mfi14’44‘5 - ,; 5‘ F E53 21‘7' F o ‘zvr.' C7?Fr OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. COPYRIGHT C) BY JOHN CHRISTOPHER DUCAT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS By John Christopher Ducat A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fuifiliment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum Coiiege of Education (.//’,4 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS By John Christopher Ducat Environmental educators maintain that environmental educa- tion results in more positive environmental attitudes and behaviors. They also assert that information disseminated by either the mass media or traditional higher education has not resulted in these outcomes. This study was designed to test the validity of these assertions with the student body of a public junior college. This study examined the relationship between the possession of environmental information and the students' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the natural environment. It also sought to deter— mine the relationship between students' scores on these dependent variables and their exposure to mass media (hence environmental) news and/or the number of college credits earned to date. Finally, the study sought to determine if the instructor's modeling positive environmental behaviors or providing the students with practical environmentally positive alternatives to current behaviors would influence the students to attain higher scores on these same dependent variables. John Christopher Ducat The study was conducted in three phases. The first phase utilized 240 students divided into experimental and control groups by classroom. The experimentals (taught by the researcher) received a nine-hour special presentation in current environmental issues and concerns. The controls (taught by three other instructors) were taught the traditional "Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology" course without the environmental unit. All classes were pre- and posttested for environmental information, environmental attitudes, and environ- mental behavioral intentions. Analysis of covariance demonstrated significant gains in environmental information and very significant gains in both environ- mental attitudes and behavioral intentions in favor of the experimental group. Furthermore, a Pearson correlation of the dependent measures demonstrated that they had a very significant relationship to each other, one that allowed the experimenter to predict over 75 percent of the variance on any of the measures using any other measure. In a second follow-up study conducted at three and six months after the treatment, attitude changes were shown not only to persist, but actually to improve over posttest gains. Actual environ- mentally positive behavior changes were reported by most of the students sampled. One-way analysis of variance conducted on the pretests of the students in phase one failed to show any differences between high and low consumers of mass media news or between students with high and low quantities of college credits earned to date. The third phase of the study utilized four "Introductory Sociology and Anthropology" classes all taught by the researcher. John Christopher Ducat Students within each class were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In two of these classes experimentals were exposed to a special one-hour treatment in which the researcher showed a one-hour slide presentation which depicted his modeling desirable environmental behaviors in his own lifestyle. Controls were posttested prior to viewing this presentation. Subsequent analysis of covariance failed to show significant differences between experimental and control groups in their possession of positive environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions, although experimentals did score somewhat higher. The other two classes involved in the third phase were divided as described above and the experimentals received a special one-hour presentation where the researcher provided them with a variety of practical, environmentally positive, alternative behaviors prior to the posttest. Again, controls were posttested prior to exposure to the special presentation. Analysis of covariance again failed to show significant differences between groups although again experimentals scored somewhat higher on the dependent variables of positive environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. In both of these third phase tests methodological problems were encountered which could have affected test results. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the individuals who have helped make this study possible. The author is indebted to Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Dr. Philip Marcus, Dr. Howard Hicki, and Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, who served as members of his doctoral committee. Special acknolwedgment and appreci- ation is due Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Chairman of the Committee, for his constructive guidance and encouragement throughout the author's gradu- ate education. Appreciation is due Dr. Denton Morrison, who provided guidance and served as a resource person for the review of the literature. Appreciation is also due Pat Enright who provided great assisance in cleaning the data and coding it onto computer tape for statistical analysis. Special thanks go to Karen Huss, who researched much of the material used to test hypothesis seven. To the faculty, staff, and students of Lansing Community College who participated in this study my sincere thanks. Finally, my sincerest appreciation to my wife Carol for her encouragement and her willingness to often shoulder more than her share of the load, helping to make this study possible. ii LIST OF Chapter I. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLES ......................... v INTRODUCTION ...................... l II. luov DESIGN AW ............ 10 III. IV. YQWEu fi‘Hw kadJn.. Introduction ...................... lO Attitudes ...................... l0 Environmental Attitudes ............... l6 The Problem ...................... 19 Environmental Knowledge--Attitude Relationship Studies ....................... 19 Sources of Environmental Attitudes .......... 32 Correlates of Environmental Awareness and Concern . . 39 An Assessment of Environmental Education ....... 44 STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES .............. 5l Overview ........................ 5l Institutional Perspective ............... 53 Subjects ........................ 55 Specific Hypotheses To Be Tested ............ 58 Study Design ...................... 59 Assessment Procedures ................. 65 Measures Used ..................... 66 RESULTS ........................ 77 Significance Levels .................. 78 Hypothesis One ..................... 79 Hypothesis Two ..................... 81 Hypothesis Three .................... 82 Hypotheses One Through Three .............. 83 Follow-Up Study .................... 89 Hypothesis Four .................... 92 Hypothesis Five .................... 96 Hypothesis Six ..................... 98 Hypothesis Seven .................... lOO Variations in Environmental Awareness By Curriculum Categories ................ lOl iii Chapter Page IV. RESULTS (Continued) Variations in Environmental Awareness by Courses Previously Taken Which Potentially Contain Substantial Environmental Content ........... 103 Variations in Pretest Environmental Awareness by Demographic Characteristics ............. 105 Differential Effects of Treatment by Demographic Characteristics ............. l08 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ ll6 Summary of Treatment Effects by Selected Questions ................. 122 VI. REFLECTIONS AND SPECULATIONS .............. 128 Implications for Theory and Suggestions for Further Research .................. 128 Implications for New Course Development ........ 132 APPENDICES ........................... 136 A. Environmental Information Questionnaire ........ 136 B. Student Questionnaire and Miscellaneous Statistical Tables ................... 141 C. Treatment for Testing Hypothesis Six .......... 159 D. Treatment for Testing Hypothesis Seven ......... 161 E. Main Treatment ..................... 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... l9l iv Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Environmental Information/Attitude Studies . . ANCOVA Results of Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environmental Behavioral Intentions, Separately and Combined, by Student Status ..................... ANCOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environ- mental Behavioral Intentions by Income, Curriculum, Age, and Prior Exposure to Courses with Environmental Content ......................... Pearson Correlations for Pretest Environmental Information, Environmental Attitudes, and Environmental Behavioral Intentions Scales .............. Pearson Correlations for Posttest Environmental Information, Environmental Attitudes, and Environmental Behavioral Intentions Scales .............. ANCOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environmental Behavioral Intentions Combined by Prior Exposure to Courses with Environmental Content, Race, Credits Earned to Data, Age, Sex, Curriculum, Family of Residence, Marital Status, Area of Residence, Income, and Grade Point Average ...... . ................ ANOVA Results fOr Media Consumption by Student Status . . ANOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environmental Behavioral Intentions by Mass Media News Consumption ANOVA Results for Environmental Information by Exposure to News Magazines ............... ANOVA Results for Environmental Behavioral Intentions by Exposure to News Magazines .............. Page 2l 8O 81 86 87 88 93 94 >95 96 Table ll. 12. 13. 14. ANOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Behavior Intentions by Credits Earned to Date .......... ANCOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environmental Behavioral Intentions Combined by Instructor's Modeling . ANCOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environmental Behavioral Intestions Combined by Provision of Specific Alternate Behaviors ................... Summary of Cell Mean Gains or Losses in Total Scale Score for Each Demographic Variable by Student Status Group, Between Pretest and Posttest ........... Appendix A Al. Single Item Characteristics (Percent Difficulty, Index of Discrimination, Corrected Item-Total Correlations, and Item Identification) for the Environmental Information (SEAT-A) Scale ............... Appendix B Bl. 32. B3. B4. BS. 36. Single Item Characteristics (Percent Difficulty, Index of Discrimination, Corrected Item-Total Correlations, and Item Identification) for the Environmental Attitude (SEAT-D) Scale ..................... Single Item Characteristics (Percent Difficulty, Index of Discrimination, Corrected Item-Total Correlations, and Item Identification) for the Environmental Attitude (DUCAT-l) Scale ..................... Single Item Characteristics (Percent Difficulty, Index of Discrimination, Corrected Item-Total Correlations, and Item Identification) for the Environmental Behavioral Intentions Scale .................... ANOVA Results for Environmental Information by Exposure to Mass Media ...................... ANOVA Results for Environmental Attitudes (SEAT-D) by Exposure to Mass Media ................. ANOVA Results for Environmental Attitudes (DUCAT-l) by Exposure to Mass Media ................ vi Page 97 99 101 106 140 150 151 152 153 153 154 Appendix B (Continued) B7. ANOVA Results for Environmental Behavioral Intentions by Exposure to Mass Media ................ l54 BB. ANOVA Results for Environmental Information by Credits Earned to Date ..................... 155 B9. ANOVA Results for Environmental Attitudes (SEAT-D) by Credits Earned to Date ................. 155 BlO. ANOVA Results for Environmental Attitudes (DUCAT-l) by Credits Earned to Date ................. 156 Bll. ANOVA Results for Environmental Behavioral Intentions by Credits Earned to Date ................ 156 BIZ. ANOVA Results for Pretest Environmental Information, Environmental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environmental Behavioral Intentions Combined by Credits Earned to Date ................. 157 Bl3. Pearson Correlations for Sex, Age, Grade Point Average, Family of Residence, Race, Income, Curriculum, Marital Status, Prior Exposure to Courses with Environmental Content, Credits Earned to Date, and Family of Res- idence ......................... 158 Appendix E El. ANCOVA Results for Environmental Information by Student Status ..................... 188 E2. ANCOVA Results for Environmental Attitudes (DUCAT-l) by Student Status .................... 188 E3. ANCOVA Results for Environmental Attitudes (SEAT-D) by Student Status .................... 189 E4. ANCOVA Results for Environmental Behavioral Intentions by Student Status .................... 189 E5. ANCOVA Results for Environmental Information, Environ- mental Attitudes (SEAT-D and DUCAT-l), and Environ- mental Behavioral Intentions Combined by Student Status ......................... 190 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The environmental abuses of the past and present have led increasingly large numbers of experts to voice warnings similar to the following, "If Homo Sapiens is to continue as the dominant species of life on Earth, modern man must come soon to a better understanding of the Earth and of what he has been doing to it." (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1972) By l977 the population explosion, coupled with "advancing" technology and industrialization, and the attendant problems of environmental stress--pollution in all its forms, depletion of resources, limited space, malnutrition--had been documented beyond serious contention. Similarly, beyond debate is the necessity of having a well informed and highly motivated citizenry (at least in a democracy) to develop and support reasonable and workable solutions to ecological and conservation problems which take on greater urgency daily. While some may disagree, Ehrlich nonetheless has contended that, "The explosive growth of the human population is the most signi- ficant terrestrial event of the past million millenia. Three and one- half billion people now inhabit the Earth, and every year this number increases by 70 million. Armed with weapons as diverse as thermonuclear bombs and DOT, this mass of humanity now threatens to destroy most of the life on this planet . . . no geological event in a billion years-- not the emergence of mighty mountain ranges, nor the submergence of entire subcontinents, nor the occurrence of periodic glacial ages-- has posted a threat to terrestrial life comparable to that of human overpopulation." (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1972, p. 1) At the current annual growth rate of approximately 2 percent the world's population will double by the year 2,000, despite the fact that approximately 34,000 persons, mostly young children, die of starvation every day (Sutton and Harmon, l973). As the President's Science Advisory Committee's panel on World Food Supply stated as early as l967, the food supply will not keep pace. Nor has it. This panel strongly urged the initiation of programs of population control immediately. Any program of population control rests primarily on the motivation of people to regulate family size. Studies in numerous countries at differing developmental stages and population densities have supported the conclusion that people tend to have the number of children that they say they want (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, I972, and Villegas, l976). In other words, if population control is to be effective, attitudes must change. Coupled with the issue of population is the issue of resource use, resulting in both resource depletion and pollution. According to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, "The depletion of natural resources is, of course, one of the chief reasons for uncertainty concerning the continued ability of the earth to support future human civilizations" (Ward and Dubos, 1972, p. xiii). In the highly controversial study, The Limits to Growth, Meadows and Meadows challenged the contention that only "future civilizations" will be endangered. Indeed, they demonstrate that many of the elements critical to current technology/industry will be exhausted before the year 2000 at current exponential rates of use. Given the general validity of this assumption, what of Americans' use of natural resources? According to Packard, “Americans used more resources in the years between 1914 and 1954, not to mention the years since then in which resource use has grown exponentially, than all men had in the 4,000 years of recorded history before that time." (Packard, 1968) In fact, "The volume of waste produced by the average American doubled between 1920 and 1970 and is expected to increase by half again between 1970 and 1980. Each American produces one ton of waste per year, and at a given time accounts for 11 tons of steel in personal possessions (more than 40 percent of which are luxury items--15 times the amount of the average of such items for the rest of the world), most of which are designed to become junk as soon as possible." (Anderson, 1976) If industrial wastes are also considered, this admittedly incredible figure doubled to over two tons of solid waste per person in 1975 (Southwick, 1975). Obviously Americans have the worst record of resource waste of any nation in the world at any point in history. We have approx- imately 6 percent of the world's population and consume 30 to 40 percent of its resources (Ehrlich, 1972 and 1974; Meadows and Meadows, 1972; and Southwick, 1975). We also consume approximately 35 percent of the world's energy, yet, ". . . more than 50 percent of all the energy the U. S. produces is wasted. . . ." (Startwell and Abell, 1975) That's twice the amount of energy consumed by the 107 million Japanese annually. This waste of resources has been largely the product of consumer attitudes and ignorance. And, as might be expected, it has contributed very significantly to pollution. Pollution, even when considered alone, has increased at alarming exponential rates. Many experts maintain that the earth has been so assaulted in recent years that recovery may not be possible at all. Others maintain that we still have some time, though few suggest we have much time, to halt the outpouring of poisonous substances into the environment. Clear signposts exist to document the severity of the problem. For example, a recent survey of 969 public water systems in the United States concluded that 41 percent deliver "inferior water" and 9 percent deliver "dangerous water" according to liberal U. S. Public Health Guidelines (Southwick, 1975). This comes as not real surprise when one considers that since World War II the United States has pumped more than 100,000 chemical substances into the Great Lakes alone, 99,000 of which haven't been analyzed in terms of their present or potential hazards to man or the larger environment (The State Journal, Nov. 28, 1976). The American public has been advised that it will cost approx- imately $72 billion to maintain the Great Lakes, the world's largest natural freshwater source, at present levels (The State Journal, Dec. 8, 1976). According to the Cousteau Society, Some 8,000 new chemicals, «or new uses of existing chemicals, have been developed each year. lhnong other adverse effects of these chemicals in recent years, the Society has reported that they have been responsible for approximately 31 percent of workers' health problems (Calypso Log, December, 1976). Perhaps the ultimate impact of water pollution has been best expressed by Jacques-Yves Cousteau when he stated, "Each month we now pour so many millions of tons of poisonous waste into the living sea that in perhaps 20 years, perhaps sooner, the oceans will have received their mortal wound. . . ." (National Wildlife, April-May, 1975) He has estimated that total marine life has already been reduced by approximately 40 percent in as many years. The sole reason: man. A telling example is the city of Los Angeles which pumps more than 200 million gallons of raw sewage into the Pacific daily. The oceans are absolutely essential to man's survival in many ways, not the least of which is that they produce approximately 40 to 50 percent of his oxygen. As has been pointed out above, pollution is a product of population and industrialization. But has Commoner has pointed out, some technologies have been more destructive than others. He maintained that, "Since 1945 the increases in environmentally destructive technologies and products range anywhere from 200 to 6,000 percent." He concluded, "This pattern of economic growth is the major reason for the environmental crises." (Anderson, 1976) As man's numbers and industrial capacity increase, other species have been crowded and/or polluted into extinction. According to the Smithsonian Institution, "Nearly a tenth of the world's flowering plants are so scarce now as to be considered in danger of extinction.“ (Gasnell, 1976) The picture is no brighter for animals, as the 1972 Wildlife Conference on Endangered Species reported that 10 percent of all species of wildlife are now endangered, including 15 percent of those animals in the United States. In fact, the Department of the Interior has reported that even man's closest "relatives" are not exempt, with 54 species of other primates listed as endangered or extinct (The State Journal, Nov. 26, 1976). This admittedly grim picutre has been further complicated by the fact that modern transportation and communications have produced a worldwide "revolution of rising expectations." The developing nations not only desperately need but are beginning to demand more adequate food supplies and a greater share of the world's resources, including non-renewable resources. Given that the United States consumes far more than its share of these finite resources, increased demands by others must result in increased competition and the stress that accompanies same. For example, while approximately 20 million people starve annually and a majority of the world's people are inadequately fed, United States citizens consume 62 percent more than the maximum daily food requirements. In fact, if the U. S. had fed its production of high protein grains and grain supplements to people directly, instead of to food animals which are 10 to 25 percent efficient, it could have made up for 90 percent of the world's protein deficiency (Ehrlich, 1974). To most of the world's people the continuation of such inequalities is unthinkable. The momentous problems briefly etched above are not solvable by what Hardin defines as a "technical solution," that is, "one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality." (Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons," 6a in Enthoven and Freeman III, 1973) The solution to these and related problems will require a reapplication of technology to be sure, but they will also require highly significant changes in political values and processes, as well as changes in economic and social values. It therefore logically follows that, at least in democratic nations, an enlightened citizenry is essential to successfully cope with these environmental problems. In recent years environmental issues have received greater media coverage, but this exposure has been generally of a fragmented nature, i.e., we learned that an oil spill had occurred and that "environmentalists" were concerned, but we did not receive the basic information needed to assess this problem in terms of its effects on various flora and fauna, including man himself. Thus most media coverage has not provided its audiences with any coherent framework into which news items might be placed to gain any organized under- standing of the items' significance or their interrelationships with other issues or concerns. As a result, cognitive dissonance may lead to a depreciation of the individual listener's, viewer's, etc., role in the creation of the problem and/or a depreciation of his/her responsibility to take any sort of corrective action. It can be argued that the presentation of coherent bodies of knowledge, theories, etc., are not the rightful responsibility of the media but more properly are considered a legitimate function of the public educational system. It may be assumed that young people will acquire sufficient organized information about our environmental situation to be motivated to think and act in a manner which would contribute to the solutions to problems they understand and appreciate. It has even been assumed that our young people have acquired a reason- able understanding and appreciation of these problems in the course of their pre-college public education. Have they? It has been further assumed that our public institutions of higher education have con- tributed significantly to their students' environmental literacy by building on whatever base the students may have acquired. Is this in fact the case? Does the public higher education experience, which aims at developing an enlarged perspective in its students, including an accurate world view of man and his environment, does such an institu- tion meaningfully contribute to the development of an understanding of our urgent environmental problems and instill in its students any desire to contribute to the solutions so urgently needed? Or does the public higher education experience ignore the transmission of this information which is absolutely vital to any accurate world view of man's relationship to man or to his larger environment? How well do the consumers, i.e., the students, believe their public institutions have prepared them to understand and deal with environmental issues? If adequate environmental information is being presented by our public institutions of higher education, are they also instilling the desired knowledge and attitudes which stimulate the student to active concern? Does acquiring such environmental knowledge and attitudes affect the way the student intends to act, or does act, toward environmental issues? Is it necessary or even desirable for the instructor of an environmental education course to model environmentally positive behaviors? Does such modeling result in more positive environmental attitudes and/or behavioral intentions on the part of the students? Is it essential that students learn what they can do in their current situation to improve environmental conditions? Does the absence of such information affect their internalization of environmentally positive attitudes or reduce their initiative to act in an environmentally positive manner? This study is an attempt to determine the answers to these and similar questions as they relate to the program of one public junior college. More specifically, this study will undertake steps to test the hypotheses that teaching a two to three week unit concerning basic \ environmental issues will result in students demonstrating increased 1 environmental information, more positive environmental attitudes, and more expressed willingness to engage in environmentally desirable / behaviors. It has been hypothesized also that the normal curriculum provided by the public junior college does not significantly increase the students' scores on these variables and that attending to more mass media news likewise has no appreciable effects on these environ- mental variables. Finally, two issues related to the teaching of environmental education programs were tested. First, the hypothesized postive influence on students' attitudes and behavioral intentions resulting from the instructor's modeling of the behaviors he advocates for others was tested. And secondly, the hypothesized positive effect of’the instructor providing students with information outlining actual steps that they could take to assist in improving environmental quality was tested. It was expected that those receiving such information would demonstrate more positive attitudes and more willingness to engage in environmentally positive behaviors. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The need for changing attitudes is a prerequisite for controlling environmental decay has been noted. Stebbens (1971), in discussing the relationship between attitudes and the willingness to act towards correcting environmental problems, maintained, ". . . the solution lies rather in changing social attitudes, which is far more difficult than developing new techniques. It seems clear that until we can achieve a wide-spread change in our attitude toward nature, the degradation of our biosphere will continue." (p. 168) Attitudes Since this study is generally concerned with the effects of information on attitudes and subsequent behavior as it relates to environmental issues, it would seem appropriate to first designate our parameters when utilizing the term attitude. This seems particularly important since the term attitude has perhaps been the most widely used concept in the behavioral sciences by both theorists and researchers. Historically, attitude has been used in a variety of con- texts, e.g., in the 17th century the term referred to the physical positioning of an artist's subject with respect to a background (Liska, 10 11 1975). The modern use of the term, however, has its roots in the work of Wilhelm Wundt and his colleagues in their experiments concerning the speed of reaction to a stimulus. They discovered that an individual who was in a ”set" to make a response could do so far faster than another person not so prepared. This discovery was followed by a number of others from which the general concept of attitude as a predisposition to action emerged. By the 1930's social psychologists were using "attitudes" in numerous contexts. In fact, one encyclopedic summary of attitude studies (Nelson, 1939) listed approximately 30 different meansings for the term. Examples include (1) organic drives, (2) a "core of affect," (3) the emotional concomitants of action, (4) permanently felt dis- positions, (5) a disposition modifying rising experience, (6) a way of conceiving an object, a posture of consciousness, (7) an integration of the specific responses into a general set, and so on. Note that most of these usages also infer an affective or feeling component. This context was perhaps best expressed by Thurstone's 1931 definition of attitude as, "The amount of affect for or against a psychological object." (Loree, 1970) From such conceptions emerged the concept of attitude as incorporating affective as well as cognitive com- ponents. This idea has persisted and is generally regarded as given by modern theorists and researchers with little modification; e.g., Brievald (1973), "The general affective response to a denotable psychological object" (p. 204); or Kapp (1972), "A person's favorable or unfavorable expression toward a class of objects or events." In a similar vein a recent conference held at Cornell University on "The State of the Art on Methodology for Studying Environmental Perceptions, 12 Beliefs, Values and Attitudes," identified cognitions as basic to all psychological states and distinguished a belief (i.e., a cognition which had the feeling attachment of credulity) from an attitude (i.e., a cognition which-had the feeling attachment of "valence" or attrac- tiveness);'- Taking the process a step further Bennett (in Swan and Stapp, 1974) first agreed. "Attitudes consist of affect and cognitive com- ponents." He then added, "Attitudes also cluster together to form values. Values motivate and guide people's actions. In this respect, they have been equated with clusters of attitudes with action tendency components." While the term "value," like attitude, may take a multitude of different meanings, the researcher uses it throughout this paper in this context. Today there are basically two major conceptions of attitude in the literature. While both have certain elements in common (e.g., both assume a stimulus-response framework), they differ in the kinds of inferences their proponents would derive from the behavior referent (observable attitudinal responses). These two types of conceptions are called (1) probability conceptions and (2) latent process concep- tions (Liska, 1975, p.27). Generally speaking, probability conceptions of attitude stress consistency of response to various stimulus objects or situ- ations. Examples-include: Campbell, "An individual's social attitude is an enduring syndrom of response consistency with regard to a set of social objects"; Rosenberg, et a1. (1960), "Predispositions to respond in a particular way toward a specific class of objects"; Sarnoff 13 (1960), "A disposition to react favorably or unfavorably to a class of objects"; Kretch and Crutchfield, "An enduring organization of motiva— tional, perceptual and cognitive processes with respect to some aspects of the individual's world"; and Fuson, "The probability of occurrence of a defined behavior in a defined situation." Among the advantages of this conception of attitude is the fact that measurement becomes a rather straight-forward task. On the other hand, latent process conceptions of attitude, while also including the notions of the stiumuls-response framework and of consistency or probability, have gone a step further and postulated the additional idea that the individual's behavior is affected, mediated, or somehow shaped by some underyling process. Examples include: Allport, "An attitude is a mental and neural state of readi- ness exerting a directive influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations to which it is related”; or Doob, "An attitude refers to an implicit response that is both anticipatory and mediating in reference to patterns of overt responses, that is evoked by a variety of stimulus patterns, and that is considered as socially significant in the individual's society." Given this orientation, the task of measurement becomes one of classifying the individual on a hypothetical quantitative continuum, that being the latent variable. This classification is then thought to further explain or condition the probability of the expression of the attitude. While this concep- tion of attitude has the advantage of allowing more complex thinking of the relationship of affective and cognitive components to beha- vioral expressions, it poses the serious problem of demonstrating the existence and functioning of the latent variable or variables. 14 For this reason this writer has adhered to the concept of attitude as a psychological state with affective and cognitive components that influence the probability of a given response or class of responses to a stimulus or class of stimuli. More specifically, this study has utilized a synthesis of two definitions of attitude in an attempt to provide clear conceptual param- eters. The first definition is that of Osgood, et a1. (1957), which held that attitudes ". . . are predispositions to respond, but are distinguished from other such states of readiness in that they are predisposed toward an evaluative response." This definition provides us with a gestalt view of attitude. The second definition provides the dissected view, i.e., Krech, et a1. (1962), which stipulated that an attitude is ". . . an enduring system of positive or negative evalu- ations, emotional feelings, and pro or con action tendencies with respect to a social object." Both these definitions included, or alluded to, three com- ponent parts of an attitude. These three components, cognitive, feeling, and action tendency, make up the operational definition of attitude for this study. It has been generally accepted that attitudes are acquired through the socialization process and are subject to change or modifi- cation through experiences which have an effect on either their cognitive or affective components or both. It has been generally accepted also that attitudes have the properties of direction or favorableness, salience, intensity, and generality (Remmers and Gage, 1955). Remmers and Gage also identified attitudes as public or private, common or individual. In that system, "Public attitudes 15 are those that people will talk about freely in almost any social situation; the more a person thinks his attitudes are likely to be disapproved or punished, the more private he is likely to keep them." (Worth, 1966, p. 8) Similarly, "Common attitudes are when many people have attitudes of more or less favorableness, intensity, and the like, toward a given attitude object; individuals may however have attitudes toward things that no one else is aware of or cares about." (Worth, op. cit.) In addition, Katz and Stotland (1959) have also classified attitudes by type. They have identified five types, including (1) affective associations, which are formed by generalizing a positive or negative affect to surrounding objects and do not contain a beha- vioral component, (2) intellectualized attitudes, which develop from our need to order our perceptions and have a heavy cognitive component as well as an affective core and may or may not influence behavior, (3) action-oriented attitudes, in which valued objects stimulate need- satisfying action tendencies with a minimum amount of cognitive activity, e.g., attitudes toward eating, (4) balanced attitudes, which have an elaborate cognitive content, and action orientation, an affective core, and serve consciously recognized and accepted needs, and (5) ego- defensive attitudes, which are similar to balanced attitudes but originate from internal conflict and result in behavior directed at objects that cannot solve the conflict. In such a typology the intellectualized and balanced attitudes become the focus of the environmental educator who wishes to see changes irI affective and cognitive components result in positive action. 16 Environmental Attitudes Having developed the basis for an operational definition of "attitude" above, environmental attiudes become an enduring system of affective evaluations, emotional feelings, and action tendencies with respect to the natural environment either as a totality or in relation to specific subparts thereof, e.g., an individual's attitude(s) toward water pollution. This definition holds that an individual's internal psychological state involves a tendency to perceive and react in a particular manner toward some aspect of his environment. Hence this definition parallels that used by Perkes (1973). When conceived of thus, "Environmental education has as its goal nothing less than transforming man's attitude toward the world in which he lives . . . ." (Quinn, 1976, p. 65) For the environmental crisis didn't just happen, "Instead, problems of environmental pollu- tion are the result of the collective interaction of many economic, social, political, and technological factors which are ultimately the product of human attitudes and valuesP (Towler and Swan, 1972, p. 54) Towler and Swan pointed out that, "In a democratic society, the resolution of problems such as pollution is closely linked with public participation in decision-making. What we should be striving to do is to create a future citizenry which is knowledgeable about the bio— physical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to become involved in the resolution of these problems, and is motivated to do so." (Ibid.) While some (e.g., Morgan, Hendee, etc.) have argued that it is not the function of education to deliberately seek to affect the 17 attitudes and values of students, the writer disagrees. Rather, he concurs with Gratz who asserts that, "Teachers have the responsibility to help inform students about the crises in the environment. . . . The student's way of thinking must also be developed to make it readily apparent to him that an extremely serious threat is involved--a threat that calls for action and sacrifice on his part." (Gratz, 1971, p. 73) In a similar manner, Herrscher (1973) argued that we must overcome certain existing attitudes toward the environment if we are to even begin to seriously approach any solutions to the environmental crisis. Specifically, he argued that we must overcome the notion that everything on this planet was placed here primarily for our benefit and use, and that we are not separate from or superior to the rest of creation but are interrelated with and interdependent on all other things. In short, "There seems to be almost unanimous agreement among environmentalists that part (if not all) of our environmental problems stem from our current social values." (Swan, in Swan and Stapp, 1974, p. 34) Since this is the case and since, "It is impos- sible to have human interaction when some form of persuasion does not exist" (ibid., p. 35), the issue of whether or not environmental educators should aim their instruction at changing environmental atti- tudes and values becomes, for the researcher at least, a non-issue. Like Knapp, he believes, "It is naive to assume that teachers do not attempt to impose specific attitudes and values upon their students, educational institutions were organized to shape cultural values and attitudes of youth." (Knapp, 1972, p. 2) And like Hoether (1973), the writer feels we too, ".~. . should not apologize for attempting 18 to create a new population and environmental ethic hm). 12-13). Thus the researcher concurs also with Stapp when he states, ". . . if environmental education is to achieve its greatest impact, it must (1) provide factual information that will lead to understanding of the total biophysical environment, (2) develop a concern for environmental quality that will motivate citizens to work toward solutions to bio- physical environmental problems, and (3) inform citizens as to how they can play an effective role in achieving the goals derived from their attitudes." (Stapp, et al., 1969, p. 30) In consideration of this discussion and for the purposes of this study, environmental education programs shall be defined as,"Any program of education for or in the outdoors; man and his relationship to his cultural, natural, and physical environment; development of environmental awareness and ethics; rational utilization of our en- vironment; conservation of our natural resources; pollution control education; or nature study and interpretation." (Perkes, 1973, p. 12) One product of environmental education is the possession of environmental information. For purposes of this study the success of any program of environmental education shall be measured by the sub- ject's store of environmental information as measured by the Syracuse Environmental Awareness Tests, Level III, Form A. The other product of environmental education is (or should be) the possession of pro- environmental attitudes. For purposes of this study the presence or absence,, intensity, and direction of environmental attitudes will be defined as the respondents scores on the Syracuse Environmental Aware- ness Test, Level III, Form D, and the Ducat/Harrison Environmental Attitude Inventory. 19 The Problem Having developed the operational definitions necessary for study of the effectiveness of a program of environmental education, the writer will now turn his attention to a number of further questions. First, does environmental education (information) effectively impact environmental attitudes? Secondly, if such an effect does occur, are some groups impacted more than others? Thirdly, what factors other than information affect environmental attitudes? And finally, are changes in environmental attitudes reflected in changes in actual behavior? Since these are very different questions, they will be taken up separately. In general, the review sequence will follow Stapp's (1969) proposal that as an individual acquires broad environmental understanding (knowledge), he will develop a social conscience (atti- tudes) that will affect his behavior (actions) toward the total environ- ment. Environmental Knowledge-- AttitUde Relationship Studies There is increasing recognition in the literature that not all knowledge will lead automatically and quickly to attitudes and behavior favorable to pollution abatement . . . Nevertheless the general assumption is highly plausible, that a broad public literacy of bio- logical and ecological concepts is at the heart of defin- ing, reclaiming, and maintaining environmental quality . The assumption that such concepts can be taught is indicated already in both theory and research, but the results of education are variable, sometimes resulting in little or no change. (Ramsey and Rickson, 1976, p. 10) While the researcher concurs with Ramsey and Rickson, he does, however, feel that in all fairness it is necessary to point out 20 that while not all studies demonstrated a clear and significant change in attitudes toward environmental issues or conservation, the over- whelming number did. In reviewing approximately 30 such studies, all but 6 did demonstrate a clear and significant change in environmental attitudes as a result of increased information or exposure to ecologi- cal principles. In addition, several of those studies which did not demonstrate this relationship can be shown to suffer from methodologi- cal problems which the writer will discuss presently. For the sake of convenience these studies are summarized in outline fashion in Table 1 below. In Quinn's (1976) study tenth grade students were exposed to 20 "value sheets," two per week for ten weeks, each presenting environmental information and/or outlining an environmental issue or problem, and no significant attitude change occurred. When one con- siders how these "value Sheets" were employed, however, this seemingly discordant finding becomes far more understandable. The "value sheets" were handed out to students to review and discuss with their friends and take home to review. Only ten minutes were allowed in class for dis- cussion per week and that discussion took place between 4-5 peers who were broken into small groups for this purpose. The important thing to note here is that students received no in-class instruction, the teacher did not hold students responsible for the material, nor did the teachers take any significant part in the discussion. Under these conditions one would not expect to find any significant change in attitudes because there was very little change in information. To assume that 10th grade students would, on their own and without incentive, internalize information obtained in school on their own 21 .copuwucou paucmspemaxm mo »_=mmg a mu mmuememmmeu acau_mvempm oz .Amocmcpmmg go xmm uocv moocmgmew_v ouauvuum sue: ovum—mecca copamuaum a oa< .cowumsgowcw :o_uu>emmcou o» «Lamonxm can .ummemucm .copuo>muoe so“; noun upoomma momcoso muaupuum copum>eomcou .maacgm m ppm :_ mmucmgmmwvu acouvmvcmvm .mpampem> accommwcmpm a no: xom .mmuaupupm =o_um>gomeoo c? manage acmupwwcmwm m umxocm m—uacoepgwaxu .uemsstumc. ousueuua Aooa_v “.msas cum: .mouauwuum c? uuwgm men emummgm any :wom .oucm ecu Loumoem as» ..m.* .emgu cmwzuoa avzmcovunpmg acme -vewem_m a ma: mews» votesooo seam .oecv ten unease mu=u_uum goon meme: .ewcueam .mmuzuvuum oswupmoa egos cw umupamme Anaoca .axmv mmwguucm23uoc o» meamonxm mmusuwaum new :oFHmELowev goon gov: nauapattcu ow once new omvmpzocx co_»o>gmm=oo oeoe an; meowcmm .mxmmz o. to» xmm: gone mumosm mzpm> N um>vmumc mFapemeequm .masoem poeucou can pavemevemgxw op oceanavmma soucmm .mpoogom m we gone cw mgmumem gucmu mo mommm_o Lao» cw =eop -momucv mapa>= a we muaumupa new: =.oo=mwemaxm scrumozum copum>emm=ou pneumam= m mpuucoe_emgxm o>mm can» .mmuaupuum soc mppaum a mucousum mmoppoo a poogom gm_z mpm.p acumen once a we; .mmeogo «cappuuo so» mcwumou amen wen we; .uvcs corum>ewm=oo 3mm: m on ummoaxo queen Foucmewemaxm gov: momezou amopova easemogm mam—Foo mmuzuwuum new .omcp Faucoscosr>cm so» mcwumm» amen new use gov: mnaotm _oeucoo new —mucms_emaxm oa vmemwmmm apsoucmg mucmuaum ommPFoo com mmuaawuua new mmumpzocx copum>eomcou tow umemneoo mgovemm new coagmme» —oo;om sap: mo mpgsmm soueuz msom mamm osmm Amoa_v mcosswm~uwu m3°~ “Nem_v _a>a,= AmNm—v ccwzo .m Aeem_v mmtoao .e Amom_v =a§ao.gz .m Ameapv maxtma .N “mum—V maxeaa new Aooapv gate: ._ mco.umgwuwmcou pmromam a mapzmmm smopoeoeuoz moao\to=»=< muesom mumozhm moahnhh<\zomhzw mo >mop ppogo>o .mooouwuuo o—ooeo>oe oeoe o>og m.m coat: oco o—oeod .mooouvuuo a cowooeLoocv popco5:ogv>:o coozuoo o. to acowovmeooo copuopoegoo < .mooppm ozu cw oouowooo compo—Foo two on» mo ogozo umoop one oeo: spa oouoppoo m.upotuoo oooomo on opno «moop mueoooum omogh .po>op meowpoeooo _oELoe no ocwoo appoovmopoeoego oumomoo Apoooe m.oomowov po>op pocowuoeooo ouogocoo um oooem .oecw top or m.m zoo: .amopocpsgoa Foopcgoou new: mucoooum momoecoo :oumo owooe mmoz .oowuoseowcp cw tonne; mopoz .mooopwuuo mmoeoxo ou mmocmcwp—P: oeoe oco .mooouwuuo o_ooeo>oe oooe now: oouowoommo copuoELoecw Loewe; ocooe .copuoogumcw mo moozuoe xooom ocean—seem oco commmoomwo -oeoaoop Go mmoco>wuoowmo coozuoo ocooo oocogoeowo oz .omeooo ucoeomocoe ~oucoecogp>co zgoaoooogu:_ yo upomog a mo moooavuuo cw omcogo acoowuwcmvm .»o>eom :ovcvoo a omoopzocx Papooseoev>cm vow: .Ampoacoemgooxov oocm -xeoz —ou:oEcoLw>=o powooom oo>moo 1o; no: on: mgogooou saw: woos» -vuuo a composeoecw poucoe:ogw>co .mgooogm sum ooumou «won a oeo .»o>eom copcwoo a omoopzocx poucoEeogm>cm osu oomz .ocp—oeou nueoz =_ meoooem suxwm Pam.p mo opoEom Eooeom .mgowcom Fooeom gov; m.m .eowo=__oa two co moowpm owgooemouoco oow: .ouoo mcwxeozot a pmoooom EouP-u_ o m=_m= o>ooo s* on nouzoppom :H .eopoastccew 2o. a gut; got: omen» uoo ooporueoo cos» .m_oo;om N e? atopooeum sow; owe co mooaowooa a :o_aoecom:p .coew>:o mcpgomooe ogwoccovumooo so»? mu ooeoumwcpso< <>oz< 2a 338:9 .88 2; fix... -ooo.o supppoompoc comogozowm eoooxv “nozzeumcm oocmpmoo1wpom o one mocoooam omoppoo pmm co mcpumou “moo oco ogo sup: cowmoo poucoepeooxonpogucoo o acema Amem_v oEam oEom Aoempv ASEOLoooV eazm Aoea_v «Somme; a __o;m==o= Anus—V Sponges o __oem==oz Aehmpv .Fo uo .cugoo Amem_v note: oEom 1mmcpppo: a :ozou osom Amem_v ooaum o_;o eoszom Ammmpv :osou AeemPv amazon .Fp .oF .n .m 23 .ooosm Poucosweooxo to» cowuooewo o>Pupmoo ozu :_ uooweo co o>oz owo poo moocoeoeepo ucoovmyemwm o: ocoou .zupz ocosooemo cw mo>pomeozu o>pooeoo a ueoooom op z—oxw— oeo zozu mowu_>wuoo .coe?>:o omozz omocu Amy oco ”moammw Foucoscoew>co oo omoopzocx moow>oeo N no» oomooxo ogo soc» .oeee ago PW gov: oooa_ottoo z—omopo mooouwuuo —oucoe=oew>:o m.m oo otoum: a zumcoeum oz» ocoom .moooawuuo PopcoEcoew>=o o>muwmoo oeoe oooooeo apmsommoooc no: «so :o_uoELo$=w omooeocw owo oocoveooxo oEoo oooou .oooem Foucoeweooxo cw mooouwuuo one copuoELoecw soon to» memo» umoo a oeo coozuoo oocoeoemvo ucoowmvcmvm o ocoom .meozuo op opommcoomoe oeoe oco oocoucooucomgoo oLoE .owumwco53z oeoe osmooa «poucoeveooxu .oooem poucosp -Looxo on» c? mmop ossmcoo op zocoocou osmFPm o oco moooupuoo opooeo>oo z_pou:o5=oew>co ou oouopoe moopo> powoom o? omcozo unoowepcmwm o ocood .moooo -mooa a .ocew toe ooomoo omoa a oeo moooew .<>oz< oomo oeoooooeo Foomam_uoum .copuooooo .cogw>:o cw owe: zeouooooeucw zoo N «zoom» m.m poucoswgooxm .mooogm pogo -coo a poucoeweooxo o» acoscmwmmo eoocoe oomo .mucoooum zeoocooom eomuz a opoom oooopo>oouepom sum: .mEouw ueozowo oomo—o mcwmo mzow>goucu .mpomooogo pogucoo coo—w ouocgoupo a meoocwacm mo mogou zEL< oeozou ouoxoo .z .go>wm zoom a :oumoeu to zeepuzv meoawowu to mooao -muuo zuwcoesou mo mwmzpoco no em .oozoposo moeoooooeo .oo_mopooozuoe —oegom eozuo oz .Acoppoopo>o oEou uu> comwzowzv :ovuoeumpcvsoo umoo a men sow: moo=o_ooa o eowuaseoc lop popco52ogw>co so» oevoecowumooo .E=Pmooezm .eoew>:o mc_ locopuo no: mpoeucou new: ooeoosou oco .o$:_ a ooouwuuo poucoe neogw>eo to; mcvumou “moo w oeo a —ooo Looucopo> sot» oouoopom zpeoo 1cm; meozuoou zgoocooom mm memo: .ououm coamcmzmoz cw oozmxeoz ooocouuo meozooou mm .moooopuuo a .oocp popcoE:oeP>:o com meromou “won a ogo sup: cmvmoo potucoou—oocoeveooxu ozom oEom oEom Amem_v asam Ape-oeo_v osam zeempv anom< o eoo_Esa= Amempv mozom a samum Amem_v ._a pa .oooum Amemzv scape: A-m_v otoaoeess a meoaoecoz .mp .o— 24 .mooozm z»oz Low moo=»»»»o a zo»»oELoez» z»oz toe m»mo» »moo a ogo zoo:»oz oozoeowmvo »zou»m»zm»m o ozoo» omp< .omoopzozz z» oozoeowwmo ggau.g.go_m a »oo owe »=g moo=»»»»g to» moEoem oE»» »:ozo~o»o z» »zm=o» mooozo zooz»oz moozogowmpo »zoo»»»zm_m oz ozoou .zo»»o_:ooozo>o »oozo opzoomoo—zozz ozo oozeoozoo ozoe zp»zoo upwpzapm ozoz m.m po»zospzooxo ozoom .zeoozoo z» omoozoz» =»oozm= so =o»ozooos= o oo»oo»oz» oozop>zo»z» m.m umu .meopgozo pm»:oszoz»>zo mzpogomoz zLoozoo ogoe ozozo» »m»zm »zoo»e»zmpm o oo>zomzo zoz» o—osom zoppzoo oz» z» »oowwo mz_»_oo o Co zo_»osooo oz» z»»3 zo>o »oz» ozoou AmmN .gv =.-=m5soz oz o_:oo meo»oz m.zom oz» z»»3 »oo»zoo o>oppoz o» z—oxpp ozoe ozo: cow»o_~oo zom »:ozo zo»»oezooz» ozoe oo>poooz ooz oz: m»zoozoomoz= .ozood .mo»»»eo»zo mo »zo5zm_mmo m.m oozoopmz» o»o Azuo—ooo pozozom mz»o:—oz_v momzooo osom .Lo>ozo: .mo»»»eo_zo no moomm» po»zoezoz_>zo eo »zoezu»mmo oz» z» meoz»o a meonos oozopom pogo»oz zoo:»oz oo»oz moozozoomvo »zoo»mmzo»m oz .mzoo: m zo>o mpoz»zoo .mzoo zooz w zoo; z» omsooo oo>»oooz m»o»zoeveooxm .mooo»»»»o a oooopzozg po»zoszozp>zo so» oo»mo» »moo a oza .omeooo zoo—ova cuss: z» ooppozzo m.m zo»: wo .>»z= mm z»»: monogm poz»zoo a po»zoe_zooxo o» »zoszm»mmo eoozoz .zo»mm:om»o mmopo .z»E om1m_ o a .mmozooo .zPE om .mEFPC .z_e om1~ yo oo»m»mzoo »zos»oozh .zo»»o_=oooeo>o mzpozomoz »coe 1»ooz» —o»zoo»uz» zo oz»>»oooe mpo -ogospgogxo go»: go»: .go ogoogFg ga m»zooo»m —_o mo mz_»mo» »moo a osz .z» -zooo» .o»zoszoz_>zo zo»oo a ogomoz mooo»_»»o a omoopzozz po»zoEzoe»>zo .omoopzozg ozoz po»o» ozpeLo»oo o» oz»ozzo»»mo=o zo>eom vow: .m»zooo»m oao»_oo goza_v Ag» g zaompv ~g_uz .ooz< zoo oomwozoze com z» zoF»:pFoo to»o: oo>poogoo eo m»ooeeo oz» eo zo=»m .m»zooo»m Loz»o z»»z oozooeoo mzonoe oozoFom poz=»oz .mEo» uzozo .ozo»»oz game a zw»»zoo» o» oogmo m»zoo=»m .Aomuzv omoppoo m»zo poeoz»_ ozoeo uo oFoEom soozoz we» gmzmpv osam oEom .gu»: ta .>Pg= Agg-mom»g oggm zoompv ogo__»: oEom Ag~m_v goggag gmga_g mgogom Aces.» ooozog.g Ages—v ooozog_g oposomzoz a ppozm .zo»gozoz .—N .om .m— .m» .mp 25 ozoo» omp< .mopoom oz» oz» zo omoopzozz g»og» g» oogo»»»o m.m to No. spgo og30g .»zoe»eoooo zmopopz oz» wo Azo»»o>eomzoo zp»moev mmzmzoomo omeooo zmoozz» zooz o>oz o» ouzoopwz» o>»»»moo »momzog»m oz» ozooe .mozoom »mo» oeo zozm»z zo »ooo»o osom ooz oozo»zooxo oEoo goEE:m a zuo »oz» ozoo» omp< .»zoo»m»zm»m »oz xom .ooogm po»zos»eooxo to» »mo» »moo zo moon» 1»»»o z» oozogomm»o »zoo»»»zm»m o ozooe .ooozm po»zoE»zooxo oz» z» moo=»»»»o ozo zo»»oezo»z» z»oz z» oozozowuwo »zoo»w»zm»m o ozoou .mzo»mmom o=-:o__o» »o oozoozo»»o ozo we»o»»o z»_zossoo z» »zoeo>po>z» o>»»oo zz »mozo»z» oz»:z»»zoo o crozm o>oz mzo»mazooz oz» mo oN xpo»oe -»xozooo »oz» ozo mooo»»»»o o>_» -»moo ogoe »eooos Aomuzv m.m ozoou A.zo»mmoom»o oomv .mooozm zoo3»oz moozogomw»o »zoo»u»zm»m oz zpo»ozo_mmoo= o»z» ooop>wo mpoozom m 5oz» meo»zom poozom zm»z Nwo m.m .mooo»»»»o zo»»o>zomzoo to» moz»ozzo»»mooo z»»z zoo»m _ozo»»oom -mmozu .m»zooo»m m»» z» moo: locoxo po»zoEzoz»>zo mz»oopo>oo z» A.>»:: zopzohv omoP—oo m»zo pogo lop» o»o>»zo mo zoo»m o>»»oopo>u .mpog»zoo mo omoppou zeo»mo:z»zoz »o moo—o zmopo»z o a moo—o so»moeom »m» mz»m= Ammo—u so»moeom osz .omz» .zoe»>zo o» oomooxo mmopo oo»mo» mooo»»»»o a zo»»o5gooz» po»zos -zoz»>zo to» mz»»mo» »moo ozo ogo .o—oom ooz» »zozu»» m.moog mz»m= .mooo»»»»o ozo =o_»o5zowz» to» oo»mo» »moo a ogo m.m pp< .oozoweooxo o.o»» a »»z: zo»»o> uzomzoo zoo: N o» oomooxo mpo»zoe 1»Looxo z»»3 mmopo amopo»z o z» oop—ozzo zoszmoe» omoppoo om mzwmz .mzo»m:»ozoo to» m»moz Ego» to»>ozoz poo»oo a mozwozzo»»mo=o »zoooenw—om .z»oo» ooozopou so» zo»»ooooo po»zo5zoz»>zo z» oozmzzo: gossam mo »zosmmomm< .oo»mo» »moo m.m .m»mo» oo»» .o.» o3» ozo mzo»»oo_o>o zozooo» .mozwozzo»»mooo »zozoo .mzo»>zo»z» z: oo»o:—o>o m.m Fo»zos»zooxm .mpoozom oz» z» mzoooco »m— so» Eozmozo zo»»oo:oo po»zoszoe»>zo mo zoo»m o>»»oopo>u o»omozz»z osom ozo»oz~ oEom ozom ggo-mom»» osam Ammo.» mgag oEom o»o»m zo»mz»zmoz AFNm—v oEom zo»g_v zomzo»m a zomEoz .NN Am»m_v g°m_ggag .oN gmompv gasog.gz .mN Aggm_g oogooo .QN g_»a»» a»guuog .m~ AmNm_» ogogogggg a .Pogo»»z .NN 26 .z»_mzo>»z: o»o»m ozo~pe< .zo»»o>eomzoo .A»zoo»»»zm»m a »zoEzoL»>zo oz» ozozo» ozonoe »ozv mzonoe oozo»om ozoEo moo=»»»»o oozopomnzoz a oozo»om zoo3»oz opzozo>oo ogoe zP»zm»pm zpzo ozooe moozogomepo ooo»»»»o No zoo»m z» Ame .ov =.»oowmo »mo»oocm oz» ooz zo»»oezomz» z» mopz .zo>o3oz .oomoozoz» z»»mzo»z» mo»z mo ozo oomooeoz» zo»»osgo»z» mo »zooso oz» mo oomoogoz» mooo»»»»o mo z»»mzo»z» oz» .moo=»»»»o mo x»»mzo»z_ oz» »oo»»o o» ozoo» ozo: mopzo»zo> z»om .m»ooozoo Fo»zo5»zooxo ozozo» moo:»»»»o zo m»oo»»o z»oz» zo:»m o» oopzo> xppoo»»oeo» -mzm ogoz :o_»oszomz» z» mowz ozo m»ooozoo »oozo zo»»oezomz» mo »z=oEo oz»: .o:o»zzoo» po»»zozom»»o o»»zoeom oz» ngmo zgo»zo>z» oo:»»»»o zo ozo »mo» zo»»oo=om z»—ooz oz» oooo—oz» o»go» -»zo o>»»o=_o>m .mooo»»»»o .g»>zo .m»zooo»m oozo »»o »o a ._3ozz z»_ooz to» oozooEoo opoEom soozoe to» »oz »oz mommopo z»oz Ampoozom N» z» meoooem z»o— _»o co» mooo»»»»o .zoz»>zo a .pzozz z»—ooz mo o_osom soozoz a ..»o zoo—o»z zoo3»oz o»zmzo»»opoz »zoo»»»zm»m o ozoou .mmopo .zm< .o>v m.m ooozm z»op .moo=»»»»o opzozo>ow ozos z»»3 oo»opozzoo ompo _»»moo o» mooo— lounge: a =omoopzozz .oo_mopooo= m»ooozoo poo»mopooo Go oooopzozz »oz» oozomooz .mzoz»o ozo goo»moeo»z» Amompg N»—=zom a zosoo: geom_v opoo z_zm_g go»ao goes—V m=»»og .om gmzmpv mogtog .mm gmzm_v mogtog .wN Aoooz»»zouv vohmpv zomzo»z a omsoz .NN 27 time is, at best, naive. Had Quinn assessed information gain, the writer is confident he would have found no significant change in this variable as well. In their study Hamilton and Asche (1974) randomly assigned 306 secondary school students to experimental and control groups that were pre- and post-tested for environmental information and attitudes. While they found no significant differences in the two groups on the attitude post test, there was an effect in the positive direction for the experimental group. This effect led the authors to conclude, "An introductory unit in environmental education can affect attitude changes." (p. 188) The lack of a significant change must also be considered in the light of the length of exposure to the environmental information, e.g. seven days, and the fact that the pre- and POSt'tESt' ing occurred within a one week period. The authors,in considering their findings,recommended both a longer trial for information expo- sure and a longer time span between pre- and post-testing. In both the Hoover and Schultz (1963) and Hendrick, Snell, and Hengevold (1972) studies, natural science majors were compared with non-science majors in terms of environmental attitudes. In both studies no significant differences were found to exist. It should be noted, however, that the assumption made here is that natural science majors are exposed to more environmental information, hence should score higher on attitude instruments. In the former study the authors conducted a follow-up study in which they concluded that ordinary science education (at least at Arizona State University) has very little relevance for basic conservation, either in terms of information or attitudes. 28 This finding is consistent with other research (e.g., Harrison, 1975) which demonstrates that general ecological information is generally not included in what is considered a natural science curriculum. In the later study, two special conditions should be noted. First, we have a ceiling effect operating here as most sub- jects, natural science as well as others, identify "environmental deterioration" as the number one national problem. Secondly, some specific courses, including general ecology, were seen to influence students to score the ecology issue higher than students not exposed to these courses, thus reinforcing the idea that a natural science major may not be exposed to specifically ecological information to any greater degree than students in other curriculums. In the Scot, et a1. (1972) Y. C. C. study, gains in environ- mental information did not result in more positive environmental attitudes in all camps. Again we have a ceiling effect operative in this case as initial attitudes were very highly favorable and secondly, it was determined that the character of interpersonal relations within the individual camps tended to discriminate between those camps show— ing gains in positive attitudes (over their previously very positive attitude scores) and those remaining the same or even reducing slightly. In those camps where interpersonal relations were good, gains in information did result in more favorable attitudes and vice versa. Finally, in the Mitchell and Lunneborg (1971) study, we also found methodological difficulties. The major problems with this study include the fact that the experimental and control groups were not pre- tested for information or attitude levels, instead comparisons were 29 made with other children of similar age not treated. Even the authors acknowledged this as a caution in interpreting their findings. In addition, the authors noted that in interviews assessing the degree of environmental awareness of the students, volunteer judges tended to equate longer answers with more environmentally aware answers (P = .0001 plus) and that the control group tended to give more environmentally unsound answers than the experimentals. These limita- tions were enough to cast serious question on the study's results. From the above analysis the writer believes it safe to con— clude that there exists a relationship between increased environmental information or knowledge and more favorable environmental attitudes. In addition, if education can affect environmental attitudes, they tend to be more or less enduring favorable environmental predispositions. In fact, "After many years of investigation, Remmers has concluded that attitudes can be changed and that these changes persist for some time. Peterson and Thurstone demonstrated that the changed attitudes from seeing a single movie persisted for as much as a year and a half." (Whitman, 1965, p. 46) It is also interesting to note that many of the experts maintained that one element in any successful environmental education program Should be providing the learner with information as to how to become involved in the resolution of environmental problems. The assumption here is that knowing how to become involved would somehow increase the chances of environmentally positive action. To the best of the researcher's knowledge, this assumption has never been tested. One possible source for support for this assumption can be found in cognitive dissonance theory. Festinger's Theory of 30 Cognitive Dissonance held that there are three types of relationships that can exist between items of information. They are as follows: 1. If A psychologically implies B, or B psychologically implies A, then A and B are in a CONSONANT RELATION- SHIP. 2. If A psychologically implies not-B, or B psychologi- cally implies not-A, then A and B are in a DISSONANT RELATIONSHIP. 3. If there is no psychological implication at all from A to B, or from B to A, then A and B are in an irrel- evant relationship. (Lawrence and Festinger, 1962, p. 36) That theory viewed the individual as perceiving and avoiding conflicts between his store of cognitive elements--attitudes, motives, actions, and new and conflicting information or actions. Like much of the theory concerning cognitive functioning, dissonance theory held that the individual would strive to maintain cognitive consistency (see, for example, Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1953; Lawrence and Festinger, 1962; Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955; etc.). Hence when unavoided new information or behavior conflicts with the individual's existing cog- nitive elements, dissonance occurs. Since the nontensional state is balance, the individual experiencing dissonance strives to reconcile the dissonant elements. Several forms of mental operations can be involved in reducing dissonance. One is to reduce the importance of the new element(s). A second is to strengthen the importance of the old elements or reinforce the old elements with additional supporting elements. A third means to reduce the dissonance is to adopt the new information, attitude, or behavior. The above theory has implications for environmental education in that it predicts that students will experience less dissonance, hence less attitude change, if they are not aware of how they 31 contribute to environmental problems and how they might alter their behavior in specific ways to improve the situation. In theory, it is much easier to depreciate dissonant information if one's behavior remains consistent with the old information. The fact that the old behavior persists because the individual is unaware of a practical alternative does not reduce the tendency to strive for cognitive balance, hence leading to either a depreciation of the importance of the dissonant element (in this case the pro-environmental information or attitude) or the rationalization of the old behavior by adding new supporting cognitive elements. It is further interesting to note that in a number of the studies reviewed above, e.g., Hounshell and Liggett (1976) and Perkes (1973), there is reason to suspect that the personal characteristics and environmental commitment of the individual providing the environ- mental information may have an effect on the degree to which attitude change occurs. In the former case cited above, the time the subjects were exposed to the environmental education source had a significant effect on attitude change. In the latter case, greater intensity of the bias of information produced greater attitude change. In other words, if the source of environmental information models very positive environmental attitudes and behaviors, greater attitude change in the positive direction seems probable, especially if the source has credibility with the receiverscflithe information (see, for example, F. Powell, 1963). Source credibility is a function of ". . . (a) the extent to which the source of a message is perceived to be a source of valid assertions (his expertness) and (b) the receiver's degree of confidence 32 in the source's intent to communicate only those assertions he con- siders valid (his trustworthiness)" (Powell, 1963, pp. 61-62). The trustability of the source as an important component of credibility is well documented, e.g., see Lumsdaine and Sheffield, 1949; Pastors and Harowitz, 1955; Haiman, 1949; Hovland and Weiss, 1952; etc. Hence, a source who could demonstrate that he/she considers his/her assertions valid enough to devote much time and energy to them (i.e., model them) would have more credibility than one who does not. The same argument can be advanced for expertness, i.e., a source that can demonstrate having performed a given behavior will generally be recognized as having more expertise in the area under consideration than one who has not performed the behavior. Sources of Environmental Attitudes Since environmental attitudes are acquired basically the same way as other attitudes, i.e., through the socialization process, it would seem reasonable to expect that many of this culture's major socializing institutions affect these attitudes as well as others. This is no doubt accurate when all attitudes which have a bearing on some aspect of the environment are considered, for this would include nearly all attitudes whatsoever. However, when the term "environmental attitudes" is used in the narrower sense, i.e., as an awareness of environmentally destructive practices and concern for environmental or ecological quality, then for the great majority of the people in this society the issue of an environmental crisis has so recently risen to prominence that several of our most powerful socializing institutions, notably the family and the church, have played a 33 relatively minor role in shaping these attitudes. There are, of course, exceptions to this generalization, e.g., families that were involved in the earlier conservation movement or whose work (or major recreational activities) involved a close relationship with or under- standing of nature (and/or a dependence on environmental quality), have no doubt contributed to socializing an awareness of and concern for such environmental quality in their membership. However, the main sources of information about environmental topics, notably the aware- ness of and concern for environmental quality, have been the media and our educational institutions. Unfortunately, as we shall see, the media have had by far the greatest impact on the greatest number in this regard. Hence we see that, "In terms of mere exposure, the mass media are clearly our most efficient educators. The average American spends three and a half hours a day in front of a television screen, and another two and a half hours a day listening or half-listening to the radio." (Sandman, in Swan and Stapp, 1974, p. 211) Hence, in terms of exposure to events, including environmental events, the media have a tremendous potential for educating the American public and in the narrowest sense have been largely instrumental in doing so. However, as Sandman went on to note, most of the content of the mass media is oriented toward entertainment and ". . . the entertainment content of the media is environmentally irrelevant, and much of it is environmentally irresponsible. What educational content there is is unplanned, unintended, and unintegrated." (op. cit., p. 212) In fact, in many ways the non-news mass media content reinforces undesir- able environmental practices and values, e.g., glorification of large 34 families, advertising for overconsumption and waste, themes of man against or above the rest of the natural environment, etc. ad nauseum. Hence we see that only in that portion of media time dedicated to "news" is there any significant positive or neutral environmental content. According to Sellers and Jones (1973), "The deterioration of the environment was discovered by the news media sometime in 1969." (p. 53) This "discovery" may have been due to the Santa Barbara oil spill and related events. However, the important point to note is that the "discovery" was perhaps 100 years late. In other words, "The media failed to discover the environmental crisis before it was a crises. They failed to discover individual environmental problems before these too became critical. And the media are failing today to discover the environmental crisis of tomorrow." (op. cit., p. 223) In effect, the media are serving as a "late notice system," when what is needed is an early warning system. There are a multitude of reasons for the failure of the mass media to provide adequate (or even near adequate) information to the American public concerning environmental issues. First, the news media tend to be event-oriented and, "Event reporting is a linear, compartmentalized procedure that obscures the fact that environmental change is a process. It perforce focuses our attention on man's projects rather than on nature's processes." (Sellers and Jones, 1973, p. 52) Secondly, while the scientific and academic communities pro- vide much of the data used for environmental news, they seldom convey 35 the information to the public directly, except perhaps through pro- fessional journals which are not information sources utilized by large numbers of Americans. Instead, ". . . government agencies and private corporations provide most of the environmental information for the press and public." (Rubin, et a1., 1974, p. 61) This is highly undesirable because there is no way to assess the environmental infor- mation coming from private industries as they are not obliged to provide the public with any information they do not chose to. Obviously they, like government agencies, are not going to provide totally unbiased, complete, and prompt information in many cases, and in fact are known not to in many documentable cases. Thirdly, Shoefeld (1975) and Murch (1974) both pointed out that the media frequently subscribe to "Afghanistanism." This is the rule which stipulates that if you are going to unmask a problem, you want to make sure it is a far-away problem, hence a safe problem. This principle,they maintain applies particularly to local media coverage of environmental issues. The reasoning is nicely summarized by Sandman, who pointed out that, "Advertisers are often polluters, and big adver- tisers are often big polluters; they do not like to see their names in investigative news stories." (Swan and Stapp, 1974, p. 224) Other frequently mentioned problems include the fact that few news gathering agencies have adequately trained environmental journalists, and that journalists typically tend to be distrustful of information provided by environmentally-oriented individuals or groups. Yet in their attempts to be "objective" they often obscure biologically objective criteria for environmental stress or damage in favor of the criteria employed by various human interest groups. This frequently 36 confuses the issue (but no doubt makes ”better copy"). Also the media are subject to time, financial, and space limitations which do not allow adequate treatment of the issues. The result is that the issues are often presented in an oversimplified manner which both fosters a belief in an oversimplified solution and the expectation that such a solution could be readily accomplished, "if only . . . .“ The media are also subject to various internal and external pressures which result in news coverage which in Tanner's words is "episodic, incomplete, sensational, and trivial." For an in-depth discussion of these problems see especially Swan and Stapp, 1974; A. Murch, 1974; and Down, 1974. The fact of the matter is that the media in our society are not designed for education and do not perform this function in any meaningful way concerning the environmental crisis, other than by informing the public that there is a "crisis," and even in this respect they may be performing a terrible disservice to the American public. For while the media have been instrumentalirnincreasing the concern of the American public toward environmental abuses and decreasing environ- mental quality, they have actually discouraged any significant involve- ment or changes in behavior on the part of the worst environmental offenders, i.e., their viewers, listeners, and readers. As Sandman pointed out, "The media contribute to this tendency not to use media- acquired information and attitudes in at least two ways. First, the speed of modern mass communications, especially radio and television, encourages the view that informed action is impossible, and perhaps inappropriate as well.'' Secondly, “. . . the very format of media news presentations is aimed at rewarding the reader, listener, or 37 viewer for the mere act of reading, listening, or viewing. Reporters are taught to 'round out' their stories, to work at creating the impression that all relevant questions have been asked and answered-- that the job (reporter's and audience's) is done." (Swan and Stapp, 1974- p. 217) The fruits of these practices can be clearly seen in studies such as that performed by Murch (1974) in Durham, North Carolina. In that study it was observed that Durham residents were more likely to perceive pollution as a significant problem as the reference moved away from their immediate surroundings. Murch argued that one reason for that pattern is the media's focus on the broader aspects of the problem. And, as numerous other research findings have supported (see for example Fazio, 1974; Seed, 1970; Bart, 1972-A; Stamm and Bowes, 1972; and Tanner, 1971), Durham residents,like most Americans, obtained their environmental information from television, radio, magazines, local newspapers, and personal friends, in that order. Murch also noted that ". . . concern for environmental issues directly increased with more exposure to news programs, and particularly with exposure to reports about the environment. When this kind of media contact is taken into account, it explains much of the difference observed between the better--and the lesser--educated." (p. 22) Better educated people consume more news related media and, to date, knowledge is the best correlate for environmental attitudes. However, when these same concerned Durham residents dis- cussed above were asked what a solution to pollution problems might be, they, like the grade school children studied by Towler and Swan (1972), either said they couldn't decide or skipped the question. In fact, 38 “Even those who believed that they could do something as individuals often didn't have a clear idea of what that might be." This, Murch maintained, ". . . is as much as we can expect from the general lack of public guidance and the imbalanced way in which the media have stressed the 'ecological crisis' but not its solutions." (Murch, 1974, p. 25) In fact, as Sandman pointed out, ". . . the mass media almost never prescribe any environmental action for their audience." (Swan and Stapp, 1974, p. 221) The ultimate result of this imbalanced media coverage of environmental news has been, as Shoeneld (1975) observed, that of making environmentalism a "spectator sport" for most Americans. That assertion, incidently, finds support in terms of the cognitive dissonance theory. By not providing their audience with information as to how they may contribute to the problem, or steps they can take to ease the problem, the receiver of the information can feel concern but continue to act in an inconsistent manner ( in terms of that concern) because he/she is not aware of the nconsistency, or even if aware, can more easily rationalize the continuation of the old behaviors if information or models as to alternative behaviors are not available. That situation not only allows the individual to have the socially desirable attitude and keep his comfortable behavior patterns, but it also furnishes others struggling with dissonant infor- mation a whole group of apathetic models which can be used in a number of ways to rationalize their own inaction. Given that ". . . hard environmental news is the kind of - information least likely to be translated into behavior by the media audience," and the fact that "It is also the kind of information that 39 dominates media coverage of the environment," Sandman concluded, "Environmental activists, not surprisingly, find mass media news a poor source of information." (p. 225) Hence we see that the media are not providing the American public with the type of information which will lead to a citizenry which is knowledgeable about the environment, aware of how to become involved in solving environmental problems, and motivated to do so. If the media are not doing the job, then what of the educational system? Cgrrelates of Environmental Awareness and Concern Before we turn our attention to the role of the educational system in fostering an environmental consciousness in the citizenry, perhaps it would be appropriate to examine what segments of the Amer- ican public are now the most informed and concerned about environmental problems and issues. As has been demonstrated, those with more environmental information have more positive environmental attitudes, and hence also tend to be those who demonstrate more concern about environmental problems. For purposes of this discussion then, the characteristics of the most informed, those with the most positive environmental atti- tudes, the most concerned, and those most willing to take co rective actions or become actively involved, will be considered as one group. This construct, in general terms, does in fact accurately describe these subgroupings. This fact, incidentally, provides some of the most direct empirical evidence for postulating a relationship between 40 attitudes and behavior. For while behavior is a very complex issue involving a great number of interacting elements in any given situ- ation, and while not all individuals who are aware of, have positive attitudes toward, and are concerned about the environment express that concern in their behavior, still those who may be termed environmen- talists do in fact share these same characteristics. Hence the probability conception of attitudes as predispositions to action is given support in fact. Who are the environmentally aware/concerned? According to Murch (1974), ". . . there is little doubt that such (environmental) concern is greatest among those in the higher socioeconomic strata, including the better educated, the better employed, and whites. Practically all of the available evidence points in this direction." (p. 22) These findings are widely supported in the literature, e.g., Morrison, 1972 and 1974; Ditton and Goodale, 1974; Chaney, 1970; Hornback, 1974; Knapp, 1972; Kreger, 1973; Knowlton, as well as Dill- man and Christenson, in Burch, et al., 1972; Scott, Driver, and Morans, 1973; Swan,in Wohlwill and Carson, 1972; Lingwood, 1972; Kilween, St. Denis, and Hall, 1974; and Allen, 1972, among others. It is interesting to note some of the rationale for these segments being the most aware/concerned. The most obvious, and most cited, explanation is that these segments are the most exposed to sources of information, including environmental information, and are also the largest consumers of media in general, and the printed media in particular. This confirms the researcher's earlier observations on the relationship of information to attitudes and earlier comments regarding the role and limitations of the mass media relative to 41 environmental issues. Whites can be seen to be more concerned because they are the higher socioeconomic strata, the better educated, and the better employed. In addition, non-whites, who according to Kreger (1973) often see the environmental crisis as a "diversionary issue," often have more immediate concerns, e.g., civil rights, employment, and so forth. For these reasons, among others, blacks and other minorities are greatly underrepresented in the environmental movement. Whites, the better educated, the better employed, and the more affluent can also be seen to possess several other characteris- tics that incline them to be more aware/concerned. First, they are " . personally better prepared both economically and mentally to accept the costs of environmental reforms that those of lower socio- economic status." (Morrison, in Burch, et al., 1972) Morrison also noted that they have more leisure time to devote to environmental matters and that they possess higher aspirations for and have more opportunities to enjoy the natural environment. This assessment is supported by the work of Ditton and Goodale, 1974, in concluding their analysis of the users and non-users of the recreational oppor- tunities of the Green Bay area with the observation that ". . . those most insulated from the environment, in this case the waters of Green Bay, are also most tolerant of degraded conditions." (p. 26) In fact, as Downs pointed out, "The elite's environmental deterioration is often the common man's improved standard of living." (Murch, 1974, p. 84) At least in the short term. This privileged segment of American society is also the seg- ment that is the most socially and politically active, and the segment 42 that has the greatest opportunity to actually effect changes. This means that these people feel a greater sense of control and, as Orr (1974) has demonstrated, high alienation and/or feelings of powerless- ness produce apathy in relation to environmental issues. These findings also support earlier observations regarding the cognitive dissonance theory, i.e., those persons with the most information, including information on possible alternative behaviors and the means to alter their behaviors, either experience more dis- sonance to change, have fewer cognitive elements opposing change, or those elements supporting existing nonenvironmental behaviors have less saliency. It is not as easy for this individual to continue to use practices which he/she knows are harmful if he/she is aware of alternatives and has the means to engage in those alternatives without severe cost to himself/herself. In addition to the correlates mentioned above, several others have been demonstrated to be characteristic of the environmentally aware/concerned. While the evidence is somewhat mixed, most studies have identified males as more aware/concerned than females (see for example Cohen and Hollingsworth, 1973; Knapp, 1972; Kronus and Van Es, 1976; Knowlton, in Burch, et al., 1972; Lingwood, 1972; and Souers, 1972). The most probable reasons for this difference include differ- ential socialization, the fact that males have more knowledge in and exposure to the natural sciences, and the higher occupational status of most males. Both population density of residence and geographic location also correlate with environmental awareness/concern. A number of studies (including those of Tichenor, Donohue, et al., 1971; 43 Knowlton, in Burch, et al., 1972; Kronus and Van Es, 1976; Hounshell and Liggett, 1973; Donohue, Olein, and Tichenor, 1974; and Chaney, 1970) identify urban and suburban dwellers and those residing in the West and Midwest as more aware/concerned than those residing in rural areas or in small towns and those residing in the East or southern areas of the nation. Part of the explanation for these findings can be attributed to income, occupational and educational levels character— istic of these areas, and part is no doubt due to the fact that envi- ronmental deterioration is most severe in urban areas. Caution must be used here, however, when assuming that those who experience the worst environmental deterioration are the most aware of it, as a number of studies demonstrated that many times this is not the case. Such studies as those conducted by Donohue, Olien, and Tichenor (1974) and Allen (1972) have demonstrated also that, at least in relation to local environmental problems and reforms, a more plural— istic community structure (hence usually a larger population) insures more favorable environmental attitudes because the costs of reforms are not as threatening to the residents in terms of loss of income, loss of employment, and so forth. Using a similar rationale, Morrison (in Murch, 1974) noted that those engaged in occupations not directly threatened by the costs of environmental reform, e.g., professionals, teachers, government employees, etc., tend to be more environmentally aware/concerned. This observation also holds true internationally, i.e., those nations that can afford it the most are the most concerned, and the worst offenders it should be noted. Research has indicated also that youth is associated with higher levels of environmental awareness/concern. Studies such as 44 Chaney, 1970; Hornback, 1974; George, 1966; Knapp, 1972; Kronus and Van Es, 1976; Dillman and Christenson, 1972; Pettus, 1976; Scott, Driver and Morans, 1973; Lingwood, 1972; Buys and Nartker, 1976; and Allen, 1972; identified older students and those between roughly 15 and 30 years of age as the most aware/concerned. Part of this difference, especially in reference to younger vs. older students, can be attributed to differences in exposure to information/education. Some of this difference is also due to the differences in the cost of environmental reform to the different age groups. As Hornback (1974) points out, young people typically have lower levels of commitment to the existing social structure. Furthermore, "Economic constraints or changes in consumer patterns do not threaten people who have not established dependable incomes, and who have not had the opportunity to develop consumer habits." (p. 198) In short, younger people have less to lose from changes aimed at environmental reform, and they also have more of a "long term" in which to enjoy the benefits of same. Thus environmental reform produces less dissonance in this segment of the population. While other correlates have been identified, especially in relation to awareness/concern at the local level, the evidence for them is less conclusive. Hence, the writer will not include any detailed discussion of them here. An Assessment of Environmental Education The relationship between environmental information and environmental attitudes has been clearly demonstrated earlier in this paper. It has also been demonstrated that while the mass media, 45 particularly the broadcast media which are the most attended to by most Americans, can and have had an impact on increasing the public's concern about environmental deterioration. They do not, however, relate the kind of information that produces a citizenry which is knowledgeable about the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to become involved in the resolution of these problems, and motivated to do so. What of the educational system, then? Are we educating the citizenry to the nature and seriousness of the environmental crisis? Do students in the natural sciences, social sciences, or arts learn an appreciation and understanding of basic environmental and/or conserva- tion concepts? 00 most students? In a comparative study of normal biology classes and biology classes taught basic conservation principles as part of the normal curriculum Whiteman (1965) found a significant change in the positive direction for conservation attitudes in the experimental group and either no difference or a slight movement in the negative direction in those classes taught in the traditional manner. This led him to con- clude, ". . . that the teaching of the conventional type biology course has little effect upon the formation of favorable attitudes toward resource conservation." (p. 98) These findings are generally supported in the literature. Although much work still needs to be done in this area and the number of applicable studies is small, what evidence there is, is supportive. In concluding a similar analysis, George (1966) stated, (Conservation Education can and should be directed at the high school and college levels, for attitudes are found to reflect the extent of 46 involvement with such experiences." (p. 122) Benett, in Swan and Stapp (1974), reinforced the notion that environmental education does change attitudes and values as we have documented elsewhere, but he finds also that students demonstrate an increase in their ability to act on these attitudes. He exposed 75 junior high school students to a 12 hour block of environmental educa- tion and found a 7.2 percent increase in the posttest for the "ecolog- ical value system index" he had developed and a 6.2 percent increase in the "index for ability to act on an ecological value system." His study, incidentally, included not only the conventional paper and pencil tests but also two unobtrusive measures of behavior. Asch and Shore (1975), in a controlled test of elementary students' behavior as a result of exposure to environmental education, found a highly significant difference in favor of the experimental S's. Not only did they demonstrate more environmentally constructive beha- viors in the field, but they also demonstrated less destructive beha— viors than the controls. Fazio (1974) designed a survey to test college students' ability to use science information to solve environmental problems. He found that "College students can interpret environmental problems with respect to using past school science learnings. . . ." (p. 5) He also found that 79 percent of the students surveyed said they would prefer to take a physical science course centered on environ- mental problems as opposed to the conventional course. Harrison (1975), in a study of the environmental impact of the college experience on students in a small, private liberal arts college found the strongest positive influence to have been 47 principally through course offerings (primarily conservation) of the Biology Department. This led him to conclude that "The higher educa- tion experience, per se, is insufficient to produce the desired 'environmental' results; rather, a purposeful emphasis on environmental studies is required." (abstract) This conclusion also seems to be shared by the students themselves, as approximately 80 percent of them do not believe they presently possess adequate knowledge of, nor a sound philosophy in regard to environmental issues. It is also interesting to note that approximately 90 percent of them ". . . pro- fess to believe that educating people to environmental issues and needs is essential to solving environmental problems. They are agreed also . that giving attention to environmental issues is appropriate for a liberal arts college . . . ." (p. 60) Thus we see that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that an increase in environmental information generally leads to more positive environmental attitudes. There is also, the researcher believes, sufficient evidence to suggest that more positive attitudes are related to more constructive environmental behavior, as a result of environmental education. This is not to suggest that all environ- mental education results in positive change in environmental behavior, for this is a very complex issue and beyond the scope of this paper. It does, however, suggest that environmental education per se is the most effective method for producing an "environmentally literate“ citizenry given the current limitations of the media. There is even some research (see for example Hounshell and Liggett, 1976; and Milson, 1975) which suggested that exposing uninformed subjects to "environmentally literate“ individuals results in increased 48 environmental information leading to more positive attitudes as a result of infbrmation exchange and modeling. The situation is perhaps best summarized by Hendrick, Snell and Hengeveld (1974) who concluded, "While such things as newspaper headlines may indicate a severe ecological problem, it is education which often introduces the positive stimulus in helping students to understand the interrelationships of organisms to the environment." (p. 20) So education can have a significant impact on the problem, but is the educational system in fact having such an impact on the general American public, or on the students of this nation? In 1969-70 when the media and the general public "discovered" the environmental crisis, Corrado (1970) reported that there was ". . . no truly interdisciplinary approach (to ecology) or 4-year curriculum at any American college." (p. 18) Similar findings are reported by Chin (in Perkes, 1973) who in a 1971 survey of "Far West" and "Great Lakes Region" secondary schools found that only 9.4 percent had instituted a separate course in conservation or environmental educa- tion. Havlick (1969), in a survey of American colleges and univer- sities, found that "The majority of schools under observation had three or fewer courses which qualified as comprehensive environmental educa- tion offerings." (p. 22) The study also failed to find one environ- mental education course at the graduate level. These findings led Havlick to conclude, "The resolution of physical problems of America's urban and non-urban environments will continue in an ineffective, ag_ hgg_basis until more and better programs in environmental education can be provided at the university level." (p. 23) So in general, it seems that our educational institutions had not "discovered" the 49 environmental crisis before 1970 either. By 1973, however, Corrado, in a more recent study, was led to conclude, "The institutionalization of the environmental movement has been most noticeable in the governmental and education establish- ments." (p. 1) He then went on to state, "It would appear . . . that in the long run, the most crucial institutionalization of environment must be in the schools." In an excellent analysis of trends in environmental educa- tion, sampling 777 teacher institutions of education and all state boards of education between 1970 and 1975, Trent (1976) demonstrated that the educational institution has made significant gains, yet much remains to be done. For example, the percentage of colleges offering a course in methods of teaching environmental education went from 18.7 percent to 42.5 percent; colleges offering an environmental science curriculum leading to a teaching major went from 3.7 percent to 21.2 percent; colleges having an environmental studies board, center, or department went from 30.1 percent to 37.8 percent. The state departments of education have also made progress in terms of environmental educat1on, but once again much still remains to be done. As of 1975, 50 percent of the states had developed a state plan for environmental education. Although many such plans, including Michigan's, have yet to be implemented in any significant manner, 36.8 percent provided some state funding for environmental education. However, 79.5 percent of the states reported the funding was "poor" or nonexistent. Also, approximately 20 percent of the nation's school systems had provided some type of inservice or pre- service instruction in methods of teaching environmental education 50 to approximately 30 percent of their teachers. While these figures do not describe anything remotely approaching an ideal situation, they do represent significant improvements over the all but nonexistent pro- grams of 1970. Perhaps the situation in higher education is best summed up by Harrison (1975) when he states, ". . . the college experience ideally should produce a greater "environmental" impact on its product (the students) than has been the case to date." (p. 149) Schoenfield (1970) concurred and provided an outline for improving education's "en- vironmental impact." He stated, "In the final analysis, environmental quality management will proceed only as far and as fast as public opinion will sanction. The university can assist in three ways in the achievement of a mass conservation literacy. First, in its undergradu- ate education it can confront all students--not just career majors-- with the kinds of resource management conflicts about which as citizens and voters they will render crucial judgements; it can attempt to in- still a desire for constructive change; it can suggest biosocial stan- dards of values, and it can offer practical guidelines to action. Second, the university can assist the public schools in the development of K-12 scope and sequence concepts and materials that will lift conservation education out of any rut of irrelevant or inadequate approaches and techniques. Third, the university can assist 2-year terminal technical institutions in developing sound curricula for field aides who must increasingly be produced to fill sub-professional positions in resource management agencies of many types." (p. 117) CHAPTER III STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Overview In the previous chapter it was established that increased environmental information generally results in more positive attitudes toward environmental issues and more concern for the solution to environmental problems. It was also asserted that while the mass media, particularly the broadcast media, are the major sources of environmental information for most Americans and do often increase concern over environmental problems, they do not assist the individual to develop an understanding of how environmental issues are related, how the individual may contribute to the problem, or how the indivi- dual might act to improve the situation. Nor does the mass media provide any incentive to take such positive remedial action. The preceding chapter also demonstrated that the higher education experience per se does little to increase the student's level of environmental information, and as a consequence, fails to affect his/her attitudes or behavior concerning same. It was further seen in Chapter II that some evidence exists to indicate that the level of the instructor's environmental informa- tion and concern has an effect on the students he/she comes in contact with, resulting in the students' acquiring more favorable attitudes 51 52 toward environmental issues from instructors with relatively high levels of information and concern. This is probably the result of the modeling provided by the instructor. Finally, it was asserted that cognitive dissonance is oper- ative in the area of environmental information and attitudes, in that an awareness of some environmental problem without any knowledge of how to act so as to reduce the problem could result in a protective reaction which results in apathy or a reduction of the importance of the problem. To empirically test these assertions the following hypotheses will be tested using basic social science students at Lansing Community College: I 1. Students who receive a 2-3 week unit on current environmental concerns will Show significant gains in environmental information. 2. Students who receive a 2-3 week unit on current environmental concerns will show significant gains in environmentally positive attitudes. 3. Students who receive a 2-3 week unit on current environmental concerns will show significant gains in willingness to engage in environmentally positive behaviors. 4. Students who are exposed to more mass media, including news media, will not differ from those exposed to less media in environ- mental information, environmental attitudes, or willingness to engage in environmentally positive behaviors. 5. Students who have sophomore standing will not differ from those with freshman standing in environmental information, environ- mental attitudes, or willingness to engage in environmentally 53 positive behaviors. 7. Students who are instructed in steps that they can take to impact environmental problems will demonstrate more positive environ- mental attitudes and more willingness to engage in environmentally positive behaviors than will students not so instructed. Institutional Perspective Founded in 1957, Lansing Community College has steadily grown to an institution currently serving some 17,000 students drawn primarily from the five counties that comprise its service area, namely, Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Shiawasee, and Livingston counties. Since its inception LCC has maintained an open enrollment policy which includes a walk-in registration procedure which provides class offerings to anyone requesting them (see student demographic section). Because of this and because of the diversity of programs and class offerings provided by the college, the student body is made up of all segments of the community. Lansing Community College is an accredited two-year college offering programs in a wide variety of areas. According to the 1976- 78 catalog, "The college is committed to community service programs, college transfer programs, and career training programs." In addition, LCC offers a wide variety of courses designed to establish or upgrade specific skills, meet specific community needs, and provide general education in areas of demonstrated interests. The college is administratively divided into the semi- autonomous divisions of Student Personnel Services, Learning Resources, Arts and Sciences, Business, and Applied Arts and Sciences. 54 All divisions offer coursework through their respective departments. The community college as an institution is by its nature primarily a teaching and community service institution, and largely for this reason has not been the focus of a great deal of research of any nature. However, with the increasing proliferation of community colleges across the country in recent years, and with the greatly increased enrollment of these institutions, the community college has become one of the largest segments of the higher educational institu- tions of the nation. And it is certainly the most representative of the general population insofar as the students it enrolls. Because of its unique relationship to the community it serves, the community college is in many ways the natural location for programs of an environmental nature, particularly as they relate to local community problems and concerns. For this reason many community colleges have undertaken programs of an environmental nature. For example, Lee Junior College at Jackson, Kentucky, has begun a curriculum entitled, "Man and His Total Environment: Focus on Southern Appalachia." The curriculum is designed to stimulate students to think about their heritage (a stated goal of LCC's, incidentally) and the particular region in which they live. Berkshire Community College has founded an environmental studies center. A group of students from five colleges in New York City, including Bronx Community College, conducted a complete ecology survey of the Bronx early in 1971. Numerous community colleges throughout the country have received support under Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to offer community service programs dealing with environmental topics such as air pollution, urban renewal, and so forth. In addition, many 55 community colleges, including Delta Community College in Michigan, offer special public lectures and seminars in environmental concerns. To date Lansing Community College has no cohesive environ- mental education program, although several courses with significant environmental/ecological content are offered in various departments. There is some movement among interested faculty to organize an effec— tive environmental education program, but efforts to date could only be described as in the early planning stage. Subjects The mythical average student at Lansing Community College is a Caucasian, single male, twenty-seven years of age. He has a 2.92 cumulative g.p.a. in college, and is carrying 8 hours of credit. He graduated from a large urban high school with a graduating class of 500 or more, with an A or B average by self report. He claims himself as a dependent, he works 40 hours a week or more, he lives with his parents, he takes classes in the evening, he says he is not interested in student activities, he pays his own tuition and has a family income of $12,000 or higher. The mythical average student is in college to prepare for a new skill or trade, and wants to earn an associate degree and then transfer. He selected Lansing Community College because it was close to home and he says he, himself, was the most influential person in making his choice of Lansing Community College. His father is a high school graduate in a professional job. His mother is also a high school graduate and is a house- wife, and there are 3.4 individuals in his immediate family. (Herder, 1977) The mythical average student at Lansing Community College is also just that, i.e., mythical, and his description, while accurate, does not provide any overall picture of the LCC student body. Con- sequently, a brief description of the demographic characteristics of the LCC student body seems in order. The data reported here is based 56 on approximately 12,000 students who either applied for admissions or completed a student profile sheet during registration for Spring Term 1977. Of those attending LCC approximately 44 percent plan to earn an Associate Degree, and 64 percent of these plan to transfer to another education institution upon completion of the Associate. Thirty-nine percent of the student body does not plan to earn a degree. Most LCC students work. Approximately 26 percent of them .work part time (from 1 to 39 hours per week), 40 percent work full time, and 29 percent are not currently employed. The student body is 52 percent male and 48 percent female. Forty-four percent of the students are married, with a slightly higher percentage of married men than married women (28 and 20 percent respec- tively). In terms of residence, 15 percent of the study body lives on farms or in a rural area, 34 percent live in the suburbs, and 45 per- cent live in the Lansing urban area. Most LCC students pay their own fees (59 percent) and chose LCC because it was close to home (36 percent) and offered classes at lower tuitions (28 percent). Most report being A or 8 students in high school (50 percent) although 40 percent report they had a C average in high school. Forty-nine percent of these students attended high schools whose graduating classes were 300 to 500 or more students. Fathers' occupations are reported as 12 percent professional, 12 percent skilled industrial, and 12 percent as either retired or disabled. The remainder are scattered through a number of categories with approximately 9 percent listed as craftsmen or foremen, 11 percent 57 clerical or sales, and 8 percent unskilled labor. Fathers' educational levels are reported as 28 percent with less than a high school education, 36 percent with a high school educa- tion, 9 percent with two years of college, 12 percent with a four-year degree, and 8 percent with a Masters degree or higher educational attainment. Mothers' educational levels are generally lower with 70 percent reported as having 12 years or less education, 10 percent with a two-year college degree, 9 percent with a four-year degree, and 3 percent with a Masters degree or higher. Family incomes are reported by the students as 11 percent below $2,400 a year, 35 percent between $2,400 and $8,999, 15 percent betwenn $9,000 and $11,000, and 39 percent report family incomes in excess of $12,000 per year. Most LCC students carried less than 8 credits in Spring Term of 1977 (65 percent), while only 26 percent carried 12 or more credits. The age composition of the student body is 20 percent between 16 and 20, 23 percent between 21 and 24, 23 percent from 25 to 29, 20 percent between 30 and 39, and 12 percent are 40 years of age or older. Most LCC students have a high school education or some college. Only 8 percent report less than a high school degree, 35 per- cent report having graduated from high school, 44 percent report having some college, and 14 percent report holding a college degree. The student body is roughly divided between attending day classes only (35 percent), night classes only (37 percent), or both day and night classes (21 percent). Racially, the students are approximately 86 percent white, 5 percent black, and 5 percent other minority classifications. 58 Enrollment by curricular area is 32 percent in Arts and Sciences, 28 percent in Applied Arts and Sciences, 27 percent in Busi- ness, and approximately 5 percent in each of the Preprofessional and Undeclared classifications. In short, the student body at Lansing Community College is fairly representative of the larger population in its service area. Specific Hypotheses To Be Tested The following hypotheses will be tested as a result of under- taking this study. 1. Social Science 101 students at Lansing Community College who receive a basic unit on current environmental concerns of approx- imately two to three weeks duration will_demonstrate significantly more environmental information than Social Science 101 students not receiv- ing the environmental education unit. 2. Social Science 101 students at Lansing Community College who receive the basic environmental unit will_demonstrate significantly more positive environmental attitudes than controls. 3. Social Science 101 students at Lansing Community College who receive the basic environmental unit will_demonstrate significantly more willingness to use more ecologically positive behaviors than con- trols. 4. Social Science 101 sutdents at Lansing Community College who are high consumers of the mass media (news) will_ggt_demonstrate any more environmental information, positive environmental attitudes, nor express any more willingness to use more ecologically positive beha- viors than will low media news consumers. 59 5. Among Social Science 101 students at Lansing Community College, those who have completed a greater number of courses (sopho- mores) will £93 demonstrate significantly different levels of environ- mental information, environmentally positive attitudes, nor express any more willingness to use more ecologically positive behaviors than will those who have accumulated fewer credits (freshmen). 6. Social Science 101 students at Lansing Community College who receive a specially designed presentation in which the instructor demonstrates his concern for environmental problems by modeling ecologically positive behaviors will_demonstrate more positive environ- mental attitudes and more willingness to use more ecologically positive behaviors than will controls not receiving the presentation prior to the post test. 7. Social Science 101 students at Lansing Community College who receive a specially designed presentation which provides the student with numerous examples of environmentally desirable practices that he/she can realistically expect to perform will_demonstrate more posi- tive environmental attitudes and more willingness to use more ecologically positive behaviors than will controls not receiving the presentation prior to the post test. Study Design This study tested seven distinct hypotheses and used differ- ent proceudres depending upon the conditions. Hypotheses one, two, and three state that students who receive the nine-hour environmental education unit will demonstrate higher levels of environmental information, positive environmental 60 attitudes, and positive environmental behaviors respectively, than those who do not receive the instruction. The tests employed for these hypotheses are based on a design described in Campbell and Stanley (1970) as "The Nonequivalent Control Group Design." They permit the inclusion of groups that assemble naturally, such as collectives in classrooms. In this design, the assignment of the treatment to one group or the other is assumed to by random and under the experimenter's control. This design controls for the main effects of history, maturation, testing, and instrumentation. In addition, checks were made to insure that different recruitment to the experimental and control classes was not an impor- tant factor. Despite the fact that this has not been evident in previous terms, a questionnaire was administered the second day of class which asked students for various demographic information, and included a question on why the student was enrolled in that particular course, with that particular instructor, at that particular time. Several categories of possible reasons were suggested as possible responses, including: (1) The course fit my schedule (2) A friend recommended the instructor (3) I knew about the content of the course and was interested in learning more about it (4) Other (which the student was asked to describe) (5) The course was required for my curriculum. The student was asked to include all reasons for enrolling in the course. Out of 153 students sampled, only 7 indicated that they had knowledge of the course content, and none mentioned wanting to know more about the environmental content of the course. Most students 61 indicated the course was required and fit their schedules. A small group, approximately 15 to 20 percent, indicated that the instructor (but not the course content) had been recommended by other students. Thus it can reasonably be concluded that problems associated with the interaction of selection and treatment were minimal. In addition, differences between treatment and nontreatment groups were controlled by the use of ANCOVA with pretest scores being the covariant in all of the hypothesis testing. To test the three hypotheses that experimentals would demon- strate higher scores on the dependent variables of environmental information, positive environmental attitudes, and positive behavioral intentions, nine Introductory Sociology and Anthropology classes, approximately 240 students, were used. Four classes were taught a three-week unit on current environmental issues (the experimentals), while five classes (the controls) did not receive the environmental unit. The experimentals received approximately nine hours of classroom instruction in environmental education. In all classes, all students were administered both the pretest and the posttest. As can be seen this design controls for testing as main effect and interaction. Furthermore, the design insures student anonymity, an important consideration when the topic has socially desirable connotations, and when students in the experimental condition were urged to modify their current behaviors relative to the environ- ment. Hypotheses four and five stipulate that students with higher levels of media news consumption, or college credits earned to date, respectively, will not differ from others with lower media news 62 consumption or less credits, were tested using a one-way ANOVA on the dependent variables of information, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward the environment obtained from the pretest adminis- tered to 240 students in Winter Term, 1978. In the case of the fourth hypothesis, a scale for the degree of media news consumption was constructed from data gathered on the pretest and served as the independent variable. The scale consisted of five questions measuring the number of radio and television news programs heard each week, the number of news magazines read per week, the number of newspapers read each week, and the number of environ- mentally-oriented television programs (such as Wild Kingdom, Cousteau Specials, etc.) viewed each week. Each question had five possible responses, hence the scale had a range from five to twenty-five. Respondents were then classified as low consumers if they scored 5 through 10, medium consumers if they scored 11 through 15, and heavy consumers if they scored 16 through 25. The testing of the fifth hypothesis was intended to determine the effectiveness of the junior college experience in developing a reasonably high level of environmental knowledge and positive environ- mental attitudes in its current students. One approach to making such an assessment is a longitudinal study in which the entering freshmen are tested and then retested later as graduating sophomores. A second method is a cross-sectional study which compares the two groups at one point in time. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages. The longitudinal approach may seem to be the more appropriate at first glance; however, this method leaves open the problem of ascertaining 63 the relative influence of the college experience and other factors. such as increased media coverage between observations, or a well publicized oil spill or nuclear reactor malfunction, and so forth; or an event such as the oil embargo, which could have a great effect on the students' everyday lives. In addition, this method would require a two-year design and would no doubt have serious problems with sample mortality. The cross-sectional method has the advantages of being considerably shorter and minimizing the effects of outside influences by making a single comparison at one point in time. However, the design does not control for the possible differences due to matura- tional considerations. This problem, while not to be lightly dis- missed, was not considered to be overly serious since the time between the pretest and the posttest was only three weeks. With the fifth hypothesis a scale for the number of college credits the student had earned to date was employed on the pretest. The scale consisted of one questionnaire item requesting the student to report the number of college credits earned to date and scaled the responses as follows: (A) O to 15 credits; (8) 16 to 30 credits; (C) 31 to 45 credits; (0) 46 to 60 credits; and (E) over 60 credits. Hypotheses six and seven, which state that students who have an instructor who models environmentalism, or who provides them with examples of positive environmental behaviors that they can employ in their own lives, respectively, were tested in Spring Term, 1978, using random assignment of one-half of the subjects to the respective exper- imental treatments. For hypothesis six, two classes were employed. In each of the two classes one-half of the students were randomly 64 assigned to an experimental group viewing a slide-tape presentation of the instructor modeling environmentally desirable behaviors and expressing his personal concern about environmental problems. The con- trol group received the posttest prior to receiving the special presen- tation. All subjects were pretested and posttested. The test for hypothesis seven uses the same design as that employed for hypothesis six except that in the latter case the exper- imental group received a special subunit, prior to the posttest, consisting of environmentally positive behaviors that the student could take to help lessen the overall negative effects of various environmental problems. The control group did not receive the subunit until after the posttest. For a more detailed description of the treatments for hypotheses six and seven, see Appendix C and 0, respectively. The design used to test hypotheses six and seven is known as the "Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design" in Campbell and Stanly (1970). It is considered a "True Experimental Design.“ The statisti- cal procedure used was a one-way ANCOVA on the posttest (SEAT-A, SEAT-D, Ducat/Harrison Attitude Scale, and Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale) with the pretest scores on these dependent variables acting as the covariants. This design controls for testing as main effect and interaction. Steps were also taken to insure complete student anony- mity (the random assignment was performed by a third party and the investigator remained blind as to the assignment of individual students to either the experimental or control conditions), which is desirable in a situation where the subject under consideration is of the socially desirable sort described above. 65 Assessment Procedures The first five hypotheses were tested in Winter Term, 1978. The pretest was administered in the sixth week of the term before any references were made to the environmental education portion of the course. In this manner the time between the pretest and posttest was minimized. As mentioned above, nine Social Science (Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology) classes were included in this phase of the study. Four were taught by the experimenter (the experimentals) and the other five by three other instructors. Two of these classes were taught evenings, and three were taught days, as were the experimental classes. Separate analysis was conducted for daytime controls and evening controls as an extra precaution, although this proved unneces- sary as test scores proved remarkably similar for both groups, despite the demographic differences of the two student populations. Hypotheses six and seven were tested Spring Term, 1978. Each hypothesis involved two classes, one day and one night class instructed by the experimenter, within which half of the students were randomly assigned to the experimental or control groups without the experimenter's knowledge. The pretest was conducted in the sixth week of the term and the posttest on the completion of the respective treatments in the ninth week of the term. Since prior research in this area has indicated certain demo- graphic factors may influence the possession of environmental informa- tion and/or positive environmental attitudes, information on the following demographic factors was collected for all subjects: age, sex, degree of mass media consumption, income, residence, grade point 66 average, race, earlier exposure to classes with possible environmental education content, total credits earned to date, curriculum, and family of residence. Measures Used Environmental information was assessed using the Syracuse Environmental Awareness Test, Level III, Form A (SEAT-A). See Appendix A and Table 82, Appendix B. This test is intended to provide a reli- able measure of the respondents' knowledge of environmental problems and issues. It consists of 56 multiple-choice questions, each with four possible responses. The SEAT-A was developed at Syracuse University with funds from a grant from the U. 5. Office of Education and sponsorship from the Northeastern Environmental Education Development (NEED), i.e., a ccoperative effort of the State Education Departments of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The principal authors are Dr. David J. Kleinke and Dr. Eric F. Gardner, both of Syracuse University. The SEAT tests were designed after a determination was made, through consultation with numerous educational authorities, as to the general content of a course in environmental education. It was determined that such a course would include segments on (1) pollution, including air, land, noise, and water pollution; (2) population; (3) science, growth, and technology, i.e., elements dealing with the un- checked and ecologically destructive growth of industry in our society; and (4) ecological relationships, i.e., the relationships 67 within and among environmental issues and concerns about biosystems and communities. In addition an attempt was also made to include items which tapped the mental processes that would also be included in the goals of instruction for such a course. The total allocation of items to the cognitive test was as follows: Cognitive Processes Knowledge of Prin- Ability to Apply Content Facts & Items ciples Principles Totals Pollution 17 4 3 24 Science, Growth, & Tech./Ecological Relations 9 5 2 16 Population _8_ _4_ 4 _l_6_ Totals 34 13 9 56 The items were prepared by Syracuse University professors and graduate students and high school teachers in relevant fields. They were then subjected to technical review by measurement specialists, reviewed for subject-matter accuracy by persons in appropriate sub- stantive fields, and condensed into pretests. In 1971 the items were pretested on nearly 4,000 eleventh grade students. In 1972 the final versions were administered in 49 randomly selected schools, in the nine states, to approximately 1,300 students in each of the four norming samples; and norms were developed for each of the nine states participating in the study with state samples stratified on the basis of state population and community size. 68 Test Forms A and B were found to be "virtually identical throughout the total-test score range," as was performance across the nine states participating. Reliability of the tests was determined in two ways. First, internal-consistency estimates were computed using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability coefficients, which were reported at .83 for Form A and .84 for Form B. Test-retest reliability estimates for sub- jects taking the same form one week apart were .79 and .76 respectively, leading the authors to conclude that the "particular time at which one takes a form of SEAT is of little consequence." Nor were second test scores any different from scores on the first administration of the same instrument. The reliability score obtained (using LCC'S KR-20 formula- tion) for the population used in testing the hypotheses of this study reported alpha equal to .799 (N = 202). (See Table 81, Appendix B.) Environmental attitudes were assessed using a 33 percent stratified random sample of the items of the SEAT, Level III, Form 0 (see Appendix 8, Questions 19-53). On January 12, 1978, the writer contacted Dr. David Klienke at Syracuse University concerning the advisability of modifying the scale. 0r. Klienke expressed his belief that the proposed 30 percent sample of items should be adequate to obtain a representative scale. He further advised the writer that the proposed idea of selecting those items with a "p-value" of approx- imately 40 to 60 (meaning that from 40 to 60 percent of the respondents chose the environmental option from the two options available) should prove to be better discriminators than items above or below these “p-values." He also stated that there was no need to randomize the 69 items, and advised that the researcher include an equal number of the best items from each subscale that met the "p-value" criteria above. This procedure was followed, and 35 items were selected for purposes of this study, five questions from each of the seven subscales of the instrument. The SEAT, Level III, Form D, is an attitude scale normally consisting of 105 two-option forced-choice items and is intended to measure overall level of concern for environmental problems, as opposed to concern for other social issues. The test contains an equal number of items on each environmental area discussed for Forms A and B, and was subjected to the same construction considerations as discussed above. Items were prepared at the Syracuse University Institute for Community Psychology, reviewed and tested as with Forms A and 8, received a Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability coefficient for internal-consistency of .95. (See Table 82 in Appendix 8, also the Student Questionnaire Items 90-110 in Appendix 8.) With this high level of internal-consistency, the instrument should retain a very high reliability using a 33 percent sample of the items. This modified instrument did provide a reliable estimate of the level of concern for environmental problems as compared with other social problems and attained a KR-20 reliability of .862 and an alpha (using Michigan State University's SPSS Program) of .867 (N = 181). Furthermore, all items were found to display a fair to high intercor- relation as might be expected, and higher reliabilities could not be obtained by deleting those items with the lowest Corrected Item-Total Correlations, hence the scale was left intact for purposes of analysis (see Table 83, Appendix B, and Appendix 8, items 90-110). The other items of the attitude scale are intended to measure 70 the students' attitudes concerning more specific environmental issues. It consists of 52 items adapted from a questionnaire used by Dr. G. W. Harrison in his 1975 doctoral research at Michigan State University, which investigated the role of a private liberal arts college in fostering an environmental consciousness in its students (see Table 82 in Appendix B and Appendix 8, items 55-89). This questionnaire was first reviewed and ambiguous or out-of-date items were omitted. Next, the remaining items were rewritten in such a manner that they would reflect the respondent's attitude toward only one attitude object per item. In addition, a number of items were reworded for easier compre- hension. The remaining 35 items were included on the questionnaire and when reliability checks were made, eight items were deleted, one because the writer failed to include it on the questionnaire admin- istered (item 62) and seven items because they were poorly correlated with the entire scale. These items were POL-l, POL—2, SW-ll, NRU-2, SW-3, OPT-2, and SW-13, or questionnaire items number 57, 63, 73, 74, 79, 82, and 85, respectively. In no case did the Corrected Item- Total Correlation for these seven items exceed .049. The remaining 27 items formed the Ducat/Harrison Attitude Scale, which yielded an alpha of .779 (see Table 83 in Appendix 8). Observation of this scale suggests that the following kinds of areas are included. However, no cluster analysis, etc., was per- formed as these content areas were not used in any way as subscales: 1. Environmental Education/Information. Environmentalists maintain that environmental education is necessary on a nation-wide basis, hence the attitudes which support this belief will be assumed to be environmentally positive. 50, for example, responding "strongly 71 agree" to "The public schools of our nation do not spend enough time in the teaching of ecology/conservation" will be assumed to reflect a highly positive environmental attitude. 2. Population. Most environmentalists maintain that the expo- nential growth of world population is one of our most serious ecologi- cal problems, hence attitudes reflecting a willingness and/or desire to limit population are assumed to be environmentally positive. Thus, a "strongly agree" or "very strongly agree" to a question such as "In the interest of population control a couple should not have more than two children even though they may be in a financial position to support a large number" is assumed to reflect a highly positive environmental attitude toward population control. 3. Pollution. Environmental experts hold that pollution, in all of its forms, is a very serious ecological problem that must be reduced. Hence attitudes favoring a reduction of various forms of pollution are assumed to be environmentally positive. Thus, a "yes, definitely" response to "Do you believe a government agency should have the right to order your community to cease dumping raw sewage into a nearby stream?" reflects an environmentally positive attitude. 4. Natural Resource Use. Environmental experts maintain that humanity in general, and the United States in particular, is consuming and wasting finite natural resources at an alarming rate, and that if steps are not taken soon to reduce consumption and/or recycle scarce resources, they will soon become completely exhausted. Hence attitudes favoring reduced consumption of natural resources and/or recycling natural resources are assumed to be environmentally positive. Thus, a "very strongly agree" response to "The size of automobiles should be 72 regulated by the Federal Government in order to conserve resources" reflects a positive environmental attitude toward resource use. 5. Energy. Environmentally aware Americans from the President downward in the governmental structure are deeply concerned about our demands for more energy (hence more waste and pollution) and dwindling supplies of many energy-producing resources such as natural gas and oil. Thus, attitudes favoring energy conservation and/or the develop- ment of alternative forms of energy, exempting nuclear power which poses serious environmental dangers, are assumed to be environmentally positive. Hence, a "very strongly agree" response to "One should be willing to curtail his travel by private automobile in order to conserve energy resources" reflects an environmentally positive atti- tude. 6. Endangered Species. Many environmentalists are alarmed at the rate at which both animals and plants are disappearing around the globe, both because they have value in and of themselves and because they represent links in food chains (webs) which man is dependent upon. For these reasons attitudes favoring the preservation of living natural resources will be assumed to be environmentally positive. Thus, an "I do not agree at all" response to "Well meaning but mis- guided people often become entirely too concerned about the loss of a few alligators or birds" is assumed to reflect a positive ecological attitude in this area. 7. Optimism/Pessimism. Closely linked to the seriousness of environmental problems is the belief on the part of the individual that remedial action can be successfully taken to correct them. Most environmentalists maintain that the solutions to many such problems are 73 not simple and will require sacrifices but that they can be solved given a determined effort. For these reasons it is assumed that the most environmentally desirable attitudes along this dimension are those that could be classified as guardedly optimistic. Thus, a "very strongly agree" response to "The possibility of solving the problems of human population increase by voluntary birth control is unlikely" is considered to be environmentally positive. 8. Basic Beliefs/Values. Environmentalists maintain that certain basic beliefs or values are at the base of much environmentally relevant behavior. For this reason subjects who reflect these beliefs will be assumed to possess the most positive attitudes. Thus, a "very strongly agree" response to "American beliefs and values have been a basic cause of our present pollution problems" is considered to be environmentally positive. 9. Environmental Costs. Ecologists agree that environmental reform will involve costs, both in terms of committing greater resources to environmental reform and in terms of changes in lifestyle. They also maintain that the individual who is aware of these necessary costs and willing to pay them has the most environmentally desirable attitude. Thus, a "yes, definitely" response to "Will you be willing to pay sub- stantially higher taxes in the future to help cover the costs of improving the quality of the environment?" is considered to be an environmentally positive attitude. 10. Others' (Governmental) Action vs. Personal Action. Closely related to a knowledge of costs and willingness to make personal sac- rifices to improve the environment are attitudes supportive of both governmental and personal actions which environmentalists indicate are 74 contributing to the solution of the environmental crisis. Caution must be exercised here, however, as supporting others (government) may indicate personal unwillingness to take positive action. In general, however, it is assumed that attitudes favoring governmental and/or personal environmental involvement are the most desirable or environmentally positive. Thus, a "very strongly agree" response to "Anti-littering laws should be consistenly and strongly enforced" is desirable. Yet an "I do not agree at all" response is preferred to the question, "Government would satisfactorily solve most environmental problems if private pressure groups would refrain from getting in- volved." The students' intentions to behave toward selected environ- mental issues were assessed using a scale developed by Dr. Harrison consisting of 21 items that require the student to state a behavioral position in regard to specific environmentally related issues or possible events, e.g., "Do you now or do you plan to begin to recycle your newspaper?" These items, since they did require such a response, were considered to represent a separate scale (or subscale) which was named the Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale (see Appendix 8, items 90-110). This scale obtained an initial KR-20 reliability of .770 (N = 202) and an SPSS alpha of .797. This scale was then sub- jected to the same editing procedure as employed above for the Ducat/ Harrison Attitude Scale, and five items were found to have low Corrected Item-Total Correlations. These items were TI-4, POP-3, SW-7, OPT-3, and SW-15, or questionnaire item numbers 95, 101, 102 (which were dropped because they had zero variance), 107, and 108 (see Table 84 in Appendix B). When these items were deleted, the remaining 16-item 75 Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale yielded an SPSS alpha of .813 (N = 196). This scale was also used as part of a follow-up study con- ducted by this researcher to determine if the expressed behavioral intentions scores obtained on the posttest persisted over time. In the fifth week of the Spring Term a questionnaire was sent out to 10 randomly selected members of each of the four classes receiving the experimental unit in the previous term and the three classes receiving the basic unit in the Fall Term, a total of 70 students (approximately 30 percent). In addition to the l6-item Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale, two open-ended questions were asked. The first requested information as to whether the respondent felt his attitudes toward environmental issues had changed and, if so, what specific factors effected this change in his/her judgment. The second question asked what (if any) actual behaviors toward environmental issues had changed. The fourth hypothesis, which stated that there would be no difference in the dependent variables of environmental information, environmental attitudes, or behavioral intentions as a function of exposure to mass media news, was tested using the data derived from the instruments described above and the student's self-reported estimate of his/her exposure to media news as the independent variable. The fifth hypothesis, which stated that there would be no difference in the dependent variables of environmental information, attitudes, or behavioral intentions, as a function of the number of college credits earned to date was tested using the same instruments used for hypothesis four, but included as the independent variable the 76 scores on a question on the demographic data portion of the ques- tionnaire assessing the number of college credits the respondent had earned to date. The question requested the student to indicate if he/she had earned 0 to 15 credits, 16 to 30 credits, 31 to 45 credits, 46 to 60 credits, or over 60 credits. Hypotheses six and seven will employ the same instruments described above for hypotheses one through five. In the case of hypothesis six, the independent variable is the presence or absence of a special one-hour slide presentation of the instructor modeling the behaviors he advocates the students practice. In the case of the seventh hypothesis, the independent variable is the presence or absence of a special one-hour presentation of practical steps the student could reasonably take to improve the environmental crisis (see Appendix D). In both cases the dependent variables are environ- mental information, attitudes, and behavioral intentions as measured by the SEAT, Level III, Form A; the Ducat/Harrison Attitude Scale; the SEAT, Level III, Form D; and the Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Inten- tion Scale, respectively. CHAPTER IV RESULTS This study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was conducted Winter Term, 1978, and utilized a total of nine Introductory Sociology and Anthropology classes at Lansing Community College, approximately 240 freshman and sophomore students. The first three hypotheses were tested using "The Nonequivalent Control Group Design" in which the students in all classes (four experimental and five con- trol) were pretested for environmental information, environmental attitudes, and environmental behavioral intentions. Next, the exper- imental classes received a special nine-hour unit in current environ- mental problems and concerns, and the controls were taught the custom- ary non-environmental content. All subjects were then posttested, and analysis of covariance was used to determine if experimentals demonstrated greater gains on the dependent variables of information, attitudes, and/or behavioral intentions. During this phase of the study, information was also gathered on the pretest from all subjects to test whether students who had earned more credits (hypothesis four) or who consumed more mass media news (hypothesis five) scored higher on the dependent measures than students with fewer credits or less mass media news exposure. The statistical procedure used was one-way analysis of variance. 77 78 The second phase of the study was conducted Spring Term, 1978, utilizing four Introductory Sociology and Anthropology classes at Lansing Community College. Approximately 150 freshman and sophomore students participated in this phase. The design employed as the "Pre- test-Posttest Control Group Design." In each of the classes one-half of the students were randomly assigned to the experimental or control conditions. Two classes were used to determine if the students pro- duced higher scores on the dependent variables of environmental infor- mation, environmental attitudes, and/or environmental behavioral intentions, as a result of a one-hour subunit in which the instructor modeled positive environmental behaviors in his own lifestyle. The other two classes were used to determine if students produced higher scores on these same dependent measures as a result of the instructor providing them.with a special one-hour subunit in which specific and achievable alternatives to some currently undesirable environmental behaviors were presented. Both of these hypotheses were tested using one-way analysis of covariance on the posttest scores on the dependent variables while controlling for pretest scores. Significance Levels Throughout this study the significance levels employed were as follows. If groups were found to differ to such a degree that chance could only account for the difference one out of ten times (.100), the finding should be termed significant. While this was a departure from the custom of using .050 as the limit for significance, it is entirely reasonable to assert that a difference between groups which could only be attributed to chance one out of ten times, or less, 79 means that one cannot rule out the pgssibility that there was in fact a real difference between our comparison groups, and that it was pre- sumably attributable to the effects of the treatment. If groups were found to differ to such a degree that chance could account for the difference only one out of one hundred times (.010), the finding has been termed very significant. In this case the interpretation advanced is that not only was it possible that a real difference existed between the comparison groups, but that in fact it was highly probable that that was the case. Finally, if groups were found to differ to such a degree that chance could have accounted for the difference one out of one thousand times (.001), the finding has been terms most significant. In that case the interpretation was advanced that it was very highly probable that a real difference existed between the comparison groups. That it was so probable that that difference has been assumed to exist in fact. Hypothesis One The first hypothesis stated that those LCC students who received the unit in current environmental issues and concerns would demonstrate significantly greater gains in environmental information, as measured by the Syracuse Environmental Awareness Test, Level III, Form A (referred to as SEAT-A), than would students in the control group. The hypothesis was tested using one-way analysis of covari- ance on the posttest scores on the SEAT-A, with the pretest scores act- ing as the covariant. As indicated in Table 2, the experimental group had a greater gain in environmental information than did the control 80 group. The probability that this difference in gains was significant was .06. Hypothesis one is therefore accepted as possibly true. (See also Table El, Appendix E.) TABLE 2 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS, SEPARATELY AND COMBINED, BY STUDENT STATUS Test Statistical Signif. Hypothesis Instrument Test Used N DF F of F 1 SEAT-A ANCOVA 239 2 2.885 .058 2 Ducat-1 ANCOVA 239 2 7.546 .001 2 SEAT-D ANCOVA 239 2 2.740 .067 3 BEHINT ANCOVA 239 2 11.107 .001 1 thru 3 PTOTAL* ANCOVA 239 2 5.386 .005 *PTOTAL is the term given the combined posttest instruments above. Further analysis also demonstrated that the students' ages, incomes, curricula, and exposure to other courses with potentially significant environmental content were not significant factors in the outcome reported above (see Table 3). 81 TABLE 3 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT—l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BY INCOME, CURRICULUM. AGE, AND PRIOR EXPOSURE TO COURSES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENT Source of Signif. Variation Scale N F of F Hypothesis One Income SEAT-A 200 1.240 .267 Curriculum SEAT-A 200 1.863 .174 ECOURSE* SEAT-A 200 .008 .928 Age SEAT-A 201 1.227 .302 Hypothesis Two Income SEAT-D 200 2.172 .142 Curriculum SEAT-D 200 1.424 .234 ECOURSE* SEAT-0 200 .116 .734 Age SEAT-D 201 .771 .546 Age Ducat-l 201 .694 .597 Income Ducat-1 201 .976 .423 Curriculum Ducat-l 200 .773 .380 ECOURSE* Ducat-1 200 .252 .616 Hypothesis Three Age BEHINT 201 1.380 .244 Income BEHINT 201 .730 .573 Curriculum BEHINT 200 2.303 .131 ECOURSE* BEHINT 200 .186 .667 *Stands for prior exposure to courses with a possible significant environmental content. Hypothesis Two The second hypothesis postulated that those LCC students who received the unit in current environmental issues and concerns would demonstrate significantly greater gains in positive environmental 82 attitudes, as measured by both the Syracuse Environmental Awareness Test, Level III, Form D (referred to as SEAT-D), and the Ducat/Harrison Environmental Attitude Scale (referred to as Ducat-1), than would controls. The hypothesis was tested using one-way analysis of covari- ance on the posttest scores on these scales with the pretest scores acting as the covariant. As indicated in Table 2, the experimental group did have a greater gain in positive environmental attitudes than did controls. The probability that this difference in gains was sig- nificant was .06 on the SEAT-D and .001 on the Ducat-l. Hypothesis Two is therefore accepted as highly probable. (Also see Tables E2 and E3 in Appendix E.) Further analysis also demonstrated that the students' incomes, curricula, and/or prior exposure to courses with potentially significant environmental content were not significant factors in the outcome reported above (see Table 3). Hypothesis Three The third hypothesis stated that those LCC students who received the unit in current environmental issues and concerns would demonstrate significantly greater gains in environmentally positive behavioral intentions, as measured by the Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale (referred to as BEHINT), than would controls. The hypothesis was tested using one-way analysis of covari- ance on the posttest scores on the BEHINT Scale, with pretest scores acting as the covariant. As indicated in Table 6, the experimental group did have a greater gain in positive behavioral intentions than 83 did controls. The probability that this difference in gains was significant was .001. Hypothesis Three is therefore accepted as most probable. (See Table 2 and Table E4 in Appendix E.) Further analysis also demonstrated that the students' in- comes, curricula, and/or prior exposure to courses with potentially significant environmental content were not significant factors in this outcome (see Table 3). Hypotheses One Through Three Before completing the statistical tests described above, a Pearson Correlation was performed on all of the dependent variables employed in testing the first three hypotheses discussed above. Pre- test scores on all scales employed correlated at or above the .001 level (see Table 4). That finding could indicate that all scales were measuring the same variable. That seemed unlikely, given that one scale was carefully constructed to measure the respondents' possession of environmental information, one was measuring how the respondent ranked environmental problems with other social problems (SEAT-D), another was measuring what actions he/she said he/she would employ on environmentally related issues, and one was measuring atti- tudes of a more general environmental nature. A second possible interpretation of the correlation was that the three dependent variables, i.e., environmental information, environmental attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward the environ- ment were very closely related. That in fact knowing one allowed one to accurately predict the other two. Pursuing the idea, it was decided to check posttest scores on the dependent variables to see if the 84 earlier relationship held, and it did. On posttest scores all of the dependent measures maintained a correlation with each other which was significant at or above the .001 level (see Table 5). No matter which way one interpreted these findings, it could be argued that the sum of the changes from the pretest to the posttest on all scales could be used for testing the first three hypotheses together. When treated that way our hypothesis would read that those students receiving the experimental treatment would gain more in environmental infbrmation, would develop more positive environmental attitudes, and would say they would behave in ways more favorable to the environment than would controls. When this combined hypothesis was tested using one-way ANCOVA on the posttest scores on all instru- ments with pretest scores on all instruments acting as the covariate, a very significant difference was found in favor of the experimental group. The differences were significant at the .005 level (see Table 2 and Table E5 in Appendix E). At this point it was decided to treat the first three hypotheses jointly and to combine all the scales employed in testing the first three hypotheses separately into a single variable. That combined measure was termed STOTAL (for the combined pretest scales) or PTOTAL (for the combined posttest scales). Analysis was conducted to determine if student status groups differed significantly on any of the demographic variables on the pre- test. If such were the case that might be affecting the results obtained. Analysis of variance was performed on each demographic 85 variable (acting as the independent variable in this case) with student status acting as the dependent variable, with the following results: ECOURSE (prior exposure to courses with potentially signifi- cant environmental content) was found to differ significantly between the student status groups (p = .041); the same held true for place of residence (p = .058), family (0 = .003), marital status (0 = .002), income (0 = .043), and age (p = .001); and differences between student status groups on the other demographic variables were not significant. They are curriculum (0 = .713), sex (0 = .880), grade point average (0 = .727), and race (0 = .444). Since some, or potentially all of these differences between student status grou 5 could be affecting the results obtained, it was decided to examine each of the demographic variables' effects on post- test scores (PTOTAL) while controlling for any differences due to pretest (STOTAL). The resulting analysis of covariance failed to Show any significant diffe ences on posttest scores for any of the demo- graphic variables (see Table 6). Hence we see that none of those variables can explain the results obtained. While it is true t at attitudes are difficult to measure at best and that subjects do know the socially desirable responses (on both the pretest and the posttest) and could be report- ing what the researcher wanted to hear, that seemed unlikely given the magnitude of the changes and differences between treatment groups. However, the possibility does always exist in such research. PEARSON CORRELATIONS FOR PRETEST ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS SCALES 86 TABLE 4 SEATAl SEATDl DUCAT1 BEHINT POPSUB SEATAl * SEATDl .8811 8 (240) S - .001 DUCAT1 .8947 .9492 * (240) (240) S - .001 S - .001 BEHINT .8541 .9229 .9471 * (240) (240) (240) S - .001 S — .001 S - .001 POPSUB .8450 .9212 .9395 .6637 * (240) (240) (240) (240) S - .001 S - .001 S - .001 S - .001 87 TABLE 5 PEARSON CORRELATIONS FOR POSTTEST ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS SCALES SEATAl SEATDl DUCAT1 BEHINT POPSUB SEATAl * SEATDl .9831 * (240) S - .001 DUCAT1 .9244 .9169 * (240) (240) S - .001 S — .001 BEHINT .9011 .9022 .9175 * (240) (240) (240) S - .001 S - .001 S - .001 POPSUB .9253 .9245 .9534 .9033 * (240) (240) (240) (240) S - .001 S - .001 S - .001 S - .001 88 TABLE 6 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS COMBINED BY PRIOR EXPOSURE TO COURSES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENT, RACE, CREDITS EARNED TO DATE, AGE, SEX, CURRICULUM, FAMILY OF RESIDENCE, MARITAL STATUS, AREA OF RESIDENCE, INCOME, AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE Source of Signif. Variation Scale N F of F ECOURSE* PTOTAL** 180 .537 .465 Race PTOTAL 201 ' 1.570 .198 Credit PTOTAL 201 .331 .857 Age PTOTAL 201 .537 .708 Sex PTOTAL 201 1.264 .262 Curriculum PTOTAL 200 .814 .518 Family PTOTAL 198 .330 .719 Marital Status PTOTAL 201 .129 .879 Residence PTOTAL 201 .427 .653 Income PTOTAL 201 1.010 .403 G.P.A. PTOTAL 180 2.091 .103 *Stands for prior exposure to courses with a possibly significant environmental content. **Stands for the combined posttest scores on the SEAT-A, SEAT-D, Ducat-1, and BEHINT scales (while controlling for the combined pretest scores). 89 FollowsUp Stpdy In the sixth week of the Spring 1978 Term a follow-up study was conducted on students who had received the experimental treatment the previous Winter and Fall terms. A questionnaire was mailed to 70 randomly selected students, ten from each class receiving the treat- ment (or approximately a 30 percent sample). The questionnaire was made up of the 16 item Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale (to assess whether attitudes and behavioral intentions persisted over time) and the following two open—ended questions (which were designed to act as stimulus questions) to help to determine the causes for and conse- quences of, the attitude change demonstrated to result from the treat- ment: 1. If you feel that your attitudes toward environmental issues and problems changed as a result of taking Social Science 101, can you explain in your own words what caused this change? Can you remember any specific events, information, etc., that you feel were parti- cularly influential in producing the change? 2. Since taking Social Science 101 have you begun to recycle paper, glass, etc., tried harder to conserve any resources, driven less, etc.? In other words, please identify any and all ways in which your actual behavior toward the environment has changed as a result of the class. Of the 70 questionnaires mailed out, 59 were returned, or approximately 85 percent. This unusually high response rate was seen as a further indication of the students' high interest in the course and study, as well as his/her desire to assist in the further develop- ment of environmental education at LCC. Most of the nonrespondents were students who could not be reached because of a change of address. 90 In response to the first question, eleven students failed to indicate any substantial change in attitudes as a result of the treat- ment. However, of these, five students left the question blank, two claimed no change in attitudes but did indicate changes in environ- mental behaviors, one said his/her attitudes were not affected because he/she was already very pro environmentalism as a result of an eighth grade ecology class, and one student said that while his/her attitudes had not changed, he/she "thought about it (ecology) more." Of the forty-eight students who indicated that their atti- tudes had changed as a result of receiving the treatment, the following reasons were given (note that some students listed more than one reason): 40 - students attributed the change to the general informa- tion presented. 8 - students cited the information presented relative to the depletion of natural resources. 3 - students attributed the change to the instructor's modeling of environmentally positive behaviors in his own lifestyle. 6 - students cited the text (Vance Packard's The Waste Makers) as being most influential in changing their attitudes. 2 - students cited the recommended text (Meadows and Meadows, The Limits to Growth) as the primary source of attitude Ehange. 6 - students attributed their change in attitudes to fear, i.e., the material presented alarmed them. 3 - students cited the source of change as an understanding of the concept of the exponential growth of population and/or resource consumption. 6 - students attributed their change in attitudes to the instructor's persuasiveness. In summary, there seems to be no clear-cut cause for the change according to the students' responses. Rather, the change in environmental attitudes seems to be a function of the total treatment. This is encouraging since the treatment's effectiveness does not appear 91 to be the result of the personality or teaching style of any single instructor, but rather the nature of the information presented. In response to the second question concerning actual behavior changes as a result of the treatment, students reported the following: 15 - students reported that they now drive less. 14 - students said they have attempted to educate others regarding environmental issues or practices. 14 - students reported that they have lowered the thermostat in their homes. 5 - students said they have organized car pools. 8 - students reported they are avoiding the purchase of plastics and/or aerosols. ll - students said they have started using alternate transportation. 11 - students reported recycling miscellaneous items for the first time. 12 - students reported recycling glass for the first time. 15 - students reported recycling paper for the first time. 4 - students reported recycling aluminum cans for the first time. 17 - students claim to have taken serious steps to conserve electricity. 4 - students indicated they have started compost piles in preparation for more organic gardening practices. 2 - students reported they have sought out more environ- mental information on their own. 18 - students reported other changes which the researcher has classified as miscellaneous. Those include correcting people who litter, making more of their own foods, using a clothesline instead of a clothes dryer, buying a wood burning stove or economy car, starting a garden for the first time, avoiding processed foods where possible, one student reporting that he quit hunting, upgrading the insulation in the home, changing plans for a large family, starting a neighborhood clean-up campaign, and joining the LCC Ecology Club. Finally, when cell mean analysis was performed on the exper- imental group for pretest, posttest, and follow-up study, the follow- ing means were obtained on the Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale: pretest mean, 45.939; posttest mean, 53.878; and follow-up mean, 58.952. 92 For experimental subjects, not only were the gains on the posttest very significant, but the behavioral intentions scores seemed to continue to increase after the posttest for up to six months. Those findings are consistent with cognitive dissonance theory in that as behavioral intentions become more environmentally positive, the probability of more positive actual behavior increases (as demonstrated by the follow-up study) which in turn reinforces the individual's posi- tive attitudes and behavioral intentions, and so on. When these findings were considered, especially in the light of the findings on the follow-up study, all three hypotheses, as well as actual behavior change, appeared highly tenable. Hypothesis Four Hypothesis four postulated that those students who indicated they were large consumers of mass media news would not differ signi- ficantly from those students indicating they were small consumers of mass media. To test this hypothesis a scale was constructed (labeled Mediapre) which incorporated all five items on the questionnaire relating to media consumption. For convenience the five items requested the respondent to report his/her average weekly consumption of television news broadcasts, newspapers, news magazines, radio news broadcasts, and television programs and/or specials with a substantial environmental content (such as Wild Kingdom, Cousteau Specials, etc.). Analysis first indicated that there were no significant differences between treatment and control groups in overall media con- sumption on the pretest (p = .146, N = 239). See Table 7 below. 93 TABLE 7 ANOVA RESULTS FOR MEDIA CONSUMPTION BY STUDENT STATUS Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 3.598 2 1.799 1.941 .146 SSTAT 3.598 2 1.799 1.941 .146 Explained 3.598 2 1.799 1.941 .146 Residual 219.586 237 .927 Total 223.183 239 .934 Next, a scale was constructed for light, medium, and heavy consumers of the mass media with light consumption equal to a total score of 5 through 10, medium consumption equal to a total score of 11 through 15, and heavy consumption equal to a total score of 16 through 25 (each question that constituted the scale had five choices of levels of consumption of its respective media, arranged in ascending order from low to high, hence a score of 5 was the lowest possible and a score of 25 the highest possible (see Appendix 8, Student Questionnaire Items 14-18). The hypothesis was tested using one-way analysis of variance on the three dependent variables of information, attitudes, and beha- vioral intentions, with degree of media consumption acting as the independent variable. Analysis of 202 subjects produced the following results: the significance of the relationship between exposure to mass media news and environmental information was .521; the significance of the relationship between environmental attitudes (as measured by the 94 SEAT-D scale) and exposure to mass media news was .706; the signifi- cance of the relationship between exposure to mass media news and environmental attitudes (as measured by the Ducat/Harrison Attitude Scale) was .999; and the significance of the relationship between exposure to mass media news and environmental behavioral intentions was .898 (see Tables 85 through 88, Appendix 8). Hence the data clearly supported the contention that analysis fails to reject the null hypothesis (see Table 8 and Tables 85 through 88, Appendix B). TABLE 8 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BY MASS MEDIA NEWS CONSUMPTION Variable F Probability Environmental Information (SEAT-A) .655 .521 Environmental Attitudes (SEAT-D) .348 .706 Environmental Attitudes (DUCAT-l) .001 .999 Behavioral Intentions .108 .898 Further analysis was performed on the effects of each type of media consumption on each of the scales employed in the pretest. In no case, save one, did any type of media consumption have a significant effect on any score on any of the information, attitude, or behavioral intention scales. The exception was consumption of news magazines with environmental information and behavioral intentions. The analysis 95 revealed a curvilinear relationship in both of those cases with both very high and very low consumers of news magazines scoring signifi- cantly lower than moderate consumers in their possession of environ- mental information and their behavioral intentions toward environmental issues and concerns (see Tables 9 and 10). Those findings suggest that those individuals who read some news magazines are more aware and concerned that those who are very heavy readers or nonreaders. However, caution must be exercised here as there are very few subjects in the highest consumption category, and tnere is reason to suspect that they may not be altogether accurate/honest in their estimates of how many news magazines they read per week. TABLE 9 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BY EXPOSURE TO NEWS MAGAZINES Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 632.392 4 158.098 2.974 .021 MEDIA3 632.392 4 158.098 2.974 .021 Explained 632.392 4 158.098 2.974 .021 Residual 10473.152 197 53.163 Total 11105.545 201 55.251 GRAND MEAN = 33.85 DEVIATIONS FROM GRAND MEAN BY CATEGORY: Less Than One News Magazine Per Week .68 Between 1 and 2 Per Week -.46 (Neg) Between 3 and 4 Per Week .46 Between 5 and 6 Per Week 1.15 7 or More News Magazines Per Week -ll.85 (Neg) 96 TABLE 10 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BY EXPOSURE TO NEWS MAGAZINES Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 1609.549 4 402.387 4.893 .001 MEDIA3 1609.549 4 402.387 4.893 .001 Explained 1609.549 4 402.387 4.893 .001 Residual 16201.030 197 82.239 Total 17810.579 201 88.610 GRAND MEAN = 53.30 DEVIATIONS FROM GRAND MEAN BY DEGREE 0F EXPOSURE TO NEWS MAGAZINES: Less than one per week -.48 Between one and two 1.51 Between three and four .01 Between five and six 3.70 Seven or more per week -l8.55 (Neg) Hypothesis Five The fifth hypothesis asserted that there would be no signifi- cant differences in environmental information, environmental attitudes, and/or environmental behavioral intentions between students who were just beginning their college education and those who had completed one or two years of instruction. In the demographic section of the pretest questionnaire information was collected as to the number of college credits the student had earned to date. The criteria were as follows: (A) 0 to 15 credits; (8) 16 to 30 credits; (C) 31 to 45 credits; (0) 46 to 60 97 credits; and (E) over 60 credits. The hypothesis was tested using one- way analysis of variance on the dependent variables of information (SEAT-A), attitudes (SEAT-D and Ducat/Harrison Attitude Scales), and behavioral intentions (Ducat/Harrison Behavioral Intention Scale) with the number of credits earned to date acting as the independent vari- able. Analysis yielded the following results: the significance of differences in college credits earned to date on the SEAT-A (informa- tion) Scale was .576; the SEAT-D (attitudes) Scale was .608, the Ducat/Harrison Attitude Scale was .164, the Behavioral Intentions Scale was .033, and all scales combined yielded a significance of .795 (see Table 11 and Tables 89-813 in Appendix 8). TABLE 11 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BY CREDITS EARNED TO DATE Variable F Probability Information (SEAT-A) .724 .576 Attitudes (SEAT-D) .678 .608 Attitudes (DUCAT-l) 1.648 .164 Behavioral Intentions 2.684 .033 All Scales Combined (PTOTAL) .418 .795 While it would appear that the number of college credits a student has earned to date does have a significant impact on his/her intentions to behave toward environmental issues, the findings are not directional, i.e., those students with more credits did not have more 98 positive behavioral intentions. Cell mean analysis supported this interpretation as follows: Grand Mean = 53.30 Deviations from Grand Mean by credits earned: 0 to 15 credits - .01 (Neg) N = 98 16 to 30 credits .19 N = 43 31 to 45 credits 3.86 N = 24 46 to 60 credits -5.58 (Neg) N = 18 Over 60 credits .01 N = 19 Thus the data clearly indicated a failure to reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis Six The sixth hypothesis predicted that subjects who received a special one-hour treatment in which the instructor expressed his personal concern about environmental problems and modeled environ- mentally positive behaviors would demonstrate more positive attitudes, and more positive behavioral intentions (see Appendix C). The hypothesis was tested using one-way ANCOVA on the com- bined posttest measures (PTOTAL) while controlling for the scores on the combined pretest measures (STOTAL). The test did demonstrate higher scores for experimentals, but these differences were not sig- nificant (S - .637, see Table 12). Further analysis, controlling for various demographic variables as well as pretest, modified the results reported above, but in no case was a significant difference reported between student status groups. Thus the data dictated that hypothesis six be rejgcted. While the hypothesis had to be rejected, the researcher believes it is necessary to explain that several factors may have had 99 an adverse effect on the objectivity with which this test was con- ducted. When testing this hypothesis it was very difficult, in fact impossible, to conceal personal feelings about current environmental problems. Hence both experimental and control subjects knew that the instructor was greatly concerned. In addition, on several occasions examples were used to explain points raised in class which resulted in the students discovering that the instructor did in fact attempt to incorporate positive environmental practices into his lifestyle. For example, when a student in one class asked a question regarding the most desirable woods to use for home heating, the writer responded that he always tried to get oak or hickory for his stove; or when a student in another class asked where she could recycle glass, the writer responded that he took his to the recycling station at a nearby supermarket. TABLE 12 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS COMBINED BY INSTRUCTOR'S MODELING Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares 0F Square F of F Covariates 37.329 1 37.329 .098 .755 STOTAL 37.329 1 37.329 .098 .755 Main Effects 85.811 1 85.811 .226 .637 SSTAT 85.811 1 85.8I1 .226 .637 Explained 123.140 2 61.570 .162 .851 Residual 17080.839 45 379.574 GRAND MEAN = 333.52 Total 17203.979 47 366.042 DEVIATIONS FROM THE GRAND MEAN ADJUSTED FOR COVARIATES: Control Group e 1.27 (Neg) Experimentals - 1.50 100 Hypothesis Seven The seventh hypothesis predicted that subjects who received a special one-hour treatment in which the instructor provided students with numerous specific examples of environmentally desirable practices that he/she could realistically expect to be able to perform, would demonstrate more positive environmental attitudes and more willingness to use more ecologically positive behaviors than would controls not exposed to the special treatment prior to the posttest (see Appendix D). The hypothesis was tested using one-way ANCOVA on the com- bined posttest measures (PTOTAL) while controlling for the scores on the combined pretest measures (STOTAL). The test did demonstrate higher scores for experimentals but these differences were not signi- ficant (S - .755, see Table 13). Further analysis, controlling for various demographic variables as well as pretest, modified the results reported above, but in no case was a significant difference reported between student status groups. Thus the data dictated that hypothesis seven be rejected. It should be mentioned, however, that in the testing of this hypothesis, problems similar to those discussed above for hypothesis six may also have been present. The type of "slips" discussed for hypothesis six not only alerted the students to the instructor's concern/modeling, they also pointed to means of altering environmental practices in a positive manner. In addition, means of effecting pos- itive environmental change were discussed in a general way in several of the handouts and readings comprising the main treatment received by both experimental and control subjects (see Appendix E). It is entirely possible, and well worth researching futher, that some type 101 of "ceiling effect" might be operative in the testing of these hypo- theses. It is possible that beyond some minimal level, increased modeling and/or presentation of possible meaningful alternative beha- viors, especially within a very limited time span, lose their ability to foster increasingly higher test results. TABLE 13 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS COMBINED BY PROVISION OF SPECIFIC ALTERNATE BEHAVIORS Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 378.113 1 378.113 .927 .341 STOTAL 378.113 1 378.113 .927 .341 Main Effects 40.089 1 40.089 .098 .755 SSTAT 40.089 1 40.089 .098 .755 Explained 418.202 2 209.101 .513 .603 Residual 17131.798 42 407.900 GRAND MEAN = 333.67 Total 17550.000 44 398.864 DEVIATIONS FROM GRAND MEAN ADJUSTED FOR COVARIATES: Control Group - .92 (Neg) Experimentals - .97 Variations in Environmental Awareness By CUrriculum Catggories Question 10 on the "Student Questionnaire" asked the student to indicate the general curriculum in which he/she was enrolled. The options on this closed questionnaire item were as follows: (A) Arts and Sciences; (8) Applied Arts and Sciences; (C) Business; 102 (D) Preprofessional Education; and (E) Undeclared. When all instruments were combined (the resulting variable was called STOTAL and included pretest information scores as measured by SEAT-A; both attitude scales, i.e., the SEAT-D and the Ducat/Harri- son attitude scale; and the Ducat/Harrison BehaVioral Intention Scale) and a cell mean analysis was performed, the following results were obtained: Total Mean for the Entire Population 232.46 (N = 201) Arts and Sciences 241.96 (N = 46) Applied Arts and Sciences 232.57 (N = 23) Business 221.13 (N = 46) Preprofessional Education 231.87 (N = 45) Undeclared Major 235.98 (N = 41) As can be seen, the highest scores were found in those stu- dents enrolled in the Arts and Sciences, which is consistent with other studies of this nature. The lowest scores were found among students enrolled in Business, which is also consistent with other studies' findings, and probably suggests both a lack of exposure to environ- mental education as well as some selective perception (discounting or avoidance or both) of the information that the student is exposed to. This interpretation, while not original, is consistent with the general cognitive dissonance theory. The other categories were generally quite similar in scores on the pretest. This data would suggest the following: 1. Overall scores were reasonably low (as there were 371 points possible); in fact, approximately 62.5 percent, below failing in the writer's classes. 2. Business and Preprofessional Education majors could benefit most from environmental education courses (although all students could benefit). 103 Posttest scores show the following gains for experimental subjects: average gain, 53; Arts and Sciences gain, 30; Applied Arts and Sciences gain, 17; Business gain, 81; Preprofessional gain, 39; and undeclared major gain, 59. Hence we see that those students with the least prior exposure (i.e., the lowest pretest scores) had the greatest gains as a result of the treatment. Those results are probably due to the effects of other demographic variables such as age, sex, etc., operative within the respective curriculum categories. It is, however, gratifying to see that Business majors made such dramatic gains. The writer is at a loss to explain the relative small gains made by Applied Arts and Sciences majors, unless this finding represented an overly optimistic assess- ment of the ability of technology to effect cures for environmental problems. In the future, researchers in this area might consider a closer examination of the reasons for such differential gains and whether or not such gains persist over time for each of the groups equally. If this were so, it might provide some very helpful insights into the most profitable curriculum areas to stress more environmental education. Variations in Environmental Awareness by Courses Previously:Taken WhiCh Potentially Contain SUbstantial EnVironmental Content Questions 11, 12, and 13 on the "Student Questionnaire" asked the student to indicate any (and all) of the courses he/she had taken of the following: (1) Rocks and Stars; (2) Biology; (3) Zoology; (4) A Course on Energy; (5) Mother Earth; (6) Living with Nature; (7) Living 104 World; (8) The Curious Naturalist; (9) Environmental Photography; (10) Any other conservation or ecology course; (11) High School Biology; (12) High School Zoology; (13) High School Conservation; (14) High School Ecology; and (15) High School General Science. Analysis of cell means was performed on the pretest data obtained Winter Term with the following results (note: some cate- gories were not checked at all and other contained one or two students, hence only those categories checked by five or more students were reported): Total Mean for All Subjects 196 (N = 240) Rocks and Stors 238 (N = 39) Biology 228 (N = 30) Zoology 232 (N = 10) A Course on Energy 254 (N = 14) Living with Nature 222 (N = 7) Living World 231 (N = 20) Other (College) Courses 216 (N = 16) High School Biology 224 (N = 30) High School Zoology 220 (N = 5) High School Conservation 221 (N = 7) High School Ecology 215 (N = 8) High School General Science 220 (N = 28) Those not taking any of the above courses 167 (N = 141) Those taking the Experimental Treatment (posttest score) 291 (N = 125) As can be seen, those who had not taken any courses with potential environmental content scored much lower than those who had. It is also worthwhile to note that the majority of the students had not taken such a course in either high school or college (approximately 67 percent). Care must be exercised in interpretation of these results, especially with those courses with a small number. However, it can be seen that all have some positive effect. The reader should also be 105 aware that some students will have checked two or more courses, hence the resulting means could at least partially reflect the combined effects of multiple courses with possible environmental content. Even observing these cautions, several general conclusions can be made. 1. Exposure to environmentally related courses does improve environmental awareness. 2. Most students (approximately two-thirds) had not received such exposure prior to enrolling in Social Science 101 at Lansing Com- munity College. 3. Exposure to environmental information seems to affect information and attitudes over time. This can best be observed in the higher mean scores for those taking high school environmental courses and in the follow-up study discussed in detail above. Variations in Pretest Environmental Awareness by Demographic Characteristics Demographic information was collected by the first 13 ques- tions on the "Student Questionnaire." Each student reported his/her sex, marital status, age, race, number of credits earned to date, grade point average, area of residence, family income, composition of family of residence, curriculum, and courses previously taken which might have substantial environmental content. Cell mean analysis was performed on all pretest scores for all demographic variables by category with the following results (see also Table 14). 1. Grade Point Average. There was no difference in pretest scores by grade point average. 106 N oNN mm mom ow wNN mm NNN huge N- NPN mg NNN NN mgN mN mNN gagggggm g NNN N» mmN gg NgN m» NNN paggg o gNN mm gNN mN_ NNN. NN gNN mpago» .Nozmgemog NO». as» Fm- No» N NNN m SPN Agawogoa» Lafio mN» NNN N_- mm» m ogN » Na» .gosg gm»gggm NN NNN g N_N m NON a __N gog_m N- NFN mm NNN m.» NNN go NNN ogwgz o gNN mm gNN mN_ NNN NN gNN mpa»o» .No posucou ammumgm hmmphmoa oz< Hmmhmma zmmzhmm .maomw m3hm m4m omxamzo »zoo»»»zm»m z»_o»»zo»oo z»»3 momzooo o» ozomooxo zowzo to» mozo»m* em 0— so: mm: ON 0 NF we NN: o cw: N mm ml Pm Fm NF mm mm: Fol FwN NMN mwp mm» voN oNN mmN mmN MON oNN oNF NmN NmN PNN NoN mmN mmN mwN map map mMN NNN FON mmN ooN mNN mFN —mN wwp mMN NON vNN mm MNN NNN Npm mom FwN omN owN mON omN omN omN omm «Fm pmN NmN pmN Nom NNN men NmN mmN owN mmN mFN mNN owN opm oNN mNN mmN CNN 3% mmN NPN moN mmN me mmN NVN mMN NMN «MN va mmN omN moN Pup FON moN MMN oNN mMN mvN NMN NMN FMN NMN NmN NMN mNN ooN pzN poN NMN w w m «P mm mm F— my no mm oNN NNN MMN ONN oNN oNN PNN oNN mNN oNN omN omN NFN mNN Pop mmp mFN OMN wFN NNN FMN mNN FNN oNN omN oNN NNN mNN CNN mNN MNN oNN om Lw>o owumo meupm omump mpno mpo»0h .mhmommo ooozo>wo oowzzoz opmz»m mpo»o» .aop»Hzo coo.ONg-m»» ooo.m_g-o_g ooo.o»»-m» coo.mg gong: m_a»o» .Nzooz» 108_ 2. Sex. There was very little difference in pretest scores by sex, although females do score slightly higher than males. 3. Age. Few clear patterns could be detected in the data for age differences, although the 30 to 39 age group did score higher than others. 4. Race. Whites scored significantly higher than non- whites. That finding is consistent with other research of this nature. 5. Residence. No clear patterns emerged for this variable. 6. Income. No clear patterns emerged for this variable. 7. Curriculum. See separate discussion above. 8. Prior exposure to courses with potential environmental content. See separate discussion above. 9. Marital Status. No clear patterns emerged for this variable. 10. Number of college credits earned to date. No clear patterns could be detected in the data. However, students with 45 to 60 credits scored the lowest (perhaps due to their avoidance of $5101 at some prior time which suggested lower interest in the subject matter of the course). 11. Family of Residence. No clear patterns could be detected. from the data. Differential Effects of Treatment bpremographic Characteristics Identical demographic information was also collected on the posttest for all subjects, thus allowing pretest/posttest comparisons of the treatment effects (the data reported below is for Winter Term 109 Experimental Subjects only, N = 125). 1. Grade Point Average. While gains were made by every G.P.A. category, those students with moderate G.P.A.'s made the most substantial gains. That is no doubt partly due to the fact that those students began with lower scores, and was probably affected also by the interaction of other demographic characteristics. 2. Spy, While gains were made by both sexes, females made significantly greater gains than males. That result might have been due to the interaction of other demographic variables such as age, marital status, family, and prior exposure to courses with environ- mental conent. The fact that the treatment was presented by a male instructor may have had an impact. However, the pattern was not repeated in the Spring Term data. 3. Agg, All categories showed similar gains from pretest to posttest except the 24 to 29 year olds (N = 10). Those students actually declined 26 points. While this researcher is at a loss to pinpoint the reason for that effect, several possibilities should be considered. First, the result might have been due to the interaction of other demographic variables such as race, marital status, family, or number of college credits earned to date. Second, that age group was the group which was, in all probability, just beginning to become established and begin a family, and so forth, and as such might have been the most threatened (hence the most resistent) to some of the content of the treatment. That could be especially true of the content involving consumption, pollution, and limitation of family size. 4. ngg, This is perhaps one of the most significant findings of that section of the study. AS can be seen whites made 110 significant gains from pretest to posttest but nonwhites made either very small gains or significant losses. While caution must be exer- cised here due to the small number of nonwhite subjects (this pattern was, however, repeated in the Spring Term data), several possibilities should be considered. First, it is possible that the result was due to the interaction of other demographic characteristics such as age, marital status, or family. Second, it 15 possible that those groups are the most immediately threatened by environmental reforms and hence most apt to resist those values. This latter interpretation is con- sistent with others' findings and speculations and should most certain- ly be considered when designing an environmental education course to be taught to a group with substantial minority composition. In such a case, care should be taken to place a greater emphasis on the bene- ficial effects (especially financial and employment related effects) of environmental reform. 5. Residence. While all groups made gains from pretest to posttest, the greatest gains were made by those students who resided in the city. That is probably due to the fact that negative environ- mental conditions are most readily apparent in the city, and students who reside there were most immediately affected. This interpretation has support in the literature, and also gains support when the overall pattern is considered; i.e., rural residents' gains are the lowest, followed by suburban and city residents. 6. lpppmg, As can be seen, all income groups showed gains from pretest to posttest except the $15,000 to $20,000 income group (N = 21). No doubt some interaction with other demographic character- istics influenced that finding, e.g., age, marital status, family, etc. 111 That is probably also the same group discussed earlier, which was in the process of trying to become established financially and hence most apt to resist some of the content and attitudes advocated in the treat- ment. Those with the highest incomes showed the greatest gains. 7. Curriculum. See separate discussion above. It is also interesting to note that the lowest gains were made by Applied Arts and Sciences majors, who may place a greater psychological investment in technological solutions to environmental problems, and that the greatest gains were made by business majors. The writer finds the latter observation both very encouraging in general and believes such a finding speaks very favorably for the probability of the success and popularity of environmental education courses both within the Business Department and the larger business community. Active environmentalism is good business (in the long term and in many cases in the short term as well) and those students seemed to be very receptive to this reality. 8. Prior exposure to courses withypotential environmental content. See separate discussion above. It is also interesting to note that by far the greatest gains were made by students with no prior exposure to environmental courses. This finding is consistent with other research findings on the relationship between environmental information and attitudes/behavioral intentions. It is also worthwhile to note that students who had pre- viously taken courses with potential environmental content also showed significant gain scores. This suggests that courses such as biology and zoology do provide the student with concepts and information which can be valuable in assisting him/her to readily grasp environmental concepts. It does not,_however, argue strongly for these courses as 112 prerequisites for a course in environmental education, given the gains made by students who had not taken such courses. Finally, it should be noted that while students who had taken courses in biology, zoology, etc., did have somewhat higher pretest scores (but not significantly so, as hypothesis five indicated), great improvement occurred as a result of the treatment. That reinforces the finding that if educational institutions want to produce environment- ally literate students, they must teach courses specifically aimed at this objective. By and large, environmental concepts do not "rub off" in non-environmental education courses, nor do students arrive at such concepts as a result of integrating concepts learned in other related courses or disciplines. 9. Marital Status. While single and divorced or separated students showed significant gains from pretest to posttest, married students actually declined on posttest scores. That outcome was, no doubt, partly the result of the interaction of other demographic charac- teristics such as family, age, and income. It was also probably par- tially due to the fact that, once again, those young marrieds were members of that group discussed above who were struggling to establish themselves financially and thus were more resistent to some of the content and values inherent in the treatment. There may be another process which played a role in the result as well. While the writer cannot substantiate this interpreta- tion, it occurred to him that the spouse of the married student might detract from the positive impact of the treatment for various reasons, e.g., to "protect" the spouse, to justify unecological personal prac- tices or occupational choice, etc. 113 10. College credits previously completed. All groups showed significant gains except those with 46 to 60 credits, who gained five points from pretest to posttest. Interpretation of that finding would include the interaction of other demographic character- istics such as marital status, family, and age. One could also postulate that students taking Social Science 101 after accumulating that number of credits were more likely to have a lower interest in the course and were taking it to "get it out of the way for graduation." ll. fpmily. Students living alone or with their parents showed significant gains from pretest to posttest; those living with a spouse actually decreased on their posttest scores. Again, the writer believes that result is partially due to the interaction of other demo- graphic characteristics such as age, income, marital status, etc., and partially due to the reasons discussed above for marital status and income; i.e., the group of young marrieds may have been deeply com- mitted to establishing themselves financially at that point in their lives, and as a result may have been more resistent to the treatment. The above study also lends support to the contention that the operation of cognitive dissonance may be instrumental in motivating and supporting new environmental behaviors, as well as opposing the acquisi- tion of new environmental attitudes and behaviors in other circum- stances, especially among minorities and young marrieds. In the first case, new information was accepted by the indi- vidual, which brought old information and/or old attitudes and beha- viors into a dissonant relationship with the new information and/or attitudes. No doubt a number of factors affected how well the student 114 accepted the new information. Probably how the student perceived the instructor (his credibility) was one such factor. Other factors pre- disposing the student to accept the new information seemd to include higher parental income, age (i.e., the younger student living at home with her/his parents seemed to be most strongly influenced), average to Slightly above average scholastic ability, and a number of other factors which taken together seemed to add up to a low level of prior information about environmental issues and problems. No doubt still other factors such as the students' affective orientation toward the instructor, his/her peer group orientation, etc., were also important. This is perhaps one area in which much useful research could be done, i.e., to identify those variables which and to the impact (legitimacy, credibility) of environmental information being communicated in a classroom environment. Cognitive dissonance was also operative in the opposite case, i.e., in rejecting the new positive environmental attitudes. The results of that study pointed this our most clearly in the reaction of one group of students whose overall environmental attitude and beha- vioral intention scores actually dropped as a result of exposure to more information. Not surprisingly, this group was large1y made up Of minorities and young marrieds who had recently entered the labor market and might have been starting families. No doubt part of their resistance to the new attitudes advocated in the classroom was the result of competing messages from spouse and peers. That group would appear to have reduced the dissonance created by the new environmental information by reducing the importance of the new elements and perhaps strengthening the importance of the old elements as well. It would be 115 interesting to see if those students also began to ascribe less credibility to the instructor and other environmental "authorities" as well. For a group such as that, new techniques must be developed which would reduce this "backlash" effect. Such techniques might include a greater focus on employment and economic opportunities inherent in environmentalism, models closer to those students' ages and choices of lifestyles, models from among those students' subcul- tural "heroes," etc. This is another area where additional research could prove highly valuable, i.e., means to tailor environmental eudcation for maximum impact for specific target populations. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This investigation has attempted to determine the effective- ness of an experimental treatment in environmental education at a public junior college aimed at changing the level of environmental information, and the character of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions, of freshman and sophomore students. The treatment was observed to significantly increase environ- mental information, environmental attitudes, and behavioral intentions. It was further demonstrated that neither increased exposure to mass media news nor increases in college credit hours successfully completed resulted in any significant increases in any of the dependent measures. It was also demonstrated that neither the instructor's modeling of environmentally positive behaviors nor the provision of specific environmentally positive alternate behaviors by the instructor were significant factors in the outcomes reported above. The cognitive dissonance theory was utilized to provide a framework within which to view the probable effects of the introduction of new environmental information. In general terms, it was argued that as students' knowledge about environmental problems increased, dis- sonance would occur between the new information and old attitudes and/or behavior patterns. Much of this dissonance could be reduced by 116 117 adopting more favorable environmental attitudes, which would in turn increase the probability that the subjects would also modify their actual behavior toward the environment thus keeping dissonance at a minimum. The findings of the follow-up study seemed to clearly support this construct. In addition, these three variables (environmental information, attitudes, and behavioral intentions) were so highly correlated that over 75 percent of the variance on one dimension could be predicted by the individual's score on either of the others (see Tables 4 and 5). This is a highly significant finding and clearly indicates that at least one major obstacle to a higher environmental consciousness in the population sampled was the absence of information providing any coherent framework for assessing current environmental issues and problems. Students themselves confirmed this interpretation as a majority (72 percent) of them indicated on the pretest that they did not feel that they had adequate knowledge of environmental issues and most (67 percent) indicated that they would enroll in a course which dealt exclusively with such subject matter if it were available. In a follow-up study conducted with students three and six months after receiving the experimental treatment a subsample of students not only demonstrated the retention of the new attitudes and behavioral predispositions, but most also cited actual changes in their behavior toward environmental issues (approximately 88 percent). These changes ranged from driving less in order to conserve energy to organ- izing a neighborhood clean-up campaign. If these self-reports can be considered basically accurate, there is little doubt that attitude changes produced in the classroom did give rise to new, environmentally 118 positive, behaviors. This finding is particularly important because the literature concerning the nature of the relationship between environmental atti- tudes and actual behavior is largely mute on this most important linkage. This study is, to the best of the researcher's knowledge, the first study to establish such a clear connection between these vari- ables. Not only do the results of the study indicate that environmen- tal information is highly correlated with environmental attitudes (a well-documented finding in research of this nature), but it also demonstrates that how the respondent reports thinking and feeling about environmental issues (i.e., his/her attitudes) are excellent predictors of how he/she says he/she will act toward the environment. Furthermore, if the students' anonymous self-reports can be considered basically valid, the students' behavioral intentions (i.e., how they say they will act toward the environment) are excellent predictors of the students' actual behavior three to six months later. Theoretically,the findings of this study are also important because they add support to the conception of an attitude as affecting the probability of the occreence of a behavior. While not all of the students receiving the treatment adopted new, environmentally positive behaviors, the vast majority did do so. Furthermore, while demographic differences did not significantly affect the findings on the testing of the hypotheses, there were some consistent differences in the treat- ment's effects on some groups. It was also asserted that if raising the environmental con- sciousness of the citizenry is a desirable goal in this country, as nearly everyone seems willing to agree it is, then this goal is not 119 being accomplished by merely attending institutions of higher educa- tion. When students who had not taken courses with any substantial environmental content were compared with those who had, the differ- ences were dramatic, amounting to more than a 40 percent difference in average pretest scores in most cases. Those students who had the most environemtnal knowledge were the same students who had the most favorable environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Such information is rarely presented in courses other than those that deal directly or indirectly with ecology or conservation in some significant way, i.e., courses aimed at environemtnal education. If we as a soci- ety really do wish to raise the environmental consciousness of the citizenry, environmental education can be very effective, simpl education would seem to be much less effective. In a similar fashion it was also asserted that the mass media, even mass media news programs, were not significantly raising the public's environmental consciousness, at least not beyond broad- casting the impression that there are serious environmental problems. So while the mass media probably have contributed to this minimal awareness, they may have done little or nothing of an environmentally positive nature beyond this. They may, in fact, have done much of a negative nature in the content of news and non-news programming. This may be the case in their advertising appeals to overconsumption and waste. It may be equally the case with many nonadvertising themes such as a glorification of large families, a fostering and legitimiza- tion of a general permissiveness, etc. Even the news would seem to contribute to this negative environmental impact through such means as failing to provide its audiences with any understanding of how they 120 contribute to the problems and issues presented, how the problems and issues presented are related to other issues and problems, and what the individual can do to assist in the solution to the problem. The findings of this study lend support to the contention that the mass media do not make significant positive contributions to the environmental education of their audiences. Television, radio, news- papers, the most widely attended media, do not appear to make any significant contributions to raising environmental consciousness in the population studied. It seems reasonable to speculate that this is probably due to the factors cited earlier, e.g., fragmentation of events, failure to provide alternatives, failure to link causes and consequences with an environmental issue/problem, etc. Only in the case of news magazines were any sign ficant differences found between high and low consumers. In this case, analysis demonstrated a curvilinear relation- ship between news magazine consumption and information and behavioral intentions. Those individuals with the highest and lowest consumption of news magazines scored lowest in their possession of environmental information and positive behavioral intentions. Conversely, moderate news magazine consumption correlated with higher scores. Caution must be exercised in the interpretation of these findings, however, as there were only four students in the highest news consumption category. If those four individuals were removed from the study, analysis failed to demonstrate significant differences between high and low consumers of news magazines. Perhaps the most mportant aspect of this finding is that either way one interprets these results, news magazines do not increase the readers' environmental information or behavioral 121 intentions in any significant way. It is possible that this may be because readers are simply overwhelmed by the number and severity of problems presented for which no solutions are proposed or discussed. These latter findings, i.e., those regarding the effective- ness of the mass media in raising environmental consciousness, are of particular importance because this is the first scientific study to demonstrate them on any population. Many writers and environmental authorities have asserted that the mass media are not doing, and per- haps cannot do, the job of raising environmental consciousness, given current limitations, but to the best of the writer's knowledge, this assertion has never before been tested. In all fairness to the media, this researcher believes it is possible to say that they may have made their audiences more aware of some environmental issues and problems, and perhaps this is a first step for behavior change for those who have the background knowledge of ecological interrelationships or the motivation to acquire same. However, this is no doubt a very small segment of the media's audience. In any case, for the population sampled, the media have not been instrumental in significantly raising environmental consciousness or altering environmental behavior in any positive way. Finally, it was asserted in this study that the way in which students were taught environmental information would affect attitudes and behavioral intentions. Specifically, it was argued that if the instructor modeled environmentally positive behaviors in his own life- style and/or provided students with realistic alternative behaviors of an environmentally positive nature, students would demonstrate positive environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. The data failed 122 to support these contetions as tested. One additional way in which this study may have value is that it also appears to offer insights into some differential treatment effects. For example, young marrieds, no doubt struggling to establish themselves financially, and minority and foreign students would appear to strongly resist this "traditional" approach to environmental educa- tion. This finding is consistent with the implications of other studies in this subject area, and in terms of dissonance theory would suggest that these groups either discount the new information or strengthen the old attitudes and/or behaviors to reduce dissonance. In either case more of a focus on such elements as the occupational and financial opportunities/benefits inherent in environmental reform could result in greater attitude and behavior change among these target populations. Certainly, continued research aimed at investigating such possibilities should prove most worthwhile. Summary of Treatment Effects pypSelected Questions ' 1. "(Do) the public schools of our nation spend enough time in the teaching of ecology/conservation?" (Question 54) Pretest scores indicated that 53 percent of the students did not believe they do. This figure climbed to 72 percent on the posttest, indicating that as students same to better understand the complexity and seriousness of current environmental problems, they also supported more educational efforts to inform and educate the citizenry concerning these problems and issues. 2. "American beliefs and values have been a basic cause of 123 our present pollution problems." (Question 75) Pretest scores showed that 38 percent of the students strongly or very strongly agreed with that statement, while only 6 percent did not agree at all. On the posttest, only 3 percent did not agree at all with the statement, and the percentage who strongly or very strongly agreed increased to 63 percent. This would appear to indicate that as students gain in aware- ness, they also begin to better understand many of the underlying causes for decreased environemental quality. 3. "Lansing Community College should make a conscious effort to develop positive environmental attitudes in its students." (Ques- tion 83) On the pretest, 87 percent of the students either agreed (31 percent), strongly agreed (22 percent), or very strongly agreed (34 percent) with this statement. This figure climbed to 96 percent on the posttest, with students indicating that they agreed (17 percent), strongly agreed (29 percent), or very strongly agreed (50 percent) with the statement. Two points should be made in connection with these findings. First, even before exposure to the experimental treatment, the vast majority of LCC students believed that the institution had a responsibility to educate the student body in an environmentally pos- itive manner. Secondly, after receiving the treatment, more students held this position and they held it even more strongly. It would appear that the implication and the mandate are clear enough. 4. "Do you believe that Lansing Community College now offers enough environmental education to provide most of the students with an adequate understanding of today's environmental issues?" On the pretest only 28 percent of the students indicated that they believed 124 LCC did offer enough environmental education, 47 percent were un- decided, and 24 percent believed that LCC did not offer enough environmental education courses. On the posttest the percentage who believed the college did not offer enough environmental education increased to 44 percent, while 32 percent remained undecided. (See Question 95.) 5. "Do you feel that you have adequate knowledge about environmental issues?" (Question 102) Pretest data indicated that 72 percent of the students felt that they did not and 14 percent were undecided. Even after the experimental treatment, 54 percent believed that they did not have adequate environmental knowedge, and another 16 percent were not sure that they did. That finding certainly suggests that the student body perceives environmental education as an area they want to know more about, or feel deficient in, even after the treatment. 6. "If given the opportunity, would you enroll in a college course which deals specifically with the environmental crisis?" (Question 106) On the pretest, 57 percent of the respondents indicated they would enroll in such a course (22 percent said they definitely would), while 25 percent indicated they were not sure. That is an important finding since it indicates that only 18 percent of the stu- dents would not enroll in such a course (17 percent said that they probably would not and only 1 percent, actually only one student, indicated that he/she definitely would not enroll). Such a finding is most encouraging for the potential success of expanded course offer- ings in the area of environmental education. Posttest scores are even more encouraging as only 125 6 percent of the students who received the treatment indicated an unwillingness to enroll in additional environmental education courses, 25 percent remained undecided, and 67 percent indicated that they would enroll in such courses if offered (30 percent said they would definitely enroll). This would seem to indicate that not only is there a very good potential for expanded course offerings among un- exposed students, but that this potential actually expands with more exposure to the subject matter. 7. "Government would solve most environmental problems if environmental groups would leave them alone." (Question 68) It is significant that 90 percent or more of the respondents did not agree at all with that statement on either the pretest or the posttest. In other words, they did not look to governmental agencies to take the initiative to solve environmental problems. Were they themselves then willing to do so? 8. "Do you feel that you have an obligation to become actively involved in helping to solve environmental problems in your home community?" (Question 104) *On the posttest 35 percent of the students responded that they definitely did (as opposed to 20 percent on the pretest) and the combined percentage of respondents who felt they definitely or probably have such an obligation reached 82 per- cent on the posttest. 9. "I can affect the environmental decisions made in my city." (Question 87) On the pretest 18 percent of the respondents did not agree at all, and only 11 percent indicated they strongly or very strongly agreed. On the posttest the percentage who did not agree at all dropped to 3 percent and the percentage who strongly or 126 very strongly agreed increased to 41 percent. 10. A similar pattern emerged in response to Question 89, which stated, "I have a responsibility to make other people aware of environmental problems." Here the percentage of respondents who indicated they strongly or very strongly agreed increased from 29 percent on the pretest to 56 percent on the posttest. 11. "People in the U.S. shall have to be satisfied with a lower standard of living in the near future.” On the pretest 31 per- cent of the respondents did not agree at all with this statement, and another 24 percent only slightly agreed. The combined percentage of those who strongly agreed or very strongly agreed was 17 percent. (See Question 58.) On the posttest the percentage of those who strongly agreed or very strongly agreed rose to 42 percent and those who did not agree at all dropped to 11 percent. That suggests that approxi- mately one third of the subjects significantly modified their position in regard to the advisability of the continuation of current American consumption patterns. 12. "Are you willing to maintain a lower standard of living than that presently enjoyed by many Americans in order to conserve scarce natural resources?" (Question 98) Those who indicated that they definitely would be willing rose from 19 percent on the pretest to 37 percent on the posttest. It would appear that many students receiving the experimental treatment not only saw an increased need to alter their lifestyle, but also expressed a willingness to actually do 50. .127 To summarize, it would appear that students exposed to the treatment not only more accurately perceived environmental problems and saw the need to further educate themselves and others to these problems, but also expressed an increased willingness to work toward solutions to these problems and to make personal sacrifices to improve environmental conditions. It should also be noted that increased awareness and willingness to make personal contributions and sacrifices occurred despite an increase in skepticism in regard to our ability to solve such problems. This is perhaps best expressed by a decrease from 40 percent on the pretest to 27 percent on the posttest of the respondents who indicated that they were ". . . reasonable convinced that we shall be able to solve our environmental problems." (See Question 108.) CHAPTER VI REFLECTIONS AND SPECULATIONS This study was in effect an attempt to document the necessity for a greatly increased emphasis on environmental education in this nation and elsewhere. It advances the argument that as individuals learn of the elements and magnitude of current environmental problems and issues they will become more favorably predisposed to engage in ways more favorable to the natural environment. It also attempts to call into question the notions that simpl and/or more exposure to mass media news will result in producing these results. The findings of this study seem to support these contentions. So where do we go from here? In this chapter the researcher has briefly outlined what he considers to be some of the more impor- tant, although untested, implications coming from this study. Implications for Theory and Suggestions for Further RESearch The concept of cognitive dissonance would seem to be a useful conceptual tool in discussing environmental education and its impact on target audiences. It may be responsible for the increase in attitudes and behavioral intentions in the original study and in the follow-up study conducted later. In the latter case this would suggest that, once sensitized to environmental problems, the students probably begin 128 129 to attend to these issues more and to take some initial steps, probably those with little cost to themselves, to try to have a greater positive impact on the environment. This in turn may make continuing to act in a more positive manner more valuable in their eyes as they already have something invested in this direction. As a result still more favorable attitudes and behaviors may result. This concept needs to be subjected to closer examination and the conditions that hinder or facilitate it need to be identified and researched. It has been the experience of this researcher that the public is generally willing to pay lip service to the idea that environmental problems are serious, yet most seem to avoid attending to such issues and concerns. Many times when asked about an environmental 1ssue that has been widely publicized in the mass media, only one or two students out of a class of forty will have any knowledge of the issue. Perhaps this avoidance is due to the fact that if the public does attend to these issues, they must question many other cherished ideas; e.g., does business really want to serve the customer, do they in fact even consi- der the needs or of those they produce goods and services for, is technological "progress" always desirable, can and/or should our standard of living continue to rise or even hold its own? To call these and similar questions into serious consideration could produce substantial cognitive discomfort. Under these circumstances, not attending to what is happening right under our noses becomes increas- ingly attractive because it supports the status quo for the individual and the social order, which is certainly more secure and comfortable. If this assessment is correct, it could also help to explain why those individuals tied more closely to the present social and 130 economic order, i.e., the older, married, and upwardly mobile segment of the population studied were the most resistent to the treatment. It would also help to explain why media news consumption fails to influence environmental information and attitudes, i.e., consumers simply "tune it out" of fail (refuse?) to see clear trends indicating that the crisis is deepening. If such is the case, environmental education that presents the larger picture in a coherent and inte- grated manner is even more necessary than thought previously. So is continued research to determine the most effective methods for pos- itively impacting various groups and target populations who differ in their attachment to and/or dependence upon the status quo. If this assessment is correct, it also argues for an evalu- ation of the effectiveness of environmental education programs with younger students and programs for older persons which approach the subject from the more positive standpoint of solutions and opportun- ities, and benefits inherent in environmentalism. How can the value of positive environmentalism be elevated for these populations? What means are available for reaching this goal and which of them are the most effective with particular target populations? It is the view of this researcher that much needs to be done in this area if environ- mental education is tu be truly effective. This study considered only one approach, a problems/basic concepts approach, to environmental education. There are many other equally valid approaches such as an examination of corporate contri- contributions/responsibilities to and for environmental problems and reform, a governmental approach, etc. These types of approaches need to be examed both in terms of their overall effectiveness and in 131 comparison with each other with various target populations. Nor did this study investigate which of the concepts or materials presented may have had the greatest impact on students' attitudes and behaviors, or which had the greatest impact in producing cognitive dissonance in either a positive or a negative environmental direction. Much work needs to be done in this area as well. This researcher is inclined to believe that the two concepts that may be most influential are the concept of the exponential growth in the basic elements of population, resource depletion and pollution, as well as the concept that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link (or Liebig's Law of the Minimum, if you prefer) applied to human existence. If the learner really grasps these concepts and becomes interested enough to look at the objective evidence of his/her senses, continued apathy and/or inaction become increasingly difficult, especially when the adequacy of government's response to the Situation is considered. If several such key concepts can be identified, then incor- porating them into environmental reporting and environmental education could revolutionize the state of environmental consciousness in the American public. Upon examination of the study results pertaining to the effects or the treatment for various segments of the student body, this researcher is led to question the results for those students whose posttest scores actually declined or remained unchanged, i.e., those students who were married, employed, and roughly 24 to 29 years old, worked in occupations or had closer associations with peers or others who held more anti-environmental or negative environmental 132 attitudes. The effects of such situations and influences on the expression of environmental attitudes needs to be investigated in much more detail if environmental education can gain the effectiveness to change deeply imbedded attitudes and values. Also, those attitudes and their support structures need to be identified and studied. The fact that more and more accurate information is the number one correlate of positive environmental attitudes would seem to be environmental education's strongest argument, because when those who knew the most about the subject were the most concerned, it be- speaks a need that must be addressed immediately and as effectively as possible. Implications for New Course Development In considering new course development, the following points appear pertinent: 1. There were generally low levels of environmental aware— ness on the part of students on the pretest. 2. The lowest pretest scores were among business and pre- professional education majors, and the highest scores were among arts and sciences majors. 3. Two-thirds of the student body had not been exposed to any environmental education prior to their enrollment in the experi- mental treatment (many of these students had completed one or two years of coursework at this institution). 4. Minorities had much lower levels of environmental aware- ness than whites and did not respond as well to the approach employed in this experimental treatment. 133 5. Environmental education (as taught in this treatment) was least apt to produce positive results with those students who were married, financially establishing themselves, and between the ages of 24 and 29 years old. 6. Prior exposure to environmental education courses, or courses with ecological and/or conservation content, enhanced rather that detracted from further environmental education. 7. Most students did not believe public educational insti- tutions in general, or Lansing Community College specifically, were offering enough environmental education. 8. Most students (96 percent) believed that LCC was respon- sible for promoting positive environmental attitudes in its students. 9. Most students (72 percent) did not feel they had adequate knowledge about environmental issues. 10. Most students (67 percent) indicated they would enroll in a college course which dealt specifically with the environmental crisis. 11. The successful environmental education course did not seem to depend on the personality characteristics of the instructor but rather on the nature and completeness of the information provided. 12. Environmental education produced behavioral changes in students which most of the public would consider very desirable. On the basis of these facts I would make the following recommendations for undergraduate environmental education. 1. A significant expansion of course offerings in environ- mental education. Such courses should minimize any prerequisites. IT large segments of the students enrolling in such courses are 134 nonwhite, non-American, or just beginning to establisn families and financial independence (naturally, learning this would require the collection of such information at the beginning of the course), the course should devote a significant block of time and other resources to the financial and employment opportunities inherent in environmental reform. In fact, in any environmental education course these aspects should be covered to some degree. 2. The creation of environmental education courses within the "continuing education" segment of the student population. One such course could focus on the financial rewards of environmentalism. It should have appeal to small businessmen as well as to middle class and lower middle class families looking for ways to cut costs (currently a large target audience, and one that most environmental experts expect to increase further). 3. Continuing assessment of the effectiveness of programs in environmental education at all levels. The results might be used both to promote instructional research and document socially relevant out- comes of the programs. 4. The provision of inservice education for facutly inter- ested in incorporating environmental education themes, concepts, and examples in existing courses. This practice could serve a dual pur- pose. First, it could enhance the existing course by adding material which students report that they want to know more about (thus enhancing student interest in the course and providing an interdisciplinary approach at the same time). And secondly, it would stimulate the student to enroll in courses specifically designed as ecology and/or environmental courses. 135 5. The inclusion of courses/units in environmental education within the business and preprofessional education curricula (or their equivalent). Such courses should of course be tailored to meet the needs and interests of their respective students. 6. Efforts to establish and promote interdisciplinary approaches to the subject matter should be immediately initiated and supported at all levels. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: /3é»/.>’ 9 uniItllle'rlcflréyfilrns International 300 N. ZEEB RD. ANN ARBOR,M14810613131 761-4700 Appendix A 'IOIll'lal re Environmental Information Quest m 0: CL. sac... Jwfiz: rucm: 90: C C .xuoa =«ro: .Nacu»¢ on» n09»? Leeucdxo on» cozS .»ooLLoo a» uoaocd Luca oLSn m~»oceuoa »o: our :0» L» :o>o cc»»¢u=o a Leanna has 30> .»o~z00s »uo» o»:» co zed: »cc 0: .owcczu o» no»: so» nuance and m»o»o~nEOo once; .god~£ tcr >>¢oz one aster Loon euro t: .cooozo o>¢z no» no:oco oz» or gossac onto oz» we: zo»z> oocum oz» :» HA»; .»ovzn seized o»¢L¢ctm .30.». co 5...... segues: 2:...» LC.» fro» m» Lanes. .33... czuoc cox» SSH—€0.28 cozmozr 55.... too: .5353th cm to m»u»ucoo »mo» of»... N¢c0»»uoe»z ficuock. .8 Co OH air. 4:2: Pmuh w—zb z—an K! 8 .uo>0o »:ouu oo»o:» 0:» co oco.»oo».v _cuocou 0;» via» we. uo»zoon a»;» some SL351 Izaunn taixoos N59. so: oust»... .ugu.. __< ‘A :22 .20» a... .322 8:32.... «22.8 Co c3353 »col»5oaoo coauouavu o»o»w zao» 1»: 2830258 comuuuavu «dug—362:8 segmental no» »con ob va=Ozo comuoNNcouno mmz» u:»vsouog nouhusocu .Amon .uvwnm ouumh (umu. comuouavu «o oowwuo mo»o»w uo»»:: oz» seen »:ouu - Loon: »:0Iuo> ecu .vzoamu ovonx .umco>m>mccom .490» 302 .aonhow so: .vumzmgaoz Jo: .m»»om=zoommot .ocmo: .uaomuooccoU «o m»:os»eoaoo co»»ou:vu o»o»m och «o uncuuo o>»»ouoa00u o .»:osoo~o>en com»ou:vu -»:o5c9»»>cu F»o»mooz»Loz oz» za vooczw coon no; «no» «*2» no unueoo~v>ov ozh FINE Q C_Nm_ zuc> 3oz .ooauuuum .h»»ou0>»:= ooaoouzm use—0.x .w vu>ca noccuuu .h o—uu < Eton. a _o>o._ 3mm... mmmme<>>< zZm mmDUm 136 137 vco» .: "sluoz» .n onuo: .n o»o .a No.8» »oc one «~03: :» ooooo o» zuozm» »o0l o»:o»a Loren soonest oso co~»:»»on we we»; zuuza Luo Duo: «0 oo>o~ o oLoooo o»o vuoo No ooho» o .o Loon»: oz» ucunoo oL5»oLoAlo» :» on»; o .n »zu»c »o oL:»oLoelo» :» on»; o .N oI»»a-v oz» season 9»:»ooonlo» cu Opus o .« pcouosoocu onauouoolo» o oozuooooe »ooz zu»z3 u:»n:»oou:col euuooun .N »o»oo on ucuoooooon oz» .» «oozo» o» oo»ozaooza no unsalo uoo»oonu oz» nev- o00520o newton—Cu oz» no zo_za Icqzonao he: .1 oooo»»»»ho» .n oocoz .o zoolo»o .n »Looz .N Loom» .» on» GO :o_»oo o»» »z coo::OAIoo Duo has no o»oou»o doom-ozooqz oz» .ocooaz c» ou»»oo~a .o mom-lsou .n coo: .N moo—u .n No~oxoon o» »oo»ooo on ~o~oo»ot zeaza oo»noa vuqoo No uc»csoz .o oocounn_o »on no cou»onoao .n ooc»u¢o o»»zOIo»:o c» ocuqooou uo ucuchaz .n oo»;o¢»;o& »o »»o ovaso mo ucmoooooLa .u oz» :25 ooz uolo ctr-0:3,,» cnoz»:ow cu o»:o»o_»oa No oosooo »oouc.z oz» .ohoo> >»:oa» »ooa oz» Looo oo»oonoza .o oovmuoqzu .n oo»ou»:o .N ooeaxo .~ NmLo»ox oo»o»w vo»»z: o» o»co»L»=c No »::olI »no»oocu oz» nev- »co»o_~oa zuuz: no»o_zos so»0l .3 »oooaomv o»oox o»»0o .N oucquuoz »ooz 0» «on» No ucuzhoz .n oo»»z>»»oo ~o»o»o:vc» .» o» co_»:»»on L—o uo o0L30o »oo»oonu oz» .oo»o»m vo»—:= oz» c» »» u:»cLoz one ovuo»» coco :59» oo»»»» uc»»uo~»ou .o amour a» »_ uc»»»noaoo eco ovuouN coop loo» Lo»»»» uc»»oo»»oo .n nocool o c» o»»~o.»a No no»»o_uo> so: acuoov05»cm .N voc»o»:mol:s on o» »oo.o» o c— ocoonu oz» no»:o_~o .— Ncozazoa. on: 8 8o. 82%.... 62: »zu=o&o oo»»-o¢o~ o .a ouo»zoz¢ no»oa «ooozou o .N ouzosouoo»:» »col:Loso¢ .n »co¢ouocol Lo»oa Loon .~ 0» oao xzzooIMLa a» no»o»m vo»»z: oz» c» somnuoo oo»oa oz»: sou—nu coon ooz »oz3 .0: .: .o»oL .Looz ooooohuoe »« .oo» .n .oc_x0»»»co No c0»»o=voea ooooococ» ooooou »~ .oo> .n .oooononm oooqz oonuos »» .oo» .» Nucucooz oz» :0 coz» Loz»o soon oz» :0 o»oou»o zoo osoz .ooo»o: v90». :o~»=»»oa ooze: o» oasooaxo moon 21¢ .uoo .nn .«u .0— .¢~ .w— .0u .w~ .a» .nq .u— L»: oz» c» u»o>o~ oo»xocc¢ cozoou vonoouuc» .o novuo»»ooa mo ooomzo .n oozoq »oono oz» :» co_»:_»on No oooeoo .N n»co_n Loop; Loo»u:c o.e_o0ooo oeoucoo oz» .— o» cc»»co»»o o»_z=z »zu:onz . _L »:o_—w .zooz o.:oogou ~ozooz ooze: .a Lo»os :» com»:~»oa u»couso:m .N Lao :_ Lo»»u¢ o»o_:u»»ooa .n Lo»oa :» com»:»»oo umcouuo .q .0 »:Soli oz» no onaoool o o» _ozmuoo < Lot-5o oz» cu owooeoov »oz Lo»:mx oz» c» omoouoc_ .2 Lo»c»: oz» c» onooLuov »:z soil; oz» 5 omozocu .n oases Loo» .oooosooo .n «:50.» noon .ooozoc» .— »__: so»oa »oz» a» oou»o .o >»»»co:o oz» .oooavoa a» »o»ox No zooz e u:_zooos »zu»~ mo »::olo oz» u» >Locmuos ~»o an e» ucmzooa .a noun»! «900 .n nom»»u a» u:»o»— .n uzszIm o»»’»ox»o .~ z»_: vo»omooomo ooooomo o o» outs» zooms: .»n»g¢»ot »o:o_>moc. oz» »m:»ouo :o»o:_I_Lom»v co_»oao»nc0u oz» oococ». o» mono» ocm_o¢on uc»o= .a .ooo»a o» ope—a loo» noose» zmoo »»Inoa ovoon ozh .n .>«»eouoaeo» »noo» »o .ozom one! nooovoua meson oz» memo—«on .N .uo—»zoi0»=o cocoo->»o»oouea oLoI Lo» onmmoe o ooaoOLA ooooc coco .« «Io»o>m zoxzu_: o»o»muo»c~ oz» up »uo»»o o—zon_moo »ooo» oz» n» zo»z) .»o»»o»:olcou»>co no or »oz .3 or...) .n _coo .n goo .— oo voamsomoo »moz a» oL:»ochEo» orcz) Lo»ez cm >_v»aoe »mcs IcLu oox~c u:~»=.~onuozoz nouo»_ .5 mouoo 5:» »c «ooze. oco»w memo—zaz .: mommoau u:»»ceqa .n oco_ oz» «use: o—»»eo uc_>ez .n m—ocou demo»»oz .~ N~MCreo» .0 an)! «czzmo: oz» »co>oL; 0» so: »no& oz» n» »oz: ovmxo=0£ coaga» .: movmxo :ouon»»c .u no.2—oo_»zte .n emacioo .» zeta. a» »:o»:»—ca Lao :CEEoo »moe oz» .mz»~»m vo»m:: oz» :— >eaooc :.:cc:ez . w oz» .3 >w: ozooLemozu .n cu_xox .6 __5: oz. .4 out: ago» .» «to»=~»c; >_oLo>tv »x:E :» Lo»o: No xtoz zumzx mo.ezcv:z; .: oeo— .N ctmx:»s L:__:u .n >L:ouol .a «_ooo acmczoz >z tenet—on a» »co»=-oe zumz: «o»o»z to.»:: .: oc»zu .N 1.7:. .n mo»_z=;ox »m»_o»ocm »o»>ow .0 come: .» ;:»»:_»co uc »c=olo »oo»oocu oz» mo»ooLu >L»::cu zu»z: .nu .o~ 138 30:25.58» oazozoezo so» cotosoov 5.75....» no 9530:». .: o»o»uo :0.» co .8» o zusocz» >28! 053-... .n ooofioo v.3 ovoou so.» an» ooqoo 0 958.5...» .N 31.2 o c» cocoa zooo .5» zeta—lo»; x.» o 9:80:- 4 «3:?!» on»: oooz o» oaooa oouzgoco ou»»oo.»a 8:33» zflz: 833.30.. e.g.—o: oz» oust!» .2 noose toooo south .n 952507;.» 5 9.2.5... oaaooa No Long-E oz» ooozoc» .N ovoz»ol azafioozuo :3» 2.2:...» 369.95»? 50,-?» J o» o» 390: oz» :— cordon zooo o» o3o3ooo voo» uo »§olo oz» oooonuc» 0» so: 5298.: goo oz» .ouco.» ace» oz» 525 out». 5a.»: 0» ooo... 3:03 0390!. 25:: coon—a3». oz» ouaoooz .0: .4. ago tone...» »0c oco cozoz 3:0: «:59.» oz» omsoooz .o: .n oooovoon :ooz oooz 3.5.. »oz» Anni—o oz» No omooooz .o: .N cot-3&0.» n.3,»? oz» so» woo» 1.70.3 o» Lotto 5 .oo» J Neg-goo Eggnog-.9523 auto» 5!» 7039..» »o .51.»: vco afiuoo—o oz» 2 ooO»o»oa .o coo—o .n on»... .N »ooz .— Ntoo» zo»z: No 958 o ooavP... c» v9.1.9?» 3 Azuuoco »ooz. notouoo No .355: .30» »oo»oo..u oz» ogxo; cozooo .: Lon»; L3!» .e quoz .N cowzxo .» ».»o»»o»:o£»o» No 525.... o a» non zoz: lo»v>w >255: o»o»o.»o»:~ 9.23.3 oz» o» 2.5 .a oi: o »o ESE» oco coz» to: .5» o» 403;» 3:35.795» e :3on .m co_»o».»oaoc-C» v8.2.9» ouco»c»o-uc0» No Deleteo oz» 26%.!» .N ooze—E: tonnes...» of... axe—soot .» 0» :3 o :09...» 33.: :0! Boos »=ol.o..:>:o oz» z»: voEoocoo 3 oz: Le»o=om < 337»: .: mo»o»m «35.5 .n :25. .n 2.sz .— NnouLSOmv» 3.5:»... »c >153... n.3,?) oz» 0» unuloz 33:72.2; :0! m. rise.» zo...) c» .3398 notoaaecm Z c» .5: z:.. 96» »—.o zoz» N» my»; omoz» c» 5.5.. 32:!!!» .2 3:89. o: oooz 0» £52 .32. .n not...» 0» oszoov .52.» out» o» 2?»: oz» .n cmz» 00» one »oz» ozozw o>oz 0» muwo 5oz» .» moaaoo Ea ovjtco.» 5.: EC»... Let: 9:. cat»... oft—cocoa oz» one 58:...» :19... oz» n». zcov not; coo... c2: 25... A... 8.29:... 2.. cc..-» .3 .59. .3 woos): 9.200.»: no c0233.?» 3ch «o»... 2:56 oz» 3 »oz: Log... c2315». c_ «.mtoov oz» ... nomooa... «25:». we». :59 ofoxo .c 5:32:73»: oz» .» ...»...z.eoa «55:1 .n [fog—2. _c socozgzocoz. c». .» EC...» no.5.» notgfifiu oz» No _..>m>.»..m oz» C» :25 55: oz.» o-» .ooo .7. . a... .5. .6» .3» .2530.» .350 o» goon: 3:58 .o 3:333.» oz» Colo» »» .2 £09.35 no: S 5...: so» Soon oz» 30.3.89 39.9. »~ .n Join» ’8' oo»o.» z»ooo z-«z :33 »u .N .239»: oz» co no .30 oz» 5 o3» .60» o goo» »» .a «ago-coo 533518918 »» oozol So we o»»o».»o»oooozo fizz) .Nn o»oo.»»o a»: so «.3233». 3:9» 39503 n .o 9.33? so» :5.— oo»-~o»o»»»».»o :- .n oc»»». N.»gcxoo to» »»»» t».zu o .N r53 loco» Soznoo co 4 too-2.9:»: oz» 0» loz »ooo~ oz» oooo 35:9»: monetize,— zo...) An ooooooo.» :0 [05:0 oz» .5538 .o 5.3» Zozouuo I9.» c3538 .5- .n :0 oz» 2: ‘5'»:8 Loo-x undo .N ovoz .3350 v:- ifzo o» oi .« o» 31.8. »o :30 oz» 5 9.23.5 So Iozoouzo a.» ooooa »oo.»z» «zoo-.935 33.»: :0: oz... .2” cozogaoa LoZoIo o No zoo: oz» £0.30 3.13 ooze: ~95»: .o 22:500.. 0» 928»: »o: tangoz» can 92!...» no: zoos» oz» «0 zeal .n Zoo—vote 33.. .5oz» z»? «3!!» 28. lo... Zeno.» .N. vooozoom .233 oz» 0» coin: o!» 95:33.»: 4 ooaoooz 35o. o» a?» .33.» :33 non o co zooo .533» o» S iz» ouo too» on» oo»o»m ooze: oz» No 3’3 «95.» c» 5398 o ooou .2. c3530.— .2 52:9»: .a >39»!- .n :9: .N lion-o .q «zo: c» 350' «3’3.» 5 oo»o~:l»ooo zo»z3 .2. 98:00 353:8 .a boon 3332: .3 :03.» goof»! .nn »u:»»xo .n vonoucovco . N 6050 . a .35 coz» oLOI v.5: o »oo~oo E :0» $30!? oz» oozqoooov 539:3 »oz» 33!» 3: oz» l2» v.3: oz» 53: .»N zuoonz» 2 2833:.» so.» ocoooo ... nZOo .n aging: oz» .n no»: .A c» 95qu 5232393..» .on 3333!. z»? one—to» .3593- ... .2333: :28» »co>c8.. o afooz «Lao».— sEoco 38». co .n 3.33 SIB-on» ovoaoo No 520.350 233:2.» .N onto-1.. cuotoo 056.5.» .« A» coo-69:. oz :3 moo-5.. :1. so 9:3 0» u no: 3.3: 9.750 coo: no. o 0» Logo: .830.» « .nN 139 »:ousoa EU... 23.? 1.9.3.2. 0:» »=c.»n .m »:ou..oa in ».7...o .zo,...o.. 2.0 :5 So. 4 Eco» zueo :02: :oz 5.19.... mm 5.20.4301 3...: £257.55 9.50 «agave »c moo:o:.»uo:o oz» . 31....» .3 3:»..002 , . .2.» .n “US—oz :GLU .h 3:70.“... »o :ommmznx. 0.275.... cz» A .0 13¢! oz» 3 .29.... .8... no: 3.»... .ngou..co>-o: .0 5.6-5:}... 5oz»... :oz» no»o»m .31.... oz» c» 3009. 30 no??? ..o:o. oz 0» . .1019. to: onoz» .u=n=ou at.» oz» 5 n00»u»on .: our. .m z... : .n =5... «.9. .q 2.75: oz» .5 0.009.. 50... »0 :2». o... .c :5. .07.... oz» m. «.00.. zu..z: 5.3.... m A: :03»... a Z. :2: ._ A. .03.. c» :33... m :y 3.1.... 1...». we: r. .0: oz» .0 2...»..300.» oz» .3...qu 25:5»: 3» m:..z: .0 :3 oz» 9. .95.»... :0 .zoutat ... mug—oz 301...... 3:05.... :: .co...¢...:.....:. .ccEF...>:u .. oz 2:0: .m .€>9.Qim a. nvcoznozzu...=» >to>0m :. :0.........». 0.3.... «3:: izuoto oz .0: v.13: .w 5.5.30.0 .CEJ .. , .23.. EC... >25... 7...»... 1.30: .. 25%;... 5!.» .5.» 7.... >3.» orifoz 15...».9»; 7...»..00 5...... vgcmca..u..=ssc..o>cu Emir... $.29; zoo... 2.0m LC» =oimozcam >»w»0m..a 32...»... £15.: 3:9... .2... 2......5; u.......£:c,..>:... u:3...cv 3.0... oz. n. .2 Toma...“ on 3.95 53.»: . .. 521.9... victor. 2.» oz 2:5: J 5...... 7. 7.2.5.»: .22.» no}... c. m:....: to: 5.0:»... co..c...>.... . z. of...» .. Eo.. ..P... 9.57:... 9. .oz 3.5: .n v»..o....... CE. . 50... 2.9:... : $.97... 5.....ow 0: o.» 30:: .. Z...» .o; 1. .5... Ergo—Cu.» .v:_..»u..:_. 2...: 1r. :2 c0.....:acn »: £230.... oz» 5.11556 : .z: ICE—>CD LUr—oC L»—) 45.15... z»...:L:.: .: 5:35.. ......I ._ 32...... ..».:.:v:o: ... 1:..0 vacuon oz» T. :7»... E.» . no.5:zu 2:... .0 .5... ..>.... 2.... VS... :L: 3...... 1..» v» :. .».....:.._... Eisz 0 ...o ....»._.» 5:39;... 3,: c.< .uou 8003M .0.» )I (4‘. 20:2. aoao»o>orc= :e :. ow! zuuo ..... £00K. no Lozszc o: .17.... oz» 5559...... find.» oz: zu.z: .znoLz azurialouuo oz» 5 .mr .EOMUZ— —O$ n»{..TE»r:. Ou th~ (Cmefiu:&a~k EOmW’hUCM n3 .>»»o>§. E...» ».:r.: vac.»=.0>.r» .80.»:0m .m J... .509. .0 »:.. 2.5:... .7... 9.0:»... oz... .« .z...»...:..0.. oz» :3.» o»: ....:0~m o »o mfach. 9... nounaowt .50.. J «E; :7)... m. m. 5.0.»: .7. x._...:...>o». :. .2:an c0.»m.:nnx. .2: cow-:1 .55.: :8 oz» m. »uzx 2:18.... S...» 9.2. ... 95...? 9... £5.» 52......» .n 25.25.. 2:. 95.9; 5.59. .n on...“ :2» .83. 4 5.3; zuoo no»w»m v3.5. 5..» Lot... 5.3.;«6... .31.. :0: 5.3: no... >20T»... 9.230 o...» “.5. ca... 50.. 3 .0...»v ucc.»....:vuo o5... 5.3.3. .: .mn Pr...- c» vition to >3: 2...... n»...=..fl.»=vo» .15»... 535»: 2...; :9... »n.... 2.7.37.1. .m 39:75»... :25“. _. .: v00.» 75:55.... a. .0 .2. «:20; .n no.2...» .2 £52. .15...» oz» :25: MEI... .. m:¢»»~»:...0.. .15. :. ....>.....~. >.o>»»..o:o motorcm 2.2.5.... Eaton :. ism-Lu zu...) MEL-3.. 2.0:: ... :95: J. L»)... ... cock»: .n .7. u.......:.:. Eo>m . cc... .m TE»... . soc. .— II ....:3.5 _. ._._.:..... .1 ,........:... E.» L... c; .....F.:...~X. m. >65urum> < .c: .3... _: ....: .. .1 :3... .565. ..,_..: __.y...._z,. 3:7. .>:..... J. :3... C: {.2 6»... £30.. ».:..:. ..z» own—m .>c..E .r, .L.:.. s: ifs...» e» .. .2... ». oz!- 0» .:o» .n 7:55.. 5...: .. ILL... .50» ov:uuoz .:o.» 4 $9.02.... 5:1... ..0 )o. .7: 2.... >22... 2...... .z. _ LE... 3...... a...» c. mm»a»m v3.5. oz» :» ..< .1... .3: 140 TABLE A] SINGLE ITEM CHARACTERISTICS (PERCENT DIFFICULTY, INDEX OF DISCRIMINATION, CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAL CORRELATIONS, AND ITEM IDENTIFICATION) FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (SEAT-A) Scale SEAT Al Corrected Diff Index Item-Tom Question 1 Perc Disc Correlation 1 11.8 .109 Not possible 2 18.3 “72 for this sells. 3 17.3 .200 . . h 22.7 .109 5 15.8 .309 6 28.3 .163 7 30.6 0%3 5 13.8 .25“ 9 153.5 .163 10 19.3 -“00 11 61.3 .3355 12 30.1 .309 13 410.5 336 in ‘$6.0 -.O36 Reg 15 “.5 327 16 116.0 .363 17 30.6 .h90 15 33.1 .127 19 85.0 .hCX) 20 57.1; .418 21 No.5 .109 22 k6.0 .4690 23 5&9 $72 2.. 78-7 0272 25 37.1 .1615 26 30.1 .309 27 “3-5 .25“ 25 6.“ .218 29 25.7 J‘36 30 310.2 .§7 33- - 5 33: 33.6 .1118 33 52.9 .363 34 50.9 .272 35 h5.o .h91 36 18.0 .363 37 33.6 -“7? 38 h3.5 .uoo 39 u7.o .u18 no 58-9 .1u5 111 h3.5 .1518 1.2 10.3 .309 ‘03 19-3 '236 M 16.8 .327 1.5 31o.l -“36 1‘6 52.10 -.O36 leg h? 38.1 .290 1.5 50.0 .16“ 1.9 54.0 .563 51 37.1 .563 52 67.3 .236 53 7A.? .163 51. 615.3 .1018 55 hl.0 .3105 56 81.1 —.090 Reg Pretest herds) Experinntels — 35.0 Controls - Pretest sundnrd Devintions Exp.- 6.92 Controls - Posttest Ienn(s) Experiunuls - 33.1: Controls - Posttest Stnndnrd Devintions Exp-{.13 Controls - 3l.h 72.7 33.2 Item Identifigtiflx mt polluter ml pom mt polluted lnke on IS sir pollution prevent. errosion nlpe growth Tnterstete niches effects Blncx ling light effect on nlpe decibel is Silent Spring effects noise pollltion effects voter crisis doe to prod loos lend pollition sir pollution souce odds nitrients to voter scarce of Cnlif. slog ensiest to recycle DUI‘ effects ndds phosphntes to veter tenperntm inversion is 11.1ch power polluion poison ass Eatrophiention is Anericnn bison whitetnil deer Onlif. condor heev; ntnl in fish paving rarsl pollution off-shore oil drilling recrentionnl improve-ent danger of DDT Everslndes threst whooping crenes WT effects on birds populetion growth effects environnentnl legislntion fernnution produces tnkes nos: onlnries clesrina min forests incresse food tea: for lnrge fsnilies U3 fnnily size in 1800 who’whj of mectono‘ linits primitive polulntions U3 i-dgretion popllntion growth in llDC's see distribdtion in UDC's dolbling rnte US life expectency popllntion increase effects blncks s birth control world popalstion in l970 diet composition why lore 35 yenr olds popllntion growth rste All-33.8 All-(101 All-373 All-7.? APPENDIX B STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE AND MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICAL TABLES Appendix B Student Questionnaire and Miscellaneous Statistical Tables STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: The information which you provide on this questionnaire will be kept completely confidential. No one will see your answers except the researcher. Reports will be made with aggregate data, and no one_person will be identified with his or her data. It is very important that you answer all guestions and that you attempt to answer as honestly as possible. l. My sex is: A) Male B) Female 2. My marital status is: A) Single B) Married C) Divorced or separated 3. My age is: A) 16 to 20 years of age B) 21 to 24 years of age C) 25 to 29 years of age D) 30 to 39 years of age E) 40 years of age or older 4. My racial designation is: A) White B) Black C) Spanish American D) Other 5. To date I have earned the A) 0 to 15 credits following number of college B) l6 to 30 credits credits: C) 31 to 45 credits D) 46 to 60 credits E) more than 60 credits 6. My college grade point average A) Below a l.00 is (leave blank if you have no B) Between a l.Ol and a 2.00 college GPA): C) Between a 2.0l and a 3.00 D) Between a 3.01 and a 3.50 E) Over a 3.5l 7. I currently live in the A Rural following type of community: B Suburban C) City 141 10. ll. 12. 13. PLEASE NOTE: 14. 15. 142 My family's annual income is: By "family" in the above question I mean: I am enrolled in a curriculum in: Please indicate all of the following courses—(if any) that you have taken in college: Please indicate all of the following courses—(if any) that you have taken in college: Please indicate all of the following courses—(if any) that you have taken in college: A) Below $5,000 per year B) $5,001 to 10,000 per year C) $10,001 to 15,000 per year 0) $15,001 to 20,000 per year E) Over $20,000 per year A) Myself only . B) Myself and my spouse C) My parents & their children A) Arts & Sciences B) Applied Arts & Sciences C) Business 0) Preprofessional Education E) I have no declared curri- culum yet A) Rocks & Stars B) Biology C) Zoology D) A course on energy E) Mother Earth: 1978 & Beyond A; Living with Nature B Living World C) The Curious Naturalist 0) Environmental Photography E) Any other conservation or ecology course A) Biology B) Zoology C) Conservation 0) Ecology E) General Science For questions 14 through 18 each single/separate news- paper or news program, etc., counts as one paper, TV show, etc. I watch approximately this number of TV news broadcasts weekly (include local and/or national news programs) Each week I read approximately this number of newspapers: A) Less than one B) Between 1 and 2 C) Between 4 and 6 0) Between 7 and 9 E) 10 or more per week A) Less than one B) Between 1 and 2 C) Between 3 and 4 0) Between 5 and 6 E) 7 or more per week l6. l7. T8. 143 Each week I read approximately A) Less than one this number of news magazines B) Between 1 and 2 (such as Time or Newsweek): C) Between 3 and 4 0) Between 5 and 6 E) 7 or more per week Each week I listen to approx- A) Less than one imately this number of radio B) Between 1 and 4 news broadcasts: C) Between 4 and 8 0) Between 9 and 12 E) 13 or more per week Each week I watch approximately A) Less than one this number of environmentally B) Between 1 and 2 oriented TV shows (such as C Between 3 and 4 Cousteau specials, Wild Kingdom, 0) Between 5 and 6 etc.): E) 7 or more per week PLEASE NOTE: This portion of the questionnaire consists of 35 paired 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. statements. Please indicate on your answer sheet which of the two statements you consider to be the more impor- tant. Do not omit any items. I would rather sign a petition complaining about A) burning trash at the city (town) dump B) narcotics abuse in my community I would rather go door-to-door to convince people to A) avoid using plastic containers B) vote for a specific political candidate I would rather watch a television program about A) noise pollution B) war I would rather circulate a petition calling for A) limits on the amount of water a company can use B) stronger auto safety regulations I would rather sign a petition'which deals with A) the problems of population in America B) drug abuse I would rather volunteer to phone people about A) reducing the growth of industry B) joining the Committee for Peace I would rather donate a large part of the money I earn to A) an ecology society B) disaster relief 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 144 It is more important to me to provide funds A) for drug rehabilitation centers B) to reduce land pollution I would rather telephone people in my area about A) air pollution B) the need for a narcotics treatment center I would rather sign a petition to A) reduce the noise level in my area B) change policy on educational spending in my area It is more important to me to A) fight pollution in the Great Lakes B) reduce federal income taxes I would rather donate 10% of my income to A) The Lighthouse for the Blind B) a group for preservation of endangered species. I would rather circulate a petition about A) the dangers of technological growth B) civil rights I would rather make a speech calling for stricter A) laws controlling pollution from automobile exhausts B) drug laws in my community I would rather read a leaflet about A) avoiding land pollution B) stronger auto safety regulations I would rather listen to someone who calls on the phone to tell me about A) a local political problem B) noise pollution I would rather donate 10% of my income to a A) drug rehabilitation program B) clean water association I would rather make a speech A) in favor of banning welfare cuts B) urging people to have no more than two children I would rather listen to someone who telephones about A) the dangers of technological growth B) inflation I would rather donate some money to A) medical research B) preserve vanishing species of wildlife 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 145 I would rather stand on a corner to get signatures A) for a petition advocating my position on education B) in support of anti-noise legislation I would rather make a speech in favor of banning A; racial discrimination B strip mining that ruins the land I would rather watch a television program about A) urban renewal B) air pollution I would rather sign a petition calling for A) a new sewage treatment plant B) reduced taxes I would rather write my congressman about my position on A) war B) pollution problems I would rather write to my congressman A) asking for changes in Defense Department spending B) about the dangers of technological growth It is more important to me to A) restore the ecological balance in the Great Lakes B) maintain a strong national defense I would rather boycott a company which A) violates laws against discrimination in hiring B) severely pollutes the air I would rather make a speech in favor of banning A) strip mining which ruins the land B) education cuts I would rather picket a government agency to stop A) overspending B) construction of an airport near a populated area I would rather watch a television program about A) war B) water pollution I would rather volunteer to work Saturdays A) to promote my views about war B) at Planned Parenthood I would rather donate 10% of my income to a A) drug rehabilitation center B) group starting a recycling operation 52. 53. 146 I)would rather watch a television program about A war B) mercury poisoning from fish I would rather go to a film that describes the tragic results of A) overpopulation B) war PLEASE NOTE: Please answer question 54 through 89 by checking the 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 63. 64. 65. one box of the answer sheet that best describes your 'f551ings about the question. Use this key: A; I do not agree at all B I slightly agree C) I agree 0) I strongly agree E) I very strongly agree The public schools of our nation spend enough time in the teaching of ecology/conservation. The use of private autos should be considerably restricted in major population centers. Snowmobiles should be outlawed except for emergency use. A community should be permitted to dump raw (untreated) sewage into a nearby stream if the majority of its citizens feel the community cannot afford to build a sewage treatment plant.. People in the U.S. shall have to be satisfied with a lower stand- ard of living in the near future. The government should impose lower speed limits on autos & trucks in order to conserve gasoline. Peoples in the developing nations will have to be satisfied with a lower living standard than Americans now have because there will not be enough natural resources. In the interest of population control a couple should not have more than two children even though they could financially care for a larger number. Since rivers have been effective recipients of municipal & indus- trial wastes for generations, much of the current concern for cleaner rivers is unwarranted. Some pollution problems are of such a nature that government must help because private citizens cannot cope with them effectively. Well-meaning but misguided people often become entirely too con- cerned about the loss of a few alligators or birds. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 147 Present day endangered species should be nothing to be concerned about because animal species have been disappearing throughout the history of the earth. The G.N.P. (Gross National Product) is a good measure of a country's wellbeing. Government would solve most environmental problems if environ- mental groups would leave them alone. One should be willing tn curtail his travel by private auto in order to conserve energy resources. People should be willing to adjust to lower room temperatures in the winter in order to conserve energy resources. We need not worry about higher population as new food resources will be developed to ensure enough for all. Anti-littering laws should be consistently and strongly enforced. In order to have a free society, the rights of the individual must be considered to be more important than social responsibil- ities. » The oceans represent an almost limitless source of food and resources for the future. American beliefs and values have been a basic cause of our present pollution problems The so-called "energy crisis" is primarily a scare tactic to enable producers to raise prices. Many people in the U.S. are deprived of the environmental qual- ities that enrich life because of high population density. Given limited resources, international conflicts will likely increase as long as populations increase. The possibility of solving the problems of human population increase by voluntary birth control is unlikely. The problem of world overpopulation is a new phenomenon. The individual citizen can have a much greater impact on the env1ronment in his local area than he can on a national level. The U.S. faces an almost impossible situation in attempting to clean up polluted rivers and lakes. LCC should make a conscious effort to develop positive environ- mental attitudes in its students. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 148 I bear some personal responsibility for our present state of pollution. Plants & animals should be primarily for man's use and enjoyment. We should eliminate the use of pesticides to ensure the health & safety of all living things, even though this will result in poorer crops. I can affect the environmental decisions made in my city. Mankind is the only form of life possessing rights. I have a responsibility to make other people aware of environ- mental problems. PLEASE NOTE: Please answer the remaining questions using the following 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. scale: A) Yes, definitely B) Yes, probably C) Undecided or do not know 0) No, probably not E) No, definitely not Do youruwvor do you plan to begin to recycle your newspaper? Do yourunvor do you plan to maintain your home at a temperature of 68 degrees or less this winter in order to conserve energy? 00 you now or do you plan to investigate the environmental voting records of candidates you consider voting for? Do you now or do you plan to subscribe to an environmentally oriented newsletter or magazine in the next year? Do you belong to or plan to join some environmentally oriented club or organization in the next year? Do you believe that LCC now offers enough environmental education to provide most of the students with an adequate understanding of today's environmental issues? Would you be willing to substantially forego the use of priVate autos in favor of public transportation in order to conserve petroleum? Will you be willing to pay substantially higher taxes in the future to help cover the costs of improving the quality of the environment? 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 149 Are you willing to maintain a lower standard of living than that presently enjoyed by many Americans in order to conserve scarce natural resources? Would you voluntarily agree to travel less in order to conserve energy resources? If you were building a house today, would you include air con- ditioning? Would you agree to an abortion in your family if you already had two children? Do you feel that you have adequate knowledge about environmental issues? Would you voluntarily present an environmental program to a group of elementary school children if the opportunity should arise? Do you feel that you have an obligation to become actively involved in helping to solve environmental problems in your home community? ~ 00 you believe that western sheep ranchers should be prosecuted for illegally killing bald eagles, some of which may be killing young lambs? If given the opportunity, would you enroll in a college course which deals specifically with the environmental crisis? A government agency should have the right to order your community to cease dumping raw sewage into a nearby stream? Are you reasonably convinced that we shall be able to solve our environmental problems? Would you be willing to undergo sterilization after having two children? Would you be willing to pay $10.00 a year to protect endangered species? 150 TABLE B1 SINGLE ITEM CHARACTERISTICS (PERCENT DIFFICULTY, INDEX OF DISCRIMINATION, CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAL CORRELATIONS, AND ITEM IDENTIFICATION) FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE (SEAT-D) SCALE SEAT D1 QJESllOD # lr 2U 21 22 23 2» 21 53 51 32 53 Diff PBrc 5:. 5t 48. 6». 52. 62. 60. «1. 41. 61. 27. 51. 39- “*9. 33- 51. 40. 36. 45. 61. )e. #7. #4. 7“- 43. 57- 33- 37. 45. 53- 32. 22. “Q. 2:. 3E. P—uo-qwtwmwu mtvau‘O‘wOlei PVIO‘TNJO c out»: n o} t Pretest Menn(s) 4 andnr: be ie‘ions FOSL‘QS' Mesn(s} Standard Deviations Index Disc .509 .33 .930 .563 .65» .400 -509 .672 .763 .270 .454 .527 .927 .672 .654 .563 .654 .418 .581 .472 .454 -§09 .351 -509 .581 -327 .490 .563 .454 .uOO .SUS .236 .654 .u90 .u54 Corrected Iteanotnl _gprrolation .30586"" .25756 .2978? ~35535 $33.17 .26626 .36381 .48699 .5599? .21852 .3323? -35559 .36212 .44251 .uoulo .40399 ~5209b -32071 .42506 -33855 .31063 .41023 .29721 - 35560 . 36976 .24792 .41204 .43359 .3514? .24823 .44083 .20873 .51312 .37178 -350?“ Item Identification petiron :rnsh narcotics door-to—door plnstics v0ting TV progrnm noise/var petition unter safety petition populntion dries phone indls.ry peace donate ecoloejfdisaster relief donate dr:g rebst. lnnd pollition elephone sir pollition narcOtics petition noise;ed1cation impor. ance poll .'.ion» taxes petition technologyicivil righ°s donate olind'endangered species speech air pollationxdrig laws read lend pollition/snfety listen to political.noise poll:tion donate drig rehat./clean water speech welfare/POPalntion listen .echnology/inflation donate medicine/endangered species petition educntion noise speech race/strip mining fV Arban renewal/sir pollltion petition sewnge treetmenzgtaxes trite war papilstion write defenseitechnology importance ecology defense boycott discrimination air poll.tion speech strip mining/edication picket overspending airport TV war water poll.tion volinteer var/popllation donate dr 1; reha‘c. rec; cling TV wnr mere 11", poisoning film overpopllntion var Experimental:-19.9 Controls-16.2 All-15.7 -7.01 -7.20 -’.1« Experimentals-27.6 Controls-18.5 All-3h.8 ~63s ~c.56 -‘.7s SINGLE ITEM CHARACTERISTICS 151 TABLE B2 (PERCENT DIFFICULTY, INDEX OF DISCRIMINATION. CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAL CORRELATIONS. AND ITEM IDENTIFICATION) FOR THE ENVIRONM ENTAL ATTITUDE (DUCAT-l) SCALE DUCAT/HARRISON ATTITUDE SURVEY (DUCAT l) Question # 54' 55 56 5? 5c 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 6o 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 (7 75 19 DO 51 52 .d" 84 05 y; 57 86 -< -.y Diff Perc .5 91-5 95.0 2.4 92-5 9h-5 92.0 Corrected Index Item-Total Disc Corrolation . 72 . 9 .200 .3429? .127 .29080 .054 .07784’ .181 .32506 .090 .15479 .254 .10493 .454 .33220 Question Ommitted from questionnaire .272 .04950‘ - 563 .35264 .545 .14976 .200 .2111? .400 .14753 .200 12165 .236 37864 ~3“5 34915 .345 .12129 .616 .28905 .236 .06938' .236 ' sw3u9. .472 .38161 -327 .1762 .436 .43906 -5“5 .3987“ .200 .02679' .072 .19398 .472 .32042 .400 .04756* .709 .44091 .327 .40812 .254 -.09043* .155 .19395 .254 .30455 .309 .15509 .345 .3903? Item Identification "teach enolgL eco 085 rcs.ric. alto Jae oatlaw snowmobiles dump raw sewage lower standard of living in US lower speed limits lower standard of living non-Us only -wo children overconcern with water pollution government mist help overconcern with endangered species overconcern with endangered species GNP good measure of wellbeing government will care for 15 limit auto lse lower thermostates overconcern with overpopilation enforce anti-littering laws individual rights vs. responsibilities limitless food in oceans U5 beliefs 1 ecology crisis overconcern with energy crisis overpopilation lowers Quality of life reso-rces a war volintary birth control worms overpopdation is new greatest impact at local level water pollution hopeless LCC “each fer positive attit:des I am responsible for pollition other life for man's lse eliminate pesticides I can have impact only man has rights I should ed.cate Others ' Indicates this item was deleted from the final scale employed. Pre;est Mean(s) standard Deviations Posttest Mean(s) Standard Deviations Experimentals-ll.~ Experimentals-15.3 Controls-12.2 All-11.7 *' --0.,... -:.3.'-~.1€' Controls-11.5 All-13.3 -b J) -c.5’ -O 97 " All statistics based on n righ’ wrong' basis. i.e.. partiallg "correct' answers SJCh as strongl; agree or disagree are net wezghted as s.ch. 152 TABLE B3 SINGLE ITEM CHARACTERISTICS (PERCENT DIFFICULTY, INDEX OF DISCRIMINATION. CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAL CORRELATIONS. AND ITEM IDENTIFICATION) FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS SCALE DLCATL/HARRISW BEHAVImAI. INTENTIONS SCALE (BEHINT 1) Question # 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 1:? Diff Perc 65.8 50. 91.0 87.6 argsxsseassssars O OOvtdbxz-‘NNHI—Hmmme s:- (1) Index Disc .509 .618 .218 .400 .218 .181 .381 -363 .418 .454 .381 .218 .218 .563 .472 .636 .418 .490 .000 .400 .745 Corrected Total-Item Correlation - 393 .30809 .40346 -46933 .41219 .20356' .42110 .47593 -52943 .40375 .29850 .13636* Item Identification re:..c1e newspper lower thermostate investigate voting records get environmental news magazine belong environmental organization LCC has enclgh environ. ed:. use piblic transportation pa_ higher taxes for cleanip maintain lower standard of living agree to travel less e: air conditioning agree to abortion Omnitted, question had zero variance. * .46712 .53068 .37541 .45226 .20522* -12335' .31832 .44290 teach elementary students have local obligation to help prosecute eagle hinters enroll in ecolog calrse government prevent sewage can we solve environmental protlene tol.ntary s erilization after 2 $10;yr. for endangered species *Indicates this item was deleted from the final scale employed. Pretest Mean(s) Standard Deviations Posttest Hean(s) Standard Deviations Experimentals-5.?) Experimentals—6.80 :ontrols-5.00 All-4.90" -3.51 -3 77 -3.45 Controls-5.10 All-6.00 -4.3: -3.99 -4.>9 '* All suatistics based on a ‘rightrwrong" basis. i.e.. partially correct“ answers BJCh as Jel. PTOPtbly or 00- Probably not. are not weighted as SJCh. 153 TABLE B4 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BY EXPOSURE TO MASS MEDIA Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 72.624 2 36.312 .655 .521 MEDIAPRE 72.624 2 36.312 .655 .521 Explained 72.624 2 36.312 Residual 11032.920 199 55.442 Total 11105.545 201 55.251 TABLE B5 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D) BY EXPOSURE TO MASS MEDIA Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 36.911 2 18.455 .348 .706 MEDIAPRE 36.911 2 18.455 .348 .706 Explained 36.911 2 18.455 .348 .706 Residual 10538.990 199 52.960 Total 10575.901 201 52.616 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (DUCAT-l) 154 TABLE B6 BY EXPOSURE TO MASS MEDIA Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects .259 2 .130 .001 .999 MEDIAPRE .259 2 .130 .001 .999 Explained .259 2 .130 .001 .999 Residual 29807.765 199 149.788 Total 29808.025 201 148.299 TABLE B7 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS ‘ BY EXPOSURE TO MASS MEDIA Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 19.230 2 9.615 .108 .898 MEDIAPRE 19.230 2 9.615 .108 .898 Explained 19.230 2 9.615 .108 .898 Residual 17791.349 199 89.404 Total 17810.579 201 88.610 155 TABLE BB ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BY CREDITS EARNED TO DATE Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 160.974 4 40.244 .724 .576 CREDIT 160.974 4 40.244 .724 .576 Explained 160.974 4 40.244 .724 .576 Residual 10944.570 197 55.556 Total 11105.545 201 55.251 TABLE B9 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D) BY CREDITS EARNED TO DATE Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F Main Effects 143.667 4 35.917 .678 .608 CREDIT 143.667 4 35.917 .678 .608 Explained 143.667 4 35.917 .678 .608 Residual 10432.234 197 52.956 Total 10575.901 201 52.616 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (DUCAT-l) 156 TABLE 310 BY CREDITS EARNED TO DATE Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 965.283 4 241.321 1.648 .164 CREDIT 965.283 4 241.321 1.648 .164 Explained 965.283 4 241.321 1.648 .164 Residual 28842.742 197 146.410 Total 29808.025 201 148.299 TABLE B11 ANOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BY CREDITS EARNED TO DATE Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 920.367 4 230.092 2.684 .033 CREDIT 920.367 4 230.092 2.684 .033 Explained 920.367 4 230.092 2.684 .033 Residual 16890.212 197 85.737 Total 17810.579 201 88.610 157 TABLE 312 ANOVA RESULTS FOR PRETEST ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-l), AND ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS COMBINED BY CREDITS EARNED TO DATE Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Main Effects 31051.410 4 7762.853 .418 .795 CREDIT 31051.410 4 7762.853 .418 .795 Explained 31051.410 4 7762.853 .418 .795 Residual 3656662.436 197 18561.738 Total 3687713.847 201 18346.835 Grand Mean = 261.21 Deviations from Grand Mean by Credit Category: 0 to 15 Credits - 5.36 16 to 30 Credits - 6.33 (NEG) 31 to 45 Credits - 3.20 46 to 60 Credits - 34.71 (NEG) Over 60 Credits - 15.52 158 >4Hz4Hzzm IF“: mummzoo eh mmamoaxm monm .m:b4Hz< hzmom mooo .mmmclaae .come— .atuuave, uuoaae use“ .——s a—eo no: .003: one «oocenu scam ea scoluuu_.ns. or» oxaocc6e 5:6 ea mooeeeu _eueoeeveay uuoaao o» veg easoso on nemen.sEOu Lao “unclean to crop ~_nuu »_ume> ou «_ae on as __.2 II .II .oelpvceem.e mum—aeoaoeu ou 0—motoe_:> a. wee moccaomuc an. e. nonle._e: “on 8. range and seen co.u,:060et oe.csoe sea ecu eusotm nausea—ouue «nose16:06 c. mlu._en vo~eo;-acct seesaw; mun—,clueneooe. eeaoeoca . a »o 030 sales use“ .>cocueou we“ co .mesumxm peluom tee u.£¢couo oeaum.xo mo meoaa -uesnpes —aaeoe.uue wee acetonEuu sole malts no: ow .coeeoc,>cs do «cc—note eaes we» ~4.gs.>._ on o>.— on Loneo_oe ace “_stoa v_cor we» .6 name ecu ___s Levee. zone so: .esameou ascended eo.__*s no. we auceeo gone as cuvceaam o_oooa euu.toe< we» .uuoaee e. .wousvocn u. apiece as» no accused m~ magmas museum wou.c= ecu .onoelemo one x: .cole: no.>om men men conga .e.ea.cm “coca .xeeELmo oc.oa_uc. .neo.nmc _o.sumaocu oc.oem_ Loeuo e. o—aoen co—pp—s com voc.asou sen cogs noises «to: as: manual aos.== ten :1 ~_aooa co,___u c.~ 4;» .stec voles“ col.l.e a .uzsu co.__,a an .so_uson co.__.a on .usocleaeou co.._'a as .moe.u co.__.e ecu .Loaea do econ co._—,e ow eoocoumwu es .eeo_a sees anon .Leecoou.o umeueoco one cocachU “magneto .Louuasuxo «nuance m.o~cos oeu use on Noam u_ «you use) .m: «a mgoo. 6.593 sea eons use .uuls._ o: as: eusoco yoga ounce .eeoluoe “_o Lao co eo.uu_cnm~c new »_ue.x tonnage» no: use; or .opaoon osannocooe .e>.ue~>e_ .615ecxe e m4 .uoeepn use ocoem yoga nem.eooco cacao use so. oceoosn¢e aeoaaosa-oou-__e we“ we» .onaoc neewmoo:_ .c.e velaoeu .m.L~em concoucoameecu oeluea_cc. .muxe_ new scoutum coco—-2»... .mue02no_c>oc a_Lum mmo.oum~u .moe.w»cue:ou caucum-oooncea .«s.n.s oe.x~ooo ao o_u~uuoam me» an ecu—:emme one is .36: new cue“ .mlcoe en: ;._—v_.1 vce ew__ Lo. deletes. egg ”0 xteuaeuom «ceumamm< .veou .a _o_:onuee .wie__ lac» 362 ion» vomcceeOJ .umoo.o m.Leveo¢ .eosa a .¢_aco sewa-uccam can eelsapxua do moceoaeemeeu eoeen-oeo— we“ on uneven unoeu.s eo:-cnu-co-sa.z oe.>__ coca «so: as o.uooa a we neeu cunt» eo.—.aese ecu on a: ceases >._a:¢d one or .omeo antennas coo co pie: oevmmota one or have“ one - maucnomos .ecsuee sesao one woman .mpetoc.e ...om .ssaea .L_e an ue3c5e www.61— o «e: e>_— ou mun—q a we emcee o;p .xase oe_tee~lt n. .mE6136moc ecu venom vouae._c: ao quutOu eta co m, a. we wanna .Eeesv eetwtssa as. «one .mscceu _ wcseonno: no: «at: .ucenu he no ecu_ue eons: oozes—a x—pnaeeeu ._eco.aes do «_smot or» on _.,s sconce»: gwsccc cs“ ec _tsucoc «on no Loeuecs up eo.ume=o gone: on» .cusoco as» “_e: ___2 m.ouuee ee_ume¢. .so..:wsgoucp Lao mnoeuan ease .Loue— so Leeoom .ooe.e ruseco oelnmaepc.te c.ceu caclscoc Serene n.aoo= ceu.sws< we» .moeeoou eclccu on. c. 1.; mtneum weave: new e. eaten eo.ae—:non e—neuuluosa o aumsooeu 3.34 .oem au ws~c> r. Lane: 6 sec menu'teee ease: ouceu nco>e .6 use nee .veueox ac geese: can a. violet—aye cc..e.uaoe nose e. coupe» we.sa we» .ucoULon 0.9 a—eo w, su.;s .ourc guess peace» or. nigumo.cua no: veg «a .so. venue; a a. monoum wou.e: sea ac upon guess seduces o._ hasten“ .xu 9e.“ anal sea ua.nmoo .sue—pou e a. «deb .oo>_ouec oelon ._ sc_rcca yen .>—_e;un. octucvn _.p to oust eusogo eovuo_:aoa so. seaweed .muuenm ueu.ca can .c chaos»; .eev elem coon we: mu .eo._—.s mo~ on vsnooLoe. no; peace 0;» .o~c_ am .col.".e Nu. on 63.9166 see a. .ome. so .eo.—_.e ca «as co.ue—:aoa .m.= one .ccop c— .mvm.su so.oe_:aon waxy Fec4 vo~e~o«p no: aw euwsoi< .vczuecc we anxu.:c .—.n neusnomos coo» ale cu avemeo.ue.os :1 ens .8 mule._ sea .ee.eo ta cola: .o_>om sea .ou.tos< euaom nu_e neonate e. .suumemle caulcee cclcoeuto on“ :1 mean a race emu eu.es cavernsa «ostomog yucca 0: use use;» .ssucoe oe.>c~a« or“ o>em on use» aeoau.aasm gals e.gn) yea e_ anaesou oeo oe m. acorn .mceu» am e. we.“ umc_e oz. cod .ossu..e eo.ue.:noa can on «cannons _aae_oa are. messed gu.s oultu< ae.uca.—n s—ucsnsas «casein _eu,_uxu me» .uea.uauo_.o oueaomoc cease-son we. a»... so: a. mm do can see .ueee_a 4.x» eo en»,— Le:o use: oes o.aooa sea p.- »o .aoeos segue :— .ncaox mm use“ e, sauce evooo .—.s rev—eaee.eo.ue_aaon «.e» .nL-ua om A_eo :.es_x co.s._:aoa cams: v.10: .ssos as» .8 se,—sacs e - co....o 0:» on someotuc. use can. nuoeenaoa o_cos sen eno_ An nee .eo.p..o oeo ensues; a, .Lou~_ «sees cow apes .owo. 2. .co._..¢ com on utmostsc. so: u. - acne» also .8 cuss . - ome— .o.< no .u.aooa co._p.m as.» «as eo_u~_:oon opens _auow ecu .u.m coax e. pee» nouse.awo coon no: a. .aeocoouenu usuvslp u.eu co coo. cooeonnon case; 6:» do curate meleeoeoam men n. - ncoeuo mg» a. has: oe.».tou¢= 9:. us.. ago do esoe gen 6. sco_~ cclucans - loco» ea_eosa _.oz Lao .mtanae asruuop.ou a nose on .guceo we» we- soeuo gone so aeoueoaou vex Loeuomou venom .us.u eosocgu xoeceoe coo mucosa ee- neCOa c.oeu aeoeoeo use; om_e on: .nocauaecu cognate use new .eaceo on» .ceeuae Lao coca opens-none. .ona _.,um ace .oemce_oon we“ can» come «see on .eovaa—o>o an on» oevesocu sea a. acne aeouaeleooe seaweed can use. magmas o» 48.—cod on v_=os us on .soeoe'. pas.ee nose. new yo axes; oz» saga nae—p p.31 oe.com m—eoneam an: 0.6 as an amen . ..e-s Lou aloe ope-upon e a. was» see. as oee_n_.xfluo we» a. e. .ueoucan. one: .oeapu. co .m.meo ea ou u».s-—.e.n men an Joanna coon __o use; o3 .—_oem ecu sunset any, a. a. .psaauaeoa use» a. a. snooze—<- "vouuo.eoc oeoLumeL< .uoea—a Lao uo ue.~om .ewep use econ aeo.oee use» asses .eueoo a. goon onloo— eee eooe ecu so too.“ oeonumsu< pay: .65. «Leo» u>.a .nnuoa eovp—vs c. menu sues ooeee.. m.ees oncogenes ~>~c o» macaw eel. ulna .otauoesu aloe-es: esoeae: >_n:o.>oca e we seocsaa mxu emc.>o08_u Aegean .m 8.361 .Lo .ome uses» coupe-a .wu.efl_ tween use_nmo 9;..wcca xmeec.a m. eo.ue—:noa m.aoeo—a sen ecu - moccaomoc wou.e.— we: eaten sea ace“ eeaumcoee: on menu spas-use anon use: a: o .30. a ...r. m— 15.5 ruguuud...m 166 .eouueuoen ueuoaseuuuo euol cadence coeouu cos menu aceonec "odasexm .- .eoeueha neunuec sun-u on ewe-so eunuouesouuu esov use: as useqaen aneenue canoea sons .eaeu sou uneaoouasee we» nouns—don eons see sons u.coo as o—«s: an .aeeon no use» owed» cu named as on «gun unuseouusne emu no need scans—pea demo» sea .seeu«uoa< use use-sun smug seen on: ..o.< ooo~ an ace-sea sounuqe a one «use» an Am .53: even 3 0.3qu oases muse you 13: .5398 05 no.2 season-nu hunsnoua anus venueuov menus—e on she: uses ewes >~co e~onucou mouusuuueou so vegan sen-An unsusou souunuuoa ans .evuoa noeuo ed: .A .Aees sou season. seam nu «Madmen cu madden nu noun or» o» u« mean: no»: no» sea» as» seesaw; new use» «a on nu chess | «on .a .- ounmuav ham “sun-Inn .e .seuahaooe emu so auueuue esuueues and no sunny-sane on» one ans-ocuusco sen coma unounuuoa a mo encodes eta oeeauem house mood I uuuooan ea obese .aueuuel eueuuaasow 09 Au .ouozanoasa en Nco .185 .a. a. sham.» "umaaanm A" :.ae«weae one use uo guns. 0:» musuuuce nu mush .eueea no noouuuul no avenues: menu senuss sen-use on nauseous on on e« eleuoeuwo sou acumen oamouqaeeou no as eased-owe ecu no sand mo nausea sen useu aqueouss asuuuenno humeooeeeu use meanness uo queen can no uo_o:~0eou one...e«aoea meet: .- .s—deuuneeoano mewsouw oa~< .Aoouueuaeo someones one .mumoun ueuuuenecu .zusOuc nouueuonoa no scene. a. I oeuuouuoa an .360. Down: noes-a some one lose noun: cannon shoe no good aueeooou usuuuaoa Au .ee: no menu» «euuoecoaue unsound an essay can need on huuaovoa ou nauseous depuuuuu mess up ewsoee no: one sweep .unuoa .e .noleo .aa 1 a «geek use I mousse-em sun-senewneoa an . .eeonnOeeu enmeseswwlnoo no anemone hey-en: case amazes» oases ..oue .eea use mousse; .uaow one aeousOeeu unease-emu eaeu aqua veeu sumo—dose we was: used uoaoo< AA .sezxu: guns on ad.) an». ..26 . naaouv ads-o» eonsnssacnqa no tne coonnne o~.o_ use». an .mmmm anaconda: nu nu» esheue mud: canoen use. nee» can; no and» numb oeuuua poo. sesesoe .euzu unease neona- uuvs asouashm as .ooc~ seem as» apogee seashore menu sunbeamsv e on uuus sues» A.Uue .eao— coueoso on» Ndmmumuwm coon deueu>nese nu swan Au .Aveaseu amuse soc one» no ~\~ anon-V eun.~:u«uuo new announce udqeuuceumu uo aeuue oouuuup oc.s anon- wua among 1 occ— nu suspend cu suspense hue-dun .e o @005 an wenoa goo-nodu>oe —oouas:a on» eooo mow-«u not) cozy .ueevq cusses add) mayonnau>oe Aegean seamen e) um o A.oue .suununeue «muons .ouoeav move: deduce new A.oue .vOOu .ueuea .uuov noes: nonwohza xuob as; so: An susOsU uouucecoawu o» sud-«A e£h .u .om ecu o4 .aa .n. can Nd oases new «a .aeusn mason» aeououuuo o>ee neuuunnOu useueuuuv eeoeuem eoouuec seen one noon cassava as: are xcqeeeua Au .ne .a .~ manna. com . mound sundae oulooowu .u .eueu zueev uoso~ one seam and“ nomoou ..o.d . cod soonest. usau a a aeueuueeoeev oaue couuounnoa .zusoux unquoeconwe cu souu—ooe cu Au .~ 1.5..cou. 2.38.6 do ahead; on» .eOandum o a ooo~ .eo«-«a «\~ ~ I Oran .eounuan «\n u a coon £322 a u 82 in u 8: 68:3 «2 s 82 £3333 .8 823.52. 34.... .n .eueauo eeu auosuue goes one :usoun nodueueoans uuausne annoys. «me .- .uue .Nuniuuouuoeouunnau one-w .eeeeeuoeu unsol- veueasldos ~33 I.» as eeaeeuwnu undasouusoo nu .useuenou «on ad senaeus oa sues never assess ssh .suueuuoenoamo causes. an eeunnea cu hues- auueu as» snow sonanuo amen none means nu cameo asses uo hooded e .saalsne uom :.e0uuea esuu noes-sou a nu ences as» no eaeuseo Inna asses-no a he ass-endow nu ness museum «euunenoawo saunasws nuancesv <: .eueu «canneooame no no couaeeuuna sue eeussoseu demon-n sum-senseless no conga-neoou use .nouusuqoa .Bau-aunauuoaln .833: 38 .8253...— .... o .3831 3.2 a 3. Au an I museum «nauseooawu up Janua- eah . .m~ .a :.aeeuo=n «o neueeeu edema am and) season. emu .ua eueuue ou mousse: :«uea some uecooa we» .uauuu emu menu heaven espouse unease out» you e>«uua on souvev eqaosa n.1auos say an .o .«euuneuoa ness: nesousuuo« ea: sadness on Auuosuwoaao «ears as as: ensuea ewes nee oeuuauuea one muses on season noes no eases nonsense uaaea emu ueeu oa wanna-av an canoe loaned—«sea «anode no eueua oak .eusunu emu one“ no. eaaeeueuese a« use» huuuuaeua uqaosoce one neuuaouooe uo ao«u«anou e gauge-nee on use eases» museum sassy sou—n on anew-eon an an .5 .hu—ueaeu douse-send use noun-usaoa each n« seduces sun-«aouunnuno one soon:- ueeuan e on «gas unseen sue-noun uses ash .eueea cod uses as» manna) usuuesoa used-en an Haas mane—a easy so mason. on nausea sea .uemneeons ennuunou nouusaaev seasons» use so.uusoo~a soon .couusuaoa .IOuueuuaeuuuaavnu .eouuausaoa mason nu eveeuu eases: aceeeua sea nu: .- «snowmen se rudeness: one «a sauna. .h. n. x can «see asouasdonoo ash .oeae slaw noon e ueso aaumaoouuedeulueunu haven use aspen venouunes sensor. neoo «need. no Aa‘neuuv euouoeu n sea anus-we on "even e cocoa-cu been As .uesuoz nee .e«un~ .unesneu .8: .53.— ..»5 an 8: 3898 .o 3.884 3 '8 courts 4...: a: a .so«u=~uoa one .oouuosooua «wane-non. .eeousoaeu assayed .oo«uusvoua nonsense 1«uue .oo«ue«saoa ..e.« n use-«a aueu oo museum .uasuu rush-saga: .euoueueSu one .eousueuee one» auouueu m sea menu-sue nouns sow-seen veuonunou eno enema . .355... is 83353 3 3 3......- «o usessuuuena emu no sues-sue as» no unease a cascade aezu.—evoe nanonu e aeoeeeeua usueeuuoa hen seasons-a swear n.h.~.xv consensus-ea: .emvusmseu nu sensuousou monotony a so some» endless no use-sovusua one so unease: we» no sea enema .uuueesmz undue. assuaoua emu seasons on seguewou cannon can seasonsou 0— song anesousuenu on up meson-ow. 000‘ me cause .eouusuueewuo «eenousa so i one: no menu sen an an. anduoaueuuou .¢ 588 3 3.5.. an. .4 «cu mm . «3.8 ... 167 .au._ 9. :uezv sch. ”ca_gc>u¢nc0u o» assuage:rccw ¢aoauvanccuv cums) Sena "ruuqezcz o“ =cqu=c_xanaa gyro—u 1 cu v—natu>_vcu van 55:5.— covfluon >u:..:?:: much. 69... {33.326 cu UuCyuniuzao cacao—n In». .6:_u£_—_:ca :. :uJOu; Beau cacezu < .v-03 uza ..v..=ou. :.:o.c .o au_a«4 9:9 no aduuouuo- ecu ac cvsae> .cu c“ gangs» 5 a“ mans: >«ucou ausu ans) a~ .AuUuucuuuvca Jon: v~=o~ nucuacohu>co 9:9 uc«>0uu¢ov no u00u50I0u no nausea! uuuau wc.n: no: couu_>¢uuu ~_¢. rouuuauoacy ~quc¢ van .oufiuougun .suu-oouu ouuuucu«uu gums; .:c_a.‘au .Luvae .use an mvuuw>uuoc spam .- gcuuacuxuw some .0: m.ov u¢ .ccm.aflzmcov ouuaooou cun- Iabcouauoc tee .:o«a:-cc .cowuuavOua “shay—:u—uau .utnu:o ~quuoavcu .co«ulu :2505 so n—Ouucou uuuuum cave aver «gay: «*5. ~_«:: a auaum 6:.LAunuavu 039 .~ .nu_aouz >cos cog. u—aoc«1un:o noncou o: a. was“: eaubguunava szu .zcsvaquCu c>cnn osu uo uuq noo- cosu we: .o.< ooo~ hasx uzu «gas: .«c: a) ma .uo>o «to: .A.uuu .ovuavcauo acu>_~ ue;n_;\:cuu¢~:aoa Mano. uxauv co‘uun no acou909 o>uuqcuou—a uovaucou ca autcsu c c.1cun c>.: c~=ca tea u~—~«Lu~«q>~ nauseaou cu census» cu unaava cu ;uca£u 1 huuuavcu we: >uo~oczuou a>qn vase) mush .auauau ozu Gang 0!.“ use“ a be. goat“ .m.: acouaua o:u ans: usage .K vocaauc—ae en en; ha.>av0u cage noun-u sautauuo haze. cauuo—aaon v—.9I u~£n nusu an "undo; .uqaaou >o¢o was uuaflgnauav .ou uuoavoun hols-now we. uauuanu ~auuuuaucu «an xu«:u«aue :u ce>~u a. hauhOuua sun: .u .uuuuo«un :wuz uo>un nu cuuuc>uoaoua we: “cu-zuuucw nucm 0n~< .nuuaucuun account ha .uucbnooocaz velvet nu uqxu auo:: co>u caduuauous v00. 0» wouuu>uv -. unuua-u .0 .a:~1> csmfi saw an guu:o.noco o» vouavau -« unnuao ~Iu:u~:u«uuq van uuuuuasncu we «we: no; newuaucc~w sodas—non .e saga: chad and no nausea-0:6 cu wouavoa nu unnuao «Iguanaucfi ac u«:: hon coagulaocco uuuaooou .u .u5015uavo ~e_huu=uc« ¢:«ua«‘s uo coda-«acumen no ou-u ecu uuqavo unalau~»u« we can» ecu ante ca vauawaaoo caucuu unauuoaueu .A .uao> soot ozone: mo wanes: egg cacao» vauo: 0:» ed :90: anywaazu uo hangs: can uoLu ca ttuquoavo no«~c~:so; .I .MumflMMm uo ace nu .Aaoun>u «touufluqv Quqcuu . cu zuabuu tauulauca o>wz coca-u 96> .:u«) a: QUQOU >mo~o¢zuou “an: Manuel 0: vac muuuacoou odanuuu>a new»: 04 vouaauu mu suo~oc£c0u ananuua an o:~oo mmmmuu >m0uocgooh .ouozv nudge»: ozu cu ncuu fiasco Giza .H.H.x any nuaucu Anna 05h Ad 532333. 138 «o 33m 3:. .n .voucqgu can noon. games >uo> uEOu muudc: amwmmmUd ecu any owo~ cacao: acauauuuu>uu mo owns—~0u azu can u00:m»~>o aco>0ua 00 he: 0: given 050;» .Ouslau can yucca snag» vauao«~960u ace scan . maul on Am .Uao unuuxuuoso v00. 1:- coauaadoa cu vsu o¢- sau-luxohnas whzuua bunxuuzu ocu. ~0.u:au sauna uuouuo: can .Amvuvus o~naovv c:«.u:vc~; vOCu svmcwuuca .Azouuaauos Ho an“ ucduavouv a~o~uc0u co-=-o¢ .nauuaouo» vouqaadc: wcaasmaa "Acno~ an ouaa-0u nunaau oxauuozm vcouv ¢no~ up deup=ou couuaa—oa uuuuum van a09u30¢0h nuance u:«l5noa ”Ava: sand «a tawny boabn wag—0:2 tuna-«ac: acuiaou- .AOno~ AuvucluxOLaac >a .« ave» coquaaaoav nouuaouou ~au=ucc no nubusouu :)o=a :zu o_a:ov nausaaac awn: on: mean nosuo cache-:2 .a .no«au:n¢ua vOOu on _mua a“ sud: I u30 ”gnu -u3 launch 0:» can» .occ~ >~ouua¢xOunna «was: auabun «Quay-216‘ raeu uuua noouaoovu .aoucnzu uo_ul c: «cu-5... .o- .5 u may vu-uceuo cu .I .oabauuu609 unencuuuv uculaoua acct our: asap uuuaaBOu naouue> a auuoza tune: 0:» :¢ zusouu An .n .6388 €88 uo :3. 2: 168 .Lpguc_ua£E. a, LcL >¢a ca a>xs L.ccn L;cu :;:: ;L;= xtg m§a§a~w2u-- RL_::LL-xc::_ Eccg;¢>v pee.» was f: 3.395 {25825 t. .....L,...LLc; 7.35.72“.ch 93:83-- .¢:c_n HLcaLu “czamcm rec xmc; :Lcu spurt. .a .xmc: wuuacha »: r:_>an gs“ sacs cu ma:c_czuau c:,m_>ur x; oLc: —.aw ceu acc “as“ m. c:v_ s—cz: ._ v~ .zu “Lo>az-Lo>uz ecu cc 9c..—vm .x .:.ccU an Laeoumau ;;u acne: vac mo_om omc.Luc. ca w, cut, Lg“ .uchn c— .n .9»: .oc.x.L ouqu .A.uuy .;c,— vcham .gcwp amp :JLPV mesa: Lo moczu vmc:c_n .gcchau a cc m:_coLcn: .maLz— :_-;chu an caaLumao oapa> .N .»u_—c:a use oupLa courage co.uc_oLLoL oz .~ mg -zu . «cage c.ccc_a zcacha «moLCOLa .w .LpacaL ace--aux.cuL _u :maa .m AcLuE¢u gouc.. cLQuac ouuLuguLca .v .u—nwmvyuuc:_ aficcwmcuLucr muLca =L03 .u .36: $5 2L8 2.....328”. .o .SEL) cc 5 acct: aLo: .n. .mso— c. :c_p_.n n ~me-ox.qucL ccvmcuLuc_ m_.wn .cco_-mve— caEL_ca;L c, omxyLuc, Noc— ._ ~_ .29 cavchca m.c¢EL.caoa sch .— .cc_ .ca .ouoac .N .uuo vac mwvevoc .ccwmac Lc.cu :Lsu aa*_,ch_mcv Lo Jucvuna—Omao a. cou— ._ ~_ .:u czzuu.x on» Lo» moc_4 cc':neu u: .mm—zm :0 can» “mac—wan L.cnwL co w LLoe egos mLOLauucL::«: A_v .LA\w—.cu chaaL m-~ uuLovaxmLacmaz cc :cmLa>~ .—.acz .o .«Ly~uaLL .mLo -cc.u.v:0u L.c .meccaL .>~ .mLm>Lu ..c_LL;L .muc_suce ccrzmcz--mLoccuwwo «to: .58 .85 S :3; 3268.. as... 25 BE 2: r are 32: ._ o. .5 muuacCLa mac: La :L_d uuaxm .uLocm 9:» .o .Leu agu Lo prp as. La» meLLae uuoucLa v.30: “ecu spas—,c>c m. .ooum vouccu-ccv— a Lcuxvm “man Lo; gaze gun» one ea,awov .-uuo .me_LL:s o».o .umL.u-.Av¢u:uoL Lap—aza u:.cnv LauwaL us: umaL mL,u .u .mctcrxewsn 53 L29. .aLoE co._—.5 ..-m “an uLcu aLoe cc,__pe — we: .mmop we, “Lop. :ooxuom .5 w.ooo— a. cosy LouLOgm mLoex m oL__ Lcu cmo~ c. .z >u_—-ac Lo aucoumo—Omno Ill! cc cm—n no: eLoga .uLcu c. »u_—_ncLLmuu Lo aucauwa—omoc 9;“ :u.: oco_< .~ o.:u :55 race: 3:5 22.43 32:52 35295 .L .nccu.Lo£< m=o_UmcCU-:—>~m c, ouccumw—cmcc wgcaLu :ru ac» Law» xLa>o .uum .mcCLua: .wLopcu .mapxum ccwccogu x5 uxgu a. new, c.¢z .~ aooo_ cwv :.Lcox zuco anu LLasu :o amoLv 3:: van ea Lea» a «Lo—.09 co_—_.n c cage uLce ccrucoam 9L9: “_chac Le a c.c 9:»; .~ x .1; --WL=0L N c. o.u_go> ccc.u__.nchm;c Lc ovccuwgpcwao tonne—L .c .c».— muuauCLa a L: rc.czuLc;m :ucL.n._Lt as» .c --Accv—>uuv »u_pvacL.mou Lo--»u._c=c Lo--cc_uuc:L Lc cue..gmco_cmno--mogxh .~ o .:u --;ucmuw._cmnc fiesta—g goaoLsh mwoLuoLa .u V .roa A.c.uceuv mamx<= HL¢<= sz :7...— Ea 35:: 29615.5 :5 :o>: cc: acoEnrzca rcfcepu .wasuucz .mLc~cL ;pcrwc:m,v :5» Any .Lccx Lon >—.EcL Lo: cemm Lo--c;.—..c mun :cvtcxuca »: umCu —c=:c< Amv :.Lco> c uPCm cc.o£ Eszu uaac*;: o—nqu_:ow y: «ecu cc,~_.e tuLccaz a cage 9L;x= “a. .uau .vcxu _cmCLze .mLocc.u >p .ucxn c_-—.c: .mcca zeta Ichu LLwcu :. mgcwe .m:_uucn .mccu cucc um: .ugzut—u L;n«a .c --c:,:uva>o xc3¢-xcL:u chHcEch cacao cc.¢.uLo>c< .~ u-u.L¢cm xcx<-3:L:» egg gracLza mmuL=CLa .u»: .eru .Arcwch Larca gm3m~.wL.zc£ crud .c .z>vwcu x. 9L9: vcc :Loocs oLce mace: .xapaECU oLoE vcc Lec:.p wuustLa t:.;<£ >3 uLce Lac .~ .mo_taL m we; >_.E¢L .m.: nexLo>< .c .-muecc ~--mu.Lc¢vcuuu 9:.zchE Lc_cuu..uUa .unccm .muchchLc La: tcc mwx .~ :.mcCuL:.: ovatCL: cu we! “3.: tau 0» Ac) oz~z .:c_x:£ :Len we: a; can“ uuthL; 29:; »c ch5 x30 ac count... 8 33:5 Lossmccu 5...... “E: SE £7-95: LE ice: £33? with: ¢¢.:u .< muvcxucam gc.c .zacccmaL :— .__ .cc.ucs:m::u amcoLuc. 9:5 zuthc Lcumc» cu toacps>ot 9L2: wo.caucLuv o .u.: :L e ¢< .m ..ucL rc.meeLu=. L.>o cc ac cchcum.c cc. .a.aue_a..L .uao :Lo: .a: w..cL:n ooe:wccu mochu coo: ;: . . . c:.u:E:wccu :, .:o_uuo‘mLuxm cco Lao .m:c_uueLm,unm penu.Lwam L:c Java 93 urge .n.e:u.L sac. mvcoc L: an: vcc c:.»:n use uLa>ccu c: urge .cL,_ La La) Lac cc.“ -ocsmcou wage a: «as» mcczeoc . . . xeccan u».~u=cha x_m=oiLccz L:¢: .~ .76: SEES. Lis- 05 up. 530:. com .uuc .mvccwwac .mo.uLcc _cu.u..ca .Lcac_ .accuPLot< .pe x.LcL: .— a-a—:mccc .co; co aucoucacmv ccvchc a twncpm>oc cape a>cg 3. .c Lr.x :Lcn oLoe assmcou umas mccu—Losa .ccrchz o_acoa nous cu chLc c, uuc;g .Aum yucca. Lc;> :uco Lust—z ccpauaucL: Lac ca>LLc we: x7c_cccuuu Lac .u .wE;uw ALaxap oLe mcovmm;mmoa «ccupLu&< avaLc>c .0 vs 4:63 .m... E Z 2.. 9L5?— Et 0: we 5:... we :55 £523 a: .— --:o¢ucL:ucm Lo maqumOLa ccvocc: as» =.:a>_c cage was co.uxLoaccu Lo “camcou avg) upzco new so cycpcumam a; “ceccu anoL we chasu <; .N ¢;uL:cmoL pqLauoc new Lc mapa vow om: .ccpucpsaoa u.v_Lox v: we a»:; 9: .~ .vumcz uLoE .muuavoLa x:x. .zuxoLc u.eoccua we mmoLcha yam .u::EcLu>or vac muuc_w:n we p.93 we .mchLL424 Lo xu.Loth “wen ;:u .n£:. acamsL: agu pvuca c:--aL:a:u 0:» so muwu .uuo .mLuuo~*—wuLyL M :3 .c sw_oua§ .Laacx .u:c_ JoHLc.L zLe ._c--waUL:omyL vma.s._ .0 com, sow>on .K . “Lalo: sumo: ugh ._ Layne egos egg; .5“... mat! >§2=m 169 can 2.55 :33 .cc_m_uLo>vw c. mecca _cucccpcguxma ch. Jcrzu-u:c :. c>og :C> .o ..ouceum.muL mcc cu _mLu:_u ¢_ ccccauac. .thc:VLca _QLULQBLou :cu c“ 0:. Q:CLo ccu cu quELocccu cc,_c cm_m;L “vat Lze:mccu tm~ccechca cg»: .— -.euccc=Lc c_ cv.Lc ochOamum --mva=cu coumovoam 950m .Bcc cczu «crew Lcccc— c_ x:.:» .c «acct on ESE—aim “as: wvc¢\moucL us_Lc .cv .m;L:u_:u L;guo coca Acccucuuonxa cc _o>o— Lococg ac vcc. uwumcpcmLeua: LLo> gczcx cxg_L.zfi. Acv wuca.L c we cc_uaE:mc:u Amv mmsouv ccvccezwccu me opaccc ANV .uuo .cuccopavc_-cpuu .xzucac--co.uu:chq no: .ccvuassmccU scL» noLawcepn c.cz A_v .uuc .suLccm -aL u_mcn Lo mxoco Losuco cc cccu accuucr a xL_xom cc uLoE wc_< copaLcL cw can» ccwucoLumL Lo» mucxu?a cc oLce.cc_urc:vo cc coca oc._csoc e u:_.:_Lu .occgcem co ch: ucuam u:--o_acca Urum.coco: .c ~oE=mccu :u moL:mm0La co muucccu --Lmuu¢Le:u cxuchE< 9:.cccgu Race Lacy umcu Locum; --;uLoomoL Lcc mm ac.m.uLo>cc Lcc guns at mecca e ccoam m.cu maLc A~V A.uua .m9ULc>.c .xom. tourLocwooc me; mo>pzmeoga nmcemmae cc.mLuLc>vc cc xu_.c:c as» .a .uu: .ccw.c_gu acczuxLe>o cc yu.La:-uvac: pcpuam--mccc£oc oc.m,L--cccueuco,Lc LaESmcCc A_V .Amvc ..o.. .pccs mvx_u an Lo» cox mumou a. Lx\_ps co—e 9:“ ocmucch uczv .xec moch>¢ cc c: aaL30u ecu c. vvoewmce cc,._cm «pm._ ca cowcaxu >_+cwc .cucnx» .e .uc'_ cc xu._e:o Lara—--cu_Loc< c_ inc—ncykzzzu ccpmcoLuc. Lo>c uucwon are: --cc,a ccu+L2E< cc cc.uc~__c.ULQE§cu Ac>Laum Loco .LonucL goo cu_Lplmuu.Ln Logccg .Au_uLcum uLcs cu mused a_v .Accwuc~.—c_Lum:mcr La» c. c_u c: we awaflv mQULacmcL _cLaucc cc mucPL=c LmucaLo guns on: c» cccuLcuw cQN..chum=t:. ccpecucs mcCLHcc Lacy: .c AuLca c, ccvuzpcmv m_cLLcuc£ ._u>ucL ccu w: =5;mcc on ..Uu_ ..uuL gov cco— cucwm co—aacv ccuwfts _och~>; cc muzcc L;.r: hey m.c~a_ c. wc) a. yes: 2 a. Lzaecu c: ;>LamcL ch Amv w.cco_ ova.” ran noc;_acu ._c¢ c, mac..Lc=: .c. --xevru mzvsanam rec» ;>m: us: «ca: .¢.: Amv x—_:Luumcz cum: ca cu m¢::_~ccu ac: on L: “as: “av ”meccuruppas_ .uuc .—.e .E:c_E:_e .Lunacu .wwa.LouoE 3eL —ccacomwz secs cr “a: occcch ..m.: 4:“ .c: Aev .5...»an i. :5: ice 5:... 8.3:: L: A: .r .Au—Lcl caLL cc uva .: ;_nc:c we «.mpL;u5= IPL as“ mus_u 0—. .Lx Lca m—chayce cc «cc» :. m;«: .w.: c_ _c:tc>_tc_ ..>c .e .u£.u “ecu oLc».¢ chuucc tchcUcL c: vLcyx ccc.a .;u 2. ta; 9;: __e can“ emo_ ucx e—c— ccozucc «L<;> any c_ w;UL=C¢;L cL;L tam: u> .muuoccc LF.e«cV «.3..va3 93 zuLcl 9:): wt tLatcsv .5: EC «:09 9.: 95 v 3...; .~ .L s: .— 2: .— .JP‘F Hucmc; .< .z 8 .5 .a c_ .zc .u .5 5:4: Ac.cccU. wacx 30:. ma.u*u c. .amo--mumcU mccv>Lcu pe.uc¢ any .uuc .m—p. .c.»¢w .—:¢an ccha .cc.u=_.cc Afiv A.ac._ Lo mu._c:a co yucca ozu c.» .Uuo .o>_uu=Luwuu ._=cuunx3 ..~.. ..¢.: :. o... cc opxan 3a: e ceuszu «cz\.—.3 Em..x.Lum=c:. .m.: .c . .vc.;9Lco.po nmoc.m:a vLcrcu mc‘o_ ac.m.aLc>t¢ co oucoccoaot cc.:cLa as» .u .Louuoc :wucc cm_c 9L.xuguu-u>.u -muwasou oLoE muuavoLa cevoLc» wee: ac: mace—acoumgx pc.Lum:uc. .m.= .a .cc; ALw> goo— R. 30.. .3332.3 .m... 3 out. up: 3 2.323... 3 3L3 9:. .c -umunou .xLunauc. ouac Lac 0 cc uao ~-a.u>cu ouaum Lc .cau Le» maLcn e cc uac .--auLo» LLo) «a» .cxoc. u¢:.mhucz use on.»—_ co axuvpcac uoc “auocv vLcuccuu amazovc age cnuaucLa ac; Etun>w .m.: cgp .n .~ .~ 2:39.538 5:32.975)“. n— .:u .< ...8:8:B. ._: .uuo .mac.~cege .u.coLu coo cmmh “~v .23. LB 8-3 as. 2 a... 28.. .22. c :8 3 5L3 8:2. 13 22.2 3:. 53%... .cco. Lu 2 .23.. 32 can» c—zL» --uc:oa cgu co uL~t5m=0u coca vac: ou ugcacn oc.m.uLc>t< .u . :to 3.5::— .8 ‘25 88m. 8m A ma._.cec och_ coaoL=Ouco accnvuL~>uc —.—um .c .AgcoLv_.:u woo Loon age cc: L¢£L.L ace :u.L ocu- ..a.'v mcnmc—u ;_vn_s cc: Lana: x__c.ueamc--mo._.cec Lop—uEMlmmz cco .Lcuc— cc.LLaI .Lccco— poogum c. vascum c—nowa «Lo: we 33L» mtcu uoc v.c co.uu.mea n.ap .mavacc--xLum:uc~ Lo» c~cccoc <.---c. c.¢z .~ .— --c—oooa co co_ucLocp.—OLL goaoLgh uuaLuOLa . .9282 .332 5.33 nan ucmcoLuc. cc; «coaLuszaam c. cc.xac ompaoe_ vase» aconac; .a amLaou co a>cmcoaxm oLos as» _—( Any .uu: .un: .Loar o» xueOL--oucw.aooE. .cco.uoc < .a :3: 2:332 9: 5.2 828389...-én82m m c. -m.uLo>vc amLaou co vco .mmcLam .ca_:ocL: .Emm—o+Lam:cc_ a~v nausea .o cm.:cco:-cpcmL=o> Anon u.couocucasac use Lo. o>_. a 09 anon pouocou.L=a L.o:u ECLu ccuvvgm v>og mcuuvLat< .~ 33.: 9: L3 52.25: >uua=Lacoc EoLc «sauna n »p_Eac cou.LaE< wooLo>< .» ccwgoxLa>o was; omaoc--coemuLos acaxuoa .a aLoE rcLLc: .m—uu'p a Aeno-co~cuLoE cco-ccoc .v .3235 Erwézvo: Sec 38 :8: 83 .u auanaLacon co EaLuch >» A—. umcLouc. so.c .——~ 9» co>veo-m:uaum yo mpoczxm nuLcu u.uoLu .0 .3o: aga.L oc.guALo>o ac.) o—nooa .- ..usouc. —-ccu -Lo: no “may no mus.“ n omcL «meccc>coe:* Luiznccu n.cmc— ecu cc¢L:c. m 8... @— .gu .: awn .gu .4 .x 3.88 25.5. 55. a: 170 2.2. 588.. 9.55 .6... 8...... 8...". .u.aocc cc.uuuLouc. AL¢> a 3...... £2... :3 339 L533... 2...: 9.2.2qu. >25... 3 2.6... .85 cc. 5...! .2.» 5 t3 26:5: $ch «5 Le» 1078: 2.5.... 2.» L3 K... :05 an... as... .392...» :5 LEE: .5 Lean . 6.... =5: 53 32.: 2.315.... co t: 5...: «:3- Pto... 60?. so?! >2. 1.8.. S... .Eo 9.2.3:. 395 .2. L28 .3... 2.3.59. S 23 ca .25”. .83...» .33... .2... .83-r33 a... L... 2... 9: 58m .333... £82935 .850 cc. 3......» .332”. .25: c :8» Laos 35 u... :2. me £38...— fis: 23: n .33....33238 .52 33.. cw. 37.2.... 9.2 3.8: ccn 23385-5. c5. 0.: 2. {368233 .55.. 95 no 373?... 05 a. 3:23.. L25 .0 ~59. a 5 Y... .5 ..uI 339:9... i. 3 L33. :3: 2: 55:3. E a... 89.5 2.5.3.. 2. it. 3 .3. 2:8 a. . 1: .5 L: van: :25: 2 2.5. 25:92.35... SE 05 so :9. 3:5 .33 39:95 a. 23..» .3.» L3 a. EL: .3 28L: :5 oz... 5: :9... :0 .553 33c: .35 3:952:02 .85 3:... 55.3.. 9: 5.5 9.3: «5.9:... a... a! .35 $355.. .383 to... 9.55 .33 L5 cc accrue .— 33.9.... 3.8... 2.3.8:... ca 1.» 63:.» e5 5 .19... 53 co an}. I.» :- so 82...; .5 as 28.3.3.8 acct no as: p.— 32 3...... 2.02.88... 5 9: .8. 3.8.. L32 28.. 52.18.. 3...... .2.» .33 2...... £8... 8:... .8328? 3:338 Lace: 2 23.. «L059 cs .532. 39.... La: 55 to: as... .3255... 9.533.... 2 £3: :38 .253 c... :8. S :8 28.. i... .2322}... 2 8:33... 2 2...... .33 05 c. 2.38 E .s .3... $6.8 .2: cc 82.3.: 2: 82¢ 33: cam .23 :53 9.3.! 0..» ca 8.3.; L5 :2 2.2 Sac: 2.319.... S .2» .2339. LS. L2... .5 r. 3888.... 3 3...... 3...! .5 cc 88.-6.. 2: .23.an S 1 3.8: .53 c5 5 3:38 c9... so 5.3 a 3 .1269. 9:5 3.8... «.5 :c :- ....2: {>9 .t3n $055.53.. a... 3 ..=.m... «a nee—cum :93. so crop—3 .5 ca .30.. 05 .BL» 9...... o ca “5.8.... a 3 2.2623 0..» .2 an .88 £8 .mxw .cc .mara_L:_La rc.>._ Lo‘ choucLu .e 3.“. “scan .cc. vacant cc.;o La qucgm oz. ;¢.L9>cae_ cu vQULcL acccn yucca.) wucovcaac gap: a>cp cu us ca macaw aoc.—.acu chucwu 9:». .c .Lcmx umca 2: c. .33 a 3.3 fcuoz 23:25. 3:... .53....» :ca 9.28 .n .>» non L: ..u.c.m. meoruwc ac_um.xo cu oust—chuucacu g: “cm .m .cc.:rachLa ou_>Lam-u_—o:a cc uuc:.cg Lacuna o Lo. o>.Lum a» cosy oLwaaoL «use mcLou cc uaLonua: >» ;«:.u.. .~ . .AE=Q:< cc mcao. «Lon.uLw>co chL says acoucou EoLchn Lo»: .cLuccu axe» .— .Am_e.uLoEEcu co .mL: o. Lao: Lca >» c: .mLc ~\_x~ «cam a..scc cceLz>< .o .. .2 55.32.. E» c: 23:: -meccu oc.co>Lwcu_—o use w. 9... cc .p..m cechgea 9:“ :. uc_zm acnu_ccco.m Ace cc so: cg“ c. cc.ucoum cpucuma: ;;_nwcs cccucm mg»: .m Accwuuachav ccwuasamccU Logr.: Lc>o rLgxc. a: nagwaa .guup .o auczm cLauamv x.mac.guoc L_ozu su_3 «ELcu cu ceoU um:c has» 9... cc o_»um co ncLou c. accumoc L.~gu cc «Loumce wacuoa cu mLa menu.LmE< c_= .~ .guch pacemLoa Lc o.cou.c.cs.w cc «cc—_cc» Lac Lac «_mon use an h.uuo .mc:_~c_yL _ccchwaLour_ .acosm>a_gua .cccuuauan cuzu LozueL. ccvuaESmccu Lccvmcau :u u_acua mooxLaouc_ .3 $5.55.. .5: 3 OLE—3 Lac ou-c.vLcn:u cu mcwuachu Lo3ca m>_uu:cCLa .uz.Lun=cc. Lac .o .wCZCE .ochuoc cc sacaceac c, oucoccanoLon:m ac“ Ac» 93c wcuou hi.m c, u:-. cc wucnaos .zuai auc— cu wscwu oucoum.xo acmmea La: c: Au._c=a oz» .— ch. cc w—aam 9:.chcm c< ocv>u.cu< .u «cc.ucc LL >__sm» 0:. c. mun—n Lao .u ovuOI macs cc: A~v ”cacocmc cc «coca —« me>o Ls. cc_.eu:co cc a. ucmav 3:: o: .covuouauu .a .mcLouccu poucQEch.>cw :u ucccc..a;u oc_uu:Luma¢ .c mwzpo>n-wm.u.Lc.Lc cc cc.uoc.2cxo «L < .— mcccuppogu auscz 0;» ccvuou --Loguc .~ .nscccuo ou.>Lou cu ccvuuauoLn :*Ec au_m .a cc.uou:co x gULoonwL uwnon Acc.m.uLw>ua Lo» econ. hzuaoz» an xocpcczu;. we on: _oLuccu «Lac; ac..Lc3 Lalo—-coLamwo. ouL::mmL-3cp Loc accuouavu axo— xah .c 8.55 9:238 a a. 7838.... .. 883--....58. 8:28.... .n .uuw ._c>o. cucum .—m>~— Au.u..cc__uxum¢ .N mvucoschccu uamuuo cc: «acne cLeo. .- .uoouc¢Lc:o omLL.u.n:cLu gucr “agavOLn a:.ucm¢ .— .uo;a umaq m. ”out. c_qs--oucc_o¢ _chuuu mzu accuuoamoc I 'm‘a .uuw-uuLeomuucccmuc¢ JuaL» .c -- .cucalLCcLon ace «you. vcssuv .accm.uLo> a ccoruceo OLocov cu chw—--oau_ .cLocww .~ 9: LosswcCc. cc.u:u.uncu vacvccum gn*upLo .c . mLumnuc. an vcum.wo¢. .mou.cgu acme...ouc. macs cu LuvLc c— vacucoum u.—c:a coo: .~ -553 5 our... 2:33.. .AocCLz co co «no—w uuuachn u.aan a... .2... £52.... 8.: .2 a. 8.7.8.8.. 8.1832... :23 .- .uoem n .Lo>.Lv age goon exec ..u. .-n¢u.Lanmcou w>—au< .~ .842 ... 8: 8:8.......>..§88:2:§ 8:88... L238... ... mlmlllu .:u 3 .5 .c MN .5 .u .2 - .5 m 8.... 3.2.8. «figs. 22... a.» .000030000 unuaunc 0:0 00:00. cuzxa ten e._aw.1 .4.90.H: cannuam 0:0 0» ‘10 00000000 00000 2:30:005h .00000.: 1:: .;~:.Lh .¢:.aruz u~£0s003 00: u .>~ucouumuuu acuxLoi 2.. 00:0 00:0 0A .uuaoavou. gnu: :u«: .00. «0.0: 0.0 .000-«~02. one ance acnqm .009 00003 0.009 - .UAACLCuUuA 0... 0.0.3.79... 149:. .2... clan” ouanuauu .v0«05000 00.0: .0: >-00000¢ 00¢ 00:. .:.0.00 .. .nc..re—s usuuaa vu00< s .000003 04 :00 a. :0: :00 900 vucun.v c» 0000- .00 :0. «0.2u500 a: :00. «0.:h 0~0500u u :00 u nixs. 022396 ”3:me .000; uuoaec. 0 0>0z 30> an L0 00..cc_~:g 4203.02 000: :0» «u an. an no: .0~3—000: ox 0~uu.— a: 00: ".00009.3 .L_u c u; 00: on“ radon,» c :; sand 1:- u nun-i :0» 0.0.00 «L000. 00:000: 0:. 000m .uau.3 :Lr .2.22 00:0003 0:» 30050 a .>.0L«0=a 00:. uncaa 00 v.03 nu nu 0~auuuq>c 0L- nuuuccqa ode-vauuovoun .q..a .cu_.:-.n .0 00a osu saosd a ..«IL00 .¢:.H.0L0L L0. v0cu:0-. 2" L0: . 0manua0u ”an 0050 000 30> u. L00» .00 000.0 :00 0. u;¢«: c>nu r.. 00% "00005 0nuuucu alouuuueoo va- gu~00£ 00:: 0—000 000: a:- L.)00v;m:n c .H: .wrn: s. 1L0» 0:» :0! a .wnc.mnom :dquaau000: 000 0« 1000 0th .000: 00 00.1.0000 00.~..Lu. .anrsguea .0;: «~00 0uuquuu0u n .00.0090 000.000: 50.. 0.20.0. vacant. 0>nc and: .0a00 an 00.2.0: 04.10:: ca» L00 «0 uuwu0n00 0 >0 vuuuuunLn u. .urnna a: tea 0000.0.0309 .000-m 00000000 n . can: 00 000: :05 001.0«0000 .0 0.. 000 :0> 00;) room :15. ich 0.00 av 0.000 :0» 0‘00000 0:0: .L0cant vovcuaa< :0 cu sqco 000....001 0000:: .0 00000v0 o .0000: 0:0 00 00:0 =0.A 0. 0:000:000 0.0a 0.5 $00; 0;. a. 0009 000.0«0000 0:» .0 year .000.u«0000 vucgoosoz we 00: 0:. 000Lulann 00 00010: I .anuou x003 arm 0—;4q .02 on: h0g0 171 ‘30 .00000 00) 0000.00 0.009000 000.03 waxuoa (cagh .0...L L0. 00:00: 0. uuouucoo ha:- 000 0u0£h .0a00.¢0o 0000:. -Lsux_ on: 0:: uaon< 0000; .00000 400000 u0su 00:: auuoacu 20.30:; .10. 0:.000 00:00 ‘00 000n~u000u00 «0000 000000000 on 0.00: “nuLch. u:—:0£Uu.noa 0uoau~ .0000001 u=.ur00r00 0:03 a: 0000. 00 00000030 0 00: .000» 0&00000 00:0 Louuun = 0:0: :;s .— uaosvounu 0 00: .000: 0000000 0 00:. 000.00 aucauLo udc x=.u.=0 >5 .:xu«0 0000: you soon 0:» 0000u0u~0 no 00000. 000 00* .000: 000.000 0 cqnuuuqz 000 .000» .uouunl 0.000.: .0 5.003 0 0« ‘00 00000 niuuq000000l 0000 cu uncouuu 0a mush "owzaLuu L0 c0>qca 00:: no: on ..c0==0Lupnu 000» 0» 00375600 Du canduu coon: sung: «.5 v03. :70 .3 . s: €60... 2000 .0000: "wow «000' 000 .uuunoun .00000 no 00: 0:05 acwzuox ”cause: ow..0.m 000m 5009 nonobln .c0uusau00 00003 .0 00.00. Lanai a 0.0 000 00x0« 0:: 0.0.«a .30 0a a: 0:0 00:00.0 «cut-a: :« wear 0000snwosm .00umcaaczm .. .a: 00.0000nu su0>¢ . .0. .L000 c» 0000. 030a .000 0:0: 0.00000 saucallou 000» u— ”Loucou xL.~nwu0x 0000002 08» 00: .000000000 “00500: La. .0 u~0s 0:0: :00 a) .000. .0 004x. 000: 0A :40 0000» 0:0 dun u~ "000:0: on 0d mausuonu 0:: .0;:.—=.:z .0ouccw~00< vac neon 0.33.0... 0050 1:... 000: 300 «0 0000000 uc«L=uucu==00 0:. c. 00000: a. nouar nutch ”00:01 .0. ruuuu ”ac 000m .009030000 #00045: 0:0«90»: u>¢0 hos» .uquna ~00. 0 0.12.0 ::.~u>uau .0. 0.0000 L0 ~.0w :0h v.00 02a :.v00~ 0:0 0» 0000—0: =005~usu .20» wcuL: 0:0 z~.c: we...:: as. .0 ucuvfluuuubvca 000003 0 can: dag) :0r "naausm 0:0 awoLh 0>«.n= ace—m 000006 0 30.0 a 00A .000u0 0 500000 0 .0 cc..0n.u a unco ucuun mccu "ou:ax L:. .qnuut uuc 000m I .t0uahn ccaaoou u:- ¢0auo0n 0:0; .0 names: 0:» .0 :00: «>00 0. .0;»n scun00a 100:0: voou 0.: 000 000:: 00.; "00.50: ucuucou an ucwuquz accaq—n0ucn acaopun 0 nmcruu<¢ u=o> zu zo~h~_0:uc000 .s.a<3 ucaguu:.eao 100 .0000090 .1010AQ on dual £030.m 50:0 .aa.uwaa 0 L: w>«>.:u 00 0.0 >~00ua a. 009 .mouusonaL —1L:uuc ~2uu> .00 ac 0:0 .. L..y: .Luvqa 00000000 a 0: an .Iiuaoun ucuc0ugnuuu .000 .00 a. zuroLu 00.00—0000 .0uam >~ulin mule. - .0L0u000 nu 0ua.«uuan a: 00 couuaauoa .0002 we: .4. aujw-L .«zazaou .0300 0—0: buouocu 0:2 auLucu mo 30000-0 .00.: 0>xa :00 say .m.«0uuuu0~m 000m 3 .mfloy 450:» . z. {magma .000300 0» unannouuLu 0a 9:: 0000.00 30.000: 0150. :00 1_0>v~ 000~ 00 4500-00050 100 0.10» 0:. near-Am .000: 0;. u. .odaz .0 005u0> 0:0 00000: n 172 .Iunok. 3.531260 0.30:3 I.» 5‘ 033:3 3 .9323: can: "on: 1....— 3 33.-cu 3 .533...» and: I (.2... 05 «a ‘32: 1365. can 3 333 3 an :95» «3 9:32. !! moon "=8:- 3355 I .008—.35.! an. 0531. 23325 no :2. 0 5333-3503 «333:... can: "150.“ 5:10:33» .3321 all!» can: I 6620.3 38.—:39 5.. _l- as 5: 0.08...)- uauauluouu!‘ 530‘: ”3039» 5 5:33» ooze-bu and 59.05. I .898» 885 .5 Banking 1:39 “In 05 a: 32. 2.65 53 .3 an: .65 on...) a: "clan- uan .8333: 263 "305 3 3:35 3038 v.25 I .00.: on. 523 000-03 09:193.. 5: 9.33.. no 33!. I.» 325 "833:8 14 3 on 3.68 I .5353 I... 0.30- .53 be. 33.6.:— 33393 5 03-!- 53398 250.— 33»: 3.98 I .33 3 an: 38.. .65 v93 :20 3.98 "305 .5 I .3 no: we. 1.: :3 3.30 3!... .1033 53¢!— .uo¢!.§ 265 op...— "31; 5.65 355 I .053 533 I9: :33 a...» 30!. u..- uoquS 392 ".53 0:13!- 553 I I50»- 733 2.3.9:. - Iona be all. new ES .255 5.3.0 "330—5qu 3 can I 533.303. 9.302. new 3.3 voou a 30... 33 :33 03 3 10132: 3: 3...qu 8335'» a 33 ”53.30-coal: 3:3.— 3‘ 390: I . 103 I.» 93:39 .0. .55 09:3 9:»: :I 3 60330333 259 "3:3:- 53 26 £38. I 35.9.0350 23 0—30.. no: .00.. casual—3 9.3033 33 9:... 01-: "533:: 955.3 02085.3 3: I 33 85 3:! Bungu £03.93. 3:. be 3.515% 3:- 05 3 on 33 3° 53.: oi .130—lu— 05 no 0.39 3.55 «0 0.0932325 03 3 :32! 30>. on :8 285 39599- I .02. 50.3.26 new 33503 0a '0 any .505 In: So 2:. "03.8 .505 I3. :0 03 3959: I .110. 33.25. 3. no 53 3'- - «03-93 .255: 333733 8. III. I .333- !«3 79°— .35 "3.0 ~03! 3.3.3.053 I $.33 £3 :55 5!. 83.338 33.30:. can we gun-on 05 can 31!. E5 .505 you "5.3 no 3953- 1 .3: I .1003 r 098 «an an on 3 a! no v00: .65 32.: 3 .0» 3 8333533 33:5 02. 3 53 .52.: :33 33:5 3163 - ya: on. 35 3 283-3338. 3.32 on: I .8303.- u-u 3 333 n a...» 3.0 . .3. I: 3339:. 3 13.333 5:...— 3- .85 3 "you an: 33F 26.3 33 I .3303- 3a .3313 II 8393. .03 5?qu 9:33 "5.333338 ’39 I .8331:- :- uooavou 1.3 .3. .3: 3:0:- uouuoa 30. .3533:- 33 3 ecu-.8 .303 5:28.:— IB cacao < 2.33.88 3:..- 338. I 56:83 :15 33:30; on: 3 83.... 3. no 33 c 3 8.2.35 ".8 8335.3 3333 .3338 I in: 5995 .3326 3 381-30- 393. .333 3'5!- u..xx_ in: use 26» we 95:: .3535 00.5935 I .3 3:3:- 50 .01» v...— 383u85n§533§3u3~9¢5£3= ”ggégssaI .833 3 3 .30 .3 a...) an...» 83:30.. obo- uv—I can .3. .33 .03.. .595 no can: 352. 03..» «a; 33 “3:..— .33 399? 53:33:- 33 33.50 3 3 .3 use. 53a.- 5 .5!- 5¢¢I 3o 32:. ”5339:: 2:95 333 I a £65 5.:- 3:49:30 .2333... on. «I: 3269—. 3a 3a!» 3.13 ‘6. 33 use no :03. ”3023...; 035 DII .333 It 5 3 32- .3333 23 3 2633!. 5!. 53 3 3 3 up .53 .65 .35 so: 33!! "32635 I... 0.53 I Sow-dun.— 31' 5::- no "coon-«1 I 3393:3- I.» 3: in 01.3, 83:30.. 00:3 .341 In 53 I .283 53 we 590:: 13 mi .3332: I.» you 59.-v. ".185 .539 53.33.50 53 I .35. 3 «no US: .533. 5!.- 335 face 3333 .1...qu I .33. a... 3 mo ‘33 3 3 1.035 1 «to: 385 a...» a: 13 303 55303 .83- "398 5:030 in I 65.0039 3 3 '3 333 18 30.63 :3 285 2.3. 3.3: :8 on“ I .31.- : on an... I. .33 33 _l- .333 533 no .53 can 303 5355.8 1053 a: “convoc- ona-Iuac- on: I .n 173 .515:- 31. haul no 8393qu of 5563.15 on. «:0: new .33: 18 9.3.5505 ".302—n ~35 vow-9.1.x.- uso at!» :0: s 535253 05 more 3::- uOuaIaa: no .0333 .230 .Eos unanno- uon o: 33:.— u.aoa I E? g! .0623: anus-I855. again... 3 0-502. ‘6- .3339 9:5.- .iu «830. no 303.33! 38. "0:30 I.» we an: o 9...! ~85“ can! a .3: new aux-on - gone»: 3 3:2» .32: on: "Icon-:8 1.» 5 Ban: 1.- £35 :3 3 n .0958 9.33... .3 3i:- ugnaao 23 on...) .3269 Anal «0 =2— 1 queen-I «ducal-9550 3.8. "swam «390.8525 3 on: 3.8 one: a Sun-0:00: :33».- 302. :0qu as: of 3.. 3595 3.2.- ..5: encoun- .oo_Iu-; "3605 ~02?» 9:63.: 3 2...: P5030055 no. gnu-3 u ice-run: loan-39 no an... o 3 8:33:82. 39.8 2: .3 32.» 38: 535.: a... .888 39.8 2:: - .3?— 35. an v3.60» ca :3 a: 2» 3 .8331... no .33 any; 8: no one 30!.- 933 326 t .auauiou 3.9 £5935 v3.3- 3 3309:— 2» .831 In. 9509 up ragga "aqueous "383-093 on on noon—loo user a... 0 £32.20; a: 3:357 no :2— Ou-uuu-ogu .luo: I: no 051638 ”83:30; a: 33350 n .0156». nonsu- 05 no 38255.3 «303 3 v32!» no v0.3.- 3 an :2! "sneak 330v. one: o .m 174 138:- .0»: ES LB. .5 .2 5 acacia cal ca ensue: «c: :3. ".5331: so! : 35.3.9.1 :2... o. 8.3 33 :8 5.8 2: £03930.— ouol I... 3:30.293 52:2 1.. .32... 98.. .51.: I: .322 o..- 313 .8Soctfi8o9o8. 3.3! .3 53.13 .3 3333.91 53311 9:38.83 .8188 .8 3.: .3 5 8nd. 5.3 .1 on: .22... "8332293 3;! 13 5:. 15.18 .8383... 35383.5. 3 8333.. 5 .829... .852: a.» .38. 83311 .53; a: 33.588 3 13 3:8! .36... B 93.: H:- ..8v 3 a 13 .393 .323 .23. 18 3 5.6.8 on... 85>..- a: 532203 3393.9 a 1.3.8.. 3 a :8» go! .35.: 23:1 523: 5:. 323.. 13 .5 .38.. 8.22 £3. 83.. 88 a!» 3 .3 8.5-: it; I. it! .8 .28.. 83:3 53 5.2.2.2. o... 0.8.: .8383... "p393...- 383 83...! .3qu £2. 23.8.65 .9... .5823 .3 3 15.1! I. =8 53!:- 2: 532.. b: Jul - 83 a 83!:- 928 .5 62.. uo .338 33.818328 ~33 1: 3.. 31.39.85. .833 n 3% 3 to .8. 3 A1360... av 01—: .2331. so on 1180 con: ac on: It. .2359. .o no... t... 3t. 5.3. s: 3 so... 1...! o... 1.. .3: :5...- fl. 3 .889. cnloo - .8333. 3.. 5 3|... 9.: £2:- .8§558 35 €23» 3.8.. 3.5.58 82:. .3. .5 35 .3323; 8332 on? 3 .0958... as: 3.3.8:: 33 38 £383.... .5. .8 .2 35 In... .5 2:88 .3 83.38 8. .1328“. 3 5.5 :8 I. «2.81. .23 8 .5598: .583 8.: 2.. a 5.”. 03 .i 5!. 12.-02.8 on in 8.0 can: 5.8 05 an: on .3 3:33? 5059 :- D~SS> 13 3:30:39. .nun«~3§o:’:o 3 5.08;: 3.!- c on. 3:8:- huoco 9.21.26 .3525: .ucalOpnoz: «up: baa—mien .3 «3331:. .5 Sac-en. 0:2. 3 .: 3:03.31 he and. 0.32502. got: .3 rc- 2.3395 homey. of w. 0.3..- okl Inca... 50.30.. 23 an... 3 .33.} on. u. «on! 2:23.. 9: ca 13.833 1: 329.8 cofllkcc. 2.. 3.230... 9.300.:- aaosuua .a:£..cc.$>so 23 .3 no: 2...; a Loan. .3 52.3 .3530 ca: 2933. u: 30... - .IJ a .- 53523 033.33. 2.... 5 10.553: 3 .2 803.3530 s:- lsoouuoo; 5 3:0 3 .159: 85:03. :2- 3 euro: as: as: .3: .3). .3 on an: on 02' 3 :53 29.: a an 3303 acute-2 52!: 1.33.3 v1 33. :o of 093 .haoageuou -5. can :95: etc-coo 3 98qu a. 5 3?: no...» baa—.32. I... ‘31... 5:15:25 eel-c.3025 13 I; .930 10,-: 502'. oa uni-cu ca Ca... 1 can 3 5&1... b.3315 capo-0.5- 1:. 3.32. :2... .0 I8» anon-of. 3 Buoffil< PI 1.33 1:. 338. ES.» 128.» .3?) i095“ no 09—8-0 :9 25 ul- xoono 1:: 2E. .2282: PSI .30: a D33. go 983' on: 3 .308 343! 33.—old 5 noon-30.4.9239 ":32.- 19183.. 3. 2.81 .5 I8 8353.. .18 1: .33.. 33 on» 5; .050qu 53:- ucfi i 3 £30300 1!. .2 Bob... 3.3.: 5:055 09¢ a 3 ~55 so... o: 0.035.. zonggxhzm 175 Scoop-n 0: upon- vouaoLoov an: a: 3:309 .930» 3.3; as: .5 55¢: .uauonuo o» ucaeuooog .uauudco pogudz uo :«cgo ago. .:a .ansuuau o.a. .3352...» goal. «o :3 cash in: u:- o—y—S 22.395 .0033 o..- aacnuuo as): El .923- :o .8 .oogoaaoon .03.!— «35265 nah; .~.o¢uogu aqua» :ua: uoaanuog .« .oa.a an .«on as» u~ 3...... i.- nnlacc naautuoa by cozy-coo sou 031:an coo»... ho decal. 05 on: .5» “£99 33 93!... I: 3:0 a9: Save-.835 .055. 5.: .588 .0585... in: no go:- nn'dcu automaton Logan: 0.3 3 03:3:- couPo no gold 5 0003.0.— u... C3!- !3 5 soak: Lou 1'... 1.0 .3359: .2». £339.30- 3 gloat-USPS? I.- .83383 933:. no 53.5 35.3353 "28250:: uo .2015.— .3 own... an.» .aco«.u=c ga«a u-aanfion .« Loan: he has; . egg: .uguo; 5.5.... no... I: .Elcuopou 98 :9: ~23... .53. 3.252%; 3 35.0.3 wfifi". on» 33.2. ~332€5 lob loo 3:331! L3!- uo .uuaaauoua esop< .co«a=~fioa hoe-a .e«u.uo au~du .9 an; .u=«~.ann.c= uqauufiaoga-o. .. u« .Hna-ung haaqoduo~o«.nza cowa=-oa .« aflco do: .o.«~ .o nu«u:¢=u an. na«~.sc use 9» o.on urge .vu.-.; o;a ac. .5.».: an. .ucq~ .Laa as» ea «ac-eagfion Lee-u cg“ yo .uoa ou- ucaaoqnon .300:- 03- 3023!. $3150.. I... an "SE-co a... on: a: o..- cozsgon an .0958 .030: Io: cog—.201 o:- vco .2: 3.3!. Can 20 uo coda—.28 5:23:03“. 53:035.. 3 3.5.. of. 33:53.: .co«a=p«ua:oo «noun a na .u... .3: a“ denouudcuanca :0; sued-u o: .u:.¢:ou«.=o oz» snag-a o» H‘suaudugd no.0 .3 can. auouu. ago». .onano .go oa auacguaaaou .« u:o:=ou«>co .«g u.=«.u¢ .8..- cl :3- »..26 an «9:. Anton 10323 05 no .3525 can 3 ’33:. "33:... 1 1.: 3 nova... one .3 .033-2. 3.25:0 cacao: 3 «'03- uuoudonuonoga n on i a1... 333.320 cool :08 In .3 I. :02... 5 2.3: u so.» .35... «.5 4353' 05 51. 12.3.3.6 on do: 3.6:. .33... 3:. .acolovnoz: H3338. Lou ac! co 5.3-585 go 5"! a 53:00 ocul— ucwtozou 2:. .13 332:5 1.- 2.3:...— 1 on 3 3an :2. a...» a! 3an 35 co 8: 2. Lou 0.5.2.6 0:33:00 23 :05 :8: a0. $3351.: .3 «am Coal. .3 v8.“ 0...! o: 2.3:. €1.00: 98: o: 32. St. 5.3. 9.3 0......) 2:8. a sun... :9: AI. Ian-o..-ll.- Cd .NJ.¢3£-LUUI ‘43.- 176 o. 53.1... .5 3 .3. 81 .3 .15 1.31.15. 1.... .195... 01. a... .1...- 13 .02: .3... .802 1.. 830.528 1.... .8120 5 31.... 01:. .08... 0501.6 .5 3 .81.... 513.. 1.3.8 8 91.8... .5 a .19... 5...... D 088 0.191 .058. Jul-915. .3... .8 .3810... 85.8 .8 .1311... not. 1.. .389... 331.20. .3 1.1.1.. .8 .1811... I... 0.1.. .013 05:13.. 5330031280.: .8808... :10 .5381 1.. £138. .8 3 0.5 05.888 .809. 838.11....» 05.102 60003000 0.00 031001 100.1510 05 .00000 00.. an .0000 a: goal . 139.. .8150... Sean... 8 9...... so... .319...le- 0.8.. .5 51 31.3 1 0... to... 1: .13 .5351? 12. 0. .2: .5 5 31.... 21.... 1.0.0.1.... .1816 1.. .1... 0.0.015 .81.... £300.15. 11.8 1.. .1... 3 .91388... 130.18 09¢ 03.258 053 3 13 0.... 1..» a... .8 .8333... 518.088. 1.. 21.159350 00 :0o 00.. no...» 500 0.300 08 00000: 0.00000; 00: 3 1.3.8 5 .09.! 1.. 0.331: on. .0500... 8.51.10. 1: 0.0.8.31... sggguogifiii. .8301... .3... .8 .1 09c 0:31.... 0023 :05 0000000 05000.. 0.81 000- 0' £010 0.3 no 5:000 I... 0. 30.0.. 1.0 .0882... 8 «1.... 15 .00.... 13.19583 .0... :80. .818: 1.. .812. 51 0.81 .180... 3.... 11. 1.. .28... .3... .0025 0.. 15 88...: .8. 05: a. .23 .3 3 .81 3.3.33.1.Hiiouofigulciu .00... .13 5 .80 051 3 52...... .01.... .3 62318.. o... 95...... 2313.0 0.. .8131. .1 3 03.1.. 1 0.. 31030320 01.501: 9.0 {0:00:15 1:0 0001053.. .0100: 3.25.0.5 00 5910 0000.580 10.300: .3005 H0530 0 so 031.00g .anaaucoo 85.... 383. 539:8 .1 15 53.10... 81 3 22:. :3 o. 1.0 .308 £300.. .303 009191. 01053035 .0003 40:25 0:003? 3 130030.. 0.3 308 000:.— .00033 .322: «.3 oa 1.5.... .330 031: .5 5 83.11. .1 not 00.0.0 15 £2 5 0...... 02.0. 53.39: 13:8...th .5 .018 0o 1:3 5 53090.30 33.. £0.81... .33.... 00.01.! .85. 1.. .0511! go 5323.300 .5 8.1.65 81 5331.. h. 41...... .330 0315 .5 5 0.3301 go 083:! 05 cu 00003 000100 00'01 003000: 1.0 no.5 1.53610. .858. £31.08 0:1: 3 11.5.3... .8331. .1 0a hco 02. £02.00 #3002. 0:0 .100? .000002. 0.30300.— 1.0 0.3.121 3 .3312... 5331.. h. .2311. 3 01...... 51... 3...... 8% .031 1.531: PI 5 .8321. .1 a. .1»... .31.. 111.1: 1.0 $51.15 «03 «39.0.8 1.0 '2. 000 000160 12.5 .105 no.6 03053.3 5331.. L1 1. u. :1 18.1 811.8 833.8295 .05.. 51 0.81 1.. 31.83:. .5 3 8321.. h. 3 3.3.3.8. .2... I: .100» 50000 131000.. 010 0000003 003300... oo .88 1.8.6.: 1...... 1.. 31.01.30 .3100 31.0 3 05188. 31.3 a :31 .n .3 03.1.2. 5...... o. .0359... .02 . 5 .3... 05.5.5 .981... 1.. .32.». .0331... .. .3. 30.0.1 .01.... .1 £0: .18....» 1.. 93...... :1 .3111. .3... .80 01o 8.. ..£.S:& 3 .1333... >110 II-..L:..|0-L .wlL‘o.‘ -d-p0—L L... 177 .0R~ARR% 15.0.3 0.3.05.8 .82Akka .5030 08:30 0300.505 .800ARRR .0035. 000.00.30.50 .2638 00 000 0001.0 000000000 00h $20.3 04.5% 05 .8 .28 05 03 000.00 08.200 330.50.. 05 080:8 00. 0003.0 02:88.. 3: .83-0.805 1.5.00 .8 .5330... .30.. 003000 000000000 0 00 00000000 "0000300 .00” .000 0 00 0000000000000 .8 .0580... .83-0035....- 20 000.888 0.838.... .80 .28.. £50. 83050. 000 00 0000 100 010010000 00000300 00 00.000000 000 00¢! 0a: 000000 00... 300010000 000003000 00 000000000 0 0000000000 0005100 0 0000005 00 00 .0400 000010000 0.0000010 1.0 0.00000 00 00:00 00 30000 03...... 00.0 £80 0 .0... =88 .000 0 .009. 00 00.... a 000.0 0.3.0.. 3% :0 00.. :00 2:. 4.0.0. .0898... «00000.. 00 0000000000 0000000: 000 0000000 0' 0000 003000 0 00010000.. 000000 0000 00 000001. 0000000 0 00000300 00 0000000000 000 01:0000 00. I .801 05.5.00 1.0 .0 .828... 0. 002.08.. .3 8.00.085 0.8.. 6301.. 5 0000.00. 00. 005 I0: 0590 32.. 0.8... 000 000000000. .0000000 00 00000000 0000000 100 .0003090 000 000 000000: .001: 0000 60005000 00 000 0000- 100 00000 000: .00000 00 00205000 000 000000000000 .00 000 00 .000000 040018000 0 00 01.0 0000 00000000300 1.0 01.000 0000000 00 000000000 00 00 .000... .0000: 000 000 00 00.003 .083 #303: 0.0. 8:80 .3588 005.5 05.50 0. .0000 800.830.8000 02.5... :32... ~280- 0... .88 0.38 ~31. 0.... 0300:. .8308 .00 008 832: 8:: 3332:0805 0.81 9: 3.! 0:8 0° 3.3. Ion £30.28 03! 00.5808 02.000 0. .000000 000 00 .000-50 .0000" 00 00.20 00 00000 000 an 50000300 .000 00 0000 00 600.05 00 00 an 0.0000000: 100 0000000 00 .100.” 0000 00 08.90 3 8.0... 0.0 00 .00.. 05.8 04080028. :0 5 00 00 0502.30 00 000000 003000 000 60000300 0000 100 .0000: 00 0M0: 00 000» 0000 00000 000 000200 K00 0000010 00:30 0017000 00000 .038... .3353. 020.50 0:88 :0... :00... 303 0 .8300! .0 :8 0.8: 0.0.... 0o 0.0. .508 8 0... 3005308 03.0... .008... .00000 .0000 .0000000 00 0.80 000 0000 00000. .000» 00000 000000 000 000000000 000 000000 3000 .00 000 000 00000 .9013 000000 10000: 000 0a .0000 000 00 000000 0 0000 000 00000000 00000 1.0 000000 0200 600000000 00 000 0H: 00 03000000 £00.00 000000.. 00000 00 00000 '00 00 100 3000000000 00 00000 05 00 000000 2000000000 0000 00000 00000 000010000 "0000300000 0000 .000000 00.80 1.0 0000 000000 000 .00 0000000 0.00000 000 00 :8. .0 83300.00. 0.3 00 .000 .20 00 £0.08 0-0008 00 .13 000 00 1.0001. 0:0 00 =00 000 00 000000000 000000000 000001. 050000 0000000000 1.0 0000000005 .00000 00200000 0000000 000000 '00 00 00000 8 3:8 00: £8.30 £038.30. 02.03 0:100 3 3808 1.830. 0.. 0:308 03.8.88 1:. .881»... 053 8.3 00.83.00. .5 0.. 0000000000 000 00 00000 000000! 30 01.0 0.0331. 00 0000000 PI 0000000000 50010000000 000 000000000 1.0 000001 00 07000:: 000 .130 "00000000000 00000000 1.0 0000000 0000000 0000000008 000001. 000 0150100 00000 .0500- 00000 000 000 1.0a 0000090 00 0000000 0000: .000000000 D0000 0000: 00 178 .9533 .85.. 1.1.5 .n .5338 have»: 1:. 2. .33 .300 U580.“ .303 3 6533 33:8 5&2... .613... R .8123 33...... v8. .858 £8.18 3 .853 .31 525.5. R .525 a... 5 at} I: 1128 :85... 51.3. 3 552.1 as. 5 .5331 and I1?! 3038 on: g 3 .0003.— gnou .5 an 385532.93 .1818...33 .iailluulo nag .E:§§'.§a.§§i¢naog 8.89..» .gguagigaailglng .31- 13? {Sal-II ‘01 .851. Jnfli .8 135.! 083-" ship-55:35? .gggggho sod-£253.3olisvglngosaioh 1h .aéfifia :33 .n 8.. £8... 5 .5351 958 I... 5 .38... 5 con-5'8 5!... a: .53.: c8219....- 5 19... 5.99... Uninsulofitigisasggulh mun: 430508. 0.3 :3- .288 .gngnogaiil.3§!¢3g§at¢ 53... I... 8.3... 1.. 9.8 in... 58 .3 :2. 883 33 nnSIHNCSn a. 552.1. .85.. 1.96 ... RS 3.58 3.: .1592 5 .5331 8 a... £55.38 9.- 5 .398. t. 53... 82.... .3. .22. 53.8: .555.- ..3... .888 .85 88 .58.: .2. $83 8 k... 53.- 3.8 .12.. a8... 2. 353.89 .giuc an. ’3 513 «a 2:0 133-cod 0.3 3.3 .83 u... nou .230 5.. .5 ~35 «00..» b.- .Eoouu an: 2.2. ulna—Uta 82-53:... E 5.581 :2! 3. :2 Elton «3.: a... :9: 9.305.... :5: and». a... .73- .I...«I.~I .395 3.0.58 3.. 09!... 3‘4 £23980 9.: 5 I23 .308. S... E: .53... .o 55.. in. BB .3... 1.- ..o... «52.1 82-8.2.2 2 £521. £21 .z 3.: halt-o... n30: 9.. :9: 53...: A353»- 3!... Each... .8» no: $59.1 2.3 5 33s. as..- o: a... .53... .58.»... PI .o 5 8338-8 5.5 .5 .1: .53.!- caocxs .52... .9 02.33 3...... :3 b5 a2. noon «:3 aim .33 .3 -02. ~03- 2. 9:53:00 €2.37 “.20. o... no.3 8533.... 2.3 92. u..- uooa «about on: :«u not... .000 .8: 3:3 33.300 438 5.55.: 85138.3 Ii: :85 undo :- .~o..un :- 43- voice-bun: Anal-no .8. .930 30 lo}: «3' in .0..- b... no...» 33' .5 28¢ 4.95:0... 3 388.01 9. 1.. 53:13». 9.. 5 105 uncoo- St. 5!... .33- 2.2.81.2. .0 cl: 3. p.355»: ob... no.5 «in 80045353 5. :52... .825: .3 8o. coaucuonuou 95:89.; 70.5 «in 3E mfihza 9. 305m: 179 3.0000... 00 000... a. 8:05.05: ..0 30230150 0:3 300000..- .0302. 0.500002 000000 00... 0000 007.5 00 00000030.. 3 .000 .0300000 00:000.. 000003.80 .0300.» 3.50002 0000000 0000 '04 00.0050m 0.2. A0 2203 3 .0000000 00-3000 00.. 000.... ..0 u..0|00..1un>.~..0 00000 0000008 .3030... again: .0500! .0002. 000.5 6 wow 4.8.3.2.... 0.8.0.3.... .0520. .530 .0 ~02 £00-10... 0:0 .232 .5228. 0315......“ .0520. .3083! 9.0.. N... 0000004 00 0.000030) 3 0000000 0.71000 .00 000.... ..0 «wouaouvlnhaco 00005 0000008 .319.me .0500!— .000I0~0x .n 82 .30... .85.. 27.3.: .8983...“ .0520. £03.. .0 «R £4 0000055 0.... A0 .00 000000 .8 .0503: .0 0:00». 0 00 000; .30 0« 00.20 0.000 £003.90 89.: .8203". .o 0.0.0.3 a. .o 2.0 :9. h 2.5598 R .20....00 00.. 00000 00 309.0 0000. 30 {.000 .0 000.. .0002. ES .0050 00..- 0.... 0000800 00 0030 00000.. 00 :00 00300: .001. 1.0 00308 3. .00» :0: 5.30 0000.0 30 0.3 0:00 .08: ES .305 00070 :0» 000.... 0010' 0 00 00:0 :0». .3 .5 .0000 .50 .3000 0:00 100 0001020 00000.. 0...- 000'00 00...: :0» 001.00 .000000 cm... 3 33:0.“ 00 000 1.3. 7580.3 000.3 .0: 8030500.. ..0.. 200 :0 000.. 00 000.60.... 00:03 930:1...8mmm .A000l0u0000 00.0.0.3 '0: .00.. 00. 000x000 00 000000: 00505 .3 3 40000000 000 .00.. 000000. 00.: 0000.3 3.03: 1.0.5 3 400.0000 30.6 .00.. 0000000 00.: 0000:0053; .m 3 .00 00.00 80...... 00:0: 0:0 00 0000000 0..0 000001.95 .00....000... 0300000. 0 00.. 3.00.0 00 h..0..0 00 0300000 000000.... 000: 0.0509. 00 00000.. 000002000 0. .2000. c. .2. .083... .03.... 2.0 38.5... 3 093.62 0:2. £0 .5: 9.000 0000 0000000. 00000 .0 0020500.. 000 00:0 0.50 5 000.. 3.02.0 0.3 .3303: 0:08 .5. 0:00:04 5 000001.001 0.3 0.0.3 3.00030: .0300 0.50 0.8! 0 500000 5' £00.... 00000.... "£00000 0:0 .00 00200000.... :0 0001 00.0500. 0.. 0000 00 1.00 0.0303 3.0000 00 000000.00 .0 0000000 .00: 005000.. 030000058000 00000007.. 0 00 00 000030000 00 000 .0000 00 .50.... 3.8.00 0.8! £00200 2030.0. 00 00000 «0 0000000300 0.2. .000: 0:30.00. .00 00:... 09.3 0 00.. 0d 0.0.... .00.:ch 00.. 3 0. £32....- ...o...§p 8 a... 81.. 8.3.23... .8... £00. in. 1.- 00:0000' C0000 000:0 000000.000 .0001—000.. .000 00000000 0005.. {000000000 00.0500. 00: 0:02.00... .0000. 00 00002.10 an 0078...... a. .0520. 3...... .a a... 0.1-8 .8... .8. .8... 0.3.8.... .1:- 20 :0 005033 out... .35.. a... 2:823 5.58 20 no... .813-3 1.2.8 5... 0.8.- 3.6.. 505.00 00:0..— 000 1.0 £00900 .50.. 0:00:04 000". 0:0 00C 05.....000 00.030. 00.0 002.90. 020 50000.05 .00 00: .0003 «0 00003 no: 3... 3 08080 :0 0800133 2.0 000. I... .8... 05008.30 .0303...) .533... 8.0.3.... 33.. 3.8. .2 .0001. .000: 9.0000.“ 0001.. «NA .0520. :3. .32.: .08 :5 22.3.5. .3 .35... 03266... .00.... .2 30...... :33... .0 £50.03 000.0010 000.. D005 .0 .0330»: 0500.... 3 .30.. 0.03.52 1.20.. .0 "02'00 :9. :0 00000000. .50... an .0500: .0000..h05.0.. .m .00..0< 3.30.... 02.00: 3 .0500! .0050: 00 2.2.0) on 3000003 000 000000 030.. 05b! 8 180 .39.: "3.3.3350 vacuum... 321:... 9.330.:— vcn 2.33.: 10330.. couch-coco 13 503338: "3:!9—«23 no 3909.. 2. soul E8 on £30 .2». 89:93:: .3323: 552.1 .5850» O3 .595 .12.! 5:8 9:3» 2 .00.: 9:31 05 ca .09.: ‘31: 9.3:. ft. 2:“ .331-«cacao .2... n8? 53...! 552.1 :1... fa non .o.._ {25... 92:: his. «5!: AN 38.. 5:23: 552: id vogue: an: no...) baa-n .92 .3 33. 3.181... .3. 33:08: nan £33.05; £5.02: .1 .28 3 .293 53.5: 6521 la: «58. .u 88 :2 -0989: :53... .3 con-oi. on 5' actual: 1:03.535 .o:':o.—«B.o lio- n $55.05. 13 Egon no cacao. «9.000. 52. and... on: .5: .3 .0391». than no coda-too?! I... 3398. 3 3.2%.... 2:32: 5:3» 5.115 a... go 8.116 .523 2 anaamcu-so a... 3:3 29.5253: var—gm E 5533.35- 2... 3 accuse a: .38 1.. saga .505 .5 8.23.5 mfluflm 2.58.8 3...... an «89.8 a .33: vol. 3 no: .1030 2. 5333 50.3 3 9.3 on 55829 3...» and .0053 v18. 3‘ and. :3 so» .33 going I as. .33! .3333. 35:0 .8.— nduonflv a g... :15 .85! .8930 a :3. Ag!— 1 .8. an»: .1552. 35» I.» .3 soul—cal. audio 8&5 §3§3o5§-§.8§3§1¢ 8295...: .383 .33. I... 1.88 El .3 89.8 9:8 .88. ‘8- .l& .528 5 v3.0.8.5 .5 2&3 :3 on 13 ‘53 .5358 .008-«nan. i .Isooa 191.851: to... 3‘ is 2. Ac 181 2.3.3.33 £8. 5.20... £98.. 2.» 2.... £82. .8 08. ES... .88.: 38.8... 88.. 5.2.... 65.... 55?... «.95 :3 7.51.5 m§§8m 22.5.5.6. .a 32.889 .350... 88-...Qflo 0th.. 5.2.... £213... «S .8 .3 £8: 38.. 32.3.88 3 90.5 .aéxk... 8.0.. 502...: .953. 050300 .00: .558 .32.... iii-2...... 3...: 93...... 9.8.8Q2n 98. 5.2.... .332... .85.. 5: on... .286... 3 830 .83 3.35... an: c.8302 {85.-4 5: nugget. «0 530.355 E22350 000%.: data. u A: .53 RSRKRR 88. 5.23.. $3.4 5.. 5.2.... .o 5.9.22: 2... 2232. 588 .5 1.30.2.3... Saniflknfin 88.. 5.20... £85 5.. v.95” $0.38 2: :85 nn< .3 amino ugoou :80: 2.3202 .50.; .83. 38.6 83 1.13 3.2.3.0: 0.5 .2958 23:04 1.56.2355 335.06.. 5H 98.. 5.23: 3.2.... 32.1.20 “an. 5.08 .88.... .525. silk}: 88.. 5.23.. 3.2.8 8. .8. 38.5... 0.2... $3 .Efszzzm 8:. .5. 32.3.3 3.... 9.2.5: 5.0.4... 8R$- 8. RR} 5.20.... 33...? danooaa v.03 aNN £3951“ tang» ”>3 Oh ”8395.0 .3703 10.3.... .00.. 0... 32%| 0.; £00.... .5 3 0.9.35 «0 .n 5' cl... 0.83.9330 acct-I850... 05202 .330 .0 00.03:. . 3 93.6305 $033368 5.3.11.0: . .u an .3303 1.. Juan... H.032... .83-.8... 0.2.... 0o 833...»... s... 5 18.2... 3 In... 1: 82.8.2... R8. 5.23.. 65...... J. 2:. 8... 3.5502 «0 .50... in) uo I503 2. :38... 33.88. .5...» .u .182. 30...: Ascghb... 0a 1.0.»... 0...- .gca uo 9.0.5 0 3 .39.: nosngxfin nan: Ego? .93ch 355 5.20... .u .3 9.3:": e.g.-oat ca 9.0.5 50.000... 30.50.: 33: 3 3.3.00... 9.30. «ggg .00.. 5a.— ...l..o..!.0o «0...... a... 00333.3 navigate. 9.0.3... .01 a... v.89»... 3 3.0:. 3.38. .3 503.3015. "Jail-930:0 uo 30.0.. .930 1.. .0... a... .391... .5333. «2.... 23...: 53658 u 3 3.: Silaifin anon: 55209. 55...!— hi... 8. £3: 5.20... .0 83.1.3. .333 dicks .n .. £038.98... ”danish-:0 «0 0030.00...— 13 $6033.00. 0.22.3: 1.. 2.3 «0 angel... £03.26. «3:95.... .Ell 00.30.... 7.3... 503...... 80300 953.35 30.1.. .3 :- 5 533828 .o .38 1.. .5830. 3 .32... 3 8a... 1:. 7.340353 08... 5.20.... £523 28.“ an. .o... .82: 3.8 83.58 .32.. 5.23.. 3 182 82...... 833...... 3.3.... «3.39.8... 1.. ....... 8:31. 31...; u. a...l.ul.l 1.. 5.33.3.4 5.3.8:... 8.9... 3.89.. 3 3.8.. «u...- SS-SQNS 088 .u .a 33.5....) .3 .2 5.93m 50. 83 .19.... 8350.... 83.8.38 1.. 3...... 1.83... 3 .43.... .... 2.." D... .8... .3 I... :3 3 .8. .3 2... .93.... 3 2.8.5.... .5 ....l 3 .a 3. a... .73”... 3.3:... 0.3.5.355... 1.. 3...... 3... £9.93... ”as... 3:82.... 1.. .9883 3.33:3... u. .332... . .a 1.... .288 minus Sam-3&0... an“: a...» .- .u......e.m v.8 .9. ES." 3.. N3 1.... .18.... H5855 R 3.0.3.73... . .33... 3. 9.... .55... .5 5 99... .3885... 8... 83.. o...- 2. 5 8... I... fl8. 43. a... 3.... 8.. v.83 5... .3 3 3...... .2: .3956”. .38.... 39.5.... 3.35.: 3 .gok-Qnoo-«Lm .11.... 888.3... .5... .58... .8855...- .88. D 5.8. 3.9.3.. 3.3.5.8.... "3:89.38. 3.: v.5 c9383.... . o... 1.. 33.83.. «to; 1.3.. 8.128.. . .83. «mu .m... I... ~3~|an~3 380 5.5:. 5.318 8.5. 53...... .n .9 > 8...... 95...: ”3:88.583... 1.. 33... .o :33 5...... 83.30... ”3.89.8.3 3.3 0.3.5 I... 2 3.. 1.03.3.3... 1.83... .5... all I.» u. '0» Ran-.333 8m... 8.2.... .88... 1..... .n .n .5818 «no .3958 :28. 44.50323... :38... 5E. “88.8.2. 9...... 85...... .83.... 833m 20...... .RR 8.. 5... .5... 8....th. ES... .1... 88A2...n 88.. 5.2.2 5.5.... I... 8.. .888 28.8... .5.....3.s So... 88-8\88 5...... 8.25.. .8... .8... 8...... 8a .838 :38. 25.2.2... 888-... came-3.32 8mg c.1202. .hophd 5.4 v.3. 12.9 .6 can go Dingo! .930 Stamm Kosu-Q30 3.5.. 8.2.... .888... .533. .5. 585.. Sn 8.828 E... 5.. a... 89.2....“ 38.. 8.2.2 .938... .5... .88.... SR .38 5...... .232... 8...... .38.. 92...... 8.... an... 8.25.. .3...» mo. .8: 5.. .5833. 4.9.22.8... .828... 58...... aam-Bok... 5285.. .13.... 8o 8.. .9... .888 28:35:... 88.2... 5.732.: 88.. 8.25.. 85...... a... .532. 8.8.... 8...... Sn 56.5.... 89.8.... 8.53... 8.93.6... E...» 8.8... cum-939.” $8.. 8.25.. £8 1..... 8...... 5...... «8 88.88.... 5...... .88.... 183 .333. 1: 82 ... 5.3 .859: b.38- 12 .32. 8:32 138 3 5383.35 .2395...» 5 .0933 98.30 318 8:38 438. 1k .083: «5»! I: 5933.83.00 .9352! .9030» .Uouog 5 32:8 98:. £88} 8.38 23:8 92.-I8 9:33 s: 32:8 H38» .8. .928 5|... £8.38... its... 1:. £333.54 co 39:8 .5 5 92.65:: 3.8 5:292 a. ooh-to o..- 3330 5:932! 83 an $31.23 3.3.3.» 5150 on 0.0.40 .ulauwoh look-nine u: 3&5 3.2 .318 3 .335 5.320 .8 83:33 .18.. 1.....» . a... 588.. 326.3: 5.058 03.1. .03....» .53 a 3 chunk :85: 13.5 .5 go? I.- ..302 1: 38.. 59.92.. .35 o... 2!: .38. 36.88. n85... o 3 cow-cocoa- !aocuoi! 3 «o no.8- RH «o woof-ion 3 $2.8 3: Ska-Iago: .8 .8 2.3 a 3 9.2» .338... 233:5 ca 3 00:3 .9397?» 0:92- !3 3 coao one. ca 5.63) 88n~mQ2m 2%.. 5523. 852.1 .82. 9:28 RR 82.8 9.31 325.3 .3532. R .223! 9.3 a... .235... .822 .83... b23838... .335 832.33 .325 .5 8 .38:- ouc nan-«a: o: .1397! 33.8 and 3 to 3 on!— 0.3. Rcoémnkun n89. 5623.. 552.3 and .32. :3» .- None .538 9.5... in .835: 23 83. a .332... 5:2»... I: .39: 3.83 .88.. I: 5.2 5.9.5.595 93.... go 3:28 a .199. hon coco a lots»: 2:. “Naungia 2%: 53.92 3.52.1 lo: E8: .n 88 12 .5053: EL 2 .333 .5 8 .83 2. as: 9.3.30 9.3»! .0... ”31.5330 cool I.» no 00.2» 0.3 gaou I: 05:00 9:50: no.2 9.1 as a... 31.8 333.5 .835: 2.55 83:25 2: 828 1.8%... u: 38. .23 «8.5 .833 .3 32.. 8382...... as: 3.. 6:3 396 13 5 attach»... 8.: 53:28 .8 35.3. 1:. 3.3.5. has... .5! 5t. .1... in catalog 2:2. atofigfin 52:6 .83. 5 38. 8.3 «88 3 .0313... 383823?— .o.=n 3.3000 uo coda-touch 5 13:...35 has! 3 3030» 9.3.00 of. 28m to» a... 3.8» to: .25 .55. Rs 5.38 38.8 3:. a 184 5.6.3.... 5: all 32.95.52. u:- 35: a 3 .1... .53.. ISIS 5!. v.31 e. a. .5... _l- oota .35 .85: lo- ...Se .65 .6. I: at: n... 5.2....» 55:. .21.... .5 cal i5 ‘15-... .8332. .5 .533258 5.5.5 .533 ...5 3 12:2: .2 2. a... 5 on 4858 .o .33: 55:. 53:18 3 £35558 3. ER... 2:. .5 5.5 5 1: £83 I... .8 all. 3 ii 5.5.. .1... .513... 1.- 5.58 3. .a Lusita... a... 12.3! B 3 El- 52. a a. .I... 318...:- A 5.3. .2... .filfifiEo .5 3.5.9.8 I5 .5... .8 3.. 09.1.0 0.. v.8:- nsoaulsoo n on. 0.. I. 3.3... an ill. :5 5 v3.83... 53 I... 5.5 .3325... I.- ..33332 .5 not 3.5 .5 £5.12: #5 .5 u. .13.! 3 at...» 55 .o um I.- .BE 3110- unu .0 2.09.3 .3 33335:: on: in .5331... 33.8.. .5 .9 2.3.8.. .3. SB. 9. RI 233...: 5.31.. 3 2'3..- 13 983.- 3322. 3.5 3 52 1:35.... .3 .5. If... . a. .5 . 3a.. .5 .9 £3.55. 5:. .35 5 558?. 3 use. .15: up on. a a!» i .iiuho .3 :33: 3:03.35 b: E. coo-HA 0.. i=3 :ozaflao :5 .3. '13 I3 31...... anduto-cou :1... 59......— la" .3 5:35.. 55 .35: .1: 2.3.5 13...: v3.3.5 .538. 2.82.. 5 .5 E. 29.0.... .33 cpl. 2.033 22.35.05 .52! can 3 in: I... .833... 5 39:5 .8381... .13.. .5 55!. on: a. I: .5338 u 5 £15 .38... .552. :5 53.. on. v.8 5»! .5 .8 £00.53: a: go cos-3:3! :«un' .3 £03339: .5 .0300; 0.5! D: 53!. 52 St. 5.! .5 2!... £53.! lab»! .5 .- ESE. $59. a a. 2.5 «a. 5:3... .3 8 =8: 53... :8 £5... .353 ~3clohl3 I... up": 00.. :2. .50.: 0.50]. :02. .8 .0555 .3 .9225... 15 5.3.... .5 .82.... on... 3:39.... 5 282.5 :5 :5... .35 1.. . . . .18.. 5:3. o3 D .15 3.53. .2 0:... 5 3.!— 3~oo .9 long nuts-«u .33! no. 55 an: 5 9.33- .. .38 5.5 5 £381 3.8.... Bod!- 1: 5:82:52: :5... :5. all a. .8... .52:- Sa 1.1.... .83.. c! a 5 Luna-.5 0.3 5.. 101.333. .313 «5.3:... I... 5 155 a 53358. 2.5.. as... .35: .8. up on... . nil. a... .El L35»... 1... no aunt. ads-«5' - 0)! 3 :10}.- E 1.0 .3 at?!» I... all!!!» in I... In}: .3505: 00.5 on 3:13.. .55- 55 .25... a - use 2.5.. :5 .8 lab... on... a... .5 :5. 3 ER. .1 5 .855. .25... .5 .o .553. ”In... . 5513:!!ISB-lullcufiuo-oallh g 185 08080.50 .5ggfigaggkson-.§ 000.800.1123..» .Hitdaixhi.§ 3000000.. §§.3fil3.03088h2¢8030l%0a§&80 0381380.: .51.!830833-0210303303 02.09.50.533: .g§¢5§0hi.§ .000-00000000180000.0008. 038.12.056.81: .330-03002.500000311 5513803310 .82»!!3§D§.§ .008-05310000.. 0.8.0.3210 .Inlgglnfiuulsalonelzzo «0181082201.. .§i8«a§2i.§ 17:0 00 0300 00: 000000.. 300.210.. 38?... 00850300008055I32I8 051 .06 5 u. 900303-08 all a... 210. 33.3.08 0.9.08... il53§§333€508~i.§.380 Us... :80... .a 053.0 5328.. :1 .5 0801 h .0523. 30 05 9. 00.0008 33 01.. .88.. 8380890.... 0. 00.80800 .34 . £85.39... 1.0 .00- .allzs 55 .80 833... I: .013...- l. 08063.. .250. 51 A... 23 35 38.08... 853.880.... 0. 0-8088 .3 493:8 830:8 .30 51 0100 .3..- ...0£ 80503.9... 5 02. £~§~i¢5§8§3§k5155¢8258 slat! 53 . 3...... 3 5.3:... .305... § 0... .. .2. c. 0:0.cs 0. ...a nu.» .g»... ..«.0.¢..o.00x .n no.o0coam .gawa a: ..o.u.;o. 0. .u.a .oua.. .o .0.....a.:« .Lo..u=0- o..aco. ...0 .00.... .5 ....n .«gh .guao..ouoz 00.5-aco.o.nou .u 00.eacanm .aNHa m: .000» 00.. 0.030.... 00:30 Rx. 1.59.0 .0 2.0.5 .0003. 0 B 1012 .3000 0.... ca 00000»: ...on o..aan 50.0.0. 0:. .aacoao.a .. 0... ..... ca... 0c«=«oe00 0;. .0 000.000 0.... yo cog—.20.. «0000.... 1.0 3050 3 1.0 .0523; .30 «0000.... 3 3.02. «3000005 .0 0033.50.30 0.... Lou 00.90000 ~08" o. 8:30.000 «0.2.0:: 0309:. 3 .330 0.... .0 000..- 0:0 3.: 00000.. v.=a«~ .ozac .o .0000. 005-0.. nucu-scouacu .o noun...:= .o 00..go..o .;. a:..o.n o5 do. :0.... a. ». .05.:00 0:0 009°: .ga sea. .0 ‘00... as... 00.. 33 02... 2.000013 00300000000: h. 1000009..." .3... a: 2305.0: 1.0 .0003. £56230: 000330000500: 0L0 0.80.8.3 .3003 05000.0 53000 :0 00033298 0309:. :1. 10000... «a 1.0 .0000.- 5 0700a 33.009... .30 «000 50.... 403.2003 #030 0.00 0:3 00.2» 000.... .05.. 1.0 .nmoo. .33 a: 0003000000.. 0.. .o 00.8: .003 01... a0 03.3.00 :0 00:0: ~3c0l.o..«0:0 1.00300 «0.! 0.... 0.0 0233:... 3.2 .5 .50: 2.32.2.8 S as. 3 .5 5.6.... £00.28 000232 05 .5 003300 5 39:00.50 02%.. '00 000 @5031... 3:3. .3 82:2 .9: 186 0500000 0000.000 1.0 0000000000» 00000 00000 by .0000000 9.000000 00.. 0.... 33. . .8. .0080... :2 1.0 .8300... 0.5 0.... 0.0.0.0.... 0. :3 .5 .05 0800 0.... 80....» .18... 0038 .30....35 .80.. . 8... .8 .80 0.... .3... .30..» 0. 0050... .. 83.0.8 0:. .8388 0.38.808 3....» .5 0. .0200. .8 0. .0»... .2» .00... 3 .33. 2...... 3 :3 .0... E.... 03....» 0. 0.3.0.0» .fl .8. 035 05.0.0... 2.3.1.0... 0...... 08...... .3 £80....» .30.... .o .2008 00. 80.0.00... 0.8.... .o 8.. .5 3.0.00 0. 00.00000. 830:... .38 5... :80 :3 .20 c.5013... .38.» 0. 8.8....» .3 .0000. 0000... 0 00 00000 00 30000 500000000 0 02.0 500000 00 0000000 30:08. 2.... 3 3...... .5 S ..o 0.308.... .8. .0... 5 :5 .. 5... :3 . £030.30... 0... 0080.. 0.5... .5 .o 8.. 0. 0.0.3.0000 000000000 00 1.0 .00000000 000 00 000000 500000 05000000 00 .15. 90000000 000000000 00000 0 000000 00 30.000 0.000 .3 08.... 0. 8.5.808... 0.3.... .0 0.3.00... ..... 033...... :5 .8. 00.00. 8.0 .5 .08.. 0. .3 0.0.2. .3» .00...» S. 3330....» 00:0: 0 000000 040000000000 00... 00000000000000. .0 0000.. 00.. .30..» .5 0. 0...... .8 00.0 283...... 03...... o. 0... .51... "00000 00 00050 00 0000000000000 0000000 no 000000000 000 0000900 00 .000 00.0 1.0 000.000 00. 000000000 00 1.0 000000-00 0000000 000000000 00000 3.0. 0 3.000 3 :2 .. .. .20 3...... .3...» 0. 0.8.08» .3 a» 00000». . 00000 .0000». 0 00000 00 0000000000 000 :0 00000 .20 000000.000 00.... 0.000 0000000 00. .00... 8...... 0. .50 .5 .0 31.2.1083. 0.0 0.30.8... :5 B 000 0000000000 000 .000000... .00000 000030000“ 000 00 00 0000000 0... 0:. 0... 8.0.8.. 3 0.3... .5 .0. .0... 2.0 .26 .0. .0280... 00050: 00 90:00. 10000000 0000000 0 00 00.0000 20.5001: 0001.001. 00 000002. 1.0 0.0000000 00 00000000 .05 000 10003000.. 00 520000003 .0300 0!. 0000 :00 :00 00 0.5 000000 00.. 000030000 000... 2000000 0000000000. .0 0000000000 :0 00 0000000000 0 0000 0.00000 0.5 .000 0 000000 000 0000 00.00.0000 4 .03 00100 00003000.. 0000000000 0000: .5 .. 0.83... .0 a... 0.008 8330.800... 0. 0.00.80» .3 4.8020 .0: 0.... 8.22.008 . 508...... :0. :2 .5 .08.... .. .0300. 00.005.000.00 00.00000... 00. 0000005000 0 000.. 000 0000 000 .3038... 8330.800... 0. 09...... 3 50... 85008 2.30.0000... 000 00 0000 0000 00.. :3 0000 .0500: 000.5 00 0.000.800 000 0000 0.0.0000 300001... 1.0 .000: 00000000000000: 3 ‘000000m .3 05.000... .8. .33.... 000 0000 000.00 300:0 .0000 0000 00 2.0 000.. 000500000 «00' .0 0000 30000 000 032000 3:00 0. 3000000000 00000000 52000000000 0...... 5... .1... .20 :00... 83.000800... 0. 0.8.02.» .3 700000.000“. 00.5 00000 0000000 am 00 am 00000 1.0 £000.00 00 8.0. 000 0.00 9.01000 00000500 09C 0000 000000300 000000000000 .00 2...... 2. 8 00 0.30. .8220... .5 .o .8. 08 55... 88:3... .o o... .5 003229.... 0. .08.... .0. .2... 1.0.... .0 0.3.3.... .389... :3 .20 .0533 83308.8... 0. 028......» .3 4.80.... .82.. 0... 0.70.... .3... 303.... 3 3.... .5 0. 08:30 0. 0...... 187 8%.. 5.3%.: 5.52.1. .338 I... Log 1h Lb 98.3 533:. £521. .318 3: 530E200 cc 00:10". 31:8 .5 8%.. 53.3... 5:21. .338 8:. agave-.0... I: .ocicoudbhn 5031:0350 .3 usual-.0 3933:0393... ya .35: :03an- 35938 I.» an .23. 595.20 2.: Haiti... so ace-col.- 3. 3:328 cog-Ea... 515° 3 .2533 £343.... 5 1:2... [803 :3 0.8 .3; .33!- !3 an Jinnah... I... he :35 I... .8 502.3 32.38.. u .5925 a... 305 he... go .5331 13 .8» can. 1.: ion? has he is: 93.3» I... ISA: 3:95.... 1.. Lou .39» no» a... .1392 Ibo 9.3.3.? I: on... 1:. 3:331:90 b.- .ihv 3 none:- abaonnaov an... to. ITO 1... Jason .9153: £2.59 3.33:..on yo no»: 2h .3! I: .80: .573". .928 $3115.. .ioona: Eta-ac: £3: Clad". .5 £335 .792 :3le Slot .2623 a. 0.: 38.2 I58 a... 1.. 5i :5 2.. £338.33}. I... 8 35:39:00 H1333..- P- luau 3 .30» 23 :2 :32: gas act-Ik— 00: P...— c-ion I: nun-.5 Paglia $7.30.. 3:39» dive-I355. an... I... cpl. :3: u:- .:.«n.5u .53qu .81...“ {Slow as... 3.3.28 I. =8 a. 31': :5 3 a» 5.. 1..: 2: 2:5. .: .353. an 25' a: a 8. 10.58 :. :05}. S a 5. III a. at. .a has no a.» E I» 8. 3:828 in: S III II.- E a. :8» a. “1.2:. 8 1: 5. «u. a. 5228 8.. E E a 1.: a. 26:2. 55 = on «my a: E 2: .183. .: .lofi on -II- a: a. a. 5:23. .u E»... R a: II- a: c: .3. i .85... on a: .5. 1..» 3: .518 .= 3an an a: 5. 1.: C: «9.16 .u .Iofi. . .n a: 1..: 1: a. 5...... 4 223.. on 1.: I» a c: 19: :8 3 -II- 3. a» a. 535.3. 15. 3 1..: .3. a a. .35. d... 3 «E «E a. c: h. 5:5: .m is. 3 -II a 2: 5.8. .a 12:: an .alan-nn w. a. a... s. opaafluoflunx «2.1.3.. 3: a: «H 1B III 1.: .5 5.: ... Est... an a: i. a: a a» a S. 93.8 .u b... 3 1.: a: «E 5 III a: .3 :83. .u t.- .a I--I III III I--- 1.: E c: 8... a .< E... 8 III a fl. 5. 1.: e 2: 5a..» ... 3. S E -|--. -II- E III II- c: 3...... .u €83... a. .«3 a. an» a an o n a €2.88 .58 .8 .35.. .328 s... 8...... 18.1 o»... as... as Essa-I5.- l.» :o .282 .232 A...» I. .3355. €85- 1: 33] I: I9: inch-cu no 5.... 1 Id go- 6313 gain-u: 5 03%. 35.- 10 ‘0‘! Goa-99.01600 5 E Haul Edoio ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BY STUDENT STATUS 188 TABLE E1 Source of Sum of Mean Signif Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 4928.523 1 4928.523 1.741 .188 SEATA1 4928.523 1 4928.523 1.741 .188 Main Effects 16336.910 2 8168.455 2.885 .058 SSTAT 16336.910 2 8168.455 2.885 .058 Exp1ained 21265.434 3 7088.478 2.503 .060 Residua1 668263.062 236 2831.623 Tota1 689528.496 239 2885.056 TABLE E2 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (DUCAT-T) BY STUDENT STATUS Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 818.602 1 818.062 .867 .353 DUCAT1 818.602 1 818.062 .867 .353 Main Effects 14245.467 2 7122.733 7.546 .001 SSTAT 14245.467 2 7122.733 7.546 .001 Exp1ained 15064.068 3 5021.356 5.320 .001 ResiduaT 222766.827 236 943.927 Tota1 237830.896 239 995.108 189 TABLE E3 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D) BY STUDENT STATUS Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates 2921.288 1 2921.288 7.442 .007 SEAT01 2921.288 1 2921.288 7.442 .007 Main Effects 2151.110 2 1075.555 2.740 .067 SSTAT 2151.110 2 1075.555 2.740 .067 Exp1ained 5072.398 3 1690.799 4.307 .006 Residua1 92637.564 236 392.532 Tota1 97709.962 239 408.828 TABLE E4 ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BY STUDENT STATUS Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates .097 1 .097 .000 .989 RELBEHINT2 .097 1 .097 .000 .989 Main Effects 12226.613 2 6113.306 11.107 .001 SSTAT 12226.613 2 6113.306 11.107 .001 Exp1ained 12226.710 236 4075.570 7.405 .001 Residua1 129897.140 239 550.412 GRAND MEAN = 48.27 Tota1 142123.850 239 594.660 Experimenta1 Group Mean - 5.63 ControT Group (Night) - 9.99 (Neg) ControT Group (Day) - 8.33 (Neg) ANCOVA RESULTS FOR ENVIRONEMTNAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES (SEAT-D AND DUCAT-T), AND ENVIRONMENTAL 190 TABLE E5 BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS COMBINED BY STUDENT STATUS Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F Covariates STOTAL 44582.161 1 44582.161 2.914 .089 Main Effects SSTAT 164790.975 2 82394.488 5.386 .005 Exp1ained 209373.136 3 69791.045 4.562 .004 Residua1 3610612.860 236 15299.207 Tota1 3819985.996 239 15983.205 GRAND MEAN - 270.83 Experimenta1 Group Mean - 20.71 Contro1 Group (Night) - 33.23 (Neg) ControT Group (Day) - 33.43 (Neg) BIBLIOGRAPHY A11en, G. H. "How Deep is Environmenta1 Awareness?" Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1972, 3, 4. Anderson, C. H. The SocioTogy of SurvivaT: SociaT ProbTems of Growth. Homewood, I11inois: ‘The Dorsey Asch, J., and Shore, 8. M. "Conservation Behavior as the Outcome of Environmenta1 Education." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1975, g. 4. Ashbaugh, B. L. "Interpretive Research Directions." Journa1 of Envi- ronmenta1 Education. 1970, l, 3. Ayers, N. "Teaching the Environmenta1 Facts of Life." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1972, 3, 3. Backstrom, Char1es H., and Hursh, GeraTd 0. Survey Research. North- western University Press, 1963. Bai1ey, C. A. "The Pub1ic, the Media, and the KnowTedge Gap." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1971, 3, 4. Bart, N. M. "A Hierarchy among Attitudes toward Anima1s." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1972-A, 3, 4. "A Hierarchy among Attitudes toward the Environment." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1972-8, 3, 1. Bem, D. J. Be1iefs, Attitudes,_and Human Affairs. New York: Wads- worth,'1970. Borg, NaTter R. Educationa1 Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1969. Bowman, M. L. C. "Assessing Co11ege Student Attitudes toward Environ- menta1 Issues." Journa1 of Environmental Education. 1974, 6, 2. Brady, E. R. "The Effectiveness of Fie1d Trips Compared to Media in Teaching SeTected Environmenta1 Concepts." Ph.D. Disserta- tion, Iowa State University, 1972. 191 192 Brennan, M. J. "Toward Course Content Improvement." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1969, l, 1. BrisTin, R. R., and 01mstead, K. H. "Examination of Two Mode1$ Designed to Predict Behavior from Attitude and Other Vari- ab1e Measures." Proceedings of the 81st Annua1 Convention of gge American Psycho1ggica1 Association. Montrea1: T973, 89 9‘60. Buys, C. J.,and Nortker, S. "CoT1ege Students' Attitudes toward Nor1d Food Crisis." E§ych01ogica1 Rgports, 1976, 33, 1199-1204. Ca1abrese, E. J. "Environmenta1 Qua1ity Indices Based on Evqutionary Theory." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1976, Z, 3. Campbe11, DonaTd T. and Stan1ey, Ju1ian C. Experimenta1 and Quasi- ExperimentaT Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNa11y & Co., 1970. Cattini, R. J. "Great Lakes Sti11 Threatened by Po11ution." Iflg_ State 39urna1. Lansing, Michigan: November 28, 1976. Cha1ecki, R. B. "Marrying EcoTogy and Economics." Journa1 of Environ- menta1 Education. 1974, 3, 4. Chan, G. L. "Effects of Visitors on a Marine Environment." American Bio1ogy Teacher. 1972, 33, 6, 319-21. Chaney, E. "The Environment: Who Cares? Why? So What?" Journa1 of ‘ Environmenta1 Education. 1970, l, 3. Chao, Linco1n L. Statistics: Methods and Ana1yses. New York: McGraw- Hi11 Book Co., 1969. CTark, R. N.; Hendee, J. C.; and Burgess, R. L. "The Experimenta1 Con- tro1 of Littering." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1972, A, 2. Cohen, M. R. "Environmenta1 Information Versus Environmenta1 Atti- tudes." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1973, 3, 2. Cohen, M. R., and HoTTingsworth, D. K. "Environmenta1 Beliefs and Educationa1 Abi1ity." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1973, 3, 2. Corrado, F. M. "Environment and the CoTTege Student." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1970, 3, 2. "Environmenta1 Studies at Chicago Co11eges." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1973, g, 3. Cousteau, P., Ed. Calypso Log. New York: The Cousteau Society, 1976, _3, 6.. 193 Craik, K. H. "Environmenta1 Psycho1ogy." in A. Murch, Ed. Environ- menta1 Concern: Persona1 Attitudes & Behavior Toward Environmenta1 Prob1ems. New York: M.S.S. Information Corporation, 1974. Dawes, Robyn M. FundamentaIs of Attitude Measurement. New York: John NiTeyiE’Sons, Inc., 1972. De1ucia, N. E., and Parker, 0. C. "The Design of a Modified Semantic DifferentiaT Instrument for Determination of Changes in Environmenta1 Attitudes." Paper presented at the 47th Annua1 Meeting of tne NationaT Association of Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, 1974. Dick, R. E.; McKee, D. T.; and Hagar, J. A. "A Summary and Annotated Bib1iography of Communications Princip1es." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 19/4, 3, 4. Di11man, D. A.,and Christenson, J. A. "The Pub1ic Va1ue for Po11ution Contro1." in w. R. Bunch, Jr., Ed. Socia1 Behavior, NaturaT Resources, and the Environment. New York: Harper and—Row, T972. Ditton, R. 8., and Gooda1e, T. L. "Water Qua1ity Perceptions and Attitudes." Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1974, 3, 2. Donohue, G. A.; 01ien, G. N.; and Tichenor, P. J. "Communities, Po11ution, and Fight for Surviva1." Journa1 of Environ- menta1 Education. 1974, 3, 1. Doran, R. L. "Assessing Students' Awareness of Environmenta1 Problems.II Journa1 of Environmenta1 Education. 1974, 5, 4. Downs, A. "Up and Down with EcoTogy: The Issue-Attention Cyc1e." in A. Murch, Ed. Environmental Concern: Persona1 Attitudes and Behavior toward EnvironmentETiProBTems. New York: M. Sf'S. Information Corporation, 1974. Ducat, J. C. "Environmenta1 Fact Sheet." Unpub1ished manuscript, 1976. DunTap, R. E. "The ImpaCt of PoTitica1 Orientation on Environmenta1 Attitudes and Actions." Environment and Behavior. 1975, 7, 4, 428-54. ' DunTap, R. E.; Ga1e, R. P.; and Rutherford, B. M. "Concern for Environmenta1 Rights among CoTIege Students." in A. Murch, Ed. Environmenta1 Concern: Persona1 Attitudes and Behavior toward EnvironmentET Probiems. iNew York: M. S. S. Informa- tion Corporation, 1974. 194 Ehr1ich, P., and Ehr1ich, A. The End of Aff1uence. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1974. Ehrlich, P., and Ehrlich, A. Populatiog,gResources, Environment; Issues in Human Ecology, San FranciSco: W.*H. Freeman and Company,i1972} Enthoven, A., and Freeman, A. III. Problems of the Modern Economy: Pollution, Resources, and the Environment. New York: W. N. Norton and—Company, Inc., 1973. Farquhar, William W. "Directions for Thesis Preparation." Unpublished Paper, Michigan State University, 1969. Fazio, F. "An Analysis of College Students' Interpretations of Some Possible Environmental Catastrophies." Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Chicago: 1974. Feather, N. T. Values in Education and Society. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1974. Fleetwood, G. R., and Hounshell, P. 8. "Assessing Cognitive and Affec- tive Outcomes of Environmental Education." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1976, 13, 1, 29-35. George, R. W. "A Comparative Analysis of Conservation Attitudes in Situations Where Conservation Education is a Part of the Educational Experience." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Guenther, William C. Analysis of Variance. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Hamilton, W.,and Asche, W. C. "Can We Change Environmental Attitudes?" ‘Agricultural Education Magazine. 1974, 53, 8, 187-91. Harmon, S. K. "A Comparison of Lecture and Experimental Learning Models in Teaching Human Ecology." Dissertation Abstracts International. 1974, 33, lO-b, 5036-37. Harnik, P. "In Search of Eco-Activists." Journal of Environmental Education. 1973, g, 1. Harrison, G. W. "An Investigation of the Role of Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Fostering an Environmental Consciousness in Its Students." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Havlick, S. W. "A Glimpse and Analysis of Environmental Education Opportunities in American Higher Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 1969, l, l. 195 Heberlein, T. A. "The Land Ethic Realized: Some Socia1 Psychological Explanations for Changing Environmenta1 Attitudes." Journal of Social Issues. 1972, 28, 4, 79-87. Hendrick, J. E. "Environment-Related Courses and College Student Opinion." Collgge Student Journal. 1974, Z, 1, 21-25. Herder, Dale M. "Description of Current and Anticipated Sources and Characteristics of Students: Spring Term, 1977." Lansing Community College, Student Personnel Services, Lansing, Michigan, 1977. Herrscher, W. "How Do We Generate Environmental Attitudes?“ Journal of Environmental Education. 1973, g, 4. Hoether, C. A. "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Population Dynamics." Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, April 26-28, 1973. Hornback, K. E. "Orbits of Opinion: The Role of Age in the Environ- mental Movement's Attentive Public, 1968-72." Ph.D. Disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1974. Hounshell, P. 8., and Liggett, L. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Environmental Education." Journal of Environmental Educa- tion. 1973, 3, 2. Hounshell, P. 8., and Liggett, L. "Environmental Education One Year Later." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, 3, 1. Ittelson, W., and Rivlin, L. An Introduction to Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and’Winston, Inc., 1974. Jobes, P. "An Empirical Student of Short-Term Mass Communication Saturation and Perception of Population Problems.” Journal of Sex Research. 1973, 3, 4, 342-52. KassarJian, H., and Robertsen, T. Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. Kilwein, J. H. "The Social Class of Young Adults and Their Views on the Environment: How Much Would You Sacrifice?" 133_ Journal of School Health. 1974, 53, 4, 196-97. Kinnear, T. C., and Taylor, J. R. "The Effect of Ecological Concern on Brand Perceptions.“ Journal of Marketing Research. 1973, 19, 2, 191-97. Kapp, C. E. "Attitudes and Values in Environmental Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 1972, 3, 4. Kreger, J. "Ecology and Black Student Opinion." Journal of Environ- mental Education. 1973, g, 3. 196 Kronus, C. L., and Van-Es, J. C. "The Practice of Environmental Quality Behavior." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, 3, 1. Lamb, W. "Classroom Environmental Va1ue Clarification." Journal of Environmental Education. 1975, 3, 4. Lawrence, Douglas H., and Festinger, Leon. Deterrents and Reinforce- ment: The Psychology of Insufficient Reward. Stanford, California: Stanfbrd University Press, 1962. Lingwood, D. A. "Environmental Education Through Information-Seeking. The Case of an 'Environmental Teach-In.'” Environment and Behavior. 1972, 3,3, 230-62. Liska, A. E. The Consistengy Controversy: Readings on the Impact of Attitude on Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975. Loree, M. R. Esychology_of Education. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1970. Lowenhar, J. A. "Population Planning Appeals: The Effect of Source Credibility and Fear in Terms of Cognitive Consistency Models." Dissertation Abstracts International. 1974, 35, 10-8, 5172. Lunneborg, P. W.,and Lunneborg, C. E. "Effects of Environmental Infor- mation on Teacher Values." Journal of Environmental Education. 1972, 3, 2. Machan, W. "Information and Education-~an Evaluation." Unpub1ished paper presented at the 38th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Con- ference, 1976. Marler, L. "A Study of Anti-Litter Messages." Journal of Environ- mental Education. 197l, 3, l. McEvoy, J., III. "The American Concern with Environment." in W. R. Burch, Jr., Ed. Socia1 Behavior,_Natural Resources, and the Environment. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. McGuinness, J. "Relationships Among Attitude Components, Mediating Variables, and Recycling Behavior." Dissertation Abstracts International. 1974, 33, 9-8, 4707. Mehne, P. R. "An Analysis Technique for the Educement of Affective Change in Urban Secondary Students as a Consequence of Viewing Environmental Spot Announcements." Unpublished manuscript, 1973. Metress, J., and Metress, E. "The Environmental Press." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, Z, 3. 197 Milbrath, L. W. "An Extra Dimension of Representation in Water Quality Planning: A Survey Study of Erie and Niagra Counties, New York, 1976." Unpublished manuscript. Milson, J. L. "Evaluating and Environmental Education Symposium for Secondary Teachers.“ Journal of Environmental Education. 1975, Z, l. Mitchell, S. K., and Lunneborg, P. W. "Effects of Environmental Education on First Graders." Journal of Environmental Educa- tion. 1973, 3, 1. Morrison, 0. E. "The Environmental Movement: Conflict Dynamics." Journal_of Voluntagy Action Research. 1973, 3, 2. . “Social Scientists and the Quality of Life: A Critical Synthesis." Unpublished manuscript, 1973. Morrison, D. E.; Hornback, K. E.; and Warner, K. "The Environmental Movement: Some Preliminary Observations and Predictions." Unpub1ished manuscript, 1971. Moskal, J. "Great Lakes Upkeep Put at $72 Billion." The State Journal. Lansing, Michigan, December 8, 1976. Murch, A. "Who Cares about the Environment? The Nature and Origins of Environmental Concern." Environmental Concern: Personal Attitudes and Behavior Toward Environmental Problems. New York: M.S.S. Information Corporation, 1974. Nelson, H. H. "Application of the Gestalt Theory of Learning in Teaching a Unit of Study Dealing with Air Pollution in Polk County." Practicum presented to Nova University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education Degree, December 12, 1974. Oppenheim, A. N. _Qggstionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic—Books, Inc.,i1966. Orr, R. H. "The Additive and Interactive Effects of Powerlessness and Anomie in Predicting Opposition to Pollution Control." Rural Sociology. 1974, 33, 4, 471-86. Packard, V. lye Waste Makers. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1968. Perkes, A. C. "A Survey of Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes of Tenth and Twelfth Grade Students from Five Great Lakes and Six Far Western States." Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1973. Pettus, A. "Environmental Education and Environmental Attitudes." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, 3, l. 198 Pomerantz, G. "Michigan Young Peoples' Attitudes Toward Wildlife." Paper presented to the 38th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Con- ference, 1976. Powell, Fredric A. "Source Credibility, Dissonance Theory, and Attitude Change." Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1963. Pratt, Arden L. Environmental Education in the Communjgy College. American ASSOEiation oi Community and Junior Colleges, One Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D. C., 1972. Quinn, R. E. "Using Va1ue Sheets to Modify Attitudes Toward Environ- mental Problems." Journal of Research in Science Teachigg, 1976, l}, 1. 65-69. Ramsey, C. E., and Rickson, R. E. "Environmental Knowledge and Atti- tudes." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, 3, l. Rickson, R. E. "Self-Interest and Pollution Control." Journal of Environmental Education. 1972, g, 1. Rocchio, R. Twin Owls Mountain Camp, a Summer Workshop for Colorado Young_PeopTe, Final Report and Prggress Report. Center for ReseaFEh and’Education,_Estes‘PaFk, Co16ra6o, 1971. Rosenthal, Robert, and Rosnow, Ralph. Primer of Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1975. Roth, R. E. "Fundamental Concepts for Environmental Management Educa- tion (K-l6)." Journal of Environmental Education. 1970, l, 3. Rubin, D. M. "Environmental Information: A Review and Appraisal." Journal of Environmental Education. 1974, 3, l. Schoenfeld, C. "Environmental Mass Communications: Problems and Promises." Journal of Environmental Education. 1975, 3, 3. Scott, J. C.; Driver, 8. L.; and Marans, R. W. Toward Environmental Understanding,yan Evaluation of the 1972 Youth Conservation Corps. Survey Research'Center, Institute for Sociaii Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973. Seed, A. H., Jr. "Who Litters . . . and Why?" Journal of Environ- mental Education. 1970, 1, 3. - Sellers, L., and Jones, D. W., Jr. "Environment and the Mass Media." Journal of Environmental Education. 1973, 3, l. 199 Sikes, W. N. "A Study of the Nature and Effectiveness of Teaching of Environmental Problems to Gifted Science Students in Texas Public Schools." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, l972. Souers, C. V. "Incidental Treatment Affects on Student Attitudes Toward a Current Social Problem." Dissertation Abstracts International. 1973, 33, 9-A, 4955-56. Spiegel, Murray R. Schaum's Outline Series: Theory and Problems of Statistics. New York: SchaumiPublishing Co., 1961. Stamm, K. R.,and Bowes, J. E. "Communication During and Environmental Decision." Journal of Environmental Education. 1972-A, 3, 3. Stamm, K. R., and Bowes, J. E. "Environmental Attiudes and Reaction." Journal of Environmental Education. 1972-8, 3, 3. Stapp, W. 8. Integrating Conservation and Outdoor Education into the Curriculum (K4131, Minneapolis: BDrgess PUblishing Com- pany, T965. Stapp, W. B. "The Concept of Environmental Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 1969, l, l. State of the Art on Methogplggy for Studying Environmental Percgptions, Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes and State of the Art on Utilizing Perception, Attitude,_§nd Opinion Research. A synopsis of a conference hela'at Cornell UniVersity, October 21-24, 1974. Stronck, D. R. "Attitudes on the Population Explosion." Science Teacher. 1974, 33, 8, 34-37. Sutton, 0., and Harmon, N. Ecolggy: Selected Concepts. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:_1973. Swan, J. A. "Public Response to Air Pollution." in J. F. Wohlwill and D. H. Carson, Eds. Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. Washington: American ‘PsychologicaliAssociation, Inc., l972. Swan, J. A., and Stapp, W. B. Environmental Education: Strategies Toward a More Livable Future. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1974. Sweeney, L. "King Kong Returns; Other Primates Endangered." 133 State Journal, Lansing, Michigan, November 26, 1976. Tanner, R. T. "Environmental Sensitivity and the Mass Media." Journal of Environmental Education. 1971, 3, 4. 200 The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1971. Office of Research, American Council of Education. 1971, 3, 6. Tichenor, P. J. "Environment and Public Opinion." Journal of Environmental Education. 1971, 2 4. Towler, J., and Swan, J. E. "What Do People Really Know About Pollution?" Journal of Environmental Education. 1972, 3, l. Trent, J. H. "Changes and Trends in Environmental Education (1970- 75)." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, Z, 3. Trent, J. H. "Status of Environmental Science in Colleges of Education." Journal of Environmental Education. 1972, 3, 4. Unknown. "Help for Tyto Alba and Friends." Michigan Natural Resources Magazine. September-October, 1976. Villegas, B. W. "Innovation, Not Imitation." CERES. 1976, 3, 6, 51-54. Wall, G. "Education and the Recreational Environment: An Unresolved Dilemma." Journal of Environmental Education. 1976, Z, 4. Ward, 8., and Dubos, R. Only One Earth; the Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Watkins, G. A. "Scaling of Attitudes Toward Population Problems." Journal of Environmental Education. 1975, Z, l. Webb, Eugene J. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: ’Rand McNaTTy E’Co., 1968. Weidner, E. W. "A Whole University Goes Environmental." Journal of Environmental Education. 1970, 3, 2. Weldon, W. "Dewey's Conception of the Environment as an Educative Force." Journal of Environmental Education. 1973, g, 4. Whiteman, E. E. "A Comparative Study of the Effect of a Traditional and a Specially Designed College Course in Biology Upon Conservation Attitudes." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Willhite, R. G.; Bowles, D. R.; and Tarbet, D. "An Approach for Resolution of Attitude Differences Over Forest Management." Environment and Behavior. 1973, 3, 3, 351-66. Winham, A. "Attitudes on Policy Variables." in A. W. Murch, Ed. Environmental Concern: Persona1 Attitudes and Behavior TowaraiEnvironmental Problems. *New York: M.S.S. Information Corporation, 1974. 201 Zimbardo, P.; Ebbesen, E.; and Maslach, C. Influencipg Attitudes and Chan in Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publish- ing gompany, l977. "Illlfillllllllllllllllll“