blood pressure. With skill also comes available access to useful quick responses. A skilled nurse does not see the same EKG reading as the novice. In the same vein , I predict a person with a strong environmental identity can access more skills and information to make more informed decisions about the environment compared to someone with a weak environmental identity. A person with a self concept that includes the natural world will likely have spent more time in nature, had more direct experiences with the natural environment and be more likely to be informed about how nature works. This in turn , will give a person with a strong environmental identity access to readily available information about what it takes to make decisions to protect the natural environment. Based on the social perspectives of identity development in the context of education and learning, oneÕs identity can influence the practice s one participates in, how one is recognized by others and by oneself, and the actions and behaviors one decides to adhere to (Wenger, 1998; Gee, 2000; Lemke, 2000). According to this, e nvironmental identity will likely influence decision -making. Based on the environmental crisis work done by Clayton (2003), participants with strong environmental identities also perceived their decisions on environmental crises as easier than participants with weak environmental identities. Participants with strong environm ental identities were also more confident in their decisions than participants with weak environmental identities (Clayton, 2003). Clayton presented survey participants with two solutions to an environmental conflict. One solution would protect the environ ment and the other solution would not. Participants were asked to decide which one they preferred. The score on the Environmental Identity Scale was significantly related to individualÕs choices for solving an environmental crisis. Participants were also a sked to rate the importance of their decision and how certain they were that they made the correct decision (Clayton, 2003). The environmental !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;D!identity score was significantly related to individualsÕ decisions, so the higher the environmental identity score the more likely the pro -environmental choice was chosen. In addition, the environmental identity score was also significantly related to individualsÕ perception of decision importance, how certain the individualsÕ felt about their decision, and how easy the participants felt the decision was to make (Clayton, 2003). Not much other work has been done on the connection between environmental identity and decision -making. There has been considerable work done in behavioral economics. Behavioral economics study the effects of psychological, social, cogn itive, and emotional factors on the economic decisions of individuals . One study looked at the type of thinking that goes into making decisions about retirement savings. It was found that participants that en rolled in a prescriptive savings plan called Save More Tomorrow were more likely to save more for retirement and stay in the program for a longer period of time (Thaler & Benartizi, 200 4). The Save More Tomorrow program was designed to automatically increa se the amount of retirement savings based on salary raises. This mechanism of the program limit ed the amount of self -control needed to save for the future making it easier for families to save in response to the amount of money they make without finding ot her places to put their money. This plan also worked because once the participants were enrolled they were unlikely to un -enroll (Thaler & Benartizi, 200 4). In this study, retirement saving behaviors changed by implementing particular structures in their daily lives that made it easier to save enough to retire on time. It is possible that particular environmental behaviors can also change by making it easier to act in those responsible ways. This may include changing the physical environment to make it eas ier to make pro-environmental choices. When thinking about how environmental identity influences decision -making, I cannot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;E!help but think that identifying with the natural world would make one more likely to make environmentally sound decisions about envi ronmental issues and participating in environmental behaviors. However, would an individual with a strong environmental identity rely on slow and deliberate thought or System 2 thinking to make decisions about the environment or do they rely on their fast more intuitive thought? I also wonder if identity will make a difference in all environmental behaviors or if some low cost environmental behaviors will be influenced by other factors. Within this study, I will assess how environmental identity as outlined by Clayton (2003) affects the way individuals think about making environmentally responsible decisions. Research Questions In this study the direct relationship between identity and participation in pro-environmental behaviors and the type of thinking that goes in to act ing in environmentally responsible ways will be examined using a mixed methods approach . Table 2 highlights the questions and the data that will help to answer the questions. Table 2. Research questions and corresponding data sources Research Question s Data Source s What is the nature of the association between environmental identity and pro -environmental behavior? Environmental Identity Survey Environmentally Responsible Behavior Index Interview data How does environmental identity influence the type of thinking that goes into making environmental decisions? Environmental Identity Survey Decision Making !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>F!Table 2 (ContÕd) Questionnaire Interview data ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>;! CHAPTER 3 ÑMETHODOLOGY This mixed methods study was organized to answer two research questions outlined in Chapter 1 . This chapter describes the participants involved in the study, the survey instruments used, the interview protocol, and the data analysis procedures implemented during the research process. Participants During the 2014 fall semester, 299 undergraduate students completed a three -part survey at a large Midwestern University. Of the 299, 237 participants were enrolled in an introductory educational psychology course called Reflections on Learn ing. The other 62 participants were enrolled in an Introduction to Sustainability course. In order to see variation across dimensions, two fairly different groups of undergraduate students were assessed. Many of the students enrolled in the educational psy chology course were planning to become teachers and work with children in some capacity. The students enrolled in the sustainability course were planning to work in natural resources, urban planning, agriculture, business, and/or other sustainability related fields. These groups were selected because of their selected academic major choice and their potential for providing the desired variability t o the overall sample. In addition to their accessibility, undergraduate students were selected for their potential future contributions to important environmental decisions. These students represent the future leaders and opinion makers in society and will make decisions in regard to the use and management of natural resources, outdoor spaces, and will decide how to mitigate climate change (Smith -Sebasto & DÕAcosta, 1995; Ewert, Place, & Sibthorp, 2005). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>!Procedure This was a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2006; Creswell, 2006). The quantitative data was collected first and the qualitative data was collected afterwards to provide additional information to more fully exp lain and interpret the quantitative results. This methodology was chosen in order to provide more information in addition to the survey data. For instance, the interviews allowed me to examine how specific experiences and social interactions influenced par ticipation in specific behaviors. In addition, I was able to explore what behaviors participants did quickly and what behaviors were done slowly. I was also able to ask why these behaviors were easy or difficult to participate in. The previous research don e exploring environmental identity has been solely quantitative or qualitative, so there was an opportunity to try a new a mixed methods approach to make sense of the relationships between environmental identity , participating in pro -environmental behavior s and making decisions to recycle . Mixed methods analysis allow ed for a deeper understanding of the constructs being studied, in this case, environmental identity, decision -making and participating in environmental behaviors. Using both quantitative and qu alitative methods provided an in -depth look into context and relationships while also providing measurements of attitudes and other measureable co nstructs like identity (Lodico et al. , 2006). The quantitative phase began in the fall of 2014 during October and November. I visited all sections of Reflections on Learning and Introduction to Sustainability courses . With permission from the course instructors, I was given thirty minutes to describe the study, get signed consent from students, and administer the survey. The description of the study included the terms of participation and the incentives and possible drawbacks to being a part of the study. The consent forms asked for participantsÕ full name, their campus email address, gender, a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>?!description of where they grew up, their academic major, their age, and academic standing. Participants were informed they would be entered into a drawing for the chance to win one of two $50 Amazon gift cards f or completing the entire survey. Once students signed the consent form, they were given a paper survey that contained the three surveys (Environmental Identity Survey, Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire). On ce the surveys were handed out, I instructed the participants to raise their hand if they had any questions or did not understand any part of the survey. Participants were then instructed to raise their hand when they had completed the survey and their ins tructor or I would collect the completed surveys. In November, the survey responses were entered into Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS. The data was analyzed using correlation analysis, factor analysis, ANOVA and the descriptive statistics. On completion of the quantitative data analysis, a sample of participants were selected for an interview based on their scores on the Environmental Identity Scale, Environmental ly Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire surveys. Participants were informed via email that if they participated in a 45 -60 minute interview they would earn $10 and be entered into a raffle to win a $50 Amazon gift card. In the qualitative phase, the interviews were conducted with eight different partici pants. The participants were chosen based on their overall survey scores. In order to explore the relationships between environmental identity , participating in pro -environmental behaviors and making decision s about recycling, participants with scores that upheld the relationship were chosen for interviews. Participants were also chosen because their scores did not uphold the relationship shown in the quantitative data. Table 3 shows the interview participantsÕ survey scores. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>@!Table 3. Interview particip ants Õ pseudonyms and survey scores Pseudonym Identity Score Behaviors Score Decision Making Score Kim 32 36 15 Molly 117 125 30 Ryan 115 111 28 Ansel 56 80 22 Savannah 96 97 30 Renee 113 74 30 Olivia 118 116 26 Katie 86 36 22 Table 4 outlines the interview participantsÕ demographic information. Table 4. Interview participants Õ demographic information Pseudonym Age Academic Standing Major Childhood Home !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>A!Table 4 (ContÕd) Kim 22 Senior Psychology Rural not a farm Molly 21 Junior Environmental Studies and Food Science Town less than 10,000 Ryan 18 Freshman Fisheries and Wildlife City of 10,000 to 49,999 Ansel 19 Sophomore Elementary Education/Child Development Did not answer Savannah 20 Sophomore Elementary Education Town less than 10,000 Renee 20 Junior Secondary Education/Science City of 10,000 to 49,999 Olivia 20 Sophomore Environmental Studies and Sustainability/ Food Systems Town less than 10,000 Katie 18 Freshman Secondary Education/History Rural area on a farm Instruments The survey used for this study (Appendix A) was comprised of questions examining demographical data, environmental identity, participation in environmentally responsible behaviors, and environmental decision -making about recycling. Environmen tal Identity Scale The Environmental Identity Scale was developed in order to examine whether individual differences in environmental identity can predict behavior. The scale was constructed to assess !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>B!the extent to which the natural environment plays an important role in a p ersonÕs self -definition (Olivos & Aragones, 2011; Clayton, 2003). The scale was composed of 24 -5-point Likert scale items that measure six constructs. These constructs include d: interactions with nature, group membership, ideology, values and priorities, positive emotions and experiences in nature and self-concept. The extent and importance or salience of an individualÕs interactions with nature was measured using items that asked participants to rate their time spent outdoors. An example item include d: I spend a lot of time in natural settings. Asking how nature contributed to a participantÕs involvement in groups assessed group membership . For example: My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by environmentalists. Measuring t he amount of support respondents gave to environmental education and a sustainable lifestyle assessed ideology . For example: Behaving responsibly toward the Earth Ñliving a sustainable lifestyle Ñis part of my moral code. Positive emotions and experiences in nature were also assessed. Values and priorities were measured by asking participants to think about how they do or would live their lives . An example item included : I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a bigger room or hou se with a view of other buildings. An autobiographical component was based on the positive memories and emotions participants experienced while interacting with nature. An example: I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a s ignificant impact on my development. Self concept was measured by asking participants to rank their feeling of connection with the natural world. For example: I think of myself as a part of nature not separate from it. In previous studies conducted with the Environmental Identity Scale, the internal reliability was good. The overall CronbachÕs Alpha for the scale was .90 or above. For this study, the CronbachÕs Alpha for the individual subscales was also measured. See Table 5 for the item !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>C!numbers for eac h construct and the CronbachÕs Alpha values. For the full survey, see Appendix A. Table 5. Environmental identity scale constructs and the CronbachÕs alpha Construct/Subscale CronbachÕs Alpha Survey Items Interactions with nature .766 1, 16, 17, 21, 23 Group Membership .814 7, 10 Ideology .704 4, 8, 12, 13 Positive Emotions and Experiences in Nature .662 5, 20, 22, 24 Self-Concept . 838 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19 Values and Priorities .685 2, 6, 15 The Environmental Identity Scale was not the only scale that measure d the relationship between oneÕs self -concept with nature (Olivos & Aragones, 2011). The Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) Scale was composed of one item, which use d a Venn diagram to represent the relationship between the self and nature (Schultz, 2001). Later on, the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) was designed to add an emotional component to help to maintain the affective individual experience while connectin g with nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). The Environmental Identity Scale was chosen for this study because of its internal reliability. In an attempt to measure the construct and convergent validity for the scale, 282 University students were asked to comple te the Environmental Identity Scale along with the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), the Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) scale, Ecobiocentrism and self reporting of pro -environmental behaviors questionnaire (Olivos & Aragones, 2011). The empirical ev idence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>D!provided by this study show ed that the content elements underlying the Environmental Identity Scale related with social identity, an emotional association with nature, a positive disposition towards policies that protect nature, and interactions wit h the natural world (Olivos & Aragones, 2011). The Environmental Identity Scale was the scale with strong est construct validity . According to Olivos & Aragones (2011), Ò[The Environmental Identity Scale ] is a scale that reflects a complex concept defined by Clayton in which an important role is played by feelings of belonging to the natural world, the pleasure or benefit gained by individuals through contact with nature, appreciation of unique and complex qualities of the natural environment, and commitmen t to the environment expressed through engagement in pro -environmental behaviors, and an ideological commitment or an identification with ecologistsÓ (Olivos & Aragones, 2011, p. 72). Environmentally Responsible Behavior s Index The Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index was developed by Smith -Sebasto and DÕAcosta (1995) to predict environmentally responsible behavior among undergraduate students. According to Thapa (1999), the items came from the Behavior Inventory of Environmental Action and from the Roper Organization, and from ÒA UserÕs Guide to Planet Earth: The American Environment TestÓ designed by Rush/Winston Productions and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The index contain ed twenty -five 5-point Likert -scale items presented a s examples of pro -environment behaviors with a response format scale (from 1 = rarely to 5 = usually). As a guideline, rarely is Òin less than 10% of the chances when I could haveÓ; occasionally is in 30% of the chance; sometimes is 50% of the chances; fre quently is 70%; and usually is 90% (Smith -Sebasto & DÕAcosta, 1995;Thapa, 1999). ERBI consist ed of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>E!different types of environment -related behaviors. The scale was uni-dimensional in its intention to measure self -report of performance of environmentally res ponsible behaviors (Thapa, 1999). The index was designed to also reference the categories of environmentally responsible behaviors including: civic action (three items), education action (five items), financial action (seven items), legal action (two items ), persuasion action (one item), and physical action (six items). After conducting a factor analysis, these behaviors fell under four main themes Ñconsumerism, activism, education, and recycling (Thapa, 1999) . Scores range d from 2 5, representing a self -repo rt of rarely performing the environmentally responsible behaviors, to 12 5, showing a self -report of usually performing the environmentally responsible behaviors (Smith -Sebasto & DÕAcosta, 1995). This scale was chosen because of its previous use with unde rgraduate populations (Lee, 2012), its internal reliability, and the straightforward nature of the survey items. This survey also had a CronbachÕs Alpha with a range of .83 -.90 for the four constructs (Thapa, 1999). After administering the survey in this s tudy , the CronbachÕs Alpha was analyzed for each of the four main constructs: consumerism, activism, education, and recycling. Table 6. shows the results of this analysis. Table 6. Environmentally responsible beha viors index constructs and the C ronbachÕs alpha Construct CronbachÕs Alpha Items Consumerism .904 25-33, 50 Activism .810 34-40, 49 Education .915 41-45 Recycling .827 46-48 Decision Making Questionnaire !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?F!This questionnaire was created using KahnemanÕs (2003, 2011) System 1 and System 2 thinking framework. KahnemanÕs framework was used to examine how participants made environmental decisions about recycling, a common environmental decision made by most undergraduates. All of the questions were asked in the context of recycling behavior. The questionnaire consisted of 6, 5 -point Likert scale statements based on the characteristics of System 1 and System 2 thinking . A response of a 1 was considered System 2 th inking and a response of 5 was considered fast thinking. Each item asked participants about a different component/characteristic of System 1 and System 2 thinking. These constructs were slow/fast, effortful/effortless, affecting thinking capacity/not affecting thinking capacity, neutral/emotional, conscious/automatic, and skeptical/certain. For example, participants were told to: Use a scale of 1 to 5, to rate the degree to which particip ants fall along the continuum between very slow (1) and very fast (5) decision -making when deciding to recycle. Participants were reminded that one answer was no better than the other. A description of each characteristic was described thoroughly like the characteristics of slow and fast outlined below. The other characteristic descriptions can be found in the full survey in Appendix A. Slow : If you slowly come to the decision to recycle, you are actively making that decision. The decision is not automatic and takes several steps to come to the final decision to recycle. You seek out information about recycling before determining it's the best option for you. Fast : If you quickly come to the decision to recycle, you donÕt have to actively think about recycl ing. You donÕt seek out information about recycling you just recycle . Factor analysis (Figure 2) was conducted to test how many factors were addressed in the questionnaire. The factor analysis sho wed that one factor explained 47.57 % of the variance. The CronbachÕs Alpha of the scale was .77. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?;! Figure 2. Factor analysis scree plot for the Decision Making Questionnaire Table 7. Survey instrument descriptions and definitions Survey Instrument Definition Sample Items Constructs Measured Environmental Identity Scale (EID) (Clayton, 2003) How one views oneself in relation to the natural world. Environmental identity is part of the way in which one forms his/her self-concept and a sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman natural environment, based on history, emotional attachment, and/or similarity. This connection in turn affects the ways in which one perceives and acts I spend a lot of time in natural settings. I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it. Behaving responsibly toward the Earth Ñliving a sustainable lifestyle Ñis part of m y moral code. I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a bigger room or house with a view of other buildings. I spent a lot of my childhood playing outside. Ideology Values and priorities Positive emotions and experiences toward natural environment Group membership Interaction with nature Self concept !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?>!Table 7 (ContÕd) toward the world. In other terms, a belief that the environment is important to a person and an important part of who that person is. (Clayton, 2003). Environmentally Responsible Behavior Index (ERBI) (Smith -Sebasto and DÕAcosta, 1995) A personÕs Òbehavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of oneÕs actions on the natural and built world (e.g. minimize resource and energy consumption, use of non-toxic substances, reduce waste production)Ó (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 240). Read labels on products to see if the contents were environmentally safe Avoided buying products in aerosol containers Purchased a product because it was packaged in reusable or recyclable containers Consumerism Activism Education Recycling Decision Making Questionnaire ÒDecision making is one of the basic cognitive processes of human behaviors by which a preferred option or a course of actions is chosen from among a set of alternatives based on certain criteriaÓ (Wang & Ruhe, 2007, p. 73). To what degree is your decision -making about recycling done slow or fast? Slow : If you slowly come to the decision to recycle, you are actively making that decision. The decision is not automatic and takes several steps to come to the final decision to recycle. You seek out information about r ecycling before determining it's the best option for you. Slow/Fast Thinking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!Table 7 (ContÕd) Fast : If you quickly come to the decision to recycle, you donÕt have to actively think about recycling. You donÕt seek out information about recycling you just recycle. Quantitative Data Analysis Survey results were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), and analyzed using factor analysis, correlation analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Correlation analysis was employed to assess the rel ationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables. In this study , the independent variable was environmental identity and dependent variable was environmentally responsible behaviors and System 1 and System 2 thinking. Correlation an alysis was chosen as the most appropriate option because it can determine whether a set of independent variables can explain a considerable amount of the variation in the dependent variable (Agresti & Finlay, 2009; Field, 2009). A scale was developed to m easure System 1 and System 2 thinking when deciding to recycle. The Decision Making Questionnaire scale was composed of six items. I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to determine if in fact only one factor was measured by the survey. A factor anal ysis was done, in order to understand the degree to which the six items tapped into the same construct. When considering the validity of a scale, it's important to determine how the items hang together on on e construct. One way researchers determine this i s by doing a factor analysis to examine psychometric validity (Brown, 2015). The factor analysis reduce s the data into a smaller, more eas y to use factors or data clusters (Field, 2009). In short, factor analysis !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?@!can lessen a group of interrelated items w ithin a survey into a smaller set of factors that may be able to explain the maximum amount of common variance. The Environmentally Identity Scale and the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index already had a factor analysis conducted , so I did not con duct another factor analysis (Clayton, 2003 ). An ANOVA was conducted to compare the mean scores between the Education and Sustainability participants. An ANOVA was chosen instead of the independent t -test to reduce the amount of Type I error. The mean scores of the overall Environmental Identity Scale , Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire were compared. In addition, the subscales within the overall scales were compared across groups. For instance, as outlined in Table 5 the subscales of the Environmental Identity Scale were ideology, values and priorities, positive emotions and experiences toward natural environment, group membership, interaction with nature, and self -concept. For the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index the subscales measured the constructs : consumerism, recycling, activism, and education. Each question of the Decision Making Questionnaire was considered a different construct of System 1 and System 2 thinking and in turn the means of each question was compared separately. The cons tructs included slow/fast, effortful/effortless, affecting thinking capacity/not affecting thinking capacity, neutral/emotional, conscious/automatic, and skeptical/certain. The mean scores for all of the subscales just mentioned were also compared across g roups. To ensure the ANOVA results were accurate, the LeveneÕs test was also conducted to test the assumption of homogeneity of variance. The null hypothesis was that the variances in the groups were equal. The LeveneÕs test was done by first doing a one -way ANOVA on the absolute difference between the scores and the mean of the group from which it came (Field, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?A!2009). The LeveneÕs test was significant at p > .05. If p was less than or equal to .05 then it can be concluded that the null hypothesis was inco rrect and the variances were significantly different from each other. Meaning the homogeneity of variances had been violated (Field, 2009). If the p was greater than .05, then the variances of each group were about the same and not significantly different from each other (Field, 2009). If the homogeneity of variances was violated then a non -parametric test like the Mann -Whitney test must be conducted. Non -parametric tests have fewer assumptions and can provide accurate results for data that do not meet th e statistical assumptions (Field, 2009). In addition, for the data that did not uphold the assumptions of homogeneity of variance, the non -parametric Mann -Whitney test was conducted. These tests rank the data by score. For instance, the lowest score gets a rank of 1 and the next highest score gets a rank of 2 and so on (Field, 2009). The analysis is then conducted on the ranks, not on the actual data. The Mann -Whitney test was used on the scores where the LeveneÕs test was significant to measure the median s instead of the means. In addition to the ANOVA, the CohenÕs d was measured. CohenÕs d is the difference between the means, M1 - M2, divided by standard deviation, s, of either group. Cohen argued that the standard deviation of either group could be used when the variances of the two groups are homogeneous. Cohen (1988) defined effect sizes as "small, d = .2," "medium, d = .5," and "large, d = .8". Effect sizes are thought of in terms of the percent of non -overlap of the mean scores of two groups (Cohen, 1988). An effect size of 0.0 indicates that the distribution of scores for one group overlaps completely with the distribution of scores of another group, there is 0% of non-overlap. An effect size of 0.8 indicates a non -overlap of 47.4% in the two distrib utions. A large effect size of 1.7 indicates a non -overlap of 75.4% in the two distributions. Meaning that the distribution of scores between the two groups is mostly different from each other with only a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?B!small percentage (24.6%) of the two score distribut ions overlap. Effect size is measured using the mean scores for each group and dividing the score with the pooled standard deviation. The effect size provides additional information about the relationship between two groups. If the effect size is 0.2 or l arger then the relationship is significant meaning there is a legitimate, non -trivial connection between the two groups being measured. Table 8. Data analysis and reasons for conducting analysis Kind of Data Analysis Relation to the research questions Correlation Correlation analysis was done to measure the relationship between the environmental identity and pro -environmental behaviors and making decisions to recycle. ANOVA ANOVA was conducted to compare the means between the Education and Sustainability groups. The ANOVA was done to measure the difference between the mean scores for the overall scales as well as the means for the subscales with in the instruments. LeveneÕs test Tests the hypothesis that the variances of different groups are equal. According to Field (2009), the test does a one -way ANOVA on the deviations. A significant result shows that the variances are significantly different meaning the variances are not homogenous. This test allows me to compare both groups of data (Education and Sustainability) to check to see if the distributions are the similar. Mann -Whitney test A non -parametric test that looks for differences between two independent groups. It tests whether the two groups have similar variances. This tests h elps to make more informed and statistically sound assumptions about my data. Factor Analysis Factor analysis was done to group multiple related items into fewer variables (factors) that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?C!Table 8 (ContÕd) share a single concept or dimension. This will be done for the Decision Making Questionnaire. The constructed factors from the factor analysis will then be include d into the regression for prediction analysis. Interview Protocol The interview protocol was created to help understand the underlying relationship between environmental identity, frequency of participation in pro -environmental behaviors and decision -making about environmental issues. The interview protocol contained 26 questions including three card sort activities. The interview protocol was developed using the Environmental Identity Survey, the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire. The goal of interviewing participants wa s to better understand the role environmental identity plays in the participation of pro -environmental behaviors and to better understand the relationship between environmental identity and making environmental decisions. To assess environmental identity, the participants were asked to verbalize and write down the answer to the question ÒWho am I?Ó with five to ten different descriptors. Next the participants were asked to list the environmental actions they take in their lives. In addition, they were aske d to rank the actions with 1 having the most positive environmental impact. In addition to these questions, participants were then asked to describe the frequency and nature of their childhood and current interactions with the natural environment. Partici pants then participated in a card sort activity where they rated a set of behaviors taken from the Environmental Responsible Behaviors Index including two to three behaviors from each factor or construct assessed in the scale (recycling, activism, consumer ism, and education) on a 1 -5 scale assessing the frequency in which !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?D!participants participated in the behaviors. They were also asked to include other environmental behaviors that did not appear on the cards. See Appendix B for the interview protocol. Part icipants were then asked which behaviors they would like to participate in more frequently and what barriers caused them to not participate as frequently. Next, students were asked how social interactions impacted their participation in environmental behav iors. Participants were then asked to describe a time in which they influenced someoneÕs actions and when the participant influences the actions of another. The second goal of the interview was to better understand the relationship between environmental identity and making environmental decisions in a slow or fast way (Kahneman, 2003). To do this, participants took part in another card sort using the behaviors outlined in the previous paragraph. In the card sort activity, participants were asked to put the behavior cards in two piles, a pile in which they made the decisions in a slow, intentional way and another pile in which they made the decisions in fast, automatic way. While placing the cards in piles, they were asked to explain their decisions in mo re depth. Participants were then asked to discuss a behavior that was in the slow pile that was once in the fast pile. Then they were asked to describe how their shift in thinking happened. Participants were also asked to discuss a behavior they placed in the fast pile that was once in the slow pile. They were then asked to describe their shift in thinking. Students were then asked specifically how their identity affected their decisions. In the third card sort activity , students were asked to divide the behavior cards into three categories: those that were critically important for the future of the Earth, those that were moderately important for the future of the Earth, and those that were least important for the future of the Earth. After they sorted t he behaviors, they were asked about the reasoning behind the placement of behaviors and if the placement of the behaviors was easy or hard and what else !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?E!they would need to know to make a better decision. Lastly, participants were asked which of the three l ocations would they decide to live: (a) a small apartment in the city, (b) a small house in the city, or (c) a small house in the country. They were then asked: ÒWere you able to make this decision in a slow or fast way.Ó ÒWhat else would they need to kno w to make the decision?Ó How does your identity come into play when making that decision?Ó Qualitative Data Analysis A thematic analysis was conducted to find patterns within the interview data. First, the transcribed interviews were transferred to a Googl e Spreadsheet. Each interview was given its own tab. Most of the analysis was done within the Google Spreadsheet. The Google Spreadsheet was organized with a tab for each interview participant name. Within each tab, the interview transcript was in the firs t column, the second column was used for initial ideas and notes. The third column had the environmental identity constructs. The constructs coded for environmental identity were: Ideology/values/priorities, positive emotions and experience in the natural environment, group membership/family/social interactions, and self -concept (Clayton, 2003). The fourth column included the environmental behavior constructs of consumerism, recycling, activism and education. The fifth column was labeled System 1 and System 2. Qualitative data analysis began by reading through the interviews line by line. During the first read through, my initial thoughts and ideas were noted in the Google Spreadsheet. Next, the interviews were read through again with a focus on the enviro nmental identity constructs. Quotes and passages were noted as examples of the particular constructs. Next, the interviews were read noting the frequency in which the participants reported participating in the environmental behaviors in the card sort activ ity. These constructs included: recycling, education, activism, and consumerism. The frequencies were recoded on a tab that included each !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@F!interview participantsÕ name and the behaviors in the card sort. Next, the interviews were coded using the System 1 an d System 2 thinking characteristics. The codes for System 1 thinking included references to fast, quick thinking and automatic, habitual thinking. In addition, references to emotions were coded. The codes for System 2 thinking included references to slow thinking and doing research to find out more and effort. After the initial read through was complete, two tabs were created to hold the quotes that I thought answer ed the two research questions. The quotes that helped to answer the research questions were copied verbatim with the name of the participant into another spreadsheet. My initial rationale for choosing the quote to answer the research was also noted. In addition, other spreadsheets were also created to record student responses from the card sort activity. The frequency of participation (1 -infrequently and 5 -frequently) students reported in the environmental behaviors was recorded. The responses to the question: Do you decide to participate in the environmental behaviors in a fast or slow way ? Thi s question was also noted in a different tab/spreadsheet. The responses to the question: How critical is participating in the environmental behaviors? card sort were also recorded in a separate tab/spreadsheet. After the tallying and recording of the data pieces were completed the themes with the most data were further elaborated upon. The codes and examples are noted in Table 9 . These themes are further outlined in the qualitative results section. Table 9. Description of codes and themes Code/Theme Key terms Example Group Membership /Community Involvement Family, roommate, organization, political party, religion SAVANNAH: Well, being a part of girl scouts we did a lot of environmental activities. Like we had created a garden !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@;!Table 9 (ContÕd) when I was I think like in seventh grade and it was already created but it was just completely run down like trash everywhere And we were growing plants and vegetables to give out. So that kind of É being a part of that contributed to me helping the enviro nment. Values Reference to what participant feels is right Direct reference to values ItÕs the right thing to do RYAN: Well, I think being a conservationist impacts it the most impacts the environmental actions the most probably just because, you know, I donÕt know I was always just brought up, you know, if you see something on the ground you pick it up even if itÕs not yours if you didnÕt make the mess, you know, leave it better than you found it. Educating: Teacher or Learner Reference to teaching others, showing others . making others aware of issues Reference to influence from others SAVANNAH: IÕm a college student so like when I feel like itÕs my responsibility as a student and as a future educa tor to teach others about like [the environment]. I taught younger children about how to recycle and how they themselves can do, you know, even being five they can take steps to help the environment. System 1 Reference to fast thinking, habits, automatic actions MOLLY: I get really, really, I wouldnÕt say angry, but I get very worked up when I see people throw away plastic. My favorite is when I see people throw away a plastic water bottle when there is a recycling receptacle within armÕs reach. [0:17:06] It just, it doesnÕt make sense. It make s me get really worked up. And so when I talk to people I try and stay calm but itÕs hard to talk to people about something that you care so deeply about and have them not care. Especially when you know it affects them. But as for how my identityÕs shaped it. I feel like it just, IÕm really passionate about it. System 2 Reference to slow, deliberate, conscious, effortful decisions, research OLIVIA: Read labels on products to see if the contents are environmentally safe that would be slow just because É I mean I try to but itÕs becoming more of a thing now and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@>!Table 9 (ContÕd) so it does take a little bit of extra time just to do it and IÕm still learning about it and so sometimes like, you know, like bananas for example like you can only get one k ind of banana and so you canÕt like compare between two different brands. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@?!CHAPTER 4 ÑRESULTS Quantitative Results In this mixed methods study, the quantitative results were collected and analyzed first, then participants were chosen for an interview ba sed on their responses on the surveys. The quantitative results were analyzed using SPSS. The results section was organized with the description of the quantitative results in the first section and the qualitative results following. The qualitative result s included the themes gleaned from the interviews conducted with a select group of eight participants . Demographics of Study Participants Of the 299 participants, 237 were enrolled in Teacher Education (TE) 150 Reflections on Learning course and 62 were enrolled in Sustainability (SUS) 200 Introduction to Sustainability course. In the rest of the results section TE 150 will be Education participants and SUS 200 will be named Sustainability participants. Over half of the participants (68%) were of freshman or sophomore status. See Table 1 0 for additional academic status information. Most participants were between the ages of 18 -23 (96%). Table 1 0. Academic standing of all participants Academic Status Frequency % Freshman 90 30 Sophomore 113 38 Junior 60 20 Senior 23 8 Senior plus 9 3 Total 295 99 Missing 4 1 Total 299 100.0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@! One hundred ninety five participants were female , 103 were male, and one person did not share a gender. Table 11 shows the full description of these data . Table 11. Participant gender Gender Frequency % Female 195 65 Male 103 34 No Share 1 .3 Total 299 100 Participants were also asked to share where they spent the majority of their childhood. The locations were denoted by the population size and if the location was rural, suburban, or urban. The sample included participants who grew up in all six locations , see Table 12. A little over a third of the participants ( 39%) or 113 participants reported growing up in a city of 10,000 to 49,999 people . I hypothesized there would be a relationship between environmental identity and where the participants grew up. There was no significant difference between where participants grew up and their environmental identity score. Table 12. Childhood home location of all participants Childhood Home Frequency % Rural area on a farm 8 3 Rural area but not a farm 27 9 Town less than 10,000 54 19 City of 10,000 to 49,999 113 39 City of 50,000 to 100,000 57 20 City larger than 100,000 32 11 Total 291 100 Table 13 outlines the Colleges represented in the sample. About a third of the participants !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@A!had a major in the College of Education (31%). The next most frequent College represented was the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (12%), followed by the Colleg e of Social Science (11%). Table 13. Academic major breakdown denoted by College College Frequency % Education 92 31 Agriculture and Natural Resources 37 12 Social Science 33 11 Undecided 25 8 Business 23 8 Natural Sciences 20 7 Arts and Letters 17 6 Music 16 5 Engineering 14 5 Human Development and Family Studies 8 3 Communication Arts and Sciences 5 2 Unknown 3 1 Arts and Humanities 2 .7 Nursing 2 .7 Missing 1 .3 Total 299 100 Descriptive statistics for the Environmental Identity Scale, Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire results for entire sample A total of 283 participants completed the Environmental Identity Scale (EID) . The total environmental identity scores were the sum of all of the answers on the twenty -four item, 5-point Likert scale survey . The highest score possible was 120 and the lowest score possible was 24. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@B!The average was 82.1 (SD = 17.5) . The minimum score was 27 and the maximum score was 11 8 with a range of 91. Participants (N=297) complete d the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index (ERBI) . The environmental behavior scores were the total of the twenty -five item 5-point Likert scale survey . The highest score possible was 1 25 and the lowest score possible was 2 5. The mean was 66.2 (SD = 21.6) . The overall minimum score was 2 5 and the maximum score was 125 . Participants (N= 294) completed the Decision Making Questionnaire. The decision -making scores came from the sum of the six item 5-point Likert scale survey . The range of scores possible were between 6 and 30. The mean for the entire sample was 21 .1 (SD = 4.4) . See Table 14 for the full set of descriptive statistics. Table 14. Descriptive statistics for survey results Survey N Min Max Mean SD Environmental Identity 283 27 118 82.1 17.5 Environmental Behaviors 297 27 125 66.2 21.6 Decision Making 294 6 30 21.1 4.4 Overall, there was a slight difference in the mean scores between the two groups with the Sustainability group having slightly higher scores than the Education group. In Table 15, the mean scores on the three surveys are separated into the two groups of participants. One group was enrolled in Reflections on Learning during the Fall 2014 semest er. The other group was enrolled in Introduction to Sustainability. The average scores are recorded in Table 15. In general, the Sustainability participants had higher scores than the Education participants. In order !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@C!to test if the differences in mean scor es were significant, an ANOVA was conducted. See results in Table 17. Table 15. Descriptive statistics of survey scores separated into Education Participant and Sustainability Participant groups Survey Score Minimum and Maximum Education Group Mean Score Sustainability Group Mean Score Environmental Identity 24-120 79.1 (SD=16.8) 93.7 (SD= 15.2) Environmental Behaviors 25-125 62.4 (SD= 20.2) 80.7 (SD= 20.8) Decision Making 6-30 20.8 (SD= 4.30) 21.9 (SD= 4.80) Sustainability Participants are Significantly More Environmental ly Active than Education Participants An ANOVA was chosen to analyze the differences in the mean scores between the Education and Sustainability groups within the sample. The ANOVA was chosen to explore the difference bet ween participants that had chosen to take a course pertaining to environmental sustainability and participants interested in an education course and not necessarily associated with environmental interest or careers. These two distinct groups were chosen to broaden the sample of individuals surveyed about their environmental identity (Holmes, 2003). Based on the work done by Chawla (1999) and Clayton (2003), I hypothesized that participants in the Sustainability course would have higher environmental identit y scores than participants in the Education course. Table 16 outlines the overall descriptive statistics . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@D!Table 1 6. Descriptive statistics for Environmental Identity Scale and Environmentally Responsible Behavior Index Education and Sustainability groups Participant Group Survey N Min Max Mean SD Identity 225 27 115 79.1 16.8 Behaviors 235 27 112 62.4 20.2 Education N 224 Total Score Identity 58 48 118 93.7 15.2 Total Score Behaviors 62 30 125 80.7 20.8 Sustainability N 58 Based on the ANOVA findings, there was a significant difference between the Education and Sustainability group mean scores for the Environmental Identity Scale, F(1, 281)= 35.9, p < .001, d= .908. The possible minimum score was 24 and the possible maximum score was 120. There was a large difference between the group mean scores. The percentage of non -overlap between the Education and Sustainability group means was 51.6%. The variance was homogen eous for all six subscales for Environmental Identity Scale (Le vene's test, lowest p > .09), so group differences were evaluated using ANOVA. See Appendix G, Table 30, This shows that participants in the Sustainability course were more likely to consider the natural environmental a key part of their self -concept. This result was predictable. Based on ClaytonÕs theory of environmental identity participants in the Sustainability group would likely consider the natural environment a part of their self concept especially since they had chosen a career in sustainabilit y and the environment. There was a significant difference for the mean of the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index score for the Education and Sustainability participant groups, F (1, 282)= 39.9, p !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@E!< .001, d= .893. See Table 18 for the ANOVA results . The percentage of non -overlap between the Education and Sustainability group means was 51.6%. The LeveneÕs t est (lowest p > .09 ) showed the distribution scores for the consumerism and education subscales were not significantly different, so an ANOVA was the best test for measuring the difference between the means. See Appendix G, Table 31 for the ANOVA results. However, the LeveneÕs test (see Appendix G, Table 32) showed the distribution of scores for activism (p = .009) and recycling (p = .00) were signi ficantly diff erent. This meant that a non -parametric test needed to be conducted. In this case, the Mann -Whitney test was administered. According to the Mann -Whitney results, the median scores for the activism and recycling behaviors were significantly dif ferent, so the results from the ANOVA were accurate , These results show that the Sustainability participants were more likely to act in environmentally responsible behaviors more frequently than the Education participants. Once again, this finding was no t a surprise. Individuals who had chosen to take a course about sustainability issues and/or devote their lives to environmental causes have been shown to participate in environmental acts more frequently (Smith -Sebasto & DÕAcosta, 1995). Overall, the Sustainability participants had significantly higher survey scores for the Environmental Identity Scale and the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index. These results show ed that the Sustainability participants were more likely to identif y with the natural environment and act in pro -environmental ways. Based on their major choice, this result is not surprising. According to Clayton (2003), people with strong environmental identities are more likely to value a sustainable lifestyle and cho ose environmental careers (Holland & Kempton, 2003). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AF! Table 17 . ANOVA results for the comparison of the Education participants and the Sustainability participants mean scores on the Environmental Identity Scale and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index Survey df F p Between Groups 1 35.9 .000** Within Groups 281 Environmental Identity Total 282 Between Groups 1 39.9 .000** Within Groups 295 Environmental Behaviors Total 296 ** p < .01 Research Question 1: What is the nature of the association between environmental identity and environmentally responsible behavior? Participants with Strong Environmental Identities Participate in Environmentally Responsible Behaviors More Often A correlation analysis was conducted to identify the direction and strength of the relationship between environment al identity and frequency of participation in environmentally responsible behaviors. The higher the strength the closer the correlation coefficient is to +/ -1.0. If two variables are weakly associated with each other the correlation coefficient will be cl oser to 0. I hypothesized that environmental identity would be correlated with participating in environmental behaviors more frequently. Based on the data below in Table 18 and Figure 3, environmental identity and participating in environmentally responsi ble behaviors was positively correlated r= .685, p < . 01. This means that a person who believed the natural environment was part of their self -concept !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A;!was more likely to participate in environmentally responsible behaviors. This show ed that environmental i dentity was related to participating in pro -environmental behaviors. This result aligned with what Clayton (2003) and others found in their studies. However, the quantitative results could only show that there was a relationship in how participants scored on the two surveys, not the reasons why the two constructs seem ed to be related or how other factors may have i nfluence d or mediate d when and how often certain behaviors were participated in. Table 18. Correlation between environmental identity and part icipating in environmentally responsible behaviors for entire sample Measure p Pearson Correlation (r) N Environmental Identity .000 .685** 282 Environmental Behaviors .000 .685** 297 ** p < .01 The scatterplot below also show ed the moderately positive correlation between environmental identity and environmentally responsible behaviors. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A>! Figure 3. Scatterplot showing relationship between environmental identity and frequency of participating in environmentally responsible behavi ors. Research Question 2: How does environmental identity influence how one thinks about making environmental decisions? Descriptive statistics for the Decision Making Questionnaire Participants (N= 293) completed the Decision Making Questionnaire. The decision -making scores came from the sum of the six item 5-point Likert scale items . The highest score possible was 30 and the lowest score possible was 6. The mean was 21 .1 (SD = 4.43) . The minimum score was 6 and the maximum score was 30 with a range of 24. See Table 19 for all results . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A?!Table 19. Descriptive Statistics for the Environmental Identity and Decision Making scales for entire sample Survey Score Range Mean SD N Environmental Identity 24-120 82.1 17.5 283 Decision Making 6-30 21.1 4.43 294 Participants with Strong Environmental Identities Make Fast Decisions to Recycl e, but Education and Sustainability Participants Use System 1 Thinking As seen in Table 20, environmental identity and the type of thinking that went into making the decision to recycle was significantly correlated (r= .476, p <.01). In the scatterplot in Figure 4, the relationship was low to moderate in the positive direction. In other words, if someone had a high score on the environmental identity survey that person was more likely to have made the decision to recycle in a fast, intuitive, System 1 way. If someone had a low environmental identity score that person was more likely to make the dec ision to recycle in slow, System 2 way. Thinking in a fast, System 1 way means making decisions automatically a nd unconsciously (Kahneman, 2011 ). Thinking in a System 2 way means taking time to consciously make a decision. It requires eff ort and thinking ( Kahneman, 2011 ). Table 20. Correlations between environmental identity and decision making for entire sample Measure Pearson Correlation (r) p N Environmental Identity .476** .000 283 Decision Making .476** .000 294 ** p < .01 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A@! Figure 4. Scatterplot showing relationship between environmental identity and type of thinking about environmental decisions. Overall, as outlined in Table 21, there was a slight difference in the mean scores between the two groups. The Sustainability group had a slightly higher score than the Education group. The Education group had a mean score of 20.8 (SD= 4.31) with a minimum score of 6 and a maximum score of 30. The mean score for the Sustainability participants was 21.9 (SD= 4.80) with a minimum score of 11 and a maximum overall score of 30. Based on the correlation between environmental identity and the tendency to use System 1, fast thinking when recycling and the Sustainability participants having significantly higher mean scores on the environmental ident ity survey, one would think that the Sustainabili ty participants would also have significantly higher decision making scores compared to the Education participants. In order to test this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AA!assumption, an ANOVA was conducted to explore the possible difference between the Education and Sustainability group scores for the Decision Making Questionnaire. Table 21. Descriptive Statistics Environmental Identity Scale and Decision Making Questionnaire for the Education and Sustainability groups Survey Score Range Education Mean Score Sustainability Mean Score Environmental Identity 24-120 79.1 (SD=16.8) 93.7 (SD= 15.2) Decision Making 6-30 20.8 (SD= 4.30) 21.9 (SD= 4.80) Education and Sustainability Participants Use System 1 Thinking when Recyclin g The education and sustainability participants use the same System 1 thinking when recycling. Based on the ANOVA results in Table 2 2, there was no significant difference between the Education group score and the Sustainability group score on the Decision Ma king Questionnaire, F= 2.9, p = .085, d= .241. The magnitude of the effect size based on the CohenÕs d was small, meaning the percentage of non -overlap between the Education and Sustainability groups was 14.7%. Table 2 2. ANOVA results for the comparison of the mean scores on the Decision Making Questionnaire Survey Df F Sig. Between Groups 1 2.99 .085 Decision Making Within Groups 292 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AB! Table 22 (ContÕd) Total 293 ** p < .01 The Levene Statistic of the Test of Homogeneity of the Variances showed the distribution of scores for the Education and Sustainability groups were not significantly different from each other so an ANOVA was the best test for measuring the difference between the mean s. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was upheld, so a parametric test, such as an ANOVA was an appropriate test. The Decision Making Questionnaire consisted of six distinct items, so I conducted an ANOVA to compare the two group means for all six items separately. This was done to explore the possibility that the Sustainability or Education participants may have had significantly different scores for any of the individual items. See Appendix G, Table 34. The six items, each of which measured a diff erent characteristic of System 1 and System 2 thinking included: slow and fast thinking, effortful and effortless thinking, conscious/intentional and automatic, the affect on thinking capacity, skeptical and certain, and emotional reactions. Based on the A NOVA in Appendix G, Table 34 , the Education and Sustainability group means for five out of the six items were not significantly different from each other. However, the item that measured the emotions that went into making the decision to recycle showed th at the Education and Sustainability group means were significantly different F= 14.8, p<.001, d= .531. The magnitude of the effect size based on the CohenÕs d was medium, meaning the percentage of non -overlap between the groups was 33.0%. Meaning the signi ficant difference between the groups was actually significant and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AC!not left to chance In summary, t here was a relationship between environmental identity and the type of thinking that went into making the decision to recycle. Participants with a stronger environmental identity made the decision to recycle in a fast er, more automatic, System 1 way. Even though the Sustainability participants had significantly higher mean Environmental Identity scores, they were no more likely than the Education participants to use System 1, fast thinking when deciding to recycle. Sustainability participants were more emotional about recycling , however . These results show ed that there is a relationship between environmental identity and the type of thinking when recycling, ho wever it also shows that there is no significant difference between the type of thinking that the Sustainability participants put into recycling compared to the Education participants , even though the Sustainability participants had significantly higher environmental identity scores. This showed that environmental identity can only provide a partial explanation into the type of thinking that is involved in deciding to recycle. The interviews will add the missing pieces to help explain the relationship betwe en environmental identity , participation in pro -environmental behaviors and the thinking that individuals use while recycling . Qualitative Results Environmental identity and environmental behaviors were correlated, meaning if someone had a high score for environmental identity it was likely they would also have a high score for the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index. There was a correlation, but not all participants showed this relationship. This was why it was important for me to look more deepl y into the relationship between environmental identity and participating in environmentally responsible behaviors. In order to look more deeply into this relationship I wanted to interview !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AD!participants who fit the parameters of the relationship. For exampl e, I wanted to interview a participant with a high or low environmental identity scores and high or low environmentally responsible behavior index score. In addition, I wanted to interview participants that did not show this relationship. For example, I wa nted to interview participants with a high environmental identity score, but a low behavior score. In addition, I wanted to interview participants with a low environmental identity score and a high environmentally responsible behavior index score. The envi ronmental identity scale used for this study had certain assumptions. For instance, one assumption was the natural environment must be a significant part of who one thinks he or she is in the world. Another assumption of the environmental identity scale wa s that one must have a particular ideology or set of values to have an environmental identity I think that h aving a strong environmental identity is not the only reason why participants act in environmentally friendly ways. A possible hypothesis is to act in environmentally responsible ways without enjoying time in the natural world or considering the natural environment as a key component of their self -concept. My hypothesis was that some participants with low environmental identity scores and hig h environmentally responsible behavior scores knew that it was important to behave in environmentally responsible ways because they knew it was important to mitigate climate change. They also may have believed it was important to be sustainable. They were also likely to have been influenced by important people in their lives (i.e. parents), yet they did not consider the natural world to be an important part of who they were as individuals. For instance, Head (1997) explained that our identities are strongly influenced by others. Head (1997, p.7) explained Ôthat children are largely defined by the significant adults in their lives (Dillon et al., 1999). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AE!The quantitative data also showed that environmental identity and making the decision to recycle using Sy stem 1 thinking were positively correlated. In other words, if someone had a high environmental identity score or considered the natural environment a part of their self concept that person was more likely to make the decision to recycle in a fast, intuiti ve, System 1 way. If someone had a low environmental identity score that person was more likely to make the decision to recycle in slow, System 2 way. In the Decision Making Questionnaire , the only environmental decision assessed was in regard to recycling . Perhaps, the nature of decision -making was context specific. When reviewing the data, participants described how frequently they recycled differently according to where they were and whom (i.e. friends, family, other students) they were with. For instanc e, participants with both strong and weak environmental identities were likely to recycle frequently and report making the decision to recycle in fast, automatic way when they were on campus, but participants with weak environmental identities usually repo rted recycling less at home than on campus. These assumptions are in line with the work done by Heimlich and Ardoin (2008). Individuals are motivate d to make environmental decisions by a variety of different factors (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). Some indiv iduals are motivated to act environmentally because they believe environmental issues like climate change are causing environmental problems and humans can make decisions to help stop or at least mitigate the environmental changes. Others are motivated by the settings in which they live such as their home or community (Heimlich & Ardoin, 2008). For instance ( adapted from Heimlich & Ardoin , 2008), an individual motivated to behave environmentally because of global climate change may make the decision to drive a hybrid car, support environmental groups financially , and install energy efficient appliances. The same person may not be concerned with using chemicals on his yard, so using toxic chemicals as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BF!fertilizers is not a problem. In addition, a person influenced to act in regard to a particular setting such as their home or workplace may take environmental action only in that setting. For example, someone empowered to act at home may purchase compact fluorescent light bulbs, buy organic cleaners , and recycle regularly within that setting. Outside of the home, however he may not be as empowered and the behavior may not be as convenient, so he may not decide to participate in those behaviors any of those behaviors in the work setting. Context cha nges depend on the type of environmental decision, the social influence of others, and the location of the decision is being made. Interviewing allowed me to better understand the nature of the relationship between environmental identity and System 1 and System 2 decision -making Participants with a high environmental identity made decisions about recycling in a fast way because they viewed recycling as an environmental behavior that was considered automatic. This automaticity came from participating in t he behavior often and believing it was the most environmentally friendly decision to make. System 1 thinking was automatic and required little effort. System 1 functions on learned connections between ideas and skills it has already mastered. System 1 ope rates without choice. System 2 thinking is slow and effortful. It has some ability to control and change System 1 reasoning by controlling attention and memory (Kahneman, 2011). The following interview analysis was meant to help to answer the questions above. In addition, the interviews were meant to better understand the relationship between environmental identity and participating in environmental behaviors and making decisions to act in environmental ways. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B;!Environmental identity was coded using the constructs outlined by Clayton (2003). Environmental identity based on ClaytonÕs analysis included the values and priorities one placed on the environment, oneÕs self concept and how the natural environment play ed a role in making someone who they are, t he types of experiences one has had in nature, and the types of groups one is a member. Decision -making was coded using KahnemanÕs (2011 ) System 1 and System 2 thinking framework. Decision -making was analyzed using fast and slow thinking characteristics. Fast thinking included references to doing things automatically, unconsciously, or habitually. Slow thinking was coded when participants referenced putting effort and thinking into make decisions to participate in environmental behaviors. The environmenta l behaviors used in this study were modified from the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index. S ee Appendix A. Summary Based on the quantitative analysis, environmental identity and environmental behaviors are correlated. This means that if someone had a high score for environmental identity it was likely they would have to participate in environmental behaviors more frequently. Even though the relationship was significant, there were outliers. See the scatterplots in Figures 1 and 2. This was why i t was important to interview those that showed the relationship between environmental identity and environmentally responsible behaviors as well as those that did not show the relationship. Therefore, participants with above average environmental identity scores and above average environmentally responsible behavior scores were chosen for interviews. Participants that had below average environmental identity scores and above average environmentally responsible behaviors scores were also chosen. In addition, according to the quantitative data, environmental identity and environmental decision -making were positively correlated. In other words, if someone had a high score on the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B>!environmental identity survey that person was more likely to make the d ecision to recycle in a fast, intuitive, System 1 way. In order to further explore the relationship between environmental identity score and decision -making, participants were chosen based on their responses to the Environmental Identity Survey and the De cision Making Questionnaire. Participants that had strong environmental identities and had high scores on the Decision Making Questionnaire were interviewed. In addition, participants with strong environmental identities and below average decision -making scores were interviewed to better understand the relationship. The participantsÕ survey scores are described below in Table 24. Kim was chosen because her scores were aligned with the relationship shown by the correlation between environmental identity, frequency of participating in environmentally responsible behavi ors, and making fast decisions to recycle. Her scores were below average for all three variables. Savannah, Ryan, Molly, and Olivia were chosen because their responses on the survey were in line with the correlation results. They had high environmental i dentity scores, environmentally responsible behavior scores, and high decision -making scores. Ansel showed a below average environmental identity score, but had an above average behavior score. Katie had an above average environmental identity score, but a below average behavior score. Table 23. Interview participants Õ pseudonyms and survey scores Pseudonym Participant Group Identity Score (24-120) Behaviors Score (25-125) Decision Making Score (6 slow -30 fast) Kim Education 32 36 15 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B?!Table 23 (ContÕd) Ansel Education 56 80 22 Katie Education 86 36 22 Savannah Education 96 97 30 Renee Education 113 74 30 Ryan Education 115 111 28 Molly Sustainability 117 125 30 Olivia Sustainability 118 116 26 Description of interview p articipants In order to better understand the identities of the interview participants, I asked participants to answer the question : Who am I? In addition, I wanted to get a sense of what environmental actions the interview participants participated in regularly. To get this information, I asked participants to answer: What actions do you take for the environment? Table 25 shows how the participants answered these questions. The self reported environmental action items are numbered based on how much of a positive impact the action had on the envi ronment based on the participantsÕ perspective. The action listed first was the action the participant ranked as having the most positive impact on the environment. The who am I items are ordered based on the order the participants listed them. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B@!Table 24. Interview participantsÕ answers to identity interview questions Participant Self reported environmental actions Answers to Who am I? Kim 1. Return water bottles 2. Return cans 3. Reuse plastic bags 4. DonÕt litter 5. Recycle paper MSU senior Big sister Hard worker Crafty Outgoing People person Molly 1. I recycle everything 2. I try not to use excess electricity 3. I pick up trash 4. I use reusable grocery bags 5. I grow my own food (seasonal) Junior Yooper Environmentalist Environmental studies and sustainability major Lesbian Athlete Ryan 1. Recycle 2. Pick up trash 3. Catch and release fishing Student American Conservationist Musician Hard worker Ansel 1. Recycle 2. Drive small car 3. DonÕt litter 4. Garden at home; Grow own vegetables 5. Recycle paper Sister Daughter Friend Traveler Cook Savannah 1. Recycle 2. Car pooling 3. Conserving water 4. Turning off lights 5. Reduce consumerism 6. Rescue animals College student Female Sister Irish, French, GermanÉculture Caregiver Renee 1. Reducing Consumption: Typing notes, walking/gas 2. Recycling 3. Taking lukewarm showers I am a King, family Woman Musician (oboe) playing and listening to music !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BA! Table 24 (ContÕd) 4. Reusing clothes 5. Candles Educator Learner Science nerd Heterosexual Daughter of social workers Catholic -not pushy Olivia 1. Study food systems 2. Recycle and educate 3. Composting/food waste reduction 4. Conserve resources Student Cat lover Food systems nerd Environmentalist Sister Outdoorsy person Gardener Katie 1. Recycle plastic 2. Recycle cans 3. Recycle cardboard 4. Recycle paper Girl 19 MSU Big family Teacher Environmental Identity and Behaviors : What is the nature of the association between environmental identity and participating in pro -environmental behaviors? The quantitative analysis showed participants who believed the natural environment was a part of their self -concept were likely to participate in environmentally responsible behaviors more frequently. E nvironmental identity and participating in pro -environmental behaviors was positively correlated r= .68, p < .01 . The questions asked during the interview were created using ClaytonÕs environmental identity theory. In addition to asking about identity, the main focus of the interview questions was on the major constructs of the Environmental Identity Scale (Clayton, 2003). The constructs includ ed group membership, values and priorities, experiences in nature, and the connection to environmental identity and participation in environmental behaviors. Interview participants were asked to describe their personal connection to the natural environment , in order to better understand how environmental identity and behaviors correlate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BB!with each other. This question was asked because according to ClaytonÕs theory of Environmental Identity, a key component of environmental identity is a strong, personal, an d emotional connection to the natural world. According to Clayton (2003), place attachment and emotional connections t o particular places shapes self -concept . In addition, participants were asked to share how frequently they participated in environmental ly responsible behaviors. Environmental identity is said to influence individuals to act in more environmentally friendly ways. Individual identities lead to behaviors that are consistent with those identities (Kempton and Holland, 2003). According to Cla yton (2003), environmental identity has direct influences on behaviors and attitudes. Environmental identity can be a motivating force for acting more environmentally. If an individual feels like a part of the natural world, that person will likely behave in ways that protect the natural environment because they feel it is an inherent part of him or her. ÒAn environmental identity locates us within a collective that is truly an interdependent system. If we recognize the significance and value of other members of the system, including nonhuman entities, that is one step toward acknowledging the rights of those entities, the way in which they are affected by our own actions and the obligations that we owe themÓ (Clayton, 2003, p. 60). It is important to rec ognize that an environmental identity is also Ôin part a social identityÕ (Clayton, 2003, p.53). According to Clayton and Opotow (2003), environmental identity inevitably contains a social component because it is associated with cultural components and wor ldview. Environmental identity helps people to affiliate with particular social groups (Clayton, 2003). To explore the social components of environmental identity, participants were !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BC!asked to describe how group memberships including how their family made a difference in the frequency of participation in environmental behaviors. Participants were asked about familial experiences and influences because environmental identity can be strongly influenced by family values and experiences. In BlattÕs (2013) study l ooking at the development of environmental identity in a high school environmental science class, she found that environmental identity was influenced by family environmental commitment. In addition, Kitchell et al. (2000) and Zavestoski (2003) found that familial environmental background (i.e. amount of time spent in nature and types of interactions with the natural environment) was a major factor influencing environmental identity. Experiences in nature were assessed using questions such as can you de scribe a memorable experience in nature as a child and can you describe a memorable experience in nature as an adult? Positive experiences and interactions in nature are important factors for developing environmental identity. According to Clayton (2003) , environmental identity is developed through having positive inter actions with the nature in childhood. Theme 1: Families Influence Pro -Environmental Behaviors Environmental identity helps people to affiliate with particular social groups (Clayton, 2003). According to Clayton (2003), environmental identity has a personal and social component. ÒA personÕs environmental identity consists of personal characteristics unique to the individual as well as group memberships shared with similar, like -minded othersÓ (Opotow & Brook, 2003, p. 250). Group memberships based on environmental identity are based on socially shared understandings of the relationship between people and nature (Weigert, 1997). Being a part of a group influences identity and in turn influences the actions taken to confirm membership to a particular group. Actions taken by the group are expected to reinforce the sense !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BD!of group identity. This is particu larly true when the actions reinforce the groupÕs core beliefs and values (Samuelson, Peterson, and Putnam, 2003). Actions that conform to the groupÕs behavioral norms can increase the normative influences of group identity by clarifying the behaviors that are approved or disapproved for group members (Samuelson et al., 2003). Using ClaytonÕs conception of environmental identity, participants were asked to share how particular social relationships and group memberships influenced their participation in envi ronmental behaviors. Families influenced participation in environmental behaviors . All eight participants mentioned that their family influenced their environmental behavior in some way. Overall, in all eight interviews there were about 154 references to family, see Table 25. Participants with weak environmental identities also referenced a family influence. Participants usually referenced their parents and grandparents when discussing their identities and their participation in environmental behaviors. On one hand, participants with strong environmental identities were likely to attribute their environmentalism with how they were brought up or with how their family encouraged them to be concerned for the environment. Ryan, a participant with a strong envir onmental identity described how his dad influenced him to not litter and to always make the world better than he found it. On the other hand, participants with a weak environmental identity described their family in other ways. For instance, Kim a partici pant with a weak environmental identity mentioned how her parents always vote d for conservative candidates, so she also voted for conservative candidates who care less about the environment and more about other issues. Table 25. Number of family references during the interview Participant Number of Family References !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BE!Table 25 (ContÕd) Renee 38 Ansel 22 Savannah 22 Olivia 19 Kim 18 Ryan 14 Molly 11 Katie 10 Participants attributed their change in environmental behavior and awareness of environmental issues to an interaction with a family member. Many times, family members were reported as teaching family values by discouraging poor environmental behavior. For instance, Ryan a freshman Education student with a Environmental Identity Scale score of 115 and an Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index score of 111, both of which are high scores meaning he identified strongly with the natural environment and part icipated in environmentally responsible behaviors frequently described a time when he was trout fishing with his dad and he threw a cigarette butt in the river. This example showed how littering, an anti -environmental behavior was disapproved of by an impo rtant member of RyanÕs family group , his dad. The behavior was punished. Ryan: ÒYeah, I think a couple of years ago I was fishing with my dad and I wasnÕt É I was smoking a cigarette and I wasnÕt really thinking and I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CF!just kind of tossed it and he got pre tty pissed off so I just É ever since then, you know, IÕve made a conscious effort to pick up trash when I see it and not do that nowadays when IÕm out fishing so, experiences with my family members [made an impact].Ó Overtime, g roup membership can chang e how one views oneself in relation to the natural world. Family members also taught the participants about consequences to anti -environmental actions. Another example came from Ansel, a freshman Education student. AnselÕs environmental i dentity score wa s 56 and her environmental behaviors score was 80. Ansel described how she changed her recycling behavior after her father showed her pictures of the Pacific Garbage Island. ANSEL: I guess recycling glass bottles or jars. When I was little I always used to say to my dad, ÒWhy do we have to go do this?Ó Like itÕs such a hassle to go all the way to the store to turn them in, just throw them out in the trash. And he explained to me, he showed me pictures of like, like the, the ocean where the, I canÕt thin k of what itÕs called, the circle where all the trash Ñ INTERVIEWER: Oh, the garbage? Ansel: Yeah, is floating. INTERVIEWER: The island? ANSEL: Yeah, and he just showed me that, and heÕs like, ÒIf we donÕt do this, this could happen more and more.Ó Participants were also influenced to act in pro -environmental ways because their parents !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C;!acted in environmentally friendly ways. Olivia, a Sustainability student, when asked how social interactions influenced her participation in pro-environmental behavior in a positive way, she described how her family also participate d in environmental behaviors like gardening. Olivia: ÒÉmy family like my mom she went here as a student to study natural resources like natural resources something now she's a math teacher b ut she is still like into the environment. And my dad felt the same way he É I definitely got my gardening stuff because he was always like oh like we got to grow our own food and see that kind of stuff.Ó OliviaÕs environmental identity score was 118 and h er environmentally responsible behaviors score was 116. Participants reported how their grandparents influenced their environmental behaviors in a positive way. Ryan and Ansel both mention ed their grandparents as having a positive impact on their recyclin g behavior. Ryan: ÒÉ actually you know what my grandma really got me into recycling because sheÕs pretty like serious about it like we have this big huge recycling bin at home and she just she spends like a hour every week sorting through it and stuff lik e that. So I think that was a big reason behind me recycling.Ó When evaluating how frequently she participated in certain environmental behaviors, Ansel mentioned that she spoke with her grandparents about environmental issues often. ANSEL: Talk to others about environmental issues. Yes, I do. I talk to my grandparents. IÕm going to put that under number four. TheyÕre really into protecting the environment and they drive a Prius and stuff, so I talk to them about it. INTERVIEWER: And in a way of just gainin g information from them or sharing? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C>!ANSEL: Yeah. Or talking about like, ÒOh, I canÕt believe people do this to the environment.Ó Family values are important part s of developing identity. In the examples above, the environmental behaviors family members participated in were influential in how participants acted toward the environment . In the examples described by Ryan and Ansel , their fathers influenced their behav ior by either informing them of the consequences of anti -environmental behaviors or influencing them by disapproving of particular behaviors and encouraging others . Being a part of a family group influenced the types of behaviors these respondents particip ated in. The social nature of identity helped to explain how individuals located themselves as active member s of a group , in this case, how they positioned themselves in a family group. In RyanÕs example, family membership helped him feel connected to his father while also act ing in pro -environmental ways to uphold his active membership in the family group. Based on this result, environmental identity is an identity developed through social interactions . Social interactions with environmentally conscious fa mily members influenced participation in pro -environmental behaviors. Theme 2: Values and Priorities Influence Participation in Pro -Environmental Behaviors Values and priorities are an important component of environmental identity (Clayton & Opotow, 2003). Environmental behaviors and making contributions to environmental organizations are ways to show personal and collective values (Clayton & Opotow, 2003). These behaviors and contributions show others what is valued and cared about and help to define oneÕs identity (Ritov & Kahneman, 1997; Clayton & Opotow, 2003). In their research evaluating environmental values, Kempton, Boster, & Hartley (1995) found that environmental values correlated with religious and moral values. In their 2000 study , 64% of participants agreed that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C?!protecting the environment was a moral issue involving beliefs about what was morally right and wrong. In this study, p articipants with a strong environmental identity and participants with a weak environmental identity had different overall values and prioritized different behaviors . Students with a strong environmental identity were more likely to describe the reasoning behind their behavior as being something that was the right thing to do or that it was important to lea ve the environment better than they found it. For instance, Ryan a participant with a high environmental identity score mention ed he wanted to make the environment better than he found it. He later state d that even though he did not think that one vote made that big of a difference he would still vote for someone who valued the environment. RYAN: ÒWell, I think being a conservationist impacts it the most impacts the environmental actions the most probably just because, you know, I donÕt know I was alway s just brought up, you know, if you see something on the ground you pick it up even if itÕs not yours if you didnÕt make the mess, you know, leave it better than you found it. Ó Participants who cared more for the environment had stronger environmental i dentity scores and participated more frequently in pro -environmental behaviors. Molly , a Sustainability participant, with an Environmental Identity score of 117 and an Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index score of 125 lived in a tourist town in nort hern Michigan and saw the aftermath of the summer tourist season. The trash and litter near the beach bothered her. She explained that she valued the environment and this caused her to care a little more than people who were not environmentalists. She reported that her care for the environment was why she recycle d and thought it was important to keep the beach and water clean. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C@!INTERVIEWER: So how do you think the natural environment fits into your identity? MOLLY: I think I care a little bit more. When people laugh that I recycle everything, itÕs kind of, IÕve recycled everything since I was young, younger. Like IÕve never really lived in an environment where we didnÕt reuse or we didnÕt recycle. But especially up north, itÕs a tourist town. Mackinaw Ci ty is a tourist town. And every summer you can tell it gets a little bit dirtier as the tourist leave. Because they leave and they donÕt have to live in the environment anymore. But thereÕs trash on the beach. And thereÕs stuff floating in the water. And t hey donÕt live there so they donÕt care. But I see it. As a, like as a resident there. And so it just, I donÕt like when people take the natural environment for granted. Because itÕs like they think it will always be there [when] it will not. Participants with a below average score on the environmental identity scores did not prioritize participating in environmental behavior s. For example, Ansel describe d a time when her sorority did a community clean up . When asked how her membership in a group or community influenced your environmental behavior? Ansel responded by describing a time when her sorority sisters did a community clean up in Lansing. However, she did not attend. ÒIn my sorority, I mean I didnÕt go, but they we nt and cleaned up the streets in I think it was somewhere in Lansing, so they have stuff like, like that that we do. I just couldnÕt go that one time, but they come up with other things and IÕm like waiting for another one to go to. Ó This is one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CA!example to show that she did not prioritize acting environmental even when the structures were in place to participate. Others with weak environmental identity scores did not value the natural environment. The two other participants with weak environmental identities identified with religious groups and conservative politics. For instance, Kim with a score of 32 on the Environmental Identity Scale and a score of 36 on the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index stated she always voted Republican because they held the same values as she did. She further stated that her parents instilled those (Republican) values and she planned to stick to those ideals. Kim reported, Ò I will probably always vote Republican which sounds bad. But I alway s want to vote somebody that has like the same values I do. I donÕt want to vote for somebody that has different values from me. And that was given to me from like my parents. Ó Katie identified as a Catholic from a small town. Her Environmental Identity Sc ale score was 86 and her Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index score was 36. Her identity as a Catholic from a small town made her think about the environment and environmental issues in a different way. She stated she was not concerned about enviro nmental issues because they were taken care of by God. Katie first mentioned that she was not much into the environment. She stated, ÒI think just like talking about [the environment ] and stuff is I have never been the one thatÕs like huge on environment a t all. I Õm from a small town, IÕm a Catholic all these othe r things I don't like science. And so I just havenÕt been like super interested in it. Ó I asked her to explain why being a Catholic influenced her interest in the environment. She further reported, ÒI just think that like I donÕt IÕm not concerned with it that much because I feel like that it just like all taken care of just like I think theyÕre like because I know my imprint will be like o n it the earth but I feel like God will take care of the world. So I just donÕt worry about it. Ó !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CB!Values made a large impact on what behaviors one participated in. Participants with a strong environmental identity and considered the natural environment a part of their self concept were more likely to describe t heir participation in environmental behaviors as a moral obligation. Participants with a weak environmental identity or the participants that did not consider the natural environment a part of their self -concept were more likely to attribute their lack of participation in environmental behaviors to their religious affiliation and political ideals. These results show that there is a relationship between values , specifically moral and religious values , environmental identity, and participation in environmenta l behaviors. Theme 3: Participants with Weak Environmental Identities Can Be Influenced to Act in Pro-Environmental Ways Participants with a strong environmental identity described the mselves as educator s. They thought teaching others was an important pa rt of their identity as an environmentalist and/or conservationist. Participants with a weak environmental identity can be influenced by others to act in pro -environmental ways. For instance , Savannah saw herself more as an educator than an environmentalist even though she had a strong environmental identity. The educator identity beg an when she complete d her Girl Scout Gold Award . To obtain her award, she dedicated her time to create a recycling education program for a summer camp. She d escribed herself as an educator and someone who would rather teach about protecting the environment than about math in her future classroom. She stated, ÒI think of myself maybe more as an educator then an environmentalist and then I just take É I decide certain things that I like to educate more about which would be the recycling in the environment and like geography and histories. So thatÕs like something I just unconsciously just !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CC!kind of educate more about than I would like math, you know, or something like that. Ó In addition, she mentioned she taught the children she babysat about recycling when their family did not regularly recycle. ÒIÕm so use to recycling so many different ways and even at the house like if IÕm babysitting or something and they donÕt have like they donÕt have a recycling, you know, thing set up kind of influence or tell the kids like, you know, you can recycle this or teach them, you know, show them not a guilt trip but, I will guilt trip my boyfriendÕs family thatÕs what my boyfriendÕs family would be like. Yeah, you guys should be, you know, doing this and stuff. Ó Renee, a junior Education student explained that she encouraged her family and friends to be more environmental ly conscious . She also encouraged her roommate to rec ycle more. When asked how social interactions impacted her choice to participate in pro -environmental behaviors, Renee explained that she pushed others to participate in pro -environmental behaviors. ÒIÕm more of the person that pushes. ThereÕs not really anyone in my life that tells me not to besides my dad. Yeah, IÕm the one trying to create relationships that push people to be more environmentally friendly. Like with my roommate, when I was trying to - I just met her, I was trying to like be a good frie nd and everything. But I was like, ÒHey, could you just - instead of putting this in the trash bag could you put it in my recycle bag thatÕs right next to it because this can be recycled?Ó And like the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CD!thing happens - like sometimes she forgets, and w hen I do I just put it in the bag for her or I dig it out of the trash. But I donÕt really feel like IÕm affected that much besides my dad, just to avoid arguments. But it really doesnÕt change what I do; it just changes how I act around him. Ó Molly also influenced people to participate in environmental behaviors. She reported she talked to people about environmental issues in an open and honest way. She reported she stayed away from sharing her opinion without facts to back her opinions up. Her passion c ame through in her decision to demand her roommates to recycle as a part of signing the lease. When asked how she influenced peopleÕs behaviors, Molly explained: ÒIt depends on who it is. With my roommates, I told them flat out before we signed the lease that we were going to recycle. That was a hard limit for me. With my mom, I just expose her to what I think would be good and she eventually warms up to the idea. In general though, I just talk to people. I tell them my opinions. I tell them why I have those opinions. I tell them what I do. I tell them why, how. And I feel like when you take the time to actually explain to people your opinions and why you think them, n ot just what you think, but why, they are more likely inclined to either try it out or at least accept it and acknowledge it. Whereas if you just tell them your opinions, they will be like ok yeah, thatÕs great. But I donÕt know. I just feel like you have to really talk to people about it instead of just throwing opinions at them. Ó !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CE!Olivia, a Sustainability student with a strong environmental identity, mentioned her experience in a residential organization on campus helped her to reach out to people and mak e them aware of current environmental issues. Olivia explained, ÒResidential initiative on the study of the environment (RISE). So yeah I think that because like I mean I connect more with the people that come out of that campus now and so I donÕt go see a lot of them anymore. And so when I posted about it a lot of people have kind of done it and IÕm like oh thatÕs so cool like whatever. And so personally for me itÕs really cool because I get to talk to people more. And then within my friends within my maj or like I get to share stuff with them and so they talk to other people about it. And a lot of people that arenÕt really interested in the environment will still look at it which goes back to I know somewhere awareness and education with family. So I think itÕs kind of like general itÕs pretty cool. And it kind of forces me to like look into stuff more. Ó When asked how his influence on his sisterÕs behavior was connected to his identity as a conservationist, Ryan explained that educating people was a part of being a conservationist. In addition, he explained that his experience teaching others about the environment in the U.S. Virgin Islands and his time with his younger sister were key components to being a conservationist. Ryan explained, Ò I think just educating people. You know, doing that presentation in St. John and like educating my little sister and stuff like that on things is just a big part of conservation just so like future generations can kind of just perpetuate that idea of conservation hope fully. I mean thatÕs the goal. Ó !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DF!Participants with a weak environmental identity are easily influenced to recycle. Participants with a weak identity were influenced to act in pro -environmental ways by others. In the case of participants with a low environmental identity score, participants usually reported being educated about environmental issues and learning how to participate in pro -environmental behaviors. Kim and Ansel mentioned times when they were encouraged and info rmed by their family members and their roommates to behave in particular ways. For instance, a fter her roommates noticed she threw her water bottles in the trash , KimÕs roommates encouraged her to recycle plastic . Kim further explained she always recycled aluminum cans and glass bottles, but once she moved in with her current roommates, she began to recycle other materials like plastic and paper. See Table 26 for additional information about this result. Kim reported, Ò I return cans .Ó I then asked her if sh e would return cans even if she did not get a deposit back. In Michigan, individual get a ten -cent deposit back after returning cans and bottles to local recycling centers and stores. She said, ÒI didnÕt until this year actually. I used to always return cans for like the cash back. But now this year like I started doing returning back water bottles and like the milk cartons and everything. And thatÕs because of my roommates. Yeah. They kind of noticed I used to throw them away and now they have like two trash bins that we put like water bottles in because IÕm not somebody... I donÕt have like the refill from the fountain. I buy like the Aquafina packages. So I usually have a lot. So now we return like the water bottles as well. So I can write that one dow n as well. Ó Katie had an Environmental Identity score of 86 and an Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index score of 36. Much like Kim, KatieÕs recycling behavior was influenced by her !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D;!roommates . When asked how social interactions influenced her choice to recycle, Katie explained that her friend encouraged her to recycle because her roommate told her how easy it was to recycle. She provided this example, Ò Like coming here and my roommate she lives in Detroit and so she like recycled all the time so it w as easier for her to separate and doing all this stuff. SheÕs like yeah just do this and this thatÕs fine I can do that. Ó Recycling is social. Participants with strong environmental identities were more likely to have the practical knowledge necessary to t ake action for the environment and inform others about environmental issues . They were very motivated to educate others about the importance of acting to protect the environment . Participants with weak environmental identities can be influenced to act in pro -environmental ways. For instance , participants with a weak environmental identity reported that other more environmentally minded people influenced them to act more responsibly toward the environment. This result shows that even those with a weak environmental identity can be influenced by particular social group s (i.e. family, roommate, and peers) to participate in pro -environmental behaviors even if their values and ideals do not fully align . It also shows that participants with strong envi ronmental identities naturally take on the role of educator. These results are important for environmental educators to consider. Table 26. Interview participants report of being a teacher of environmental behaviors or a learner of environmental behavi ors Participant Environmental Identity Score (24-120) Teacher or Learner Kim 32 Learner (Influenced by roommates) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D>! Table 26 (ContÕd) Ansel 56 Learner (Influenced by grandparents) Katie 86 Learner (Influenced by roommates) Savannah 96 Teacher (Began environmental education program for children) Renee 113 Teacher (Encourages others to recycle) Ryan 115 Teacher (Volunteer s at environmental education program in Virgin Islands) Molly 117 Teacher (Encourages roommates to recycle and mother to compost ) Olivia 118 Teacher (Serves on sustainability organization on campus educating peers about sustainability issues) Environmental Identity and Systems Thinking: How does environmental identity influence how one thinks about making environmental decisions? The quantitative analysis showed there was a significant correlation between environmental identity and making the decision to recycle in the fast, System 1. This showed that if someone had a high score on the envir onmental identity survey that person was more likely to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D?!make the decision to recycle in a fast, intuitive, System 1 way. If someone had a low environmental identity score that person was more likely to make the decision to recycle in slow, System 2 way. There was no significant difference between the Education and Sustainability group score on the Decision Making Questionnaire. The purpose of the qualitative data was to explore how environmental identity actually influenced how one made decisions about recy cling and other environmental actions. Theme 1: Environmental Identity did not A ffect the Type of Thinking Used to Recycle Initially, I hypothesized participants with a strong environmental identity would report using System 1, fast thinking when recycling and participants with weak environmental identities would not use System 1, fast thinking when recycling. The survey resul ts showed there was a positive correlation between environmental identity and System 1 fast thinking when recycling. Before conducting the interviews, my initial hypothesis stayed the same. However, d espite the scores on the environmental identity scale , all interview participants reported frequently and automatically recycling glass bottles, jars, and aluminum cans. All interview participants frequently sorting trash to separate non -recyclables from recyclable materials. For instance, Kim, a politically conservation senior who mentioned caring more about people than the environment explained that she had always recycled glass bottles and aluminum cans. This behavior began with her family. When asked if recycling was curbside, she mentio ned her parents just brought the recyclables to Meijer, a large grocery store. She stated that her family always had a separate trashcan for just recyclables. She explained, Ò Once we got like two or three trashcans full we would bring them in which is actu ally what IÕm doing after this because I have two trashcans full in my car right now. Ó Based on my knowledge of recycling in Michigan, she described only recycling aluminum cans and glass bottles. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D@!In Michigan, to recycle cans and bottles normally one can go to the local grocery store to drop off the recyclables and receive the cash refund. KimÕs family did not recycle other materials that included more effort like paper and cardboard . Kim reported that she did not sort trash to separate non -recyclables fro m recyclables until this year. She was influenced by her college roommatesÕ environmental behavior and encouragement to act in more pro -environmental ways . KIM: ÒSorted your trash to separate non -recyclable from recyclable material. I didnÕt do that really except for the cans and everything until this year. And now I do it this year and my roommates had me do it this year. So... Should I like... If I do it now does it matter? Like if weÕre... INTERVIEWER: I guess wherever you are now... KIM: Okay. INTERVIEW ER: ...how do you think it would stand? KIM: I would put it as a three now...because we separate like a lot now. We have anything from like any type of wine bottle, water bottle, milk jugs like everything separated. INTERVIEWER: And thatÕs from influence that your roommates have had on you? KIM : Yeah. Both of my roommates are like extremely environmental savvy...and separate every single thing...where I before...was only separating cans. Ó Katie, a participant that did not identify as an environmenta list also explained that she recycled frequently . She reported, ÒYeah, I do a lot more recycling now that I live at MSU because like at home I just do cans. We donÕt have recycling bins around us. ItÕs like now I live !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DA!here I recycle all the time.Ó This showed that even though Katie did not identify as an environmentalist, she still could act in pro environmental ways. In this case, she was reported how her environment influenced her behavior. Ansel , another participant wit h a below average environmental identity score reported that she sorted trash all the time and could not think of a time she did not recycle. She said, ÒthatÕs a quick decision itÕs something IÕve always doneÉso I just do it.Ó In addition to frequently recycling aluminum and glass and sorting trash for recyclables, all interview participants described their recycling behavior as being an automatic and fast decision. Most participants mentioned recycling as being second nature an d something they just do without putting much thought into it. For instance, Ryan reported , ÒRecycle glass bottles or jars or aluminum cans itÕs a quick decision I just do it. Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclable from recyclable materials also a quick decision itÕs kind of second nature now.Ó Savannah also consider ed recycling second nature. ÒRecycling glass bottles or can s. I just do that automatically donÕt even think about it so thatÕs a quick decision. Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclab le and recyclable material. Again, thatÕs just automatically now.Ó Renee, a participant with a strong environmental identity reported that if she does not see a recycling bin anywhere close she will hold onto her recyclables until she finds a place to disc ard them. Renee said, Ò I sort my trash from non -recyclable to recyclable. I automatically recycle glass bottles or aluminum cans and carry them around until I find a place.Ó The result s showed that recycling bec ame a norm for a variety of people with differing values and idea ls about the environment. Recycling was an automatic behavior for all of the participants making it a behavior that was not solely dependent on ones Õ identity . Based on what !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DB!the interview participants mentioned in their accounts, t here were certain external factors that made recycling a n automatic behavior . Theme two highlights how the physical environment influenced recycling. Theme 2: The Physical Environment Makes Recycling Easy I asked participants why behaviors were easy or difficult . All participants mentioned some type of physical environmental factor that made recycling a behavior that was easy and effortless. Being surrounded by a physical environment that supports pro -environmental behaviors influenced participants to automatically act in pro -environmental ways. All participants thought that being at a ÒGreenÓ university made it easy to make the decision to recycle in a quick an d effortless way. There were structural components available on campus and around Lansing and East Lansing that made it easier to recycle. For instance, the bins around campus and curbside recycling in Lansing were mentioned often . Participants who did not consider the natural environment a key component to their self -concept still reported frequently and automatically recycling. In addition, participants like Katie and Kim reported recycling was a n automatic action that required no thinking . Katie and Kim both attributed their recycling behavior to being a student at a ÒGreenÓ university . Based on the number of references to college in Table 27, Katie and Kim had the most with 5 and 4 references respectively. They mentioned how easy it was to recycle all types of materials on c ampus. On campus, students have access to recycling bins even though they do not have access to them at home . For instance, being a college student at this university include d access to recycling bins outside most classrooms on campus. Katie, a freshman E ducation participant explained that she did more recycling now that she was a college student. She reported, ÒYeah, I do a lot more recycling now that I live at !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DC![college] because like at home I just do cans. We donÕt have recycling bins around us. ItÕs like now I live here I recycle all the time. Ó Katie explained that she had a Òwhole bag of water bottles in my room that I just like go and put in the little garbage can that will hold plastic. And then I like had all my papers from last semester in a bag and then IÕll put these semester papers in it and then put it in a trash can.Ó Kim, when describing how her identity as a college student influenced her be haviors, she said, ÒÉbecause on campus, they do like tons of different recycling type stuff. They have like different recycling bins in almost every single building.Ó She attributed the accessibility of the recycling bins to her new and improved recycling behavior. Kim also mentioned th at it was hard to miss th e recycling bins because of they are brightly colored. Kim reported, And itÕll [recycling bins] be bright colors so it like stands out from the trash. Ó Renee , a participant with a strong environmental identity also mentioned the accessibility of recycling bins on campus made her happy. She said, Ò So recycling is a big thing. IÕm really happy that there are so many recycling bins everywhere, because I save things in my backpack. Like I have my juice from my comb o and I stock it up in a big bag. And then like once a month IÕll take it down to the ground floor and put it all in the bins and everything like that. Ó Table 27. Interview participant pseudonyms and number of references to college Pseudonym Number of College Recycling References Kim 5 Katie 4 Olivia 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DD!Table 27 (ContÕd) Ansel 1 Molly 1 Renee 0 Ryan 0 Savannah 0 There was also evidence that participants with strong environmental identities were also influenced by the presence of environmental structures making recycling easier. Olivia, a participant with a strong environmental attitude grew up in a rural area without curbside pick up. She said her involvement in an on campus organization and LansingÕs curbside recycling pick up made it easier for her to recycle. ÒSorted your trash to separate non -recyclables from recyclable materials thatÕs a fast one because it has become such a habit . Well, I guess when I was younger we did try to recycle but it wasnÕt, you know, just like enough like automatically. But I think thatÕs because we lived in like a rural area where it wasnÕt as common to do that. But now like in RISE that started me out but now that like I live in Lansing and we have like curbside pick -up they give you a list of like what you can and cannot recycle and because now IÕm learning about it more like I can I know that I can recycle things like I didnÕt think were recyclable before because some people donÕt just accept them which really sucks but yeah things like that. Ó !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DE! Recycling was easy because the physical environment made it convenient . I originally predicted environmental identity would have a bigger impact on recycling behavior and the type of thinking that went into the act of rec ycling. The interview data showed that environmental identity was not the most important component influencing the use of System 1 thinking when recycling . The interview data actually show ed that the physical environment influence d thinking more than oneÕs environmental identity. This result has many impacts on how environmental educators organize environments to encourage pro -environmental behavior. Theme 3: Recycling Elicits Emotions Recycling initiated emotions. Even though participants were not asked about their emotions, participants still mentioned feeling negative emotions when not recycling . Four of the eight participants made reference s to a negative emotion in regard to not recycling . Participants reported negative emotions in regard to watching others not recycling . For instance, when Savannah , a participant with an above average environmental identity score explained she still recycle d the aluminum cans that could not be recycled at the grocery store. She explained that she would do this because she would not feel comfortable throwing away items that were made of recyclable materials. She stated, ÒÉwe still recycle them like I still recycle them I wouldnÕt feel comfortable throwing it away. And like water bottles and stuff like I have a big bag in my room where I put all my water bottles when I have used them or if I use them instead of like one of those and stuff. So that always we have a part on our kitchen counter we have cleaned it out and we have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EF!all our recyclables.Ó Participants with weak environmental identities also expressed negative emotions when not recycling. For instance , Kim, a participant with a habit of recycling aluminum cans and glass bottles shared a story about a visit with her boyfriend in Texas. She described a time when she wanted to recycle an aluminum can in Texas and how it made her feel when she could not recycle it . Kim explained th e situation below. ÒThe first time I went down to Texas, I didnÕt know that like they didnÕt recycle them. And I like rinsed my can out and I asked my boyfriend like where to set it because like I was staying with him. And he was like, ÔWe donÕt return the m here.Õ I was like, ÒOkay. Well, you donÕt return them at all?Ó He was like, ÒYou donÕt get any money back. You can just throw it away.Ó I was like, ÒYou donÕt recycle it at all?Ó He was like, ÒNo. Just go ahead and throw it away.Ó So he made me throw it away. But I felt so weird about it...because like it like doesnÕt... I donÕt know. It didnÕt feel right because I donÕt do it here now whatsoever because my roommates either. And then especially, I was like, ÒIt takes up all your room in your trash too.Ó L ike we would go like one whole day and you have to empty your trash because it was full of cans or jugs or any type of jar or anything. So like... I donÕt know. I thought it was a pain in the butt. I didnÕt like not recycling them. So thatÕs something hone stly I would still probably keep doing. I donÕt like...I donÕt like throwing them away. One of my friends that lives here in Michigan... Her mom is from England and she doesnÕt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!E;!recycle them either because itÕs the same thing. And it bothers the crap out of me.Ó This account showed that the act of recycling had become a habit , a characteristic of System 1 thinking for Kim that when she was unable to recycle aluminum cans she had a negative emotional response. She stated that felt weird and that it was awkwar d not recycling aluminum cans. Another participant shared that she felt emotion al when others did not recycle. Molly , a participant with a strong, above average environmental identity discussed how angry and worked up she gets when she sees others throwing plastic in the trashcan. Molly described her emotions below. Molly said, ÒI get really, really, I wouldnÕt say angry, but I get very worked up when I see people throw away plastic. My favorite is when I see people throw away a plastic water bottle when there is a recycling receptacle within armÕs reach . It just, it doesnÕt make sense. It makes me get really worked up. And so when I talk to people I try and stay calm but itÕs hard to talk to people about something that you care so deeply about and have them not care. Especially when you know it affects them. But as for how my identityÕs shaped it. I feel like it just, IÕm really passionate about it. And I canÕt hide that. I mean someti mes I can be a little bit more cool and collected but in general IÕm very up -front. IÕm very blunt. I donÕt shy away from telling people that I think that they are wrong and that I think they need to change. Or, I try not to single people out but in genera l, IÕm just like !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!E>!ÒWe need to change. This is unsustainable.Ó But yeah. I try to be nice about it. Try. Ó One important characteristic of System 1 thinking is emotion. According to Kahneman (2011), emotional responses stimulate intuitive and fast decisions. I did not predict that participates would feel emotional about their decision to recycle. However, n egative e motion s were reported by half of the interview participants including participants with weak environmental identities. When participants did not recycle and when watching others throw away recyclables they mentioned having negative emotions such as anger, sadness, and disappointment . Based on the interview results, r ecycling behavior had become a habit with emotional significance for these participa nts and in turn had become an action that was also important to their daily lives. The results show that f eeling negative emotions when not recycling influenced individuals to recycle more often . This result shows that eliciting emotions cause s people to act in pro -environmental ways . Theme 4: College Students ArenÕt Political Voting and activism are behaviors that require more effort for participation. Activism is known as a high cost behavior because it requires time, research, and taking a stand for a cause. My hypothesis was that participants who care about the environment would participate in activism type behaviors more than participants with weak environmental identities. According to Clayton (2003) environme ntal identity included the values and ideals one has for the natural environment. She predicted that individuals with strong environmental identities and a strong connection to the natural environment would more likely be activists for the environment. Most participant s felt that participating in political activities was effortful and required System 2 thinking . Participants mentioned that it took effort, time, energy, and the decisions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!E?!requir ed research. Many participants reported not wanting to put the effort into researching the voting re cord of politicians. A few said they were turned off by politics. Most said, they would not put time into researching this information. Participants with a high environmental identity score mentioned that it took time and research to determine who to vote for. For instance, Ryan said that voting for a politician would be a Òslow decision because maybe the politician has an opinion about some other issue that youÕre passionate about that you donÕt agree with besides the environment. Ó Molly said, ÒWritten to your elected officials is definitely a slow decision because I feel like when you write to a politician especially, you have to be well versed in what youÕre writing about. Voted for a politician due to his or her rec ord, slow decision, like you do a lot of research. Ó Like Molly and Ryan, Olivia stated that it would take time and effort to express her opinions about environmental issues making it a slow decision. She stated, Ò IÕm not going to take time o ut of my day t o really do that.Ó Olivia did say she participated in online petitions. She said, Ò Although I will say if thereÕs like one of those things that I keep typing or like e -mail like youÕre a good zip code and everything then it sends it like to your Senator or whatever, your representative, I do that itÕs like if it comes across, you know, what IÕm doing. Ó In high school, Olivia was active in politics, but decided not to continue her participation because she thought it really didnÕt make a difference. When a sked to describe a behavior that she placed in the slow pile that at one time she made the decision quickly, Olivia described her political involvement. ÒI think this one the written to your elected officials. I use to do that a lot when I was working wit h like those political organizations but that was when I was in high school and I had more time to do stuff like that. So !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!E@!now itÕs just like itÕs slow for me I do not like doing it. I donÕt really think it makes a huge difference. IÕm probably wrong in tha t sense. I donÕt really like politics at all. It takes a lot of time to put together like a pretty É IÕm kind of a little bit a perfectionist so it takes a little bit of time to like really get my ideas out there. Yeah, itÕs just not the easiest thing. Ó However, s ome participants with a strong environmental identity were active in ot her forms of political activism. They reported being politically active by attending government -sponsored meetings about environmental issues, protesting companies with poor environmental records, and working on political campaigns. For instance, Molly, a Sustainability student with a strong environmental identity, reported infrequently writing to elected officials, but she did report being an activist for other environmental issues and attend ed open meetings about conservation and environmental issues . She also organized a March Against Monsanto, a protest against the food company Mo nsanto in her hometown. Molly described March Against Monsanto, ÒIt is a worldwide march ever y year. ItÕs been happening for a while. Where people will come together and they will march against genetically modified organisms. But particularly Monsanto and the influence it has. I am staunchly against Monsanto. I think they should be shut down. I th ink everything they do is evil and I donÕt like them at all. Ó Molly described her involvement: ÒBut I helped to set up last yea rÕs march back in my hometown . And that helped me to connect to the community there a little bit for sure. Back at home my mom and I had a, like a share in the co -op. And so you meet a lot of good people that way. Because thereÕs, itÕs really !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EA!nice to be surrounded by like -minded people who care. So that was definitely, that got me a little bit more into the local food movement. Back when I was in high school, we would go to the food co -op. And I would be like, all of this food. And itÕs from local sources. And it kind of got me thinking, where does food come from? What am I eating? So it kind of woke me up a little bit. Ó When asked what other behaviors she participated in, she added attending meetings about environmental issues. Molly added going to meetings as a behavior she participated in as an environmentalist. Molly said, ÒI donÕt IÕve only written to an elected offi cial once. But IÕve gone to environmental, or meetings about environmental issues where the public can speak. So IÕve spoken with elected officials, IÕve neverÉ Ó Molly reported she recently attended a Natural Resources meeting where they were discussing th e fate of an invasive species. The original hypothesis was that participants with strong environmental identities would participate in activism behaviors more often. Participants with strong environmental identities did report participating in activism t ype behaviors more often, but they did so sporadic ally. Many participants thought voting and being political was a waste of time. This result demonstrates that these college participants with strong environmental identities may not vote or get active in politics, but they were more likely to try other types of activism behaviors . This result upholds my original hypothesis that those with strong environmental identities were more active in activism type behaviors. This shows t hat other factors like social interactions influence political action more than environmental identity. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EB!CHAPTER 5 ÑDISCUSSION Simply caring about the environment is not as important as other factors in predicting pro-environmental behavior. Environmental identity coupled with external factors such as convenience, social influence and family values make a larger impact on acting i n pro-environmental ways. Quantitative Results Summary Participants (N= 299) completed three surveys including the Environmental Identity Scale, the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index, and the Decision Making Questionnaire. The data from these su rveys was then analyzed using correlation. Based on the survey results, environmental identity and participating in environmental behaviors frequently was significantly correlated in the positive direction. In other words, if a participant had a high score on the environmental identity scale the participant was more likely to participate in environmental behaviors such as buying products from recycled materials and taking courses about environmental issues. According to the survey data, when deciding to rec ycle, an individualÕs environmental identity was significantly correlated with System 1, fast thinking . Meaning that if a participant had a strong environmental identity they were more likely to make the decision to recycle using fast, System 1 thinking. Qualitative Results Summary Eight semi -structured interviews were done with participants from both the Education and Sustainability groups. Participants were chosen based on their survey results to create a cross section of environmental identity levels. Unlike the survey data, the interview data showed environmental identity did not make a difference in how often one recycled. All participants stated they recycled frequently and recycling was an automatic and habitual behavior; meaning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EC!they used System 1 thinking. Most participants mentioned recycling was easy because the physical environment made it convenient. Despite environmental identity score, all interview participants mentioned that their family made a difference in their behavior. Participants we re likely to say their parents or grandparents influenced their current participation in recycling. Participants with strong environmental identities, scores higher than 96, were more likely to value the environment and prioritize protecting it. Participan ts with a weak environmental identity, a score of 56 or less (score range 24 -120), were likely to prioritize other issues they believed were more important. However, they were directly influenced to act in pro -environmental ways by others. Convenience and the Physical Environment Influence Recycling Behavior Environmental identity is not the only driving force behind pro -environmental behavior. Participants recycled more often when it was convenient. They reported that recycling bins outside classrooms an d around campus made recycling easy. Participants reported that recycling bins around campus eliminated barriers such as lack of time that normally stands in the way of acting in pro -environmental ways. The physical environment makes recycling an unconscio us, automatic behavior. Environmental behaviors have become seemingly unconscious behaviors leading to fast thinking and automaticity (Heimlich et al., 2014;Kahneman, 2011). For instance, Kim, a participant with a weak environmental identity, reported recy cling on campus was easy and convenient. Kim said: ÒSorted your trash, separate non -recyclable from recyclable material is now a quick decision . That would be because now I do that without thinking because my roommates and we have that completely separated. And, like I said, on campus itÕs really easy to do that without thinking. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ED!Probably just the random things around Michigan State. Like instead of... Like I... IÕm addicted to drinking a thing of Diet Pepsi or Diet Coke in the morning . Like itÕs t errible for you but I do. So I usually have one... And usually on your way out from almost every single classroom, they have the recycle bins right by it. And one of them included by every one of them is specifically for like cans. So that actually does to o because instead... Like I donÕt just want to carry it around and I donÕt want it spilling in my bag or something because itÕs not like a twist top. Ó On campus, there are many places for participants to recycle materials. There are signs and bins everywh ere. See Figure 5 for pictures of the recycling bins on campus. These structures reduce the amount of thinking involved in making the decision to recycle, keep System 1 working automatically and allow System 2 to work in a Òcomfortable low effort modeÓ (Ka hneman, 2011, p. 24). This means the slow, System 2 thinking structure does not need to be activated to make decisions. The way an environment is designed can encourage recycling behaviors. ÒIf endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions supported by System 1 turn into beliefs and impulses and then into voluntary actionÓ (Kahneman, 2011, p. 24). Similar to the work done in behavioral economics, if the environment is designed in such a way to reduce the dependence on System 2 thinking, the physical env ironment can encourage the transition of pro -environmental behaviors into intuitions, impulses, and habits. In the retirement savings study conducted by Thaler & Benartz i (2004), the participants who were automatically enrolled in a retirement savings program where a percentage of their income was repeatedly taken out for savings saved more than the people not enrolled in the program. The automatic enrollment reduced the need for self -!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EE!control and reduced the consequences of procrastination and ultimately di d not activate System 2 thinking. The recycling bins around campus also reduce the need for self -control, activate System 1 thinking, and reduce the likelihood of throwing recyclables away. Figure 5. Recycling bins on campus. The current study provides additional information about how environmental structures can influence behaviors without changing a personÕs environmental identity. To look into this further, I could interview people who live in cities with an established infr astructure that encourages pro -environmental behavior such as biking instead of driving. For instance, I would ask Amsterdam residents why they bike and whether they would still bike without their current infrastructure, The results could potentially stren gthen my argument that environmental identity is not the only factor affecting pro -environmental behavior. Other factors, such as convenience, physical environment and low cost could be attributed as well. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;FF!In addition, I could extend the current study on r ecycling behavior. I could survey the participants again in five years, asking if they have continued recycling, and if the structures within their community made it more or less convenient. I could further explore the relationship between environmental id entity and recycling behaviors in places where recycling is more difficult. I predict someone with a weak environmental identity, like Kim, will discontinue her recycling behavior in Texas with her boyfriend. Texas does not have the bottle bill, and based on her interview, her boyfriend does not recycle. Family Values and Social Norms Influence Recycling Behavior Social interactions are important catalysts for participating in environmentally responsible ways (Heberlein, 2012). In a recent study, environmental identity development was found to be directly related to social interactions with peers (Riggs Stapleton, 2015). In the current study, participants attributed their pro -environmental behaviors to their families and social communities. For instance, participants with strong environmental identities attributed their concern for the environment to their moral obl igation to make the Earth better than they had found it. Participants with weak environmental identities were more likely to have religious and conservative values, placing less value on the environment. This result aligns with Clayton and Opotow (2003), w hich show social factors such as political position, religious influences and moral values drive environmentalism. The results of the existing study show recycling behavior is influenced by family values and community norms. For college students like Ki m and Ansel, both with weak environmental identities and infrequent participation, social interactions with family and roommates influenced their recycling behavior in positive ways. For instance, Kim mentioned she was encouraged by her roommates to recycl e additional materials, while Ansel felt her grandparents had a positive !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;F;!impact on her connection with the natural environment. Chawla (1999) found an important component to attaining an environmentalist career was the pro -environmental values held by fami ly members. Other participants, like Olivia, an environmentalist, attributed her attitude toward the environment to her membership in the Environmental Science and Sustainability cohort. Often, participants with strong identities reported informing others about their environmental concerns and actions. The interview data showed participants with a strong environmental identity viewed themselves as educators or Òsocial reformersÓ (Kempton & Holland, 2003, p. 318). These Òsocial reformersÓ found it was import ant to convince others to change behaviors. According to Nielsen & Ellington (1983), city blocks with a curbside recycling leader were more likely to have more recycling participation than blocks that did not have such a program. Based on the results of the current study, it is clear that environmental identity is socially constructed. Social norms can also elicit strong emotions. Participants felt upset when throwing away recyclable materials and emotional when they saw others throw away recyclable materi als. For instance, Savannah reported Ò Éwe still recycle them [aluminum cans] like I still recycle them I wouldnÕt feel comfortable throwing it away. Ó Participants also became irritated when watching others throw away recyclable materials. Molly stated: ÒI get really, really, I wouldnÕt say angry, but I get very worked up when I see people throw away plastic. My favorite is when I see people throw away a plastic water bottle when there is a recycling receptacle within armÕs reach. It just, it doesnÕt make s ense. It makes me get really worked up.Ó !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;F>! Participants with weaker environmental identities also mentioned emotional responses to not recycling materials that have been recycled frequently in the past. Kim, a participant with a weak environmental identity reported feeling uncomfortable when not recycling during her stay in Texas. As she described the experience, she mentioned feeling weird about not recycling aluminum cans. She explained, when asking her boyfriend about recycling the cans, ÒYou donÕt recycl e it at all?Ó He was like, Ô No. J ust go ahead and throw it away.Õ So he made me throw it away. But I felt so weird about it...because like it like doesnÕt... I donÕt know. It didnÕt feel right because I recycle it here now because of my roommates. Ó Thus, e ven participants with a weaker connection to the environment still elicited emotional response to environmentally irresponsible behavior. This emotional response could be a part of the internal sanctions that go along with the recycling norm. Internal sanc tions are a form of positive and negative reinforcement that occur inside oneÕs own head allowing one to adhere to the social norms without the help of others (Heberlein, 2012). For example, when someone recycles they feel good about what they have done. T hey feel as if their actions fit into the social norm, which persists even when others are not sanctioning behavior through punishments and rewards (Heberlein, 2012). This finding shows that social norms influence individual behavior by activating internal sanctions, emotional responses, and in turn System 1, fast thinking. To continue studying the link between emotions and environmental behavior, I would further explore the emotional drive behind recycling. In the current study, I did not ask explicit questions about emotions, rather participants volunteered the emotions felt when not recycling or watching others not recycle. Summary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;F?!These findings show that taking advantage of natural resources and understanding their importance is not as strongly linked to pro -environmental behavior as others may have previously thought. There are factors trumping environmental identity, such as the physical surroundings, moral va lues and social norms that seem to have a stronger influence and a more lasting effect. Simply caring about the environment is not enough. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;F@!CHAPTER 6 ÑCONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Although there is a relationship between environmental iden tity and participating in environmentally responsible behavior (confirming ClaytonÕs (2003) finding that considering the natural world as a part of oneÕs self-concept does influence the actions one takes for the environment. ), when it comes to recycling, e nvironmental identity did not have as strong of an influence. S tructures such as conveniently located recycling bins , social no rms, values, and familial relationships influence d participation in environmental behaviors more than solely caring about the env ironment . Recycling was considered an easy and automatic behavior for all participants . Despite oneÕs environmental identity score, the majority of participants reported recycling often . Although quantitative data showed a correlation between environmental identity and the decision to recycle, interview data evidenced a strong environmental identity did not influence how easy participants perceived recycling to be . So, an environmental mindset, suc h as deciding to go into an environmental field , did not affect the type of thinking that went into recycl ing . Both groups considered recycling a n effortless act. As no surprise, when made convenient, recycling was an easy decision to make. In their study exploring the relationship between attitudes toward recycling and recycling beha vior , Guagnano , Stern , & Dietz (1995) investigated how having curbside recycling influenc ed the strength of the attitude -behavior relationship for recycling. They found that having a recycling bin had a significant effect on recycling behavior . Bins made it cheaper to recycle and increased awareness of social and environmental consequences (Guagnano et al., 1995). Giving out recycling bins and making recycling easy actual ly increases the social desirability to recycle and acts to Òsignal a social norm for recyclingÓ (Guagnano et al., 1995, p. 714; Heberlein, 2012). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;FA!The social components of recycling influenced the participants in this study as well. They attributed recycling behavior to others , showing that as long as there are social norms in place, one may not need an environmental identity to act in a pro -environmental way . Over time, recycling has become a norm for many of the participants in this study. The deve lopment of the norm was and continues to be influenced by a variety of structural fixes (Heberlein, 2012) including curbside recycling programs, cash incentives for returning aluminum cans and glass bottles, and positioning recycling bins in convenient loc ations . These physical structures encourage individuals to recycle before they think about throwing items in the trash. Emotions also played a role in recycling. According to the quantitative and qualitative data analysis, System 1 was responsible for rec ycling behavior. The decision to recycle was fast, effortless, and emotional for most participants. Participants were likely to have a negative emotional response to witnessing others not recycling. Based on the interviews, participants felt awkward, angry , and uncomfortable emotionally if they were unable to recycle or if they witnessed someone throwing away recyclables. This emotional response could be a part of the internal sanctions that go along with the recycling norm. Implications for Research and P ractice One goal of environmental education is to encourage participation in pro -environmental behavior s. Based on the results of this study, environmental educators must consider how the physical environment and social norms influence individual behavior. Educators should use incentives to reinforce positive behaviors and punish non-environmental acts. These rewards and punishments will create social norms and influence the decisions people make on a daily basis. One key take away -make it easy and convenie nt. I n turn , social norms of environmentally conscious behavior will be created, influencing behavior. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;FB!Participants wi th weak environmental identities were influenced by others. This is an important result to consider when thinking about ÒgreenÓ initiativ es in schools and college campuses. This finding affects how we educate students about acting in pro -environmental ways . Educators should consider teaching their students how to tactfully discuss environmental issues with people of varying opinions . Even t hough, participants in this study did not change their ideals or environmental identity, they changed their behavior because others encouraged them to act in particu lar ways. Using KahnemanÕs (2011) System 1 and System 2 thinking framework has promise for exploring how people act toward the environment . System 1 and System 2 thinking is a n important dichotomy to consider when analyzing acquisition and learning (Gee, 1998) . Syst em 1 is based on acquisition of knowledge by be ing in the world and observing. It is linked to statistical and observational learning. As one observes the patterns of the world one unconsciously acts in the way that upholds the patterns of their environme nt. System 2 is more about logic and reasoning about the world. It includes conscious thought and effort and in turn learning (Gee, 1998) . Based on the findings in this study, t o encourage environmentally responsible behaviors, one must consider tapping into the unconscious, System 1. Manipulating the physical surroundings to make recycling convenient activates System 1 thinking . Recycling is a behavior that can be acquired by watching others, is influenced by the physical environment and is regulated by government policies (ÒBottle BillÓ including cash incentives). Another environmental behavior I believe can be acquired is biking instead of driving. This behavior is dependent on the physical environment and social norms. For instance, in the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam people ride their bicycles everywhere. Using a bicycle as a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;FC!form of transportation is a pro -environmental behavior, but the people in the Netherlands ride their bikes for other reasons . For instance, the Netherlands is flat making it easy to bike. There are physical structures in place to make biking easy including bike lanes, narrow roads and a variety of places to park bikes conveniently and safely. Biking is the s ocial norm in the Netherlands. This is a behavior that is acquired by living there. Children, adults and the elderly bike to get where they want to go. As part of the social norm, if you live in the Netherlands, you buy a bike and plan to bike around instead of drive a car. It's actually very difficult and expensive to drive in the Netherlands maki ng biking even more desirable. Perhaps , if the United States e stablished the same biking infrastructure as the Netherlands, it would be more socially acceptable to bike instead of drive. Other environmental behaviors may not be easily acquired but include consci ous effort and learning. For instance, activism behaviors and some consumerism behaviors involve learning about the issues and the brands in order to act. Those with a strong environmental identity were more likely to participate in activism and consumerism behaviors (Holland & Kempton, 2003) . Being an activist and switching brands are two behaviors req uiring research, logic and financial sacrifice. It may take a person with a strong conviction to the natural environment to make personal sacrifices for the Earth. I believe having a strong environmental identity would not be sufficient enough to participate in some pro -environmental behaviors. For instance, I would consider myself an environmentalist with a strong environmental identity. IÕm also a new mom. There are many decisions to make when a new baby comes into the world. One decision I had to make involved the type of diapers I would use. I made the dec ision not to use cloth diapers. I knew cloth diapers were the most environmentally friendly choice and in the long run the cheapest option for my family. However, t he convenience factor w as low. Cloth diapering !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;FD!involves dealing with dirty diapers, new clea ning processes an d keeping up with the laundry. I also did not become a part of a group of mothers who decided to use cloth diapers. As a working mom, I did not try to carve out the time necessary to ke ep up with cloth diapers. So, I decided on the conveni ent anti -environmental option of plastic disposable diapers. There were other influences like time, energy, family lifestyle, etc that impacted my decision more than my strong environmental identity. With this being said , in the future I would add to the D ecision Making Questionnaire . I would add behaviors such as public transportation and choosing brands based on environmental practices . Public transportation added to the questionnaire would allow me to test the theory that easy and convenient acts will be done by all participants. In addition, I would like to explore the type of thinking that is involved in more difficult and less convenient environmental behaviors . For example , I hypothesize that switching brands because of a companyÕs environmental record would be done more frequently by those with a strong environmental identity , tapping into System 2 thinking . However, othe r factors influencing behavior would still include group memberships, social interactions, family values and community norms . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;FE! APPENDICES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;F! APPENDIX A Survey Instruments Name: MSU email address: @msu.edu Gender (circle one) : Male Female I p refer not to share Age: Major: Academic Standing (circle one): Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Senior+ Please check the statement that best reflects the area where you spent the majority of your childhood (from 5 -12). _____ Rural area on a farm _____ Rural area but not a farm _____ Town less than 10,000 _____ City of 10,000 to 49,999 _____City of 50,000 to 100,000 _____ City larger than 100,000 Using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) , please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the most appropriate response: 1= Strongly Disagree 2= D isagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree 1. I spend a lot of time in natural settings (woods, mountains, desert, lakes, ocean). 1 2 3 4 5 2. Engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me. Examples of environmental behaviors include recycling, gardening, engaging others in conversations about the environment, buy ing recycled products, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it. 1 2 3 4 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;;!4. If I had enough time or money, I would certainly devote some of it to working for environmental causes. Environmental causes could include: roadside clean up, educating the public about water quality, giving money to the Nature Conservancy, supporting an environmental campaign, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 5. When I am upset or stressed, I can feel better by spending some time outdoors Òexperiencing and c onnecting with nature.Ó 1 2 3 4 5 6. Living near wildlife is important to me; I would not want to live in a city all the time. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I have a lot in common with environmentalists as a group. The term environmentalist means a person concerned about the natural environment and is willing to take action for the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I believe that some of todayÕs social problems could be cured by returning to a more rural lifestyle in which people live in harmony with the land. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I feel that I have a lot in common with other animal species. Othe r animal species include: dogs, cats, horses, fish, etcÉ 1 2 3 4 5 10. My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by environmentalists. The term environmentalist means a person concerned about the natural environment and is willing to take action for the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am. Ecosystems are a system involving the interactions between a community of living organisms in a particular area and its nonliving environment 1 2 3 4 5 12. Behaving responsibly toward the earth Ð living a sustainable lifestyle Ð is a part of my moral code. 1 2 3 4 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;>!13. Learning about the natural world should be an important part of every childÕs upbringing. 1 2 3 4 5 14. In general, being part of the natural world is an important part of my self -image. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a bigger room or house with a view of other buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I really enjoy camping and hiking outdoors. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Sometimes I feel like parts of nature Ð certain trees, or storms, or mountains Ð have a personality of their own. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I would feel that an important part of my life was missing if I was not able to get out and enjoy nature from time to time. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I take pride in the fact that I could survive outdoors on my own for a few days. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I have never seen a work of art that is as beautiful as a work of nature, like a sunset or a mountain range. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I like to garden. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I feel that I receive spiritual sustenance from nature. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I keep mementos from the outdoors in my room, like shells or rocks or feathers. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I feel I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a significant impact on my development. 1 2 3 4 5 Using a scale of 1 (rarely) to 5 (usually) , please rate the extent to which you participate in the following behaviors or practices. 1 2 3 4 5 Rarely (10% or the time) Occasionally (30% of the time) Sometimes (50% of the time) Frequently (70% of the time) Usually (90% of the time) HOW OFTEN HAVE YOUÉ 1 Rarely 2 Occasionally 3 Sometimes 4 Frequently 5 Usually 25. Used biodegradable, no phosphate soaps or detergents 1 2 3 4 5 26. Read labels on products to see if the contents were environmentally safe 1 2 3 4 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;?!27. Avoided buying products in aerosol containers 1 2 3 4 5 28. Purchased a product because it was packaged in reusable or recyclable containers 1 2 3 4 5 29. Switched from one brand to another due to concern for the environment 1 2 3 4 5 30. Stopped buying from a company that showed a disregard for the environment 1 2 3 4 5 31. Avoided restaurants that put takeout food in Styrofoamª containers 1 2 3 4 5 32. Bought products made from recycled material 1 2 3 4 5 33. Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, car pooling, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 34. Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental problems 1 2 3 4 5 35. Investigated your elected officialsÕ voting record on environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5 36. Used legal measures to stop events you thought would damage the environment 1 2 3 4 5 37. Reported environmental crimes to the proper authorities 1 2 3 4 5 38. Voted for a politician due to his or her record on protecting the environment 1 2 3 4 5 39. Donated money or paid membership dues to a conservation organization 1 2 3 4 5 40. Joined in community cleanup efforts 1 2 3 4 5 41. Watched TV programs about environmental problems 1 2 3 4 5 42. Talked to others about environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5 43. Read publication that focuses on environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5 44. Tried to learn what you can do to help solve environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5 45. Enrolled in a course for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental issues 1 2 3 4 5 46. Recycled glass bottles or jars or aluminum cans 1 2 3 4 5 47. Recycled old newspapers 1 2 3 4 5 48. Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclable from recyclable material 1 2 3 4 5 49. Encouraged others to take action for the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 50. Avoided buying products with excessive packaging 1 2 3 4 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;@! Using a scale of 1 to 5 , please rate the degree to which you fall along the continuum between slow (1) and fast (5) decision -making. Remember: One answer is not better than the other. Please circle the most appropriate response based on your recycling practice . 1= Very Slow 2= Slow 3= Neutral 4= Fast 5= Very Fast 51. To what degree is your decision -making about recycling done slow or fast ? Slow : If you slowly come to the decision to recycle, you are actively making that decision. The decision is not automatic and takes several steps to come to the final decision to recycle. You seek out information about recycling before determining it's the best option for you. Fast : If you quickly come to the decision to recycle, you donÕt have to actively think about recycling. You donÕt seek out information about recycling you just recycle. 1 2 3 4 5 Using a scale of 1 to 5 , please rate the degree to which you fall along the continuum between effortful (1) and effortless (5) decision -making. Remember: One answer is not better than the other. Please circle the most appropriate response based on your recycling practice . 1= Very Effortful 2= Effortful 3= Neutral 4= Effortless 5= Very Effortless 52. To what degree is your decision -making about recycling effortful or effortless ? Effortful : Recycling is effortful if it requires a lot of thought and energy to recycle regularly. It is a more complex decision to recycle. It may require rese arch and time to make the decision. Effortless : Recycling is effortless if it does not require much thought or energy to recycle regularly. I t is an easy decision to recycle. 1 2 3 4 5 Using a scale of 1 to 5 , please rate the degree to which you fall along the continuum between conscious and intentional (1) and automatic (5) decision -making. Remember: One answer is not better than the other. Please circle the most appropriate response based on your recycling practice . 1= Very Conscious and intentional 2= Conscious and Intentional 3= Neutral 4= Automatic 5= Very Automatic 53. To what degree is your decision -making about recycling conscious and intentional or automatic ? Conscious and Intentional : Recycling is conscious and intentional if you have to deliberately think about the act. You put time into thinking about why you recycle and what you recycle. Automatic : Recycling is automatic if you do not put much additional thought into the act of recycling. You do it without thinking about why you do it. Recycling is just a habit. 1 2 3 4 5 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;A!Using a scale of 1 to 5 , please rate the degree to which your decision making about recycling fall s along the continuum between affecting thinking capacity (1) and not affecting thinking capacity (5) . Remember: One answer is not better than the other. Please circle the most appropriate response based on your recycling practice . 1= Very Much Does Affect Thinking Capacity 2= Affects Thinking Capacity 3= Neutral 4= Does Not Affect Thinking Capacity 5= Very Much Does Not Affect Thinking Capacity 54. To what degree is your decision -making about recycling affect your thinking capacity? Affects Thinking Capacity : If your decision to recycle affects your thinking capacity, then the act of recycling affects your ability to complete other tasks. If you cannot decide to recycle while thinking about other things such as your math hom ework, then your thinking capacity is affected by the decision to recycle. You cannot complete simple tasks while deciding to recycle. Not Affect Thinking Capacity : If you recycle without the decision affecting your thinking capacity, then the act of recycling does not affect your ability to complete other tasks. You can think about or do other things while deciding to recycle. You can complete simple tasks while deciding to recycle. 1 2 3 4 5 Using a scale of 1 to 5, please rate the degree to which you fall along the continuum between skeptical (1) and certain (5) about your decision to recycle. Remember: One answer is not better than the other . Please circle the most appropriate response based on your recycling p ractice . 1= Very Skeptical 2= Skeptical 3= Neutral 4= Certain 5= Very Certain 55. To what degree are you skeptical or certain about your decision to recycle? Skeptical : If you are skeptical about your decision to recycle, you are likely to be more critical about the overall benefits of recycling. This doesnÕt mean you donÕt recycle, it means you may research and consider alternatives. For instance, you may decide to cons ume less disposable materials rather than only recycling. Certain : If you are certain about your decision to recycle, you do it because a recycling bin is there or because you have always recycled. You donÕt think twice about recycling, you just do it. You donÕt seek out information about the benefits and consequences of recycling. 1 2 3 4 5 Using a scale of 1 to 5 , please rate the degree to which you fall along the continuum between neutral/no emotions (1) and emotional (5) about your decision to recy cle. Remember: One answer is not better than the other . Please circle the most appropriate response based on your recycling practice . 1= Very Neutral 2= Neutral 3= Neither 4= Emotional 5= Very Emotional !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;B!56. To what degree is your decision -making about recycling neutral or emotional? Neutral/No Emotions : If recycling does not elicit any emotions, you are neutral about the act and may be more likely to consider alternatives to recycling. You may think there may be other ways to help the natural environmen t other than recycling. You may be willing to try other practices instead of or in addition to recycling. Emotional : If recycling elicits emotions, you are likely to feel strong positive or negative emotions about the act of recycling. You may feel angry if a close friend or family member does not recycle a plastic milk jug in your presence. Since you feel strongly abo ut the act of recycling you may not seek out information about alternatives to recycling. 1 2 3 4 5 ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;C!APPENDIX B Interview Protocol Research Question 1: What is the association between environmental identity and pro -environmental behavior? Identity 1. List five to ten answers to the question Who am I? (your identity) (paper and pencil) As you list your answers, please also verbalize what you write. 2. What environmental actions do you take? Rank them with number 1 having the most effect. (paper and pencil) As you list your answers, please also verbalize what you write. With number 1 being the action that produces the most environmental effect. Natural Environment Interactions 3. As a child, how often did you spend time in the natural environment? 4. Describe your experiences in the natural environment. 5. How often do you spend time in the natural environment now? Describe your experiences in the natural environment. 6. Describe how the natural environment fits into your identity. Behaviors 7. Rate your involvement in the following behaviors on a 1 (infrequently) -5 (frequently) scale: Use the blank cards provided to add other behaviors. See the card sort question. ¥ Recycling, o Avoided buying products with excessive packaging. o Recycled glass bottles or jars or aluminum cans. o Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclables from recyclable materials. ¥ Activism, o Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental problems. o Voted for a politician due to his or her record on pr otecting the environment. o Joined in community cleanup efforts. o Donated money or paid membership dues to a conservation organization. ¥ Consumerism, o Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, car pooling, etc., o Bought products made fro m recycled materials. o Switched from one brand to another due to concern for the environment. o Read labels on products to see if the contents were environmentally safe. ¥ Education !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;D!o Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental issues. o Watched TV programs about environmental problems. o Talked to others about environmental issues. 8. How important is it for you to live a sustainable lifestyle? 9. Which of these behaviors do you wish you could do more often? 10. Why is it difficu lt to participate in those behaviors? What barriers are in your way? Social Influences/Group Membership 11. What impacts do social interactions (parents, roommate, significant other, friends) have in your choice to participate in recycling, consumerism, a ctivism, education or other pro -environmental behaviors? 12. Describe a time when a social interaction impacted your recycling, activism, consumerism, education or other environmental behavior in some way. (positively or ne 13. How has your membership in a group or community influenced your environmental behavior? 14. Describe the community and your participation. How do you influence othersÕ behaviors? How is your influence on othersÕ behaviors connected to your identity as an environmentalist or not an environmentalis t? Research Question 2 : How does environmental identity influence how one makes decisions about the environment? ¥ Recycling, o Avoided buying products with excessive packaging. o Recycled glass bottles or jars or aluminum cans. o Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclables from recyclable materials. ¥ Activism, o Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental problems. o Voted for a politician due to his or her record on protecting th e environment. o Joined in community cleanup efforts. o Donated money or paid membership dues to a conservation organization. ¥ Consumerism, o Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, car pooling, etc., o Bought products made from recycled materials. o Switched from one brand to another due to concern for the environment. o Read labels on products to see if the contents were environmentally safe. ¥ Education o Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental issues. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;;E!o Watched TV programs about environmental problems. o Talked to others about environmental issues. 15. Can you divide these behaviors into 2 sets: ¥ Those that you make decisions quickly without much effort ¥ Those that you make decisions slowly with a lot of effort Set aside slow in the making 17. Explain how you decided which behaviors go in each category. 16. Are there other behaviors that go in the two categories that arenÕt on this list? Please write them on cards and add them to one of the groups. 18. What else would you like to know or learn in order to make better decisions about these issues? 19. Describe a behavior that you placed in the fast pile that at one time made the decision slowly. What caused the shift in the amount of effort or consciousness in decision -making? 20. Describe a behavior that you placed in the slow pile that at one time made the decision quickly or automatically. What caused the shift in the amount of effort and consciousness in decision -making? 21. How do you think the way y ou make these decisions is linked to your identity? Now, can you divide these behaviors into 3 sets: ¥ Those that are critically important for our future as a planet. ¥ Those that are moderately important. ¥ Those that are least important. Are there other behaviors that go in the first category that arenÕt on this list? Please write them on cards and add them to that group. 22. Explain how you decided which behaviors go in each category. 23. Was it easy or hard for you to decide where to put the behaviors ? 24. Which were easiest for you, and why? 25 Which were hardest for you, and why? 26. I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a bigger room or house with a view of other buildings. Which of these would you decide to live in? Which of these would you expect to have the most and least environmental impact? a. An apartment in the city !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>F!b. A small house in the city c. A small house in the country Explain your reasoning. Were you able to come to this decision in fast or slow way? What else would you like to learn before making this decision? How does your identity come into play when making this decision? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>;!APPENDIX C Consent Form Basic information : This form describes the Environmental Identity and Behaviors research study, what it means for you to participate in it, and the rights you have to refuse to participate. Students who wish to participate must indicate their willingness to do so by signing and returning this form to Allison Freed (webst162@msu.edu). Detailed information: What is the environmental identity research study about? This research project will study what environmental identity is and how it may predict pro -environmental behaviors and how one makes environmental decisions. The study will help to inform the environmental education and science education communities about these constructs and how they are related to each other. This information could inform curriculum development. Does this study involve research? Yes, this study involves collecting data about participants and their identities, behaviors, and decisions. Not all participants will be asked to supply all the same information, but all will be asked to complete a survey about their socioeconomic background and a 20 -40 minute su rvey about their environmental identity, responsible environmental behaviors, and environmental decisions. A small group of participants will be asked to participate in a 30 -45 minute interview once this semester. The interview will consist of further ques tions about environmental identity, behaviors, and decisions. What kinds of information about me will be collected in the study? The following information will be collected: demographic information, such as age, socioeconomic background; information ab out your environmental identity, such as whether your self -concept is tied to nature and/or your values are influenced by your experiences in nature. For a small sample, additional information about your experiences and identities will be collected. Will information about participants be kept confidential? All information about participants and any other information will be kept confidentially. This means that researchers, but no one else, will be able to connect their names to any of the following piece s of information: age, demographics, survey responses, and interview responses. But to obscure this information even from researchers, all participants will be assigned a code !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>>!that researchers will then use in place of participantsÕ name to store and analy ze any information about them. How long am I expected to participate in this study? This study will run from October 27, 2014 to October 27, 2017. Participation ends with the completion of the course/semester. We request the liberty to follow up with you not more than 5 times by email in the future. But participation is entirely voluntary and participants have the right to terminate it for any reason at any time, including during the period of their enrollment in this course/semester. How will the study be conducted? After reading this consent form and agreeing to be a part of this stud y, participants will be asked to complete a 10 -20 minute survey. After that, a small sample of participants will be asked to be a part of a 30 -45 minute interview. Allison Freed will analyze the survey data to determine the distribution of environmental id entity scores, after that she will organize the data from high, medium, and low environmental identity scores. From that data, ten participants will be randomly selected from each group (high, medium, and low environmental identity scores). When all data h ave been collected, researchers will use participantsÕ study code to store and analyze the data. Are there any foreseeable risks of participating in this study? There are no direct risks of participating in this study. Data for this study will be collec ted and stored on a password -protected computer. The study code connecting participantsÕ name (or other identifying information) to this data will be stored in a separate location. It is possible but extremely unlikely that private information collected du ring this study will be released to someone other than the researchers. Are there any foreseeable benefits of participating in this study? Participants in this study may benefit in two ways. First, after participation in this study is complete, two par ticipants who complete the survey portion of the study will be selected at random to win a $50 Amazon gift card. For this part of the study, completing the study means completing and submitting all required surveys on time. For those of you randomly selec ted to participate in an interview, two additional participants will have an opportunity to be randomly selected to win a $50 Amazon gift card after successfully completing an interview. Second, all participants may benefit from the self -knowledge derived from completing the survey, the surveys are designed to assess environmental identity, behaviors, and decision making. But educational researchers and society more generally will benefit from knowledge concerning the impact of environmental identity on par ticipating in environmental behaviors and making well informed environmental decisions. Is participation in this study voluntary and under what circumstances can participants cease participation? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>?! Yes, participation is voluntary, you may choose not to par ticipate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without consequence (e.g. will not affect treatment you will receive, will not affect your grade or evaluation , etc.). Participants who no longer wish to participate may withdraw by notifying Allison Freed. Is there anyone participants can contact with questions about their rights or in the event of a research -related breach of trust? Yes, participants may contact Michigan State UniversityÕs Human Research Protection Program at the following address: 408 W. Circle Dr. Rm 207 Olds East Lansing, MI 48824 Phone: (517) 355 -2180 Fax: (517) 432 -4503 Email: irb@msu.edu Who should participants contact for more information about this research project? Allison Freed 250C Erickson Hall Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Michigan State University 620 Farm Lane East Lansing, MI 48910 Phone: (517) 243-8140 Email: webst162@msu.edu By signing in the box below, I hereby declare my consent to participate in the study ÔThe Association of Environmental Identity on Pro -Environmental Behavior and Environmental Decision MakingÕ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>@! APPENDIX D Instructional Review Board Approval Letter October 22, 2014To:E. David Wong 350 EricksonDept. Of CEPSERe:IRB# X14-1001e Category: Exempt 2Approval Date:October 21, 2014Title:The Association of Environmental Identity with Pro-Environmental Behaviors and Environmental Decision-MakingThe Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to adviseyou that your project has been deemed as exempt in accordance with federal regulations.The IRB has found that your research project meets the criteria for exempt status and the criteria forthe protection of human subjects in exempt research. Under our exempt policy the PrincipalInvestigator assumes the responsibilities for the protection of human subjects in this project asoutlined in the assurance letter and exempt educational material. The IRB office has received yoursigned assurance for exempt research. A copy of this signed agreement is appended for yourinformation and records.Renewals: Exempt protocols do not need to be renewed. If the project is completed, please submit anApplication for Permanent Closure.Revisions: Exempt protocols do not require revisions. However, if changes are made to a protocolthat may no longer meet the exempt criteria, a new initial application will be required.Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems,adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects and change thecategory of review, notify the IRB office promptly. Any complaints from participants regarding therisk and benefits of the project must be reported to the IRB.Follow-up: If your exempt project is not completed and closed after three years , the IRB office willcontact you regarding the status of the project and to verify that no changes have occurred that mayaffect exempt status.Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on anycorrespondence with the IRB office.Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 orvia email at IRB@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.Harry McGee, MPHSIRB Chairc: Allison WebsterSincerely,Initial IRBApplicationDetermination*Exempt*Office of Regulatory AffairsHuman ResearchProtection ProgramsBiomedical & HealthInstitutional Review Board(BIRB)Community ResearchInstitutional Review Board(CRIRB)Social ScienceBehavioral/EducationInstitutional Review Board(SIRB)Olds Hall408 West Circle Drive, #207East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355-2180Fax: (517) 432-4503Email: irb@msu.eduwww.humanresearch.msu.eduMSU is an affirmative-action,equal-opportunity employer.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>A!APPENDIX E Sample Interview Transcripts KIM ______________________________________________________________________________ The text below represents a professional transcriptionist's understanding of the words spoken. No guarantee of complete accuracy is expressed or implied, particularly regarding spellings of names and other unfamiliar or hard -to-hear words and phrases. (ph) or (sp?) indicate phonetics or best guesses. To verify important quotes, we recommend listening to the corresponding audio. Timestamps throughout the transcript facilitate locating the desired quote, using software such as Windows Media player. BEGIN TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEWER: Could you just tell me a little bit about yourself, say your major and that type of thing? ASHLEY: IÕm a sophomore at Michigan State and IÕm majoring in elementary education with a specialization in history, and then an endorsement in early childhood development. INTERVIEWER: All right, great. And you wer e in TE 150 last semester. ASHLEY: Yes. INTERVIEWER: All right. Let me give you a pen. And are you from Michigan? ASHLEY: Yes. INTERVIEWER: Okay, where about s? ASHLEY: Plymouth. INTERVIEWER: Okay, great. So, what IÕm going to have you do is, on that piece of paper, I want you to write five to ten answers to the question, ÒWho am I?Ó And so itÕs really focusing on your identity and who you think you are. Like the first things that come to your mind. And so you just number it one through however many yo u can come up with over five, and verbalize it as youÕre writing them down. ASHLEY: Okay. [00:00:58] IÕm a sister. INTERVIEWER: Okay. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>B! ASHLEY: To two brothers. I mean, IÕm a daughter. IÕm a friend. This is hard. INTERVIEWER: Well whatever you can come up with. Like think of things you like to do. ASHLEY: IÕm a traveler. IÕm a cook. You want me to keep going, or? INTERVIEWER: If you have more to give, yeah. ASHLEY: I canÕt think of any. INTERVIEWER: Okay, thatÕs fine. All right. So now what I want yo u to write on your paper what environmental actions you take, and I want you to rank them. So first of all just write down whatever environmental actions you think you take. [00:02:03] And then IÕll have you rank them after you write them down. ASHLEY: O kay. INTERVIEWER: So verbalize as youÕre writing. ASHLEY: I recycle. I drive a small car, so Ñ INTERVIEWER: Okay. So it gives it good gas mileage. ASHLEY: Yeah. What else? ItÕs hard to think things like on the spot. I, I use like recycled things like pa per and stuff. INTERVIEWER: Yeah. ASHLEY: I donÕt litter. [00:03:00] I garden at home with my mom. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: And I like grow our own vegetables. Do you want me to keep going? INTERVIEWER: If you have more you can keep going, but if youÕre having a hard time then we can stop. ASHLEY: I canÕt think of any more right now. INTERVIEWER: Okay, you can add whenever you need to. ASHLEY: Okay. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>C! INTERVIEWER: So now what I want you to do is to rank them based on the effect they have on the e nvironment. So which one has the most positive effect on, on the environment would be number one, and then rank them after that. ASHLEY: Keep going. I think recycling is number one. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and why do you think that? ASHLEY: Because if you do nÕt recycle, like it just sits in the landfill. [00:04:00] And then I think driving a small car is good because it doesnÕt use as much gas as like a bigger car would, even though itÕs still bad for the environment, itÕs better than it could be. I donÕt li tter, so I keep the environment clean, and I garden at home so I like plant things to replenish the nutrients and stuff. And I guess thatÕs kind of the same things as growing our own vegetables, and then I use recycled stuff. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and so why did you rank them in that way? ASHLEY: What do you mean? INTERVIEWER: So why do you think recycling has the most positive effect on the environment while using recycled goods, like recycled paper is, is less of an effect? ASHLEY: Recycling, thereÕs lik e more different categories of it. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: So thereÕs more things that you do. [00:05:01] And then for like using recycled paper, I donÕt know, itÕs important but itÕs not as important, I guess. INTERVIEWER: Okay. All right, so weÕre going to do the change, change paths here. So as a child, how, how often do you think you spent time in the natural environment or outdoors? ASHLEY: When I was really little, I would play outside with like my friends and my brothers, all the time, like e very day in the summer. But as I got older I stopped spending as much time outside, so I donÕt know, a lot when I was younger. INTERVIEWER: So how much, letÕs try to quantify it. ASHLEY: Okay. INTERVIEWER: So how much time per week on average would you be outside? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>D!ASHLEY: Over the summer when I was little, it was like forty -eight hours. I donÕt know, itÕs been like Ñ INTERVIEWER: A week? ASHLEY: Yeah. [00:05:59] INTERVIEWER: And when you say youÕre little, how old do you think you were? ASHLEY: I wa s, IÕm trying to think, I was in fourth grade when I moved, so until I was like eight or nine. INTERVIEWER: Okay. Where did you move from? ASHLEY: I lived in Haslett when I was little and then I moved to Ohio. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and now your parents are back in Michigan. ASHLEY: In Plymouth, yes. INTERVIEWER: Okay. All right, so when youÕre eight or nine you spent more time in the natural environment, so what are some of the things you would do? WhatÕs a memorable experience you could share with me? ASHLEY: I remember with my older brother and our neighbors across the street, there was a kid that was a year older than me and then a girl a year younger than me. We went outside and we built like a fort, like a teepee fort with trees and like stuff and ju st played in it for, oh my gosh, we played all the time in it. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and you, you, what would you do? What kind of play? ASHLEY: We would just play like house in it, pretend, I donÕt know, weÕd pretend we were, I donÕt know. [00:07:02] Pret end that like thatÕs where we lived. INTERVIEWER: Okay. All right, so how often do you think you spend time in your natural environment now? ASHLEY: Not as much as IÕd like to. Yeah. INTERVIEWER: So per week, kind of the same thing. How many hours or wo uld you say? ASHLEY: In the summer IÕm outside maybe fifteen hours a week, but in the winter, not much because itÕs way too cold. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;>E!INTERVIEWER: Yeah, I totally understand. ItÕs really hard to be always Ñ ASHLEY: Oh yeah. INTERVIEWER: Okay. So could you d escribe what you do in the outdoors now? ASHLEY: I go swimming. INTERVIEWER: So like in the, in like Lake Lansing, or Ñ ASHLEY: No, I swim in a pool. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: Or I have bonfires or I, I mean I garden with my mom. [00:08:00] INTERVIEWER: So can you, so like youÕre describing the experiences, right? Okay, and so would you say youÕre outside alone, or with other people, or Ñ ASHLEY: With other people normally. INTERVIEWER: And how do you think the natural environment fits into your identity? Or do you think it does? ASHLEY: I mean, I, I want to live somewhere warm when IÕm older because when itÕs like sunnier or nicer out, like IÕm happier. And then when itÕs cold like this I just donÕt want to go outside at all. INTERVIEWER: Okay. So would, if you didnÕt have that opportunity to be in the natural environment, would you think that a piece of yourself was missing? ASHLEY: Yeah. If I didnÕt get to be out in the sun all the time, or like at all, I would not be a happy person. [00 :09:04] INTERVIEWER: Okay. All right, so weÕre going to switch gears now to some of the behaviors, and youÕve seen these before because they were on the survey. ASHLEY: Okay. INTERVIEWER: So youÕll look at those, and what IÕm going to have you do is rat e your involvement in those behaviors on a one to five scale, with five being frequently. ASHLEY: Okay. INTERVIEWER: And then you have four, three, two, and then one is infrequently. And so I have those behaviors already set out, but you have a blank card so you can add behaviors that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?F!you feel like you do and you want to add in, put those in this continuum. And so as youÕre putting the behaviors in these categories, just verbalize the behavior and what category youÕre putting it in, like what number. A nd then kind of describe why youÕre deciding that. ASHLEY: Okay. I watch TV programs about environmental problems. [00:10:01] IÕm going to put that under two because I donÕt go out of my way to do it, but if itÕs on, I will do it. Read labels on products to see if contents were environmentally safe. IÕm going to put it under three because I do sometimes. INTERVIEWER: In what cases do you do it? ASHLEY: If like, like if it says on there, like right, I donÕt go looking for it, but if it says it like Ñ INT ERVIEWER: On the front cover label of the product? ASHLEY: Yeah, yes. Switch from one brand to another due to concern for the environment. Yes, I have done it in three. INTERVIEWER: What product was it? ASHLEY: Hairspray. Because I know the aerosolÕs ba d for the environment. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental problems. ThatÕs something IÕve never done. Donated money or paid membership to a conservation organization. I donÕt think IÕve ever done that either. [00:11:03] INTERVIEWER: Would you ever consider doing something like that? ASHLEY: Yeah, if I wasnÕt a broke college student. INTERVIEWER: Sure. ASHLEY: Voted for a politician due to his or her record on protecting the environment. Again, this is something I havenÕt done because IÕve never voted, so Ñ INTERVIEWER: Are you registered to vote? ASHLEY: I am. I just wasnÕt old enough to vote. INTERVIEWER: When it was a major election? ASHLEY: Right. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?;! INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental issues. I think yeah, I took a class in high school like that. INTERVIEWER: Like an environmental studies class? ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: So IÕll put t hat under three, I guess. Talk to others about environmental issues. Yes, I do. I talk to my grandparents. IÕm going to put that under number four. TheyÕre really into protecting the environment and they drive a Prius and stuff, so I talk to them about it. INTERVIEWER: And in a way of just gaining information from them or sharing? ASHLEY: Yeah. [00:12:01] Or talking about like, ÒOh, I canÕt believe people do this to the environment.Ó Avoided buying products with excessive packaging. I havenÕt done that b efore. Joined the community in cleanup efforts. I did, I did in high school. INTERVIEWER: What did you do? ASHLEY: I cleaned up a cemetery. INTERVIEWER: Okay, of what? How did you clean it up? ASHLEY: We just cleaned trash up and stuff. Yes. Recycled bottles or jars or aluminum cans. Yes. I do that all the time, so thatÕs a five. Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclables from recyclable material. Yes, I do that all the time too. INTERVIEWER: On campus, did you, do you live on campus? ASHLEY: Yes. INTERVIEWER: So even on campus. ASHLEY: Yes. INTERVIEWER: Is it pretty easy to do? ASHLEY: Yes, because we have recycling bags and then a recycling room downstairs and then a trash can thatÕs separate. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?>! INTERVIEWER: Yeah, and you do that at home too? Like when youÕre at home? ASHLEY: Yes. INTERVIEWER: With your parents, okay. ASHLEY: I always have. Bought products made from recycled materials. Yes. I do quite frequently. [00:13:02] Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, car pooling, et cetera. Yes. I carpool. I always see if, like IÕm going home, so thatÕs a five. Whenever IÕm going home I always see if someone else needs a ride or I take, I took the bus to school, or I rode with my brother or I carpooled places. INTERVIEWER: And so thatÕs important to you? ASHLEY: Um -hmm. INTERVIEWER: Okay. So which of these behaviors do you wish you could more often? ASHLEY: Like I said, the donating money to memberships, or paid memberships. I wish I had the money to do that . INTERVIEWER: In what organizations? Do you have any ideas of who or why you would donate to particular organizations? ASHLEY: None come to like the top of my head. I would have to like look into them more, but just that the ones that like help the envi ronment. [00:13:57] I wish I could join the community cleanup efforts more. I just donÕt have time to do them. INTERVIEWER: Do you seek out ways of working in the community? ASHLEY: No, if it like comes up, IÕll be like, ÒOh, that sounds cool, IÕll do t hat.Ó But I donÕt go like looking for it. INTERVIEWER: Okay. Have you done anything here on campus, just in high school? ASHLEY: Not, yeah, just in high school. Not since IÕve been here. INTERVIEWER: Why do you think itÕs difficult to participate in som e of these behaviors, like what barriers are put in your way? YouÕve mentioned a few, but maybe if you think of things that arenÕt in level five or four. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;??!ASHLEY: Yeah. I think some issues arenÕt discussed as much, so you arenÕt as aware of them. Like you have to do your own research on them and stuff. Or money, or time, yeah. [00:14:58] INTERVIEWER: Okay. Did you want to add any, any behaviors that you, youÕve mentioned before that arenÕt in this list? ASHLEY: I donÕt think thereÕs anything extra. I mean, IÕll put gardening, IÕll do that. INTERVIEWER: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead and write it down. ASHLEY: IÕll put that under five. Every summer I do that with my mom. INTERVIEWER: And is it vegetable garden or flowers? ASHLEY: Yeah, both. We have both. My mom loves being outside too. Yeah. And then, I mean, I donÕt litter, so should I add that too? INTERVIEWER: Sure. ASHLEY: IÕm just looking at the list I made. [00:15:59] So I put that under five. INTERVIEWER: Okay. All right, so letÕs switch gears agai n. Now weÕre talking about social influences. So what impacts do your social interactions, like with parents, roommates, your significant other, friends, have on your choice to participate in any of these behaviors? ASHLEY: Like I said, if somebody brings it to my attention IÕll do it, but like if it, I donÕt go out of my way to research it, so if my grandparents mention, ÒHey, like you should consider doing this,Ó IÕll be like, ÒOh, yeah, thatÕs a good idea.Ó Or like I go with my Dad to do the recycled bottles and cans and stuff, but theyÕre just kind of how I become aware of the issues. INTERVIEWER: So I guess, would you more likely listen to your family than someone else? [00:16:56] ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: And so why do you think? ASHLEY: I donÕt know, IÕm closer to my family. I just listen to what my parents say more than what other people say. INTERVIEWER: So can you describe a time when a social interaction impacted your, any of these behaviors, recycling, activism, consumerism, or education or other environmental behaviors in some way, and maybe, maybe in a positive and a negative way. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?@!ASHLEY: I know my uncle drives a giant car, and he does not care about how bad it is for the gas, and like the environment. I told him, I was like, ÒYou know that youÕre like destroying where you live, right?Ó HeÕs like, ÒI donÕt care, I donÕt care.Ó IÕm like, ÒWell, IÕll drive a smaller car.Ó So Ñ INTERVIEWER: So how did that impact your behaviors then, your environmental behavior? ASHLEY: I mean, now I drive a smaller car. INTERVIEWER: Okay, so kind of to spite him. ASHLEY: Yeah, yeah. [00:17:59] INTERVIEWER: Or to cut down on your impact a little bit more because other people donÕt? ASHLEY: Yeah, yeah. It opened my eyes to seeing that not everyone really cares. INTERVIEWER: Okay. And so is there a social interaction that impacted any of these behaviors in a positive way? ASHLEY: I mean Ñ INTERVIEWER: Or, I guess thatÕs more of like a positive. What about in a negative way? Or if like peer pressure or so mething came into play where you didnÕt act in an environmentally -sound way? ASHLEY: I mean, I guess when IÕm like driving with my friends, itÕs not me, but like my friends will like if we get candy or something, like a sucker, theyÕll just roll down the window and throw it out because thereÕs not a trash bag, or trash can nearby. IÕm like, ÒYouÕre littering. ThatÕs not okay.Ó INTERVIEWER: And so do you think that you are more environmentally -minded than your friends? ASHLEY: Yeah, than some of them. [00 :18:59] INTERVIEWER: All right. So how has your membership in a group or community influenced your environmental behavior? ASHLEY: In my sorority, I mean I didnÕt go, but they went and cleaned up the streets in I think it was somewhere in Lansing, so they have stuff like, like that that we do. I just couldnÕt go that one time, but they come up with other things and IÕm like waiting for another one to go to. INTERVIEWER: And so can you describe the community a little bit more and your participation in your sorority? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?A!ASHLEY: What do you mean? INTERVIEWER: In like how are you an active member in the, in the sorority, and then what, what is your, I think you all have some type of Ñ ASHLEY: The philanthropy? INTERVIEWER: Yeah. ASHLEY: I, our philanthrop y is service for sight, so we work with like the Penrickton, I canÕt pronounce it, Penrickton, I donÕt know, but itÕs the school for the blind. So we raise money and we do fundraisers and stuff to help with that. [00:20:05] And then we also go there and w e make like, we go there and help out there, and then we make like books, Braille books and stuff, so I participate in activities like that. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and you would like to be more involved in their cleanup efforts in the area. Okay. And how do y ou think your social interactions and your interactions in your sorority and other groups have impacted your identity? ASHLEY: I think that as IÕve become more aware of the things that I can do to help the environment and stuff, IÕve started changing my l ike actions. Like my grandparents drive a Prius and they talked to me about it and I told my parents I wanted a smaller car. [00:20:58] I donÕt know, just the social interactions make me more aware of things. INTERVIEWER: Great. Okay, so this next questi on has to do with decision -making. So you can go ahead and weÕll keep these that youÕve added. ASHLEY: Okay. INTERVIEWER: And just take all the orange ones down and IÕm going to move those purple cards. And so now weÕre going to group these, these behavi ors in decisions, and the way you make decisions, either in a slow or quick way, and you were also surveyed on this too. So youÕre going to have two sets, those behaviors that you make decisions quickly about without much effort or much intention. ItÕs alm ost intuitive, and another group is those that you make decisions slowly, or you take more effort and intention, itÕs more of a conscious decision. [00:22:00] ASHLEY: Okay. INTERVIEWER: To do, and so as youÕre doing it, tell me what the behavior is, what column youÕre putting it in or what set, and then kind of an explanation to why. ASHLEY: Okay. A quick decision is recycled glass or bottles, because I just, IÕve always done it, so I do it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?B!INTERVIEWER: So itÕs in the quick pile. ASHLEY: Yeah. Joined in community cleanup efforts is slow because I have to think about if I have time for it or when it is. Talk to others about environmental issues. ThatÕs a quick one, because if it comes up, like IÕll say something about it. Sorted your trash to separate n on-recyclable from recyclable material, thatÕs a quick decision because itÕs something IÕve always done. Bought products made from recycled materials. Again, thatÕs a quick decision because IÕd rather buy it from recycled than non -recycled. Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, carpooling, et cetera. [00:23:02] ThatÕs a quick decision because IÕd rather do it, but if I canÕt, I mean, IÕm going to drive my car if nobody else is going to ride with me. Read labels on products to see if the contents are environmentally safe. IÕm going to say this is a slow decision because if itÕs not right in front of my face, I donÕt dig deeper for it, I guess, and then watch TV programs about environmental problems. Again, thatÕs a slow decision bec ause if itÕs not on, IÕm not going to search through the channels to find it. Switch from one brand to another due to concerns for the environment. You know, thatÕs a slow decision because I would have to research both of them. Written to your elected offi cials expressing your opinions on environmental issues. ThatÕs a slow decision to because you would have to do extra research for that. [00:24:01] Donated money or paid membership dues to a conservation organization. Again, thatÕs slow. I would have to lo ok in to see if I could afford it or what the membership says you have to do. Avoided buying products with excessive packaging. I guess that would be quick because if you pick it up you can see if thereÕs a lot of extra packaging. Voted for a politician du e to his or her record on protecting the environment. That would have to be slow. You would have to research their stance or views or whatever. Enroll in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental issues. IÕd say thatÕs quick, becaus e if the course says youÕre going to learn about this, then thereÕs not really anything to think about. INTERVIEWER: Okay, so like if it were a required course, not that you would seek it out and look for it, okay. [00:24:58] ASHLEY: Right, right. If it was required and it said like this option over this one, and oneÕs for the environment and oneÕs not, then Ñ INTERVIEWER: You would pick the environment. ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Okay. And then okay, so good. And what about the two that you, want to pu t those in one of the piles? ASHLEY: GardeningÕs a quick decision because I enjoy doing it and not littering. I mean, itÕs a quick decision because itÕs something I do. I donÕt have to think about, ÒOh, I shouldnÕt grow this on the ground.Ó !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?C!INTERVIEWER: Okay, good. So what else would you like to know or need to learn in order to make better decisions about these issues? You can pick out a few to focus on. ASHLEY: Like when community cleanup efforts are, I would have to look more into that. [00:25:56] I would have to look more into like organizations and memberships and stuff because I donÕt really know anything about any organizations. Or the different brands. I would need to know like what they use. INTERVIEWER: Like what ingredients, you mean? ASHLEY: Yeah, yes. Yeah. INTERVIEWER: All right. So could you describe one of the behaviors that you placed in the fast or quick pile that at one time you made that decision in a slow way, more of an effortful way, and what caused the shift in the amount of eff ort or consciousness in that decision? ASHLEY: I guess recycling glass bottles or jars. When I was little I always used to say to my dad, ÒWhy do we have to go do this?Ó Like itÕs such a hassle to go all the way to the sore to turn them in, just throw the m out in the trash. [00:27:02] And he explained to me, he showed me pictures of like, like the, the ocean where the, I canÕt think of what itÕs called, the circle where all the trash Ñ INTERVIEWER: Oh, the garbage? ASHLEY: Yeah, is floating. INTERVIEWER : The island? ASHLEY: Yeah, and he just showed me that, and heÕs like, ÒIf we donÕt do this, this could happen more and more.Ó INTERVIEWER: He did that dramatic. ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Oh, okay. ASHLEY: Yeah, so he kind of opened my eyes, and I wa s like, ÒOh, I guess my actions do actually have an impact.Ó INTERVIEWER: Yeah, and so was it a very quick transition to Ñ ASHLEY: Yeah. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?D! INTERVIEWER: Deciding that I need to do that? ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Or did it take some time? ASHLEY: As soon as he showed me that, I was like, ÒOkay, now I get it.Ó INTERVIEWER: All right, and letÕs do the same with the opposite question. So describe a behavior that you placed in the slow pile that at one time you made quickly or automatically, and what caused the shift in the amount of effort and consciousness in that decision? [00:27:59] ASHLEY: The switching from one brand to another. The hairspray. I switched, but if I donÕt know that something is being like negatively impactful on the environment, then IÕm not going to stop using it because I just donÕt know. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and youÕre not likely to research that Ñ ASHLEY: Right. INTERVIEWER: Unless it comes to mind from someone else? ASHLEY: Yeah, yeah. Or like on the news or something. INTERVIEWER: Yeah. And how did you hear about the aerosol? ASHLEY: I think I heard it on the news. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: Or my mom said something. I think it was on the news. INTERVIEWER: So your family is a source of information, and the news, so what type of news do you watch? ASHLEY: I mean the local news or the national news. INTERVIEWER: And where else do you get, find information about environmental issues? ASHLEY: My friends, or I see stuff online. INTERVIEWER: Like Facebook? ASHLEY: Yeah, or just scrolling, I donÕt know, web surfing I guess. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;?E!INTERVIEWER: Okay. [00:28:59] How do you think these decisions are linked to your identity? ASHLEY: I mean, the easy decisions are something that IÕm going to do, but if it takes a lot of effort and time to put into it, I donÕt have a lot of time to put into it, so I donÕt know. INTERVIEWER: So I guess, let me try to understand, are you talking about priorities? ASHLEY: Yeah. Like if, if it doesnÕt take much extra for me to do, then yeah, IÕll do it in a heartbeat, but yeah. INTERVIEWER: Okay. All right. So IÕm going to have you categorize these behaviors one more time. ASHLEY: Okay. [00:30:01] INTERVIEWER: And IÕm going to take these, and you can take the behaviors back. And youÕre going to categorize them with the least important for the future of the Earth here, moderately important for the future of the Earth, and critically important for the future of the Earth. So once again, as you do it, tell me the behavior. ASHLEY: Okay. INTERVIEWER: And then tell me what category you put it in, and then some explanation as to why youÕre putting it in each category. ASHLEY: Reading the labels on products to see if the contents were environmentally safe. I would say thatÕs moderately important. I donÕt know, b ecause itÕs not like super super important like other things could be, but itÕs definitely important. Watch TV programs about environmental issues. I would say thatÕs moderately important but itÕs not critically important because you can get information ot her ways. Switch from one brand to another due to the concern for the environment. [00:31:02] I think it depends on what the brand is. If itÕs like something big that, I donÕt know. INTERVIEWER: Like a large company, you mean? ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER : Okay. So like if you shift from, for instance, Kraft company that produces lots of different things, it would be more critically important than if it were Ñ ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: A small local company. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@F! ASHLEY: Yeah. So IÕll put it under critically . Joined in community cleanup efforts. I think thatÕs really important because if you donÕt keep your environment clean, the Earth is, itÕs not going to do well, I guess. Voted for a politician due to his or her record on protecting the environment. I donÕ t think thatÕs super important, so IÕm going to put it under least important because the politicianÕs not the only one that can change things for the environment. [00:31:58] Donated money or paid membership dues to a conservation organization. I think tha tÕs moderately important because like again, yeah, theyÕre going to do great things for the environment, but theyÕre not the only ones that can. Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental problems. IÕm going to put that und er least important because again, your politicianÕs not the only one thatÕs going to do something. Talked to others about environmental issues. I think critically important because if not everyoneÕs brought aware of it, theyÕre not going to know about it, soÑ INTERVIEWER: And so you think that that has more of an impact than maybe a politician making a law or voting a particular way. ASHLEY: Yeah, yeah I do. Bought products made from recycled materials. I think thatÕs moderately important because not ever ything you buy thatÕs not made from recyclable materials is necessarily bad, but it still is better than some other things. Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, carpooling, et cetera. [00:33:06] I think thatÕs really important. I think that if youÕre going somewhere, you shouldnÕt take like multiple cars, you should all sit in one car if you can. INTERVIEWER: Why do you think that is critically important for the future of the Earth in general, or in broad Ñ ASHLEY: Right, because the gas and like the car emissions are so bad for the Earth, so if you cut down on that, youÕre helping the Earth out more than you would be if youÕre using two cars. Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental iss ues. I think thatÕs moderately important because the course will teach you about the environmental issues, but you could still learn about them in other ways. Recycle bottles or jars or aluminum cans. I think thatÕs critically important. (inaudible at [00: 33:56]). No, I didnÕt already talk about it. Critically important because you want to keep the Earth clean. [00:34:02] Help and join in community cleanup efforts. Sorted Ñ INTERVIEWER: How does recycling glass bottles and jars and aluminum cans help keep the Earth clean do you think? ASHLEY: Because like if you throw them away, they donÕt break down in the environment. Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclables from recycled material. I think thatÕs critically important too for the same reason. Avoided buying products with excessive packaging. I think !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@;!thatÕs, yeah, critically important because you donÕt want the extra like packaging to be in the environment. So if you stop buying it, then maybe it will cut down on the packaging. INTERVIEWER: So I guess one question I have is, so you mentioned that what politicians do and how they vote, and the decisions they make is least important to the Earth compared to talking with others and being more social and communicating with each other. [00:35:05] So could you tell me why you think that? ASHLEY: I donÕt really know. I think that if you are more, like, like somebodyÕs going to listen to somebody theyÕre close with over what a politician told them, so if like IÕm talking to a friend and IÕm like, ÒHey, you sh ould start doing this,Ó that theyÕre going to listen to me over like if the President is like, ÒYou should start doing this.Ó Not everyone listens because political parties and stuff. Like some people just donÕt like those officials. TheyÕre not going to l isten to them. INTERVIEWER: All right. And then what about the two that you added? ASHLEY: I think gardening is important, critically important because you need to replenish the things that you use, like eat tomato, but donÕt like plant a tomato plant, a nd another tomato plantÕs not going to come up. And not littering. Again, thatÕs joined in community cleanup efforts. You want to keep the earth clean. [00:36:11] INTERVIEWER: And so why do you think gardening and growing your own produce is more critical ly important than maybe going out and just going to the store (inaudible at [00:36:20]) and buying. ASHLEY: Because then youÕre using your car to get there most of the time, and thatÕs creating a bigger carbon footprint for you. INTERVIEWER: Okay. So was it easy or hard for you to make the decisions of where to put these behaviors? ASHLEY: For the most part, it was easy. Some of them were kind of hard, I donÕt know. INTERVIEWER: Which ones were hard? ASHLEY: LetÕs see. Watching TV programs, because I was like, ÒIt is important, but is it really important?Ó Or the donating money. [00:37:01] More the moderately ones that I put. Because I was like, ÒYeah, theyÕre important, but are they super -important?Ó INTERVIEWER: And so what, what did you decide? Ho w did you decide between putting it in the moderately and the critically important? What were some of the things that these critically important behaviors had that these moderately ones didnÕt? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@>!ASHLEY: These are things that you personally can do. And like if youÕre putting money, like donating money, youÕre just donating money and you donÕt know for sure that itÕs going towards that. INTERVIEWER: Okay. ASHLEY: So these are the things that you can like do now that you can see. Like a change, I guess. INT ERVIEWER: Great. So which were the easiest for you? ASHLEY: The recycling ones, or the cutting down on the use of your car, the things that like you know will help the Earth. [00:38:08] INTERVIEWER: What are the hardest? You said the moderately ones? Wer e there any other ones? ASHLEY: Yeah. The least important ones. Because theyÕre still important, but theyÕre not as important, so those were kind of harder. INTERVIEWER: You think there just not as important for yourself or not as important in general? ASHLEY: For me theyÕre not as important, but for someone that listens to the politicians, listens to everything they have to say and watches all the speeches and stuff, yeah, that may have more of an impact on them than talking to their friends. I think it just depends on who you are. INTERVIEWER: Great. I think. All right, I have one more question. ItÕs based on one of the environmental identity scale comments. I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a bigger room or a house wit h a view of other buildings. [00:39:09] So which of these would you decide to live in? An apartment in the city, a small house in the city, or a small house in the country? Explain your reasoning. ASHLEY: Small house in the country. I donÕt like the hustle and bustle of cities. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and which of these would you expect to have the most or least environmental impact? So which one would have the most environmental impact, negative impact? An apartment in the city, a small house in the city , or small house in the country? ASHLEY: A small house in the city. INTERVIEWER: Okay. why do you think that? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@?!ASHLEY: Because thereÕs so many people that live there, and so youÕre going to have all your own electric bills and your own like everything. L ike youÕre going to have all the utility bills that you donÕt have in an apartment. [00:40:03] But youÕre in the city, where thereÕs cars driving around everywhere and yeah. INTERVIEWER: And what else would you need to learn before making this decision? Like what other environmental factors would you need to know about where to live? ASHLEY: About where to live? INTERVIEWER: And where you would choose to live. ASHLEY: I guess I would want to know, like if I live in the country, am I still going to have the same utilities as I would have in the city, but like how are they different, I guess? INTERVIEWER: Utilities as in like water? ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Okay, and so how does that connect with environmental issues? ASHLEY: Like if you live in the country, you could get hydroelectric electricity, or you could have solar panels or stuff that you couldnÕt have in the city. So I would want to know if like the house in the country would have that stuff. [00:41:00] INTERVIEWER: Or if you could get it. ASHLEY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: And could you, were you able to come to this decision in a fast or slow way, or when you do come to that point in your life. ASHLEY: Fast. INTERVIEWER: Fast way? You would know this is where I want to be? ASHLEY: Yeah, yeah. INTERVIEWER: Okay. And how does your identity come into play when making this decision? ASHLEY: I, I mean I know what I like and what I would want to be around every day. So I wouldnÕt want to be around all the loud noises and all the people all the tim e. Like living in the city. I would like to be in the quiet country where thereÕs not all the smog and all that stuff. And the pretty views. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@@!INTERVIEWER: And that, how does that perpetuate your identity then? ASHLEY: I, I like my time alone. I donÕt like to be around all of the people all the time, and I donÕt know, the like, I donÕt like the views of like buildings everywhere. [00:42:04] IÕd rather have the countryside, because itÕs more soothing. INTERVIEWER: Okay. Do you have any questions for me? ASHLEY: Um -mmm. INTERVIEWER: All right. Great. I really appreciate this. ASHLEY: YouÕre welcome. INTERVIEWER: Thank you so much. ASHLEY: YouÕre welcome. [00:42:24] END TRANSCRIPT MOLLY ______________________________________________________________________________ The text below represents a professional transcriptionist's understanding of the words spoken. No guarantee of complete accuracy is expressed or implied, particularly regarding spellings of names and other unfamiliar or hard -to-hear words and phrases. (ph) or (sp?) indicate phonetics or best guesses. To verify important quotes, we recommend listening to the corresponding audio. Timestamps throughout the transcript facilitate loc ating the desired quote, using software such as Windows Media player. BEGIN TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEWER: All right, IÕm here with 295P and weÕll go ahead and get started. So for the first question I want you to list five to ten answers to the question, Òwho am I?Ó And you can put that on your paper. And then as youÕre listing, just verbalize what youÕre writing down. RESPONDENT: Does it have to be full sentences? INTERVIEWER: Oh no, no. RESPONDENT: Ok. I am a junior. I am a uber. I am an environmentalist . [0:01:00] I am an environmental studies and sustainability major. This is hard. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@A!INTERVIEWER: So anything that you think fits into your identity. RESPONDENT: Oh, ok. Just in general Ok, well. I am a lesbian. I am an athlete. INTERVIEWER: So, five to ten, if thatÕs all you can think of. RESPONDENT: Yeah, thatÕs six. INTERVIEWER: Ok. RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: So on the paper as well, what environmental actions do you take? And if you could rank them from one to five . [0:02:05] RESPONDENT: Like the big five? INTERVIEWER: Yeah. Based on the amount of, the most effect those environmental actions have. And number one would have the most. RESPONDENT: Ok. I recycle everything, or try to. I try not to use excess electr icity. I pick up trash when I see it. I use reusable grocery bags. [0:03:02] And in the summertime I grow my own food. INTERVIEWER: And so have you ranked them from number one, most effect? RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Ok. RESPONDENT: Probably, ye ah. INTERVIEWER: Why would you rank them that way? With recycling number one. RESPONDENT: I feel like recycling is like overall, it encompasses a lot. Like I recycle paper. I recycle plastic. I recycle metal. I recycle technology that I donÕt use any mo re. I just, I try and recycle everything I can. And I feel like that just kind of goes into the bigger picture. So like if I donÕt wear a piece of clothing anymore, instead of just throwing it out, I will recycle it and give it to the Salvation Army or som ething for someone else to use so they donÕt have to go out and purchase something new. [0:03:58] INTERVIEWER: Ok. RESPONDENT: Do you want me to go through all of them? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@B!INTERVIEWER: I donÕt because I want to make sure we have enough time for the other questions. But we may come back to that. RESPONDENT: Ok. INTERVIEWER: As a child, how often did you spend time in the natural environment? RESPONDENT: Probably a good portion of my life. I was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. And then we have family up in the UP and in Mackinaw City. So I spent a lot of time out in the woods. Or just even outside. Like playing in the backyard. My mom always thought that if a child is going to play, they might as well play outside. So I spent a lot of time outside. INTERVIEWER: So how often do you think, was it all seasons? Just the summer. RESPONDENT: It was especially in the wintertime actually. Because we would get cabin fever. And my mom would be like, ÒOut with youÓ. Just go outside and play and get some of that energy out from being cooped up all the time. INTERVIEWER: So I guess if you could put a number on it, how many times per week would you be outside? [0:05:01] RESPONDENT: P er week? Probably like 14. Multiple times a day. Like I didnÕt spend that much time inside unless the weather was really, really awful. We had friends in the neighborhood that we would go play with. We would always be outside. Always. INTERVIEWER: So des cribe some of your most memorable experiences in the natural environment, or outside. RESPONDENT: We have a family house on a private lake up in Levering, Michigan. ItÕs like here. We would, it was me and my brother and then out two cousins. And we would always play. And we came up with this game. And it was kind of like a truth or dare. And it was, you either tell the truth or you have to jump off the dock in your clothes. And so we would be like jumping off the docks. And we would be just doing all thes e fun things. WeÕd go paddle boarding. WeÕd go kayaking. Because when itÕs a private lake, we could do that. There wasnÕt any fear of us getting taken or anything. We would just go outside whenever we wanted to. [0:06:07] INTERVIEWER: Ok. How often do you spend time in the natural environment now? RESPONDENT: Well, as of late, nothing. Because itÕs negative 11 out. But in general, not that often anymore. I donÕt really have time. Walking to and from class. I try not to take the bus if itÕs nice out so I can get some fresh air. ThereÕs a nature trail by my apartment that during the fall and the late, late summer I would take a lot of walks out there. But in general like a week, maybe two or three maybe. INTERVIEWER: Ok, two or three times per week? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@C!RESPONDENT: Yeah, maybe. INTERVIEWER: And so you would most likely take nature hikes, hike around. So you donÕt normally go back to your cabin or anything? RESPONDENT: I try to as much as I can. But where I live in Mackinaw is four and a half hours away. And in Levering itÕs four hours away. So itÕs kind of like finding the time off from school to actually drive up there, spend time, and then have to drive back. And with homework and stuff, itÕs not very feasible, unfortunately. [0:07:15] INTERVIEWER: So how do you think the natural environment fits into your identity? RESPONDENT: I think I care a little bit more. When people laugh that I recycle everything, itÕs kind of, IÕve recycled everything since I was young, younger. Like IÕve never really live d in an environment where we didnÕt reuse or we didnÕt recycle. But especially up north, itÕs a tourist town. Mackinaw City is a tourist town. And every summer you can tell it gets a little bit dirtier as the tourist leave. Because they leave and they donÕ t have to live in the environment anymore. [0:08:02] But thereÕs trash on the beach. And thereÕs stuff floating in the water. And they donÕt live there so they donÕt care. But I see it. As a, like as a resident there. And so it just, I donÕt like when peo ple take the natural environment for granted. Because itÕs like they think it will always be there where it will not. INTERVIEWER: And so you donÕt. You try not to do that. Even here. You are not a resident. RESPONDENT: Yeah, even here. INTERVIEWER: Well, you kind of are but not permanent. RESPONDENT: Yeah, kind of. INTERVIEWER: Yeah. Ok, so I have a set of behaviors here. IÕm just going to put them out here for you. So youÕve seen these before because they were out in the survey. And so what youÕre going to do is youÕre going to put these into categories based on how frequently you do these behaviors. [0:09:01] So, one is infrequently and we have two, three, and you can organize this any way you want. Four, five. And five is frequently. And then I have some blank cards so if some of these donÕt represent what you do on a daily basis or what environmental behavior you participate in you can add those to those cards and then put them in the pile. RESPONDENT: Ok. So do I just do it or do you want me to read them out loud? INTERVIEWER: Yeah, you can read them out loud as youÕre putting them into the piles. RESPONDENT: Ok. Bought products made from recycled materials -frequently. Donated money or paid membership dues to a conservation organization -probably a two. Enrolled in courses for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@D!the sole purpose of learning about environmental issues -three. Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation, carpooling, etc. -four. Recycle glass bottles or jars or aluminum cans -five. Sorted your tra sh to separate non -recyclable from recyclable materials -five. [0:10:08] Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental problems -two. Voted for a politician due to his or her record on protecting the environment -five. Read labels on products to see if the contents were environmentally safe -five. Avoided buying projects with excessive packaging -five. Joined in community clean -up efforts -four. Watched TV programs about environmental problems -five. Talked to others about enviro nmental issues -five. Switch from one brand to another due to concern for the environment, I will add one. [0:10:58] IÕve taken to make my own cleaning supplies, shampoo, conditioner, body wash, and laundry detergent. Just because I donÕt trust the ones th at you buy in the stores. ThereÕs a lot of extra chemicals in there. INTERVIEWER: Anything else that you would add? RESPONDENT: I would add, probably go to meetings. INTERVIEWER: Ok. RESPONDENT: I donÕt, IÕve only written to an elected official once . But IÕve gone to environmental, or meetings about environmental issues where the public can speak. So IÕve spoken with elected officials, IÕve neverÉ INTERVIEWER: Ok. Yeah, thatÕs a perfect one. Yeah. RESPONDENT: So, go to meetings. INTERVIEWER: Wha t meeting did you go to? [0:12:02] RESPONDENT: The most recent one was for the Natural Resource Board. It was basically, we were talking about invasive species and there was an invasive species that this, I donÕt know what board it was but it was another board entirely. INTERVIEWER: It was [the state of] (ph) Michigan, maybe? RESPONDENT: Yeah, yeah. They were trying to get it put on the invasive species list. And they had to go through all of these hearings and all of these votes and it was just crazy. But it went on the invasive species list. ItÕs called, like the winter soldier or the white soldier. And itÕs a plant that is like, itÕs awful. It grows in the water and it actually can cut the human skin the leaves are so abrasive. So... INTERVIEWER: Wow , ok. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;@E!RESPONDENT: Yeah, it was, IÕm glad itÕs on the invasive species list because that would be horrible. But yeah, IÕve gone to a few of them. [0:13:05] I would probably put that at a four because I donÕt go a lot just because I donÕt have a lot of tim e. But I do that more than I do writing. INTERVIEWER: Ok. So are there any of these behaviors that might be in the level three or two that you wish you could do more often? RESPONDENT: Definitely enrolling in courses for the sole purpose of learning more. I donÕt have the money or the time really. Donating money. I donÕt have a lot of, there arenÕt a lot of organizations that I will give money to. Just because I support what they do in general but some of their practices are a little off color so to s peak. INTERVIEWER: How do you know that? Just from doing research on your on? [0:13:53] RESPONDENT: Yes, a lot of research. I do a lot of, I just do a lot of snooping when it comes to, especially around election time. And I try to be very careful who I g ive my money to. And I look for who they are tied to. Because it might not be the company itself. It might be who they are connected to or who gives them money. INTERVIEWER: So your major barriers from what you mentioned were time and money? RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: So what impacts do social interactions like parents, roommates, significant others, friends, have on your choice to participate in these types of behaviors like recycling, consumer, activists type behaviors, education behaviors? RES PONDENT: In general they havenÕt really affected me that much. I feel like I have affected them more. My mom and I started heavily recycling after, when I was about 16, because my parents got divorced. So it was just the two of us so we could divide and co nquer more. [0:15:01] But in general, IÕve gotten my mom to compost. IÕve gotten my girlfriend to start recycling more. I make, I force my roommates to recycle. We recycle everything. I make them. But yeah, I donÕt really know. I feel like itÕs just who I am. IÕve always just been really passionate about the environment. I donÕt know that IÕve ever had any one person who has just impacted me so much. I think itÕs just experiences and a lot of different people. INTERVIEWER: Ok. And so what do you do to inf luence other peopleÕs behaviors, then? RESPONDENT: I depends on who it is. With my roommates, I told them flat out before we signed the lease that we were going to recycle. That was a hard limit for me. With my mom, I just expose her to what I think would be good and she eventually warms up to the idea. [0:15:55] In general though, I just talk to people. I tell them my opinions. I tell them why I have those opinions. I tell them what I do. I tell them why, how. And I feel like when you take the time to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;AF!actually explain to people your opinions and why you think them, not just what you think, but why, they are more likely inclined to either try it out or at least accept it and acknowledge it. Whereas if you just tell them your opinions, they will be like ok yeah, thatÕs great. But I donÕt know. I just feel like you have to really talk to people about it instead of just throwing opinions at them. INTERVIEWER: Ok. And so how do you think that behavior that you, that encouraging of others to do and participate in a program and behaviors is influenced by your identity or your environmental identity? RESPONDENT: I get really, really, I wouldnÕt say angry, but I get very worked up when I see people throw away plastic. My favorite is when I see people throw away a plastic water bottle when there is a recycling receptacle within armÕs reach. [0:17:06] It just, it doesnÕt make sense. It makes me get really worked up. And so when I talk to people I try and stay calm but itÕs hard to talk to people about something that you care so deeply about and have them not care. Especially when you know it affects them. But as for how my identityÕs shaped it. I feel like it just, IÕm really passionate about it. And I canÕt hide that. I mean sometimes I can be a little bit more coo l and collected but in general IÕm very up -front. IÕm very blunt. I donÕt shy away from telling people that I think that they are wrong and that I think they need to change. Or, I try not to single people out but in general, IÕm just like ÒWe need to chang e. This is unsustainable.Ó But yeah. I try to be nice about it. Try. [0:17:55] INTERVIEWER: Well thatÕs good. It probably might get a betterÉ RESPONDENT: Reaction. INTERVIEWER: Reaction, yeah. Ok, so do you have any type of time when a social interaction impacted your pro -environmental behaviors? In a positive or negative way. RESPONDENT: In a negative way, yes. I lived in the dorms for the first two years at Michi gan State. And I was with someone. And they were, they, I feel like they almost didnÕt recycle just to spite me. Like if we were having a fight, they would not recycle. And they would purposefully throw recyclables away just to make me upset. IÕve had peop le do that a lot actually. Like if weÕre fighting, my roommates will throw away recyclables. Or yeah, itÕs like they are using recycling against me. [0:19:01] IÕve had that happen a few times actually coming to think about it. So that was definitely a nega tive impact. A positive impact is when people actually listen. Because I feel like itÕs true for everyone that when youÕre talking about something, especially something that youÕre passionate about, and people actually take the time to listen and try to understand, it kind of is positive reinforcement that what you think is right, itÕs good. And itÕs not just you getting all worked up over nothing. So yeah. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;A;!INTERVIEWER: Sure. You get some kind of affirmation and justification for what youÕre doing. RESPONDENT: Yeah. Exactly. So thatÕs always positive. INTERVIEWER: So how has your membership in a group or community influenced your environmental behavior? And it can include maybe courses that youÕre a part of or something like that too. RESPONDENT: I Õm part of, or I was one of the, I didnÕt really know what to call myself. We were, have you ever heard of the March Against Monsanto? [0:20:07] INTERVIEWER: No. RESPONDENT: March Against Monsanto. It is a worldwide march every year. ItÕs been happening for a while. Where people will come together and they will march against genetically modified organisms. But particularly Monsanto and the influence it has. I am staunchly against Monsanto. I think they should be shut down. I think everything they do is e vil and I donÕt like them at all. But I helped to set up last yearÕs march back in my hometown of Kalamazoo. And that helped me to connect to the community there a little bit for sure. Back in Kalamazoo my mom and I had a, like a share in the co -op. And so you meet a lot of good people that way. Because thereÕs, itÕs really nice to be surrounded by like -minded people who care. [0:20:59] So that was definitely, that got me a little bit more into the local food movement. Back when I was in high school, we would go to the food co -op. And I would be like, all of this food. And itÕs from local sources. And it kind of got me thinking, where does food come from? What am I eating? So it kind of woke me up a little bit. INTERVIEWER: And so you said, I wanted you to describe the community and your participation. So the March Against Monsanto and then youÕre at the food co -op. RESPONDENT: Yep. INTERVIEWER: Ok. And your participation in the food co -op was a share owner. RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: And then you were one of the organizers of the March? RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: Ok, great. So, weÕre going to take these again. And IÕll have you put these other new behaviors aside. You can use them for the next part but weÕll go ahe ad and take these out. WeÕre now doing the decision portion. [0:22:04] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;A>! RESPONDENT: Oh. INTERVIEWER: Ok. So you have the same behaviors that you can use. And you can add. So if you want to use these and add more behaviors that have come to mind you can go ahead and do that on these. So I want you to divide those behaviors into two sets. Those that you make decisions quickly, without effort. And those that you make decisions more slowly, or with more effort, or you need to do more research or youÕre more co nscious about them. So go ahead and put those into those categories and describe how youÕre making decisions about which ones go into which categories. RESPONDENT: Ok. Written to your elected officials is definitely a slow decision because I feel like when you write to a politician especially, you have to be well versed in what youÕre writing about. Donating money, definitely a slow decision because I like to do a lot of research because of ties and sources and whatnot. [0:23:02] Enrolled in courses fo r the sole purpose of leaning more about environmental issues. ThatÕs a quick decision just because IÕm always interested. I like to learn about everything. Especially when it comes to that. Joined in community clean -up efforts. ThatÕs a quick decision bec ause I donÕt really think about it. ItÕs just like volunteering. INTERVIEWER: And so have you done any volunteering (inaudible at [0:23:26])? RESPONDENT: Yes, I actually helped clean up the Red Cedar this past summer, fall, fallish. Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation. That was a quick decision but it was slow in the making. Because I had to figure out a way to use public transportation, carpooling and stuff. But I wanted to. It just took a while to enact. Switch from one bran d (coughs). Sorry, IÕm getting over a cold. [0:24:03] INTERVIEWER: ThatÕs all right. RESPONDENT: Switch from one brand to another. (coughs) Probably a quick decision. Because if IÕm switching from one brand to another, itÕs probably because I already di d research on it and I knew that I needed to switch. INTERVIEWER: Ok. RESPONDENT: Talk to others about environmental issues. Probably a quick decision because it mostly comes up in casual conversation. INTERVIEWER: So you will take advantage of opportunity. RESPONDENT: Um -hmm. (cough) I donÕt like, whatÕs the word IÕm looking for? Like accosting people almost? Like jumping on them, I donÕt like that. Watch TV programs about environmental problems. Quic k decision because usually Netflix. IÕm like you. [0:25:03] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;A?! Avoided buying products with excessive packaging. Quick decision, slow in the making. (cough) Read labels on products to see if the contents are environmentally safe. Quick decision but a lot of research went into it. So it was, I wanted to. (cough) INTERVIEWER: Do you want to get some water? RESPONDENT: Probably. [0:25:33] RESPODENT: Okay. Voted for a politician due to his or her record, slow decision, like you do a lot of research, sorted you r trash to separate non -recyclable from recyclable, quick decision just because IÕve always done it, recycled glass bottles or jar or aluminum cans, quick decision because IÕve always done that, though up here in East Lansing itÕs really hard to recycle gl ass, itÕs really, really hard. You have to actually take it to a recycling center. INTERVIEWER: Okay, yeah. RESPONDENT: You canÕt just put it out in front of your house or É you actually have to make an effort. INTERVIEWER: Right. RESPONDENT: And bough t products (inaudible at 0:00:43.8 Ð speaking over). INTERVIEWER: So it brought change to how you make a decision about that? RESPONDENT: I mean I knew that I was going to because IÕm very stubborn and I knew I was going to recycle the glass that we had accumulated but yeah I just had to figure out how. I didnÕt know how I didnÕt know I didnÕt even know where the recycling center was. ItÕs on campus (inaudible at 0:01:05.8 Ð speaking over). INTERVIEWER: Energy and attention (inaudible at 0:01:07.2). RESPONDENT: Yeah, it took a lot of extra energy. It takes É I donÕt know why they canÕt just recycle glass but you have to definitely make an effort for sure. Glass and metal are the two big ones. Like paper, (inaudible at 0:01:22.2), plastic is fine but g lass and metal are just really like unless you work in a company itÕs hard to get rid of. Yeah, but bought products made from recycled materials, quick decisions that a way itÕs a big impact on if IÕm between two products I will try and buy what was alread y recycled and whatnot but. Go to meetings about environmental issues, quick decisions I love them. And make my own cleaning supplies that was a slow decision for many reasons time, money and I didnÕt know how. So I had to seek out ways to make it I had to look up recipes and look at all these things so it was a slow decision because I didnÕt know if I could do it but yeah. (0:02:14.7) INTERVIEWER: Are there any other behaviors that have come up that you would like to add on the card? That you have been th inking about. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;A@! RESPONDENT: Not particularly. The one that I could think of is like doing marches or protests for my rental issues and those are a slow decision for sure. Because when youÕre going to do a protest or youÕre going to do a march you have to ma ke sure that youÕre going with the right people because if you go with the wrong people it could be illegal. And a lot of activists, especially the ones that march in a protest, are very passionate, very fired up about it so. INTERVIEWER: TheyÕve taken a dangerous position or something. RESPONDENT: Exactly, yeah. (0:03:21.5) INTERVIEWER: So can you describe a behavior? YouÕve kind of done this a little bit but that you placed in the fast pile saying that you make quick decisions about it at one time but at another time it was a slow decision. So maybe youÕve mentioned some of those decisions were slow in the making. RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: So could you look through the pile and decide on which decisions are in the quick pile now but were in the s low pile at one point? RESPONDENT: Man oh man. Cut down on the use of your car thatÕs in the quick decision pile but it was slow in the making because you have to figure out public transportation, you have to figure out if you can carpool, thereÕs just a lot of like you were so use to using our car for everything. INTERVIEWER: So would you say that if you moved to another community would it be easier for you now to cut down on driving or would it still be a slow decision at that point too? (0:04:33.9) RESPONDENT: That would be a slow decision especially if I had never been there before because a car is a lot É it makes you feel a lot less vulnerable so if you donÕt know a place youÕre not going to want to take the bus everywhere at first youÕre going to w ant to drive around scope it out a little bit before you make any like public transportation efforts. But definitely that one. I mean some of these like the avoided buying products because of the packaging, the red labels on the products, the switch from o ne brand to another, all of those bought products made of recyclable materials all of these are I mean I did research for all of these. Because when you switch from one to another you do research and youÕre looking at buying products with less packaging, y ou want to make sure that even though they have less packaging theyÕll still be environmentally safe. And you want to make sure that all of these things are still good so all of these were slow in the making just because I did research. But they were É I d idnÕt think about them meaning I didnÕt have to like pros and cons like will I do this it was more of a how and what instead of will I or not. (0:06:12.9) INTERVIEWER: So meaning you had an intention of doing É !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;AA!RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: A thing lik e that but you had to find out the ways of making them work for you. RESPONDENT: Exactly, but yeah thatÕs what I É So I guess these were all slow decisions at first but they É it was more because I had to do research a lot of research. INTERVIEWER: And so É sorry there was a question that came to mind and now É So now are they theyÕre fast decisions you donÕt thereÕs not much effort that you put into to buy materials that are recyclable? RESPONDENT: Not nearly. Like especially now I know a lot of the co mpanies. I know companies which is what I look to I donÕt really look at the product I look at who made it. So like I donÕt buy anything from Johnson & Johnson, I donÕt buy or I try not to buy Kraft like thereÕs just É I shop by brand but kind of in the me aning I donÕt buy certain brands or I try really hard not to. (0:07:19.1) INTERVIEWER: All right and so letÕs do the opposite. Were there any behaviors that you placed in the slow pile that at one time you made the decision quickly and automatically? And what caused the shift in the amount of effort and consciousness in your decision making? RESPONDENT: The only one that was in slow pile that I would say maybe was the donating money one. And that was like back when I was a little bit less well versed I su ppose. I donated money to like World Wild Life Fund and I donated to Sierra Club and I donated to like all these conservation, we have a little traverse conservation unit up in the north so that before I kind of realized that I had to watch out for things like political ties but that use to be a quick decision. INTERVIEWER: So donating money? (0:08:14.0) RESPONDENT: Or quicker. INTERVIEWER: And being a member. So what made that shift happen? RESPONDENT: Well, my mom was a politician so I kind of knew th at a lot of politicians have like an ulterior motive you know they all do they all have a hidden agenda which is fine. Most of them are good but some of them are bad and I guess I started to realize that organizations had to get support from somewhere and the bigger the organization the more powerful their compatriots. So thatÕs when I started to wonder like IÕm donating money to them but where is money actually going. So that kind of changed my perspective a little bit. INTERVIEWER: Sure. And so what els e would you like to know or need to know in order to make better decisions about any of these particular issues? Or maybe what are some things that you did to learn more about them? (0:09:12.9) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;AB!RESPONDENT: I read a lot. I know itÕs Facebook Ð we live in F acebook Ð I like things on Facebook and I read a lot of articles. But I read articles from all sides I try not to read from just one perspective because I feel like thatÕs bias. But like for GMOs IÕve done extensive research for like certain plastics IÕve done research for them, for different memberships and organizations IÕve done a lot of research especially for the World Wild Life Fund and Sierra Club. But I just do I read a lot I try and keep up -to-date on a lot of things so I know things change but I t ry to stay in the know always. For watching TV programs I try and they donÕt come out too often because I mean no one really likes to watch about environmental problems, kind of depressing, but in general I try and like watch as many as I can for about dif ferent phenomena. For classes I do try and like at least take online like free like little snippet classes and things like that. And for community cleanup efforts É (0:10:35.4) INTERVIEWER: That deal with environmental issues? RESPONDENT: Yeah. Or if the y donÕt exclusively deal with environmental issues at least are somewhat like hinted at them or just focus on like a certain environmental issue. But in joining in community cleanup effort IÕm in the College of Natural Resources so we get e -mails about tho se all the time. I donÕt even have to seek them really they come to me. So yeah definitely. INTERVIEWER: So how do you think the way you make these decisions is related to your identity as an environmentalist or a variety of other things that you listed? (0:11:13.2) RESPONDENT: Well, definitely from the UP standard weÕre really good at recycling. WeÕve recycling centers that are probably five minutes away from your house in any which direction. INTERVIEWER: (inaudible at 0:11:31.6). RESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean the bigger cities were pretty good about it. But it also is like we have the little Traverse Bag Conservation Unit theyÕre very small they focus on one area. I like that the conservation movement in the UP and even just northern Michigan they focus on areas. So they donÕt like try and cover this whole expanse and try and fund this whole project itÕs more that they take funding from the locals or anyone who you know will give them money and they will work on that area. So I feel like it gets more done f rom a local standpoint just because itÕs less people itÕs less area but itÕs more efficient. So thatÕs how I feel about that. And as an environmentalist I just I feel like recycling should just be something everyone does. I feel like everyone should be cut ting back on using their car. I feel like everything that environmentalists do everyone should do just because I mean the only difference between an environmentalist and a not -environmentalist I guess is that we care about having some place to live and the yÕre trying to remain ignorant to the fact that we only have one planet. (0:12:52.1) INTERVIEWER: So itÕs kind of a frame of reference? RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: How we make decisions? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;AC!RESPONDENT: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: All right, all right letÕs do this one. So weÕre going to put them into sets again those behaviors. RESPONDENT: Okay. INTERVIEWER: Those that are critically important for future of the earth, those are moderately important and those that are least important. And so É and then you ca n add like we did before add any behaviors you want. And then explain É as youÕre doing it just explain why you decided those behaviors go into those three categories? (0:13:24.6) RESPONDENT: Okay. Donated money or paid membership to a conservation (inaud ible at 0:13:32.2), I would say moderately important. Voted for a politician due to his or her record of protecting environment I would say critically important. Do you want me to explain why? INTERVIEWER: Yeah, if you could as you go along. RESPONDENT: That is critically important just because we live in a government so if you donÕt pick people to you know lead the government in the right direction we donÕt stand a chance of protecting the environment. Written to elected officials I would probably least important just because I mean it is important to try and have your voice heard but in general the track record of elected officials actually reading letters and actually like listening to the citizenry from that standpoint is very sparse. Recycle glass bot tles or aluminum cans I think that is critically important just because recycling is very important. Sorted your trash to separate non -recyclable from recyclable material critically important for the same reason I feel like everyone should recycle. (0:14:4 2.7) INTERVIEWER: So why is it critical? So what is about recycling that is critical where other things arenÕt? RESPONDENT: I feel like recycling is that one thing that everyone can do. And if we get away from that oh this broke so we need a new one ins tead of oh it broke we need to fix it if we get away from that mindset weÕll be better off as a people just wholly like not even just from the environmental standpoint but from a social standpoint too. Our character as a country has changed dramatically si nce World War II and I feel like we need to start swinging back to that conservationist like reuse, reduce, recycle like that. (0:15:28.0) INTERVIEWER: So when you think of recycling itÕs almost an umbrella term for reusing É RESPONDENT: Yeah, yeah. INTERVIEWER: And consuming less. RESPONDENT: Uh -hmm. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;AD!INTERVIEWER: Not just buying and buying and then recycling it later? RESPONDENT: Yep but itÕs more of a use what you need but donÕt be excessive. INTERVIEWER: I see. RESPONDENT: And if you donÕt nee d anything or something any more recycle it back into the É back into the pot sort of speak. So thatÕs what I mean when I think of recycling. Brought products made from recycled materials I would say thatÕs moderately important because it is important to s ee that things are recycled back but a lot of products, even though they are made from recycled materials, itÕs only like 60 percent or 50 percent so thereÕs still a portion of the materials that was new raw material so. Switch from one brand to another du e to concern for the environment I feel like that is critically important just because it shows that people care enough to actually make the switch and be informed about it. And an informed citizenry will get us farther than an ignorant one so. Read labels on products to see if the contents were environmental safe I think thatÕs critical because again it shows that people care enough to know and to seek out that information. Avoided buying products with excessive packaging I would say thatÕs moderately impo rtant because it just goes back I mean even if you buy something that doesnÕt have excessive packaging youÕre still buying something with packaging so. (0:17:06.3) INTERVIEWER: So thatÕs going into the reusing instead of buying new? RESPONDENT: Yeah, yea h. Watch TV programs about environmental problems I would say thatÕs least important I mean I like them and itÕs good to know if theyÕre informative but it doesnÕt mean that everyone should have to watch them, you know what I mean? INTERVIEWER: Uh -hmm. RESPONDENT: Only can get you so far. Talk to others about environmental issues is definitely critically important because we listen to each other more than we listen to É you listen to people you know more than you listen to strangers. So if like weÕre stra ngers so something I say might not have much of an impact but if your best friend were to say the same thing it would definitely hold more meaning and more of an impact for you. So definitely spread the word. Joining community cleanup efforts I think thatÕ s critically important because it not only gives a sense of community in doing something that matters but it also shows that people care which is something that we need. Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environmental issues I put that probably at moderately because I mean it is important but you donÕt have to just enroll in courses. You can read books from the library or read articles online. (0:18:27.8) INTERVIEWER: And so what do you think enrolling in courses about environ mental issues would do or help or what is the purpose of doing that going to courses? RESPONDENT: I mean I personally love taking classes just for the heck of it you know itÕs fun because itÕs like no stress you can actually enjoy the class. But I feel li ke when you enroll in a class itÕs like it takes on a different perspective so like if I were É if there were a class on GMOs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;AE!and I had the choice of either taking that class or just doing my own research you take a class to become an expert on something o r at least like an expert you know like a novice sort of speak. (0:19:10.6) INTERVIEWER: Sure. RESPONDENT: So if you took a class about an environmental issue that you were super, super passionate about you really wanted to learn more I feel like thatÕs good itÕs important but itÕs also important to be able to expand out on your own without the framework of a class. Cut down on the use of your car by using public transportation or carpooling thatÕs definitely critically important just because fossil fuels are low we donÕt have that many left itÕs getting a little direr because weÕre using up more than we even know because weÕre not paying enough attention. Doing marches or protests I think thatÕs critically important because people can ignore a letter but itÕs harder to ignore a protest thatÕs happening right outside their window. So I mean it shows discontent it shows that these people actually care theyÕre not disillusioned thereÕs no changing their mind you have to take care of it so itÕs just harder to ignore. (0:20:11.9) INTERVIEWER: Sure. RESPONDENT: Annoying. INTERVIEWER: Disappointing. RESPONDENT: Exactly. Go to meetings about environmental issues I would say thatÕs moderately important. I mean going to meetings is definitely very important and e specially because you learn from everyone that was there. But I mean itÕs not super important that everyone goes to meetings. Make my own cleaning supplies I think itÕs critically important because you use less packaging, you use less overall raw materials and I think itÕs just better for environment you donÕt put things that harmful into the environment. And you control it more you have more control over everything every step of the process so. INTERVIEWER: So which one of these was the easiest decision t o make? RESPONDENT: Critically? INTERVIEWER: Uh -hmm. RESPONDENT: Yeah, because the ones that are critically important I know have to happen. Least important was hard because I donÕt think any of them are least important like (inaudible at 0:21:11.2) a re important to it but I suppose these are the ones that if they didnÕt happen a lot it wouldnÕt be the end of the world. Moderately important was definitely really hard because theyÕre still all really important but not everyone has to do them or at least not a large portion of them has to do it for anything for like a bad negative impact, if that makes sense. INTERVIEWER: And you mean when you mean negative impact you mean a negative impact for environmental issues or problems? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;BF! RESPONDENT: Yeah, yeah. INTERVIEWER: Or for the change to happen for the problems? RESPONDENT: Uh -hmm. Yeah, so I mean if people donÕt go to meetings about environmental issues I mean they wonÕt know as much but itÕs not like climate change will get worse because people didnÕt g o to those meetings. INTERVIEWER: So which behavior was easiest to categorize? RESPONDENT: Critically important. INTERVIEWER: Like which individual behavior? RESPONDENT: Oh, which individual behavior É INTERVIEWER: Yeah. RESPONDENT: Was easiest? Anything to do with consumer choices. INTERVIEWER: Why? (0:22:15.5) RESPONDENT: Because I feel like weÕre run by our economy and you have to make smart choices you vote with your dollar and itÕs just itÕs very important for people to start caring. And I feel like the more people that care the more companies that will care the more switch that we can have but if people keep not caring then the companies will be like oh they still donÕt care we can still make this product that is environmentally unsafe it u ses excess packaging it does this it does that itÕs not recyclable so thatÕs very important to me. Because we do we vote with our dollar and we buy everything we buy clothes, we buy food, we buy paper, we buy pens, we buy tables. INTERVIEWER: And so which one was the hardest for you? Like individual behavior like? RESPONDENT: Probably the same one consumer just different the avoided buying products with excessive packaging and buy products made from recyclable materials because those are still I mean cons umer and theyÕre still important but I feel like theyÕre less important than buying things that are known to be environmentally safe. Because even if theyÕre made from recycled materials that can be anything from starting to like 70 percent you donÕt know how much. (0:23:59.0) INTERVIEWER: Right, and sometimes products were put back on (inaudible at 0:24:01.6 Ð coughing). On the front and then people just donÕt even think twice about it. RESPONDENT: Uh -hmm. INTERVIEWER: Or look into it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;B;! RESPONDENT: Uh -hmm. INTERVIEWER: Yeah. So one last question so you were given this on your survey I would rather live in a small room or house with a nice view than a bigger room or house with a view of other buildings. And so based on that which of these would you decid e to live in? In an apartment in a city, a small house in the city, a small house in the country? RESPONDENT: When you say city do you mean like a big city? INTERVIEWER: Yeah. RESPONDENT: Probably a small house in the country. INTERVIEWER: And so why? RESPONDENT: I donÕt like cities theyÕre loud and theyÕre É the air isnÕt clean, thereÕs more pollution overall like the streets arenÕt clean and I feel like the country is just É itÕs closer to nature. I just donÕt like É I donÕt like feeling closed in by everything you know like the big buildings and the noise. Some people love it I just I donÕt like it at all. East Lansing is a little big for me. Yeah, I actually picked my apartment because itÕs two miles off of campus. Yeah, so no definitely the country I would IÕve never wanted to live in the city. (0:25:26.9) INTERVIEWER: And so were you able to make that decision fairly quickly or in a slower fast way? So intentionally was it an intentional decision or would it be an intentional decision or would it be something that would be very fast not much effort? RESPONDENT: In general it would be a fast decision like I donÕt want to live in the city but the actual like application of it I feel like would take longer just because I mean just because I donÕt like the city doesnÕt mean whoever IÕm living with, my girlfriend, doesnÕt want to live in the city. Or my job might be in the city so it might be more feasible to live in the city or all of these things I just É I know that I donÕt want to live in a big hous e and I know I donÕt want to live in a big city and those are about the only two restrictions I have as of right now on where I want to live. (0:26:16.7) INTERVIEWER: What else would you need to learn before making the decision? RESPONDENT: I would need to learn more about the city that I was living in. So like big cities like Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids theyÕre you know like super artsy and theyÕre super fabulous or whatever. But and then you have cities that are like Flint and Detroit which are also big but also theyÕre dangerous and you wouldnÕt really want to live there. So I guess itÕs more like learn about your environment, learn who lives there what kind of people live there. INTERVIEWER: What about when youÕre thinking for environmental reasons? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;B>!RESPONDENT: Oh, they would have to recycle. They would have to be have a good recycling program. Food co -op would be lovely. FarmerÕs Market would be even better. Just very conscious of certain environmental practices so they would be taking acts towards cutting their carbon emissions, they would be acknowledging that they have carbon emissions thatÕs a first thatÕs a big step for a lot of governments. They would be putting man force and money into protecting the environment so they would be putting defens ive expenditures in. But yeah they would definitely É they would have to be doing at least something like I couldnÕt live in a city thatÕs just throwing out plastic bottles this way and that that would be I couldnÕt do that. (0:27:48.4) INTERVIEWER: And s o how did your identity come into play when making a decision about where youÕre living especially your environmental identity? RESPONDENT: Oh, I definitely want to live near water. I donÕt know that I want to stay in Michigan just because of certain poli tical moves but I definitely want to live by water. I would love to live in Oregon or Washington somewhere thatÕs very nature minded. They love organic food, they love all of these things that I love so being near likeminded people would definitely be a bi g thing. Somewhere where nature or man hasnÕt completely destroyed nature but where nature is also accessible so like nature trails or state parks and things like that. But yeah I know I would never I couldnÕt live in like a desert. I couldnÕt live in Sava nah or somewhere where it was hot all the time or where water was not abundant. But water is definitely a big thing. (0:28:56.9) INTERVIEWER: All right. Well, thatÕs all I have for you today. RESPONDENT: Okay. INTERVIEWER: I really appreciate this. END TRANSCRIPT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;B?! APPENDIX F Qualitative Coding Table 28. Qualitative Coding Workbook 1=infreq uently 5=frequ ently Particip ant Name Avoid ed buyin g produ cts with excessive packa ging Recyc led glass bottle s or jars or alumi num cans Sorted your trash to separa te non -recycl ables from recycl able materi als Written to your elected officials expressi ng your opinions on environ mental problem s Voted for a politici an due to his or her record on protect ing the environ ment. Joined in comm unity cleanu p efforts Donate d money or paid membe rship dues to a conser vation organi zation Cut down on the use of your car by using public transpor tation, car pooling, etc Bough t produ cts made from recycl ed materi als Switch ed from one brand to anothe r due to concer n for the envir onment Read labels on products to see if the contents were environ mentally safe Enrolle d in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environ mental issues Watche d TV progra ms about environ mental problem s Talked to others about environ mental issues Ryan 4 5 5 1 1 4 5 3 4 1 3 5 2 5 Kim 1 5 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 Molly 5 5 5 2 5 4 2 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 Savannah 4 5 5 1 4 4 1 5 5 4 3 3 5 1 Katie 1 5 5 1 1 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 Olivia 4 5 5 1 2 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 4 5 Renee 4 5 5 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 2 4 Ansel 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 4 3 3 3 2 4 Mean 3 5 4.75 1.125 2 2.875 1.75 3.75 3.625 2.875 3 2.875 2.875 3.25 Standard Deviation 1.69030 8509 0 0.70710 67812 0.353553 3906 1.603567 451 1.12599 1626 1.38873 015 1.0350983 39 1.18773 4939 1.64208 0562 1.5118578 92 1.552647 509 1.552647 509 1.908627 031 Question about Fast and Slow Thinking Fast=1 Slow=2 Participa nt Avoide d buying produc ts with excessi ve packagi ng Recycl ed glass bottles or jars or alumi num cans Sorted your trash to separat e non -recycla bles from recycla ble materia ls Written to your elec ted officials expressin g your opinions on environm ental problems Voted for a politicia n due to his or her record on protecti ng the environ ment. Joined in commu nity cleanup efforts Donated money or paid member ship dues to a conserv ation organiz ation Cut down on the use of your car by using public transport ation, car pooling, etc Bought produc ts made from recycle d materia ls Switche d from one brand to another due to concern for the environ ment Read labels on products to see if the contents were environme nta lly safe Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environm ental issues Watched TV program s about environm ental problems Talked to others about environm ental issues Ryan 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 Middle 1 2 2 2 1 2 Kim 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;B@!Table 28 ContÕd Molly 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Savannah 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Katie 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Olivia 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 Renee 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 Ansel 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 Mean 1.3 75 1 1 2 1.875 1.375 2 1.1428571 43 1.375 1.375 1.75 1.375 1.375 1.125 Standard Deviation 0.51754 91695 0 0 0 0.353553 3906 0.70710 67812 0 0.3779644 73 0.51754 91695 0.51754 91695 0.4629100 499 0.517549 1695 0.517549 1695 0.353553 3906 Importan ce for the future of the Earth Participa nt Avoide d buying produc ts with excessi ve packagi ng Recycl ed glass bottles or jars or alumi num cans Sorted your trash to separat e non -recycla bles from recycla ble materia ls Written to your elected officials expressin g your opinions on environm ental problems Voted for a politicia n due to his or her record on protecti ng the environ ment. Joined in commu nity cleanup efforts Donated money or paid member ship dues to a conserv ation organiz ation Cut down on the use of your car by using public transport ation, car pooling, etc Bought produc ts made from recycle d materia ls Switche d fro m one brand to another due to concern for the environ ment Read labels on products to see if the contents were environme ntally safe Enrolled in courses for the sole purpose of learning more about environm ental issues Watched TV program s about environm ental problems Talked to others about environm ental issues Ryan critical critical critical critical critical critical moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate critical least critical Kim mode rate critical critical least moderate moderate least moderate moderate moderate least least least least Molly moderate critical critical least critical critical moderate critical moderate critical critical moderate least critical Savanna h moderate critical critical least critical critical moderate critical moderate critical critical least moderate moderate Katie moderate critical critical critical moderate critical critical moderate critical critical critical critical least critical Olivia critical critical critical moderate critical moderate N/A critical N/A critical critical critical least critical Ansel critical critical critical least least critical moderate critical moderate critical moderate moderate moderate critical Renee critical critical critical moderate moderate critical moderate critical important critical critical moderate moderate critical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;BA! Appendix G Additional Quantitative Data Table 29. Descriptive statistics for the Education and Sustainability group scores on the Environmental Identity subscales. Construct Participant Groups N Mean SD Min Max Education 233 19.2 4.85 6 30 Sustainability 62 22.5 4.87 9 30 Total 295 19.9 5.03 6 30 Self Concept Education 236 17.9 3.50 6 25 Sustainability 62 21.2 3.18 12 25 Total 298 18.6 3.68 6 25 Ideology Education 235 10.5 2.65 3 15 Sustainability 62 11.7 2.37 4 15 Total 297 10.7 2.64 3 15 Positive Experiences with Nature Education 235 19.0 4.99 6 30 Sustainability 59 22.2 4.36 13 30 Total 294 19.6 5.03 6 30 Interaction with Nature Education 235 5.73 1.87 2 10 Sustainability 62 7.44 1.92 2 10 Total 297 6.09 2.00 2 10 Group Membership Education 237 7.11 2.17 2 10 Values and Priorities Sustainability 62 8.06 2.01 2 10 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;BB! Total 299 7.30 2.17 2 10 Table 29 (ContÕd) Table 30. ANOVA results for the comparison of the Education participants and the Sustainability participants mean scores on the Environmental Identity Scale subscales. Construct Df F p Between Groups 1 22.0 .000** Within Groups 293 Self Concept Total 294 Between Groups 1 44.7 .000** Within Groups 296 Ideology Total 297 Between Groups 1 10.5 .001** Within Groups 295 Positive Experiences with Nature Total 296 Between Groups 1 20.8 .000** Within Groups 292 Interaction with Nature Total 293 Between Groups 1 40.4 .000** Within Groups 295 Group Membership Total 296 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;BC! Between Groups 1 9.86 .002** Within Groups 297 Table 30 (ContÕd) Values and Priorities Total 298 ** p < .01 Table 31. Test of Homogeneity of Variances between Education and Sustainability Environmental Identity subscales Construct Levene Statistic p Self Concept .001 .982 Ideology .665 .416 Positive Experiences with Nature 2.814 .094 Interaction with Nature 1.640 .201 Group Membership .200 .655 Values and Priorities 1.081 .299 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;BD!Table 3 2. ANOVA results for the comparison of the Education participants and the Sustainability participants mean scores on the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index subscales . Construct Df F Sig. Between Groups 1 22.4 .000** Within Groups 296 Consumerism Total 297 Between Groups 1 19.6 .000** Within Groups 296 Activism Total 297 Between Groups 1 74.7 .000** Within Groups 297 Education Total 298 Between Groups 1 10.4 .001** Within Groups 296 Recycling Total 297 ** p < .01 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;BE! Table 3 3. Table 3 5. Descriptive statistics for each item on the Decision Making Questionnaire for Education and Sustainability groups Construct Participant Group N Mean SD Education 235 3.51 1.02 Slow/Fast Sustainability 61 3.79 1.08 Test of Homogeneity of Variances between Education and Sustainability participants on Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index subscales Subscale Levene Statistic p Consumerism .000 .991 Activism 6.926 .009** Education .063 .803 Recycling 9.153 .003** ** p < .01 Table 3 4. Test of Homogeneity of Variances between the Education and Sustainability groups Environmental Identity Scale and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Index scores Survey Levene Statistic p Environmental Identity .526 .469 Environmental Behaviors .027 .870 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;CF!Overall 296 3.57 1.04 Table 35 (ContÕd) Education 235 3.58 1.08 Sustainability 61 3.75 1.23 Overall 296 3.61 1.12 Effort Education 235 3.27 1.07 Sustainability 61 3.26 1.26 Overall 296 3.27 1.11 Automaticity Education 235 3.73 1.05 Sustainability 61 3.87 1.09 Overall 296 3.76 1.05 Thinking capacity Education 236 3.92 1.01 Sustainability 61 3.85 1.11 Overall 297 3.90 1.03 Certainty Education 235 2.79 1.10 Sustainability 61 3.41 1.23 Emotions Overall 296 2.92 1.15 Table 3 6. ANOVA results for the individual Decision Making Questionnaire items comparing the Education and Sustainability groups Construct Df F p Between Groups 1 3.45 .064 Within Groups 294 Slow/ Fast Total 295 Effort Between Groups 1 1.20 .275 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;C;!Within Groups 294 Table 36 (ContÕd) Total 295 Between Groups 1 .001 .971 Within Groups 294 Automaticity Total 295 Between Groups 1 .816 .367 Within Groups 294 Thinking capacity Total 295 Between Groups 1 .180 .672 Within Groups 295 Certainty Total 296 Between Groups 1 14.8 .000** Within Groups 294 Emotions Total 295 ** p < .01 Table 3 7. Test of Homogeneity of Variances for the individual Decision Making Questionnaire items Question Levene Statistic p Slow/Fast .022 .882 Effort 1.372 .242 Automaticity 6.252 .013* Thinking Capacity .041 .840 Certainty 3.232 .073 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;C>!Table 37 (ContÕd) Emotions 2.771 .097 Note * p < .05 Table 3 8. Mann-Whitney t est results for the individual items on the Decision Making Questionnaire Fast/Slow Effort Automaticity Thinking Capacity Certainty Emotions Mann -Whitney 4 4 3 4 4 3 p .045* .145 .907 .266 .803 .000** Note. Grouping Variable: Participant group (Education and Sustainability) * p < .05, **= p < .01 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;C?! REFERENCES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;C@!REFERENCE S AERA, APA, & NCTM, (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington D.C.: AERA. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences . New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Arvai, J. L., Campbell, V. E.A., Baird, A., & Rivers, L. (2004). Teaching students to make better decisions about the environment: Lessons from the decision science. Journal of Environmental Education . 36(1), 33-42. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Blatt, E.N. (2013). Exploring environmental identity and behavioral change in an environmental science course. Cultural Studies in Science Education , 8, 467-488. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research . Guilford Publications. Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly , 18-29. Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education , 31(1), 15-26. Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Iden tity and natural environment . 45-66. Cambridge: MIT Press. Clayton, S. & Opotow, S (2003). Introduction: Identity and the Natural Environment.. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and natural environment . 1-24. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis: A computer program . Routledge. Covitt, B.A., Harris, C.B., & Anderson, C.W. (2013). Evaluating scientific arguments with slow thinking. Science Scope , 37(3), 44-52. Covitt, B.A., Dauer, J. & Anderson, C. W. (in press ). The role of practices in scientific literacy in In B. Reiser, C. Schwarz, and C. Passmore (Eds.), Supporting next generation scientific and engineering practices in K -12 Classrooms. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;CA! Diekmann , A. & Preisendoerfer, P. (1992). Persoenliches Umweltverhalten: Die Diskrepanz zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Sozialpsychologi e, 44, pp. 226Ð251. Do V alle, P. O., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and behavior ,37(3), 364-396. Dunlap R.E. & Van Li ere, K.D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education , 9(4), 10-19. Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual -processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol ., 59, 255-278. Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early -life outdoor experiences and an individual's environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences , 27(3), 225-239. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS . Los Angeles: Sage. Gee, J. P. (1998). What is literacy. Negotiating ac ademic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures , 51-59. Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education , 25, 99-125. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude -behavior relationships a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and behavior , 27(5), 699-718. Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating environmental attitudes . Oxford: University Press. Heimlich, J.E. & Harko, A. (1994). Teacher values in teacher recycling. Environmental Education Research . 13(1), 21-30. Heimlich, J.E. & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research . 14(3), 215-237. Heimlich, J.E., Mony, P., & Yocco V. (2013). Belief to behavior: A vital link. In R.B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, and A. E.J. Wals (Eds.). International handbook of research on environmental education. 262 -274. New York: Routledge. Holmes, S.J. (2003). Some lives some theories. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and natural environment . 1-24. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist . 58(9), 697-720. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;CB!Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux. Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., & Hartley, J.A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture . MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Kempton, W. & Holland, D.C. (2003). Identity and sustained environmental practice. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and natural environment . 317-342. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kitchell, A., Kempton, W., Holland, D., & Tesch, D. (2000). Identities and actions within environmental groups. Human Ecology Review , 7(2), 1-20. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro -environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research . 8(3), 239-260. Lee, J. (2012). ResidentsÕ environme ntally responsible behavior and the concepts of connectedness to coastal resources. (Unpublished Thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, culture, and activity , 7(4), 273-290. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice . San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individualsÕ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 24(4), 503-515. Nielsen, J. M., & Ellington, B. L. (1983). Social processes and resource conservation: A case study in low technology recycli ng. Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives , 288-311. Olivos, P. & Ignacio -Aragones, J. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Environmental Identity Scale (EID). Psychology . 2(1). 65-74. Opotow, S. & Brook, A. (2003). Identity and exclusi on in rangeland conflict . In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and natural environment . 249-272. Cambridge: MIT Press. Riggs Stapleton, S. (2015). Environmental Identity Development Through Social Interactions, Action, and Recognition, The Journa l of Environmental Education , 46:2, 94 -113, DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2014.1000813 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;CC!Ritov, I., & Kahneman, D. (1997). How people value the environment. Environment, ethics, and behavior, 33-51. Samuelson, C., Peterson, T. R., & Putnam, L. (2003). Group identity and stakeholder conflict in water resource management. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 273Ð295). Hong Kong, China: MIT Press. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmen tal concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental P sychology , 21(4), 327-339. Smith-Sebasto, N. J. & DÕAcosta, A. (1995). Designing a likert -type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. Journal of Environmental Education . 27(1), 14-20. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G.A. (1995). Va lues, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 25, 1611-1636. Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory , 21(4), 398-423. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2003). A sociological approach to self and identity. Handbook of self and identity , 128-152. Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrowª: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of political Economy , 112(S1), S164 -S187. Thapa, B. (1999). Environmentalism: The relation of environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behavior among undergraduate students. Bulletin of Science Technology and Soceity . 19, 426-438. Thomashow, M. (1995). Ecological Identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist . Cambridge: MIT Press. Wang, Y., & Ruhe, G. (2007). The cognitive process of decision making. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligen ce, 1(2), 73-85. Weigert, A. J. (1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment: Refocusing our eyesight . SUNY Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;CD! Zavestoski, S. (2003). Constructing and maintaining ecological identities: The strategies of deep ecologies. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and Natural Environment . 297-316. Cambridge: MIT Press.