r4
- 4

 
   
 

 
 
  

LIBRARY
Michigan Stat:
‘1 University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ATTITUDES, LEARNING AND MOTIVATION AS ISSUES
IN PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
presented by

Julie Ann Hogeland

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MASTER SCIENCE

degree in

aaweng

Major professor

 

 

 

 

Date November 16, 1977

 

0-7639

ATTITUDES, LEARNING AND MOTIVATION AS ISSUES

IN PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION

BY

Julie Ann Hogeland

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1977

ABSTRACT

ATTITUDES, LEARNING AND MOTIVATION AS ISSUES
IN PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION

BY

Julie Ann Hogeland

The purpose of this study was to provide information on the
public policy background of a sample of Cooperative Extension staff
and clientele to aid in the formation of a program of public policy
education. Theories of learning and motivation were examined for
program implications.

The framework for the study was the classification of respondents
as comfortable, uncomfortable, or neutral in their attitudes toward
public policy based on their responses to questions on comfort in
policy-oriented situations, knowledge of public policy issues, and
satisfaction with that knowledge.

Comfort emerged as a critical variable in determining sustained
interaction with public policy. The instrument used for the study
was found to have moderately high reliability. An item analysis
indicated the questionnaires were, on the whole, consistent in

measuring attitudes toward public policy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Collette Moser,
who suggested and supervised this research, to Dr. Katrina Simmons,
whose knowledge of methodology was invaluable, and to Dr. Dale

Alam, who contributed many theoretical insights.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definition of Attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Attitudes as Determinants of Behavior. . . . . . . . . . 6
The Behavior Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Definition of the Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Definition of the Persons Described by the Model . . . . 9
Relationship Among the Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Hypotheses of the Behavior Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Design of the Index of Confidence. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Design of the Following Sections . . . . . . . . . . . 19

College Week and the College Week Sample . . . . . . . . 20
Administration of the Questionnaire to the College

Week Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Extension Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Administration of the Questionnaire to the Extension

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Demographic Characteristics of the College Week Sample . 28
Demographic Characteristics for Public Policy Classes. . 28
Demographic Characteristics for the Assertiveness Class. 29
Scoring Procedure for the Comfort Questions. . . . . . . 30
Scoring of the Knowledge Satisfaction Questions. . . . . 36
Scoring of the Knowledge Test Questions. . . . . . . . . 36
Results from the Comfort Questions: College Week . . . . 44
Results from the Comfort Questions: Extension. . . . . . 45
Results from the Knowledge Satisfaction Questions:

College Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Results from the Knowledge Satisfaction Questions:

Extension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Results from the Knowledge Test Questions: College

Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Results of the Knowledge Test Questions: Extension. . . 47
Overview of Survey Results on the Knowledge Test

Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Responses to the Open-Ended Questions. . . . . . . . . . 50
Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Method of Testing the Behavior Model . . . . . . . . . . 58

iii

Chapter

Discussion of the Test of the Behavior Model . . . .
Limitations on the Test of the Behavior Model. . . .
Crosstabulation of the College Week Demographic

Characteristics. . . .

Crosstabulation of Confidence Index Variables Using

College Week Data. . .

Crosstabulation of Confidence Index Variables Using

Extension Data . . . .

Results of the Item Analysis . . . . .

Results of the Factor Analysis:

SW” 0 O O O O I O O O
Endnotes 0 O O O O O O O

4 Introduction . . . . . .
Motivation . . . . . . .

College Week. . . .

Optimal Levels of Stimulation and Motivation . . . .
Hedonic Theory and Its Offshoots . . .
Behaviorism and the Origins of Perceptual Psychology
The Conflict Between Behaviorism and Perceptual

Psychology . . . . . .
Learning . . . . . . . .
Types of Learning. . . .
The Creation of Interest
Challenges to Thorndike.
The Rogerian Model
Interview. . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . .
Endnotes . . . . . . . .

5 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . .

COLLEGE WEEK
COVER LETTER

0 o m w '

in Unfamiliar

of Education. . . .

QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR EXTENSION

EXTENSION QUESTIONNAIRE. .
CROSSTABULATION TABLES FOR

THE BEHAVIOR MODEL . . . .

M

CROSSTABULATION OF COLLEGE

Subjects. . .

QUESTIONNAIRE

THE TEST OF

WEEK DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS AND CONFIDENCE INDEX

VARIABLES. .

F EXTENSION FACTOR LOADINGS.
G CROSSTABULATION OF CONFIDENCE INDEX
VARIABLES USING EXTENSION DATA . . . . .

iv

Page

60
64

65
67

68
68
76
83
85

86
87
88
90
93

94
96
96
97
102
104
109
111
112

115
119
121
121
122
123
124
138

145

147

LI ST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Scoring of the Index of Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 Responses to Questions Used to Construct the

Confidence Index (in percentages). . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3 Public Policy Topics of Most Interest to
Respondents O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 52

4 Programs or Services Related to Public Policy that
Respondents would Like to Have in Their Community. . . . 55

5 Cooperative Extension Program Most Enjoyed . . . . . . . 56

6 Chi-Square Values for Selected Crosstabulations for
the Aggregated College Week and Extension Samples. . . . 61

7 Item Analysis of the Index of Confidence . . . . . . . . 70

8 College Week Factor Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure
1

2

LIST OF FIGURES

Graph of Factor 1 and Factor 2 . . .

Graph of Factor 1 and Factor 3 . . .

vi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

 

The study of farmers in their role of food production, the
fundamental subject matter of traditional agricultural economics,
cannot proceed without consideration of the public policies which
influence that production. Most obvious in this respect are those
public policies which directly affect the farmer's welfare, such as
subsidies or special trade agreements. Yet, other public policies
which have indirect effects on farm production are no less important,
because the quality of life which exists for farmers and other rural
Americans is ultimately a reflection of the quality of life in all
segments of society.

The complex web of interrelationships comprising our society
means that public policies which do not specifically consider farmers
and their communities may still have significant impacts upon their
well-being. The opportunity for rural residents to examine public
policies which may affect their welfare could lead to improved rural
conditions by fostering their increased participation in the political
process and, consequently, increased control over their lives.

Dissemination of scientific, vocational, and other information
related to the quality of life by the Cooperative Extension Service
at Michigan State University has been the source of many improvements
in rural conditions. This background qualifies the Cooperative
Extension Service to assume an additional role of encouraging

1

community development by providing information on the creation and
possible effects of public policies which may affect rural welfare,
and by encouraging leadership behavior directed toward public policy
formation and change.

The dissemination of public policy information by the Cooperative
Extension Service is represented by project PACE (Public Affairs
Community Education). The ultimate goal of project PACE is to
increase the understanding of problems and issues in public policy
and community development in order to improve the performance of our
democratic institutions. Before this goal can be achieved, several
prerequisites must be satisfied. The Extension staff participating
in PACE must have a background which enables them to provide educa-
tional programs dealing with public affairs and community development.
Educational material appropriate to the needs of the staff must be
identified and developed. Finally, the acceptability of Extension
agents in public policy educational activities must be assessed.
While families and the community are the primary audience of project
PACE, special attention is to be directed to reaching and developing
women and women‘s groups with potential for community leadership.

The purpose of this study was to assist the development of
project PACE by providing information which would help determine the
appropriate educational experience for the Extension agents and the
community members served by the Cooperative Extension staff.’ In the
first part of this study, responses to a questionnaire on attitudes
toward public policy activities and knowledge of public policy issues
made by a sample of Family Living Agents and County Extension
Directors were compared to responses made by a sample of women par-

ticipants in College Week, a series of educational workshops. The

3
questionnaire was directed toward the Extension staff members most
likely to affect or be affected by project PACE. The responses of
the College Week participants were indicators of how the target
audiences of project PACE would react to public policy programs
directed toward community leadership and development. A peripheral
result of the surveys was the development and refinement of an instru-
ment to measure attitudes toward public policy. The second part of
the study discusses the educational approaches which are in theory
most appropriate for conducting a public policy program, given the
results of the surveys.

A study dealing with attitudes of any kind is primarily useful
insofar as those attitudes explain or predict behaviors of interest,
in this case,behavior in policy-oriented situations. To understand
the relevance of the survey results, it is necessary to establish
the theoretical relationship between attitudes and behavior. The
following section will review briefly the attitude-behavior litera-
ture and present hypotheses on attitudes and behaviors toward public
policy activities in a "behavior model." An additional purpose of
this theoretical section is to establish the rationale for the

questions used in the surveys.

Definition of Attitudes

 

Before one can suggest that attitudes can predict behavior, the
attitude concept must first be defined. De Fleur and Westie see
"attitude" as a flexible concept, incorporating both "consistency
and variability, uniformity and individuality, at the same time. . .
[remaining] a logical inference from observable behavior."l Fishbein

defines attitude as an abstract composite of "all the individual's

4

beliefs, behavioral intentions, and actions" of which any one taken
individually may have no relationship with attitude.2 Each component
represents variables which may be studied on their own, although
Fishbein cautions they may or may not "function as determinants of

a specific behavior."3

Other researchers, especially those influenced by behaviorism,
define attitudes as responses made to stimuli.4 Attitudes can also
be regarded as verbal and nonverbal, each having different implica-
tions for behavior. Another definition characterizes attitudes into
strongly or weakly ego-involving. Strongly ego-involved attitudes
appear to be more resistant to change.

Attitudes toward public policy must be considered flexible in
the manner defined by De Fleur and Westie for several reasons. First,
public policy covers diverse areas of interest. Second, although
covered under a single category such as environmentalism or consumerism,
one public policy may have different impacts on major societal groups
than another falling into the same category. Consequently, a person
could support environmentalism in general, but not in the particular
form of one bill or act. Similarly, attitudes toward public policy
activities will differ according to the personality of the participant
and the situation he is confronting.

Fishbein's definition touches upon the fact that the attitude
concept is difficult to operationalize. The researcher is limited in
the number of variables he can study. The variables which he does
choose to study may have their effects mitigated or strengthened by
the unacknowledged or unknown presence of other variables. While
this study focuses on three variables and their effects on public

policy behavior, as described in the section on the behavior model,

it is necessary to note that other variables in addition to those
studied may have influenced the results. The assumption for the
study was that the three variables studied would, for the sample as

a whole, dominate the determination of attitudes toward public policy.
However, for specific individuals other variables may have been more
relevant in forming their attitudes. The assumption in the study

was that such variables were a random occurrence and the effects of
the variables would cancel each other out.

Since no observations were made to determine the correlation
between public policy attitudes and behaviors in policy-oriented
situations, a definition of attitudes as responses to stimuli or a
classification of attitudes as verbal and nonverbal, are not very
fruitful for this study. However, attitudes toward public policy
activities can be regarded as ego-involving since many of the activi-
ties require leadership behavior and/or personal involvement in a
cause. Consequently, the items of the questionnaires used to measure
attitudes toward such activities will be interpreted in an ego-
involving context, to reflect the influence of the self-concept in
performance of public policy activities.

When pared down to its essential idea, however, the behavior
model describes how much peOple like or don't like public policy and
related activities, a point which will be elaborated on in the dis-
cussion of the behavior model. The preferred definition of the
attitude concept will be that used by Edwards:

We shall define an attitude as the degree of positive or

negative affect associated with some psychological object

. . .[i.e.,] any symbol, phrase, slogan, person, institu-

tion, ideal, or idea towards which people can differ with
respect to positive or negative affect.6

6
This definition most closely reflects the emphasis of the behavior
model, and it is not inconsistent with the aspects of previous defini-

tions which are relevant to the study.

Attitudes as Determinants of Behavior

 

The controversy over whether attitudes predict behavior is not
only affected by the initial definition of attitude, but also by the
nature of the situation exposing the attitude. Tittle and Hill sug-
gest that

The individual encountering a situation which is charac-

terized by unfamiliar contingencies is not likely to have

a well-structured attitudinal organization relevant to

behavior in that situation.7
Consequently, unless attitude measures focus on repetitive and
familiar activities of an individual, they will not provide much
insight into behavior. This study avoids this pitfall by directing
several questions toward the most common means of interacting with
public policy issues, i.e., discussions, asking questions, etc.
Investigation of habitual activities such as asking questions or
engaging in discussions, etc., is a means of overcoming the possible
objection that verbal attitudes only indicate preference and not
commitment.8

Rokeach emphasizes that "at least two attitudes are required to
make a correct prediction of behavior": the attitude toward the
object (i.e., person, group, institution, or issue) and the attitude
toward the situation, event, or activity.9 Behavior may represent
the interaction of several attitudes. In addition, the norms charac-

terizing a situation may dominate the attitudes brought to it. The

actor may not always know how to act consistently in a given situation.

.7

Informal evidence indicates that peOple sometimes inten-
tionally act in an attitude-inconsistent manner. Such
behavior. . .may have its basis in either personal
curiosity or attempt to achieve novelty in an unstimu-
lating environment. Inconsistent behavior may also be
a primary means by which individuals test themselves
and others.10

In general, the causes of attitude-behavior inconsistency appear
to act as constraints upon the interpretation of results from research.
Rokeach's comments suggest that a questionnaire on attitudes toward
public policy should cover feelings toward public policy itself, and
feelings toward situations involving public policy activities.

Fishbein. . .has noted that researchers have often

measured attitudes toward broad classes of people

(e.g., Negroes) and related them to specific behavior

(e.g., cooperating with a particular Negro on a given

task), generally finding little relationship between

the two kinds of responses. He has suggested that

the relationship between attitudes and behaviors should

be stronger when investigators measure attitudes

toward the specific behavior of interest.11

On the assumption that response to an item is likely

to be more specific if the item contains some self-

reference. . .[T]he larger the number of self-referent

items included in the scale, the more specific is

response likely to be. . .Items containing the personal

pronouns 'I' or 'me' were considered to be self-

referent in content.12

A questionnaire on public policy attitudes should then have ques-

tions which refer specifically to public policy activities and dis-

cussion behavior, and which contain self-referent items.

The Behavior Model

The persons entering the public policy workshops offered through
PACE will differ both in experience with community leadership and
knowledge of public policy. Relevant variables which would have an
impact on their potential and actual participation in the workshops

are their comfort with public policy as a topic, knowledge of public

8
policy issues, and their satisfaction with that knowledge. This

section describes these variables and items used to assess them.

Definition of the Variables

 

The first variable is termed "comfort", but another name would
be "confidence." Comfort is defined as a willingness to confront
unfamiliar issues and situations. The second variable is "knowledge
satisfaction" and covers how adequate one believes one's public
policy knowledge to be. The third variable used in the model is
knowledge of general public policy issues.

General public policy issues are those topics which are frequently
covered in the media, such as the state of the economy and school
funding. This definition also covers public policy material which
is used in everyday living. A basic and elementary knowledge of
Social Security or the federal income tax would be included in this
category. For the Extension staff survey, this definition was
expanded to include public policy information of a more specialized
nature, such as knowledge of concepts like elasticity or opportunity
cost. The surveyed Extension staff was subjected to a more rigorous
definition of "general public policy" because their work could
require knowledge of public policy issues. In addition, they might
have Opportunities to attend special seminars or workshops on public
policy in the course of their work assignments. Thus, the definition
of public policy used for the College Week participants might be too

limited and simplistic.

9

Definition of the Persons Described
by the Model

Uncomfortable persons were expected to be dissatisfied with their
level of public policy knowledge. Gaps in their knowledge will
bother them and will lead to avoidance of situations where these gaps
might be displayed. Although uncomfortable people would like to know
more about public policy, they will not know where or how to begin.
Consequently, they will not clearly value public policy nor feel their
knowledge has benefited their lives.

A person who is indifferent or neutral toward public policy
activities will be satisfied with her knowledge. The thought of par-
ticipating in policy-related activities does not disturb nor excite
her. Her knowledge of public policy is likewise neither very good
nor very poor. Public policy workshOps will probably have little
attraction for this kind of person.

A person who is uncomfortable with public policy is not afraid
of it. She will not be overwhelmed nor confused by public policy
issues because she is not focusing on her self-consciousness but
instead on Opportunities to enhance her knowledge or satisfy her
curiosity.

Arguments can be made in either direction as to whether a person
who is comfortable with public policy and receptive to opportunities
to broaden his knowledge is, in fact, satisfied with the knowledge
he has acquired. A person who liked public policy might easily be
intrigued by it and want to know more. In that case, the person
would be dissatisfied with his knowledge. Conversely, this hypo-
thetical comfortable person might believe he had a good command of

public policy issues because he had utilized opportunities to increase

10
his knowledge. He would be happy or satisfied with the knowledge he
had already acquired, but he would still want to know more. An
analogy might clarify the description. A person may be proud of a
cooking ability, yet be dissatisfied with the fact that he or she
did not know how to cook gourmet meals. In a general sense, there-
fore, a comfortable person could be considered dissatisfied with
his knowledge of public policy. In a specific sense, especially when
concrete issues are considered, that same person might be satisfied
with his knowledge. While it is not clear how a comfortable person
would perceive a question on satisfaction provided by his knowledge,
the position for this study will be that comfortable persons will
tend to be satisfied with their knowledge. This position emphasizes
a theoretical dichotomy, however shaky, between uncomfortable and
comfortable persons, as uncomfortable persons were expected to be
dissatisfied with their knowledge.

A similar problem arose when understanding of public policy
issues was considered. The position that uncomfortable persons
would find public policy more interesting if they understood it
better may also be true for comfortable persons. The hypothesis
covering this case is stated mainly in terms of uncomfortable persons,
but the test of this hypothesis will also incorporate the responses
of comfortable persons to determine their position on this issue.
This hypothesis is the exception to all of the other hypotheses of
the behavior model in that understanding of public policy issues
rather than comfort.with them is the independent variable.

Another problem is the fact that the scope of the term "general
public policy" used for purposes of this study might not correspond

to that existing in the minds of the respondents. While the researcher

11
was concerned with a definition of "general public policy" covering
everyday life, and considered knowledge satisfaction from that con—
text, those being surveyed may have had in mind a more rigorous standard
by which to compare themselves. The assumption for this study was
that the standard of comparison which would be used by the respondents
would be public policy knowledge on a general, fairly elementary,

everyday level.

Relationship Among the Variables

 

The "comfort" felt by a comfortable person can arise from an
inner self-confidence which he brings to many areas of his life, of
which public policy can be only one example. In this case, comfort
would be an independent variable upon which knowledge satisfaction
and knowledge of public policy issues would depend. This position
is consistent with a definition of "public policy issues" limited to
everyday life and concerns. A person who is self-confident does not
necessarily pursue specialized knowledge in public policy (as opposed
to some other field) simply because he is comfortable. Knowledge
satisfaction would depend on comfort because comfort was necessary
to obtain knowledge.

An alternative version of the model would make knowledge of
public policy issues the independent variable, with comfort and
knowledge satisfaction the dependent variables. The rationale for
this procedure would be that if a person had already mastered some
areas of public policy, her previous success would influence her
expectations when working with unfamiliar areas. As knowledge
increased, comfort would increase. Knowledge satisfactiOn is again

a difficult variable to work with within the context of the model.

12
Given the preferred limited definition of "general public policy"
topics, however, knowledge could replace comfort as the independent
variable without substantially altering the interpretation of
knowledge satisfaction. High knowledge would imply high satisfac-
tion. Since this model was not the version studied, this implica-
tion will not be evaluated.

The implications for a program of public policy education will
differ according to whether knowledge or comfort is the independent
variable. If comfort is autonomous, program effects should be
directed toward increasing the leadership skills and self-confidence
of participants. If knowledge is responsible for producing comfort,
emphasis should be placed on concentrated exposure to a wide variety
of public policy topics to the exclusion of practice in making pre-
sentations or leading discussions, for example. Probably the most
realistic specification of the model is one which recognizes that
comfort and knowledge of public policy issues are, at least in some
cases, mutually dependent. Comfort influences knowledge and knowledge
influences comfort. The assumption for this study was that comfort
or confidence would be a dominant variable in influencing PACE work-
shop participation. This assumption was made because there are
probably more confident persons in the general population than persons
who have very much knowledge about public policy. An assumption
which took knowledge to be the dominant variable would imply less
potential participation in PACE workshops than an assumption specify-
ing comfort as dominant.

The hypotheses of the behavior model which follow are listed

from general to specific.

13

Hypotheses of the Behavior Model

 

As comfort with public policy increases, a person's:

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

esteem for public policy will increase.

enjoyment of public policy discussions will increase.
feeling of being overwhelmed by public policy will decrease.
feeling of confusion with public policy will decrease.

judgment of the amount of public policy knowledge possessed
increases.

feeling of adequacy of public policy knowledge increases.
fear of revealing ignorance about public policy decreases.
fear of asking questions about public policy decreases.

satisfaction with his knowledge of general public policy
topics increases.

familiarity with source materials in public policy increases.

belief that public policy topics are not especially diffiw
cult topics to speak on increases.

belief that public policy presentations need not be
restricted to highly skilled specialists increases.

estimate of preparation time needed before he or she can
feel comfortable making public policy presentations
decreases.

As understanding of public policy increases, interest in
public policy increases, especially for uncomfortable
persons.

The results of the tests of these hypotheses will be presented

in Chapter 3 with a discussion of the implications of the results for

a program of public policy education. Several results are possible.

If respondents are very comfortable with public policy issues, but

are dissatisfied with their knowledge, a challenging and

sophisticated program would be needed. If respondents lack

familiarity with public policy, then a more factual program would be

appropriate. An alternative result could be that respondents do not

14

have strong feelings with reSpect to public policy, and their
present sources of knowledge are sufficient, neither challenging

nor inadequate. Respondents could demonstrate very little knowledge
of public policy and be both uncomfortable and dissatisfied, which
implies a more general PACE format than a situation where respondents
were neutral in their feelings toward public policy and satisfied
with a low level of knowledge. Alternatively, respondents could be
highly knowledgeable despite a lack of comfort with public policy

topics, and a dissatisfaction with their knowledge.

Summary

This chapter has noted some reasons why public policy as a field
of study is complementary to traditional agricultural economics. The
theoretical literature on attitudes as they influence behavior was
briefly summarized to provide direction for the format of the ques-
tionnaires to be used in the study. Hypotheses were presented on
attitudes toward public policy and their implications for behavior
in policy-oriented situations. Grouped together, these hypotheses
form the "behavior model" which is the theoretical framework for the

study.

10.

11.

12.

ENDNOTES

Melvin L. De Fleur and Frank R. Westie, "Attitude as a Scientific
Concept," in The Consistency Controversy, ed. Allen E.
Liska (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), P. 38.

Howard J. Erlich, "Attitudes, Behavior, and the Intervening
Variables," in The Consistency Controversy, ed. Allen
E. Liska (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 135.

Ibid., p. 135.

Charles A. Kiesler, Barry E. Collins, Norman Miller, Attitude
Change, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p. 2.

Allen E. Liska, "Introduction," in The Consistency Controversy,
ed. Allen E. Liska (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975),
p. 17.

Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Cbnstruction,
(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 2.

Charles R. Tittle and Richard J. Hill, "Attitude Measurement
and Prediction of Behavior: An Evaluation of Conditions
and Measurement Techniques," in The Consistency contro-
versy, ed. Allen E. Liska (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1975), p. 110.

James M. Fendrich, "A Study of Association Among Verbal Attitudes,
Commitment, and Overt Behavior in Different Experimental
Situations," in The Consistency Controversy, ed. Allen
E. Liska (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 97.

Erlich, p. 136.

Erlich, p. 140.

Allen W. Wicker and Richard J. Pomazal, "The Relationship
Between Attitudes and Behavior as a Function of Speci-
ficity of Attitude Object and Presence of a Significant
Person During Assessment Conditions," in The Consistency
Cbntroversy, ed. Allen E. Liska (New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 1975), p. 123.

Tittle and Hill, p. 119.

15

CHAPTER 2

Introduction

 

This chapter describes the questionnaire format used to test
the behavior model, administration of the questionnaires, and the
respondents to whom they were administered. The chapter will begin
with a description of the questionnaire design. A description of
College Week and the College Week and Extension samples used for the
study will follow. The concluding section will describe the adminis-

tration of the questionnaires for the two surveys.

Design of the Index of Confidence

 

The index of confidence section of the questionnaire was based
on the behavior model presented in Chapter 1. Eleven questions
focused on the participant's facility or comfort with public policy
issues. Five questions dealt with their degree of satisfaction with
their present knowledge. Seven questions for the College Week
sample, and eighteen questions for the Extension sample, tested
familiarity and knowledge of various current national and local
public policy issues. Appendices A and C contain the two Ver-
sions of the questionnaire. Most questions devoted to assessing the
participant's comfort represented an effort to cover as many situa-
tions as possible where a lack of comfort would preclude leadership
or self-confident behavior in dealing with public policy. The

knowledge test questions were intended to represent a broad range

16

17
of public policy topics. The assumption was that anyone who had
"normal" contact with sources of public policy information such as
weekly news magazines, newspapers, or television broadcasts should
have no difficulty in determining the correct answers. Another
assumption was that the comfort questions did indeed tap the partici-
pant's comfort with public policy and not something else. The same
assumption was made for the knowledge satisfaction and knowledge
test questions. These assumptions would later be tested by a factor
analysis of the responses to the questions to see if responses
clustered into three distinct groups.

The method of summated ratings or Lickert-type scaling was
chosen as the scaling procedure. This was essentially an ad hoc
decision. At the time the questionnaire was developed, there was
insufficient time to consider alternate methods of scaling and still
be able to distribute the finished instrument to the College Week
instructors. However, even with an extension of time, it is likely
that Lickert scaling would have been the preferred method. One
reason is the ease of response: respondents are given a small number
of alternative answers from which to choose, rather than formulating
a unique response on their own. While less time is needed to com-
plete the questionnaire, however, there is a loss in precision from
the use of predetermined categories of response. Most instructors
were concerned about the length of time needed to complete the
questionnaires. This, and the fact that Lickert scaling is commonly
used in the social sciences, which might make it familiar to the
respondents, excluded competing methods.

Tittle and Hill compared several methods of attitude measurement.

They concluded that:

18

In addition to the advantage of greater reliability and
specificity, the Lickert technique also seems to have the
particular advantage of providing for the operation of an
intensity factor. . .an ordering of subjects by the

summated ratings procedure is not only a ranking on a

favorable-unfavorable dimension, but a ranking influenced

by how strongly the subject feels. A respondent who

holds a favorable attitude, but one who does not feel

intensely about it will consequently be ranked lower

than one who holds a favorable attitude and supports

that attitude with intense feelings.l
They also concluded that the attitude measures which utilized Lickert
scaling were the best predictors of behavior.

The statements chosen for the Lickert technique by Tittle and
Hill resulted from a Q-sort2 which, in its sophistication, must be
contrasted with the method used in this study: formulation of the
items by the author. Of course, this implies that the reliability
results from this study will not be as impressive as the split-half
reliability coefficient of .95 reported by Tittle and Hill. As
noted in Chapter 1, attitude measures which refer to specific activi-
ties of an individual and which are self-referent, provide the
strongest predictive link to subsequent behavior. Consequently,
within the time constraints operating in the formulation of the
instrument, the summated ratings technique (as utilized) was believed
to be the best method available with which to formulate the questions
to test the behavior model.

In answering the questions, respondents chose among five cate-
gories of agreement: "completely agree", "agree to a great extent",
"agree to some extent", "agree to a little extent", "agree not at
all." The distances between each degree of agreement are not assumed
to be equal. Given the choice of responses, respondents may have

felt some confusion when answering the knowledge test questions.

However, to offer them an "agree-disagree-don't know" format for

19

those questions alone would have necessitated the creation of a
separate section within the questionnaire. It was assumed that such
an action would increase the probability that respondents would not
answer the knowledge test questions.

The instruction for the index of confidence gave a very general
definition of public policy (i.e., "the things which affect the
quality and quantity of our lives"). This was done to encourage the
respondent to fall back upon his or her own definition of public
policy, especially in answering later sections of the questionnaire.
There was some probability that a respondent would answer the ques-
tionnaire without being entirely sure what the term "public policy"
meant. However, if the person, although confused, proceeded through
the questionnaire, the knowledge test questions would be examples
of public policy issues and therefore serve as a learning device.
Furthermore, at each administration, someone was available to give
a clarification of the term if necessary. Presumably, if a respondent
was very frustrated and did not ask for assistance, he would turn in
a blank or partially completed (i.e., only one or two questions

answered) questionnaire which would have removed him from the sample.

Design of the Following Sections

After completing the index of confidence, the respondents were
asked to indicate the limitations on their acquisitions of public
policy knowledge. They either supplied their own reasons or checked
the applicable reasons listed: time factors, lack of interest and/or
lack of understanding. Three open-ended questions were used in the next
section to avoid suggesting particular answers to respondents. These

questions asked respondents to list the public policy topics of

20

interest to them, to indicate what comunity programs or services
they desired, and to name their favorite public policy-related
Cooperative Extension program given within the last year.

Demographic characteristics were requested in the last section:
residence area, age group, educational background, and work status
(part time, full time, etc.). This information was viewed as the
least critical to the study, which accounts for its place in the
questionnaire.

In contrast, the index of confidence questions were placed first
in the questionnaire because they demanded minimum thought and articu-
lation of response. The responses to these cognitive-based questions
were considered the most crucial for achieving the goals of the
study. The other questions sought peripheral information, affective
or demographic. Public policy is such a diversified area that the
affective components of attitudes (i.e., the public policy t0pics
most preferred by respondents) were viewed as highly changeable,
strongly dependent on the current world or community situation. The
cognitive or belief components of attitudes toward public policy,
such as the index of confidence items, were held to be more enduring

and, therefore, more important.

College Week and the College Week Sample

 

College Week is a Cooperative Extension program which has been
in operation since 1927. College Week was originally called "short-
courses" and was attended by persons who stayed in homes in East
Lansing. These "short-courses" were designed to aid housewives, the
predominant role of women at that time. Typical subjects were child—

rearing, gardening, sewing, family recreation, health, home canning,

21
and the use of egg money from the family chicken. Public policy
topics were not added until 1970. As the audiences became younger
and less traditional, public policy topics became more popular. The
program areas which are currently most popular are personal enrich-
ment, family-oriented courses, and community leadership.

Another recent trend is increased participation from citizens
in farming areas and suburbs, who compete in numbers with persons
from Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Flint. This heterogeneity is con-
sistent with the purposes of College Week, as much of the learning
which occurs is often due to the mix of persons attending the
programs.

Three public policy-oriented courses and one non-public policy
course ("Assertiveness Training") were surveyed. However, the
enrollment of the "Assertiveness Training" course was approximately
equal to that of the public policy courses so that analysis done to
contrast the responses of the two groups of classes would not be
impaired. As there was concern about disrupting the College Week
courses with the administration of the questionnaires, the pre-
administration goal was limited to achieving about 200 responses,
which was sufficient for meaningful statistical analysis.

Administration of the Questionnaire to
the College Week Sample

 

All questionnaires were distributed on the days of the course
most convenient to the instructor. This situation was responsible
for the variability in administration.

The questionnaire was administered to the "Assertiveness Training"
class. The students in the class were told the study was in conjunc-

tion with the Cooperative Extension Service. Some respondents asked

22

for a definition of public policy beyond that written on the question-
naire. They were answered in as brief a manner as possible. Only

one person seemed to need a definition using labels of actual public
policy topics such as consumerism or land-use. Approximately three
persons commented that they "didn't understand what they were doing"
as they handed in the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was also administered to the public policy
class on "Current Legislation Affecting Michigan Children and
Families." There was some preliminary discussion of the questions
on the questionnaire before they were answered. Completed question-
naires were turned in immediately.

”Can We Have the Best of Both Worlds?“ was the other class
oriented toward public policy to which the questionnaire was given.
The instructor for the class distributed the questionnaires and was
not available for details on the circumstances surrounding adminis-
tration. In the class, "Coffee Klatch Politics", questionnaires
were diatributed by the course instructor and returned the next day.
The instructors could not recall the nature of the comments which
were made during the administration of the questionnaire.

A total of 125 completed questionnaires were turned in. Of
these, 66 were from "Assertiveness Training", 13 from "Current
Legislation", 22 from "Best of Both Worlds", and 24 from "Coffee

Klatch Politics."

The Extension Sample

 

The choice of the Extension sample was influenced by the need
to determine the public policy attitudes of Extension personnel who

were most likely to influence or be influenced by project PACE.

23
Questionnaires were consequently directed toward Family Living Agents
and County Extension Directors throughout Michigan.

Administration of the Questionnaire
to the Extension Sample

 

As previously noted in the chapter, the questionnaire sent to
the Extension sample contained eleven additional knowledge test
questions. The purpose of these additional questions was to subject
the Extension sample to a more rigorous definition of "general public
policy" than used for College Week, since Extension work could
require familiarity with public policy. In addition, since the
Extension sample contained the potential PACE program leaders, as
much information as possible on the extent of their public policy
knowledge was considered desirable.

A copy of the expanded questionnaire and a cover letter explain-
ing the purposes for the study were sent to all County Extension
Directors and Family Living Agents. A copy of the cover letter is
contained in Appendix B and the Extension questionnaire is contained
in Appendix C. A return envelope was provided to facilitate the
response.

Of 156 questionnaires sent out to 80 County Extension Directors
and 76 Family Living Agents, 93 were returned. As the questionnaires
were returned anonymously (per instructions), there are no figures
on which group had the higher response rate. Anonymity of response
was considered necessary to facilitate responses. To do otherwise
might have biased answers, eSpecially on the comfort questions,
toward a more idealistic position than that which actually described

the respondents. In addition, the focus of the study was more on

24

aggregate responses of as many individuals as possible than on evalu-
ation of the performance of specific individuals.

A factor which may have reduced the response rate on the negative
side was the fact that at the time the Extension sample received
their questionnaires, many Extension conferences were being carried
on.

The space on the questionnaire to be used for identifying current
PACE participants was checked by only 14 persons, a number too small
for meaningful statistical analysis. Consequently, the analysis of
the results contained in Chapter 3 will make no distinction between

PACE and non-PACE responses.

m

This chapter has described the format of the questionnaires
used in the study, the assumptions behind the questions, and the
potential advantages of Lickert scaling. A brief history of College
Week was given prior to describing the classes selected for the
study. The concluding section described the administration of the

questionnaires to the College Week and Extension samples.

ENDNOTES

1. Charles R. Tittle and Richard J. Hill, "Attitude Measurement and
Prediction of Behavior: An Evaluation of Conditions and
Measurement Techniques," in The Cbnsistency Controversy,
ed. Allen E. Liska (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975),
p. 119.

2. A Q-sort is performed when respondents are given a large number
of statements pertaining to the topic being studied
(i.e., public policy) and asked to sort the statements
into a specified number of piles according to their
judgment of the degree of favorableness or unfavorable-
ness toward the topic which is reflected by the statement.

25

CHAPTER 3

Introduction

Results from the College Week survey and the Extension survey
are reported in this chapter. The statistical analyses done on the
data from the College Week and Extension surveys served three
purposes. The first purpose was to provide information useful for
the conduct of the PACE workshops. The demographic characteristics
were used to create a "profile" of the College Week respondents.

The extent of variability in the background characteristics of the
College Week participants would indicate the extent to which their
answers on the other items might be representative of the potential
PACE clientele. For example, if most of the College Week respondents
had college degrees, worked full time, lived in a city, and were

25 to 30 years of age, the survey results would be of limited value
in inferring the public policy attitudes of potential PACE partici-
pants who did not possess these characteristics.

The responses to the index of confidence questions provide
information on the extent of the College Week and Extension
respondents' comfort and knowledge of public policy, as well as
their satisfaction with that knowledge. An evaluation of the relia-
bility of the instruments used in the study indicates to what extent
the index of confidence results may have been influenced by

measurement error. Crosstabulations were performed to determine

26

27
if the demographic variables were significantly related to comfort,
knowledge, or knowledge satisfaction, and if the latter three
variables significantly affected each other.

‘Finally, responses to the open-ended questions of the College
Week questionnaire provided information on the public policy topics
of most interest to respondents, their limitations on acquisition
of public policy knowledge, and their favorite Cooperative Extension
program of the past year.

The second purpose of the statistical analyses reported in
this chapter is an evaluation of the usefulness of the two ques-
tionnaires used in the study as instruments to measure public
policy attitudes. The determination of reliability, already
mentioned, is one means of evaluation. An item analysis was also
performed for both questionnaires to see how well each individual
item contributed to the overall content of its respective
questionnaire.

The third purpose of this chapter is an evaluation of the
hypotheses of the behavior model. This is achieved through use of
chi—squared tests of significance and a factor analysis.

The chapter will open with a description of the College Week

respondents.

28

Demographic Characteristics of the
College Week Sample

 

Area of residence: The majority of respondents lived on farms
or in moderately sized towns or cities. The categories of very small

town or very large city were the most infrequently checked.

Age group: Most of the respondents were in the 25-39 age group,
but this classification did not dominate the sample. Persons from
the 40-49 age group and the 50-59 age group were also numerous.

There was some overlapping of the age categories given to respondents
on the questionnaire due to a typographical error (i.e., one category
was ages 25-39 and the other was 30-39), which may have created con-
fusion among the respondents and made this question less useful than

it otherwise would have been.

Educational background: Most respondents were classified as
high school graduates, but this group was almost matched in number by

respondents with some college or who were college graduates.

Work outside home: Over half the respondents did not work out-
side the home. The rest of the respondents were about evenly
divided between those who worked part time and those with full-time
positions.

Demographic Characteristics for
Public Policy Classes

Area of residence: Three-fifths of the respondents were from a
farm, rural non-farm, or town or village with less than 2,500 people.
Trhe rest of the respondents were fairly evenly distributed over the

‘Various categories of towns and cities, except for the largest city

29
classification. This latter category had the fewest number of

respondents.

Age group: Most of the persons were in the 25-39 age group,
with a few persons in their early twenties. The smallest number of

persons were in the over 50 and under 20 categories.

Educational background: Very few persons were not either high

school graduates, had some college, or were college graduates.

WOrk outside home: Almost two-thirds of the respondents did

not work outside the home. The fewest number worked full time.

Demographic Characteristics for
the Assertiveness Class

 

 

Area of residence: Most of the respondents lived in rural non-
farm areas, a large town, or a small city. Farm, village, or very
large city were the most infrequently checked categories. The
Assertiveness Training class had a more urban composition than did

the public policy classes.

Age group: All persons were 25 and over, with the largest

number falling into the 25-39 category.

Educational background: Respondents were fairly evenly distri-
buted across the high school graduate, some college, and college
graduate categories. In the public policy classes, however, fewer

persons were college graduates: 11 vs. 17 for Assertiveness Training.

WOrk outside home: The distribution of persons followed the

same pattern as for the public policy classes, as most persons did

30
not work outside the home, and the least number of respondents worked
full time.

The overall background of the College Week sample is sufficiently
broad to use the results of the survey to generalize to future PACE
workshop participants. Respondents were not concentrated into
narrowly defined demographic groups, but covered a fairly broad
spectrum of individuals, with one exception. The composition of the
classes to which the questionnaire was administered was predominantly,
if not totally, female, according to the informal report of the ques-
tionnaire administrators. While actual statistics were also not
collected on the sex of the Extension respondents, names on memos
enclosed with the completed questionnaires identified some respondents
as male. Since the target audience of project PACE is women, and the
PACE leaders are likely to be male or female, the sampling situation
which resulted appears to have the advantage of duplicating potential
PACE conditions.

The scoring procedure for the index of confidence section will
be gone into in detail in the next section, in order to permit inter-

pretations of the results other than those given in this study.

Scoring Procedure for the Comfort Questions

The comfort questions were graded according to six categories:
very comfortable, comfortable, somewhat comfortable, moderately
uncomfortable, uncomfortable, and missing. Each possible degree of
agreement with an item, of which there were six (including "missing"),
corresponded to one of the comfort categories. However, since the
tquestions were worded such that agreeing "completely" to them did

loot always mean the respondent was "very comfortable", recoding of

31
the responses was necessary to establish the same polarity for all
items. For example, a response of "agree completely" indicated by
a circled "l" on the questionnaire would be a "very comfortable"
response for the following item: I enjoy discussions of public
policy. However, to circle "1" for the item, "I find public policy
confusing", would indicate the respondent was uncomfortable with
public policy. The appropriate "very comfortable" response would
have been a circled "5" to express disagreement with the item.

The recoding standard was that all "very comfortable" responses
should be coded a numerical value of "5." The response of "5" to
the item "I find public policy confusing" would not need to be
recoded. The comfort questions and the corresponding grading are
shown in the first part of Table 1. Table 2 shows the responses in
percentages corresponding to each degree of agreement made by the
College Week sample (top figure) and the Extension sample (bottom
figure). Underneath the Extension percentage are letters correspond-
ing to the grading of that particular response. The code for Table
2 is: VC = a very comfortable response, C = comfortable, SC = some-
what comfortable, MU = moderately uncomfortable, and U = uncomfortable.

For example, consider the first item in Table l, "I would feel
very comfortable discussing public policy with a group of acquain-
tances." For this item, "agree completely" was a very comfortable
response, "agree to a great extent" was a comfortable response,
"agree to some extent" was a somewhat comfortable response, "agree
to a little extent" was a moderately uncomfortable response, and
"agree not at all" was an uncomfortable response. The "somewhat
comfortable" responses were considered "neutral" because they repre-

sented the middle of the comfort continuum.

Part 1:

Scoring of the Index of Confidence

 

Scoring Correctness of Comfort Questions

(5 = Very Comfortable, 4 = Comfortable, 3 = Neutral,

2 = Moderately Uncomfortable, and l

Uncomfortable)

 

pletely Extent

Agree
to a
Little
Extent

Agree
Not at
All

 

1.

I would feel very comfor-
table discussing public
policy with a group of
acquaintances.

Public policy changes so
rapidly it is hopeless to
even begin to keep up with
it.

I consider my knowledge of
public policy better than
the average person's.

Giving speeches or presen-
tations on public policy
should be reserved for
highly skilled specialists.

I enjoy discussions of
public policy.

I avoid participating in
discussions of public
policy because I am afraid
of revealing my ignorance.

Giving speeches or presen-

tations on public poliCy is

no more difficult than for
anything else.

I would need very much prepa-

ration before I could feel

comfortable making presenta-

tions on public policy.

I am sometimes afraid to ask

questions about public
policy because I feel I
should already know the
answer.

Table 1 (continued)

33

 

 

 

 

Agree Agree Agree
Agree to a to to a Agree
Com- Great Some Little Not at
pletely Extent Extent Extent All
10. I find public policy
confusing. 1 2 3 4 5
11. If I did not know the
answer to someone's ques-
tion on public policy, I
would know where to
find it. 5 4 3 2 1
Part 2: Scoring Correctness of Knowledge Satisfaction Questions
(5 = Very Satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 3 = Somewhat Satisfied,
2 = Moderately Unsatisfied, and l = Unsatisfied)
Agree Agree Agree
Agree to a to to a Agree
Com- Great Some Little Not at
pletely Extent Extent Extent All
1. I do not know as much about
public policy as I would
like to know. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I would find public policy
more interesting if I
understood it better. 1 2 3 4 5
3. My knowledge of public
policy has been adequate
for my needs. 5 4 3 2 l
4. My knowledge of public
policy has definitely
enriched my life. 5 4 3 2 l
5. I am satisfied with my
knowledge of public policy. 5 4 3 2 l

 

Table 1 (continued)

Part 3:

34

Scoring Correctness of the Knowledge Test Questions

(5 = Correct, 2 = Slightly Incorrect, and l = Incorrect)

Agree
Agree to a
Com— Great
pletely Extent

Agree
to
Some
Extent

Agree

to a Agree
Little Not at
Extent All

 

10.

Michigan public schools
receive most of their
financial resources from
millage voted by residents
of the school district.

Michigan's economy has too
many jobs and too few
people available to fill
them.

Most of the zoning deci-
sions are currently made
by the state government.

The major producers of food
in Michigan are corporate
farms.

The Federal government
through Conrail is taking
over all Michigan railroad
lines.

Social Security is financed
from funds received from
the Federal income tax.

Over 50% of the workers in
the United States belong to
labor unions.

When land is taken under
eminent domain, "just com-
pensation" to the owner is
usually the value of the
property assessed for tax

purposes.

The age of the average
American has been decreasing
over the last five years.

The Soviet Union is the
world's major producer and
exporter of grain.

35

Table 1 (continued)

 

Agree
Agree to a
Com— Great
pletely Extent

Agree
to
Some
Extent

Agree

to a Agree
Little Not at
Extent All

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Disease is the single

largest contributor to the

high death rate of children

in developing countries. 1 2

Many persons seek employ-

ment because the wages they

expect to receive are greater

than the value of alterna-

tive uses of their time. 5 5

Zoning is an example of
the police power to direct
land use. 5 2

Food supply and demand are
elastic. l 1

One of the ways for govern-

ment to determine appropriate
antirecession expenditures

is to ask businessmen to

indicate their production

plans for the coming year. 5 5

Under the Social Security

program, the taxes collected

from persons presently work-

ing are used to finance those

who are currently retired. 5 5

Approximately 25% of the cost

of processed food is due to

processing and distribution

costs. 1 2

 

36

Scoring of the Knowledge Satisfaction

Questions

Like the comfort items, the knowledge satisfaction items were
graded according to six categories: very satisfied, satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, moderately unsatisfied, unsatisfied, and missing.
For each item, the different degrees of agreement corresponded to one
of the knowledge satisfaction categories. The grading of the
knowledge satisfaction questions is shown in the second part of
Table l. The percentage of responses received for each degree of
agreement are shown in the second part of Table 2. Under the figure
for the Extension percentage are letters corresponding to the grading
of the question. The code for the knowledge satisfaction questions
is: VS = very satisfied, 8 = satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied,

MUS = moderately unsatisfied, and US = unsatisfied. The "somewhat
satisfied" responses were considered neutral because they represented

the middle of the knowledge satisfaction continuum.

Scoring of the Knowledge Test Questions

 

Knowledge test questions 1-7 as shown in the third part of
Table l and Table 2 were used on both the Extension and College Week
questionnaires. Questions 8-17 appeared only on the Extension
questionnaire. Scoring of the knowledge test questions was difficult
due to the ordinal scaling procedure. In particular, the category
”agree to some extent" created difficulties when determining the
correct response for an item. Different viewpoints on acceptable
correct responses would change the response percentages listed in
Table 2. Missing responses were always treated as absolutely
incorrect. They are listed separately because, if nothing else,

the variability of their frequency suggests that respondents had an

37

.wocowocmw >8 mcHHoo>wH mo

 

xo>e Hoe Home 1621 Inc oHMHHm as H omamomn soHHom

0 «.an m.mm H.m~ v.m H.H .exm UHHnsm Ho mconmsomHe
o.H o.o~ m.vm o.mm o.~H m.m .3.o :H maHummHoHuHmd oHo>m H .0

any Haze lows Hoe Ao>e

H.H ¢.m o.vH m.H~ o.m¢ H.mH .me HoHHoa oHHnsd
m.v m.v v.oH v.om ~.m~. v.om .3.o Ho mconmaomHo Honey H .m

.mumwamHoomm

omHHme HHana How

Ho>v Hoe Home Haze lav om>HommH ma 6Haonm soHHod

o m.mH o.mm m.mm o.vH ¢.m .me owansm co mcoHumucmm
m.m «.an o.m o.mm o.m m.HH .3.o umHm Ho monommom mcH>Ho .v

ADV ADZV Auwv AOL Ao>v .m.c0mwwm ommuo>m on» can»

H.H m.o a.m o.om m.mm o.¢H .exm Hanson soHHom oHHnam Ho
~.m v.o~ m.am v.0m ~.HH o.H .z.o mmomHaocx es Hmoncoo H .m

.uH aqu

AO>V AOL Aumv Abzv any do momx on chmn oo>o

m.m H.0m m.mm H.om m.v H.H .exm op mmmHmdon mH pH sHeHde
q.o v.mH «.mH «.mm 6.5H o.q .3.o om mmmcmno HoHHom oHHnsm .m

.moocou

ADC 1:21 lows roe Io>v -chsaom Ho mucus m nqu

o m.v s.m m.m~ o.m~ m.om .me HOHHom oHHnam mchmsomHe
v.m o.v e.OH o.mm o.Hm o.m~ .3.o mHnauuoHsoo Hmmm oHsoz H .H

mchmwz Ham um ucouxm mauqu ucouxm meow ucwuxm uooww aaouoamfioo mcowumosa uH0mEou

uoz mound

m on mowmm

ou ooumd

m on wound

mmwmm

 

 

«Amomoucmouom :Hv.xoocH wocwowmcoo on» uomupmcoo on own:

N canon.

mc0wumo50 ou noncommom

38

Has
v.m
v.mH
xo>e
m.HH
o.m

NH
(‘00-!

ON
V'N

AO>V
H.H H.0m
N m N.hN

AO>V
o m.v
w.m 0.0

ADV
N N H.mH
®.m ¢.mH

Haze
m.m
v.-
Hoe
a.v~
o.~H

AOL
v.vm
0.0H

HOV
H.mH
m.@H

ABEL
m.mm
m.mH

Homo
h.mm
«.mm
Homv
m.mm
N.mv

Home
m.mN
N.hm

Aumv
H.vv
m.mm

Homv
m.om
m.Nm

ADV
h.mm
o.m
ADEV
H.mH
N.mH

Hazy
N.hH
m.0H

ADV
N.hH
m.oH

AU>V
m.m
N.HH

ADV
m.@
o.N

ADV
N.N
®.m

ADV
v.mH
v.mH

AO>V
m.m
m.m

.UH och

ou oHo£3 socx oHoos H
.aoHHom UHHQSQ so coHumoso
m.ocooeom ou Hm3mco

on» socx poo 0H0 H HH

.mchoHcoo
AUHHom oHHnsm ocHH H

.mUGMHocmH

>5 mcHHmm>mH mo onumm
Em H mmmmomn moHHom UHH
imam moons mcowumooo xmo
ou onHHm mmswuosom an H

:HoHHo.H UHHnsm

co mcoHumucmmmHm mcmea
oHnmuHomsoo Hoom oHooo
H mwowmn cOHumummmHm
come >Hm> omen oHooz H

.omHm mcHnumcm
How cons uHsoHHmHo whoa o:

.me mH HUHHom oHHnsm co mcoHuou

.3.U

nommoum Ho noncommm ocH>HO

.HH

.OH

 

mcwmmwz HHm um ucmuxm oHuuHH acouxm meow poopxm uooww hHoumHmEoO

uoz mowmm

m on moumm

cu moumm

m on moumm

momma

mcoHumooa unamEou

 

82.2383 m «23

39

 

Ammo Amszv Ammo Hwy Am>v .>oHHom

o.o ~.mv m.o~ m.Hm v.m H.H .me UHHnsd Ho mmemHsocx
m. «.mo m.mH m.oH ~.m m. .z.o as cqu omHHmHumm as H .m

Away Amazv Ammv Amy Am>v .meH >5 oonoHHcm

m.v v.m «.aH «.an H.¢~ o.vH .me HHmuHcHHme was soHHod
m.m o.m m.mH m.ov m.o~ v.o .z.o oHHnsH Ho mmsmHzocx a: .e

Amos Amaze Ammo Ame xm>e .mommc ss HoH

H.H o.HH m.mm m.mm N.HH m.m .me mumsamom game was soHHom
v.m o.mm ¢.om o.mm o.mH o.H .3.o UHHnsd Ho mmomHzocx >2 .m

.kuumn

Am>v Ame Ammo Amaze Amos HH cooumumocs H HH

H.H m.q m.mH m.mm o.mm m.~H .me mcHummHoucH mHos HOHHom
o.e v.m m.v v.0m o.m~ m.mm .3.o oHHnsm ocHH oHsoz H m

Am>v Amy Ammv Amazv Away .socx ou mxHH

H.H m.v m.mH m.mm o.m~ m.~H .me oHsoz H mm soHHod oHHnsd
m.v o.m o.~H o.om «.mm «.mH .3.o ozone cuss mm zone uoc on H .H

mswmmwz HHm um ucouxm oHuuHH ucmuxm oaom ucouxm pooHO >HoumHmEoo mooHumoso

uoz ooumm m on oonm ou moumm m on omumm wowmm :OHuommmHumm mmostocM

 

HumscHucoue m mHnme

 

40

.xmu meoocH Hmumooh

 

HOV AHmV AHmV AHmv HHV emu sown oo>HoomH

H.H ~.mm m.m m.v H.H ~.m .axm mocou Scum ooocmch
m.n m.vo m.v m.m m.m ~.HH .3.0 mH >uHHoomm HoHoom .o

.mocHH ooou

ADV AHmV AHmV AHmV .HV iHHmu cmmHson HHm Hm>o

H.H m.om m.mH o.m N.m o.o .exm ocmeu mH Hemucou smoounu
m.mm m.~m o.mH 0.5H o.NH ¢.m .3.U ucosuuo>om Hmuooom 0:9 .m

HOV AHmv AHmV AHmv AHV .mewmm muowomuoo

m.v o.Hs 5.0 v.m m.s m.~ .exm mHm cmoHnon :H ooom
V.VH «.mm o.oH m.o~ m.mH m. .z.o Ho mucosooud Hons was .v

.ucoficuo>om

Hoe Hoe meC HHmC AHC woman may >b moms

m.m m.mm o.mm m.> m.@ 0.0 .sxm >HucmHHso mum mconHooo
m.m «.mm o.mm «.mH o.m o.H .3.o mchou as» H0 umoz .m

.Eozu HHHH

AOL AHmV AHmv AHmv AHV ou mHnoHHm>o onomm 3mm

o.o H.am m.e ~.m H.H H.H .exm can can who“ >cms 00»
oé «.8 «.2 ed mg m. .36 was >858 9:82on .H

.uoHHumHo Hoonom on» H0

mucmowmou >0 oouo> omMHHHE

HOV HOV HOV AHmV AHV sown mmoHsOmoH HmHocouHm

m.m a.m~ N.HH H.mH o.mm m.HH .sxm HHmeu Ho umos o>HmumH
o.m ~.HH m.m o.o~ «.me o.m .3.o mHooeom oHHnam ammHeon .H

mcwmmwz HHm um ucmuxm oHHUHH ucmuxm meow ucmuxm vooHO >HouonEou mcoHumosa umoa mmooHsonu

uoz mound m ou omwmm ow mowmm o cu wowma venom

 

selfless N in“

 

41

.moHHucsoo
mchon>oo CH cmHoHHno
Ho moan sumac amHn on»

 

HOV AHmv AHmv AHmV AHV ou HouonHHucoo ummmwma
e.m o.om m.H~ m.s m.Hm m.a .me mHmch we» mH mmmomHa .HH
.cHon mo Houuomxo one
Hoe AHmv AHmC 1H1 1H1 Hmosooum Hoflms m.cHHoa
H.H m.mn m.n m.h m.m H.H .me emu mH coHcD uoH>om one .OH
.mumm>
o>Hm ummH ecu Hm>o mcH
HOV AHmv AHmV AHmv AHV Immouooo coon mos cmoHH054
v.m ~.vs m.v m.o m.e e.m .sxm mmmum>m we» Ho mom was .m
.momomumm xmu How commommm
>uuwmoum you no mon>
on» >HHmoms mH Hmczo
on» on :cOHummcmmEoo
luv IHme AHmv 1H1 1H1 HmsH. .aHmsoo ucmcst
v.m H.om v.om m.mm H.mH m.m .axm Hopes coxou mH ocoH cons .m
HOV AHmV HHmV AHmV AHV .mcowco HonoH on
H.H N.Hm m.HH ~.hH N.>H m.HH .me mconn mmumum oouwca on»
0.5H m.om m.w v.0H o.hH m.m~ .3.0 :H mHoxHos ecu mo mom Ho>o .n
mchmHz HHm um ucmuxm mHuuHH ucouxm 080m ucouxm unoHO >HouonEoo mcoHUmooa umma omomHsocM

uoz moumm

o 0» owwmd

ou oon<

m on mowmm

omwmm

 

Homamwucoov N OHQMB

42

.omHHuoH >HucoHHoo

who 0:3 omonu mocmcwm

ou poms mum ocuxuoz
>Hucomoum mcomuwm son oou

 

AHV AHmv AHmV HOV HOV nooHHoo moxmu onu Emumoum
~.m m.m m.m m.HH m.mm m.ov .me >uHHooom HoHoom onu Hoot: .oH
.Hom> mcHEoo ecu How mcon
:oHuooooum HHmsu sumo
uHocH ou cosmmochon xmm
ou mu monouHocmmxo con
ImmomHHuco oumHHmowmmo
AHV AHmv AHmv HOV HOV ocHEHoumo ou ucoscum>om
m.o o.vH m.mm m.mm m.oH m.m .me HoH mama we» Ho mco .mH
HOV AHmV AHV AHV AHV .oHummHm mum
H.m o.~m m.mH «.mH m.mm m.OH .me sesame new sHmmsm cooH .vH
.omSIocMH uomHHo
AHV AHV AHmv AHmv AOL ou Hosea ooHHom onu
m.o m.om o.m m.0H H.oH m.h .me Ho mHmsmxo cm mH mchou .mH
.wsHu
HHmsu no new: o>HumcHouHm
Ho onm> onu cmnu Hoummum
mum 0>Hoomw ou uommxo >m£u
1H1 1H1 HHmC Ho. Hoe mamas mnu mmsmomn Hams
m.o H.m m.mH H.om m.m~ H.m .me -Honsw xmmm mcomHmd saw: .mH
mchmHz HHo um ucmuxm oHuqu ucmuxm 050m ucmuxm ummuo >kumHmEoo mcoHumooo umoa omooH3ocM

uoz omumd

m ou ooumm

ou wmumm

m ou mmumm

wmwmm

 

InmacHucoov H oHnaH

43

.Amm u zv noncommow :oncouxm n .me
.AmmH u z. noncommou xomz ommHHoo I .3.0
.4.

.mcmNHuHo muo>HHm mo mm>HH
oou cH ucmecwo>om >n mocoHom
inucH nose oou oumsou o>oe
m ucomoumou oHso3 >Eocoom
osu Houucoo one mNHHHnmum
mHmn ou cMHm HmcoHumc o no

 

 

m.m H.m m.Hm m.He H.mH o.m .me coHumHssHoH cusses m>os sac
ochmHz HHa um ucmuxm mHuuHH uzmuxm meow ucmuxm ummHo HHmudesoo HmnHo
uoz ooumm m ou mound ou wmumm m ou venom mound
.mumoo GOHumnHHu
ImHo can mchmmooum ou moo
HOV AHmv AHmV AHmV AHV mu 000m oommmooum Ho umoo
v.m v.om o.m o.vH H.om m.H~ .me on» H0 «mm HHmumstonma .HH

 

mchmHz HH< um ucmuxm mHuuHH ucmuxm meow uemuxm ummuo >kumHosoo

mcoHumoso umoa mmooasocx
uoz omumm m ou memos ou mwumm m ou wound wound

lowscHucoov H mHan

44
easier time guessing at the answers to some questions than others.
Those that were too difficult were abandoned. The grading of the
knowledge test questions appears under the Extension response figures
in Table 2. Three codes are used: C = correct, I = incorrect, and
SI = slightly incorrect.

The question listed under the "other" section in Table 2 was
not scored because it taps a respondent's political values. This
question was given only to the Extension sample, and it represented
an effort to surmise the consistency of the respondents' beliefs
regarding economic planning. It will be discussed in conjunction
with the results of the knowledge test questions, particularly item
15, which also deals with economic planning.

Results from the Comfort Questions:
College Week

 

This discussion of the results of the comfort questions concen-
trates on the responses which were not neutral. 0f the questions
dealing with comfort, comfortable responses predominated on six of
the questions, and uncomfortable responses predominated for the other
five. Overall, respondents were comfortable with and interested in
public policy in informal settings, but they were distinctly uncom-
fortable with the idea of making presentations on public policy
themselves, given their present state of understanding. The items
where uncomfortable responses predominated (3, 7, 8, and 11)
concern a more sophisticated orientation than the items where com-
fortable responses were in the majority (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9).

Lack of public policy knowledge may be behind these results, as they
imply that respondents are unwilling to act in situations requiring

more knowledge than they already have.

45
Item 8, "I would need very much preparation before I could feel
comfortable making presentations on public policy", received the
smallest number of neutral or "somewhat comfortable" responses, and
can be considered the item respondents felt most strongly about.

Results from the Comfort Questions:
Extension

 

The Extension staff who completed the questionnaire can be
described as being enthusiastic about public policy, and feeling at
ease even in situations where they have insufficient knowledge com-
pared to others present. The lowest percentage of neutral responses
was received for item 5, "I enjoy discussion of public policy."

The highest percentage of uncomfortable responses was received for
items 7 and 8, on public policy presentations. The implications of
this result for PACE workshops is that practice in making public
policy presentations should be encouraged, perhaps even at the
expense of devoting time to information on current public policies.

Results from the Knowledge Satisfaction
Questions: College Week

 

All the knowledge satisfaction questions indicated that the
majority of respondents (other than those answering in the neutral
category) were dissatisfied with their knowledge. "I am satisfied
with my knowledge of public policy" was the item which drew the
smallest percentage of neutral responses.

Results from the Knowledge Satisfaction
Questions: Extension

 

The item which had the greatest percentage of responses graded
as "unsatisfied" or "moderately unsatisfied" was: "I am satisfied

with my knowledge of public policy." The item receiving a majority

46

of satisfied and very satisfied responses was: "My knowledge of
public policy has definitely enriched my life." These results were
consistent with those of the College Week sample. Overall, the
Extension staff sample was dissatisfied with the amount or adequacy
of their public policy information.
Results from the Knowledge Test
Questions: College Week

Results on the knowledge test questions support the strong
feeling of respondents that their knowledge of public policy issues
is inadequate. Out of seven questions covering the areas of school
funding, Michigan's economy (the business cycle), land use, agri-
culture, Social Security, transportation, and labor, only three
questions got at least 50% correct response. These were received
in the areas of Michigan's economy, land use, and Social Security.
The troublesome areas were school funding, agriculture, transporta-
tion, and labor. The responses to questions 4 and 7 are particularly
noteworthy. On question 4 ("The major producers of food in Michigan
are corporate farms"), only 35.2% of the responses were absolutely
correct. This is an unexpected result, as many of the respondents
(47.2%) are from rural areas and might be expected to perform well
on this question. This result suggests that images of "monopoly
capital" or corporate control influence people's perceptions, even
when such control is not the case. Similarly, on question 7 (”Over
50% of the workers in the 0.8. belong to labor unions"), only 20.8%
of the responses were completely correct. These results may have
been influenced by the proximity of the unionized Detroit auto

companies. These results are consistent with those of question 4.

47
In both cases, reSpondents' perceptions of the economy were that it
is dominated by "bigness" and a high degree of concentration.

As mentioned in the section on the scoring of the knowledge
test questions, the proportion of missing responses was assumed to
reflect the difficulty of the question (aside from wrong answers).
Respondents appeared to be disturbed by the question on Conrail
("The Federal Government through Conrail is taking over all Michigan
railroad lines"), as 23.2% left it blank. The adjacent questions on
the questionnaire had only a small percentage of missing responses,
so the blanks on this question do not reflect a trend.

Results of the Knowledge Test
Questions: Extension

 

 

Over 80% of the responses were correct in the areas of Michigan's
economy (item 2), zoning decisions (item 3), and Social Security
(items 6 and 16). The poorest performance was received on the ques-
tions dealing with zoning as an example of the police power (item
13), with 59.1% incorrect responses, and the elasticity of food
supply and demand (56% incorrect). Items which followed in poor
performance were on wages and the concept of opportunity cost (item
12, with 28% incorrect), and food processing costs (item 17, 21.5%
incorrect). Respondents were most unsure of themselves on the
economic planning question (item 15, 76.4% slightly incorrect).

They were least unsure on one of the Social Security questions (item
6, 7.6% slightly incorrect). Overall, eight items out of 17 received

at least 50% correct responses.

48

Overview of Survey Results on the
Knowledge Test Questions

 

 

Both the College Week and Extension respondents did well on the
questions dealing with Michigan's economy and Social Security
("Michigan has too many jobs and too few people available to fill
them" and "Social Security is financed with funds received from the
Federal Income Tax"). When the knowledge test questions were formu-
lated, these particular questions were regarded as relatively easy
to answer. Questions on Conrail or Michigan school funding, in
contrast, required factual knowledge of a more specific nature, and
performance on these questions could not reasonably be expected to
be outstanding. Conrail and school millage are not part of everyday
conversation or work-life in the way that paycheck deductions or the
state of the economy are. Consequently, a mediocre performance on
such questions is not very serious, as factual knowledge can be
acquired where necessary.

A more critical area is that of understanding concepts so as to
be able to apply them to analyze or describe new situations. The
College Week sample was not presented with conceptual questions as
such. However, the fact that images of monOpoly capital influenced
their answers to several questions suggests that the College Week
respondents lack an understanding of the organization of the American
economy.

While the evidence is at best suggestive, the results on the
opportunity cost, planning, and elasticity questions given to the
Extension sample imply that a stronger correspondence needs to be
made between specific public policy issues and the concepts they

represent.

49

Two questions were given to the Extension staff on economic
planning. One question dealt with the Extension staff's understanding
of the ways economic planning can be defined ("One of the ways for
government to determine appropriate anti-recession expenditures is
to ask businessmen to indicate their production plans for the coming
year"). The other item dealt with the respondent's attitude toward
the governmental control inherent in planning ("Any move toward the
formulation of a national plan to help stabilize and control the
economy would represent a move toward too much interference by
government in the lives of private citizens"). The latter question
was different from any of the other questions in the questionnaire
because it asked respondents to describe how they felt toward a
specific, if potential, public policy, rather than public policy in
general. These two questions represented a crude attempt to surmise
the consistency of the respondent's beliefs toward economic planning.

The majority of the respondents did completely or greatly agree
that formulation of a national plan was not a move which represented
too much influence by government in the lives of private citizens.
They agreed with the idea of economic planning. Yet responses to
the definitional question indicated that only 14% were able to see
that government knowledge or production plans of businessmen could
lead to appropriate fiscal antirecession expenditures. In France,
the procedure represented by this question is labeled "indicative
planning" and represents a means of economic planning requiring
minimal government inteference in private business decisions rela-
tive to other types of economic plans, such as those of the U.S.S.R.
or the People's Republic of China. In general, the respondents failed

to see that an economic plan was the subject of the definitional question.

50

Responses to the Open-Endedeuestions

 

Most important sources of public policy information: The
responses to this question were not utilized for the study because
the format of the question appeared to confuse the respondents. The
question was supposed to be answered such that only three categories
out of twelve were selected and ranked. Since the twelve categories
were divided into four groups in an aborted attempt to enhance the
attractiveness of the questionnaire layout, some respondents assumed
the three items within each group were to be themselves ranked in

order of importance.

Limitations on acquisitions of public policy information: Twenty-
six persons indicated insufficient interest was the greatest limita-
tion on their acquisition of public policy knowledge. Forty-one
persons indicated an insufficient understanding of public policy
constrained their acquisition of further knowledge, and 72 selected
time as their greatest barrier. Ten persons checked the category
"other", but these "other" reasons were not specified by the respon-
dents, despite the instructions to do so on the questionnaire. Since
some persons checked more than one category, the number of responses
is greater than the sample size of 125. The purpose of the question
was to get at the greatest single constraint on acquisition of public
policy information, which was not adequately reflected by the question's
wording. The question was worded, "What is the greatest limitation
on your acquisition of public policy knowledge?" The responses to
this question revealed that there is indeed a role for a program

which, like PACE, aims to increase public policy understanding, but

51
beyond that, the information provided by this question was of minimal

value.

Public policy tOpics of most interest: The public policy topics
of most interest to respondents centered on schools and education,
and land—use. Participants often listed more than one topic, so the
numbers listed in Table 3 do not add up to the sample size of 125.

In Table 3, the tOpics have been broken down into macro-economic
issues, regional economic issues, and personal economic issues.

This classification is somewhat arbitrary and would not follow any
systematic definition, especially for such general topics as health
and food. However, the classification does emphasize that, overall,
participants frequently viewed public policy issues in the context

of their local environment.

Program or service most wanted for the community: The results
from this open—ended question are categorized in Table 4 following
the procedure used for Table 3. Again, respondents were able to list
one or more choices. Public forums, workshops, meeting elected
officials, etc., clearly dominated all other desired programs. The
next highest area in frequency of choice, schools and education,
received less than half as many responses. All other programs were
selected by l to 4 persons. Table 3 indicates that regional economic
issues were most germane as topics of interest to the respondents.
This result is consistent with Table 4, where community programs
most desirable to respondents were also concentrated in the area of

regional economics.

52
Table 3

Public Policy_Topics of Most Interest to Respondents

 

 

# of Respondents
Who Listed

 

Macro-Economic Issues

 

Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Government, all levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Political Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Inflation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
All Public Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Presidential Election. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Unemployment; Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Business Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Increasing Public Participation. . . . . . . . l

7

Regional Economic Issues

 

Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Schools and Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
School Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
School Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
State News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Environment; Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . l3

 

Bottle Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Busing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Total 86

Personal Economic Issues

Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Child Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Family Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

53

Table 3 (continued)

 

# of Respondents
Who Listed

 

Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Health (includes mental) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Consumerism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Social Service (includes legal help) . . . . . 4
Women's Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Home Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Historical Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Total 32

 

 

54

Table 4

Programs or Services Related to Public Policy that Respondents

 

Would Like to Have in Their Community»

 

 

# of Respondents
Who Selected

 

Macro-Economic Program Areas

 

Tax Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Local Government Program . . . . . . . . . . 2
Political Process Program. . . . . . . . . . l
Unemployment, Jobs Programs. . . . . . . . . 1
Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Increasing Public Participation. . . . . . . 1

Total 11

Regional Economic Program Areas

 

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schools and Education. . . . . . . . . . . .
School Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environment; Pollution . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Forums, Workshops, Meeting Elected
Officials, Communications, Newspapers. . . 20
Total 37

(dbl-'ml-H

Personal Economic Prggram Areas

 

Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Family Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Health (includes mental) . . . . . . . . . . 2
Consumerism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Social Service (includes legal help) . . . . 3
WOmen's Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Total 17

Other
Funds for Special Projects . . . . . . . . . 1
None Needed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Don't Know Where to Begin. . . . . . . . . . 1
Total 3

 

55

Table 5

Cooperative Extension Program Most Enjoyed

 

 

# of Respondents
Who Selected

 

Description of Program

 

Nutrition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
College Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Home Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Day of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
Mini-College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
4-H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Women's Rights Under the Law . . . . . . . . . 4
Extension Articles, T.V. Shows . . . . . . . . 2
All Programs Related to Public Policy. . . . . 1
Land Use Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
Migrant Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
3

Total 2
Other
Didn't go to any . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Don't know of any. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Don't Belong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Total 15

Grand Total 38

 

 

56

Extension program most enjoyed: Table 5 shows responses to the
question, "Which programs on public policy sponsored by the Coopera-
tive Extension Service in the last year did you most enjoy?" A
relatively large number of persons indicated a lack of knowledge or
understanding of Cooperative Extension operations. Over one-quarter
of the responses received fell into a combined category of "didn't
belong", "didn't know of any programs", or "didn't go to any programs."
(It should be noted that College Week is itself a program sponsored
by the Cooperative Extension Service.) Some persons may have listed
more than one program of interest, making the fraction of "other"
responses higher than one-quarter.

However, these responses were only 15 out of a possible total
of at least 125, if every respondent in the sample had answered the
question. Nevertheless, these results may be indicative of a need
for increased public relations work on the part of the Extension

Service.

Reliability

 

(Reliability is defined as the extent to which consistent results
are obtained from a measuring instrument such as a questionnaire.
Results that are not dependable represent random (or measurement)
error, assuming the subject of the measurement and the respondent
have not changed between measures. In general, Lickert scales have
high reliability. The redundancy of item wording in Lickert scales
increases the probability that the items are homogeneous (i.e., they
measure the same thing), and decreases the possibility of chance
agreement or disagreement significantly influencing the results. As

one of the purposes of this study was to develop an instrument which

57
could be used for future studies of public policy attitudes, an
indication of the reliability of the index of confidence items is
necessary to establish their potential usefulness. If the relia-
bility of the items is very low, for example, the index of confidence
items would have to be reworded or even completely changed.

Several methods of assessing reliability exist. The test—
retest method involves giving the same test at two distinctly dif-
ferent points in time to the same sample, and correlating the
results. The correlation coefficient so obtained is an indication
of the temporal stability of the test results. Another method of
calculating reliability is determining the correlation between
parallel (or substantially alike) forms of a test given at the same
time point. If a parallel form is not available, the test can be
split into halves randomly or according to the researcher's judgment,
and each half correlated. Cronbach's coefficient alpha (0) is the
mean of all possible split-half coefficients for a given test.2
This procedure indicates the equivalence of alternative forms or
subdivisions of a test.

For this study, it was impossible to obtain test-retest relia-
bilities, nor was the use of parallel forms feasible (due to time
constraints) even if they had been available. Coefficient alpha was
therefore chosen to evaluate the reliability of the results.

The alpha obtained for the College Week index of confidence
items was .69. An analysis of variance was used to test the hypothe-
sis that the alpha of .69 represents items that are not significantly
different from each other or, in other words, no one item was better
than any other item. If the hypothesis were not rejected, then the

mean of responses to all items taken together would not be significantly

58
different from the mean of the individual item responses. The
hypothesis was rejected (F = 30.16, d.f. = 22, p = .0001). (It
should be noted that the homogeneity of Lickert-type items is not
conceptually inconsistent with the analysis of variance results.
Some items can discriminate among individuals better than others,
as shown by their greater variance which leads to significant dif-
ferences among the items, and still measure the same thing, which
implies they are homogeneous.)

The coefficient alpha obtained for the Extension results was
.75 (F = 61.72, d.f. = 33, p = .0001). The improvement was probably
in part due to the lengthening of the questionnaire for the second
administration by the addition of knowledge test items. Reliability
increases as the test length increases provided the new items are
similar to or better than those already comprising the test. (Opera-
tionally, this implies that the variance of new items should be the
same or larger than that of previous items.)

The reliability of the College Week and the Extension question-
naires is not as high as that generally achieved for Lickert scales
(see Chapter 2). However, the reliability is probably sufficiently
high for either the College Week or Extension version of the question-
naire to justify confidence that results will not be greatly

influenced by measurement error.

Method of Testigg the Behavior Model

The hypotheses of the behavior model were tested by crosstabulat-
ing responses to the aggregated comfort questions and the responses
to each individual comfort question. The behavior model crosstabula-

tion tables are contained in Appendix D. There is a small amount

59
of multicollinearity in the computation of the resulting 2 x 2
tables (approximately 1/15), since the responses to the particular
individual question used in the crosstabulation were not partialed
out of the aggregated responses. The multicollinearity which existed
did not reveal itself through consistently insignificant results in
the test of the hypotheses. Furthermore, the fairly large sample
size (n = 218) implied the standard error of the estimates would be
sufficiently low to offset any multicollinearity.

In order to create a 2 x 2 table for crosstabulation purposes,
the responses to the questions which represented the hypotheses of
the behavior model had to be scored dichotomously. The first step
in scoring the comfort questions dichotomously was to divide the
responses to the comfort questions into two groups, one of which
would be labeled "uncomfortable" and the other "comfortable." A
"very comfortable", "comfortable", or "somewhat comfortable" response
was coded as a "l" and labeled "comfortable" for purposes of the
crosstabulation. "Moderately uncomfortable", "uncomfortable", or
missing responses were coded "2" and aggregated under the label
"uncomfortable." As there were eleven comfort questions, the maximum
"comfortable" score was 11; the maximum "uncomfortable" score was
was 22. The average of these two figures was taken to determine the
dividing point between comfortable and uncomfortable scores. The
range of comfortable scores was 11 through 16, and the range of
uncomfortable scores was 17 through 22. A similar procedure was
followed with the responses to the questions to be crosstabulated
with the aggregated comfort questions.

The statistic used to test the significance of each crosstabula-

tion result was chi-square (x2). The chi-square measure needs only

60
a nominal level of measurement such as "comfortable", "not comfortable",
"afraid", "not afraid", etc. In the test of the behavior model, the
chi-square is an indication of how close the observed frequencies are
to the expected frequencies. The null hypothesis (H0) is that the
observed frequencies do not differ from the expected frequencies.
The chi-square statistic obtained from the crosstabulation was
regarded as statistically significant at the .10 level or less. In
other words, the results which produced the significant chi-square
would occur on the average of only 10 times out of every 100 such
investigations. A significant chi-square implies a "rare event" has
occurred, and we therefore reject the null hypothesis. A list of
the hypotheses, the corresponding chi-square values, and their sig-
nificance levels is presented in Table 6.

Discussion of the Test of the
Behavior Model

 

 

Out of 14 hypotheses comprising the behavior model, only two
were rejected at the .10 level of significance. In general, the
hypotheses which were not rejected had chi—squares significant at
very high levels, .001 or greater. The rejected hypotheses have in
common the erroneous idea that persons comfortable with public policy
are complacent and satisfied with their knowledge. Both comfortable
and uncomfortable persons were dissatisfied with their knowledge
and felt their appreciation of public policy would be enhanced by
more knowledge.

In addition, comfortable persons were more concerned about
increasing their knowledge of public policy topics than in presenting
a mere facade of knowledgeability to others. The chi—square was

largest for the hypothesis that people who are comfortable with

61

Table 6

Chi-Square Values for Selected Crosstabulations for

 

the Aggregated College Week and Extension Samples

 

 

Hypothesis

df p<

 

10.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's esteem
for public policy will increase.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's enjoyment
of public policy discussions
will increase.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's feeling of
being overwhelmed by public
policy will decrease.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's feeling of
confusion with public policy
will decrease.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's judgment
of the amount of public policy
knowledge possessed increases.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's feeling of
adequacy of public policy
knowledge increases.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's fear of
revealing ignorance decreases.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's fear of
asking questions about public
policy decreases.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's satisfac-
tion with his knowledge of general
public policy tOpics increases.

As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's familiarity
with source materials in public
policy increases.

13.4

28.3

27.4

42.6

39.3

.85

74.2

53.5

.00

27.1

1 .0003

1 .0000

1 .0000

1 .0000

1 .0000

1 .0000

1 .0000

1 .0000

62

Table 6 (continued)

 

Hypothesis

df

P<

 

11. As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's belief
that public policy tOpics are
not especially difficult topics
to speak on increases.

12. As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's belief that
public policy presentations need
not be restricted to highly
skilled specialists increases.

13. As comfort with public policy
increases, a person's estimate
of preparation time needed before
he or she can feel comfortable
making public policy presentations
decreases.

14. As understanding of public policy
increases, interest in public
policy increases, especially for
uncomfortable persons.

13.5

28.5

2.9

.02

.0002

.0000

.09

 

63
public policy are not afraid of revealing their ignorance (see Table
6, hypothesis 7). This is a desirable characteristic for persons
who have the potential of becoming community leaders or Extension
staff capable of working within a public policy framework.

An attitude of being comfortable with public policy appears to
limit feelings of being overwhelmed or confused by the issues pre-
sented. Perhaps this result can be explained by an analogy. Just
as persons can learn to interpret feelings of anxiety as the more
positive feelings of excitement, persons who are comfortable with
public policy appear to interpret any lack of knowledge or under-
standing as a personal, positive challenge, rather than a threat.

Beyond the challenges offered by public policy, comfortable
persons also value their public policy knowledge. They are more
likely than their noncomfortable counterparts to be familiar with
sources of information about public policy topics. Furthermore, 70%
of all comfortable persons consider their knowledge of public policy
topics better than the average person's, but only 15% of the non-
comfortable persons will make such a statement (see Appendix D,
hypothesis 5).

While uncomfortable persons were evenly divided on the issue of
whether or not they were overwhelmed by public policy (a state which
is probably related to their knowledge of public policy issues),
comfortable persons were, in general, clearly not overwhelmed. Com—
fortable persons were evenly divided on the issue of preparation time
needed to prepare a presentation on public policy; 98% of the uncom-
fortable persons felt they needed much preparation time. However, a
majOrity of both comfortable and uncomfortable persons believed public

policy presentations need not be reserved for highly skilled specialists.

64
Since public policy topics are not generally believed to be especially
difficult for comfortable persons to speak on (the conclusion drawn
from the test of hypothesis 11), such presentatiOns should not call
for specialists (hypothesis 12), nor for very much personal prepara-
tion (hypothesis 13). The hypotheses dealing with public policy
presentations were consistent in their implications.

Limitations on the Test of the
Behavior Model

 

 

The description of comfortable and uncomfortable persons pre-
sented by the behavior model has several limitations. In a broader
sense, some of these are limitations of the entire study.

The sample itself was a biasing factor. Those persons who had
the time to attend College Week probably also had sufficient family
income and provision for child care (where necessary) to be able to
do so, unless they attended during their work vacation. Most of the
women sampled were in the 25—39 age group, covering some of the main
child-bearing years. Fairly high levels of education characterized
the group. These factors are among the reasons why the sample used
for this study did not represent an extensive cross section of
society in terms of income and education. Further work would have
to be done to determine the attitudes of other segments of society
such as the rural poor. They represent one group who might have
considerably less confidence with public policy than the College
Week sample, yet who could distinctly benefit from increased partici-
pation in the political process.

There was little uniformity in the administration of the ques-
tionnaires. The College Week questionnaires were distributed with

differing instructions. Some persons were told to return theirs

65

immediately; others were given until the next class meeting to com-
plete them. In contrast, the Extension sampling was done entirely
by mail. Probably the major effect this situation had was to impose
some sort of uniformity on the responses where persons had the oppor-
tunity to consult with their friends. Hopefully, the anonymity of
the questionnaires limited such consultations.

For the test of the behavior model itself, comfortable persons
were defined rather broadly, since neutral responses of "somewhat
like me" were permitted to fall into the comfortable category. Con-
sequently, the model was tested using the responses of 178 comfortable
persons vs. those of 40 uncomfortable persons. Missing responses
were assumed to be due to a state of discomfort that precluded answer-
ing the question. To the extent responses were missing due to other
reasons such as carelessness, such a classification was invalid.

Crosstabulation of the College Week
Demographic Characteristics

 

 

A series of crosstabulations was performed to determine if the
demographic variables significantly affected comfort, nowledge, or
knowledge satisfaction, and if the latter three variables were sig-

nificantly related to each other. These crosstabulations were:

Comfort x Knowledge Satisfaction
*Comfort x Knowledge Test

Comfort x Residence Area
*Comfort x Education

*Comfort x Work

Knowledge Satisfaction X Residence
Knowledge Satisfaction X Education
Knowledge Satisfaction X Work

Knowledge Satisfaction X Knowledge Test
*Knowledge Test X Residence

Knowledge Test x Education

Knowledge Test x Work

66
An asterisk indicates a relationship significant at at least the .10
level, using a chi—squared distribution. The crosstabulation tables
themselves may be found in Appendix E, along with the corresponding
chi-square measures and significance levels.

Comfort was scored dichotomously in the same manner as for the
test of the behavior model. The knowledge satisfaction questions
were scored in a similar manner, with the dichotomy being "satisfied"
and "not satisfied." The knowledge test questions were scored
according to Table l with two changes. Responses of "agree to a
little extent" which were considered slightly incorrect for purposes
of Table l were considered correct for purposes of the crosstabula-
tion. All other slightly incorrect responses, along with the
incorrect and missing responses, were scored as incorrect. Conse-
quently, knowledge test responses were divided into a dichotomy of
"correct" and "incorrect" responses.

Residence area was divided into three groups: farm, town, and
city. The farm category covers the demographic descriptors "on the
farm" and "in the country, but not on a farm" listed on the College
Week questionnaire. The town category included the descriptors:

"in a town, or village with less than 2,500 people", and "in a town
or city with 2,500 to 10,000 peOple." The remaining residence
descriptors fell into the city category. Educational background

was divided into two levels corresponding to a portion or all of
high school vs. college or other training. The College Week descrip-
tors for the "work" category (i.e., part time, full time, or not at

all) were retained for the crosstabulation.

67

Crosstabulation of Confidence Index
Variables UsinggCollege Week Data

 

 

The most pronounced association was between comfort and knowledge,
with a chi-square significant at the .0019 level. Over two-thirds
of the comfortable persons were knowledgeable, in contrast to only
one-third of the uncomfortable persons.

The relationship between knowledge and residence area was sig-
nificant at the .03 level. As was noted in the beginning of the
chapter, the public policy classes contained more farm residents
than did the Assertiveness Training class. A more balanced distri-
bution of farm - non—farm residents would be needed in the public
policy classes and in the Assertiveness Training class in order to
effectively determine whether residence area influenced knowledge
of public policy. The problem is that the farm residents tended to
preselect themselvesiJHIJthe public policy classes. However, one
PACE implication can be derived from these results. Farm residents
such as those who attended College Week might be good candidates
for recruitment for PACE workshops.

Comfort was also significantly related to education. The chi—
square for this relationship was significant at the .08 level. How-
ever, no substantive statement can be made about the PACE program
implications of the significant relationship between comfort and
educational level. Too many of the respondents, 84.7%, are high
school graduates only, to be able to effectively compare their reac-
tions to those of "college or other" persons. A more balanced
distribution across the education variable is necessary.

The relationship between comfort and work (significant at the

.08 level) indicates that comfortable persons are more likely to be

 

68
unemployed. The percentage of comfortable persons who did not work

(56.2%) was greater than the percentage of comfortable persons who

worked part time (24.7%) or full time (19.1%).

Crosstabulation of Confidence Index
Variables Using Extension Data

 

 

Crosstabulations were done on the Extension data to determine
if the results would be consistent with those done on the College
Week data. The crosstabulations performed were Comfort x Knowledge
and Comfort x Knowledge Satisfaction. The tables themselves are
contained in Appendix G.

There was no significant relationship between comfort and
knowledge satisfaction for the Extension sample. The relationship
between comfort and knowledge was significant at the .001 level.

Both of these findings are consistent with the College Week results.

Results of the Item Analysis

 

There are several ways of analyzing whether or not an item should
be included in the final version of a Lickert-type scale.3 The one
chosen for this study involves correlating the scores on each item
with the scores on the whole questionnaire.

Conceptually, this procedure reveals how well each individual
item contributes to what all the other items are measuring. For
example, if a statement such as, "I believe seashells are pretty",
appeared on the public policy oriented questionnaire used in this
study, it should have no correlation with the responses made on the
other items. The total score range was the summation of each individual's
scores on all items. Since the data were ordinal, therefore non-

parametric, Kendall correlation coefficients were obtained. Spearman

69

coefficients, the other commonly used nonparametric correlation
coefficients, were not utilized in this study because they are con-
ceptually closer to the correlation coefficients obtained from
continuous data (i.e., Pearson's product—moment correlation coef-
ficients). The large number of tied ranks in the data of this study
implied a discrete rather than continuous distribution of scores
existed for which Kendall's tau is more appropriate than Spearman's
rho.4

The results, shown in Table 75 are grouped according to the
type of question: comfort, knowledge satisfaction, and knowledge
test. The correlation coefficients and significance levels are
presented next to each item. It should be noted that, as each item
was correlated with the total of 23 items, there is a small amount
of multicollinearity and therefore spuriousness in the significance
level results. As the fraction of multicollinearity influencing
the results is only 1/23, no corrective measures were taken.

One way of conducting the item analysis once correlation coef-
ficients have been obtained is to list the items going from high to
low correlations and discard those items (for subsequent administra—
tion of the questionnaire) with coefficients lower than an arbitrarily
determined level.

The item analysis of the College Week results did not reveal a
clear "break-off" point for acceptance or rejection of any of the
items with coefficients significant at the .001 level, since the
coefficients ranged in value from .44 to .25. However, the relatively
low significance of items 10 and 11 in the comfort items section,
and items 4 and 5 in the knowledge satisfaction items section did

suggest they should be drOpped from a second administration of the

Item Analysis of

70

Table 7

the Index of Confidence

 

 

Col
Wee
Ken
Cor
Coe

(N

lege

k Extension
dall Sig- Kendall
relation nifi- Correlation
fficient cance Coefficient
= 125) Level (N = 93)

Sig-

nifi-
cance
Level

 

Comfort Items

 

1.

I avoid participating

in discussions of public
policy because I am
afraid of revealing

my ignorance.

I am sometimes afraid
to ask questions about
public policy because

I feel I should already
know the answer.

I find public policy
confusing.

I would need very much
preparation before I
could feel comfortable
making presentations on
public policy.

I consider my knowledge
of public policy better
than the average person's.

I would feel very com—
fortable discussing
public policy with a
group of acquaintances.

Public policy changes

so rapidly it is hopeless
to even begin to keep up
with it.

If I did not know the
answer to someone's ques-
tion on public policy,

I would know where to
find it.

.44 .001 .44

.41 .001 .30

.40 .001 .24

.37 .001 .39

.37 .001 .39

.36 .001 .42

.31 .001 .26

.28 .001 .30

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

71

Table 7 (continued)

Emma“ an: _

 

1.3.3.3.: “QUE”, 1.: :J qu.3 2 ‘tmg.’ t'“ ‘-‘3 “‘3. B3323.“ Ir ’3 133 ti,

College
Week Extension
Kendall Sig- Kendall Sig-

Correlation nifi- Correlation nifi-
Coefficient cance Coefficient cance
(N = 125) Level (N = 93) Level

 

9. I enjoy discussions of
public policy. .27 .001 .35 .001

10. Giving speeches or pre-
sentations on public
policy should be reserved
for highly skilled
specialists. .12 .02 .08 .129

11. Giving speeches or pre-
sentations on public
policy is no more diffi-
cult than for anything
else. .11 .04 .17 .010

Knowledge Satisfaction Items

 

1. My knowledge of public
policy has been adequate
for my needs. .36 .001 .37 .001

2. My knowledge of public
policy has definitely
enriched my life. .36 .001 .29 .001

3. I would find public policy
more interesting if I
understood it better. .28 .001 .32 .001

4. I do not know as much
about public policy as I
would like to know. .10 .04 .17 .010

5. I am satisfied with my
knowledge of public
policy. .07 .12 .40 .001

Knowledge Test Items

 

l. The Federal government
through Conrail is taking
over all Michigan rail-
road lines. .40 .001 .45 .001

Table 7 (continued)

72

 

College
Week
Kendall
Correlation
Coefficient
(N = 125)

Sig-

nifi-
cance
Level

Extension

Kendall

Correlation
Coefficient

(N

93)

Sig-

nifi-
cance
Level

 

10.

11.

The Soviet Union is the
world's major producer
and exporter of grain.

The major producers of
feed in Michigan are
corporate farms.

Disease is the single
largest contributor to
the high death rate of
children in develOping
countries.

Social Security is
financed from funds
received from the Federal
income tax.

Approximately 25% of the
cost of processed food
is due to processing and
distribution costs.

Most of the zoning deci-
sions are currently made
by the state government.

Michigan's economy has
too many jobs and too few
people available to fill
them.

Over 50% of the workers
in the United States
beling to labor unions.

Michigan public schools
receive most of their
financial resources from
millage voted by residents
of the school district.

Food supply and demand are
elastic.

.38

.33

.30

.30

.26

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.42

.38

.38

.22

.32

.34

.26

.38

.02

.23

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.385

.001

Table 7 (continued)

73

 

College
Week
Kendall
Correlation
Coefficient
(N = 125)

Sig—

nifi-
cance
Level

Extension
Kendall
Correlation
Coefficient
(N = 93)

Sig-

nifi-
cance
Level

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

When land is taken under
eminent domain, just
compensation to the owner
is usually the value of
the property assessed

for tax purposes.

The age of the average
American has been decreas—
ing over the last five
years.

Zoning is an example of
the police power to
direct land use.

One of the ways for
government to determine
appropriate antirecession
expenditures is to ask
businessmen to indicate
their production plans for
the coming year.

Under the Social Security
program, the taxes col-
lected from persons
presently working are
used to finance those who
are currently retired.

Many persons seek employ-
ment because the wages the
expect to receive are
greater than the value of
alternative uses of their
time.

Y

.20

.14

.14

.10

.05

.05

.003

.027

.024

.082

.230

.225

74

Table 7 (continued)

 

 

College
Week Extension
Kendall Sig- Kendall Sig-
Correlation nifi- Correlation nifi-
Coefficient cance Coefficient cance
(N = 125) Level (N = 93) Level
Other
Any move toward formulation
of a national plan to help
stabilize and control the
economy would represent a
move toward too much inter-
ference by government in
the lives of private
citizens. N.A. N.A. .10 .082

 

75
questionnaire. There were no discernible reasons why these items
in particular were less consistent in contributing to the overall
index.

However, for the administration of the questionnaire to the
Extension staff, it was decided to retain these less significant
items since they did contribute information useful to PACE. Item
5 of the "Knowledge Satisfaction Items" jumped in significance from
the .12 level to the .001 level. The rest of the items which were
not very significant for the College Week questionnaire retained
relatively low significance levels when an item analysis of the
Extension results was done. This finding again suggests the use of
these items should be discontinued, ceteris paribus, in future
questionnaire administrations.

The item analysis of the Extension results differs from the
College Week analysis due to the addition of knowledge test items
to the Extension questionnaire, as well as a smaller sample size.
The poorest items tended to be among the newly added knowledge test
questions, which were meant to be more difficult than the knowledge
test items used for College Week. Five of the seven insignificant
knowledge test items had a relatively high percentage of missing
responses, 5.4-6.5%, which may have contributed to their weak correla-
tion with the total scores. The insignificance of the item listed
under the "Other" category may be explained by noting that it is
really tapping a person's political values and, as such, is incon-
sistent with the tone of the rest of the items of the questionnaire.

Only four items out of a total of 34 for the Extension question-
naire, and two items out of the 23 used for the College Week survey,

did not achieve a .10 or better level of significance. Overall, these

76
results of the item analyses indicate that either the College Week
or Extension version of the questionnaires is appropriate for use
as an indicator of public policy attitudes. The results of the
item analyses also suggest the two questionnaires are homogeneous—-
i.e., the items "hang together" and are tapping a similar trait.

Results of the Factor Analysis:
College Week

 

 

Factor analysis is a means by which the regularity and

order in phenomena can be discerned...We associate a pat-

tern of attitudes, for example, with businessmen and

another pattern with farmers...Factor analysis can be

applied in order to explore a content area, structure a

domain, map unknown concepts, classify or reduce data,

illuminate causal nexuses, screen or transform data,

define relationships, test hypotheses, formulate theories,

control variables, or make inferences.5

Factor analysis is generally intended for use with normally dis—
tributed data. To use it with ordinal or nonparametric data (in
this case, numbers from 1 to 5) may mean that the true patterns of
relationships characterizing the data are not capable of being as
fully displayed and consequently, as meaningful, as they would other-
wise be. (Nonparametric factor analytic programs are insufficiently
developed at the present time to encourage their use in this study.)

The purpose of the factor analysis was to test the hypothesis
that responses would cluster into three groups, corresponding to the
comfort, knowledge, and knowledge satisfaction divisions of the
index of confidence. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) was used for the factor analysis. A principal component
analysis was performed (with iteration) and varimax rotation.

Nine factors resulted, of which only the first three were inter-

pretable. They accounted for 58% of the variance in the data.

Whereas the results did not support the hypothesis about the structure

77
of the questionnaire, they did appear to reflect the behavior model
taken as a whole. The graphs of the first three factors (see
Figures 1 and 2) show what can be described as a continuum of con-
fidence. The comfort and knowledge satisfaction questions are
arrayed from those items reflecting comfort and satisfaction with
public policy, in the upper left of Figure l, to questions
expressing discomfort and dissatisfaction, in the lower right
portion. For example, the item 12 in the upper left of Figure 1
reads, "My knowledge of public policy has definitely enriched my
life." Item 8, falling next to item 12, reads, "I enjoy discus-
sions of public policy." On the other hand, items that fall at the
end of the continuum, 22 and 11, read, respectively, "I find public
policy confusing" and "I avoid participating in discussions of public
policy because I am afraid of revealing my ignorance." Figure 2
follows much the same pattern. The items which are to the left of
vertical factor 3 in Figure 2 eXpress comfort and enjoyment of
public policy; the items to the right express the opposite.

As Figures 1 and 2 show, the knowledge test questions are inter-
spersed among the comfort and knowledge satisfaction items. A con-
siderable amount of subjective judgment would underlie any statement
that the items are arrayed on the comfort continuum in order of
their difficulty. However, the fact that the questionnaire items
did not cluster into three groups indicates the items could be con-
sidered homogeneous--reflecting public policy attitudes and not three
disparate attitudes toward comfort, knowledge, and knowledge satis-
faction. (Homogeneity was also demonstrated by the item analysis

and evaluation of reliability.)

 

 

Horizontal Factor 1

Horizontal Factor 2

 

 

8
5
12 1
3
20
13
2 9
17 10 23
14
7 16
22
18 4
15 19 ll
1 = V1 2 — V2
3 = V3 4 = V4
5 = V5 6 = V6
7 = V7 8 = V8
9 = V9 10 = V10
11 = V11 12 = V12 Figure 1
13 = V13 14 = V14
15 = V15 16 = V16 Graph of Factor 1 and Factor 2
17 = V17 18 = V18
19 = V19 20 = V20
21 = V21 22 = V22
23 = V23

 

 

Horizontal Factor 1

79

Vertical Factor 3

 

 

l7
3
20
5 ll
12
9
l8
2 14 10 7 4
6 21
81 23
15
16 22
19
1 = V1 2 — V2
3=v3 4=v4
5 = V5 6 = V6
7 = V7 8 - V8 Fi ure 2
9=v9 10=V10 9
11 = V11 12 = V12
13 = V13 14 = V14 Graph of Factor 1 and Factor 3
15 = V15 16 = V16
17 - V17 18 = V18
19 = V19 20 = V20
21 = V21 22 = V22
23 = V23

80

Items that loaded heavily on factor 1 would describe uncom-
fortable persons as characterized by the behavior model. (See
Table 8 for the factor loadings.) For example, loadings of .49 or
higher occurred on items 11, 15, 16, 19, and 22. The highest posi-
tive loading (.76) was for the statement, "I avoid participating in
discussions of public policy because I am afraid of revealing my
ignorance." Smaller positive loadings also resulted on items that
reflected an insecurity, fear, and avoidance of public policy
issues. Negative loadings appeared for all items which expressed
confidence and enjoyment. The highest negative loading (-.24) was
for the statement, "My knowledge about public policy has definitely
enriched my life." This result is consistent with the behavior
model's proposition that uncomfortable persons will not Value public
policy. Of the knowledge satisfaction items, the item, "I would
need very much preparation before I could feel comfortable making
presentations on public policy", received the highest loading, .61.
This result is consistent with the insecurity revealed by the
other items which had high loadings on this factor. From the pat-
tern of loadings on this factor, it appears that uncomfortable
persons are relatively unconcerned about whether or not their
knowledge is personally'satisfactory,and.more disturbed by the
thought that that knowledge will be subject to the scrutiny of
others.

In contrast, the items with high loadings on factor 2 appeared
to describe comfortable persons, as shown by examination of items
1, 5, 8, and 12. Negative loadings appeared on all items that
expressed fear and avoidance of public policy. The item, "My

knowledge about public policy has definitely enriched my life", had

 

 

81

.mHHmccoHumooo x003 OOOHHOO onu co mEouH ou women mumnfisc coHumooO

t.

 

 

HO. mO.I HN. cm. 00. vN.I HO.I 00. HQ. MN
OO. NH. NO. mo. ON. NO.I VH.I MH.I HN. NN
HO.I OH. OO.I OO. hO.I NH. HO.I HH.! 5H. HN
ON. NO.I MN. OH.I 00.: OH. mm. hH. MH.I ON
OO.I cm. OO. 5H. HH.! OO.I ON.I mN.I HO. OH
HH.I v0. HO. HH.: OH. HN. mo. mH.I Nm. OH
NO. NO.I OH.I mO.I ON.I mH. Hm. OO. NO.| 5H
MH. mo. Ho. EN. NH. OH. OH.| OO.I Om. OH
nv. mH.I NH. OH. mo. 50. OH.| HN.I Ow. mH
Om. NO.I NO. OO.I OH. 00. mo. vO.I HO. vH
00.: no.1 OH. cm. mo.| HO. OH. HH. No. MH
MO. 0v. HO.I NO.I NO.I OH. NN. no. mN.l NH
OO.I OO.I vH.I mo.) VH. mo. OH. hH.I on. HH
no. HO.I VO.I MO.I mN. Nb. mo. HO. no. OH
OH.I HO. vm.u HO.I OH.I no. VH. no. HN. O
no. NH. ON.I OO.I OH. 50. mO.| Oh. hH.I m
HH. HH. OH. no.1 Om. NH. HO. NO.I mH. 5
HH. mO.I OO. v0.1 ON. HO. mo.l NO. no. 0
VH.I HN.: HH. mN.I MH.I mO.I ON. Oh. mO.I m
ON.I OH.I VO.I OH. HO. OH. mo. ON.I Om. v
HO.I NO. VO.I ON. Nm. ov.l mm. NN. mH.I m
HH.! mm. HO.I mH. ON. Hm.l NO. mo. HO.I N
OO.I mH.I OO.I no. mO.I mO.I hO.I on. MH.I H
O m b O m v m N H Honfisz
Houomm Houomm Houomm Houomm Houomm Houoom Houomm Houoom Houoom coHumosO

 

 

«mOCHcoOH Houomm x003 ommHHou

O OHQMB

82
one of the highest loadings, .69. Yet other items tapping knowledge
satisfaction (2, 7, 17, 19, and 20) had low positive or low negative
loadings. The item, "I consider my knowledge of public policy
better than the average person's", had the highest loading on
factor 2, .79.

Items with high loadings on factor 3 described persons not as
easily classified as enthusiastic or unenthusiastic. The item, "I
am satisfied with my knowledge of public policy", received the
highest factor loading, .81. Only for this group does the issue of
knowledge satisfaction appear to be relevant. Overall, the factor
loadings appeared to characterize persons who were knowledgeable
(at least insofar as self-report) and satisfied with that knowledge,
but who did not particularly enjoy public policy. Lack of interest,
not comfort, appears to define these individuals. The neutral group
of the behavior model most closely corresponds to this description.
It will be remembered that neutral persons were not seen as likely
potential participants in public policy workshops.

The interpretation of loadings on the knowledge test questions
is ambiguous. Examination of the knowledge test item loadings on
all nine factors did not reveal any meaningful relationships. The
knowledge test item loadings on the factors whose other item loadings
described comfortable, uncomfortable, or neutral persons varied
according to the kind of person represented. However, it is unclear
whether the associations between knowledge test items and the descrip-
tion of persons means that a given type of person found a given test
item easy or difficult. For example, the test items which loaded
most heavily on factor 1 were not those that were especially easy or

difficult, when the scored results of Table 2 were considered.

83

Overall, the factor analysis of the College Week results appears
to have been useful in testing the behavior model as a whole. A
factor analysis was also done on the Extension responses. The results
of this second factor analysis will not be discussed, as it was
impossible to discern patterns of meaningful relationships among
the twelve factors which resulted. The difference in the number of
factors that resulted implied that the Extension sample represented
a population different from that of the College Week sample.

The correlation matrix which was inverted for the Extension
factor analysis was nearly singular. Row 32 of the matrix was
dependent on previous ones. Row 32 represented the correlation of
variable 32, which was the responses to the item, "One of the ways for
government to determine appropriate antirecession expenditures...."
with the responses to the rest of the items in the questionnaire.

The factor loadings for the Extension responses are reported in

Appendix F.

Summag x

This chapter has presented the results of the College Week and
Extension surveys. The statistical analyses focused on an evaluation
of the results which would contribute information useful for PACE, as
well as results which would indicate the potential of the instruments
used in this study for future surveys of public policy attitudes. Two
analyses critical to evaluation of the questionnaires were the determi-
nation of reliability and the item analysis. The reliability values
achieved for both questionnaires indicated that results from their
usage would probably not be greatly influenced by measurement error.

The item analysis indicated the items of each questionnaire were, on

 

84

the whole, consistent in measuring attitudes toward public policy.

The evaluation of the behavior model utilizing chi-squared
tests of significance demonstrated that there was a significant
positive relationship between comfort and sustained interaction
with public policy. Unless a person is comfortable with public
policy, it is unlikely he or she will act in a leadership capacity
in community development. Chapter 4 explores theories of learning
and motivation as a foundation for suggested means by which comfort
with public policy can be sustained or increased within the PACE

workshops.

ENDNOTES

1. Claire Seltiz, Lawrence S. Wrightsman, and Stuart W. Cook,
Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rd ed. (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), p. 181.

2. L. J. Cronbach, "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure
of Tests," Psychometrika 16 (September, 1951): 297-334.

3. Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction,
(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), pp.
152-155.

4. W. J. Conover, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, (New York:
Wiley, 1971), p. 249.

5. R. J. Rummel, "Understanding Factor Analysis," Journal of
Conflict Revolution 11 (December, 1967): 447-448.

85

CHAPTER 4

Introduction

 

Public policy education offers more difficulties to both teachers
and students than many other subjects. The skills developed in a
program on public policy cannot represent standardized levels of
performance, such as an ability to type or to do problems involving
higher mathematics. Rather, participation in a public policy program
must, for both teachers and students, involve the deve10pment of
skills reflecting an increased awareness and responsiveness to the
environment. Examples of such skills are community leadership, an
ability to see personal needs in terms of relevant public policy
issues, and achieving the confidence necessary to tackle community
problems with the support of some guidelines for effective action.
Flexibility in both program design and implementation becomes crucial.

Consequently, no one theoretical area of learning and motivation
can suffice to shape a program on public policy education. Within
the framework of psychological theories emphasizing the environment's
impact on shaping behavior to theories stressing the importance of
the individual's perception of self as a guide to behavior, the areas
of motivation and learning will be examined for their implications
for the PACE educational experience. The objective of this chapter
is to determine the kind of educational experience most likely to
encourage or maintain feelings of comfort with public policy on the
part of PACE participants.

86

87

The discussion will open with a consideration of the motivation
to learn which results from the phenomenon of curiosity. Much of the
theoretical work done on curiosity was based on animal experients and
carried over into the area of human learning through work done by
behavioral psychologists. The theories of the behavioral psycholo—
gists were in turn challenged by the perceptual psychologists, who
emphasized the primacy of the individual over the environment. Within
the discussion of each of these three theoretical areas, curiosity
and motivation, behaviorism, and perceptual psychology, suggestions
for the conduct of PACE workshops will be presented. Prior to the
concluding section, a report of an interview with a public policy
educator will be presented which offers an applied and somewhat con-

trasting viewpoint to the theoretical material of the chapter.

Motivation

 

Motivation concerns the intensity of activity and preferences
for activity exhibited by an organism. Early research on motives
generally defined them as forces which acted to reduce a state of
tension within the individual "and to protect, satisfy, and enhance
the individual and his [sic] self concept."l Yet tension reduction
may not always be the preferred outcome. Seeking new situations for
the challenge and stimulation they provide is an act which represents
an effort to manage rather than reduce tension.

Studies of exploratory drives, stimulus hunger, and need curiosity
tend to be theoretically based on the concept of tension management.
Such studies have had rats, primates, and humans as their subjects.
Several general principles emerge from these studies, regardless of

the organism observed. For example, complexity is preferable to

88

monotony, within limits. Too much change creates fear which precludes
exploration. Thus, changes in stimulation should be moderate or
mild.2 Complexity often necessitates a ”review" before moving on to

a new area.

The application of theories of motivation and curiosity to
developing a program of public policy education suggests that complex
issues are to be preferred to simple ones, so long as participants
are not overwhelmed by details. For example, a program on land use
need not be treated in a "once over lightly" fashion in one session,
but in fact could be fruitfully expanded into several sessions explor-
ing the mechanics of environmentalism as it relates to land-use, dis—
cussions of legislation on land use, and treatment of the "ethics"
of land use from the perspective of various groups in the community
(developers, land owners, apartment dwellers, etc.). Time should be
allotted for a review of the previous units covered, to strengthen
understanding of the topic and to enable participants gradually to
form an overall picture of the topic which should, in the end, give
them more flexibility in responding to the demands of a given situa-
tion. Also, a review has the benefit of providing continuity in a
program where participants may not always have the time to attend
each session.

Optimal Levels of Stimulation and
Motivation

 

Depending on the initial level of total stimulation, both
increases and decreases in stimulation can motivate the individual to
explore the environment, which suggests an optimal level of stimula-

tion or tension exists for a particular situation.

89

For those attempting to modify behavior, as through educa-
tion. . .the implications of an optimal motivation may be
great. Quite different procedures are indicated if learn-

ing in daily life occurs rarely, rather than ordinarily,

through tension reduction. One function of the teacher

may be, for most pupils, is to increase tensions somewhat

and to make the school situation a rather exciting one.

Learning may occur best when stimulation is strong enough

to provide maximum reinforcement, but not strong enough

to be disruptive.3

Conversely, increases in stimulation where a state of anxiety
exists will increase tension to unmanageable levels. Tension manage-
ment is essential to effective learning.

Just as there appears to be an optimal degree of stimulation,
some theorists content there is also an optimal degree of motivation
with respect to learning. Bruner, Matter and Papanek found that
overlearning and overmotivation decreased the breadth of learning

. . . 4 .
resulting from a Situation. If persons were heav1ly exposed to one
method of solving a problem, for example, their overlearning resulted
in overlooking simpler methods of attacking the same kind of problem.
They noticed only the kind of environmental cues that had previously
led to a solution. Their preoccupation with one main method of
performance also blinded them to changes in the situation. Over-
motivation produced similar results. Persons would focus on only
those parts of the task which were strictly relevant to achievement
of the goal. While the efficiency of their learning increased in
terms of the traditional measures of speed and latency, their
selective attention decreased what might be regarded as an alterna-
tive measure of efficiency: "How much about the environment is the

organism picking up over and beyond what is required for the task

at hand?"5

90

The concept of optimal stimulation suggests that whereas com-
fortable persons may enjoy an exciting public policy discussion such
as one calling for their involvement in a forum or extended question
and answer sessions with local leaders, uncomfortable persons may
require a more passive role, which may be entirely adequate for them.
The persons organizing the public policy presentations could fre-
quently offer program alternatives to the group. If they fail to
select a challenging format, it should not be interpreted that the
group is lazy, unenthusiastic, or that the program is somehow a
failure. As the discussions on overlearning and overmotivation
indicate, efficiency can be defined in many ways.

Curiosity can be regarded as the act of learning to anticipate
changes in the environment. Curiosity would not exist when the
individual comes into initial contact with a completely novel situa-
tion but for the existence of a "learning to learn" phenomenon which
provides incentive motivation for an investigatory encounter.6
Otherwise, the individual's fear would dominate the situation and
no exploration would occur.7 In general, rewards or reinforcement
encourage exploration. However, the incentive value of a reward
depends not only on the reward itself, "but also its nearness in
space and time."8 "The immediate reward of exploration is acquain-
tance with the present environment with freedom from anxiety and
readiness for action."9 Without additional reinforcement, however,

exploration eventually st0ps.10

Hedonic Theory and Its Offshoots

 

So far, the theories discussed have focused upon the motivating

potential of a person's environment. Young's hedonic theory of

91

motivation instead emphsizes the degree of liking or attractiveness
of an object to the person.11 On the strength of a person's predi-
lection for a goal, she either approaches or avoids it. However,
the anticipation of pleasure and subsequent responses are learned.
In line with his theory, Young adds a cautionary note: "We would
. . .insist that relief from distress cannot be equated with reward
or positive enjoyment."12

According to the hedonic theory of motivation, persons will
not participate in an educational program unless they have some
initial liking for public policy. The educational program must
teach people how to channel that liking into community develOpment.
By giving persons a feeling of competence, their appreciation of
public policy can be expanded. Although the theoretical discussion
indicates that the act of dealing with the environment is useful
for relieving anxiety, in itself, such relief does not appear to
encourage strongly continued participation in the same manner that
a reward would. To sustain interest, rewards should result from
the process rather than the product. This is particularly important
for public policy activities where the persons or groups involved
may not, outside of the educational exPerience, actually get their
candidate elected, or change irritating policies. Rewards must be
other than relief from distress. They should increase self—
esteem, not only to develop interest in the educational program
but also to cushion any disappointment resulting from actual experiences
with community development. Furthermore, by encouraging the act of
participating in public policy activities to be rewarding in itself,
rewards are more immediate than if they hinged upon the possible

achievement of some future goal. As indicated by the theories

92
previously reviewed, the incentive value of a reward increases with
its nearness in time.

McClelland and Hebb qualified Young's theory by noting that
some frustration, or need for problem solving, would increase
interest in an (at least somewhat familiar) activity, but too much

. . . 13
would destroy pleasure in the acthlty. Thus, the person must
have some expectation of success in working toward a goal. Woodworth
extends this reasoning:

To utilize this line of facts in predicting behavior you

would have to know also what goals are likely to be

chosen. The choice of goals would depend on the oppor-

tunities offered by the environment and also on the

organism's capabilities for taking advantage of those

opportunities. In short: to predict human interests

you have to know human capacities for dealing with the

environment.14

To illustrate his behavior primacy theory, Woodworth gives the
example of a bird learning to fly. At first, flying is engaged in
for its own sake and only later after much practice does the bird
attempt to use that skill in finding food. Consequently, Woodworth
claims that behavioral capacities must have their own intrinsic

. . 15 , .
motlvation. Yet Woodworth doesn t slight the usefulness of a
reward to determine approach or avoidance. "The first step is that
. . . . . . "16
of learning the incentive present in the Situation. For Woodworth,
then, "dealing with the environment [is] the most fundamental element
. . 17

of motivation."

. . , . 18

White carrles Woodworth 5 ideas a step further. He does not
deny the theoretical importance of the theories dealing with the
person's interaction with the environment. He emphasizes that the

reward of such activity is inherent in the activity itself. The satis-

faction and liking that result from the process of dealing with the

93
environment he calls a "feeling of efficacy" or competency. He
believes that

it may be that the satisfaction of efficacy contributes
significantly to those feelings of interest which often
sustain us so well in day-to-day actions, particularly
when the things we are doing have continuing elements
of novelty.19

Behaviorism and the Origins of
Perceptual Psychology

 

 

Each theory reviewed suggests that motivation arises from a
different drive or need within the individual. Goldstein was one of
the original objectors to theories of motivation focusing on separate
drives, since something in the individual had to then arbitrate the
struggle among the drives.20 Instead, Goldstein theorized that
only one drive characterized an individual: the tendency to actualize
self. The drive toward self-actualization can be regarded as a need
(or set of needs) to express the personality, to fulfill tasks which
seem within the individual's capacities. PeOple seek situations in
the environment that correspond to their ability to cope with them.
Woodworth's emphasis on the value of performing a behavior for its
own sake is qualified by Goldstein in the sense that such behavior
must not "conflict with the 'needs' of the whole organism and the
life situation."21

Explanations of motivation previously considered reflect suc-
cessive theoretical developments within psychology. Theories
emphasizing the potential of the environment to shape an individual's
behavior are closely allied to behaviorism. A strict behaviorist
denies the necessity to consider the existence of a mental process
such as motivation since "No one can directly observe the motives,

. . . 2
feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and memories of others." 2 Such a

94

theorist would hold that changing the environment will change
people's actions, irrespective of their feelings.

Behaviorism tends to assume that behavior is activated

by speleic primary or derived needs and that no

learning occurs without the reduction or elimination

of these needs.2
Tension reduction is the focus of the behaviorist; an orientation
which corresponds particularly to consideration of physiological
needs. Much of the theoretical base of behaviorism has resulted
from laboratory experiments. To the extent the environment differs
from a laboratory, where rewards are not automatically forthcoming
for the "correct" behavior, other and broader means of explaining
human actions must be considered. Goldstein's "holistic" theory
rejects a single—minded emphasis on the environment to instead
recognize the primacy of the individual within the environment.
Self-actualization ultimately permits the individual to receive
"rewards" from the image he has of himself, regardless of what may
or may not be going on in the environment.

The Conflict Between Behaviorism
and Perceptual Psychology

 

 

Goldstein's theory laid the foundations for perceptual psychology.

The conflict between perceptual psychology and behaviorism centered

on the role of the environment. If the environment controls an
individual's behavior, then force and coercion are necessary to
reconcile conflicting preferences in order to determine the "right"
goals. At the same time, such manipulation closes the system to
internal challenges and questioning that would lead to new, perhaps
better, goals. Commitment to the existing set of goals creates

rigidity.

95

The extent to which a person is at the behest of the environ-
ment is limited by the fact that "environments are not always
amenable to manipulation."24 Behavioral change can be left behind
once the individual leaves his manipulating environment. Behavioral
change can also be diminished if rewards or coercion are not con-
tinuous. If the cause of behavior is not the environment but per—
ceptions, then the individual can supply his own rewards. He
himself, rather than an outsider, chooses how he will evaluate his
progress toward reaching a personally determined goal. The more
adequate are his perceptions, the more efficient is his behavior.
In general, the goal of the individual is the achievement of compe-
tence or self-actualization, but creativity, spontaneity, self-
confidence, identification with others, and empathy are dimensions
of this process. Self-actualization is a never—ending growth process.

In the perceptual framework, the individual's search for a
personally determined adequacy becomes an "essentially positive view
of motivation."25 The individual chooses to perceive what he thinks
will enhance his adequacy. The range of choices open to him allows
for "a certain amount of slack within which choice may occur."26
Furthermore, the nature of the abilities possessed by the individual
can be modified by the choices he makes. The influence of the
environment cannot be excluded entirely. The environment repre-
sents the experiences open to the individual which aid in his
selection of perceptions. Perceptual psychology may be summarized
as an approach

to human relationships which seeks [to explain] change

in behavior through change in perceiving rather than a

direct attack on behavior itself. It emphasizes in prac-

tice techniques of communications, persuasion, learning

and discovery rather than the employment of force, coerClon,
or various forms of manipulation.27

96

Learning

Perceptual psychology and behaviorism represent complex
philosophies which suggest divergent directions for educators.
Education was, in fact, an area of considerable concern to theorists.
Previous sections have described the motivation behind learning,
but to appreciate the differences in approach of the educators
discussed, it is necessary to have in mind some understanding of
the various forms learning can take. Differences in educational
approaches are in large part a function of the type of learning
which was viewed by the educator as most important or even in some

sense fundamental to other kinds of learning.

Types of Learnigg

 

Learning can be defined as a prolonged change in capabilities
"which is not simply ascribable to the process of growth."28
Gagné classifies learning into several categories. The simplest
kind of learning, association, is an involuntary response to an
unconditional stimulus, such as fear or, in Pavlov's classic
example, salivation. When the response to the stimulus is a spe-
cific, voluntary act (as opposed to the diffuse reSponse represented
by fear, for example), we are dealing with stimulus-response learning.
Not only must the person make the connection between the stimulus
and response, but he must learn to discriminate among other available
stimuli and responses so that he makes the apprOpriate choices to
begin with. Rewards or reinforcement are helpful in establishing
this kind of learning. Once the person masters this form of learning,
it is possible for him to build individual stimulus-response connec-

tions into a (meaningful) chain. Discrimination learning occurs

97
when similar stimulus-response connections are able to be retained
by the individual. Confusion or forgetting hamper this process.
Concept learning is more sophisticated than the previous types.
Here, the learner groups together blocks of stimulus-response
connections he has already learned. He is able to contrast this
group with groups representing other concepts. The stimulus-
response connections grouped together do not have to be highly
similar to each other.

A variety of stimulus situations must be presented

incorporating the conceptual property to be learned

. in order that this property can become discriminated

in its internally represented form.29
Rule-learning is the linkage of two or more concepts: If concept
A, then concept B. The highest form of learning is problem solving.
A new rule is thought out "that combines previously learned rules."30
A definition is extended to cover a new situation.

Unlike the previous forms of learning, the lack of direction
sometimes inherent in the development of a solution forces the
learning to fall back on his own creativity and resources. The
environment may constrain the solution but it does not dictate it.
Forms of learning other than problem solving are to some degree
already intrinsically meaningful to the learner. Conversely, prob—
lem solving may involve a "shot in the dark." The learner needs
the confidence to pursue approaches which are unfamiliar or unlikely,
but still may lead to a solution.

The Creation of Interest in
Unfamiliar Subjects

 

 

Problem solving cannot occur until one has sufficient knowledge

at least to begin defining the problem. Not all solutions require a

98
high degree of creativity. Some solutions are reached in an auto-
matic manner, such as the solution for x in an equation problem
from elementary algebra. In Gagné's model of the kinds of learning,
specific stimulus-response connections provide the foundation for
all other types of learning. In his work on the encouragement of
new interests in the context of adult education, Thorndike focused
on the development of judicious stimulus-response connections.3
Inherent in his approach is the idea that the environment, in this
case the classroom, shapes behavior.

Thorndike believed interests can be modified, and he uses as
examples women who acquire an interest in sports from their families
and men who become interested in children once they become fathers.
(These examples, while sexually dated, are illustrative.) In these
situations, interest is aroused by putting something which wasn't
originally attractive (sports, children) with something which is
already important to the individual (families, fatherhood). On a
more general level, Thorndike states,

To produce an interest in A, we should then try to

maneuver the person into a situation, the response to

which is an interest in A, or some behavior which will

cause an interest in A.32
He labels this procedure "contiguity."

Another technique to arouse interest is associative shifting.
Suppose one stimulus leads to a desirable response. By carefully
pairing the original stimulus with a second stimulus, the response
to the first stimulus can still be obtained. The goal for the edu-
cator is to create a situation where only the second stimulus is
necessary to obtain the response. In shifting the emphasis on the

stimuli, the educator must reward the response which occurs from the

99

paired stimuli and, later, the response resulting from the second
stimulus, by itself.

It is applicable in adult education in such cases as

the development of interest in obtaining a job, or the

development of an interest in the principles of economics

and government by shift from the interest in some

crises in business.33

Interest may also be fostered through repetition of an activity.
Repetition gives a person a chance to reduce any false expectations
he has about the activity. While this approach may be useful in
overcoming the timidity of persons toward a certain subject, repe-
tition may expose real or imagined weaknesses in their ability.
The novelty of the subject may wear off. The success of repetition
as a teaching tool probably depends heavily on the trade-off between
incurring boredom and encouraging self-confidence.

What if it is necessary for a person to learn something which
he does not like in order to do something that he does like? Thorndike's
answer is that time spent on making an activity attractive may
increase total learning time-~50 much so that an educator should
assume a person's initial interest would be a sufficient impetus by
itself; and if this assumption doesn't hold, "he may go without the
learning or be bribed to do it by intrinsic or extrinsic attractions,
according to what seems best in each particular case."34

Rewards are a critical variable in Thorndike's system of education.
One role of the educator as Thorndike sees it is to make "suggestions"
and reward the ideas that consequently follow from his students. Not
only should dramatic outcomes receive praise, but also the performance
of necessary routines. Stress on maximum enjoyment and attendance

can be misplaced, however, resulting in a minimum amount of learning.

The best procedure does not involve rewards.

100

If we know the interests a person has and can adapt the

subjects of instruction to these interests without loss

in other respects we have a gain in interest at no cost.35

Lengthy course descriptions may or may not be advisable. No
course description at all gives the participants a chance to evaluate
their liking and ability for the work by actually performing the
first unit of it. Some course description would be useful in com-
municating the abilities needed for (later segments of) the course,
and the changes in the person that will result from (specified)
participation. Thorndike suggests asking participants what their
strengths are. Such information could be used in extemporizing
courses "to establish living values-~courage, adventure, curiosity,
and a determination to be oneself."36 At the end of the program,
the educator should not forget that adults will be very interested
in an evaluation of the progress they have made.

Thorndike also discusses practices which discourage the
development of interest. "The most common error in teaching adults
is to assign too much and to expect more rapid learning than is
possible for the student concerned."37 Other undesirable practices
are changing tasks before the student has a chance to appraise and
enjoy his accomplishment on the first task, and "making those who
have learned listen in boredom to teaching which helps only those
who have not."38

In general, Thorndike's approach emphasizes the necessity of
flexibility in the development of a public policy program. A pre-
fabricated program cannot Optimally take account of the interests,
backgrounds, and ability of the participants—-and it is these things,

after all, which are their best "tools" for community development.

At the same time, efforts should be made to insure against

lOl
unrealistic expectations from the participants. One way to do this
would be to encourage presentations by those, either within the class
or outside, who have been previously involved with community develop-
ment. Alternative methods of involvement with public policy should
be stressed, even ones so simple as contacting local media to
encourage more coverage of meaningful issues. Not only should flexi-
bility characterize the public policy program itself, but it should
be descriptive of the participants' approach to issues when they
complete the program.

The need for program flexibility is also apparent in the context
of contiguity or associative shifting. To utilize fruitfully these
concepts, the program leader should determine what interests the
participants already have in addition to public policy interests.
Suppose a large number of participants were interested in psychology.
Associative shifting could be used by gearing part of the program
toward psychological concepts (i.e., Skinnerian psychology) and
what the operation of these concepts means for various public policy
issues. Other possible tOpics of interest have fairly clear-cut
links with public policy issues: an interest in children with day-
care centers, an interest in retirement with reformation of Social
Security, for example. Much depends on the creativity of the educa-
tors and the growth of their experience with public policy in
developing the ability to translate general public policy issues to
topics which are directly relevant to participants. Contiguity
suggests the use of field trips to local industries or governmental
offices will generate interest in selected public policy issues

through people's interest in their immediate environment.

102

Initially interest should be encouraged by building links
between the interest participants already have and the public policy
topics to be covered. If the Extension Service does not allow par-
ticipants some voice in program formulation, it might be indirectly
channeling some community develOpment into certain directions which
may not reflect the values of the clientele. The program leader
might ask participants about the extent of their previous background
with community development to surmise whether or not they will be
at ease with the tOpics presented, or survey a previous class.

Thorndike's main concern is with initiating or sustaining an
activity. When he mentions rewards, it is in the context of an
outsider's evaluation and/or praise. Thorndike wants the person to
like what he is doing, but the emotional involvement is not overtly
considered in terms of a more sophisticated goal of personal growth.
The suggestions put forth by Thorndike offer insight into broadening
adult educational interests--which was his purpose--but problem
solving activities which presuppose the existence of both interest

and knowledge require a different approach.

Challepges to Thorndike

 

Combs and Syngg have an educational philosophy opposed to
Thorndike's emphasis on reward.39 They suggest that an educational
process which disregards emotion and feeling--both positive and
negative--will produce a teacher who will favor "only the facts"
over the development of personal meaning. When praise becomes a
crucial variable in the manipulation of interest, the students
respond to the artificial environment of the classroom and not to

the subject matter itself.

103

Instead, Combs and Syngg offer a model of the educational process
where judgment and evaluation are at a minimum. Questions of purpose
and values predominate: "'What do I think?‘ 'What seems to me to
be so?'"40 Then the act of ranking goals and values according to
their importance clarifies the kind of adequacy the individual wishes
to achieve. This procedure also serves to direct attention to a
few crucial areas of potential improvement. The emphasis should be
on immediately achievable goals: What can I do now? Accomplishing
one of these goals is a self-administered boost to self-esteem, and
probably much more important than an outsider's praise in its effects.

One desirable goal is an openness to change. Its achievement
is facilitated by an

attitude of expecting to make mistakes, for the freedom

this gives the individual to break loose from estab-

lished patterns and to experiment and try.41
Encouragement replaces praise.

To begin a process of change the individual must be able to see
where he currently stands so that he can realistically decide where
he wants to go next. This requirement of self-acceptance applies
equally to both teacher and student. Before a teacher can accept
his students, he must first be able to see what he is without passing
judgment. The openness of the teacher to his own perceptions becomes
a model for the students to emulate.

An instructor who responds to the participants as an equal will
be more likely to retain or foster an attitude of independence among
them because he does not set himself up as an authoritarian figure.
Of course, some students may prefer to treat the instructor with
great respect and deference, and the instructor may never succeed in

changing their attitudes toward him. If the goal of a program of

104

public policy education is to encourage persons to be self-starters
in tackling the problems of the community, perhaps changing the
attitude toward the instructor is secondary, although helpful, to
aiding the participants to trust their own judgment. The extent to
which an instructor is not held in awe may be useful information as
an indicator of the autonomy of the participants.

Facts which are learned are liable to be forgotten, and may be
easily looked up again when this happens. But an attitude of confi-
dence, regardless of the fact that it is acquired in the classroom,
can permeate other areas of the participants' lives, areas which may
be the sources of potential community improvements.

An emphasis on the personal meaning of an issue to the partici-
pant rather than the "facts" creates an atmosphere where the partici-
pant evaluates issues using his needs and desires as a reference-
point. When events have personal meaning for an individual, their
effect upon behavior is increased. Clarifying the personal meaning
that the student is directly or indirectly expressing is one way a
teacher can help students explore their perceptions. Listening
intently to what students are saying encourages the students to
examine their convictions, attitudes, beliefs, etc. Rogers, another
proponent of self-directed learning, suggests the teacher should
"validate" what the student is saying by making a comment which indi-
cates he understands and sees (as much as possible) the participant's

point of view.

The Rogerian Model of Education

 

Rogers has described a model of the educational process similar

to that used by Combs and Syngg. He proceeds from the philosophy

105
that the role of education is to accustom people to change.
Teachers should not "lead" students through a morass of facts.
Instead, they should facilitate self-directed learning by the kind
of interpersonal relationship they attempt to create with the
student. This kind of relationship establishes freedom for the
student to choose his own goals and the means to reach them. The
teacher (or, in Rogers' terminology, facilitator) trusts the student
in this endeavor, for the choices he makes often represent a wisdom
the teacher does not have about the situation being confronted. In
this respect, Rogers' philOSOphy may be particularly applicable to
public policy education, as it is impossible for a program leader
to be intimately acquainted with more than a few policy issues in
a community.

In Rogers' system, the needs of the individual dominate the
requirements of a pre-set curriculum. To prevent freedom from
appearing as chaos to the students, Rogers advocates:

enough limits and requirements which can be perceived

as structure, so that students can comfortably start

to work. It is only as the course progresses that

they realize that each requirement separately and all

of them together are simple different ways of saying,

'Do exactly what you wish to do in this course, and

say and write exactly what you think and feel.‘ But

freedom seems less frustrating and anxiety-laden when

it is presented in somewhat conventional sounding terms

as a series of requirements.43

When the student is trusted to pursue her own goals in her own
way, the role of the program leader as evaluator disappears. Lesser
tasks, assigned readings, prepared lectures or other forms of passive
learning are replaced by a system where the leader "functions as

counselor, lecturer, and advisor, a person with experience in the

. 44 . .
field," whatever is most meaningful to the students. The trust

106
the leader has in the students extends to cover situations where
both positive and negative feeling toward learning occur. The
leader tries to accept whatever attitudes arise from the group and
to communicate an empathetic understanding. In so doing, he ack—
nowledges the reality of the attitudes and, consequently, "he helps
to bring them into the open for constructive understanding and use
by the group."45

In turn, the leader is herself toward the group. When she is
unable to have the perspective of her students, or value the manner
in which they are acting, she communicates this to them, rather than
hiding behind a pseudoempathetic or caring facade. To the extent
that the leader expresses genuine feelings, she provides a setting
similar to that which will confront participants when they involve
themselves in community action. Rogers cautions that achievement
of realness or genuineness is a gradual process. The leader must
first be aware of what she is thinking or feeling before she can
communicate it to the participants. Otherwise, when she expresses
her feelings, they may emerge as judgments or be attributed to
persons other than herself.

Rogers notes that these desirable behaviors do not appear
suddenly. Instead, they come about through taking risks, through
acting on tentative hypotheses.46 The quality of the interpersonal
relationship between the leader and the participant establishes the
degree of significant learning that takes place; that is, learning
that prepares a person to cope with change through reliance on his
own ability and initiative.

Rogers echoes the emphasis placed by Combs and Syngg on confront-

ing the learner with issues that are personally meaningful to him.

107

Othersise, the student will be hopelessly bewildered by the "freedom"
given him to direct his own learning. A certain amount of confusion
will characterize the student's initial contact with self-directed
learning, but beyond that they will often "seize upon this as an

- . . . "47
opportunity and use it far beyond their expectations. Rogers
adds,

Since in general students are so insulated from problems,

it may be necessary to confront them with situations

which will become real problems to them.48

Freedom is not for everyone. Rogers admits some students may
find his unconventional approach to learning disturbing. As an
alternative, he suggests dividing the class into two groups to
correspond to the different modes of teaching, and allowing students
flexibility in switching from one to the other. Insofar as the
public policy workshOps are concerned, utilization of this suggestion
would depend on the kind of persons who enrolled in the courses.
Persons who are uncomfortable with public policy may take refuge
in a conventional, i.e., teacher-dominated, approach which does
little to encourage their leadership capacities. At some point in
the course of an individual workshop, all members should be actively
participating in group discussions in order to practice "taking a
stand" on an issue. For as Rogers notes (quoting Skinner): "To

. . . . "49
acquire behaVior the student must engage in behaVior.

As one of its basic goals, the model of the educational process
advocated by Rogers discourages any evaluation of the student by
someone other than himself. Under these circumstances, the learner
does not need to turn to anyone (especially the program leader) for
n . . . "SO .

corroboration of his judgment. Instead of evaluation, one of

the functions of the facilitator is

108

to elicit and clarify the purposes of the individuals

in the class as well as the more general purposes of

the group. . .There is no need for him to manufacture

one purpose in the group if such a unified purpose is

not there.51
When participants leave the public policy workshops, they should
have a clearer idea of the values that are important to them as
well as the kind of goals they wish to achieve. (The former may
well be more important than the latter.) Depending on the workshop,
the program leaders may incur difficulty in clarifying individual
goals at the expense of the time devoted to the group. To overcome
this, a leader could arrange individual conferences while other
members are participating in group discussions. In this or similar
situations, older and more experienced students could be made
available as consultants for beginning students.

The educational model presented by Rogers has the same focus
as that advocated by Combs and Syngg. Both models emphasize the
importance of change. Rogers views it as an inevitable part of life,
and therefore of learning; Combs and Syngg see the development of
changes in attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions as underlying the
learning of new approaches or actions. In contrast, Thorndike's
model is static, concerned with the generation of sufficient interest
to get a person through or into a class. Since public policy-making
is characterized by a certain amount of flexibility, uncertainty,
and instability by the very nature of the democratic process, an
authoritarian model such as Thorndike's must be, on the whole,
rejected. The only time when it would be helpful is when partici-

pants have very little knowledge of or experience with public policy

activities. Beyond that situation, a student-directed approach is

109
necessary to achieve increases in self-confidence and leadership
capabilities among the participants.

The theoretical section left several questions of application
unanswered. One question involves the early identification of
persons who are confident vs. those who are not, so as to structure
the program appropriately. The theoretical section indicated recog-
nition of personal needs contributed significantly to the learning
experience. Needs do not always correspond with goals. How does
the leader recognize a conflict and point out its existence to the
workshop participant? These questions were posed specifically during
the following interview, and led into material having implications

for the conduct of the workshop.

Interview

Ms. Patricia Silea is former Director of the Michigan Women's
Commission, an organization which has had a demonstrated commitment
to involving women in particular in public policy activities. From
the discussion with her came several ideas for the initial sessions
of the public policy workshops. For example, the first session
could explore definitions of leadership roles and citizen participa-
tion. The purpose in answering the question, "What is a leader?"
would be to help participants recognize that behind-the-scenes
situations may be a valuable way for a woman to exert leadership
behavior while avoiding the spotlight which may make her uncomfor-
table. Leadership behavior and citizen participation must be seen
in the context of varying levels of aspiration in order to facilitate
comfortable and meaningful activity. Women must be given the option

for finding different levels of aspiration.

110

Ms. Silea suggested participants could be given a list of
public policy and/or community development activities and asked
how comfortable they would feel performing each one. For example,
how comfortable would they feel calling their legislator or con-
tacting the media?‘ Reticence on the part of participants may be
due to a lack of knowledge. Another technique to discern comfortable
from uncomfortable persons is to present participants with simple
problems that require a sequence of steps for solution. The program
leader could ask participants how they would handle the situation.

Do participants know how to set priorities, draft letters, get neces-
sary phone numbers, or even obtain accurate information? If a

letter to the editor is required, how do you write it? Participants
could role-play a situation such as getting past a secretary.
Comfortable and uncomfortable persons are classified by a good per-
formance vs. missing the point. Afterwards, appropriate procedures
could be discussed.

At the same time the idea could be communicated to participants
that there is nothing wrong with failure. If the program leader
believes that a participant's aspirations are too high, she/he should
refrain from comment. For the participant to fail on her own is
less destructive than to tell her she can't succeed. If she "gets
in over her head", she will decide for herself her aspirations were
too high. This procedure of coping with one's own failure preserves
individual autonomy. If criticism is necessary, it should be kindly
in context, and never directed to the person.

If criticism has little place in a public policy workshop, so
does praise. Ultimately, participants will perceive "excessive"

praise as manipulative, and will automatically discount it. Instead,

111

the program leader should be honest in a way respectful to the indi-
vidual. This may require some preliminary discussion (perhaps a
whole session) on self-development and leadership. One of the ideas
to be brought out in the discussion is that participants should
learn not to take things too personally; a leadership role requires
that a person's feelings should not get hurt too easily. This is
particularly important for women who are attempting public policy

activity for the first time.

Summary

This chapter reviewed several areas of psychology for their
implications for conducting a program of public policy education.
Theories which dealt with the influence of the environment on a
person's behavior were contrasted with theories emphasizing the
importance of individual perceptions as a guide to behavior. While
perceptual theories offered insight into ways of developing atti-
tudes which would increase comfort with public policy, an interview
with a public policy educator provided examples of specific behaviors

which could be used to monitor the attitudes of workshop participants.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

ENDNOTES

Harry Fowler, Curiosity and Exploratory Behavior, (New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1965), p. 114.

Ibid., p. 30.

Ibid., p. 175.

J. S. Bruner, J. Matter, and M. L. Papanek, "Breadth of Learning
as a Function of Drive Level and Mechanization," (Psycho-
logical Review 62, January, 1955): 1-10.

Ibid., p. 9.

Fowler, p. 59.

Robert A. Woodworth, Dynamics of Behavior, (New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1961), p. 88.

Ibid., p. 91.
Ibid., p. 88.

In terms of the "immediate reward of exploration", satiation
has occurred.

Paul Young, "The Role of Hedonic Processes in Motivation," in
Nebraska Symposium on Mbtivation, ed. M. R. Jones (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1955), p. 193-238.

Ibid., p. 202.

Discussed in Woodworth, p. 123.

Woodworth, p. 124.

Woodworth, p. 126.

Woodworth, p. 258.

Woodworth, p. 124.

Robert H. White, "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Com—

petence," (Psychological Review 66, September 1959): 297—
331.

112

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

113
Ibid., p. 323.

Kurt Goldstein, Human Nature in the Light of Psychopathology,
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947).

Ibid., p. 149.
Wilbert James McKeakie and Charlotte Lackner Doyle, Psychology,
Second Edition (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley,

1970), p. 6.

Rom Markin, Consumer Behavior: A Cognitive Orientation, (New
York: MacMillan, 1974), p. 108.

Arthur W. Combs and Donald Syngg, Individual Behavior: A Per—
ceptual Approach to Psychology, 2nd ed., (New York:
Harper & Row, 1959), p. 316.

Ibid., p. 320.

Ibid., p. 349.

Ibid., p. 312.

Robert M. Gagné, The Conditions of Learning, 2nd ed., (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), p. 3.

Ibid., p. 53.
Ibid., p. 59.

Edward L. Thorndike, Adult Interests, (New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1935).

Ibid., p. 21.

Ibid., p. 28.

Ibid., p. 53.

Ibid., p. 43.

Ibid., p. 125.

Ibid., p. 141.

Ibid., p. 148.

Combs and Syngg, op cit., p. 357.
Ibid., p. 351.

Ibid., p. 357.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

Carl R. Rogers, Freedom to Learn,
Merrill, 1969), p. 63.

Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.o
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,

Ibid.,

p.

p.

73.

164.

164.

115.

130.

130.

140.

162.

164.

132.

(Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

In several different ways this study has aimed to provide direc-
tion for project PACE. The study began with a verbal model of the
implications that various attitudes toward public policy would have
for behavior in policy-oriented situations. The variables of this
"behavior model", comfort, knowledge, and knowledge satisfaction,
were the basis for two surveys which were used to infer the atti-
tudes and behaviors of those individuals who would serve as PACE
participants and leaders. While knowledge of public policy issues
and satisfaction with that knowledge were indeed found to be informa—
tive and useful variables, comfort emerged as the variable critical
to sustain interaction with public policy. This finding necessitated

/——
examination of theories of learning and motivation to determine
methods by which comfort with public policy and its potential dimen-
sion, leadership behavior, could be sustained and encouraged.

Unless a person is comfortable with public policy, he or she
is unlikely to engage in leadership behavior, much less acquire any
requisite public policy information. In order for the PACE goal of
encouraging leadership behavior related to community development to
be realized, the PACE program leader should attempt to single out
"comfortable" participants and devote effort to them at the expense
of other, less comfortable participants. The most comfortable persons

should be chosen for leading discussions and giving presentations.

115

116

The survey results suggest that the relatively less comfortable
participants will not object to such favoritism and may even prefer
to avoid the spotlight. At the same time, however, the different
forms that leadership behavior can take should be clarified within
the workshop sessions so that the less comfortable participants can
feel significantly involved with important public policy activities.

The interview with Ms. Patricia Silea, former Director of the
Michigan Women's Commission, noted several means by which uncomfor-
table persons can make contributions to community development.
Knowing how to write a letter to the editor or contacting an elected
representative may be more subdued activities than giving presenta-
tions, but they also may be needed and utilized more frequently in
community development than skills in delivering presentations.

( The survey results also indicated that the College Week respon-
dents and Extension staff surveyed would respect public policy
presentations which are not erudite nor esoteric. This attitude
implies that the Extension staff participating in PACE do not have
to prepare elaborate public policy talks for the citizens who are
part of the program. Another implication is that the citizens who
eventually prepare public policy presentations on their own either
as part of their involvement in the PACE program or as part of
community leadership will probably not be subjecting themselves to
rigorous and inhibiting standards.

How can a PACE leader recognize a comfortable person? One
method is to note the extent of previous involvement in public
policy or other community-related activities. Combined with responses
to some of the comfort questions used in this study, useful planning

information for the format of the workshops could be obtained. Among

117
the items most useful in discerning the comfort of persons, accord-
ing to the results of statistical analysis, were: "If I did not
know the answer to someone's question on public policy, I would
know where to find it", "I find public policy confusing", and "I
consider my knowledge of public policy better than the average
person's." Of course, either of the versions of the questionnaire
used in the study could also be used, as they both "held up" under
detailed statistical examination. It is possible that everyone in
the PACE workshop would be quite comfortable with public policy, in
which case all of them should have a chance at leading discussions
or making presentations.

A review of the theoretical literature on learning and motiva-
tion contributed several insights into the conduct of the PACE work-
shops. Regardless of whether a PACE leader is dealing with come
fortable or uncomfortable persons, an attitude of respect and trust
toward them should help to reinforce their confidence and autonomy.
Honesty in the interactions between the PACE leader and participants
can serve as a learning device by duplicating the reality which
participants will confront when actually working in community
development.

Another way of increasing the success of project PACE in
developing community leaders is to change and/or increase the public
relations activities of the Cooperative Extension Service. The
results on the question requesting the name of the College Week
respondent's favorite Cooperative Extension program of the past year
drew a sizable percentage of "don't know of any", "didn't go" or,
most appalling, "don't belong" responses. What makes these results

all the more dismaying is the fact that College Week is itself a

118

program offered by the Cooperative Extension Service. While it
should go without saying that citizens won't attend PACE workshops
unless they are made aware of them, the effectiveness of word-of-
mouth advertising by those citizens who do attend will be weakened
if they don't understand which agency is behind the workshops.

While the evidence is at best suggestive, the Extension staff's
performance on the opportunity cost, planning, and elasticity

questions implies that a stronger correspondence needs to be made

bewteen specific public policy issues and the concepts they represent.

While the College Week sample was not asked questions of a conceptual
nature, there is some evidence that this conclusion also applies to
them, and probably, too, to future PACE participants. Certainly,

the PACE participants should be given information which will correct
mistaken impressions about the extent of monopolization or unioniza-
tion within the U.S. economy. Overestimation of institutional
control may lead to an underestimation of the power of individuals

to effect public policies.

More information on public policy issues and practice in making
public policy presentations would appear to fulfill a latent demand
within the Extension staff surveyed.

Further research should determine the extent to which the
results obtained in this study hold for socio-economic groups other
than those represented by College Week. An example would be the
rural poor. A study more elaborate than the present one might devise
some means of correlating responses to the public policy attitude
questionnaires with the extent and nature of involvement in public
policy activities. This would generate information on the usefulness

of the instruments of this study for behavior prediction.

/

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruner, J. S.; Matter, J.; and Papanek, M. L. "Breadth of Learning
as a Function of Drive Level and Mechanization."
Psychological Review 62 (January, 1955): 1-10.

Combs, Arthur W., and Syngg, Donald. Individual Behavior: A Per-
ceptual Approach to Psychology. 2nd ed. New York:
Harper & Row, 1959.

Conover, W. J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: Wiley,
1971.

Cronbach, L. J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of
Tests." Psychometrika 16 (September, 1951): 297-334.

De Fleur, Melvin L., and Westie, Frank R. "Attitude as a Scientific
Concept." In The Consistency Controversy, pp. 23-43.
Edited by Allen E. Liska. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1975.

Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.

Erlich, Howard J. "Attitudes, Behavior, and the Intervening Variables."
In The Consistency Controversy, pp. 133-145. Edited by
Allen E. Liska. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

Fendrich, James M. "A Study of Association Among Verbal Attitudes,
Commitment, and Overt Behavior in Different Experimental
Situations." In The Consistency Controversy, pp. 95-108.
Edited by Allen E. Liska. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1975.

Fowler, Harry. Curiosity and Exploratory Behavior. New York: The
MacMillan Company, 1965.

Gagné, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. 2nd ed. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

Goldstein, Kurt. Human Nature in the Light of Psychopathology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947.

Kiesler, Charles A.; Collins, Barry E.; and Miller, Norman. Attitude
Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969.

119

120

Liska, Allen E. "Introduction." In The Consistency Controversy,
pp. 1-20. Edited by Allen B. Liska. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1975.

Markin, Rom. Consumer Behavior: A Cognitive Orientation. New York:
MacMillan, 1974.

McKeakie, Wilbert James, and Doyle, Charlotte Lackner. Psychology,
Second Edition. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-
Wesley, 1970.

Rogers, Carl R. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill, 1969.

Rummel, R. J. "Understanding Factor Analysis." JOurnal of Conflict
Resolution 11 (December, 1967): 444—480.

Selltiz, Claire; Wrightsman, Lawrence D.; and Cook, Stuart W.
Research Methods in Social Relations. 3rd ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976.

Thorndike, Edward L. Adult Interests. New York: MacMillan, 1935.

Tittle, Charles R., and Hill, Richard J. "Attitude Measurement and
Prediction of Behavior: An Evaluation of Conditions and
Measurement Techniques." In The Consistency Controversy,
pp. 109-122. Edited by Allen B. Liska. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1975.

White, Robert H. "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Compe-
tence." Psychological Review 66 (September, 1959):
297-333.

Wicker, Allen W., and Pomazal, Richard J. "The Relationship Between
Attitude and Behavior as a Function of Specificity of
Attitude Object and Presence of a Significant Person
During Assessment Conditions." In The Consistency
Controversy, pp. 123-129. Edited by Allen B. Liska.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

Woodworth, Robert A. Dynamics of Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1961.

Young, Paul. "The Role of Hedonic Processes in Motivation." In
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, pp. 193-238. Edited
by M. R. Jones. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1955.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COLLEGE WEEK QUESTIONNAIRE

9.88.... 0.3. .- .0...
2... 0.3.3. an
82.8.. .. :3.
300.80 8.0.. .808. :5 .0 3.000.. 8 0. 0888.0. 8 0.8 0D. .—

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 n a — .8388.88.883¢8.880.88.0!85.§
o 0 n a . 60.3.80 9.... 0:8 8.. — ..
II. I l. . . . ~ . .8... 80......
8.. 2... .0 8.. .8. .. I .0 80.8.0 2. .000 8.... .. :808 8.08 0.88 .080. I. .8
8188.88.88... .. . . . ~ . .888188118:8.:8..88810..8
I 8.80.0 .0028 .0 8.808 .080. 8... l .0 a .0 q n . .920. 0. .8 8 .8.8.8
2...... 8... .. 8....» I... .0 .86. S... 8... l .< 0.8.80.0 .8. 0.08 . 0.0.8 83880.. .80 8... 2.0. . .o.
"if ~luuoi l 3 .I— O Q n N p .3 g
l 78.808983888888808..9f88.0.08 .3
3* .‘ gt 8" 0“ n 0
o. 81' .n .10. ll. .. 8.8 I .0 a . . ~ . 9.... 0:8 .0 8.0.8] 9 I... 8...... 8. ..
8.6. .0 88' .a 889' .0 a . n u . .80. 808.800.08.88 0.8.8.8888. .0.
.08-8.80.0.8... .3: . . . . . .8888..388..8..
0.0.00. 9.... 038 0.88 83.08 0.. 0. 0.0... 0.8.8 8 . .2
6.80. 8.3. .0... 0.... 9.0 . a. ll .0 a . a u . .8". 00.59. .8 08.
6.8.. 8.8. 8 8...... 3... a... . c. .. :88... 8| 8 .. 9:8 0:8 8 8... 8 .18... t... .2
6.88 8.... 1 8.... a... at . .. l .. . . n . . .8888. a... 1. s. 88 30.8.1. :. 8...... 8.8. 1. .. .8. .2
0.8.. 8... 8 8... 8:. A... 8 8.8 . a. .. .
6.88 8... I... .8. 8... 8:... ... .8. . s. .0 . . . u . o... 8 8.0.... .33.... .1 9:8 3.8. .88 88.81 0. ..
.8. 0 8 .9088 III . .0808. 9 00:88.. .0 30....
.. .8 .8 .5 a. l . a . . u . 8 . 08.0. 9.... 0:8. .0 80.83... .. 838.03... 0.8.. ...
0... . 8 .0
.00.. 00. 8 0039.00 . a 0 n a p .80 SC .
.8. .1. 8 1. .88 88.. 5 8 28:8. :88 .0. 8. .8 1... 0| 8. .1 8.88 98...... o.
a c a n — .33—0.080 8:... 5‘; .8.
.928 .8 00.. 0.0 8.0.0. 00 0.08 9:8 0:8 0. 8.8.8.0.. 8 .0808. 8.... .0
.00. :0. I. .. 8...... 8.8.... 0......88 I. 9 8.8.8. 9.... 0...». 8 88.... .0... J. a 0 n n . .938 0:8 .0 .8. .0 . .0
a 0 n n . .800. 0. 8.0.8 . .. 8.0008... 08 9.... 0:8 8.. 0.8 — .s
3.8 . . .181. 8.88.18.88.80...
30.30.8801.00.0.89....0..8880.880.888.08...0.8 .0 a 0 n a . .uwucfiu..5.0...808 . 0. 0.... 000.00.: .0
o . a u . .9808. .
88888.89..80:8...80.888.88. .
pt. 3!. 0' I I. .03 °.—‘ 0:: a! .D— n 0 n u — .uv 5‘ .
l 888.88.88.8-.....0.8.88.809..80..8. ..
.8288 88... I... 8... u 8.. .
.u. I... 8 0.8. .
9:8 0.... 008.88 .0. 8 a 0 n u . .93.. 0:8 8 82.8 38 0. 8. 8. 8 08 0.0 . .. .-
a830. .8358.
00.. 30.3.3... . . . a . .8... 8 0... 38 . 8 9.... 0:8 .0... .08 8 08. .8 8. .~
.8028... 9.... 0...... .0 8......80 .80. .0 8:88. .8088 .8 .. .8 .3. 0 ~ . .8338. .0
a n
88 . 8... 9:8 0:8 8.8.0 0.00.880 8 .8. 0.08. . .—
.8 0.00... 880 J l
O 00
8.3:! .8 88... .. “Q o m. 00 s
080.80 .8... ... '3 ...lr ~N W...
l .0
.. .c a :1
8800...... .. Q h.
.8383: .080 h
8 8.... .0 .838. 83...... 9.180 .-
8808 0.0.. .308. .0

.92.. 0:0... 08. .00.
a0. 01. 1:0: 9 308.... 8.8.... 8. .0 .08 8.0 0808. .0 00.0.0 .30. 800.8. 0000..

880... 8 0.00. ..
888...... .. .80.... 9.... 0...... 8.08. ... 80... 8...! I. 80. .82.... 60......
80.8 .008 .o .8... 3.8.0. .06 .3... 8 .o 93:80 8. 9:80 .5 .00... 6.8 .00... 2.0.8... 0... 0.8. .-

 

8288 80 20.8 .
:38. 8.3.0.0. .
882. 8 8.8.0.0. 8.880. 3.0.80. .

88 ’00.

‘IU

P383! ups—n 3:03
3:03 535.: ‘34::

50.83820.
.888in08888850.0..0.8.< 43.8.8.8

.. 8. 80. 8.0.. .8380... 9.... 0...... .0 8000.. .38.. 0.8 .08. 0.0. 0.. .1! ... . 08 .0000 0.00..
.85.... .8. 8.23 . a.
5000... 8.080.008. :5
~ 8.. .8 8.... 81 8. ..
00.80. 8.28... 03.80.08

 

121

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER FOR EXTENSION QUESTIONNAIRE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
WLTURE HALL

March 4. 1977

Dear Extension Staff Member

Enclosed is a questionnaire on attitudes toward public policy education. Results
from this survey will be used in conjunction with a study being conducted by Julie
Hogeland as part of her master's thesis. we will also be using data collected

from a survey of participants in College Week. That survey assessed participants'
attitudes toward public policy activities. the scope of their knowledge about
public policy topics. and the extent of their satisfaction with that knowledge.

The study now needs comparable information on extension staff who may at some
future time teach or otherwise interact with the Public Affairs Community Education
program (PACE).

As an educator at a land-grant institution, you are aware of the importance of
research in carrying out our mission. Therefore, we would appreciate your
completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it by March l4 if possible.
Questionnaires may be returned anon usl in the postage-free envelopes provided.
If you are already an active participant in the PACE program. please check the
upper left hand corner of the questionnaire. There is no need for further
identification.

Sincerely

b n...” c/ 1
(:Zfléfilgzflééx ”426@JE«L/’

Collette Moser

Assistant Professor
Agricultural Economics
Specialist. Public Policy

CHIJH/Jh

encl.

122

APPENDIX C

EXTENSION QUESTIONNAIRE

I am an active participant
in PACE.

PUBLIC POLICY ATTITUDES
Return Questionnaire to:
Dr. Collette Moser

Ag Econ
33 Ag Hall. MSU

Please indicate your degree of agreement with each of the following by circling
how you feel about public policy.

I. I would feel very comfortable discussing public policy with a group of acquaintances

2. when land is taken under eminent domain. ”Just compensation' to the owner is usually the
value the property assessed for tax purposes.

3. I do not know as much about public policy as I would like to know.

4. If I did not know the answer to someone's question on public policy I would know where
to find it.

5. The age of the average American has been decreasing over the last five years.

6. Public policy changes so rapidly it is hopeless to even begin to keep up with it.

7. Any move toward the formulation of a national plan to help stabilize and control the
economy would represent a move toward too much interference by government in the lives of
private citizens.

8. I consider my knowledge of public policy better than the average person's.

9. Michigan public schools receive lost of their financial resources from millage voted
by residents of the school district.

lo. I would find public policy more interesting if I understood it better.
ll. The Soviet Union is the world's major producer and exporter of grain.
12. I enJoy discussions of public policy.

13. Giving speeches or presentations on public policy should be reserved for highly skilled
specialists.

l4. Michigan's economy has too many Jobs and too few people available to fill them.

l5. I avoid participating in discussions of public policy because I am afraid of revealing
my ignorance.

16. Disease is the single largest contributor to the high death rate of children in
developing coontries.

ll. My knowledge about public policy has definitely enriched my life.
18. Most of the zoning decisions are currently made by the state government.

19. Giving speeches or presentations on public policy is no more difficult than for anything
else.

20. I am sometimes afraid to ask questions about public policy because I feel I should already
1

know the answer.

21. The major producers of food in Michigan are corporate farms.

22. I am satisfied with my knowledge of public policy.

23. Social security is financed from funds received from the Federal income tax.

24. I would need very much preparation before I could feel comfortable making presentations
on public policy.

25. Many persons seek employment because the wages they expect to receive are greater than
the value of alternative uses of their time.

26. My knowledge of public policy has been adequate for my needs.

27. The Federal government through Conrail is taking over all Michigan railroad lines.
28. I find public policy confusing.

29. Zoning is an example of the police power to direct land use.

30. Over 50% of the workers in the United States belong to labor unions.

31. Food supply and demand are elastic.

32. One of the ways for government to determine appropriate anti-recession expenditures is
to ask businessmen to indicate their production plans for the coming year.

33. Under the social security program. the taxes collected from persons presently working
are used to finance those who are currently retired.

yuan-ape

peg-a

34. Approximately 25% of the cost of processed food is due to processing and distribution cost.1

123

NNNN N

N

NNNN

N

NNNNNNN

U

uwuu

hit-DUN

U

uwwuuuu

..

b.‘. &

‘

..&b b

.

‘Ob.&‘&

UIUIU'IU'I U"

0"

UIUIUIU'I

0"

U’IUIUIUIUIU'UI

APPENDIX D

CROSSTABULATION TABLES FOR THE TEST OF THE BEHAVIOR MODEL

Hypothesis 1: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
esteem for public policy will increase.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "My
knowledge about public policy has definitely enriched
my life."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
135 18
Enriched 88.2 11.8 150
75.8 45.0 70.2
43 22
Not 66.2 33.8 65
Enriched 24.2 55.0 29.8
19.7 10.1
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 13.4 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0003

124

125

Hypothesis 2: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
enjoyment of public policy discussions will increase.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I
enjoy discussions of public policy."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
155 19
E .0 89.1 10.9 174
“3 Y 87.1 47.5 79.8
71.1 8.7
23 21
, . 52.3 47.7 44
Don t Enjoy 12.9 52.5 20.2
10.6 9.6
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 28.3 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

126

Hypothesis 3: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
feeling of being overwhelmed by public policy will
decrease.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "Public
policy changes so rapidly it is hopeless to even begin
to keep up with it."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
156 20

Not 88.6 11.4 176
Overwhelmed 87.6 50.0 80.7
71.6 9.2
22 20
52.4 47.6 42
overWhelmed 12.4 50.0 19.3
10.1 9.2
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 27.4 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

127

Hypothesis 4: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
feeling of confusion with public policy will decrease.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I
find public policy confusing."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct

138 9
Not 93.9 6.1 147
Confused 77.5 22.5 67.4

63.3 4.1

40 31

56.3 43.7 71
confused 22.5 77.5 32.6

18.3 14.2
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 42.6 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

Hypothesis 5:

 

128

As comfort with public policy incresaes, a person's
judgment of the amount of public policy knowledge
possessed increases.

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I
consider my knowledge of public policy better than
the average person's."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Knowledge
Better than
Average
Person

Knowledge
Less than
Average
Person

Column
Total

x2 = 39.3 with 1 d.f.

Significance

.0000

Comfort

125
95.4
70.2
57.3

53

60.9
29.8
24.3

178
81.7

Not
Comfort

18.3

Row
Total

131
60.1

87
39.9

218
100.0

129

Hypothesis 6: As comfort with public policy knowledge increases, a
person's feeling of adequacy of public policy knowlege
increases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "My
knowledge of public policy has been adequate for my
needs."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row

Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total

Tot Pct

Has 93 17

Ade uate 84.5 15.5 110

Knogled e 52.2 42.5 50.5
g 42.7 7.8

Ha 85 23

I :a mate 78.7 21.3 108

Kgowiza 8 47.8 57.5 49.5
g 39.0 10.6

Column 178 40 218

Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = .88 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .35

130

Hypothesis 7: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
fear of revealing ignorance about public policy decreases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I
avoid participating in discussions of public policy
because I am afraid of revealing my ignorance."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
168 15
Not 91.8 8.2 183
Afraid 94.4 37.5 83.9
77.1 6.9
10 25
. 28.6 71.4 35
Afraid 5.6 62.5 16.1
4.6 11.5
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 74.2 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

131

Hypothesis 8: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
fear of asking questions about public policy decreases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question. "I am
sometimes afraid to ask questions about public policy
because I feel I should already know the answer."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
Don't 158 14
Avoid 91.9 8.1 172
Asking 88.8 35.0 78.9
Questions 72.5 6.4
. 20 26

2::12 43.5 56.5 46

estgo S 11.2 65.0 21.1
Q“ n 9.2 11.9
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 53.5 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

132

Hypothesis 9: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
satisfaction with his knowledge of general public
policy topics increases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I am
satisfied with my knowledge of public policy."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
43 9
. . 82.7 17.3 52
satleled 24.2 22.5 23.9
19.7 4.1
135 31
Not 81.3 18.7 166
Satisfied 75.8 77.5 76.1
61.9 14.2
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = .00
Significance = .99

133

Hypothesis 10: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
familiarity with source materials in public policy
increases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "If I
did not know the answer to someone's question on
public policy, I would know where to find it."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct

Know 136 13

Where to 91.3 8.7 149
Find 76.4 32.5 68.3
Information 62.4 6.0

Not Know 42 27

Where to 60.9 39.1 69
Find 23.6 67.5 31.7
Information 19.3 12.4

Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 27.1 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

134

Hypothesis 11: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
belief that public policy topics are not especially
difficult topics to speak on increases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "Giving
speeches or presentations on public policy is no more
difficult than for anything else."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
106 15
gzteciall 87.6 12.4 121
Digficulty 59.6 37.5 55.5
48.6 6.9
72 25
Especially 74.2 25.8 97
Difficult 40.4 62.5 44.5
30.0 11.5
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 5.6 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .02

135

Hypothesis 12: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
belief that public policy presentations need not be
restricted to highly skilled specialists increases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "Giving
speeches or presentations on public policy should be
reserved for highly skilled specialists."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
148 22
Not 87.1 12.9 170
Reserve 83.1 55.0 78.0
67.9 10.1
30 18
Reserve 62.5 37.5 48
16.9 45.0 22.0
13.8 8.3
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 13.5 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0002

136

Hypothesis 13: As comfort with public policy increases, a person's
estimate of preparation time needed before he or she
can feel comfortable making public policy presenta-
tions decreases.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I
would need very much preparation before I could feel
comfortable making presentations on public policy."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
89 1
fizzngflZE 98.9 1.1 90
Pr aratio 50.0 2.5 41.3
89 n 40.8 .5
89 39
Sizid Need 69.5 30.5 128
Pre aration 50.0 97.5 58.7
p 40.8 17.9
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 28.5 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0000

137

Hypothesis 14: As understanding of public policy increases, interest
in public policy increases, especially for uncom-
fortable persons.

 

Tested by using aggregated comfort questions and the question, "I
would find public policy more interesting if I
understood it better."

Crosstabulation Results

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
87 13
Not 87.0 13.0 100
More 48.9 32.5 45.9
39.9 6.0
91 27
More 77.1 22.9 118
51.1 67.5 54.1
41.7 12.4
Column 178 40 218
Total 81.7 18.3 100.0

x2 = 2.9
Significance = .09

APPENDIX E

CROSSTABULATION OF COLLEGE WEEK DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
AND CONFIDENCE INDEX VARIABLES

1. Comfort x Knowledge Satisfaction

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
80 24
. . 76.9 23.1 104
satISfled 89.9 77.4 86.7
66.7 20.0
9 7
Not 56.3 43.8 16
Satisfied 10.1 22.6 13.3
7 5 5.8
Column 89 31 129
Total 74.2 25.8 100.0

x2 = 2.11 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .15

138

2

Comfort x Knowledge Test

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Knowledgeable

Not
Knowledgeable

Column
Total

x2 = 9.64 with 1 d.f.

Significance

3

X

2

.0019

Comfort X Residence Area

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Farm

Town

City

Column
Total

.97 with 2 d.f.

Significance = .62

139

Comfort

63

85.1
67.7
50.4

30

58.8
32.3
24.0

93
74.4

Comfort

42

82.4
46.7
35.3

17

65.4
18.9
14.3

31

73.8
34.4
26.1

90
75.6

Not

Comfort

11

14.9

34.4
8.8

21

41.2
65.6
16.8

32
25.6

Not

Comfort

11

26.2

37.9
9.2

29
24.4

Row
Total

74
59.2

51
40.8

125
100.0

Row
Total

51
42.9

26
21.8

42
35.3

119
100.0

4.

2

X

Comfort x Education

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

High

School

College or
Other

Column
Total

3.02 with 1 d.f.

Significance = .08

5.

2

X

Comfort X Work

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Do Not
Work

Part Time

Full Time

Column
Total

5.05 with 2 d.f.

Significance = .08

140

Comfort

72

72.0
80.9
61.0

17

94.4
19.1
14.4

89
75.4

Comfort

50

69.4
56.2
42.4

22

78.6
24.7
18.6

17

94.4
19.1
14.4

54
45.8

Not
Comfort

28

28.0
96.6
23.7

wU‘lI-J
(Dc-O"

29
24.6

Not
Comfort

22

30.6
75.9
18.6

64
54.2

Row
Total

100
84.7

18
15.3

118
100.0

Row
Total

50
42.4

26
22.0

42
35.6

118
100.0

141

6. Knowledge Satisfaction x Residence Area

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
22 28
Farm 44.0 56.0 50
40.7 43.8 42.4
18.6 23.7
13 13
Town 50.0 50.0 26
24.1 20.3 22.0
11.0 11.0
19 23
. 45.2 54.8 42
City 35.2 35.9 35.6
16.1 19.5
Column 54 64 118
Total 45.8 54.2 100.0

x2 = .26 with 2 d.f.
Significance = .88

7. Knowledge Satisfaction x Education

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
47 52
High 47.5 52.5 99
School 87.0 82.5 84.6
40.2 44.4
7 11
College or 38.9 61.1 18
Other 13.0 17.5 15.43
6.0 9.4
Column 54 63 117
Total 46.2 53.8 100.0

x2 = .17 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .68

142

8. Knowledge Satisfaction x Work

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Do Not
Work

Part Time

Full Time

Column
Total

x2 = .008 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .92

Comfort

32

45.1
59.3
27.4

15

53.6
27.8
12.8

54
46.2

9. Knowledge Satisfaction x Work

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Satisfied

Not
Satisfied

Column
Total

x2 = .008 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .92

Comfort

61

58.7
87.1
50.8

70
58.3

Not
Comfort

39

54.9
61.9
33.3

13

46.4
20.6
11.1

11

61.1

17.5
9.5

63
53.8

Not
Comfort

42

41.3
86.0
35.8

50
41.7

Row
Total

71
60.7

28
23.9

18
15.4

117
100.0

Row
Total

104
86.7

16
13.3

120
100.0

143

10. Knowledge Test x Residence Area

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
36 15
Farm 70.6 29.4 51
49.3 32.6 42.9
30.3 12.6
18 8
Town 69.2 30.8 25
24.7 17.4 21.8
15.1 . 6.7
19 23
. 45.2 54.8 42
Clty 26.0 50.0 35.3
16.0 19.3
Column 73 46 119
Total 61.3 38.7 100.0

x2 = 7.11 with 2 d.f.
Significance = .03

11. Knowledge Test X Education

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
61 39
High 61.0 39.0 100
School 84.7 84.8 84.7
51.7 33.1
11 7
College or 61.1 38.9 18
Other 15.3 15.2 15.3
9.3 5.9
Column 72 46 118
Total 61.0 39.0 100.0

x2 .06 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .80

144

12. Knowledge Test x Work

 

Row Pct Not Row
Col Pct Comfort Comfort Total
Tot Pct
43 29
Do Not 59.7 40.3 72
Work 59.7 63.0 61.0
36.4 24.6
18 10
. 64.3 35.7 28
Part Time 25.0 21.7 23.7
15.3 8.5
11 7
. 61.1 38.9 18
FUIl Time 15.3 15.2 15.3
9.3 5.9
Column 72 46 118
Total 61.0 39.0 100.0

x2 = .18 with 2 d.f.
Significance = .92

 

 

oH. mo.1 na. oo.1 mH.1 mm. vm.1 mo. Hm. oa. oo.1 v0.1 mm
v0.1 mo. oo.1 HH. vo.1 nH.1 ma.1 «0.1 vm.1 m~.1 HH.1 mm. vN
oo.1 ma. oo.1 ma. om. no.1 No.1 HH. mm. «0. ma. nm. mm
vo. ea. Ho. oH. vo. HH.1 oo.1 va. om.1 mm. om. nm. mm
mm.1 mo.1 vm.1 oH.1 oo.1 ma. Ho. oo.1 oH. mo. vo. mm. Hm
mm. mm. oH.1 no.1 oo. m.H oH. mm. om.1 NH.1 mm.1 mv. 0m
Ho.1 oH. mo.1 Ho.1 Ho.1 No. vm.1 oo.1 oo.1 nm.1 HH.1 nm. ma
vH.1 vo. HO.I 0H. No.1 ma. HH.1 mo. nm. om.1 nm. on. ma
mm. oo.1 vo. oo. mo. v0.1 no.1 No.1 0H. vm.1 no.1 em. nH
mo.1 mo.1 mo.1 vo. mm.1 mm. oo.1 mm.1 oa. mo. om. vm. oa
ma. no. mo.1 mo. oo. oo. HH. mo. mH.1 mo. mm. mm. ma
ma. ma. mm. no. mo.1 om. mo. om. om. mo.1 va. Hm. Va
mo.1 om.1 ma. mH.1 ma. no.1 ov. ma. oa. mo. mo. mm.1 ma
oo.1 mH.1 mm. mo.1 oo.1 Ho.1 om. mH.1 mo. ma.1 mH.1 mo. NH
Hm.1 oo.1 HH.1 mo.1 ma.1 Ho. mo. mm. ma. no.1 em. mv. Ha
oo.1 mm.1 No.1 mm. mo. mm. mo. Hm. nm.1 HH. ma. nm. oa
va.1 am. no. av. mH.1 nm.1 no.1 oo.1 mo. HH. HH. HH.1 0
oo.1 vH. ma. vm.1 oH. mm.1 NH. Hm.1 no. om. oo.1 an. o
oo. oo. oo. oo.1 mo. oo.1 HH. mo. mH.1 vm.1 Hm. v~.1 n
oo.1 0H. oo. oo.1 Ho.1 oo.1 oo. mm. nm. om.1 mm.1 mv. o
mo.1 mN.1 Ho. Ho.1 mm. Ho. no.1 me. vo. mo. oH.1 ma. m
mm.1 ma. mo. Hm.1 oo.1 ma. HH.1 No.1 vm.1 mo. vo. av. v
mH.1 oo.1 mo. oo.1 oo.1 Hm. No.1 oo.1 vm.1 mv. Ho.1 oa. M
No. mm. NH.1 no.1 mH.1 vH. Hm. oo.1 na. mo. mm. mo. N
No. oo.1 oo. oo.1 oo. no.1 ma. mm.1 mo.1 HH. oo.1 an. H
NH Ha oa m o n o m v m N a nooEdz
coflumoaa

 

WOZHQ¢OQ mOBU¢h ZOHmszXM

h xHozmmmd

145

146

 

 

va. va.1 No.1 om.1 vo. mo. oo.1 oo. oo.1 mm.1 mm. om. vm
No.1 oo.1 mo.1 ma. av. oo.1 ao.1 va.1 vm. mo.1 oa. mo. mm
oo. oo. oo. oo.1 mo. oo.1 aa. mo. ma.1 vm.1 am. vm.1 mm
na. oo.1 am.1 oo. oo. v0.1 om. ma.1 oa. mo. oa. ma. am
ma. vm.1 oo.1 ao. vm.1 am.1 No.1 ao. ao. vo. mm. mm. om
ao. mo. aa. ma. mm. am. no.1 mm.1 mm.1 mo. om. oo. mm
ao. ma.1 mo. mm. oa.1 ao.1 mm. ma. v0.1 mm.1 o~.1 mv. on
no. no.1 mm.1 mo.1 aa. va.1 om.1 ma. om. mo. nm. ov. nm
oa. mo. mm. oa.1 oa.1 oa.1 om.1 vm. v0.1 mv. mm. mm. om
Na aa oa m m n o m v m m a Monfisz
coaumosa

 

AOoSCaucoov m xaocommd

APPENDIX G

CROSSTABULATION OF CONFIDENCE INDEX
VARIABLES USING EXTENSION DATA

Comfort X Knowledge Satisfaction

 

X

2

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Satisfied

Not
Satisfied

Column
Total

.13 with l d.f.

Significance = .72

Comfort x Knowledge

 

Row Pct
Col Pct
Tot Pct

Knowledgeable

Not
Knowledgeable

Column
Total

x2 = 10.6 with 1 d.f.
Significance = .0012

Comfort

37

92.5
43.5
40.2

48

92.3
56.6
52.2

85
92.4

Comfort

73

93.3
85.9
79.3

12

70.6
14.1
13.0

85
92.4

147

Not

Comfort

A
WNQUJ
WKOU'I

O
WI-‘Q

Not

Comfort

Row
Total

52
56.5

92

100.0

Row
Total

75
81.5

17
18.5

92

100.0

HICHI

H
3

GRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
HWIIIHIIIHIWIHHIIIIMHIHMIII‘HINIVWI
1293103496935