.TH E 9 v

,

 

I ? IIJAARY
mchngan State

University
N

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
IN CHURCH MEMBERS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS

presented by

Chris Henry Newhouse

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

fi/fiw %/

Major profeéstsr

Date X—/df6

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

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
m

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

 

AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
IN CHURCH MEMBERS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS

BY

Chris Henry Newhouse

 

 

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1985

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
IN CHURCH MEMBERS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS

BY

Chris Henry Newhouse

To be most effective in bringing people to a state of
environmental action, it would be valuable to understand

'their values and motivations. This information could allow

 

more specific targeting of educational and communications
efforts.

This study surveyed two groups on the following
factors: position on the Maslow personality hierarchy,
ranking of Rokeach’s terminal values, type and amount of
environmenal action, perceived amount of commitment
necessary to take environmental action, and type and amount
of social/political action. The groups were first,
environmental activists (individuals from the Sierra Club,
the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and the
Audubon Society), and second, members of Free Methodist
Churches.

Research questions involved relationships between

Maslow level and action (environmental and

social/political), between Maslow level and Rokeach values,

 

 

 

 

Chris Henry Newhouse
and between Rokeach values and action (environmental and
social/political).

Maslow level (as measured with Beer's Preference
Inventory) was found have no significant relationship with
environmental action, social/political action, or dominant
Rokeach terminal values.

Rokeach terminal values were significantly related to
both environmental and social/political action. In almost
every action, those listing "salvation" as their first
priority value were significantly lower in level of action
from every other value group.

Values profiles of the two research groups showed that
the top-ranking values of the environmental groups were
peace, health, and family security (salvation ranked last).
The top—ranking values of the church groups were salvation,
health, and family security (peace ranked 11th of 18).

The environmental group is not homogeneous in values
profiles; each environmental action appears to have a unique
values profile. Those most active in recycling differ from
those most active in making donations, etc.

Comparing the two study groups on the perceived
commitment necessary to take environmental action, it was
found that there were no significant differences between the
two groups.

Discussion included implications for communications and

education, relationships to other literature on

environmental action, and strategies for behavior change.

 

 

 

 

To Andy, Kristi, and Cathey,

 

since the time and energy I spent in achieving this
rightfully belonged to them.

ii

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A dissertation is not really the accomplishment of one
person. Many others have had major input and deserve much
of the credit for the culmination of this project.

First, I thank my wife Cathey for giving so generously
of her time, encouragement, understanding, expressions of
confidence, and prayers. Andy and Kristi deserve special
credit for being understanding the many times I had to go
back to my office to work on the dissertation.

Dr. Ben Peyton deserves much credit for the way he
constantly helped with his insights, suggestions, questions,
and revisions. Thanks to Ben also for sticking with me
_through a prolonged timetable.

 

To those others on my committee, Dr. Darrell King, Dr.
Ted Ward, and Dr. Marty Hetherington, I give thanks for
their input of time and effort.

 

Garnet Hauger should be recognized far more than these
few words can convey. Her statistical expertise, her
computer wizardry, and especially her enthusiasm throughout
the difficult days of this project were all critically

important.

Dr. Wayne Clugston was a strong supporter both
personally and in his role as Academic Dean Of Spring Arbor
College. The knowledge of his support was as important as
the many details he expedited.

My parents, Henry and Clara Newhouse, deserve
commendation for their help and their love - more
concretely, for their personal, financial, and prayer

support.

There are also many others, friends who encouraged,
supported, believed, exhorted, and prayed me through this.
They are too numerous to mention by name, but will always be
appreciated for their individual contributions.

Finally, I acknowledge that this accomplishment is the
result of answered prayer. This is the actualization of
Proverbs 3:5,6 ,"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and
lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways
acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight."

iii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOO. 00000 ....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................... . ............. viii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTIONOOOOO....000........OOOOOOOOOO ..... .0 1
Statement of the Problem.... ..... ... ....... . ..... 8
Research Questions ............................... 8
Significance of the Problem .................. 10
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study......... 14
Definitions of Important Terms............. ..... . 17
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......... . .............. . ....... 20

A Survey of Environmental Education Curricula

with regard to Adults .......................... 21
Adult Environmental Action, including

relationships to attitudes, knowledge,

concern, and values ................ ... ......... 23
Adult Education .................. ......... ...... 29
Application: Adult Potential and Participation

in Environmental Programs...................... 32
Recommendations of other Researchers for

Increased Action .................. . ........ .... 35

summarYOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ............ O ...... .... ..... 38

3. METHODS OOOOOOOOOOOOOO ... ......... 0 ..... .... ...... 40
Personal Preference Inventory - Maslow's

Needs Hierarchy ................................ 41

Environmental Action Survey ...................... 43

Environmental Commitment or Perception of
Amount of Concern Necessary to Take

Environmental Actions .......................... 46
Social or Political Action Survey ...... .. ..... ... 49
Terminal Values - Rokeach's Values Survey........ 52
Sample Population ................................ 54
Incentives to Increase Rate of Return ............ 55
Analysis of the Data. ..... ......... ....... ...,... 57

iv

 

Chapter Page

4. RESULTS .................. ..... .......... ......... 64
Research Question 1. ............................. 67
Research Question 2 .............................. 77
Research Question 3 ............................. . 77
Other Pertinent Data ............................. 100
Summary of Results ......................... ...... 111

5. DISCUSSIONOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000000 0.0.0.... ..... 117

Relationships between Maslow level and
environmental or social/political behavior
(Research Question 1)... ...... ... ...... ........ 118
The relationship between Maslow level and
Rokeach terminal values (Research Question 2).. 121
Relationships between Rokeach values and
environmental or social/political behavior

(Research Question 3)........ ....... . .......... 122

Suggestions for future research ............ . ..... 141
APPENDIX

A. Research Survey...... ....................... 144

B. Credibility Letters ........ . ................ 160

C. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates
for each environmental action when
comparing mean environmental action
frequencies among Maslow levels........... 165

D. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates
for each social/political action when
comparing mean social/political action
frequencies among Maslow levels ........... 173

E. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates
for each environmental action when
comparing mean environmental action
frequencies among the seven most common
Rokeach dominant terminal values..... ..... 177

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 187

 

Table

4.7

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Responses to selected demographic
questions (by % Of respondent group
church/environmental)...... .............. 66

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates for environmental actions
l.d and 17.c when comparing mean action
frequency among all Maslow levels........ 69

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates for each Maslow level when
comparing mean action frequencies
among types of environmental action ...... 7O

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates for each Maslow level when
comparing mean action frequencies
among social/political actions ........... 75

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates comparing mean Maslow level
among the seven most common Rokeach
dominant terminal values .......... . ...... 78

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates comparing weighted
environmental score among the seven
most common Rokeach dominant
terminal values .......................... 80

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates for each of the seven most
common dominant Rokeach terminal values
when comparing mean environmental
action frequency among all 17
environmental action types ............... 84

vi

 

Table

4.10

4.12

4.13

Page
ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates comparing total social/
political score (level of social/
political action) among the seven
most common Rokeach dominant terminal
values ................................... 90

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates for each social/political
action when comparing mean action
frequencies among the seven most
common Rokeach dominant terminal values.. 92

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval
estimates for each of the seven most
common dominant Rokeach terminal values
when comparing mean action frequencies
among all social/political actions ....... 97

A comparison of mean scores for Section
III (perceived concern or commitment
necessary to take environmental action)
between environmental groups and
church groups.. ..... . ...... ... ........... 101

Ranking of dominant Rokeach terminal
values of recyclers in this research..... 107

Simple and multiple stepwise linear
regression of the effects of SPS,
Rokeach dominant terminal value and
Maslow level on WES ...................... 108

WES comparisons of all in each group

vs those also claiming affiliation
with the other group.. ...... ....... ...... 109

vii

 

 

 

Figure
4.1

LIST OF FIGURES

Priority rankings for the top six
Rokeach Terminal Values of selected
groups — arranged in descending
order by median score. ................... 103

A comparison of the top six median
to dominant Rokeach terminal value
scores for environmental and Free
Methodist groups - in order of
decreasing priority ............. . ........ 105

Second priority values of those choosing
salvation as their first priority
value - for physiological level vs.
self—actualizers......................... 110

Type of env. action vs Rokeach dominant
terminal values .............. . ........... 113

Type of social/political action vs
dominant Rokeach terminal values......... 115

Potentially effective relationships - to
find most effective values to stress
for specific actions or actions most
likely given specific high priority
values................................... 138

viii

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

I NTRODUCTION

With each day's news comes the realization that there
is more need and increasing potential for citizen
participation in environmental action. This action may take
one of many forms, from picking up litter (ecomanagement) to
political involvement.

This, in fact, is the major Objective of environmental
education. As stated by Hungerford and Peyton (1976, p.11),
the environmental educator works to "develop an
environmentally literate citizenry that is both competent to
take action on critical environmental issues and willing to
take that action".

Since it is a primary goal of environmental educators
to work toward increased participation on the part of the
citizenry (Stapp, 1979, and Hungerford and Peyton, 1976), it
would be advantageous to have a better understanding of the

reasons for a person's participation. More specifically,

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

environmental educators should have knowledge of the reasons
for a person to initiate a positive environmental action (or
behavioral set), as well for the person to complete the
action and to continue in similar actions.

This research was designed to investigate means to
increase the efficiency of environmental communications and

environmental education.

Various researchers have attempted to relate an
individual's environmental orientation to his social,
physical, or personality characteristics. Socioeconomic
'status (SES), level of education, political orientation,
locus of control, conventionalism, and androgyny are among
those traits which have been studied (Arbuthnot, 1977;
Burrus-Bammel, 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Borden &
Powell, 1983).

It is this author's contention that while these factors
are important in describing correlations with an
individual's environmental orientation, they are not
sufficient to give an understanding of the reasons for the
orientation. In the Arbuthnot study, psychological
variables included personal control, political fascism,
self-esteem, and superstition (among others). While this
author saw the utility of each of these factors in specific
situations, he felt that there was a need for an integrated
analysis of personality to be applied to environmental

activists (and their less active counterparts).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maddi (1968, p.10) defined personality as "a stable set
Of characteristics and tendencies that determine those
commonalities and differences in the psychological behavior
(thoughts, feelings, actions) of people...". He
distinguished between the core and the periphery of
personality. To him, core denoted things common to all
people, things which disclose the inherent attributes of
persons. He stated that core personality exerts an
extensive and pervasive influence on behavior. Periphery of
personality was that part which was more generally learned
than inherent, was more concrete, and was used to explain

'differences among people.

One of the personality theories which, according to
Maddi, stressed the core of personality was Maslow's basic
needs hierarchy. In this study, Maslow's needs hierarchy
supplied one of two broad theoretical frameworks for
understanding the motivational aspects Of the subjects'
personalities. Maslow's theory involves a six step
hierarchy in which an individual must fulfill the levels in
succession as he approaches self—actualization, the highest
level.

The second type of personality framework employed in
this study was Rokeach’s Terminal Values survey. This was
chosen as an example of a survey for important elements in
periphery of personality. The elements, Rokeach's 18
terminal values, were more concrete and more specific than

Maslow's six needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow's basic need hierarchy theorizes that a person
must proceed in order from physiological necessities like
food and shelter (level VI) to the next level, which
involved maintaining the security of these necessities
(level V). Above this was love — from family or other
associates (level IV). Ascending from love, the next steps
both deal with esteem. Level III was respect, the esteem of
others. Level II was self-respect or self-esteem. Finally,
a person might achieve the top level, level I —
self-actualization.

A further postulate of Maslow is that there is a growth
need. Nobody, he stated, is satisfied with any level short
of self—actualization. While a person's progress may be
halted at any level, there is an overall need to continue to
advance toward self—actualization.

The self—actualizers are activists. Maslow himself
stated that "Self-actualizing people are, without one single
exception, involved in a cause outside their own skin, in
something outside themselves" (1971, p.43).

It could be deduced after reading the description of
Maslow's self-actualizers, that environmental action is a
very effective means of (or a consequence of) achieving
self—actualization. In accord with this possibility, it is
expected that some self-actualizers are engaged in positive

environmental actions.

But environmental action is by no means the only way to

 

 

 

 

 

 

achieve self-actualization. Accordingly, any study of
behaviors which lead to self—actualization would include the
full range of those behaviors, not just the ones in the
environmental realm. The persons currently employing other
behaviors to achieve self—actualization are considered by
this author to be potential environmental activists. Their
interests and activities are extremely important.
Environmental activism is not limited to
self—actualizers. Even the physiological level is affected
if an environmental problem causes a direct threat to one's
health. The need to maintain one's health might lead to

'activism among even the lowest of Maslow's levels.

Harry Miller, an adult educator, supplied the rationale
for the other component Of the proposed motivational
structure. His adaptation of Lewin's force field analysis
(Miller, 1967) helps one to understand why an adult might
become involved in an educational activity. This researcher
felt that the recognition of forces for such participation
was a prerequisite to understanding and using the knowledge
in environmental education and environmental appeals.

The contribution of Kurt Lewin (1947) was the depiction
of a person's actions as a product of positive and negative
forces in his/her environment. These forces may be
psychological or situational. They may originate from
within the person's mind, from the external environment, or

from a combination of both. Just as in physics, the sum and

 

 

 

 

 

direction of all forces on a person determine the resultant.

According to Miller, Maslow's construct is essential,
but not sufficient. Maslow, he intimates, provides an
outline for motivation; Lewin helps fill in the details.

Among Miller's conclusions are the following. Working
class people, traditionally absent from adult education, are
not a part of the educational establishment. In fact, they
are represented in very few traditional associations. Labor
unions and churches are the only two established
organizations normally joined by these persons.

Miller stated that the ego needs of middle and
‘upper-middle class persons often result in their enrollment
in adult education classes, but they need to perceive
progress or accomplishment in order to complete the class.

Constructs of this sort are challenging and
stimulating, but Miller's work is not accompanied by
educational research. For application to environmental
education, this should be documented more specifically.

There is another instrument which is capable of
assessing the same types of forces described by Miller, but
which carries the advantages of being completed, validated,
and widely used. This is the Rokeach Survey of Terminal
Values (Rokeach, 1968). Overall, Rokeach's survey addresses
the same constellation of motivators described by Miller,
but has much more potential to be used in educational
research.

Rokeach's terminal values survey is a set of 18 values

 

 

 

 

determined by Rokeach to be the smallest and best
representative set of values which would explain a person's
desired end states of existence. The derivation of this
particular set of values is described more fully in the
Methods chapter. Rokeach states that these values both
"guide human action in daily situations" and "give
expression to basic human needs" (Rokeach, 1968, p.14).
They are integrally related with a person's needs and his
actions. Another way Rokeach describes this relationship
between values and needs is by stating that values are the
cognitive representations and transformations of needs.
‘E.C. Tolman echoed this statement when he said that humans
have the same set of inherent needs which are satisfied by
individuals applying different values, these values being
based on their experiences (Cofer and Appley, 1964). By
rank ordering Rokeach's 18 values, a person allows an
experimenter to better understand both motivation and

behavior.

There are currently theories of personality and
motivation as well as instruments to measure some aspects of
personality and motivation. Their application to
environmental research shows promise to both understand
reasons for a person's actions and to predict or increase

these actions.

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of the Problem

 

This dissertation was an attempt to increase
understanding of the relationship between personality and
environmental action. More specifically it asked about
relationships among Maslow's Needs Hierarchy, Rokeach's
Terminal Values, socio—political action, and environmental

action.

'Research Questions

 

1a. Is there a correlation between Maslow level and
environmental action (level and type)?
1b. Is there a correlation between Maslow level and

socio/political action (level and type)?

2. Is there a relationship between Maslow level and the
presence and importance of specific elements of Rokeach's

Terminal Values survey?

3a. Is there a relationship between Rokeach's Terminal
Values and environmental action (level and type)?
3b. Is there a relationship between Rokeach's Terminal

Values and social/political action (level and type)?

 

 

 

Sample populations were drawn from two general
populations. The first general population consisted of
members Of three specific environmental groups - the Sierra
Club, the Audubon Society, and the West Michigan
Environmental Action Council. The second population was
drawn from members of Free Methodist (conservative
protestant) churches. This followed the precedent of
Arbuthnot (1977) and resulted in a wide range of

environmental scores.

Administered to each person was a combined test battery

including the following:

Demographic information

Preference Inventory — Maslow level
Environmental Activism Scale

Perceived Importance of Environmental Actions
Social Activism Scale

Rokeach's Terminal Values Survey

 

 

 

 

10

Significance of the Problem

 

As stated previously, the primary reason for
undertaking this project was to investigate means to
increase the efficiency of environmental communications and
environmental education.

This study will have implications for the choice of
topical material of environmental education for adults. A
knowledge of the motivational priorities of certain groups
'of adults will help to determine the curriculum which can
meet their most pressing needs in the most efficient manner.
Conversely, it should also help to decrease instances of
non—enrollment and dropping out due to insufficient
motivation or interest.

Similarly, teaching methodology can be benefited by a
knowledge of the motivational structure of the adult
students. Scheduling, study aids, choice of anecdotes, and
application examples could all be optimized by such
knowledge.

Though not widely used in environmental action, Maslow's
construct has been applied to the field of political
participation quite effectively. Both Knutson (1973) and
Renshon (1974) state the need for a unified theory of
personality to be used as a basis of understanding, Knutson

uses the following images to describe her view: trait

 

 

 

 

 

11

studies have provided many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle;
Maslow's framework will provide an outline of the political
picture. Together they may give significant advances in
understanding political behavior.

Political advisors use personality information to

predict, among other things:

1) the type of leader or platform which will be
supported in a particular campaign and by a certain
group of voters.

2) the probability that certain individuals will
join specified groups

3) the types Of political appeals which will be
most effective in stimulating a person's action

4) the function of various political activities
(campaigning, parade marching) in an individual's
psychic economy.

 

The transition from political to environmental activities is
so slight that to restate each point in environmental terms
seems redundant. As environmental issues continue to become
more political, a motivational assessment of this sort will
become increasingly important.

Environmentalists, politicians, economists, and

 

educators all are interested in projecting future trends for
their respective fields. This study could aid their efforts
by giving a unified structure as a basis for prediction.
Further, this will allow the prediction of action or
behaviors, not just inclination or attitude.

Another significant aspect of this study was the fact

that it was one of the first studies of its kind to use a

 

 

 

 

 

12

personality superstructure in a broad environmental action
context. The Arbuthnot (1977) and Maloney & Ward (1973)
studies used personality variables but not an integrated
personality theory to attempt to categorize individuals in
relation to the environment. Dunlap, Grieneeks and Rokeach
(1983) used a Maslowian construct, but with only recycling
as an indicator of the individual's environmental action.

This study, in combination with existing data, will
allow increasingly specific and effective communications
with all of those persons affected by an environmental
situation. Rather than use the same type of appeals for all

'persons, different groups could be targeted with very
specific appeals. And, naturally, this should increase the
potential for a positive response to the communication.

Much of the previous work, then, lacked the combination
of integration and specificity which is necessary for the
work to be used for other than the initial researcher's
intent. It was expected that this research would be the
start of a series of projects which had the potential to be
more widely applicable.

In this study, environmental action was used as the
criterion measure for a person's environmental orientation.
The author realized that most other studies have employed
environmental knowledge or environmental attitude or
environmental values to measure environmental orientation.

Despite these precedents, this author was convinced that the

most valid measure of environmental orientation was its

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

manifestation as environmental action.

The literature, abundant though lacking in consensus,
suggested that neither knowledge, nor attitudes, nor values
can predict environmental behavior with certainty. All of
these are useful, but there are many other variables which
affect a person's behavior. Since it is the environmental
behaviors which were most specifically of interest to this
study (and to many environmentalists), it was decided that
this study would attempt to census those behaviors.

The choice of this particular project also had
significance for this researcher. His long—range goals
'include working to further the environmental education, and
hopefully the environmental action, of previously
non-environmentally-involved persons. Much of the impetus
for this came from the paper by Miller (1967) examining
adults' participation in education in light of sociologic
force-fields.

Miller's work was specifically in relation to
education; the findings explain what has been observed in
adult education programming. Miller's contention that very
few public institutions influence the middle and
lower—middle class means that the schools (and any
educational effort connected with the schools) have very
little appeal or credibility to them.

Ultimately this author intends to use these
institutions to initiate nonformal environmental education.

The first step was to determine the personality and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

motivation superstructures of some of these people in
relation to environmental action, social action, and in
comparison to a group traditionally found to be
environmentally active.

In summary, the author felt that currently
environmental educators have the ability to ascribe various
characteristics to citizens in relation to their
environmental orientation, but lack the ability to fully
understand (motivationally) or effectively communicate with
several previously non-involved groups. The intent of this
research is to increase the ability of environmental
'educators to accomplish the latter two tasks, aswell as to

make optimal use of the groups which are already involved.

Assumptions and Limitations of the Study

Despite the enthusiasm with which the project was
conceived, it was apparent that there were assumptions and
limitations to the study.

One assumption was that the information published about
the validity and reliability of the Beer and Rokeach
instruments is correct. Reliability and validity tests were
done on portions of these surveys in the current research to
ensure that this research setting did not make the tests

invalid or unreliable.

There was no assumption that either of the groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

tested would be representative of the U.S. population as a
whole. Choice of groups was based on three factors. The
first of these was precedent — the Arbuthnot study
especially. The second was an attempt to census groups of
people which would demonstrate a distinct difference in
their environmental and personal assessments. And the third
factor was the desire to do further work with persons in the
environmentally non-involved group.

It was also recognized that even among environmental
and church groups, the current sample may not be
representative. The financial and authority-based
'incentives may have elicited responses from a
non—representative sample group.

Other criticisms also might be directed toward the
study. One involves the choice of the Maslowian theory of
personality. The criticisms directed by those who do not
subscribe to Maslow's construct cannot be refuted. Any
personality theory, by its theoretic nature, has its
proponents and opponents.

Maslow does not adequately describe dysfunctional
personalities; he is most directed toward those who are
mentally healthy and those who are self-actualizers. Most
persons, the author expects, will view the Maslowian needs
hierarchy as at least an adequate model for explaining some
aspects of personality. Others, this author included, feel
that it is extremely useful as a construct for explaining

many Of a person's actions. Miller (1967), Knutson (1973)

 

 

16

and Renshon (1974), as already noted, feel that Maslow's
framework is valid and valuable for this purpose.

Another caution should be added in this section. It
involves the confusion of correlation and causation. Those
strong correlations which might appear in the assessments do
not prove that one element is the cause of another
(belonging to a church or to a labor union does not cause
one to be less involved in adult education). It is simply
intended to convey the idea that in the presence of one
element, an observer would have a high probability of
finding the correlated element. Although there is the
'possibility that one might cause the other, it is just as
likely that a common third element might cause both
independently. The value of the correlation lies in its

ability to predict one element given the presence or absence

of another.

Despite these potential limitations, the author felt

that the study had great importance in increasing
understanding of the interaction of personality and
environmental action. From this understanding, the author

expects, will come more effective environmental

communications and environmental action.

 

17

Definitions of Important Terms

Ambition — a status or condition strongly desired or sought

after

Appeal — an earnest request for some sort of thought or
action, a solicitation; used especially in relation to

communications or advertising

Attitude — a hypothetical construct about a mental state
which is inferred from verbal reports and behavioral

observation (Heberlein, 1980)

Belief - the cognitive component of an attitude (the other
component is affective - an emotional one) (Herberlein,

1980)

Environmentally noncommited (or environmentally noninvolved)
— the state of not considering or valuing a positive

environmental aspect in thoughts and actions

Environmental orientation — the sum of an individual’s
knowledge, perceptions, values, actions, beliefs, and

attitudes toward the environment

Formal education — schooling; that portion of education

 

18

which is deliberate, planned, staffed, financially
supported, and has sequentially programmed coursework. It
usually involves certification, prerequisites, and

accreditation (see also: nonformal education) (Ward, 1982)

Goals — something which a person wants, that for which an

effort is made

Knowledge — that which is known and understood, whether from

books and teachers or from experience and Observation

Motivation — the process by which the expression Of a
behavior is determined, or the force which arouses activity,
sustains the activity in progress, and regulates the pattern

of the activity (Cofer and Appley, 1964)

Motivational status - used specifically in this study to
indicate the assessment of a person’s placement according to

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Nonformal education - that portion of education which is
deliberate, planned, staffed, financially supported, but
which adds the qualifications of usually being short—term,
highly functional, and unrestricted in time and place. In
general, it is more responsive to change and need than is

formal education (Ward, 1982)

 

19

Personality — a stable set of characteristics and tendencies
that determine those commonalities and differences in the
pshycological behavior (thoughts, feelings, actions) of
people that have continuity in time and that may or may not
be easily understood in terms of social and biological

pressures of the immediate situation alone (Maddi,1968)

Positive environmental action — any conscious action or
behavior which benefits some aspect of the environment.
This could include conservation as well as ameliorative

actions.

Social action — any behavior which is not consciously or
directly designed to benefit the individual taking the

action, but which instead benefits others

Value - a hypothetical construct, an enduring belief about
"desired end states of existence" such as freedom or
equality, a standard for evaluating or guiding attitudes and
actions. Values serve as the basis for attitudes and

beliefs (Rokeach, 1968), and (Heberlein, 1980).

 

Chapter 2

L I TERATURE REVI EW

An analysis of literature pertaining to adult
'environmental action opens a diverse—appearing collection of
information. Yet the many facets all may be related to the
central theme: involvement of informed adults in positive
environmental action. This echoes a superordinate goal of
environmental education: "to aid citizens in becoming
enviromentally knowledgeable and, above all, skilled and
dedicated citizens who are willing to work, individually and
collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a dynamic
equilibrium between quality of life and quality of the
environment."(Harvey, 1976)

This review of the literature will focus on the

following topics:

1) a survey of environmental education curricula with

regard to adults.
2) adult environmental action, including relationships

20

 

21

to attitudes, knowledge, concern, and values
3) adult education
4) applications: adult participation and potential in

environmental programs

A Survey Of Environmental Education Curricula with regard to

 

Adults

Any survey Of the literature would show that the
majority of environmental education programming has taken
place in schools, with the programming directed toward
'youth. Stapp et al. (1971) described the major effort of
environmental education as being in the realm of formal
elementary and secondary education. They reported that
several colleges and universities have also adopted
environmental education, but that all of these formal
programs taken together "reach only a small percentage of
the general public." The majority of potential target
audiences are not in schools — they are in the nonformal
sector.

Johnson et al (1980) defined the issue more clearly.
Using the analogy of a marketplace, they stated that youth
has been the primary consumer. The logistic structure Of
the whole elementary, secondary, and post—secondary
educational system has been oriented toward youth — in
timing, location, and even the placement of summer vacation.

According to their marketplace analogy, the field Of adult

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

learning is an “untapped market". In numbers of potential
students, resources available to students, and need for
education, adults are becoming and will become increasingly
important to the educational system (Johnson et al,1980)

In an inventory of environmental education curricula,
Childress (1978) determined that the students primarily
affected by environmental education programming were in two
groups. The first group was from grades 5 and 6, the second
group from grades 10-12. No mention was made of adult
curricula.

Clearly environmental education has been characterized
'by the emphasis on formal education and young learners. Yet
Harvey's superordinate goal of environmental education (as
stated previously) suggests a broader emphasis. Age is not
mentioned. Instead the emphasis is on the development of
knowledgeable, skilled, and dedicated citizens. While this
does not preclude youth, it implies the inclusion of adults
especially. Further, an analysis of the conceptual level of
the specific goals of environmental education (Hungerford,
Peyton, and Wilke, 1980) makes it questionable whether

younger students could even comprehend all of the goals of

 

environmental education.

 

 

 

23

Adult Environmental Action, includingirelationships to

attitudes, knowledge, concern, and values

Since the rationale for this dissertation is to
increase adult environmental action, the following section
will analyze the status of environmental action, especially
in relation to adults.

To document the need for environmental action might
seem simplistic, but it is no less essential. Jean
Matthews, a coordinator for the U.S. Department of the
’Interior (1974), stated the need for a populace that not
only understands ecology and environmental problems, but

which is also able to act on the basis of that
understanding. Educational institutions can have a role in
bringing about informed environmental action by "organizing
and conducting educational programs for adults which keep
them informed before controversy sets in, to offer unbiased
information when it is needed, and to referee conservation
conflicts when appropriate" (Dambach, 1969).

But, as stated by Stapp (1971), there are "few programs

 

(which) emphasize the role Of the citizen in working both
individually and collectively, toward the solution of

problems...." in the environment.
A more recent review of environmental literature shows

that the situation has not changed significantly. ,As

reviewed by Johnson et a1 (1980), the environmental

 

 

 

24

awareness and action programs are few; the successful ones
are even fewer. There seems to be a common problem in

attracting and maintaining community participation in any

environmental program. It should be noted, however, that

the same review found that those programs emphasizing
awareness rather than action were more plentiful, more

diverse, and more successful.

A review of "Research in Enviromental Education"
1971-1980 showed that less than 9% of the 429 environmental
studies used overt behavior as a criterion (Hungerford et
al, 1983). Of the papers which did report behavioral
'analyses, more than a third Of them used littering as the
only behavior studied. The authors Of the review lamented
that dissertation topics seldom include citizenship
behaviors.

One of the most concise descriptions of environmental
action was offered by Hungerford and Peyton (1976) and later
modified by Champeau (1982). They divided the realm of

environmental action into 6 categories, each with an

operational definition. The six categories are the

 

following: Persuasion, Consumerism, Political Action, Legal
Action, Ecomanagement, and Interaction (involving any two or
more of the preceding action modes). Champeau (1982)
modified "Consumerism", making it "Economic Action" in order
to allow a more comprehensive treatment of potentially

influential monetary actions.

Means to bring this type of commitment into public and

 

 

 

 

 

25

   
     
    
    
 

educational reality are not as widespread as one would hope.
Peyton and Hungerford (1980) showed that school teachers in
three midwestern states perceived that they had "limited
abilities to use" environmental action skills. While they
stated that they felt confident to teach environmental
action skills, few teachers reported that they had used
them.

Environmental action often has been a studied variable
in combination with one or several of the following:
attitudes, values, beliefs, and knowledge. The literature
relating behaviors, attitudes, values, beliefs, and
'knowledge can be described most charitably as "complex“.
Because of the lack of operationalized and standardized
definitions of terms, results of similar types of studies
are often interpreted to give what appear to be conflicting
conclusions. The following section will review some of the
more closely related studies.

Perhaps the most common conclusion is that there is

some relation of attitude and knowledge. Burrus-Bammel

 

(1978) and Moore (1981), report that attitude and knowledge
are directly correlated. In two separate studies, (1976,
1978) Weigel documents his contention that there is a strong
correlation between attitudes and behavior. Heberlein and
Black (1976) corroborate this, at least to the point of
stating that specific attitudes correlate with behaviors
better than general attitudes. Heberlein and Black, in a

1981 paper, show that when attitudes are supported within a

 

consistent
more likelj
Buttel and
stating th
of attitud
both know]
in an inde
concludes
knowledge
(Ramsey a:
0the
between k
result of
Significa
attitudes
affected
an envir<
led to a
Problem)
Environm
landmark
With the
StUdies
attitude
overt b‘
t0 am.

in the

 

 

26

consistent framework of other related attitudes, they are
more likely to be significant predictors of behavior.

Buttel and Flinn (1978) also support this contention,
stating that education is the primary factor in development
of attitudes. Borden and Schettino (1979) conclude that
both knowledge and attitudes are predictors of behavior, but
in an independent, additive, sense. Yet another study
concludes that knowledge moderates attitudes, with increased
knowledge preventing extreme attitudes in either direction
(Ramsey and Rickson, 1976).

Other researchers have failed to find a correlation
'between knowledge and attitudes. Horsley reported that as a
result of a role—playing experiment his subjects showed a
significant behavior change with no similar change in
attitudes (1977). A study of environmental issues in highly
affected communities found that knowledge of all facets of
an environmental issue and its possible solutions most often
led to a resistance to change (resistance to solving the
problem), indicating that knowledge is unrelated to positive
environmental attitudes (Tichenor et al, 1971). Wicker's
landmark 1969 review of attitudes and actions summarizes
with the following statement, "Taken as a whole these
studies suggest that it is considerably more likely that
attitudes will be unrelated or only slightly related to
overt behaviors than that attitudes will be closely related
to actions." For these reasons, "attitude" was not included

in the current study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anothe
“environmer
for "envir<
findings i1
variables,
locus of c
environmen
Age and so
correlated
studied tt
that age,
environmer
and occup:
with cone.

Envi
Concerns,
few resea
to any 0f
Social 0!

The!
enVironme
COIIEge :
betWeen .
queStion
environm

Van

 

27

Another well-researched, but usually undefined term is
"environmental concern". The lack of a standard definition
for "environmental concern" may be related to divergent
findings in research. Tucker (1978) found that among social
variables, income, social class, and internal vs. external
locus of control were most highly correlated with I
environmental concern (although he did not define concern).
Age and social responsibility were not significantly
correlated with concern. But Van Liere and Dunlap (1980)
studied the social bases of environmental concern and found
that age, education and ideology were the best predictors of
'environmental concern. Social class, place of residence,
and occupational prestige were not significantly correlated
with concern.

Environmental behaviors are the translation of beliefs,
concerns, attitudes, or values into reality. Yet relatively
few researchers have studied behaviors of adults in relation
to any of the previously mentioned variables or any other
social or personal criteria.

There is one study linking environmental concern with
environmental action. Dunlap et al (1973) found among
college students a direct and significant correlation
between their concern measure and positive response to a
question on whether the subject had ever taken any
environmentally positive action.

Van Liere and Dunlap (1978) reported that both

awareness Of consequences and ascription of responsibility

 

 

are import:
behavior, :
Attit
environmen
(1977). I
quality we
the verbal
relations]
of pro—en'
knowledge
control (
Sia
literatul
influencq
the most
Compare
environm
Sensitiv
action.
Predict:
Classif;
technoL
Du
framewO
were pr
Values‘

"highs!

28

are important in being able to predict a pro—environmental
behavior, i.e. refraining from burning yard wastes.

Attitude and personality variables which predict
environmental behaviors were directly studied by Arbuthnot
(1977). It was found that commitment to environmental
quality was more verbal and affective than behavioral. Both
the verbal and the affective commitments had a moderate
relationship to environmental behaviors. Other predictors
of pro—environmental behaviors were education, environmental
knowledge, conservatism (negative), and lack of personal
control (negative).

Sia et a1 (1983) surveyed the environmental action
literature for all variables which had been shown to
influence environmental action. In order to find which were
the most powerful predictors, they designed a study to
compare them. They found that perceived skill in using
environmental action strategies and level of environmental
sensitivity were the best predictors of environmental
action. Those variables found to have less importance as
predictors were locus of control, psychological sex role
classification, and belief in/attitude towards pollution and
technology.

Dunlap et al (1983) used a Maslowian personality
framework as their theoretic perspective. Maslow's levels
were proposed to be related to some of Rokeach's Terminal
Values. Certain Rokeach terminal values were categorized as

"higher order" in the Maslow hierarchy while other terminal

 

 

 

 

 

values were
Their expe
values in
and a Nati
chosen adu
recyclers
with theil
shows the

environme:

EM

Tl
First, 9‘
esPecial
The next
if and w
been env
toward a
analYZe
especia:
The IaS'
recomme
adults

0n
adult 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

values were classed as "lower order" in the hierarchy.

Their experimental design involved a comparison of Rokeach's
values in members of two groups - a known group of recyclers
and a National Opinion Research Center group of randomly
chosen adults. The results supported their hypothesis that
recyclers would show "higher order" values when compared
with their randomly chosen counterparts. Their research
shows the efficacy of Rokeach's Values Instrument in an

environmental action context.

Adult Education

 

The organization of this section will be as follows.

First, general characteristics of adults will be examined,
especially in relation to the environment and to education.
The next topic will be the political potential of adults —
if and why they participate. Recognizing that there have
been environmental education programs oriented directly
toward adults in the past, the author will next describe and
analyze some of these programs. The focus will be directed
especially toward the success or failure of the programs.
The last portion of this section will examine
recommendations of the State of Michigan in relation to
adults and the environment.

One of the earliest modern educators to rediscover the

adult learner was Malcom Knowles. In the time since the

 

 

 

adult-orier
Confucious
word "scho'
Knowles ap
children,
adults. A
applicatic
rewarded 1
the educa'
In "
Education
adults, I
QIOUP whi
Immediatt
intended
Which an
environm
administ
adults.
Th1
K—lz cu
Educati
This we
schooli
descrit
Studies

"skill:

 

 

30

adult-oriented education of Aristotle, Jesus, and
Confucious, education has become almost synonymous with the
word "school", which nearly invariably implies children.
Knowles applied the term "pedagogy" to the education of
children, contrasting this with andragogy — the education of
adults. Adults, he said, prefer short—term, specific,
application-based learning. He recommended that they be
rewarded for those experiences and abilities they bring to
the education system (Knowles, 1978).

In "Toward a National Strategy for Environmental
Education", Stapp et a1 (1971) do not write only about
ladults, but they do mention adults very specifically as a
group which should be targeted by environmental education.
Immediately after this recommendation, they identify another
intended target — specific occupational or social groups
which are especially influential in relation to the
environment, such as engineers, policy makers, and
administrators. This group is specifically limited to
adults.

The emphasis on adult life is even reflected in the
K—12 curriculum. In 1978, the Michigan State Department of
Education published the Life Role Competencies document.
This was the culmination of an attempt to base formal
schooling on the needs of the adult world. Rather than
describe learning outcomes as "reading skills" or "social
studies skills", the skills listed in the document.are the

"skills that we all presumably need to have to function

 

 

 

 

well" in a
vocational
demonstrat

1) a
basis for

2) a
environmel

and 3) p«
envrronme'

When
there wil
then, adu
influenti
basis of

Educatiol

Th
Environm
Pertaini
a lifelc
System,
enVironr
Islated
Permeat.

(Berry

 

31

well" in all the areas of personal, family, social, and
vocational life. For example, students should be able to
demonstrate the following abilities:

1) an ability to use the natural environment as a
basis for creative expression,

2) an awareness of alternative solutions to major
environmental problems,

and 3) personal responsibility for the quality of the
environment.

When and if this type of curriculum is implemented,
.there will be less need for remediation among adults. Until
then, adults will remain in most cases as a large group of
influential citizens making environmental decisions on the
basis of limited information (Michigan Department of

Education, 1978).

The 1977 Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on
Environmental Education made the following recommendations
pertaining to adult education: "Environmental education is
a lifelong process, not confined to the formal education
system, integrating education concerning the work
environment, education for the consumer, and education
related to economic development; its subject matter should

permeate every part of the formal and non-formal programs."

(Berry and Lowe, 1978).

 

 

 

 

 

Applicatio

Env1ronmen

Anotl
participai
adults cal
address t
Education
that the
had matur
quality,
System (I

Lar
0f Madis
Citizens
environ“
responde
factors
Politic:
is high.

Re
Partici
be effe
e“Viror
"Potent
elevat:

the po.

 

32

Application: Adult Potential and Participation In

Environmental Prggrams

 

Another reason for the emphasis on adults is their
participation in politics. By any of a number of means,
adults can influence the legislative process. In his
address to the 1980 National Association of Environmental
Education conference, Clay Schoenfeld shared his optimism
that the environmental activists of the 1960's and 1970's
had matured and, while remaining committed to environmental
quality, were working more effectively through the political
'system (1980).

Larson et a1 (1981) polled a random sample of residents
of Madison, Wisconsin and found a significant number of
citizens had participated in some form of political
environmental activism. Approximately half of the
respondents indicated that they had used environmental
factors as at least one,criterion in their choice of
political candidates. As the authors stated, however, this
is higher than the national norm.

Regardless of current levels of political
participation, any increase in political participation would
be effective in helping to accomplish the ends of
environmentalists. The key word in this case is
"potential". Voting along environmental lines, or even
elevating environmental concerns to an "issue" status, has

the potential to show positive results.

 

 

 

 

A re‘
helped to
undertake

The
a college
local prc
solutions
college/<
publicat:
could ha‘
particip
citizens
Programm
in great
trust ir
college
and Suri

A :
Kupchel
(with a
environ
5998 on
inSpira
progran
titles

CYClesl

 

 

33

A review of three adult-oriented environmental programs
helped to understand both the type of programs already
undertaken and the role of motivation in those programs.

The goals of the first program (which was presented as
a college course) were to focus the community's attention on
local problems and to involve the community in the problems'
solutions. The project's results were positive in terms of
college/community relations and with regard to the resulting
publications and proposals, but there were some areas which
could have been improved. The first of these was community
'participation. The authors described the attendance by
citizens as "poor", recommending that in the future
programming be worked through local groups. This may result
in greater participation due to citizens having greater
trust in the organization, less anxiety than being in the
college setting, and more community input to design (Davis
and Surls, 1975).

A second project of a similar nature was completed by
Kupchella and Levy (1975). In this case, it was a course
(with a syllabus) designed to further educate
environmentalists about environmental problems. This author
sees one noteworthy criticism and a motivational stroke of
inspiration which should be considered for future adult
programming. In the published course schedule, lectures had
titles like "Fundamental Principles Governing Biogeochemical

Cycles" and "Fundamental Principles of Interspecies

 

 

 

 

Interactic
that sort
non-colle«
descripti
sessions.
Ther
device us
the parti
had gotte
scholars]
grant, e
cover th
scholars
the obli
all have
partici;
In
environ1
were he
(genera
TWO wor
attenda
The aut
c0mmuni
in Par‘
M8.

by thi

 

 

 

34

Interaction in Nature". In this writer's Opinion, titles of
that sort would cause high anxiety levels among
non—college—trained ecologists. Subtitles or simplified
descriptions may have led to higher attendance at those
sessions.

There was, however, a very effective motivational
device used in this study. This dealt with program costs to
the participant. A tuition-based program the previous year
had gotten little response. The newer program offered
scholarships. Since the project was funded by a federal
grant, each student was "given a scholarship" to totally
'cover the program costs. The prestige of getting a
scholarship, the knowledge of the cost of the course, and
the obligation engendered by receiving a scholarship would
all have worked together to maintain a high motivation for
participation.

In the third project, a different approach was used by
environmental educators in southern Ohio. Here, workshOps
were held dealing with the local air quality problems

(generated in large measure by the local steel industry).

Two workshops were offered, but a significant decrease in
attendance was evident in the second one - from 66 to 29.
The authors did not speculate on reasons for a poor
community response, but it is suspected that it may be due
in part to the nature of the program - to increase

understanding of the air pollution problem (emphasis added

 

by this writer). A problem/solution orientation may have

 

 

 

been more
It s
optimum u
learners.
and learn
factors.
recommenc
interact:
that mort
educatio
motivati
conclusi

environn

W

Th
bringin
environ
enlists
Sectior
enlistj
While l
POssib
P0ssib

I

EnViro

 

 

 

35

been more effective (Force et al, 1977).

It seems that none of the preceding programs makes
Optimum use of what was already known about motivating adult
learners. Gallo (1971) points out that adult participation
and learning depend to a great extent on motivational
factors. He analyzed drop—outs, then devised a set of
recommendations dealing with areas like scheduling, costs,
interaction style, and curriculum design. His thesis was
that more adults would begin and successfully finish adult
education programming if more attention were paid to
motivation. This coincides with this author’s own
'conclusions based on the preceding review of selected

environmental education programs.

Recommendations of other Researchers for Increased Action

The environmental educator's primary tasks include
bringing adults to a state where their positive
environmental actions can be predicted, encouraged, or
enlisted. Various predictors were discussed in the previous
section; this section deals with methods for encouraging or
enlisting the support of adults in environmental programs.
While the literature tells only of previous programs, it is

possible to make some inferences about what might be
possible in the future and how it might be accomplished.
In "Notes on Coordinating a Community Program in

Environmental Education", the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 

 

(1977) desc

education p

environment
Recommendat
1. ma
formalizing
2. de
3. se
by all
4. pr

All of thee
0f educatic
mOtivationa

Miller
dealing Wit
interPretat
include non
non-school
pr°9ramming

There
f°r eff8ctj
review Papa
that Writte
onsubjECts

ratiOnaleS

 

36

(1977) describes all aspects of adult environmental
education programming for people desiring to become
environmental education program coordinators.
Recommendations include the following:

1. make every effort to "legitimize" the program by
formalizing it into local organizations

2. design the program to meet specific needs

3. set short-range goals so that results will be seen
by all

4.

publicize the program and its results.

All of these recommendations reflect a practical synthesis

of educational techniques, communications theory, and

motivational psychology.

Miller (1967) included several recommendations for

dealing with people in educational settings. Based on his

interpretation of force fields, these recommendations
include non-formal approaches to education and possible

non—school institutional vehicles for educational

programming.

There is very little literature analyzing the reasons

for effectiveness of environmental communications. Hines’

review paper (1983) reports eight studies which all reveal

that written or verbal appeals have had little or no effect

on subjects' behaviors. Analysis of the appeals and their

rationales has not been reported. Some programs described

 

in the lite
rudimentary
A Wisc
local high
into local
from univer
to inform a
The Abeles
included re
integration
complete su
The Ku
response ra
known to be
for Environ
9r°uPS, the
In a broade
thr°ugh ins
These
dearth of s
that thEre
supporting
c°1lllllunicati
design text
BIOOks, 197

would haVe

 

rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII‘:____________________—f

37

in the literature include enough information that a
rudimentary analysis is possible.

A Wisconsin program described by Abeles (1973) used
local high school students to bring the university program
into local reality. The high school students (with help
from university students and faculty) undertook a campaign
to inform and involve the community of the proposed program.
The Abeles report, however, was a progress report and
included recommendations for even better communication and
integration with the community. Evidently it was not a
complete success in the communications realm.

The Kupchella-Levy paper (1975) had one of the best
response rates, but did so by enlisting people previously
known to be ideologically similar. By offering an "Ecology
for Environmentalists" course through local environmental
groups, they maximized their program's chance for success.
In a broader sense they showed again the efficacy of working
through institutions already established in the community.

These studies have used communications tools, but the
dearth of specific references in the literature suggests
that there has not been a strong focused approach toward
supporting environmental programs by means of a strong
communicatione/motivation basis. Even a general message

design text like Public Communications (Hart, Friedrich and

 

Brooks, 1975) or Persuasion (Karlins and Abelson, 1970)

 

would have been a great asset to a program designer.

 

 

 

Summary

From t
it was seen
action—orie
literature
predictors
realm of tr

There
personality
however, ge
environment
'h~-.person
in environm

When a
analyzed, 1
Principles
in their be
Was demonst
and more sp
knowledge t
action.

All of
need to 11nd
relation to
framewOrk.

ability to

 

38

Summary

From the survey of environmental education curricula,
it was seen that there is a scarcity of and a need for more

action-oriented adult environmental education programs. The

 

literature on environmental action showed some correlative
predictors of environmental action, but all were in the
realm of trait studies rather than personality frameworks.
There exist useful frameworks for understanding adult
personality and motivation. These frameworks are not,
however, generally used for environmental action or
lenvironmental education. As stated in Hines (1983, p. 28)
"....personality factors have not been widely investigated

in environmental action studies in nonformal settings."

 

When adult environmental education programs were
analyzed, it was seen that in general they did not apply the
principles of adult education or adult motivation, resulting
in their being less than optimally effective. The potential
was demonstrated for more efficient educational programming
and more specific use of personality and motivation
knowledge to make more effective appeals for environmental
action.

All of these observations, taken together, indicate a
need to understand environmental action or non—action in
relation to an individual's personality and motivation
framework. With the increased understanding comes the

ability to use that knowledge in the most efficient way —

 

increasing pa
involved and
involved. Tl
understanding

personality a

 

39

increasing participation levels among those not currently
involved and maximizing effectiveness for those already
involved. This study is an attempt to provide the increased
understanding of environmental action or non-action in a

personality and motivation context.

 

 

 

 

Thi
instrume
well as
measure

in detai

Th:

Tl
respom

incone

 

 

Chapter 3

METHODS

This research necessitated the development of some new
instruments to assess environmental and social action, as
well as adaptation and use of two other instruments to
measure personality variables. All of these are described

in detail in this chapter.

The survey consisted of the following six sections:
Demographic Information

Preference Inventory - Maslow's Needs

 

Hierarchy

Environmental Action

Concern or Commitment necessary to take
Environmental Action

Social and Political Action

Rokeach's Terminal Values

The Demographic section (six questions) asked
respondents to indicate level of education, occupation type,

income level, membership in an environmental organization,

40

 

 

 

 

 

residence
remaining

A copy 01

Personal

The
responds
adaptati
Ohio St:
the phy:
exclusi
industr
researc
that th
well.
constrt
researc

B:
aPProx
litera
reCOgn
PSYCho
into N
de£im‘
in a ,

retail

 

 

41

residence category (urban, suburban, rural), and sex. The
remaining five sections are next described in more detail.

A copy of the entire survey is included as Appendix 1.

Personal Preference Inventory - Maslow's Needs Hierarchy

The part of the survey designed to assess the
respondent's level on Maslow's needs hierarchy was an
adaptation of one used by Michael Beer (1966, Copyright, The
Ohio State University). Beer's inventory did not measure
the physiological level of Maslow's model, probably a safe
‘exclusion since he was surveying middle management in an
industrial setting. It was expected that the current
research would include all Maslow levels, so it was decided
that the physiological level would have to be censused as
well. The following paragraphs will deal first with Beer's
construction of the instrument, then with the current
researcher's addition of physiological level responses.

Beer designed the survey by first compiling a list of
approximately 100 needs from psychological and sociological
literature. Examples of such needs are the need for social
recognition or the need to express one's creativity. Seven
psychologists were asked to group the items from the list
into Maslow categories, according to Maslow's own
definitions of the categories. Each item which was classed
in a category by at least six of the seven judges was

retained for the final form of the inventory. The final

 

 

 

 

42

form was then submitted to eight other judges for grouping
according to item desirability. Inter—item reliabilities
were computed by Kuder-Richardson Formula 8 for each of the
levels, and ranged from .67 to .74. In general, items at
the extremes of the scale showed the greatest negative
correlation (Beer, 1966).

Beer also reported evidence that the instrument showed
construct validity. When "autonomy" was correlated with
"freedom of action" as a perceived job need, the results
were significant (P<.01). When "self-actualization" was
correlated with the perceived job need "initiative", the
'results were significant (P<.02) (Beer, 1966). By showing
the strong correlation between Maslow's theoretic categories
and workers' perceived job needs (which would have been
predicted by the Maslow model), Beer strengthened his
contention that his instrument was a valuable predictor of
Maslow's theoretic needs hierarchy.

The addition of physiological level responses was done
in a similar manner. The researcher first found information
about the physiological level and its characteristics.

Next, this researcher and one other social science
researcher composed statements to use as examples of
physiological level needs (e.g. having to be concerned with
whether there will be food available for supper). These
statements were submitted to a panel of three psychologists
for revision. Their revisions were edited to form.the final

part of the Maslow level survey and were added to the

 

 

43

existing instrument.

Scoring was done as on Beer's original survey.
Respondents were asked to indicate their preferences in
order by using numbers one (most preferred) to six (least
preferred). The values assigned to each of the questions
representing a given level (e.g. physiological level) were
summed. When scores had been computed for each level, the
level having the lowest score was considered to be the one
most preferred by the respondent. This was interpreted as

that individual's Maslow level.

Environmental Action Survey

The survey of environmental action behaviors was based
on a model proposed by Hungerford and Peyton, (1976), and
later refined by Champeau (1982). Using the categories of
action from Peyton/Champeau and some of their examples, the
author designed more questions with the intent of including
examples of actions in each category.

The rationale for assigning sublevels to each category
was based on the premise that one action might have several
different possible motivational bases. In the example which
follows, it was seen as a possibility that picking up litter
at home might be motivated by a sense of civic pride,
domestic duty, peer pressure, financial incentive,.or

commitment to the environment. Addition of sublevels -

 

44

other litter pickup situations — was intended to allow the
researcher to separate someone who picks up litter out of
environmental commitment from someone who does so due to
other motivations.

A person motivated by peer pressure might pick up
litter around his home and neighborhood, but not as
consistently in public or commercial areas. The sublevels
were intended to reduce the likelihood that
non—environmentally-motivated persons would be classed with
those strongly environmentally motivated.

An example of one such question (in the "ecomanagement"

Icategory) with sublevels follows.

 

Within the past year, how Often have you

1. Picked up any type of litter -

a. at home b. in your neighborhood
__ not at all __ not at all

__ seldom __ seldom

__ occasionally __ occasionally

frequently __ frequently

 

 

45
c. in public areas d. in commercial areas
(parks, etc.) (parking lots, shopping
centers)
__ not at all __ not at all
__ seldom __ seldOm
__ occasionally __ occasionally
__ frequently ___frequently

 

Scoring of the environmental action questions was done
with a four-response scale (Not at all = 0; Seldom = 1;

' Occasionally = 2; Frequently = 3). This allowed summation of
the scores for total environmental action — Total
Environmental Score or TES.

To obtain evidence of content validity for the
environmental action part of the survey, the researcher used
an accepted outline (Hungerford and Peyton, 1976) to define
the domain of the environmental action content as well as
topics from three other research surveys for specific
questions (Sia et a1, 1983; Champeau, 1982; and Larson,
1981). This researcher and the major professor were the
final authorities on the content and syntax for each of the
survey items.

From the theoretic basis of the environmental action
survey it was expected that members of environmental
organizations would score higher on environmental action

items than persons who were not members of such

 

 

 

 

46

 

organizations. The pilot study supported this expectation;
when TES was compared between members of environmental
organizations and members of conservative churches, the
results showed a significant difference (t = 4.50, d.f. = 21,
P<.01). A Cronbach's alpha computation for inter-item
reliability of the survey results showed an alpha value of
.946. Together, these factors indicate that the
environmental action part of the survey both represents the
existing knowledge of environmental action and shows a
positive relationship with membership in environmental action
groups. This supports the contention that the Environmental

' Action Survey does measure degree of environmental action.

 

 

Environmental Commitment or Perception of Amount of Concern

Necessary to Take Environmental Actions

As the construction of the survey became more defined,
it was noted that it would not be possible to determine with
certainty a respondent's commitment to environmental action.
Despite the request that only those actions done "at least
pgrtially because of your concern for the environment" be
included in the survey, it was expected that some respondents
might include actions done for non—environmental reasons.
This expectation was supported by Hines' review of

environmental action research (1983).

To better determine the commitment, another section, the

 

 

 

47

Environmental Commitment/Concern Scale asked each respondent
to indicate on a three—part scale how much environmental
commitment it would take for an individual to complete any of
the actions in the preceding section. Responses were scored
as follows: very much = 1, a moderate amount = 2, and very
little = 3.

Evidence for reliability and validity of this section
came from several sources. Reliability was measured by
Cronbach's alpha computation for inter-item variability. The
alpha value for this section of the survey was .80,
indicating a high level of reliability.

The environmental education literature has precedent for
asking persons to indicate their concern. Dillman and
Christenson (1972) asked respondents to rank community
problems according to their perceptions of the extent of the
problem. Dunlap et a1 (1973) used a "Concern for
Environmental Rights" scale asking respondents to indicate in
selected environmental situations their perceptions of
primacy of interests e.g. the good of the environment,
individual rights, industrial needs. In these cases, persons
answered reliably and consistently with other theoretic
constructs when asked about environmental concern.

Validity of this section comes from this precedent as
well as the fact that this form of question was recommended
by a panel of professionals in environmental education and
adult education. This researcher and the major professor

concluded that, within the limitations which apply to any

 

 

 

 

%

self-report of attitudes, asking persons to report on their

48

perceptions of amount of commitment necessary to take such
actions was a valid question. Validity of each of the
"content" portions of the questions (e.g. recycling,
petitioning) has already been established in an earlier
section.

On the bases of these factors, it was decided that the
section measuring perceived commitment or concern necessary

to take environmental actions was both reliable and valid.

Weighted Environmental Score

The environmental commitment measure was used to compute
a weighted score for environmental action (Weighted
Environmental Score or WES). The value for WES was obtained
by multiplying the commitment score for an action category by
the environmental action score for that category, then
summing all categories. The following is an example of
weighting: a person who felt that picking up litter required
little commitment to the environment would receive a lower
WES than a person who felt that it took a great deal of

commitment, even if they had picked up the same amount of

 

litter in the same situations. In effect, this weighted more

heavily the actions of the individual who felt committed to

an environmental action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

Social or Political Action Survey

 

In designing this study, it was understood that
non—environmental actions might account for a large part of
the variance which explains how a person invests motivational
energies. The general motivational and personality surveys
may indicate one of several types of behaviors, among them
environmental action and other social/political actions.

Maslow (1954, p. 211) writes that self—actualizers are
"strongly focused on problems outside themselves".

' Environmental problems would be one example of a focal point
of this type, but persons involved in other
(non-environmental) social or political actions would be
another group who might have a similar motivational and
personality profile.

For these reasons, another part of the research survey
was designed which would allow the researcher to determine
levels or types of non-environmental social or political
action. This portion of the survey specifically excluded any
such actions in the environmental realm.

Understanding a person's social/political activism will
help in two ways. First, it will explain a part of the
variance in predicting the behavioral results of a person's
personality profile. And second, it will help in either
motivating a non-involved person toward action, or in moving

someone who is socially or politically active but not

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

currently involved in environmental action toward being more
environmentally active.

Since no model for social and political action
categories was found, the Peyton/Champeau model for
categories of environmental action was applied to other
social or political actions. Using questions generated by
the use of this model, the researcher asked three
professional social scientists to independently review and
edit the list of possible actions. When this was finished,
it was compiled, revised, and sent to four other researchers
in the social science area for their evaluation. On the
' basis of their comments, the form of the social/political
part of the survey was finalized. This process was designed
to achieve content validity.

The researcher attempted to establish construct validity
by beginning with the fact that those at high Maslow levels
and at the "higher" Rokeach levels are concerned with
non-self issues such as the "good of mankind in
general"(Maslow, 1954, p.211). They would be expected to
show a high degree of commitment to such causes. While
either environmental or social/political action would be
capable of satisfying such concerns, it is likely that such
individuals would not confine their actions to any single
realm.

Many of these persons would be likely to be involved in
both types of actions, in which case involvement in one type

would be related to involvement in the other. One line of

 

 

 

 

51

support for this comes from Tucker (1978), who found a
significant positive relationship between a social
responsibility scale and membership in an environmental
organization. Analysis of the current research showed that
when persons in environmental groups were compared to those
from conservative churches, the environmental groups were
significantly more involved in social/political action (t =
3.88, d.f. = 162, P<.01). This helps establish construct
validity for the social/political action survey.

Inter—item reliability of the instrument was tested with
Cronbach's alpha test. The value of alpha was .876,

' indicating a high level of reliability.

The preceding paragraphs have shown that the
social/political action survey was based on an accepted
action model (from the environmental realm), that it was
revised and edited by professionals in the field, that it
corroborated Tucker’s finding about persons being involved in
at least two general altruistic behavior sets, and that it
showed high inter-item reliability. These indicate that the
instrument had sufficiently high reliability and validity to
be used in the current study.

Scoring of the social/political action survey also used
a four—part scale (never, seldom, Often, frequently). Values
from 0 (never) to 3 (frequently) were assigned in tabulating
results. As with the environmental action portion, the
total social/political action score for all actions or scores

for individual actions could be used in analysis.

 

 

 

52

The social/political action survey was not designed to
be used in a weighted sense as was the environmental action
survey. There was no corresponding commitment/concern
survey. The first reason for this is the similarity between
the environmental action and the social/political action
portions of the survey. Of the 19 items on the
social/political action survey, 11 had counterparts on the
environmental action survey. These matched items could be
used if one wished to learn of perceived amounts of concern
necessary to undertake the actions in question. A second
reason was the desire to keep the size of the total survey as
' small as possible; a separate concern/commitment section for
the other social/political realms was not judged to be a
critical variable.

Further support for not weighting the social/political
items came with the results and will be explained more in the

discussion section.

Terminal Values — Rokeach's Values Survey

 

The final portion of the survey was designed to census
personality variables. The form used in this study was the
Rokeach Terminal Values Survey (1972). It required
respondents to assign priorities to 18 different terminal
values, such as Freedom, Self-respect, Wisdom, and A Sense of

Accomplishment. These values are a person's "conception of

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

something that is personally or socially preferable"
(Rokeach, 1973, p. 10).

This forced rank procedure discerned the respondent's
preeminent value, and allowed analysis for constellations of
very important values. In ranking, respondents were asked to
assign first priority to the most important value, eighteenth
to the least important value.

The Rokeach instrument was designed with both
theoretical and empirical bases. Noting that theorists have
postulated that between two and twenty-eight terminal values
exist, Rokeach derived a list of values within that range
I using sociological and psychological values literature. He
then increased the validity of his list by interviewing a
group of 30 graduate students in psychology and a random
sample of 100 adults in Lansing (MI) about their values. The
two lists were matched, then reduced by eliminating those
judged to be synonymous (e.g. peace of mind and inner
harmony) or highly correlated (the correlation between
ratings of salvation and unity with God was over .80). The
resulting list, composed of values which appeared in the
literature and in interviews, was reduced to 18 items. These
items compose the values list that is both smallest in number
and most inclusive (Robinson and Shaver, 1973).

Several of the values measured by the Rokeach survey
correlate highly with the behaviors they would be expected to
indicate. Equality is the value most predictive of becoming

involved in civil rights activities. Salvation is the value

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

which best predicts church attendance. And World of Beauty
best discriminates between artists and those in other
professional groups (Rokeach, 1973).

Rokeach also reported a median test-retest reliability
score of .76 after two to four months, and .69 after fourteen
to sixteen months (1973). The instrument appears to be

reliable, even over a relatively long time span.

Distribution of the Survey

Sample Population

 

The sample populations were drawn from members of
Michigan citizens' environmental organizations (N - 171) and
from members of Free Methodist (conservative protestant)
churches (N = 232) in Michigan. The church group was from
churches in Monroe (n=36), Davison (n=88), Boyne City (n=26),
Watervliet (n=16), and Troy (n=66).

There were three different environmental groups sampled,
the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and the West Michigan
Environmental Action Council (WMEAC). Specifically, surveys
were sent to officers of the Michigan Sierra Club (n=17), and
to selected members of the Saginaw Valley (n27), Traverse Bay

(n=19), and Wakelin—McNeil (n=15) Groups. Other surveys were

 

 

 

 

55

sent to members of the Jackson (MI) Audubon Society (n=68),
and to members of the WMEAC (n=45).

In none of these organizations would the charter or
bylaws allow wholesale distribution of the mailing lists. In
order to circumvent this rule, the researcher contacted the
head of the group involved. These individuals were persuaded
to send a list of acquaintances who belonged to the
organization. The only selection criterion was that the
individual be active in the organization (as opposed to being
only a name on a mailing list). This served the purpose of
gaining the researcher access to names and addresses of
' people known to be active in the desired organizations. An
exception to this procedure was the case of WMEAC. Here, no
addresSes were permitted to be released, but the Chair
volunteered to send the surveys to individuals in the
organization if such surveys were sent to the organization in
bulk. It is understood that these procedures introduced some
bias into the surveyed population, but the researcher felt
that the bias served to include those persons who better
conform to the ideals of each of the groups - to have members

who are actively pursuing the goals of the organization.

Incentives to Increase Rate of Return

 

In order to achieve the highest possible rate of return

for the survey, several different strategies were

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

incorporated. The cover letter (first page of the survey,
Appendix 1) included several direct personal appeals as well
as an implicit association with both Spring Arbor College and
Michigan State University. There was also a financial
incentive, but for the benefit of the group with which the
individual was associated. As explained in the cover letter,
each returned survey would result in a donation of $.50 to
the group. In this way, large numbers of surveys being
returned could result in a significant contribution to the
group's treasury. It was expected that the group financial
incentive would encourage participation, but would avoid some
I of the potential difficulties encountered in offering direct
personal financial incentives.

It should be noted here that this procedure might also
influence the character of the respondent group. It might,
because Of the group incentive, lead to a group more heavily
composed of those strongly motivated to support the group
financially. Since this is another means of actively
pursuing the goals of the organization, it would not be
undesirable to have this group well represented. As can be
seen on the survey data from both social/political action and
environmental action, it clearly did not eliminate those who
are not active in donations of money to environmental or
social/political causes.

Also included were two introductory letters from
well—known individuals urging participation in the study.

The first letter was from Harry Whitely, the chairman of the

 

 

 

57

 

Michigan Natural Resources Commission (Appendix 2). The
second letter was one of several designed to be more specific
to the group of which the individual was a member. For
various groups, letter number two was from the chair of the
state chapter of the Sierra Club (Mackinac Chapter), the
president of the Michigan Audubon Society, the Superintendent
of the North Michigan Conference of the Free Methodist
Church, or the pastor of the surveyed individual's local Free
Methodist Church (Appendix 2).

In addition, the pastors of the churches involved in the
study were asked to announce at least once from the pulpit

' that completion of the survey had their approval.
Individuals who had not returned the survey within two

weeks were mailed a reminder postcard. They were not sent a

 

 

second survey with the postcard. Non—respondents were not

censused to determine possible response bias.

Analysis of the Data

 

This section will describe the procedures by which the
data were examined in answering the research questions
described in the introductory chapter. Each question will be

restated, then the methods of analysis will be described.

 

58

Research Question 1a. Is there a relationship between

Maslow level and environmental action (level and type)?

Maslow level was determined by the adaptation of Beer's
survey as was previously described. pgygl of environmental
action was estimated by using the weighted environmental
score (WES). Pearson's r was used to determine the
correlation between these two variables.

Type of environmental action was examined by observing
the total environmental score (TES) for each of the questions

of the environmental action survey. ANOVA was used to

 

I determine whether there was a relationship between each
question's TES and Maslow level

Whether to use WES or TES was determined by the type of

 

analysis intended. When the researcher was interested in
overall action levels which showed environmental concern, WES
was used. When more specific actions or motivations were
being analyzed, TES was used. The use of TES was preferred
in these cases to avoid having two different motivational
constructs measured with the same specific behavior. For
example, when Rokeach's health terminal value was being
analyzed with specific environmental actions, the researcher
wanted to be able to state the relationship between concern
for health and the environmental action, without also having
to deal with the possible intervening effects of the

environmental concern variable.

 

59

Analysis for the relationship between Maslow level and
pypg of environmental action was done in two different ways.
The first way was designed to discern whether any Maslow
level was more or less active in a Specific action. For each
of the 45 actions,it used ANOVA to find whether there were
differences in amount of action among the five different
Maslow levels. The safety/security level was eliminated since
there was only one individual classed in this group. If the
data were thought of as a matrix with the five Maslow levels
as the X axis and the 45 actions as the Y axis, this analysis
' would be horizontal, one row at a time.

With the same data matrix, the second analysis was
vertical. For each Maslow level, it compared amounts of all
types of environmental action, again using ANOVA.

There was one additional manipulation of the data in
this second analysis. In order to facilitate data
manipulation, the environmental actions were collapsed into
general types of actions. Thus, picking up litter at home,
in the neighborhood, in public areas, and in commercial
areas, would be reduced to a single score for litter pick-up.
This resulted in a reduction from 45 to 17 environmental
action scores. These scores were then changed to percent
scores, allowing comparison of the litter question (possible
raw score range 0 - 12) with the monetary donation question
(possible raw score range 0 - 9) etc. With this conversion,

a person who had a score of 8 out of a possible 12 points on

 

 

 

T____________ 444,
60

the litter questions (67%) would be able to be compared with
someone who had a score of 6 out of 9 on the monetary
donation questions (also 67%). They were both active in

proportionally the same amounts.

 

Research Question 1b. Is there a relationship between

Maslow level and socio/political action (level and type)?

First, Maslow level was correlated with lpygl of
social/political action. The level of social/political
action was computed by summing the scores for all of the

‘ social/political action questions (SP5). The possible
correlation between Maslow level and level of
social/political action was examined with the Pearson's r

statistic.

The relationship between Maslow level and the type of

social/political action used frequency scores for each action

 

as the indicator of type of action. The social/political
action data was placed in matrix form with Maslow categories
on the X axis, and again, both horizontal and vertical
analyses were performed with ANOVA. The horizontal analyses
were to determine whether there were differences among Maslow
groups for amount of each type of action. The vertical
analyses were to determine whether there were differences
among amounts of the various types of actions at each Maslow

level.

 

61

Research Question 2. Is there a relationship between
Maslow level and the presence and importance of specific

elements of Rokeach's Terminal Values survey?

Surveys were placed into categories according to which
of Rokeach’s 18 terminal values was classified as first
priority. Seven of the 18 terminal values were found to
account for 146 of the 164 surveys returned (89%). The n for
these values ranged from 72 to 6. Analysis of variance was
used to compare mean Maslow scores among these seven terminal

' value groups.

Research Question 3a. Is there a relationship between
environmental activism (level and type) and the dominance of

specific elements of the Terminal Values survey?

For level of action, survey scores were grouped
according to the Terminal Value element given priority #1.
By using ANOVA the most commonly occurring groups were

examined for their relationship with WES.

Analysis for Eypg of environmental action was done in a
manner analogous with research question 1. The data matrix
for this analysis had the seven most commonly occurring
dominant Rokeach terminal values on the X axis and the

seventeen different general action types on the Y

 

 

 

62

axis. These 17 action types were the ones derived by
collapsing the original 45 situation—specific actions. ANOVA
was used to first find whether there were differences in
amount among types of actions for each dominant Rokeach
terminal value (vertical analysis). Next, ANOVA was used to
find whether there were differences among the dominant
Rokeach terminal values for amount of each type of action

(horizontal analysis).

Research Question 3b. Is there a relationship between
social/political activism (level and type) and the dominance

of specific elements of the Terminal Values survey?

Level of social/political activism was analyzed using
the same seven Terminal Value groups as in question 3a.
Analysis of variance was applied to total social/political
action scores versus each of the seven most common dominant

Rokeach terminal values.

Typg of social/political action was examined as in 3a,
using ANOVA. The data matrix in this case had the seven most
commonly occurring dominant Rokeach terminal values on the X
axis and the 19 different social/political actions on the Y
axis. Both horizontal and vertical analyses were performed,

determining whether there were significant differences among

 

 

 

63

amounts of each type of action for each dominant Rokeach
terminal value, as well as whether there were significant
differences among Rokeach terminal values for amounts of each

type of action.

All analysis was done on a PDP—ll computer using the

Minitab statistical analysis package.

 

 

 

Chapter 4

RESULTS

In addition to presentation and analysis of data, this
chapter will present demographic information and other

'post—hoc observations pertinent to the study questions.

Description of Respondents

Members of environmental groups returned 52% (89) of
their surveys; members of Free Methodist churches returned
32% (74) of their surveys.

Most respondents reported having at least some college
education (Table 1). The occupation most often listed by
respondents from both groups was "official/professional"
(Table 4.1). Income levels were distributed evenly among
all respondents from both groups (X2 = 6.67 for
environmental groups, 4.32 for church groups, each with df =
4; Table 1).

Six of the respondents from Free Methodist churches
(8%) indicated that they also belong to some environmental

64

 

 

 

65

organization.

There was an even distribution of urban, suburban, and
rural respondents among the environmental groups (X2=.427,
df=2). The church group was not evenly distributed
(X2=8.742, df=2, p<.02), being less well represented in
urban areas.

There were no significant differences in numbers of
males and females responding to the survey from either
group.

When the three environmental groups were compared for
amount of environmental action (using WES), it was found
’that there were no significant differences among the groups

(F = 2.27, d.f. = 2,86).

 

66

Table 4.1. Responses to selected demographic questions (by

O

s of respondent group — church/environmental)

 

Education

Some college College degree or Graduate
degree

some graduate school

36% / 13% 23% / 38% 12% / 38%
Occupation

Official or professional Homemaker

36% / 63% 28% / 12%

Home site
Urban Suburban Rural

18% / 36% 45% / 34% 38% / 30%

Family Income (in units Of $1,000)
<10 10—20 20—30 30—40 >40

11% / 15% 23% / 20% 19% / 24% 17% / 13% 13% / 25%

 

67

Research Questions

 

Research Question #1 was "Is there a relationship
between Maslow level and environmental action (level and
type); between Maslow level and social/political action
(level and type)?" This question was subdivided into the

following relationships.

Maslow level and level of environmental action

Using the Maslow score (determined with Beer's
Preference Inventory) as the independent variable and the
weighted environmental score (WES) as the dependent
variable, analysis with Pearson's r showed that there was
very little correlation between the two variables (r=.07,

P=.49).

Maslow level and type of environmental action

Possible relationships between Maslow level and type of
environmental action were investigated in two ways.

The first analysis was designed to determine whether
individuals at different Maslow levels were more or less

active with regard to specific environmental behaviors.

 

68

Each of the 45 environmental behaviors was tested by ANOVA
to find whether there were frequency differences among the
various Maslow levels (Appendix C). Results were
statistically significant for only two of the 45 actions.
For action #1.d (litter pick—up — commercial areas), F =
2.90, d.f. = 4,158, P<.05. Observation of the confidence
interval estimates shows that those persons at Maslow levels
II and VI appeared to be lower in frequency of litter pickup
in commercial areas than were the other groups. The second
action showing a statistically significant difference (F =
2.82, d.f. = 4,158, P<.05) was action #17.c (donations —
’national) where those at Maslow level II were higher than
all other groups (Table 4.2).

Although not statistically significant in most cases,
it was seen that individuals at Maslow level II were
quantitatively higher than any other group in 33 of the 45

(73%) environmental action questions (Appendix C). :

The second means of analysis looked at each Maslow
group individually, examining action scores on the 17
environmental action types. Significant differences were
found among environmental action scores in every one of the
five Maslow categories (the safety/security level was
eliminated because of extremely low sample size).

The analysis may be seen in Table 4.3. Generalizations
may be made from this table if the percentage scores of >60%

and (20% are used as arbitrary (not statistically

 

Table 4.2.

69

ANOVA and 95%confidence interval estimates for

environmental actions l.d and 17.c when

comparing mean action frequency among all Maslow
levels. *

 

Action l.d (pick up litter - commercial)

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

N
77
23
11
16

36

MEAN
1.3377
0.8696
1.4545
1.4375

0.9722

POOLED STDEV - 0.8014

Action 17.c (donate $ -

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN
1.1039
1.7391
0.9091
0.7500
0.8056

POOLED STDEV - 1.1450

* all other actions are included as Appendix C

STDEV
0.7365
0.8689
0.6876
0.9639

0.8447

national)

STDEV
1.1190
1.2869
1.0445
1.1255
1.1419

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

Tr

(

t

(

(

(i-~----)
)
t

uh

<---*----->

030

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

LL
1'

1.20

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

A
v

1.60

 

 

 

2.90
df-
158
P<.05

P-
2.82

df-
158

P<.05

 

Table 4.3.

'70

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for
each Maslow level when comparing mean action
frequencies among types of environmental action.

 

Maslow level I (self-actualization)

Action

Mme N
1 77
3 77
4 77
5 77
6 77
7 77
a 77
9 77
10 77
12 77
13 77
14 77
15 77
16 77

POOLED STDEV =

MEAN
0.67623
0.26727
0.36377
0.13870
0.26701
0.17727
0.54610
0.69377
0.60948
0.35468
0.48714
0.09338
0.12338
0.03481
0.05831

0.62896,

0.36662

0.26929

Maslow level II (esteem

Action N
Type 23
1 23
2 23
3 2.
s 23
6 23
7 23
e 23
9 23
10 fig
11 :-
12 :3
13 *

14 33
15 :g
16 e

17 23

POOLED STDEU =

MEAN
0.61957
0.33696
0.47130
0.23174
0.40130
0.26087
0.69696
0.70652
0.70609
0.45652
0.67348
0.11522
0.13000
0.04348
0.09391
0.74043
0.58087

0.27944

81020
0.17658
0.27124
0.32577
0.24584
0.30168
0.29159
0.38344
0.23654
0.22573
0.32129
0.32191
0.18210
0.19755
0.10246
0.14983
0.33368
0.32890

self)

STDEV
0.17071
0.36894
0.31663
0.28705
0.33575
0.35282
0.33861
0.20621
0.23754
0.34082
0.32723
0.23027
0.18725
0.10272
0.13954
0.26510
0.34224

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

.BASED ON POOLED STUEU

--+ --------- + --------- + --------- +---

(-t—-)
(-*-->
(-#--)
(--x-)
<-x--)
(-r--)
<--x-)
<--x-)
<-x--)
<--x-)
<-r--)
(--x-)
c-x--)
<-x--)
<-t--)
(-s--)
(-¥--)
--+ --------- + --------- + --------- +
0.00 0.24 0.48 0.72

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEU

 

“‘+ -‘ T '+ --------- +-"
("-t--)
(---X'--)
(-?‘*'--)
("’*"-)
(“‘3-‘-)
("-*---)

(--‘*--‘)
(-"*‘-)
(—"*1f)

(“‘t---)
(--*'--)
(“‘*‘--)
(--*-'-)
("3"‘)
(‘--¥---)
(-"*---)
(-'*---)
--‘+ -------- + ------- + ------- +-‘
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90

P-
54.23

di-
16,
1292

P<.01

F-
17.85

di-
16,
374

P<.01

 

7].

Table 4.3 (continued).

Maslow level III (esteem - others)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

 

Action BASED ON POOLED 81080 P-
Typ. N MEAN srnrv ----- + --------- +-—- e + 10-52
1 11 0.72727 0.17470 (----4----)

2 11 0.31727 0.28107 < ----- *----> df-
3 11 0.36364 0.30605 <--——x———-) 15.
4 11 0.03000 0.09950 (--—-x----) 170
s 11 0.13091 0.19781 <----x ----- )

5 11 0.09000 0.13755 <----x----) P<.01
7 11 0.46545 0.34500 < ----- x---->

a 11 0.70909 0.20681 ( ..... .----.

9 11 0046182 0034438 (‘-'-¥ ----- )

10 11 0.27273 0.33577 (----t----)

11 11 0.56091 0.34405 ( ----- xe---)

12 11 0.05000 0.09022 < ----- t----)

13 11 0.09182 0.20346 (----x----)

14 11 0 0 <----x----) ’

15 11 0 0 (---—x-——-)

16 11 0.45455 0.30959 <----x----)

17 11 0.33273 0.33003 <----x----)

----- +--- s + —-+-
POOLED STDEV = 0.26293 -_ ,-_ _ 0.00 g0.30‘”_", 0.60 _0.90_
"9'10" 1°V°1 IV (1°V°) runrvrnunt 95 PCT-CI’S FOR MEAN
. BASED 0w POOLED sroev p-

ActiOn N MEAN STDEV ----+ --------- + --------- + --------- +--8.63
TYPO 16 0.66125 0.20966 (----r----)

1 16 0.28125 0.35193 c----x----) d1.
2 16 0.36563 0.38171 (----r----> 15,
3 16 0.13563 0.29353 < ----- x----) 255
4 16 0.18750 0.28375 <----x----)

5 16 0.19500 0.26907 < ----- x-—--) p<.01
5 16 0.50063 0.47164 <----x----)

7 16 0.67500 0.25560 <-----:----)

3 16 0.57313 0.32780 <----x----)

9 16 0.28188 0.36907 <----r---->

1° 16 0.53188 0.35626 <----x---->

11 16 0.06938 0.22201 (----t----)

12 16 0.07313 0.25078 (----x----)

13 16 0.05188 0.14511 <—---s---->

14 16 0.06250 0.14726 (----x----)

15 16 -0.62625 0.31979 (----t----)

15 16 0.30563 0.36026 <----x---—) .

17 ----+ --------- + ------- --+ --------- +--
pooreu 37089 0.30659 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90

Q

Maslow level VI (physiological)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

Action BASED ON POOLED STDEV :-
Typ. N MEAN STDEV -‘-+ --------- + ------- + w +--- 23.51
1 36 0059778 0019595 (“"“"")
2 36 0.30778 0.34589 (---¥---) df-
3 36 0.24528 0.28070 (---¥---) égé
4 36 0.08833 0.18067 <---x--)
5 36 0.31500 0.32582 (‘--!---) 01
6 36 0.19750 0.30013 (---¥---) P<.
7 36 0.52528 0.38621 (---¥---)
8 36 0.69583 .20350 (---¥--‘)
9 36 0.61111 0.26996 (--¥---)
10 36 0.29611 0.35020 (--¥---)
11 36 0.51389 0.33928 (--i---)
12 36 0.06139 0.14367 (---t--)
13 36 0.17583 0.24204 (--*‘--)
14 36 0.03694 0.09789 (---¥--)
15 36 0.04167 0.11503 (---*--)
16 36 0.62139 0.33065 (---#---)
17 36 0.34250 0.32219 (--*---)
---+ --------- + --------- + --------- +---
POOLED STDEV = 0.27462 0.00 .24 0.48 0.72

 

72

 

significant) cut-off points. Actions 1 (litter pick—up), 8
(turn lights off), and 16 (stop buying a potentially harmful
product) appear to uniformly be the highest frequency
actions — at all Maslow levels. The actions appearing at
uniformly lowest frequencies are 4 (distribute a petition),
6 (campaign), 12 (make a speech), 13 (report a violation),
14 (lawsuit), and 15 (injunction). These items are not
discriminators of certain Maslow levels; they are actions
consistent at all Maslow levels.

Actions which can be associated with specific Maslow
levels are more difficult to determine. Examination of the
means and confidence interval estimates resulted in the
following observations.

Maslow level I was found to have no actions which
distinguished it from any of the others.

Maslow level II was distinguished by being the only
level to have actions 7 (vote) and 11 (discussion) at levels
above 60%.

Maslow levels III and IV were seen to be the only
levels in which action 5 (attempt to influence elected
officials) was less than 20%, as well as the only levels in
which action 9 (purchase for environmental reasons) was ggt
above 60%. There were no unique discriminators of Maslow
level VI. While these observations are not statistical
analyses, the patterns are important in comparison with

other data.

 

73

 

Maslow level and level of social and/or political action

Social/political action was measured by Part IV of the
survey (Appendix A). Scores for each action were summed to
result in a social/political action total score (SPS). When
Pearson’s r was used to correlate Maslow level with SP5, the
result was r=.l48. There was no significant correlation

between the two sets of scores.

~Maslow level and type of social and/or political action

This relationship was examined in two ways. The first
was on the basis of actions. Each of the 19 actions was
examined in turn, using ANOVA to determine whether there
were differences in amount of action among the Maslow
levels. None of the ANOVAs showed any significant
differences (Appendix D).

One relationship which did appear on the basis of this
analysis was that Maslow level II had the highest action
levels in 7 of the 19 actions. Though the differences
between Maslow level II and the other levels are not
statistically significant, this is a pattern similar to the
results of the comparison of Maslow level and environmental

action.

 

 

74

The second way in which this data was examined was on
the basis of Maslow level. Each Maslow level was singled
out and ANOVA was used to determine whether there were
differences in amount of action among all 19 of the
social/political actions (Table 4.4).

For every one of the five Maslow levels tested the
values of F were significant at P<.Ol. There are
differences among frequencies of social/political actions
for each Maslow group.

Some generalizations emerged from obesrvations of the
data. Maslow levels I, II, and III showed the highest
'frequencies of action for those items involving education,
with voting behaviors being the second most frequent. The
highest action frequencies for Maslow levels IV and VI were
for voting behaviors, with education activities ranking
second in frequency. Closer examination shows that the
frequency means for voting behaviors are quite similar among
all Maslow levels. It appears that the frequency of
education actions are higher than voting in the higher
Maslow levels and lower than voting in the lower Maslow
levels. While these differences in frequency of
social/political action may not be statistically
significant, the pattern should be noted for comparison with
other research questions.

The behavior appearing at the lowest frequency appears

to be filing lawsuits, at all Maslow levels.

 

 

Table 4.4.

 

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for
each Maslow level when comparing mean action

 

'75

frequencies among social/political actions.

\

Maslow level I (self-actualization)

Soc/pol
action

NEAN
0.8961
0.2468
1.2338
1.3247
0.4286
0.4805
0.2727
0.8701
1.2987
1.6623
0.7273
0.3506
0.2078
0.2208
1.1039
1.3377
1.7922
1.6883
1.2857

STDEU
0.9260
0.5656
0.8870
0.8651
0.7332
0.7714
0.6617
1.0046
1.0521
0.9544
0.9547
0.6838
0.6353
0.6412
1.0206
1.0338
0.9081
1.1033
1.0495

POOLED STDEU = 0.8813

Maslow level II (esteem - self)

Soc/pol
action

N
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

MEAN
1.08696
0.47826
1.08696
1.21739
0.47826
0.60870
0.39130
1.34783
1.65217
1.65217
0.47826
0.30435
0.08696
0.26087
1.00000
1.13043
1.56522
1.65217
0.95652

POOLED STDEV = 0.90315

STDEU
0.94931
0.66535
1.08347
0.85048
0.66535
0.94094
0.78272
1.26522
1.02730
1.19121
0.84582
0.47047
0.28810
0.68870
0.95346
1.05763
0.94514
0.93462
0.97600

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FBR MEAN

29.28
df-
18,
1444

P<.01

BASED ON POOLED STDEU
---------- +---------+-------—-+------
(--x--)
(--4--)
<--—x--)
(--t--)
<--x——)
(—-x--)
(---x--)
<—--x~-)
<---x--)
(---t--)
<--x-->
(--x--)
(--x—--)
(---4--)
(--t---)
<-—4--->
<--x-->
<--x--)
(--4--->
---------- +--—------+---------+------
0.60 .20 1.80

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR HEAN

 

 

BASED ON POOLED STDEU
----+—-- + — + --------- +--
<---t----)
(----¥~---)
(—--x----)
(----t----)
(-—--x----)
<----:-?--)
(-—--t----)
(----t----)
(-—--:---->
<----t----)
<----t----)
(~---:---->
(----x—---)
<---x----)
(----x---->
(-—--#----)
<----x-—--)
<-—--x----)
(-—--t----)
----+ --------- + --------- + --------- +—-
0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25

P-
7.63

df-
18,
418

P<.01

 

 

 

 

Maslow level III (esteem - others)

Table 4.4
Soc/pol
action N
1 11
2 11
3 11
4 11
5 11
6 11
7 11
3 11
9 11
10 11
11 11
12 11
13 11
14 11
15 11
16 11
17 11
18 11
19 11

POOLED STDEV =
Hallow level
Soc/pol
action N
1 16
2 16
3 16
4 16
S 16
6 16
7 16
8 16
9 16
10 16
ll 16
12 16
13 16
14 16
15 16
16 16
17 16
18 16
19 16

MEAN
0.81818
0.27273
0.90909
1.36364
0.45455
0.45455
0.18182
1.00000
1.27273
1.63636
0.72727
0.36364
0.09091
0.63636
1.00000
1.27273
1.81818
1.90909
1.54545

0.93676

IV (love)

1.4375
1.1250
1.0625

POOLED sTDEv = 0.7914

Hallow level

Soc/pol
action N
1 36
2 36
3 36
4 36
5 36
g 36
36
3 36
9 36
1° 36
11 36
12 36
13 36
1‘ 36
15 36
15 36
17 36
18 36
19 36

POOLED STDEV =

MEAN
0.86111
0.13889
0.86111
1.00000
0.22222
0.36111
0.05556
0.63889
1.02778
1.69444
0.66667
0.44444
0.05556
0.11111
0.86111
1.02778
1.55556
1.55556
1.16667

0.78772

(continued).

STDEV
1.16775
0.46710
0.83121
0.92442
0.82020
0.68755
0.40452
1.09545
1.19087
1.02691
0.90453
0.50453
0.30151
1.02691
1.18322
1.00905
1.16775
1.04447
1.21356

VI (physiological)

1.02663
0.81064

 

76

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI‘S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED ON POOLED STUEV p-
: 1 : 1 3.95
( ------ x ------ )
( ------ I ------ ) df-
( —————— x ------ 1 13,
< ------ x ------ > no
( ------ x —————— 1
< ------ x ------ ) P<.Ol
< ------ x ------ )
< ------ x ----- >
< ------ x ------ >
( ------ x ------ )
< ------ x ------ 1
< ------ x ------ >
< ------ x ------ )
< ------ x----~-)
( —————— x ————— )
< ------ x ------ 1
( ------ x ------ 1
< ----- ~t------)
( ------ x ------ )
0.00 0.80 1.60 2.40
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT c1 8 FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV :-
5.67
df-
18,
285
P<.01
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT cr's FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV F-
: f , 1 15.81
(---t----)
<-—-x---—) df-
(---¥—---) 18,
1-~—-t---) 665
(-—-—t-—-)
(___‘___) P<.01
<--—x---)
(---—x—--)
(—--t---)
<---:-——-)
(---x--->
<——-x----)
(---x---)
<——-*---)
(---x--—-)
(-——x—--)
(---t~--)
(——-x---)
(-—-x~—--)
0.00 0.60 1.20 1.80

77

Research Question 2 Are there relationships between an

 

individual's Maslow level and the priority given to specific

elements of Rokeach's terminal values survey?

Respondents were grouped according to which terminal
values they had ranked as priority #1 on Rokeach's survey.
A set of seven of the eighteen values accounted for first
priority (dominant) position on 146 of the 164 returned
surveys (89%). The "n" values ranged from 72 to 6. ANOVA

revealed that there were no significant relationships

Ibetween mean Maslow levels and the seven most common Rokeach

values (F = 1.25, d.f. = 6,139).
Table 4.5 shows the mean Maslow level (with 95%
confidence intervals) of the seven most common Rokeach

terminal values.

Research Question 3 Is there a relationship between the

 

priority assigned to specific elements of Rokeach's terminal
values survey and environmental activism (level and type);

between priority assigned to specific elements of Rokeach's
terminal values survey and social/political activism (level
and type)? For analysis, this was broken into more concise

subquestions as follows.

78

Table 4.5. ANOVA and 95%confidence interval estimates

comparing mean Maslow level among the seven most
common Rokeach dominant terminal values. *

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN
Pokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEU

?31Ue N HEAN STDEV -‘-+ --------- +---~-::::;:::::;---+--~ {325

4 27 2.407 1.886 <- ___)

0 13 2.722 2.024 ( ------- x—--- ) g

11 72 3.014 2.191 <--::-- 6'

3 9 1.667 1.000 < ---------- x ---------- ‘139

15 a 2.625 2.200 < ----------- t ---------- .

3 6 2.333 2.160 <-—-—; ------- x-—---; ------- ) N.5
9 6 ( --------------------------

13 6 1.333 0 81 ___+ _________ + _________ + _________ +___

POOLED STDEv = 20028 000 102 204 306

* Rokeach values
14 salvation

peace

health

freedom

self—respect

sense of accomplishment
8 = wisdom

5

4
9
8
1
3
l

 

79

First priority Rokeach terminal value and level of

environmental action

The persons having the seven most frequently chosen
dominant terminal values were examined. These ranged from n
= 72 to n = 6. For each of these seven groups of
individuals, a mean was computed for the sums of each
individual's 45 weighted environmental action scores. These
means were compared by ANOVA among the seven terminal value
groups, resulting in a highly significant value for F (F =
11.22, d.f. = 6,139, P<.01). Table 4.6 shows 95% confidence
'intervals for the mean WES of each of the most common

dominant terminal values.

On the basis of Table 4.6, it appeared that the
"salvation" terminal value (#14) had a lower action score
than did any of the other terminal values. In order to test
whether it was the salvation group which was the source of
the differences found in the previously described ANOVA, a
second ANOVA was run on the top six Rokeach values which
remained when the salvation variable was removed. In this
case, there was no significant difference among the other

groups (F = 1.86, d.f. = 5,68).

Those people listing Rokeach's #3 value (a sense of
accomplishment) as their first priority value appear to be

higher in level of environmental action (WES) than the other

 

 

80

 

 

Table 4.6. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates
comparing weighted environmental score among the
seven most common Rokeach dominant terminal
values. *

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED srnev
value N HEAN swnrv ---- +—- 4 ——- — + —-——F=
4 27 123.00 48.07 (---t--) 11.22
.3 18 107.00 43.49 (---t----)
i4 72 62.71 40.45 (--x-1 gr:
3 9 106.22 61.96 t ----- t ----- 1 b-
15 8 114.75 26.71 ( ----- l ----- ) 139
3 6 166.67 . 61.11 ( ------ x ------ 1
15 6 107.00 46.01 < ------ x ------- ) P<~°l
---------- +---------+-—-------+------
F‘OOLED STDEU = 44.35 100 150 200

* Rokeach values

14 = salvation

4 a peace

9 a health

15 = self—respect

sense of accomplishment
18 = wisdom

3

 

81

groups, but the difference is not significant.

This shows that there is a difference among
environmental activism levels when persons having different
dominant Rokeach terminal values are compared. This
difference comes from the significantly lower WES scores of

those who rank the Rokeach value "salvation" as dominant.

First priority Rokeach terminal value and type of

environmental action

The seven most common Rokeach terminal values were
again selected for analysis in this section. As in the
first research question, the analysis was done in two

different ways.

The first type of analysis used each of the 45
environmental actions. For each action, ANOVA was employed
to find whether there were differences in level of action
among the seven different Rokeach terminal values. Most
actions appeared at significantly different levels among the
dominant Rokeach terminal values (Appendix E).

Those actions which did not show significant
differences among the dominant Rokeach terminal values were
the following:

l.a, l.b, l.d (pick up litter)

 

 

 

82

8.a, 8.b, 8.c (turn off lights)

9.b, 9.d (environmentally based purchases)
13.a, 13.b (report violations)

14.b (group lawsuit)

15.a (individual filing an injunction)

Those actions which did show significant differences
among the dominant Rokeach terminal values were categorized
by which of the terminal values groups showed the highest
and lowest levels of action.

In every case showing a significant difference, the
'difference appeared to be based on a lower score by those
choosing salvation as their dominant terminal value, thus
other comparisons are based on variations which are in most
cases not significantly different.

When those actions showing significant differences
among Rokeach terminal value groups were examined for which
terminal value group showed the highest score, some patterns
were seen.

Action frequencies for questions dealing with voting
(7.b,c), and with recycling (2.a,b,c,d) were highest for
those individuals choosing self-respect (Rokeach value #15)
as their dominant terminal value. This same group also had
the largest number of items for which they had a higher mean
action frequency than any other group (10/45).

The questions about attempting to influence elected

officials (5.a,b,c), purchasing for environmental reasons

 

 

 

83

(9.a,c,d), stop buying potentially harmful products (16),
and donating money (l7.b,c) showed highest response
frequencies among those choosing a sense of accomplishment
(Rokeach #3) as their dominant terminal value.

Questions dealing with campaigning (6.b,c) received the
highest action frequency from those choosing peace (Rokeach
#4) as their dominant terminal value.

Action frequencies for questions about making a public
appearance (12.b,c) showed the highest frequency of action
from individuals in the group choosing health (Rokeach #9)
as their first priority value.

The second type of analysis grouped data in categories

 

corresponding to the seven most common Rokeach dominant
terminal values. For each of these groups, ANOVA was used
to determine whether there were differences in amount among
all environmental actions. In order to reduce the size of
the data matrix, the 45 actions were collapsed into 17
action types. This eliminated the possibility of learning
about litter pick-up in the neighborhood versus at home, but
kept the general action type of litter pick—up. Another
change was required to allow the comparison of action types
— the scores had to be changed to percent. This allowed
comparisons of scores with different ranges e.g. 0-3 with
0-9, but did not change the overall distribution.

The seven ANOVAs done in this second analysis were all
significant at P<.Ol (Table 4.7).

Examination of the data shows that there are some

 

84

Table 4.7. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for

each of the seven most common dominant Rokeach
terminal values when comparing mean
environmental action frequency among all 17
environmental action types.

 

Rokeach dominant terminal value 14 (salvation)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

Action 94959 0N POOLED 57090 P-
type N MEAN 97950 --+ --------- + --------- + --------- +---- 58-03
1 72 0.60625 0.19536 <-x->
2 72 0.15961 0.20235 (--4-> df-
3 72 0.19931 0.29235 (-t--) 16.
4 72 0.04191 0.15793 1—1-1 1207
5 72 0.10931 0.21246 (--t-)
5 72 0.04000 0.13356 <--1-) P<-°1
7 72 0.32167 0.34019 (-:—->
8 72 0.69496 0.24574 <--4->
9 72 0.50709 0.26925 <-x-)
10 72 0.15750 0.27702 (--x->
11 72 0.39056 0.30122 <-x-)
12 72 0.02597 0.07499 <-t->
13 72 0.11347 0.20902 <-x-)
14 72 0.01153 0.05779 <-x-—)
15 72 0.02093 0.10459 <-4-)
16 72 0.54709 0.35156 <-:-)
17 72 0.14917 0.23667 1-1-1

-—+ —+- — ---+ --------- +----
POOLED 57099 = 0.23079 0.00 0.24 0.49 0.72
Rokeach dominant terminal value 4 (peace)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT cx's FOR menu
Action 94950 0N POOLED 91099 p.
type N MEAN 97950 -+ --------- + --------- + --------- + ----- 26.91
1 27 0.71630 0.19073 <--x-->
2 27 0.40741 0.36610 <-—-x--) df-
3 27 0.43222 0.30110 (-—:---) 16,
4 27 0.17296 0.22991 <--x--> 442
5 27 0.45741 0.31764 (--:--1
6 27 0.39519 0.36330 <--4--) p<.01
7 27 0.75370 0.29675 (--4-->
9 27 0.70444 .22555 <--4--->
9 27 0.76519 0.15550 <-——4--)
10 27 0.45741 0.31515 (--:--1
11 27 0.64704 0.29727 <---4-->
12 27 0010667 0017072 ("-"-)
13 27 0.12926 0.20299 <--:---)
14 27 0.06915 0.13272 (--x---)
15 27 0.11074 0.15920 (---x-->
16 27 0.74296 0.21271 (~-x-~)
17 27 0.65963 0.29796 <—-x--1

-+ --------- + --------- + --------- + -----
POOLED 97090 - 0.25771 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90

 

85

Table 4.7 (continued).

Rokeach dominant terminal value 9 (health)

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR HEAN

 

 

 

 

Action 94950 0N POOLED 37090 3-
tYpe N HEAN 97090 ----+-- 4 —— 4 ---+—- 13.97
1 19 0.70399 0.09519 1~--x----1
2 19 0.39333 0.32700 <—--x-—-1 df-
3 19 0.55556 0.29219 1----x---1 16.
4 19 0.29611 0.30504 1---x---1 289
5 19 0.40167 0.32711 <---x----1
6 19 0.39500 0.37069 1---x---1 P<.01
7 19 0.70444 0.37359 1---4----1
9 19 0.71222 0.15761 1---x—--1
9 19 0.61167 0.22566 1---1----1
10 18 0047167 028755 (""*"'-)
11 19 0.64779 0.31231 1----1---1
12 19 0.19056 0.26994 1-—-4--—1
13 19 0.10167 0.14064 1---x----1
14 19 0.02779 0.09537 1---4---1
15 19 0.02779 0.09537 <---4---1
16 19 0.63056 0.32196 1---1---1
17 19 0.45611 0.25971 1---4---1
----+ --------- + --------- + --------- +--
900190 97099 4 0.26701 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90
(Rokeach dominant terminal value 8 (freedom)
INDIUIDUAL 95 PCT 01's FOR HEAN
Action 94990 0N 900190 57090 :-
typo N HEAN 97050 - 4 4 4 4— 5,32
1 9 0.62999 0.13176 1-----x ----- 1
2 9 0038000 003639‘ ( ---- ‘ ..... ) df-
3 9 0.46333 0.33211 1 ----- 4 ------ 1 15'
4 9 0.27999 0.33479 1 ----- t ------ 1 135
5 9 0.34556 0.23431 1 ------ t ----- 1
6 9 0.21000 0.29720 1 ----- 4 ----- 1 p<,01
7 9 0153222 0038068 ( """ ‘ """ )
9 9 0.77999 0.20109 1 ----- t ----- 1
9 9 0.69556 0.24991 1-----4 ----- 1
1o 9 0.49000 0.39601 1 ----- x ----- 1
11 9 0.61111 0.35435 1 ----- x ------ 1
12 9 0.22111 0.32371 1 ----- x ------ 1
13 9 0.11111 0.19597 1 ------ x ----- 1
14 9 0.05556 0.11727 1 ----- x ----- 1
15 9 0.09222 0.14594 1 ----- x ----- 1
16 9 0.70556 0.30909 1 ----- ~x ----- 1
17 9 0.49556 0.23939 1 ------ t--—--)
----- +----~----+----— 4 — +—
900150 97090 = 0.29331 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90
Rokeach dominant terminal value 18 (wisdom)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT c115 FOR MEAN
Action BASED ON POOLED STDEU P-
type N HEAN STDEU ----- + --------- + --------- + --------- +- 5.99
1 6 0.76500 0.09670 <----9 ----- 1
2 6 0.36167 0.22996 1-—--4-~--1 at.
3 6 0.39000 0.44399 1 ----- 1—-—-1 16,
4 6 0.27933 0.31115 (----t—---) 95
5 6 0.37167 0.34365 1----x ----- 1
6 6 0.20333 0.29514 (----3 ----- 1 9<.01
7 6 0.35333, 0.17963 1—--x-—--1
9 6 0.74167 0.27029 1 ----- x--~-1
9 6 0.54000 0.33154 1 ----- x----1
10 6 0.59167 0.22999 1 ----- x----1
11 6 0.75000 0.17355 1 ----- x----1
12 6 0.12933 0.20193 1---—x ----- 1
13 6 0.09333 0.20412 1—--—4 ----- 1
14 6 0.05500 0.13472 1—---x ----- 1
15 6 0.05500 0.13472 1-—--4 ----- 1
16 6 0.61167 0.39035 1----4 ----- 1
17 6 0.53667 0.31123 1----x ----- 1
----- +---~-----+~--------+-------—-+-
POOLED 97090 = 0.26902 0.00 0.40 0.90 1.20

 

 

Table 4.7 (continued).

 

£36

Rokeach dominant terminal value 15 (self-respect)

(01110011111100 00001311711703 63(00me

HEAN
0.70875
0.57250
0.50125
0.20875
0.34625
0.08250
0.89000
0.69625
0.65875
0.66750
0.68750
0.04125
0.08375
0.06375
0.08375
0.62625
0.65375

POOLED STDEV = 0.19511

STDEV
0.13410
0.34628
0.29575
0.26406
0.20184
0.15276
0.14402
0.16587
0.15085
0.17774
0.25695
0.08184
0.12569
0.08798
0.12569
0.21540
0.16405

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

Rokeach dominant terminal value 3 (sense of accomplishment)

Action
type

O~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~z

POOLED STDEV

HEAN
0.77667
0.45667
0.38833
0.11000
0.63167
0.33333
0.85167
0.63000
0.79000
0.52667
0.72167
0.16667
0.19500

‘0.09333

0.11167
0.89000
0.66833

.25536

STDEV
0.06532
0.33255

.22886
0.17041
0.25087
0.21295
0.27029
0.24166
0.13755
0.41263
0.40351
0.26181
0.26779
0.20412
0.27353
0.17041
0.18649

 

94990 0N 900190 97090 p-
---+ --------- + --------- + --------- +--- 17.69
1---t---1
<---*-—-1 dz-
1----x---1 15,
<----‘---> 119
. (—--x---1
<'-'~*‘--> 94.01
(---1--—1
1----x---1
1----1---1
<---x---1
1—--x----1
1---4---—1
1----x---1
<—-—x---1
1-—--1-—-1
(----t---)
<---x----1
---+ --------- +-— -- 4 4 --
0.00 0.32 0.64 0.96
INDIVIDUAL 95 901 01's 909 MEAN
94990 0N 900190 97090 9-
—---+---- 4 4 -+—- 7.30
(----t ----- 1
(----t ----- 1 d:-
(--—-x----1 15,
(----x----1 35
1----t---—1
<----4 ----- 1 p<.01
(----t----)
(---—t----1
1---—x----1
1----s----1
(----x----1
1---—4----1
1----x----1
1---—t----1
<----x-—--1
1----1----1
1-—--t-—--1
~--—+ --------- + --------- + --------- +--
0.00 0.40 0.90 1.20

* Environmental action types

‘OQQQUIAWNH

rAHrarAH14reH
QCBUI§1»B)HCD

turn lights off
purchase for env. .
distribute information
discussion
public appearance
report violation
file lawsuit
file injunction
stop buying product
donate

S

d officials

pick up litter
recycling

sign petition
distribute petition
influence electe
campaign

vote

reasons

 

 

87

actions which are uniformly high or low regardless of the
terminal values of the group. Actions 1 (litter-pickup) and
8 (turning off lights) consistently occur at mean
frequencies between 60% and 80%. Actions 12—15 (public
appearance, reporting violations, filing lawsuit, filing
injunction) consistently occur at mean frequencies below
20%.

Certain groups had distinctive elements to their
scores. Those choosing "salvation" as their dominant
terminal value were distinct from other groups in their
consistently low scores. In 11 of the 17 action types
'(65%), their scores were below 20%. Among all the other
groups, between 2 and 5 of the 17 action types showed scores
below 20%. On the other end of the scale, this group had no
scores above 70%. The other groups ranged from 2 to 5 items
with scores above 70%.

The group of those indicating that Rokeach #4 (peace)
was their dominant terminal value had the highest number of
behavior types with frequencies above 70% (5). This group
showed a low frequency for action #4 (distribute a petition)
when compared with the other action frequencies within the
group.

The individuals who placed Rokeach #15 (self—respect)
as their highest priority value were distinctive in several
ways. Their mean score for frequency of voting for an
environmental candidate was 88%, the highest frequency for

any action among any group. This was the only group in

 

88

which action #10 (distribute information about environmental
issues) was above 60%. Other than actions 12-15 (lowest for
all groups), the action type showing the lowest frequency of
action was #6 (campaigning for a person due to his/her
environmental stance), with a frequency of 8%.

The group choosing "a sense of accomplishment" (Rokeach
#3) as highest priority was the only one to have a mean
score above 60% for action #5 (attempt to influence elected
officials). The lowest score for this group (not
considering actions 12-15) was for distributing a petition
(11%).

Those people who chose Rokeach #18 (wisdom) as their
dominant terminal value had their highest scores in action
#7 (voting).

As seen above, significant differences were found among
groups and among action types when Rokeach's terminal values
were used in analyzing amount of environmental action. In
addition, many nonsignificant differences were also

observed.

Social/political action (level) and highest priority Rokeach

terminal values

For each of the seven most frequently occurring Rokeach
terminal values, the mean was computed for total

social/political action score. When means of

 

 

89

social/political action scores for each of the seven
selected Rokeach values were compared, ANOVA showed
significant differences among the groups (F = 4.38, df =
6,139, P<.01) (Table 4.8).

The social/political action scores for those ranking
salvation highest appear to be significantly lower than
those of most other Rokeach values (Table 4.8). In order to
test whether this is statistically significant, another
ANOVA was run with the same Rokeach values, but excluding
the "salvation" variable. The results show that the
"salvation" value was the largest single source of the
Ivariance, since F = .77 (d.f.= 7,75). With the removal of
the salvation group, there was no longer any significant
difference among the remaining groups.

Table 4.8 also shows that those people ranking Rokeach
#3 (a sense of accomplishment) as their primary value had a
higher mean social/political score than the other groups.
The difference between this and the other scores is not

statistically significant.

This shows that there is a relationship between the
social/political action score and the dominance of certain
of Rokeach's values. The relationship is that those persons
ranking salvation as the most important value are less

likely to show high levels of social or political action.

 

 

90

 

 

Table 4.8. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates
comparing total social/political score (level of
social/political action) among the seven most
common Rokeach dominant terminal values. *

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN
- h BASED ON PODLED STDEV F-
$§§3:° N MEAN 97090 --+ --------- + --------- + 777777777 +----4:39
4 27 19.99 9.99 1----4----—1___)
9 19 20.93 9.12 < ------ *- df=
14 72 13.28 7.61 (-(u~t--) 1‘ ) 6.
' 9 17.22 8060 ----------------
I5 9 16.87 4.95 1- -— 1 ~ ----) 139
2 . 25°°° 3~1° . ";::::::::i:; """" ’ p<.01
19 6 19.93 13.00 __+ _________ + _________ + _________ +____
POOLED STDE‘) = 8.15 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0

* Rokeach values

14
4
9
8
15
3
l8

salvation

peace

health

freedom

self—reSpect

sense of accomplishment
wisdom

 

91

Social/political action (type) and highest priority Rokeach

terminal values

Analysis of these factors was again done in two
different ways. The first way involved isolating each of
the 19 social/political actions. For each action, ANOVA was
used to find whether there were differences in amount of the
action among the seven most common dominant Rokeach terminal
values. It was found that seven of the 19 actions showed
significant differences in amount of action among the
Rokeach values (Table 4.9).

The seven actions showing significant differences in

action frequency among different Rokeach values were the

following:

write to or call an elected official (P<.Ol)

. participate in a peaceful demonstration (P<.01)
write a "letter to the editor" (P<.01)

call a radio or TV station (P<.Ol)

join an organization (P<.Ol)

donate money (P<.01)

1. campaign (P<.05)

l—‘KOQQONNI‘

Patterns of highest and lowest scores may be helpful
for comparisons with other types of actions.

In six of the seven preceding actions, the terminal
value group having the lowest action score was #14
(salvation). The exception to this pattern was calling a
radio or TV station, for which the lowest scoring terminal
value group was Rokeach #15 (self—respect).

For five of the above seven actions (#1,6,7,8,11), the

 

 

Table 4.9.

92

 

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for
each social/political action when comparing mean

action frequencies among the seven most common
Rokeach dominant terminal values.

Action 1 (write to or call official)

Rokeach

value N
14 72
4 27
9 18
3 9
1s 8
3 6
19 6

MEAN
0.5833
1.1481
1.1667
0.8889
0.8750
1.6667
1.5000

POOLED STDEV - 0.8650

Action 2 (demonstration)

Rokeach

value N
14 72
4 27
9 18
8 9
15 8
3 6
19 6

MEAN
0.09722
0.51852
0.38889
0.11111
0.50000
0.33333
0.33333

POOLED STDEV - 0.50103

Action 3 (stop buying)

Rokeach

value N
14 72
4 27
9 18
3 9
15 3
3 6
19 5

MEAN
0.9861
1.2963
1.1667
1.2222
0.8750
1.3333
1.5000

POOLED STDEV - 0.8830

Action 4 (sign petition)

Rokeach

value N
14 72
4 27
9
8
15
3
18

H
maxmsom

MEAN
1.125
1.296
1.500
1.111
1.000
1.500
1.167

-POOLED STDEV - 0.862

STDEV
0.8005
0.9488
0.9852
0.7817
0.6409
0.8165
1.2247

STDEV
0.29834
0.64273
0.77754
0.33333
0.75593
0.51640
0.51640

STDEV
0.8639
0.8689
0.8575
0.9718
0.3536
1.0328
1.3784

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

T T

(---;--)

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

w

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

~19

 

 

 

 

E'-
3.14

df-
139
P<.01

F-
-‘- 0.83

df-
139

N's.

F-
0.72

df-
139

)N.S.

 

Table 4.9 (continued).

Action 5 (distribute petition)

Rokeach

value N MEAN srosv
14 72 0.2222 0.5097
4 27 0.4444 0.6405
9 18 0.5556 0.9218
3 9 0.4444 0.5270
15 8 0.3750 0.5175
3 6 0.3333 0.5164
18 6 1.0000 1.2649
POOLED STDEV - 0.6403

Action 6 (letter to editor)
Rokeach

value N MEAN STDEV
14 72 0.2639 0.5812
4 27 0.6667 0.9608
9 18 0.7778 1.1144
3 9 0.4444 0.5270
15 8 0.5000 0.5345
3 6 1.3333 0.8165
18 6 0.5000 0.8367
POOLED STDEV - 0.7594

Action 7 (call radio or TV)
Rokeach

valu. N MEAN STDEV
14 72 0.06944 0.30611
4 27 0.18519 0.48334
9 18 0.50000 0.85749
3 9 0.55556 1.01379
15 8 0 0
3 6 0.83333 0.98319
18 6 0.33333 0.51640
POOLED grozv - 0.54793

Action 8 (join organization)
Rokeach

value N MEAN STDEV
14 72 0.4722 0.7686
4 27 1.0741 1.1068
9 18 1.1667 1.1504
3 9 1.1111 1.0541
15 8 1.3750 0.9161
3 6 1.6667 0.5164
13 6 1.5000 1.3784
POOLED STDEV - 0.9364

Action 9 (donate $)

Rokeach

value N MEAN STDEV
14 72 0.7778 0.9378
4 27 1.7407 1.0225
9 18 1.7778 0.8782
8 9 1.6667 1.1180
15 8 1.7500 0.7071
3 6 1.6667 0.5164
13 6 1.8333 1.1690
POOLED STDEV - 0.9461

93

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

T

(--*--)

2L
T I‘

(----*--~-)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

1'

(~--*---)

7

f

 

4

1.94
df-
139

N05.

E'-
2.97

df-
139
P<.01

F-
3.98

df-
139

P<.01

E'-
4.33

df-
6.
139

) P<.01

6.36
df-
139

P<.01

 

 

944

Table 4.9 (continued).

Action 15 (charity campaign volunteer)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV 3.99
value N MEAN STDEV ¢ ¢ i
14 72 0.9722 0.9717 (--—*-—-) dr-
4 27 1.0370 1.2855 ( ----- * ------ ) 6
9 18 1.5000 1.0981 ( * ) 139
3 9 0.6667 0.7071 ( * )
15 9 1.0000 0.7559 ( * )
3 6 1.3333 1.2111 ( w ) N95-
_13 6 1.1667 1.1690 ( . )
900199 STDEV - 1.0021 0.60 1.20 1.90
Action 16 (serve at home) '
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S 909 MEAN 9
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV 1'34
value N MEAN STDEV 9 ¢ 9 ¢ -
14 72 .1.3194 0.9468 (--*--) df
4 27 1.0370 0.9398 (----*----) '
9 19 1.3999 1.0922 ( ----- *----) 6:
9 9 0.9999 1.1667 ( r ) 139
15 9 1.3750 0.5175 ( * )
3 6 1.8333 0.7528 ( ' )N.S.
13 6 0.6667 0.9165 ( * )- .
POOLED STDEV - 0.9514 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25
Action 17 (join education program)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED oN POOLED STDEV P-
value N MEAN STDEV 9 ¢ 9 4 0.71
14 72 1.569 0.990 (---*---)
4 27 1.852 1.027 (-----*-----) 55'
9 19 1.999 0.932 ( * ) 6.
a 9 2.000 0.500 ( * ) 139
15 9 1.625 0.916 ( * )
3 6 2.000 0.632 ( * ) N.S.
19 6 1.667 1.211 ( * -’ -
pooLgp srpgv . 0.952 1.20 1.80 2.40 3.00
Action 18 (educate someone)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT cr's POR MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
value N MEAN STDEV 9 5 f ¢ 1.46
14 72 1.399 1.069 (---.---)
4 27 1.779 0.934 ( ...... . ..... ) dz.
9 18 2.000 0.970 ( ' ) 67
9 9 1.999 1.054 ( . ) 139
15 9 1.975 0.641 ( * )
3 6 2.000 0.994 (— . ; N.S.
19 6 1.667 1.366 ( . )
900190 swnrv - 1.021 1.20 1.90 2.40 3.00
Action 19 (attend meeting)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT cr's ron MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV F'
value N MEAN STDEV 5 9 9 I 1.97
14 72 0.9961 0.9268 (--.---)
4 27 1.2593 1.0225 ( ----- t ..... ) df-
9 18 1.4444 1.0416 ( t ) 6,
8 9 1.2222 1.0929 ( * ) 139
15 9 1.3750 0.517s ( . )
3 6 1.9333 0.7529 ( - ) N.S.
19 6 2.0000 1.2649 7 . , -
POOLED STDEV - 0.9629 0.60 1.20 1.90 2.40

 

 

 

Table 4.9 (cont

Action 10 (vote)

inued).

Rokeach N MEAN STDEV
Z21“‘ 72 1.472 0 949
4 27 1.052 1 167
9 19 1.944 0.973
3 9 1.556 1.130
15 9 1.975 0.641
6 2.500 0.549
is 6 1.333 1.033
POOLED STDEV - 0.975
Action 11 (Campaign)
Rokeach
value
14 N MEAN STDEV
4 72 0.06944 0.30611
9 27 0 19519 0 49334
a 19 0.50000 0.95749
15 9 0.55556 1.01379
3 6 0.93333 0.99319
13 6 0.33333 0.51640

POOLED STDEV - 0.54783

Action 12 (report lawbreaker)

Rokeach

value

i4 N MEAN srnsv
72 0.06944 0.25599

9 27 0.22222 0.69798

8 9 22222 0.66667

15 6 0.50000 0.83666

3 6 0 16667 0.40925

POOLED STDEV - 0.46819

Action 13 (file lawsuit)

Rokeach

value N MEAN STDEV

14 72 0.06944 0.25599

4 27 0.22222 0.69799

9 19 0

9 9 0.22222 0.66667

15 a 0 0

3 6 0.50000 0.83666

5 0.16667 0.40925

19 .

POOLED STDEV ‘ 0.46819

Action 14 (run/serve in office)

Rokeach

value N MEAN STDEV

4 72 0.1111 0 4613
27 0.2963 0 7240

9 19 0.611 1.0369

3 3 0.2222 0.4410

15

3 6 0.3333 0.8165

19 5

POOLED STDEV - 0.6393

95

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ + + 1.81
(—-~--)
( -------- ) df-
( ————— * ----- ) 6,
( -------- . ------- ) 139
( -------- ~ ------ -—)
( --------- * ---------- )N.s.
( ---------- * --------- )
0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON 900199 STDEV F-
. - 2.65
——*——
( _____ )____) d£_
( ----- t ----- ) 6 v
1 -------- ~ -------- ) 139.
(---- —————— ~ ---------- )
( ---------- * ---------- ) P<.05
-0.00 0.40 0.90 1.20 .
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN E-
BASED ON POOLED STDEV 0.74
<--*--—> df-
————— fi—_—--) ) 6 I
( """"" * """"" 139
( ------------ ~ ----------- )
‘ ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ “7": 777777 ’ N.s.
0.00 0.30 0.60
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDE F-
1.67
(--~--)
(""*7--) df-
(£::': 6.
________ ._______) ‘ ‘7) 139
( --------- .- .......
( ________ . _________ > ) N.s.
0.00 0 75 1.50
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI's FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV 5'01

 

(---~:—)
1

 

 

 

 

96

group showing the highest level of action was Rokeach #3 (a
sense of accomplishment). Question #2 (demonstration)
showed that the group ranking peace highest had the highest
action level, followed very closely by the group ranking
self—respect highest. Question #9 (donate $) had the
highest level of action from the group stating that wisdom
was the highest priority value.

When all 19 social/political questions were considered
(regardless of level of significance) it was found that the
group ranking a sense of accomplishment most highly was the

most active group in 12 of the 19 questions (63%).

The second means of analysis separated the data by
means of the Rokeach dominant terminal value ranked highest
priority. Each of these seven groups was analyzed by ANOVA
to find whether there were significant differences among the
levels of the 19 actions (Table 4.10).

In every case, there were significant differences among
the frequencies of actions. The groups with Rokeach
dominant terminal values 3,4,8,9,14, and 15 had values of F
high enough that P<.01. Rokeach dominant terminal value 18
was significant at P<.05.

Although there were differences among the frequencies
of social/political actions within each group, the profiles
of the different groups were quite similar.

In almost all groups, the lowest frequency actions were

file a lawsuit, report a violation of the law, and run for

 

 

 

 

9'7

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for
each of the seven most common dominant Rokeach
terminal values when comparing mean action

frequencies among all social/political actions.

Table 4.10.

 

Dominant terminal Rokeach value 14

(salvation)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

Social/political 34560 on 900150 STDEU F-
action N MEAN 57050 --+ --------- + --------- + --------- +----32.99
1 72 0058333 0480053 ("t-‘)
2 72 0.09722 0.29934 <--4--> df-
3 72 0.99611 0.96399 <~-4--> 18.
4 72 1.12500 0.93913 (--:--) 1349
5 72 0.22222 0.50969 (--4--)
5 72 0.26399 0.59123 (--t--) P<.01
7 72 0.06944 0.30611 (--x-->
8 72 0.47222 0.76961 <-~4~->
9 72 0.77779 . 0.93792 <--4--)
1° 72 1.47222 0.94901 <--4->
11 72 0.44444 0.74950 (--x-->
12 72 0.34722 0.60995 <--4~-)
13 72 0.06944 0.25599 <--x--)
14 72 0.11111 0.46134 <--4--1
15 72 0.97222 0.97165 (--4-->
16 72 1.31944 0.94695 (--:-->
17 72 1.56944 0.99047 <--4—-1
18 72 1.39999 1.06994 <--4-->
19 72 0.99611 0.92680 <-~9-->
. --+ --------- + ------ ~--+ --------- +----
900150 57050 = 0.76395 0.00 0.60 1.20 1.90
Dominant terainal Rokeach value 4 (peace)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT 01's FOR MEAN
Social/political BASED ON POOLED STDEv 3'
action N MEAN 57050 -——+ 4 ‘4 — -+--- 10-62
1 27 1.1491 0.9499 <---a----)
2 27 0.5195 0.6427 <----4----) df-
3 27 1.2963 0.9699 <---x----> 18'
4 27 1.2963 0.9699 <---4----) ‘94
5 27 0.4444 0.6405 <----4----)
6 27 0.6667 0.9609 <---~4----) P<°°1
7 27 0.1952 0.4933 <---4----)
8 27 1.0741 1.1068 (---4---->
9 27 1.7407 1.0225 <---4----)
10 27 1.9519 1.1670 <----4---)
11 27 0.9630 1.0554 <----4---)
12 27 0.2222 0.6990 <~---0---->
13 27 0.2222 0.6990 <---—4-—--)
14 27 0.2963 0.7240 (—---4---~)
15 27 1.0370 1.2955 c--—-4---)
16 27 1.0370 0.9399 , (----6---,
17 27 1.9519 1.0267 (---—x---)
19 27 1.7779 0.9337 <-~--x---)
19 27 1.2593 1.0225 (----1---,

--~+ --------- + --------- + --------- +---
POOLED 57050 = 0.9217 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25

 

 

 

 

Table 4.10 (continued).

9E3

Dominant terminal Rokeach value 9 (health)

Social/political
action N
g 1.
3 18
4 l8
5 18
6 18
7 18
18
3 19
9 19
10 13
11 1a
12 13
13 13
14 13
15 1a
16 13
17 13
18 13
19 18

MEAN
1.1667
0.3889
1.1667
1.5000
0.5556
0.7778
0.5000
1.1667
1.7778
1.9444
0.7778
0.2778

0
0.6111
1.5000
1.3889
1.8889
2.0000
1.4444

200120 smnrv - 0.0572

STDEV
0.9852
0.7775
0.8575
0.9852
0.9218
1.1144
0.8575
1.1504
0.8782
0.8726
1.0603
0.4609

0
1.0369
1.0981
1.0922
0.8324
0.9701
1.0416

Dominant terminal Rokeach value 8

Social/political

action

0‘0‘0‘0‘0‘09‘00‘0‘0‘0‘070‘0‘00‘0‘02

MEAN

0.9999
0.1111
1.2222
1.1111
0.4444
0.4444
0.5556
1.1111
1.6667
1.5556
0.9999
0.1111
0.2222
0.2222
0.6667
0.9999
2.0000
1.9999
1.2222

POOLED STDEU = 0.8438
Dominant terminal Rokeach value 15 (self-respect)

Social/political

action

ommmmmm OOQOOQQQODOOZ

MEAN
0.8750
0.5000
0.8750
1.0000
0.3750
0.5000

0
1.3750
1.7500
1.8750
0.1250
0.3750

0

0

1.0000
1.3750
1.6250
1.8750
1.3750

'900120 92029 - 016347

STDEU
0.7817
0.3333
0.9718
0.6009
0.5270
0.5270
1.0138
1.0541
1.1180
1.1304
1.0541
0.3333
0.6667
0.4410
0.7071
1.1667
0.5000
1.0541
1.0929

STDEV
0.6409
0.7559
0.3536
0.5345
0.5175
0.5345

0
0.9161
0.6409
0.3536
0.5175

0

0

0.7559
0.5175

0.9161'
0.6409'

0.5175

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI 5 FOR HEAN

 

 

 

 

BASED ON 900150 97020 F-
...... +--------_+ +-----_---+-__------+ 7. 64
< ----- 9---->

< ----- x—---) df-
( “““ *‘“‘*) 187
1 ----- x----> 323
(----t~--~)
1 ----- 4----> P<.01
<--—~x ----- )
< ----- r~---)
<----x ----- )
(---—x ----- )
1 ----- 4----)
(----4 ----- 1
(----t----)
< ----- 4----)
< ----- 4----)
(--—-4 ------ )
( ----- a----)
(----4----)
<----r~-~->
------ +---------+—--------+~---—----+
0.00 0.90 1.60 2.40
(freedom)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI 5 FOR MEAN
BASED ON 900150 STDEV F'
..... +------ T +-- _+_4.39
1 ----- t----)
(----t ----- ) . di-
(--—-9 ----- 1 13'
(--—-x ----- 7 152
(-~9-8 ----- )
(----3 ..... ) P<.01
1 ----- 4----)
<—---1 ----- 1
< ----- t----)
c ----- 4---—)
( ----- x----)
<—-~-t ----- 1
1-~-~x ----- )
(----t ----- 1
( ----- 4---->
< ----- x----)
< ----- 4 ----- )
< ----- l----)
<-—--4 ----- )
----- +~--------+ 4 —-+-
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

94990 on 900190 91090 F'
...... +---------+---------+---------+ 10.15
1 ----- x---->
( ----- 4----> df-
1 ----- x----> 18:
(----4 ----- 1 133
(-—--x----)
( ..... *----) P<.01
<---—x---->
(-~--* ----- 1
<----x ----- 1
<----4---->
1 ----- x—--->
<-~--x—--->
(----4---->
1-—--x----)
1~-~-x ----- 1
<----4 ----- 1
< ----- x---->
(----4---->
<----4 ----- 1
------ +--—------+- — 4 — -+

 

 

 

 

 

99)

Table 4.10 (continued).

Dominant terminal Rokeach value 3 (sense of accomplishment)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’ 8 FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

Social/political BASED ON 900190 STDEU 7'
action N HEAN 91090 ----+ --------- +--- 4 —+-- 3'73
1 6 1.6667 0.9165 1 ...... 1 ..... )
2 6 0.3333 0.5164 1 ----- 4 ------ 1 df-
3 6 1.3333 1.0329 1 ----- 4 ------ > 18.
4 ‘6 1.5000 1.0499 1 ------ 4 —————— ) 95
5 6 0.3333 0.5164 1 ----- 4 ------ >
5 6 1.3333 0.9165 < ----- 4 ------ ) P<~°1
7 6 0.9333 0.9932 1 ----- 4 ------ >
3 6 1.6667 0.5164 < ------ 4 ----- >
9 6 1.6667 0.5164 1 ------ 4 ----- >
10 6 2.5000 0.5477 ( ...... 4 ...... ,
11 6 1.3333 1.0329 c ----- 4 ------ >
12 6 0.6667 0.9165 1 ------ 4 ----- )
13 6 0.5000 0.9367 1 ------ 4 ------ 1
14 6 0.3333 0.9166 < ----- 4 ------ 1
15 6 1.3333 1.2111 1 ----- 4 ------ )
15 6 1.9333 0.7529 1 ----- 4 ------ 1
17 6 2.0000 0.6325 1 ------ 4 ------ >
13 6 2.0000 0.9944 1 ------ 4 ------ )
19 6 1.9333 0.7529 1 ----- 4 ------ 1

. ‘ ----+—- —-—+ - 4 —— -+--
900190 91090 = 0.9196 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Dominant terminal Rokeach value 18 (wisdom)

INDIvIDUAL 95 901 CI 3 FOR MEAN

Social/political . BASED ON 900190 91090 9-
action N 5253 srngv -------------------- % --- 2.05
1 6 1.5000 1.2247 ( ------- t ------- )
2 6 0.3333 0.5164 1 ------- 4 -------- > a:-
3 6 1.5000 1.3794. 1 ------- 4 ------- 1 13,
4 6 1.1667 1.1690 < -------- 4 ------- ) 95
s 6 1.0000 1.2649 1 ------- 4 ------- 1
6 6 0.5000 0.8367 ( ------- t ------- ) p<,os
7 6 0.3333 0.5164 1 ------- 4 -------- )
9 6 1.5000 1.3794 ( ....... . ....... ,
9 6 1.9333 1.1690 ( ....... . ________ ,
10 6 1.3333 1.0329 ( ....... . ........ ,
11 6 1.0000 0.9944 ( ....... 4 ....... ,
12 6 0.5000 0.9367 ( _______ 1 _______ ,
13 6 0.1667 0.4092. ( ________ 4 _______ ,
14 6 ° . 4 0 < ------- 4 ------- )
15 6 1.1667 1.1690 ( ........ ‘ ....... ,
15 6 0.6667 0.9165 ( ........ , _______ ,
17 6 1.6667 1.2111 ( ........ , _______ ,
13 6 1.6667 1.3663 ( ........ 1 ....... ,
19 6 2.0000 1.2649 . .............. ,

900190 srnzv -.1.0699_

 

100

or serve in public office.

In five of the seven groups (those ranking peace,
health, freedom, self-respect, and salvation highest), the
action type reported most frequently involved education.
Note that this is not to say that the frequencies of
educational actions were the same among these groups.

The highest levels of action were in the group choosing
Rokeach value #3 (a sense of accomplishment) as first
priority. Here voting behaviors were highest in frequency,
with educational behaviors ranking second. Despite the fact
that educational behaviors were ranked second here, they
'were at approximately the same levels that they were in the
preceding five groups. The high frequencies of voting
behavior distinguished this group from the other groups.

For those ranking wisdom (#18) as the highest priority,
the most frequent actions involved attending meetings and

donating money.

Other pertinent data

A comparison of Section III (perceived concern or commitment
necessary to take environmental action) between

environmental groups and church groups
When mean data for Section III was compared between the

environmental groups and the church groups, it was seen to

be very similar (Table 4.11). Analysis of variance to

IIIII......IIIIIIIIl-III-nnr—

 

lOl

compare mean scores for the importance of each environmental

action showed that none of the differences were significant.

 

 

Table 4.11. A comparison of mean scores for Section III
(perceived concern or commitment necessary to
take environmental action) between

environmental groups and church groups.

 

Item Description Mean for Mean for
church env. F:

1 sign petition 1.43 1.41 0.02
2 distribute petition 2.44 2.33 1.06
3 write/call official 2.27 2.29 0.06
4 campaign 2.60 2.73 2.23
5 vote 1.54 1.59 0.19
6 pick up litter 1.75 1.61 1.64
7 recycling 2.00 2.01 0.02
8 turn off lights 1.49 1.47 0.07
9 purchase - environmental 1.92 1.91 0.02
10 distribute info 2.34 2.39 0.24
11 discuss environment 1.90 1.88 0.04
12 speech or appearance 2.78 2.81 0.22
13 report violation 2.44 2.40 0.11
14 file lawsuit 2.78 2.84 0.58
15 file injunction 2.76 2.80 0.16
16 stop buying harmful 1.82 1.68 1.67
17 donate money 1.83 2.01 3.44

 

 

 

102

Rokeach comparisons : Median values and dominant values

In some cases, it was advantageous to compare data from
this studywith that from Rokeach's other books or papers.
The most common form of ordering data done by Rokeach
himself (e.g. 1973) was to use ranking of median scores. He
assigned a score to each value, based on the priority
ranking given to the value by the respondent, then computed
the median score for that value. Next he ranked the values
by median score. This allows the use of non—parametric
tests to compare the groups, but does not allow the
'experimenter to use the individuals whose responses went
into the median score for any other comparisons.

Figure 4.1 shows the comparisons between median scores
of the six top-ranking terminal values from Rokeach's
national survey, from his survey of recyclers, from this
study's environmental groups, from Rokeach's 1968 Baptist
church subsample,and from this study's church groups. This
does not include the 12 less important scores. It can be
seen that there are many differences among these groups.

This study used the value ranked as first priority by
the respondent for ordering data. This allowed the data to
be grouped according to which of Rokeach’s terminal values
was most important to the respondent. The researcher
recognized that the two procedures are different, but needed
to be able to group the data without sacrificing the ability

to form other groups based on the individual's responses.

 

 

 

103

 

Rokeach national sample

(1968)

1. peace

2. family security
3. freedom

4. equality
5.se1f-respect
6. happiness *

(salvation 9th)

Rokeach recyclers
(1973)

l. wisdom

2. self-respect

3. family security
,4. inner harmony
5. freedom

6. love

(peace 10th)
(salvation 18th)

Rokeach Baptist churches

(1968)

peace

family security
salvation
freedom
self—respect
happiness *

O 0 O O

(DUTQUUNH
O 0

Environmental groups
(1984)

1 peace

2 health **
3. family security
4. freedom
5 inner harmony
6. self— respect
(salvation 18th)

Free Methodist churches
(1984)

salvation
health **
family security
inner harmony
self— respect
freedom

(peace 11th)

fhmbWNH
O O O O O

* deleted by Rokeach from current version of survey
** added by Rokeach to current version of survey

 

Figure 4.1. Priority rankings for the t0p six Rokeach
Terminal Values of selected groups — arranged
in descending order by median score.

 

 

 

104

Use of median score rank in this study would preclude
recognizing individuals and forming new groups to study the
actions of those individuals (e.g. to compare levels of
environmental action among the groups with the most commonly
occurring Rokeach dominant terminal values).

One consequence of the decision to rank values by the
dominant method rather than by the median method is that it
is not possible to use nonparametric analysis to find
whether there are statistically significant differences
between the groups.

Comparisons were made of the results of the two methods
'of ranking. Figure 4.2 compares the different methods of
ranking — by median score and by dominant score using the
current study groups. Included in Table 4.13 are only the
tOp six scores from the set of 18 terminal values. These
two methods appear relatively similar, at least when

comparing the six values which are given highest priority.

Finally, this researcher attempted to take a subsample
from this research which would compare to Dunlap et al
(1983). Respondents who had made any positive response to
either of the questions on recycling paper or glass were
grouped and analyzed. This was to simulate the population
which might have been encountered at a glass and paper
recycling center. The frequency scores for each dominant
Rokeach terminal value were summed for those who had

answered "seldom", "occasionally", or "frequently" to either

 

 

 

 

105

 

Environmental groups

by median score

by dominant score

peace peace

health health

family security salvation
freedom self—respect
inner harmony freedom
self-respect accomplishment

Free Methodist groups

by median score

by second priority score

peace

family security
health

inner harmony
accomplishment
freedom *
self—respect *

by dominant score **

salvation salvation
health family security
family security freedom

inner harmony health
self—respect inner harmony
freedom wisdom

* tied for sixth position

** numbers 2~6 here are based on the frequency of the
second priority score, since "salvation" was virtually
always first priority for this group

 

Figure 4.2. A comparison of the top six median to dominant

Rokeach terminal value scores for environmental
and Free Methodist groups — in order of
decreasing priority.

 

 

 

106

of these questions. These numbers were then divided by the
number of individuals in the entire survey having those
dominant terminal values, to result in a score representing
the proportion of individuals with a given dominant terminal
value who were recyclers. These proportions were ranked
from highest to lowest (Table 4.12). It was seen that the
three dominant terminal values groups most often recycling
paper or glass are self—respect, wisdom, and sense of
accomplishment. These are different from the three dominant
terminal values most often seen in environmental groups as a
whole. These are also all representative of Maslow's higher

‘order values, according to Dunlap et a1 (1983).

 

 

 

107

Table 4.12. Ranking of dominant Rokeach terminal values of
recyclers in this research.

 

 

Rokeach number of total n proportion of
value recyclers of group recyclers

4 14 27 52%

14 13 72 18%

9 9 18 50%

15 6 8 75%

8 5 9 55%

18 4 6 67%

3 4 6 67%

Ranked proportions (by group)

 

% active Rokeach Rokeach

recyclers number value

75% 15 self—respect

67% 18 wisdom

67% 3 sense of accomplishment
55% 8 freedom

52% 4 peace

50% 9 health

 

 

 

 

108

Predictors of environmental action

Simple and multiple stepwise linear regression were
used to attempt to find the predictive relationship of each
part of the survey by itself and in combination on WES.
Social-political score and Rokeach dominant terminal value
were found to be the best predictors of WES. Their
independent contributions and their joint contribution to

the variance within WES can be seen in Table 4.13.

 

 

Table 4.13. Simple and multiple stepwise linear regression
of the effects of SPS, Rokeach dominant
terminal value and Maslow level on WES.

factor R2 F= P=
SPS .275 61.42 (.01
Rokeach dominant term. value .155 29.74 (.01
Maslow level .003 0.49 N.S.
SPS + Rokeach .342

SPS + Maslow level .275

Rokeach + Maslow level .156

SPS + Rokeach + Maslow level .343

 

 

109

Environmentally oriented church peOple

There was a small number of people who would qualify
for both the environmental and the conservative church
groups. From among the environmental groups, nine persons
ranked salvation as their primary terminal value. From
among those in the church groups, six stated that they were
also in some type of environmental group. Comparative data
for these people are seen in Table 4.14. The means for the

subgroups are very similar to the means of the whole group.

 

 

Table 4.14. WES comparisons of all in each group vs those
also claiming affiliation with the other group.

 

Mean WES for env. group Mean WES for env. subgroup
(all) with salvation #1 priority
mean = 123.85 mean = 125.22
range = 328 — 31 range 212 — 66
Mean WES for church Mean WES for church
group (all) group also in env. group
mean = 53.85 mean = 49.67
range = 150 - 12 range 107 — 15

 

 

110

Maslow levels of those ranking salvation first priority

It was seen that those giving salvation first priority
had great heterogeneity of values. When Maslow levels were
used to further categorize these persons, some differences
became apparent. Fifty-three of the 72 persons responding
that salvation was their primary value were from either the
self—actualizers (34 at Maslow I) or the physiological level
(19 at Maslow VI). Their presence at the extremes of the
hierarchy led to further examination of their values. When
the frequency of the value they placed second was examined,
'it was found that these two groups were more different than
might have been expected (Figure 4.3). The relative
positions of freedom and family security should be noted, as
should the presence of the wisdom value only in the

self-actualizing group.

 

 

Physiological level Self—actualizers
family security freedom

health inner harmony
freedom wisdom
self-respect family security

 

Figure 4.3. Second priority values of those choosing
salvation as their first priority value — for
physiological level vs. self—actualizers.

 

 

 

111

Summary of results

 

Research Question 1
Is there a relationship between Maslow level and
environmental action (level and type); between Maslow level

and social/political action (level and type)?

Very few important or statistically significant
relationships were found using Beer's Maslow survey.
’The top three Maslow levels (self—actualization,
self—esteem, and esteem of others) showed highest
frequencies of social/political action for the "education"
item. Voting behaviors were the second most frequent type
item. Maslow levels IV and VI placed voting behaviors as
their highest frequency activity. Since the frequency of
voting behaviors was at approximately the same level in all
groups, it can be seen that the frequency of participation

in education was less in the lower Maslow levels.

Research Question 2
Are there relationships between an individual's Maslow

level and priorities on Rokeach's terminal values survey?

When the seven terminal values most frequently chosen

 

 

112

as first priority were analyzed for mean Maslow level, no

significant relationships were found.

Research Question 3

Is there a relationship between the priority of
specific elements of Rokeach's terminal values survey and
environmental activism (level and type); between priority of
specific elements of Rokeach's terminal values survey and

social/political activism (level and type)?

.1. Among the seven most common dominant Rokeach terminal
value groups, those ranking salvation dominant are
significantly less environmentally active than the other

groups.

2. There were many significant relationships between type
of environmental action and Rokeach dominant terminal values
(Figure 4.4).

a. When each of the 45 environmental actions was
analyzed for differences in action frequency among the most
common seven Rokeach dominant terminal values, the following
patterns emerged:

the self—respect group had highest levels of
action in voting and recycling.
the sense of accomplishment group had the highest

levels of actions in influencing elected officials,

 

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Env. sig. diff. among Rokeach sig. diff. among
action Rokeach values value env. action type
1.a 14 (salvation) x
1.b 4 (peace) x
1.0 x 9 (health) x
l.d 8 (freedom) x
2.a x 18 (wisdom) x
2.b x 15 (self—respect) x
2.c x 3 (sense of x
2.d x accomplishment)

3.a x

3.b x

4.a x

4.b x

5.a x

5.b x

5.c x

6.a x

6.b x

6.0 x

7.a x

7.b x

7.c x

8.a

8.b

8.c

9.a x

9.b

9.c x

9.d

10.a x

10.b x

11.a X

11.b x

12.a x

12.b x

12.c x

13.a

13.b

14.a x

14.b

15.a

15.b x

16 x

l7.a x

17.b x

17.c x

 

Type of env. action vs Rokeach dominant

Figure 4.4.
terminal values.

 

 

 

114

purchasing with environmnental considerations, refraining
from purchasing a harmful product, and donations.

b. When each of the seven most commonly occurring
Rokeach dominant terminal values was analyzed, comparing
frequencies among the 17 types of environmental actions,
every ANOVA was statistically significant. Patterns
emerging were the following:

the salvation group was lowest in action frequency
in most questions.

the peace group had the greatest number of
behaviors occurring at frequencies above 70%.

the self-respect group had the highest frequency

of environmentally motivated voting behavior.

3. When each of the seven most commonly occurring Rokeach
dominant terminal values was analyzed by comparing
frequencies among social/political actions, lower
frequencies of action by the salvation group caused

significant differences among the groups.

4. There were many significant relationships between type
of social/political action and Rokeach dominant terminal
values (Figure 4.5).

a. When each of the 19 social/political actions was
analyzed for differences in action frequency among the most
common seven Rokeach dominant terminal values, seven of the

analyses were statistically significant, showing the

115

 

 

 

 

 

soc/pol sig. diff. among Rokeach sig. diff. among
action Rokeach values value soc/pol actions
1 x 14 (salvation) x
2 x 4 (peace) x
3 9 (health) x
4 8 (freedom) x
5 15 (self—respect) x
6 x 18 (wisdom) x
7 x 3 (sense of x
8 x accomplishment)

9 x

10 x

11 x

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

 

Figure 4.5. Type of social/political action vs dominant
Rokeach terminal values.

 

116

following patterns:
for five of the seven significant analyses, the
lowest frequency of action was found in the salvation group.
for five of the seven significant analyses, the
highest frequency of action was found in the sense of

accomplishment group.

b. When each of the seven most commonly occurring
Rokeach dominant terminal values was analyzed, comparing
frequencies among the 19 social/political actions, every
ANOVA had statistically significant results. Some of the
'patterns to emerge from the data were the following:

for five of the seven value groups, the action
having the highest frequency was education.

the sense of accomplishment group had voting as
its most frequent action (although education was ranked as
highly as in the previous five groups).

the wisdom group had attending meetings as its

highest frequency action.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter will first summarize findings for each
research question, and then describe implications of the
findings for the future of environmental education and
'environmental communications. It will also consider
relationships within the results which influence validity
and applicability to other studies. Included with this is a
section entitled "Environmental groups vs. Rokeach's
recyclers" which explores possible reasons for the findings
that the personality profiles of this study’s recyclers are
nearly opposite those of the study performed by Dunlap,

Grieneeks, and Rokeach (1983).

Demographic data

The members of the two organizations are not similar.
Observation of demographic data shows the largest_
differences between groups are in the areas of education,

117

 

118

occupation, and home site. The church groups are not as
highly educated, more likely to answer "housewife" for

occupation, and less likely to live in an urban environment.

Response bias

Because of the lack of a survey of non—respondents to

determine possible bias, it will not be known whether the

respondent groups are completely representative of the

general populations from which they were drawn.

Relationships between Maslow level and environmental or

 

social/political behavior (Research Question 1)

 

In general, Maslow level (as measured by the modified
Beer instrument) does not appear to be a good predictor of
either environmental or social/political behavior. Despite

this poor predictive value, some relationships did appear.

The group giving self-esteem (Maslow level II) highest
priority appears to be more environmentally active than any
other Maslow level group. These individuals reported higher
levels of activity than the other Maslow levels in 33 of the
45 actions, but differences were not always significant.

For this group, high frequency involvement was primarily in

donations, voting, and environmental discussions.

 

 

119

Though statistically significant differences among
Maslow levels were not observed for any of the
social/political actions tested, the self—esteem group
(Maslow level II) was seen to be highest in social/political
action frequency in 7 of the 19 possible social/political
actions.

The relationship between voting behaviors and
involvement in education appeared to be important when
Maslow level was analyzed to find whether there were
differences among social/political behavior frequencies.
Voting was one of the uniformly high frequency behaviors.
At the top three Maslow levels (self—actualization,
self—esteem, and esteem of others), education activities
were reported even more frequently than was voting. For the
lower Maslow levels (need for love, physiological - IV and
VI), the frequency of participation in social/political
education activities was below the frequency of
participation in voting activities. Education appears to be
less important to the lower Maslow levels. This supports

the conclusions of Harry Miller (1971).

Based on the results (table 12), this researcher would
not recommend using Beer's measure of Maslow’s personality
hierarchy to explain environmental or social/political
action.

The reason that this measure of Maslow level was not a

significant predictor of action in the current study may be

 

 

120

one or a combination of several. One may be that the Maslow
framework is simply too broad to use as a predictive basis
for specific actions. Support for this possibility comes
from Edward C. Tolman, a behaviorist with force~field theory
beliefs. He agreed that needs exist, feeling that needs are
inherent in being human. Whether they are physical, social,
or psychological, they exist. But, he states, it is an
individual’s values which are applied to situations that
might satisfy the needs. The individual’s values are based
on that individual’s total life experiences. Thus Tolman
states that a given need may have several value/action sets
which might satisfy it in different persons (Cofer and
Appley, 1964).

A second reason for the lack of Maslow's needs being a
predictor of action may be that despite the results of
initial validity tests, this tool for measuring Maslow level
was not valid. Maslow’s levels are not meant to be static
or exclusive. Maslow saw persons working their way, in
general, up the hierarchy. But a person could be working on
several levels at one time, leading to an invalid assessment
of Maslow level when the test reports just one level.

Further, Maslow projected that about one per—cent of
the population were self—actualized. The Beer instrument’s
results were that nearly half (74/164) of the respondents
were self—actualizing. A part of the discrepancy may come
from the tense of "self—actualize". It is expected that

there would be many more persons working on

 

 

121

self-actualization than had already achieved it. Another
reason for the difference may come from the non—random
sample. The groups sampled, and the respondents from those
groups, may have varied significantly from a random sample

of the general population.

 

The relationship between Maslow level and Rokeach terminal

values (Research Question 2)

Maslow level, as indicated by Beer's survey, was shown
'to be an ineffective predictor of Rokeach Terminal Values.
When ANOVA was used to compare the two, no relationships
were found among dominant Rokeach values and Maslow levels.

This is in contrast to the findings of Dunlap,
Grieneeks, and Rokeach (1983), who stated that higher Maslow

levels would be characterized by certain Rokeach values

 

being ranked very highly. A further discussion of the
differences between this research and their paper will
follow in the section titled "Environmental groups vs.
Rokeach's recyclers"

One relationship which did emerge from analyzing this

question was that those who ranked family security as the

 

highest value had a mean Maslow level of 4.6. This
corresponds quite well to Maslow level V which is

safety/security, providing more evidence of construct

 

validity.

   

 

 

 

 

122

Relationships between Rokeach values and environmental or

 

social/political behavior (Research Question 3)

 

 

Rokeach's Terminal Values showed a greater predictive
power than Maslow's hierarchy. Table 4 showed that the
salvation variable was the best predictor of the total
amount of environmental action. Those people placing
salvation as their first priority value were significantly
less likely to have a high WES.

It was also found that among the terminal values, there
was significance to amounts of various actions. These
values will be examined in more detail in the following

paragraphs.

 

Profiles of respondents - Rokeach Terminal Values

In order to better understand the groups responding to
the survey, the data were examined by separating the church
respondents from those in environmental groups.

For the church groups the dominant terminal value,
almost without exception, was salvation. In order of

frequency, the second most important values were family

 

security, freedom, health, inner harmony, and wisdom (Table

0"

13).

The first priority values of the environmental groups

 

 

 

 

123

were peace, health, salvation, self—respect, freedom, and a
sense of accomplishment (in order of decreasing frequency).
When second priority scores were included for examination,
family security was seen to be important to this group as
well. Second priority scores reinforce the set shown in
first priority except for salvation. Salvation appears to
show a pattern of either being first priority or being
relatively unimportant.

The primary difference between the two groups is the
identity of the first priority value. Salvation is
extremely important to the church group, but is relatively
unimportant to most persons in the environmental group.
Peace is most important to those in environmental groups,

but is relatively unimportant to those in church groups.

Normative Data — Rokeach’s terminal values

As may be seen in Rokeach’s assessments of 1409
American men and women (Figure 1), neither of the groups
surveyed in the current study is completely representative
of the 1968 national norms. The 1968 national survey
reported the first three values in importance to be peace,
family security, and freedom When the national survey was
made, the value "health" was not a part of the survey.

When using either median scores or dominant scores in

comparing Rokeach’s recyclers to this study’s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

environmentalists, or when comparing Rokeach's Baptists to
this study's Free Methodists, differences were far more
evident than similarities.

Comparing the columns of Figure 1 allows the
differences between the church and environmental groups to
be seen in another way. These median comparisons show again
that peace and salvation are again the best discriminators

between the two groups. The church groups rank salvation

 

first and peace eleventh. The environmental groups rank
peace first and salvation last among the eighteen values.
In this study, most of the other values are at approximately
'the same rank.

There are important differences among even the most

comparable groups.

Environmentally oriented church people

It was seen that there are environmentally active

 

persons who also rank salvation as their highest priority

terminal value, and that there are church people who also

 

belong to environmental groups. These data are encouraging
in that they show it is not impossible for members of church
groups to be also involved with environmental groups.
Conversely, it is not impossible for environmentalists to be
religious. The two groups are not mutually exclusive.

One additional consideration in this comparison is that

the demographic section of the survey did not ask the

 

   

 

 

125

respondent to identify the nature of the environmental
organization. The church people who responded that they
belonged to an environmental organization may have belonged
to a garden club or to the Sierra Club. Membership in the
former type of organization might result in a much lower
environmental action score (as was seen) than membership in

the latter.

Heterogeneity of those ranking salvation first priority

In the section on utility of Maslow's hierarchy, it was
'seen that Beer's assessment of Maslow level was not a strong
predictive tool. The possibility that it was too broad was
discussed. That possibility was borne out when it was used
in combination with Rokeach's values - as in the section
"Maslow levels of those ranking salvation first priority".
The difference in second priority values between the
self-actualizing group (Maslow I) and the physiological
group (Maslow VI) conforms exactly with the predictions
which would be based on Maslow's hierarchy. Freedom and
wisdom are characterized as "higher order" values, while
family security is classed as a "lower order" value by
Rokeach himself (Dunlap, Grieneeks, and Rokeach, 1983).
Maslow level may have value as one of several possible
secondary importance influences which would further explain
variance among those who are or are not environmentally

active.

 

 

 

 

 

126

Environmental groups vs. Rokeach's Recyclers

It was instructive to compare the results of the
current research to that done by Dunlap, Grieneeks, and
Rokeach in 1973 (published in 1983) surveying users of a
recycling center. Recycling glass or paper was used by
Dunlap et a1 as the indicator of environmental action.
Terminal values profiles of Rokeach's recyclers showed that
their top five values (ranked in order of decreasing
importance on the basis of median scores) were wisdom,
'self-respect, family security, inner harmony, and freedom.
World at peace ranked 10th.

Compared with the environmental groups in the current
survey, there are several differences. Here the top five
terminal values ,in decreasing order of median scores, are
the following: peace, health (not included in the 1973
version of the survey), family security, freedom, and inner
harmony. Self-respect ranked sixth and wisdom ranked
seventh (Figure 2).

The values ranked three through five are essentially
the same in both studies, but those ranked at the top are
quite different. Dunlap's survey placed wisdom as most
important; the current survey placed it seventh (of
eighteen). Dunlap's survey placed self-respect second; the
current survey placed it sixth. And peace, ranked first in

this survey, was ranked tenth in Dunlap's survey.

 

 

 

 

 

127

These differences are extremely important — more than
just a few isolated factors. They form a pattern
essentially opposite what Dunlap, Grieneeks, and Rokeach
(1983) concluded was representative of environmentally
active persons. The theoretic basis of their paper was that
higher order values (in the Maslowian sense) would
characterize environmental activists. This study shows that
the three values ranked highest by median score for
environmental groups are peace, health, and family security.
All three of these are characterized as lower order values
by Dunlap, Grieneeks, and Rokeach. The hypothesis that
'higher order values are uniformly found among
environmentally active persons is not supported by this
study.

The current study showed that each type of
environmental action has its own best Rokeach dominant
terminal value predictor. Environmentally active persons
vary in their values and in their frequency of taking
different actions. There is no single best value predictor
or value profile of all types of environmental actions.

The differences between this survey and that of Dunlap,
Grieneeks, and Rokeach may have come from a number of
factors. The first might be temporal. In the eleven years
between the two surveys, many values may have changed. But
given Rokeach’s own definition of a value as "an enduring
belief", and his .69 reliability score after 14 to 16

months, and given the fact that the Dunlap, Grieneeks and

 

 

 

128

Rokeach paper was published only one year prior to the
current research, this seems less likely than the second
alternative.

This researcher felt that the difference is due to the
nature of the surveyed groups. Defining a person as
environmentally active on the basis of one action (recycling
in Dunlap’s research) might well have resulted in a
different group than one based on any other action, or on
active membership in an environmental organization.

This research confirms that from among those active in
environmental groups, the people most active in recycling
'have different value priorities than those who are most
active in some other environmental activities. The recycler
subgroup of the current study had as its three top dominant
values self—respect, wisdom, and sense of accomplishment -
very similar to the recyclers of Dunlap et a1 (1983). Other
actions have their own values profiles, for example,
attempting to influence elected officials (sense of
accomplishment is the best predictor of this action), or
campaigning at the state and national level for an
environmentally concerned candidate (world at peace is the
best predictor of this action).

Environmental activists are not a homogeneous group;
they are segmented into many subgroups according to their
values and their action patterns. They cannot all be
described by the same values profile. Any past study which

used a single action as a basis for estimating total

 

 

129

environmental action or as a basis for understanding
environmental action should be examined in this regard.
This finding supports the intent of the current research —
to find values important to specific segments of the
population and use those particular values to most
efficiently bring about an increase in environmental action

or in environmental education.

Comparisons of Concern/commitment Weights

When the values assigned by respondent groups to the
("concern or commitment it would take to do certain actions"
section (Section III of the survey) were analyzed, some
unexpected results were seen. Table 11 shows that when each
action was compared between the church groups and the
environmental groups, the mean weights for perception of
concern or commitment to do each of the environmental
actions were nearly the same. None of the differences were
statistically significant.

Evidently the church people and those in environmental
organizations both feel the same about the commitment it
would take to do specific actions. The difference between
the two groups comes in whether they do the actions.

Implications for environmental communications or
environmental education curriculum are that it is not
necessary to educate someone about the amount of commitment

to the environment necessary to take a particular action.

 

 

 

°eInorxxno uorgeonpa

Iejuamuoxrnua xo steadde [eguamuoxrnua xog sxxomamexg
burzruebxo se pasn uaqm aouegxodmr geaxfi fitterguagod go axe
Kaqg gnq 'asuas aArgarpaxd e u; uorgoe restarted/teroos uqu

xuexxodmr seat axe SGHIPA Teurmxag gueurmop qaeaxoa
°drqsuorgetax aqg go asn

axem og xapxo u; aArgoe Atteorngod xo KIIeroos aq ox umoux
asoqx on passaxppe aq steadde IeguamuoxrAua axngng gqu

papuammooax s; gr 'xoqarpaxd e se anIeA agexapom go gsaq 3e
31 srqq qbnoqxtv °Kpngs quaxxna aqq u; uorgoe IeguamuoxrAua

go xogorpaxd gsaq aqx sem uorgae Ieorgrtod/Ieroos

go ISAGI gqu uaas S: gr 'sgrnsax aux go at anem moxa

axons Ieguamuoxrnua go sxogarpaxd go aauegxodmr aAggeIau

°gueargrufirs Buraq auou qgrm 'Items {1e
exam (uorgrgad e ubrs °6°a) Kanns uorgoe Ieorgrrod/teroos

aqq ur paxxnooo oste qarqm suorgae IeguamuoxrAua
go sgqbram aouegxodmr go suosrxedmoa xog SBDIQA

“a“ °suorgoe {eorgrtod/Ieraos axe: ox guamgrmmoo paAraoxad

Kanns gou og uorsroap aqg sgxoddns osTe Burpurg srqm

°uorgoe sq: axe: pInoqs auo qu pue xaqgaqm
— IeuorgeArqom aq ptnoqs suorgearunmmoa IeguamuoxrAua

pue uorgeanpa IeguamuoxrAua go gsnxqg aux gen: anbxe pInom

xaqoxeasax srqm °uorgoe IeguamuoxrAua qnoqe aseq afipaImoux

e aAeq qgoq neg: aouaxagur egg on spear guamgrmmoo paAraaxad

uo IeAaI ames aux ge axons sdnoxfi qgoq gen: gaeg aqm

OEI

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

Importance of knowledge of the relationship between values

and environmental action

While having modest value as current predictors of
environmental action, knowledge of a group's values might
have extreme importance when applied in a curricular sense
or in an action campaign. Designing appeals or education to
best meet the first (or very high) priority values of
certain groups would maximize potential for involving the
'group. This would allow maximum efficiency of resource
allocation, depending on the knowledge of the desired action

or the specific value and action profile of the group.

Implications for behavior change

Rokeach described instances of using the values survey
in a program of behavioral change (e.g. Penner, 1971, in
Ball-Rokeach, 1984). This survey could be used to initiate
change in the same way. In the studies Rokeach described,
the results of the survey were used to generate
dissatisfaction within the subjects. Rokeach (1973) and
Ball—Rokeach et a1 (1984) have both reported that behavior
change can result from experimental application of knowledge

of a person's values. They write that self—dissatisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

132

is often the primary motivator for such change. When a
person is confronted with an incongruence between his values
and behavior,he acts to reduce the incongruence. The
studies reported show that behaviors change to allign more
completely with the person’s overall values.

PeOple who were made aware that their values were
inconsistent with their behaviors showed significant
behavior change (Penner, 1971, in Ball-Rokeach et al, 1984).
Penner's study dealt with inter-racial behavioral
interactions and the importance of the value "equality".

For the current study, it is expected that showing
'inconsistencies between a person's environmental actions and
values will generate the same self—dissatisfaction. It is
further expected that people will show change in behaviors
if it can be demonstrated to them that such a change will
both reduce the self—dissatisfaction and also increase
self—esteem. According to Rokeach, the more specific the
self-dissatisfaction, the better it serves to change the
behavior. As he states,"...even persons who are believed to
be extremely resistant to change can be induced to change

their basic outlooks and actions" (p. 329, 1973).

Implications for education and communications

The results of the current study may be used in three

ways. The first involves using groups similar to those

surveyed - those for which this study might be a predictive

 

 

 

 

 

133

tool, such as other Free Methodist churches or Sierra Club
chapters. When making appeals or designing and presenting
educational materials, the personality and action
information might be used directly. Those values most
important to the individuals being served would be those
best stressed in order to achieve action or learning.
Figure 8 shows some specific value/action relationships
which might be used in this application for environmental
groups.

When these particular groups are used, it may also be
possible to use this research to generalize about the types
'of actions these persons are or are not involved in. This
allows the communicator or educator to be more specific in
whether he will provide detailed rationale for the action or
simply describe the current situation and provide tools for

dealing with the situation.

The second way in which the study might be used
involves understanding the values structures of a different
group. It is possible to make inferences about values which
are important to those people who make up an organization by
bringing together information from diverse sources. The
group charter or mission statement, interviews with leaders
and members, press reports, and histories of the group will
all lead to knowledge of the values most likely important to
the members of the group. Knowledge of those values allows

the practitioner to design the best communications or

 

 

 

 

 

134

curriculum to most directly affect and serve the intended

audience.

The third use involves first priority values and
inferences based on those values. Inferences derived from
examination of each of the first—priority values and other
knowledge of the group can help understand other differences
among the groups and can help in applying the values to
education and communications.

The first-priority value of the environmental group was
peace. Dunlap et a1 (1983) state that peace is a lower
’order value, related to safety and security, but this author
feels that it is a higher order value - one with a strong
altruistic basis. Support for this contention comes from
Ball-Rokeach et a1 (1984), who describe three experiments
which raised the priority of the higher order values
"equality" and "freedom". The priority of the value "peace"
rose consistently in all three, even though it was not a
goal of the experiments. This strong relationship to the
two other altruistic, higher order values leads to the
inference that peace is more likely one of them than one of
the lower order values.

A common element to both the value "peace" and
environmental action is an other-directedness, also known as
altruism. An altruistic action is not primarily or directly
something which will advance the individual; rather it is

done for others or for all mankind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

The first-priority value of the church group was
salvation. Salvation is a personal and individual
phenomenon, one which might be labelled "egoistic". This
research suggests that persons who rank salvation as first
priority are less environmentally active. Other research in
progress (Harold Darling, Professor of Psychology, Spring
Arbor College, personal communication) seems to indicate
that persons with salvation ranked as first priority are
less socially active.

It is paradoxic that the church people seem to value
helping others, but that they are actually found to be less
‘active than their non-church counterparts. Rokeach found
that those who rank salvation highly think of themselves as
more concerned with welfare of their fellow man than those
who do not share their religious beliefs. But he reports
that three separate studies using independent measures of
social compassion all contradict that impression. Though
the Bible is permeated by the exhortation to show love,
care, and concern for others, the research projects just
mentioned and the observations of other social scientists
indicate that the exhortation is not yet completely
actualized. This paradoxic finding lends itself perfectly
to the cognitive dissonance model of behavior change which

was mentioned earlier with reference to values.

While there is a great deal of literature on the

altruism—egoism continuum, very little of it deals with the

 

 

 

 

 

 

136

continuum as an organizing scheme for motivation and the
resultant behaviors. It seems that the topic of altruism is
most often reported in theoretical, philosophical, or
mathematical articles. Survey scales to measure altruism
per se either do not exist or were not discovered. Research
showing relationships of the general characteristic of
altruism to specific actions has not been undertaken or
reported.

There are some aspects of altruism which have been
reported in behavioral terms. One of these is willingness
to help. Factors seen to be important in the development of
‘helping behaviors include emotional security and
self-confidence (Block, 1972, in Likona, 1976). Also
important are a personal state of well-being and a need for
fulfillment. Harden (1977) feels that these are important
in increasing prosocial behaviors because of the reduced
pressures toward egoistic self-concern. He further states
that help gviving increases with higher in Kohlberg moral
reasoning levels. Other studies have found that religion,
humanitarianism, and social responsibility were not as
important as knowledge of how to help and experience in
helping in the past (Huston et al, 1981) and (Bateson and
Gray, 1981).

Apparently the development of an altruistic approach to
life is a product of one's personal well-being, moral
development, and knowledge. The relative importance and

timing of each of these factors is still unknown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

The recommendation of this author is to more directly
find whether a person is self— or other—centered. A
semantic differential scale could be composed for several
terms in the self/other or egoism/altruism continuum. The
person's outcome could be compared with level and type of
environmental activism. This would efficiently settle the
question of whether the inference about self/other from the

values "salvation" and "peace" is justified.

The preceding paragraphs lead to two sets of
recommendations for dealing with the groups in this study.
'The first recommendation involves the first priority values
and their inferred corollaries. Appeals or curriculum
directed toward environmental groups should incorporate the
theme of "peace", but should also integrate the more general
motivator of other-directed action which already exists
within the population. This population may need direction
more than motivation. Examples of such appeals might take
the form of "You can best help future generations
by ....... ", or "The most effective way you can do your part
for the environment is ....... ", or possibly by using a
slogan like "Declare 'Peace' on the Environment".

The relationships of Figure 5.1 might also be applied
very profitably in this regard. Using the matrix of Figure
5.1, it is possible to find which actions are most likely
for an individual with a given value ranking highly, or

conversely, it is possible to find which values ought to be

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Rokeach Terminal Value

I wisdom I peace I sense of I self— I healthI

I I I accompl. I respect I I

I
vote I X I I X I X I I
| I I I I I
J I | I I I
I I I I I I
donate S I X I I X I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I L I
I I I I I I
influence I I I x I I I
officials I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I | I I I l
.Campaign I I X I I I I
I I | I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
Public I I I I I X I
appearance I I | I I I
I I I I
I I I I
recycle I I I I X I I
I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

purchase I I I X I I |
I I I I I l

I I I I I I

I I I I I l

boycott I I I X I I I
I I I I | I

I__ | I .1 I |

Figure 5.1. Potentially effective relationships - to find

most effective values to stress for specific
actions or actions most likely given specific

high priority values.

 

 

 

 

139

stressed to be most efficient in enlisting people to take a
given action. While these relationships are for the most
part not based on statistically significant differences in
the data, it is felt that they are important and that they
provide a good starting point for both action and further
research.

A similar type of model used for making appeals to
those in church groups would emphasize both the individual
nature of the primary value and the high value placed on
belief in the Bible. The inward or individual orientation
of the primary value might be used by showing direct
'personal gains to be had from specific environmental
actions. An example of this is an appeal like the
following: "Wilderness - will it be there to enjoy when you
retire?". The second part of this inferred values
constellation involves belief in the Bible. An example of a
Biblical appeal would be "Would Noah have taken a pair of
snail darters?". Biblical references to care for the
environment will carry much more influence than would
exhortations from other sources, especially others who are

not in the same confidence group (in the Miller sense).

If the first priority values are not going to be used
directly, they should at least be used indirectly, as a
checklist to make sure the curriculum or communications do

not violate highly valued factors for either group,

 

 

 

 

140

The cognitive dissonance mentioned earlier might also
be used very successfully with the church group. As was
seen in previous paragraphs, the generalizations from this
study and others are that church people are significantly
less environmentally active than environmentalists. If this
fact is made known to the church people, along with the
reminder of their belief in the Bible, and teachings of the
Bible about concern for the environment as well as for other
people, they should quickly see the incongruity of their
values, beliefs and actions. The incongruity model suggests
that they will act to reduce the incongruity or dissonance.
'It is expected that this would involve becoming more
environmentally active.

One caution should be added here concerning source
credibility. As Miller mentioned and as is intuitively
understood, the conservative church group is not as trusting
of the educational system as are some other groups. Despite
the best of intentions, an environmental educator who
attempted to communicate with such a group might find the
attempts futile. A lack of credibility with the group might
allow the group to ignore his or her message. Cognitive
dissonance is a strong force; one of the easiest means to
resolve it is to find fault with the source of the
information which caused the dissonance. This prevents
having to admit one's own irreconcilable beliefs, values,
and actions. The environmental educator should take all

possible steps to ensure source credibility.

 

 

 

 

 

141

Both the church groups and the environmental groups
showed a very high priority for health and for family
security. It would be wise to use these values in
communications and curriculum which would be less
specifically targeted. While the first priority value
of each group is not perceived as extremely important to
the other, the second two values are seen as important
to both groups and might be most effectively used as the
basis for a general action campaign. An example of such
a campaign might involve the slogan "Protect your

. family's health - stop pollution".

When additional groups are surveyed and the results
are more widely applicable, some of the other values
less important in this study might be seen to be common
among other groups and increase in their communicative

value.

Suggestions for future research

1. A study should be done to find whether the
application of these results and recommendations is
useful in increased response to communications or in
increased participation and learning in educational

programs.

 

 

 

 

 

142

2. It is suggested that similar surveys be used to
find the values and action profiles of labor groups, the
other traditionally non-involved group according to

Miller (1971).

3. This instrument should be refined or combined with
others already in existence (e.g. Sia, 1983) to account
for more of the variance in motivation for environmental

action.

4. A broader range of environmental groups and
environmental behaviors should be sampled to present a
fuller values profile of environmentally active persons.
This would help to better resolve the differences
between this research and that of Dunlap, Grieneeks, and

Rokeach (1983).

5. A semantic differential scale should be constructed
to test for a person's placement on the self/other

continuum.

6. Factor analysis of the current data could find
whether there was a self/other cluster within Rokeach's
values, as well as whether the church and environmental

groups differed on this factor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

7. These populations or others similar to them should
be studied more intensively, possibly as a substudy of
approximately 10 people in which interviews could
discern more about the personality and environmental

action factors of specific people.

8. Age may be a factor in personality and environmental
action. This possibility should be investigated in
regard to level and type of environmental action, as
well as to the individual's placement on the self/other

continuum.

 

APPENDIX

 

144

Appendix A. Research Survey.

MICHIGAN CITIZENS’
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
AND '
PERSONAL PREFERENCE
SURVEY

A Joint Research Project

Michigan State University Spring Arbor College
Department of Fisheries Department of Biology

and Wildlife Natural Science Building
Natural Resource Building Spring Arbor, Michigan 49283

East Lansing, Michigan 48824

 

 

 

 

145

Appendix A (continued).

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST L’INSING 0 MICHIGAN ' 488244222
NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING
l5") 535-4477

MICHIGAN SURVEY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AND ?ERSONALITY

A Joint Project

of
Michigan State University Spring Arbor College
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife and Department of Biology
Natural Resources Building Natural Science Building
East Lansing, MI 48824 Spring Arbor. MI 49283

Dear Participant:

Would you please help in this research project? It is designed to learn more
about the types of behaviors people do with regard to the environment as well
as personality information to try and understand "why". The results of this
study should guide educators and policy makers in future efforts to increase
effective public involvement in environmental issues. Your input does matter.

We appreciate the value of your time and effort. If we did not think this
project to be extremely worthwhile, we would not request your valuable
cooperation. While we cannot pay you for the value of your time. we have
arranged to make a donation of 50¢ for each completed questionnaire. This
donation will be given to your church to be used where needed most. When
added to donations from the many others completing these forms. it can
become a Significant amount.

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. There are only yeur answers. Your
truthful replies to evegy question are what will make this project successful.

Notice that there is no place for a name on the answer sheets. The name on the
return mailing is designed to prevent duplicate mailings. You are promised
complete confidentiality.

Thank you in advance for your help on this research project.

79‘ a; 2% fltw

Mr. Chris Newhouse
Assistant Professor
Biology

Spring Arbor College
Spring Arbor. MI 49283

Dr. 9. Ben Peyton
Assistant Professor
Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University

MS U is an Allin-cum Action/Equal Opponmmy [summo-

 

146
Appendix A (continued).

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT Of FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1222
NAIUIAL RESOURCES BUILDING
(Sm 555-4477

MICHIGAN SURVEY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY

A Joint Project

-

or
Michigan State University Spring Arbor College
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife and Department of Biology
Natural Resources Building Natural Science Building
East Lansing, MI 48824 Spring Arbor, MI 49283

Dear Participant:

WOuld you please help in this research project? It is designed to learn more
about the types of behaviors people do with regard to the environment as well
as personality information to try and understand "why". The results of this
study should guide educators and policy makers in future efforts to increase
effective public involvement in environmental issues. Your input does matter.

It is expecially important for us to gather data from people like you who are
more active and informed about environmental issues. While we cannot pay you
for the value of your time, we have arranged to make a donation of 50¢ for

each completed questionnaire. This donation will be given to your environmental
organization to be used where needed most. When added to the donations given
for the many others completing this form, it can become a significant amount.

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. There are only ybur answers. Your
truthful replies to evegz question are what will make this project successful.

Notice that there is no place for a name on the answer sheets. The name on the
return mailing is designed to prevent duplicate mailings. You are promised
complete confidentiality.

We appreciate the value of your time and effort. If we did not think this
project to be extremely worthwhile, we would not request your valuable

cooperation.

Thank you in advance for your help on this research project.

Sincerely,

rash ahmgai

Dr. R. Ben Peyton Chris Newhouse
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor

Fisheries and Wildlife 310109?

Michigan State University :Pr§39 2:22: CEIIEESBS
pring r,

.WSU 4': m (II/Moe Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

147

Appendix A (continued).

Directions:

Please answer all questions.

Do not write your name on the form.

When you finish, please fold the heavy cover over the question
booklet and staple or tape securely.

Please return the booklet as indicated.

Please start by circling the number in front of the following questions.
Remember. we do not have or want your name.

1. What is your highest level of education? (circle one)

1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.

some grade school
some high school
completed high school
some college
completed college
some graduate work

a graduate degree

2. What is your occupation? (circle the most appropriate category)

1.
2.
3.

4.
S.
6.
7.

clerical or sales or service

manager or proprietor

homemaker (if this, please also check the occupation of the family
breadwinner) .

official or professional

farmeowner or manager

laborer

student

3. What was your 1983 family income?

1.
2.
3.
4.
S.

4. Me

1.
2.

less than $10,000
from 10.000 to 19.999
from 20,000 to 29,999
from 30.000 to 39.999
above 40.000

you a member of an environmental organization?

yes
no

5. Where do you live?

1.
2.
3.

6. Sex

1.
2.

urban area - city
suburban area - town. small community
rural area - country

male
female

 

 

148

Appendix A (continued).

PART I PREFERENCE INVENTORY
Purpose of Inventory:

Below you will find six sets of statements that describe various
aspects of life. These factors are of differing importance to
different people.

The purpose of this inventory is to determine the relative
importance to you of each of the six statements in each set. Although
some items in the various sets may be similar they express different
aspects of the life situation and are necessary to a complete
description of what is important to you.

This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers.
Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to rank each set of
items in terms of their importance to you.

DIRECTIONS:

a. READ all the statements in each set.
b. THINK about how important each statement is to you.

c. RANK the statements in order of their importance to you. Do
this by placing a "if next to the statement that is most
important to you, a "2” next to the statement that is second most
important to you and so on through number "6" which would be
the statement of least importance to you.

d RANK ALL STATEMENTS in a set even when this is difficult.

EXAMPLE:

The opportunity in my life to work together with other people.

.I...

Having sufficient authority for the role expected of me.

 

 

 

5 Having knowledge of others' plans that affect me and my life.
1 Credit given me by others for doing a good job.
3 The opportunity to utilize all of my abilities.

 

Not having to worry where the next meal will come from.

'0

RANK the statements in each set in order of their importance to you.

4

The sense of worth that my life gives me.
Relative freedom from supervision.

Knowing that my physical needs (hunger. thirst. etc.)
are satisfied.

Being told what I am.supposed to do and how I am to do it.

The opportunity to develop my full potential.
The opportunity to develop close friendships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

Appendix A (continued).

The opportunity to give help to other people.

NOT having to make decisions.

Having adequate clothes to protect me from the elements.

The opportunity to come up with my own solutions to problems.
The opportunity for personal growth and development.

The importance of a role in life.

Having a source of income to provide for survival needs.
The chance to achieve as much as I want in my life.

Receiving adequate information about plans and policies that
influence me.

Freedom to express my opinion and suggestions to others.
Being liked by others.
The feeling that what I do is regarded as important.

Freedom to use my own judgement.

Getting as far ahead as my abilities will allow.

Having others recognize the importance of what I do.

An Opportunity to show my liking and friendship for others.
A warm, dry place to live.

Knowing someone who will help me out when I get into a jam.

Freedom to make decisions.

The Opportunity to participate in activities such as picnics.
bowling leagues, etc.

A routine where I always know what is expected of me.
The prestige and regard I receive from others.

The opportunity to advance in responsibility as far as I
am able to.

The fact that I have all the food I need.

A sense of belonging to a group.

The fact that I am bee now seriously hungry or thirsty.
A definite set of rules and procedures that I can follow.
NOT having my work interfered with.

Credit given me for doing good work.

The feeling of self-fulfillment from being able to use my
own unique capabilities and realizing my potential.

 

 

 

1

Appendix A (continued).

PART II

50

This set of questions deals with actions you might have taken at least

pertially becau_se it; your concern
done one of the following actions
(for example, only to save money)

for the environment. If you have
. but only for a non-environmental reason
. please respond "not at all".

Please check how often you have done each of the following (with consideration

of the environment being at least
the past year.

one important part of the decision) within

1. Picked up any type of litter -

a. at home b. in your neighborhood
_ not at all _ not at all
__ seldom _ seldom
____occasionally occasionally
____ frequently frequently

c. in public areas d. in commercial areas
(parks. etc.) (parking lots, shopping centers)
__ not at all _ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom
.___ occasionally occasionally
.___ frequently .___ frequently

2. Taken the following items to a recycling center -

a. paper b. glass
__ not at all _ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom
__ occasionally __ occasionally
__ frequently _ frequently

c. metal d. motor oil

‘ __ not at all __ not at all

__ seldom __ seldom
__ occasionally __ occasionally
__ frequently ___' frequently

 

 

151

Appendix A (continued).

Signed a petition aimed at improving environmental conditions -

a. among friends and b. in public places
__ not at all _ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom
__ occasionally _ occasionally
__ frequently _ frequently

Distributed a petition aimed at improving environmental conditions -

a. among friends and b. in public places
__ not at all _ not at all
_ seldom __ seldom
_ occasionally __ occasionally
_ frequently __ frequently

Written to or called elected officials to try and influence their
position on an environmental issue -

a. local officials and b. state officials and c. national officials

__ not at all _ not at all __ not at all
_ seldom __ seldom __ seldom

__ occasionally _ occasionally __ occasionally
_ frequently __ frequently __ frequently

Campaigned for somebody seeking public office at least partly because
of his/her environmental stance -

a. local level and b. state level and c. national level
__ not at all _ not at all _ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom __ seldom
__ occasionally __ occasionally __ occasionally
__ frequently _ frequently __ frequently

Voted for somebody seeking public office at least partly because of
his/her environmental stance -

a. local level and b. state level and c. national level
_ not at all __ not at all __ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom _ seldom
__ occasionally __ occasionally __ occasionally
__ frequently __ frequently __ frequently

 

152

Appendix A (continued).

8.

lo.

11.

Turned off lights

for energy conservation -

a. at home and b. at a friend or
relative's home
__ not at all __ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom
___.occasionally occasionally
.___ frequently frequently

and

c. in a public
building(school,
church, restaurant)

not at all
seldom
occasionally

frequently

Purchased some particular brand or type of object at least partially

for environmental reasons -
a. because of its recyclable container
‘___ not at all
____ seldom
____occasionally
___'frequently
to minimize harmful effects
caused by similar products
____not at all

seldom
‘____occasionally

frequently

C.

b.

because it uses less energy

not at all

seldom

occasionally

frequently

because the company was known
to be environmentally concerned

not at all
seldom
occasionally
frequently

Distributed information about environmental issues -

to strangers
___ not at all
____ seldom

a. to friends

not at all
‘___ seldom
occasionally

frequently

b.

occasionally

frequently

Engaged in an informal discussion to encourage someone to consider some

aspect of an environmental issue -

with someone having views similar
to your own

not at all
seldom

occasionally

a.

frequently

b.

with someone having views
different from your own

not at all

__ seldom

occasionally

_____frequently

 

153

Appendix A (continued).

l2.

13.

1m

15.

16.

Made a public appearance or spoken "formally" about an environmental
issue -

a. at the local level b. at the state level c. at the national level

__ not at all __ not at all _ not at all
__ seldom _ seldom __ seldom

__ occasionally __ occasionally __ occasionally
_ frequently frequently frequently

Reported to authorities an individual or organization violating an
environmental law - (pollution. hunting violations)

a. an individual you know well b. an individual you don‘ t know
well
_ not at all __ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom
__ occasionally __ occasionally
__ frequently __ frequently

Filed a lawsuit against an individual or organization violating
enviromental laws -

a. by yourself b. as a part of a group lawsuit
_ not at all __ not at all
__ seldom __ seldom
__ occasionally _ occasionally
__ frequently __ frequently

Filed an injunction to prevent a threat to the environment -

a. filed by yourself b. filed as part of a group action
__ not at all _ not at all
_ seldom __ seldom
occasionally __ occasionally
frequently __ frequently

Stopped buying a product due to its potentially harmful environmental effects -

a. not at all

seldom

occasionally

frequently

Given donations for an environmental project -
a. at the local level b. at the state level c. at the national level

not at all not at all not at all
seldom seldom seldom
occasionally occasionally occasionally

frequently frequently frequently

 

154

Appendix A (continued).

PART III

Please respond to the following items by stating how much environmental concern
or environmental commitment you feel it would take to do the following actions.
Assume that each is in an environmental context.

Example: I, feel it would take (circle a number) of environmental commitment
to (for each item)

§
.5?
.555?
:é’f
$5.?
1 2 3 Sign a petition
l 2 3 Distribute a petition
l 2 3 write to or call an official
1 2 3 Campaign for somebody
l 2 3 vote for somebody
l 2 3 Pick up litter
l 2 3 Use a recycling center
1 2 3 Turn off lights
l 2 3 Make environmentally sound purchases
1 2 3 Distribute information
l 2 3 Discuss the environment with somebody
l 2 3 Make a public appearance or a formal speech
1 2 3 Report a violation of environmental law
1 2 3 File a lawsuit
1 2 3 File an injunction
l 2 3 Stop buying a harmful product
l 2 3 Give donations for an environmental project

 

155

Appendix A (continued).

PART IV
Inventory of Social and/or Political Attions (not including environmental.
actions)

this series of questions deals with action in other social or political
realms. Social or political ac- hon may be concerned with poverty 3

rights. peace. education. or discrimination. there are. of course. many
other possible topics. Remember - this set excludes environmental actions.

Regardless of which issues or topics may be of concern to you. please answer
' «following questions about how you have attempted to deal with the issue.
For each action. report how often you have taken this type of action during
the past year. Please respond to every item.

:3 the past year. how many times. if any. have you. ...... ......because of a
social or political issue? {Please circle the appropriate letter)
.3'
. f

sides

v :9“

n.1Vg
S’s’a‘v-

N s 3 P l. written to or called an elected official

2
m
0
m
?'

participated in a peaceful demonstration (march. :al.y.
picket) .n order .ohring the issue to the public's
attention

8 S o F 3. stopped buying from or using the services of that company

.4
u-
L)
~u
‘-
.

signed a petition

N S 3 F 5. distributed a petition

V S o F 6. written a "letter to the editor" of a newspaper or
magazine
v 3 3 P 7 called a radio or rv station to share your views

N s o F 3. joined an organization which was organized to deal with
social or political issues

N S o F 9. donated money to an organization or individual in order
to help in the resolution of your particular issue

v 3 0 P -0. voted for an indi'-dual at least partially
v s o E ll. campaigned for an indiViduel at least partially
N s D F l2. reported to the authorities cases where an individual

or organization has been breaking the law
3 s o 5 l3. filed or actively and directly supported a lawsuit
N s o P l4. run for or served in public office at least partially

N s o P ls. been a volunteer in a charity campaign. such as making
holiday food boxes or working for a Red cross drive

N S o P 16. gone to someone’s home or had someone into your home
primarily to do something to improve that person's well-
being (not as a social or business Visit)

N S o F 17. participated in some type of educational program at least
partly for the purpose of learning more

N s o F 18. attempted to educate somebody
N s o P l9. attended a meeting at least partly for the purpose of

finding out how to be more effective in your efforts
to solve a social or political problem

 

 

156

Appendix A (continued).

PART V INSTRUCTIONS

On the next page are is values listed in alphabetical order. Your
task is to arrange them in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding
principles in YOUR life. Each value is printed on a abel which

can be easily peeled off and pasted in the boxes on the left-hand side
of the page.

tudy the list carefully and pick out the one value which is the most
important for you. Peel it off and paste it in Box 1 on the left

Then pick out the value which is second most important tfor you.
it off and paste it in Box 2. Then do the
values.

Peel
same for each of the renaining
The value which is least important goes in Box 18.

Work slowly and think carefully. If you
to change your answers. The labels peel off
place to place. The end result should truly

change your mind. feel free
easily and can be moved from
show how you really feel.

 

 

157

Appendix A (continued).

 

 

 

 

 

15;

Iéé
f

I7!
I8i

A COMFORTABLE LIFE
(o procporous (Ito)

AN EXCITING LIFE
(o stimulating. octIvo Ilfo)

A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMBNT
(lostIng contribution)

A WORLD AT PEACE
(ftoo of war and conflIct)

A WORLD OF EIAUTY
(boouty ot noturo ond tho arts)

EQUALITY (brothorhood.
oquol opportunity for all)

FAMILY SECURITY
(toklng coro oi lovod onoo)

FREEOM
(Indopondonco. froo choico)

HEALTH
(physical and nlontoI roll-Hug)

INN. HARMONY
(froodom from Innor contIIct)

MATUII LOVE
(usual and spiritual IntImocy)

NATIONAL SECURITY
(protocflon from ottock)

PLEASURE
(on onloyoblo. IoIouron llto)

SALVATION
(sovod. otornol lilo)

SELF-RESPECT
(colt-octootn)

SOCIAL RECOGNITION
(mpoct. odmirotlon)

TRUE FRIENDSHIP
(cIooo comoonIonoIIIp)

WISDOM
(o moturo ondoutondlng ot Ilto)

WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED. GO TO THE NEXT PAGE.

 

 

158

Appendix A (continued).

Thank you very much for your participation in this study. Your
responses will help our research effort which we expect will benefit all
the citizens of Michigan.

Please be sure to flip the heavy sheet over to serve as a cover, to
staple or tape the booklet, then to return the booklet.

 

 

159

Appendix A (continued).

 

mmmmv H2 .nons< mafinom
omoHHoo Moons msasmm
monon Mo nowmomoum p.mm¢
omdoaaoz mango .hs

new? 525.: .392 Siam

omoon contra. macaw

 

 

160

Appendix B. Credibility Letters.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

92‘"

. Q
133’;
EEZE'

autumn. nesounccs CMON ‘ "3”
rsgntasnmrécenson JAMES J. BLANCHARD. Governor
a , A
$525; 33;" DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3 STEWART MYERS STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING
=AYMONO poupone BOX 30028
«mm H NHII'ELEY LANSING. Ml 48909

RONALD O. SKOOG. Oioctor

ANlZ 1””

Mr. Chris Newhouse

Assistant Professor of Biology
Spring Arbor College

Spring Arbor, Michigan 49283

Dear Professor Newhouse:

The Department of Natural Resources is most interested in reviewing the
results from your research project for the purpose of improving communica-
tions with Michigan citizens. The Department is undertaking a number of
management initiatives in public affairs and social resource management
which could be enhanced by obtaining the results from your survey. Dr.
Ben Peyton is aware of these efforts and can be of considerable assistance
to us as he oversees your efforts in completing your doctoral dissertation
on these matters.

I certainly encourage the cooperation of members from the Michigan
Sierra Club and the Audubon Society Chapters in responding to your

research endeavor.
Sinc rely,
W ..

. Whiteley. Ch irman
Natur 1 Resources Camission

 

cc: Natural Resources Commission
Dr. Skoog ~
Dr. Peyton

91025 £53.» ‘

’3‘ Ian- D

 

 

 

161

Appendix B (continued).

Michigan Audubon dociety

7000. North Westnodge, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
616 344-8648

 

May 10, 1984

Mr. Chris Rewhouse .
Assistant Professor of Biology
Spring Arbor College

Spring Arbor, Michigan 49283

Dear Professor Nevhouse:

The Michigan Audubon Society is extremely interested in
research that evaluates motivational and personality correlates
of environmental action. The state of Michigan and the Michigan
Audubon Society has been fortunate since it's founding in 1904
in having many individuals motivated to advancing the cause of
environmental action.

I strongly encourage Michigan Audubon Society menbers to

cooperate in this research project.

Sincerely, ' . , _
fl '. V I V
icfliL/r%dl‘ ‘““’

Roger Sutherland

president

"This Is Roovcioa poser. use It ooein."

 

162

Appendix B (continued).

I

...—_—

 

 

lull")!!!

Trumlulmg concur:
IlllU “(Moll

 

West Michigan Environmental Action Council

152-l LIkL' l)r1vc,S E. - Grand Rapids. Michigan 49‘00 - olb-wildOSl
October 12, 1984

Dear WMEAC Member

You might be asking yourself why a WMEAC cover letter is in an envelope
with a Spring Arbor College return address.

The answer is simple: the WMEAC Board of Directors is cooperating with
a Michigan State University Ph. D. Candidate. Assistant Professor Chris
Newhouse, in his research on environmental activists. As is more fully
explained in the first page of the enclosed survey form, the information
gained in this project will help increase environmental activism.

That is why the Board of Directors has decided to support this project
and why the Board encourages you to complete and return the survey. Pro-
fessor Newhouse has proVided explicit instructions on how this can be
done.

Please be assured that the Board of Directors respects your privacy. We
HAVE NOT released our mailing list. or your name, in conjunction with this
research. Rather, as is Board policy, Professor Newhouse has provided all
materials (surveys and envelopes) to us and WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE ENVEL-
OPES. In effect, we have acted only as the mailing house.

In return for this service by WMEAC, in addition to the knowledge gained
through the research, WMEAC will receive a donation for each survey re-

turned to Professor Newhouse.

For these reasons we encourage your support of this worthwhile project.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have regarding Board
policy on mailings to our members.

Sincerely yours.
%\
T‘K/L

Frank Ruswick, Jr.
Executive Director

 

 

 

 

163

Appendix B (continued).

/ “.—
Lfi'h ‘-

a
0' '5
x‘ '-

1 g n} p
, North Michigan Conference
OF THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH
SUPERINTENDENT: TED JOHNSONJSIOS SHAMROCK BLVD.. BIG RAPIDS. MI ‘9307 (618) 796-3147

iuwmutrwucmwnm:

I hereby urge your participation in Professor Houhouse's Fh.D.
project by filling in the enclosed questionnaire to the best or your
abilities. This project can no doubt be of a great service to us all
as it seeks for practical applications of Qua-infinity to every day

lining.
Sincerely,

l‘\ ' . ’
I

.. "."_-_Jc;,l\_',
toa's. Johnson, Superintenth ‘
North Michigan Conference of the Free Methodist cdun-ch

I

 

 

 

164

Appendix B (continued).

"For Zion 's sake I wdl not keep silent, for Jerusalem 's sake I will not lemam ouzer.
all her ngnreousness runes Out like the dawn, her salvation like .3 During torch. "

 

   

 

 

//—\ lsarah 62:
,/ .f .
“g,,—c\/ ‘/,”r’;;;;;;;ET;RYDERMAN:;;;;‘\\\
. ’ ‘ . , __ " 3724 Horse Shoe Drive . Trov, Michigan 48384
.I‘K‘t‘ -.\ It‘ll l( x 1151 ( .1 ll Il‘( 'h g
' eafTih.mTTT.----m -.mi. ‘\c “-——- (fifiafirééd-l707

Dear Friend,

I was recently approached by Chris Newhouse, a personal friend
and a professor at Spring Arbor College, with the request to
involve the members and friends of our church fellowship in

a research project he is currently pursuing in his graduate
studies.

Knowing him.and his commitment to higher Christian education
and knowing you and your interest in and support of Spring
Arbor College, I was sure that you would want to assist him.
He is especially interested in polling the Christian community
as to their response to several critical issues. Please take
time to add your responses to his research.

Again, we both appreciate your support and interest. This is
one way we can feel a part of the growth and adventure which
goes on and springs from our campus at Spring Arbor.

In His service, with joy and enthusiasm,

Rik Cryderman, Pastor and friend

JC/rc

 

 

Appendix C.

165

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for
each environmental action when comparing mean
environmental action frequencies among Maslow
levels.

Action 1.a (pick up litter - home)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
lqvgl N MEAN STDEV ¢ a t t 0.49
1 77 2.805 0.514 (---*---)
11 23 2.696 0.470 ( ' ) df-
III ll 2.727 0.905 ( ‘ l 4,
IV 16 2.075 0.342 ( * ) 150
VI 36 2.694 0.668 ( ' )
¢ t f # N.S.
POOLED STDEV - 0.565 2.40 2.64 2.88 3 12
Action 1.b (pick up litter - neighborhood)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
a..1°w BASED ON 900050 srnzv p.
1 1 N urns STDEV 5 ¢ 9 t 1.25
I'V' 77 2.065 0.079 (.....-..)
III 11 2.364 0.809 ( * ) 4,
Iv 16 1.938 0.854 ( * ) 153
v: 36 1.770 0.929 ( r )
Poorrn srosv - 0.054 1.60 2.00 2.20 2.00 "'5‘
Action 1. ' k l'tter - arks)
c (Pic up 3 p INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR'MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV F.
?:::2' N MEAN STDEV ¢ t i 4e 1.02
I 77 1.909 0.729 (~---‘--)
II 23 1.913 0.900 ( ‘ ) df-
III 11 2.102 0.603 < 0 ) 4,
Iv 16 1.607 0.073 ( 0 ) 153
VI 36 1.722 0.849 (-- ‘----)
POOLED sroev - 0.790 1.50 2.00 2.10 ”'3'

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

Iv

vI

POOLED

Action

flaslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED STDEV - 1.297

l.d (pick up litter - commercial)

N
77
23
ll
16

36

STDEV - 0.8014

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S EOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

2.a (recycle - paper)

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED ON POOLED STDEV 5‘
MEAN STDEV t t t 2.90
1.3377 0.7365 (---.----)
0.0696 0.8689 ( . ) a:-
1.4545 0.6076 ( . — ) 4,
1.4375 0.9639 ( . ) 153
..... * ------
0.9722 0.0447 < i ¢) ¢ P<‘os
0.00 1.20 1.60
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
aaszn 0N poorao srnzv p-
aras srnsv t s e e 0.13
1.286 1.202 ( ----- . ----- )
1.304 1.329 ( ' J df-
1.545 1.500 ( ~ ) 4,
1.375 1.455 ( ‘ ) . 153
1.250 1.339 ( * - ) - +
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 “'5'

 

 

1(56

Appendix C (continued).

Action 2.b (recycle - glass)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow BASED ON POOLED STDEV e-
190,; N MEAN STDEV e 5 i 0.54
I 77 0.0961 1.1905 ( ----- ....--)
II 23 1.1304 1.3917 ( 8 ) (If.
1:: 11 0.0102 1.2505 ( . r 4
Iv 16 0.6075 1.2500 ( . ) lga
VI 36 1.1309 1.3970 ( *
POOLED STDEV - 1.2007 0.50 1 00 1 50 “'5'
Action 2.c (recycle - metal)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Maslow BASED ON POOLED STDEV :-
level N MEAN STDEV e I 1 p 0.50
I 77 0.6003 1.0792 ( ----- 9----)
II 23 0.0696 1.3247 ( df-
III 11 1.1010 1.0707 ( ~ ) 4
IV 16 1.0000 1.3156 ( * ) 153
VI 36 0.0611 1.3126 ( )
eooLED STDEV - 1.1935 0.50 1 00 1 50 2.00 ”'5'
Action 2.d (recycle - motor oil)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S r
Maslow BASED ON POOLED STDEV OR MEAN 5-
19991 N MEAN STOW i *r + 0 e 97
I 77 0.3377 0.7002 (----t----—) .
I; 23 0.7391 1.2511 ( . , d£_
III 11. 0.2727 0.5467 ( t ) 4
Iv 16 0.3125 0.7932 ( . ) 150
VI 36 0.4444 1.0541 ( . )
POOLED SIDEV - 0.9215 0.00 0 40 0.00
Action 3.a (sign petition - friends)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Maslow BASED ON POOLED SIDEV P-
1°V°1 N NEAN SIDEV : 9 I s 1.70
77 1.1039 1.0506 (---'—--)
I 23 1.3913 1.0331 < .
II 11 1.2727 0.9045 ( * ) df-
III 16 1.0625 1.1015 . ) 4'
IV 36 0.7222 0.9445 (-----‘------l 158
VI ' 5 3 ¢ 3
POOLED STDEV - 1.0342 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 N's.
Action 3.b (sign petition - public)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
n..1ow BASED ON POOLED STDEV :-
level N MEAN STDEV I i f f 1.64
I 77 1.0779 1.0100 (----*---)
II 123 1.4348 1.0369 ( * ) dg.
VI 36 0.7500 0.9373 ( t )
poonzn srozv . 1.0330 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 “'3'
Action 4.a (distribute petition - friends)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S son MEAN
Maslow BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
level N MEAN SIDEV ¢ ¢ 3 2.11
I 77 0.4005 0.0360 (--*--)
II 23 0.8696 1.0137 (---*------> d1-
:1; 11 0.1010 0.6030 ( * .. ) 4,
IV 16 0.3750 0.8851 ( ‘ ) 158
v1 36 0.3056 0.6604 (----*-----) N s
POOLED STDEV - 0.0224 0.00 0.50 1-00

 

 

Action S.a

Maslow

level
I

II
III
IV

VI

Appendix C (continued).

ction 4.b (distribute petit
Maslow
level N MEAN STDEV
I 77 0.3506 0.7027
II 23 0.5217 0.8458
III 11 0 0
IV 16 0.4375 0.9639
VI 36 0.2222 0.4847
POOLED STDEV - 0.7139

(write/call official -

N

MEAN
0.7532
1.0000
0.3636
0.4375
0.8611

POOLED STDEV - 0.9247

Action 5.b (write/call official - state)

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

MEAN
0.8052
1.2174
0.4545
0.6250
1.0278

eooLED srnrv - 1.0294

STDBV
0.9618
0.9535
0.5045
0.7274
0.9900

STDEV
0.9873
1.1661
0.6876
1.0247
1.1081

1657

on - public)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

A.
T

local)

T

k

(

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

r

(-—-~---)

‘(

)

t

( ----~--- 1

0.00

0.40

k

L
1‘

)
)

0.00

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S POR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

Y

(---~-->

t

(

)

L
r

t

( ---------- )

A
r

0.50

1.

00

1.50

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

4L

(

r

I'

(......

(

t

 

A.
T

)
)

 

Action 5.c (write/call official - national)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLBD STDBV

Haelow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

MEAN
0.8442
1.3913
0.3636
0.6250
0.9444

POOLED SIDEV - 1.0727

STDEV
1.0395
1.2336
0.6742
1.0247
1.1450

Action 6.a (campaign - local)

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

-N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN

STDEV

0.5584
0.6087
0.4545
0.5000
0.5278

POOLED STDEV - 0.9215

Action 6.b (campaign -

mallow

level
I

II
III
IV

V?

MEAN
0.5195
0.7391
0.1818
0.6250
0.5833

POOLED STDEV I 0.9271

0.9527
1.0762
0.6876
0.7303
0.8779

state)

STDEV
0.8975
1.0962
0.4045
1.0247
0.9373

 

(

v—

.00

)

(.......-....,

0.50

0.

f

1.00

A.
r

<---9--)

)

)

(-.....--..-)~

60

1.20

1.50

1.80

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S POR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

A
T

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

0.00

‘7

(--t---->

(

fl

)

J.
r

<---——*---—-)

0.50

1.00

0

L
T

E'-
1.40

df-
150

N.S.

F-
1.49

df-
158

N.S.

E'-
1.52

Hf-
158

N.S.

F.
2.22

df-
158

N.S.

P-
0.07

df-
158

N.S.

’-
0.73

d!-
158

N.S.

 

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Meelow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Meslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

haslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

Appendix C (continued).

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.c (campaign - national)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S 500 MEAN
BASED ON POOLBD STDEV F-
N MEAN STDEV + 1 1 1.62
77 0.5195 0.9121 (---.-_-_)
23 1.0000 1.3143 ( . )df-
11 0.1010 0.4045 ( 3 ) 4,
16 0.6250 0.0051 ( 3 ) 150
36 0.6667 1.0420 ( ..... ...--._;
STDEV - 0.9020 0.00 0.50 1.00 “'3
7.a (vote - local)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S ron MEAN r
BASED ON POOLED SIDEV 1'32
N MEAN STDBV ¢ t t 5 °
77 1.550 1.200 (--3---)
23 2.007 1.041 ( 3 df‘
11 1.273 1.009 ( 3 ) 4.
16 1.500 1.414 ( . ) 158
36 1.472 1.103 ( ----- 3---)
1 1 1 1 N.S.
STDEV - 1.191 0.60 1.20 1.00 2.40
7.b (vote - state) .
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV F'
N MEAN STDBV 3 5 e 0.73
77 1.675 1.106 (-—-3--)
23 2.000 1.120 ( . ) di-
11 1.364 1.027 ( 3 ) 4.
16 1.500 1.414 (------3-------) 150
36 1.503 1.273 (----3-—--)
t t t N.S.
PDDLED STDZV - 1.212 1.20 1.00 2.40
7.c (vote - national)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S son MEAN
BASED ON BUDLED STDEV ?'
N MEAN SIDEV : : : 0-93
77 1.675 1.240 (----3----)
23 2.174 1.072 ( 3 1 df'
11 1.545 1.214 ( 3 ) 4.
16 1.500 1.414 ( 3 ) 150
36 1.667 1.207 ( 3 )
5 t t N.S.
SIDEV - 1.245 1.20 1.00 2.40
8.a (lights off - home)
INDIVIDUAL 95 9cm CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLBD SIDEV {-86
N MEAN SIDEV e 6 s 5 -
77 2.779 0.553 (---3--) df_
23 2.913 0.200 3 ) ‘
11 2.909 0.302 ( 3 I50
16 2.625 0.005 ( 3 ( ) * )
36 2.972 0.167 ; i ; ¢ ".5.
srnev - 0.495 2.40 2.64 2.00 3.12
8.b (lights off - friend/relative)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Boa MEAN r-
BASED ON POOLED STDEV 0 46
N MEAN STDEV . : 3 3 °
77 1.532 1.003 (----3----) d:_
23 1.565 1.121 ( 3 ) 4
11 1.102 1.079 ( ) 150
16 1.375 1.147 ( ( .7 ) )
36 1.333 1.069 N.S.
1.00 1.50 2.00

POOLED

STDEV - 1.091

 

 

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Haelow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

0 .9: ((19333; 295119 (11311511 c)

MEAN
1.922
1.870
2.273
2.062
1.944

STDEV - 1.088

9.a (purchase - recyclable)

MEAN
1.779
2.087
1.273
1.500
1.972

STDEV - 1.044

STDEV
1.073
1.100
1.009
1.181
1.094

STDEV
0.995
1.041
1.104
1.317
1.000

169

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

 

 

( 3 )

 

9.b (purchase - energy efficient)

MEAN
2.169
2.348
1.545
2.312
2.167

STDEV - 0.854

STDEV
0.818
0.647
1.293
1.078
0.775

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

BASED 0N POOLED STDEV
' (--3--)
( ——3 )
( ‘ )
( ----..“ .-.-.m- )
( ----fl.“ )
1.50 2.00 2.50

9.c (purchase - minimize harm)

N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN
1.974
2.261
1.545
1.938
1.944

POOLED STDEV I 1.025

POOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

STDEV
0.986
0.964
1.128
1.124
1.068

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT 013s roe MEAN
BASED ON BDDLED STDEV

..l_ L A
r

v— V' r

(--3--)

 

 

( ‘ )

 

 

9.d (purchase - concerned company)

N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN
1.390
1.783
1.182
1.125
1.250

STDEV - 1.120

STDEV
1.066
1.126
1.079
1.258
1.180

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV

T T T

(-~--3----)

< ------- --3-------)

 

 

 

10.a (distribute info - friends)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

N MEAN STDEV 3 : t 3

77 1.351 1.144 (----'---l

23 1.609 1.196 (

11 1.000 1.095 ( * )

16 1.000 1.155 ( * )

36 1.056 1.170 1* )1 1
STDEV - 1.155 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

 

E'-
0.33

df-
158

N.S.

E'-
1.72

df-
158

N.S.

E'-
1.83

df-
158

N.S.

P-
0.94

df-
158

N.S.

P-
1.15

df-
150

N.S.

P-
1.27

df-
158

N.S.

 

 

Appendix C (continued).
Action 10.b (distribute info - strangers)

Maslow

level N
I 77
II 23
III 11
IV 16
VI 36

MEAN

0.7792
1.1304
0.6364
0.6875
0.7222

POOLED STDEV I 1.0096

Action 11.a

(discussion

1370

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow

levcl N MEAN
I 77 1.571
II 23 2.304
III 11 1.727
IV 16 1.687
VI 36 1.694

POOLED STDEV I 1.034

Action 11.b (discussion

Maslow

llVOl N MEAN
I 77 1.351
11 23 1.739
III 11 1.636
IV 16 1.500
VI 36 1.389

POOLED STDIV I 1.065

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action 12.a (public appearance - local)

naslov

level N MEAN
I 77 0.5325
II 23 0.6957
III 11 0.3636
IV 16 0.3125
VI 36 0.3889

POOLED STDEV I 0.8736

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action 12.b (public appearance - state)

Maslow

level N MEAN
I 77 0.18182
II 23 0.21739
III 11 0.09091
IV 16 0.18750
v: 36 0.13889

POOLED STDEV I 0.61118

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action 12.c (public appearance - national)

Maslow

level N MEAN

:I 77 0.12987
I 23 0.13043
11 11 0

;V 16 0.12500
1 36 0.02778

POOLED STDEV I 0.49342

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED ON POOLED STDEV 84
STDEV I I I 0.80
0.9407 (-..-e---)
100576 ( t ) df-
1.0269 ( * ) 4.
1.1383 ( t ) 153
1.0586 ( ..... e ..... )
t I ¢ N.S.
0.50 1 00 1.50
- similar views)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDBV F-
STDEV i I I 2.24
1.031 (---e..--)
0.926 ( e ) df-
l.104 ( ‘ ) 4.
1.078 ( . ) 158
1.064 ( * )
f t : _.N.S.
1.50 2.00 2.50
— different views)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S ron MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDBV ?'
STOW t i ‘f i °e71
1.036 ( ..... . ..... )
1.137 ( - ; dr-
l.027 ( t ) 4,
1.155 ( ' ) 158
1.050 ( ' )
:— ¢ 4' 4: Nos.
1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S ron MEAN
BASED ON POOLED sroev P-
0.8673 (.....----)
1.0632 ( ... ) -
0.6742 ( t ) if
0.7932 ( - )
0.8376 ( - ) 15°
0.00 0.30 0.80 1.20 "'3'
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
STDEV ¢ ¢ f 5 0.11
0.62254 (---*----)
0.73587 ( ‘ ) d£-
0.30151 ( * ) 4.
0.75000 ( * ) 158
0.48714 ( * —)
i # 4“ i N.S.
-0024 0.00 0024 0e48
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN F.
BASED ON POOLED STDBV 0.44
STDEV ¢ i i —#
0.54654 (“""“") df-
0.62554 ( ( ~ ) ) 4'
0 . * .
0.50000 . ( * ) 15°
0.16667 ( * ) N‘s.
-o.20 0.00 0.20 0.10

 

 

 

 

Appendix

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Meslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

Iv

VI

POOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Meslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

POOLED

1371

C (continued).
13.a (report violation - acquaintance)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN F-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED ON POOLED STDEV 0 17
N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 .
77 0.2468 0.5884 (----*-----)
23 0.3043 0.6350 ( . ) df-
11 0.1818 0.6030 < . ) 4.
16 0.1875 0.7500 ( . ) 153
36 0.3056 0.7491 ( * )
5 5 5 N.S.
SIDEV - 0.6507 0.00 0.24 0 48
13.b (report violation - stranger)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV F-
N MEAN STDEV 5 5 t 5 1-39
77 0.4935 0.7543 (---~-----)
23 0.4783 0.7305 ( . ) dr-
11 0.3636 0.6742 ( a ) 4.
16 0.2500 0.7746 ( * ) 158
36 0.7500 0.9063 ( 5 )
5 i 5 5 N.S.
SIDZV . 0.7847 0.00 - 0.32 0.64 0.96
14.a (lawsuit - yourself)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON BooLED STDEV P-
N MEAN SIDEV 5 5 5 5 1.05
77 0.01299 0.11396 (-——---.--)
23 0 0 ( w ) di-
11 0 0 ( . ) 4,
16 0.06250 0.25000 ( * )158
36 .> 0 0 ( * )
¢ t 5 5 N.S.
SIDEV - 0.14543 -0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100
14.b (lawsuit - group)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV ?'
N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 5 0-43
77 0.1948 0.5629 (----*---—-)
23 0.2609 0.6192 ( * ) 4"
11 0 0 ( 5 ) 4!
16 0.2500 0.7746 ( . >158
36 0.2222 0.5909 ( *
t t 1*— :— N.S.
SIDEV - 0.6026 -0.24 0 00 0.24 0.48
15.a (injunction - yourself)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S roa MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV 7'
N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 5 0-44
77 0.06494 0.29637 (---*----)
23 O O ( t d:-
11 0 0 ( a ) 4.
16 0.06250 0.25000 ( . ) 158
36 0.05556 0.23231 ( . )
¢ ¢ i 2‘: N.Se
STDEV - 0.27461 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20
lS.b (injunction - group)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED 0N 900LED STDEV F'
N MEAN STDBV 5 5 5 5 1.59
77 0.2857 0.7229 (....---)
23 0.5652 0.8435 . ) df-
11 o o ( e ) 4,
16 0.3125 0.7932 ( - ) 158
36 0.1944 0.5248 ( ----- * ----- )
5 5 5 5 N.S.
srpgv . 0.7092 40 0.00 0.40 0 80

 

 

 

1372

Appendix C (continued).

Action 16 (stop buying - harmful)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

““1°' BASED ON POOLED STDEV F“
l‘V'l N MEAN SIDEV 5 5 5 5 1.50
I 77 1.883 1.000 (----*---)
II 23 2.217 0.795 5 )dt-
III 11 1.364 0.924 ( r ) 4,
IV 16 1.875 0.957 < t ) 158
VI 36 1.861 0.990 (----*----)
5 5 5 5 N.S.
POOLED SIDBV - 0.963 _ 1.00 .’ 1.50 2.00 2.50
Action l7.a (donate 5 - local)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
”A'1°' BASED ON POOLED SIDBV P-
1°V‘1 N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 1.67
I 77 1.143 1.097 (----~---)
11 23 1.826 1.072 ( ~ )6:-
III 11 1.182 1.079 ( r 4,
IV 16 1.187 1.223 ( a ) 158
VI 36 1.306 1.215 ( t )
5 5 5 N.S.
POOLED srngv . 1.132 1.00 1.50 2.00
Action 17.b (donate 5 - state)
INDIVIDUAL 95 per CI'S FOR MEAN
"861°" BASED 0N BoOLED STDEV F-
lavol N MEAN SIDEV 5 5 5 1 1.98
I 77 1.0519 1.0374 (----*---)
II 23 1.6522 1.1912 ( 8 )d1-
III 11 0.9091 1.0445 ( 4 ) 4,
IV 16 0.8125 1.1673 ( - ) 158
VI 36 0.9722 1.1335 ( . )
t 5 5 5 N.S.
pooLED srnsv - 1.0947. 0.50 1.00 1.50 2 00
Action 17.c (donate 5 — national)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN
1:311” BASED ON POOLED SIDEV 5'82
I N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 '
77 1.1039 1.1190 (---~---) d:
1‘ 23 1.7391 1.2869 5 ) -
III 11 0.9091 1.0445 ( . ) 4.
IV 16 0.7500 1.1255 ( . ) 158
VI 36 0.8056 1.1419 (-----*---)
1 5 5 P<.05
pOOLED STDZV - 1.1450 0.60 1.20 1.80

 

 

 

 

1373

ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for
each social/political action when comparing
mean social/political action frequencies among
Maslow levels.

Appendix D.

Action 1 (write or call an official)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow BASED ON 900LED SIDEV F-
level N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 5 0.61
z 77 0.8961 0.9260 (-....-....)
I: 23 1.0870 0.9493 ( 3 ) d:-
III 11 0.8182 1.1677 ( 9 ) 4,
Iv 16 0.6250 0.8062 ( ‘ ) 153
v: 36 0.8611 0.8993 ( . )
I I I 5 N. .
BODLED STDEV - 0.9301 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 S
Ac“°“ 2 (d‘“°“‘t“‘i°“’ INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S roe MEAN
na‘law BASED ON POOLED SIDEV !_
‘ N MEAN SIDEV 5 5 5
I‘V‘l 77 0.2468 0.5656 (--------) 1'79
I 23 0.4783 0.6653 < = )
‘1 11 0.2727 0.4671 ( *~ 5) df-
II‘ 16 0.4375 0.6292 ( . ) 4.
5g 36 0.1389 0.3507 ( 5* ——) 158
poongp srpzv . 0.5424 0.00 0.24 0.48 0.72 N.S.
Action 3 (sign petition)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Maslow BASED ON POOLED STDEV :-
level N MEAN STDEV —5 5 5 5 1.27
I 77 1.2338 0.8870 (----.----,
II 23 1.0870 1.0835 ( * ) 6:-
III 11 0.9091 0.8312 ( —* ) 4,
IV 16 1.1875 0.7500 ( . __, 158
VI 36 0.8611 0.7983 ( *- )
POOLED STDEV - 0.8833 0.40 0.80 1 20 1.60 “'5'
Action 4 (sign petition)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S 80B MEAN
Maslow BASED ON POOLED SIDEV ' P-
level N MEAN STDEV 5 5 5 0.93
I 77 1.325 0.865 (-----*---—-)
11 23 1.217 0.850 ( 5 ) d2-
III 11 1.364 0.924 ( 5 e__)‘
Iv 16 1.312 0.946 ( . ) 158
VI 36 1.000 0.793 ( -~ -)
' * * N.S.

POOLED STDEV I 0.860

 

 

 

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

'BOOLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

BooLED

Action

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

Appendix D (continued).

5 (distribute petition)

N
77
23
ll
16
36

MEAN
0.4286
0.4783
0.4545
0.3750
0.2222

STDEV I 0.6623

6 (letter to editor)

N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN
0.4805
0.6087
0.4545
0.4375
0.3611

STDEV I 0.7781

7 (call radio or TV station)

N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN
0.27273
0.39130
0.18182
0.37500
0.05556

POOLED STDEV I 0.60602

OOOOO

STDEV
0.7332
0.6653
0.8202
0.6191
0.4216

STDEV
0.7714
0.9409
0.6876
0.7274
0.7232

STDEV
.66166
.78272
.40452
.71880
.23231

Action 8 (join organization)

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

MEAN
0.8701

1.3478
1.0000
0.6875
0.6389

POOLED STDEV I 1.0052

Action 9 (donate S)

Maslow
level
I

II

III

IV

VI

N
77
23
11
16
36

MEAN

1.299
1.652
1.273
1.187
1.028

POOLED STDEV I 1.040

STDEV
1.0046

1.2652
1.0954
0.7932
0.8669

STDEV
1.052

1'74

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED 0N 900LED STDEV .F.
5 ( . 3 ) 0.77
( ( a. ) df-
( ' ) 158
( t )
0.24 0.48 0.72 "‘5‘
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN’
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEv :-
5 5 5 5 0.37
< a-----)
( ‘ ) df-
( 5 ) 4,
‘( y ’ ) ) 158
.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 "'5'
INDIVIDUAL 95 It? CI'S Eon MEAN
BASED 0N EoDLED SIDEV :-
; i i 1 e 47
( t d:-
( ‘ ) 4,
( ) 7 )158
( 2
5 I I N.S.
0.00 0.24 0.48
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN
BASED ON POOLED STDEV "
¢ ¢ 5'1: l e 95
(—--5-—-—)
( * > 4'
( . ) 158
0.50 1 00 1.50
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN :-
BASED oN POOLED‘ SIDEV 1 . 30
‘ * -.L-.---..
( ( ) ‘.__ _) d:-
_a 1 4'
(I * ‘ _) 158
( ..- ...... ...-T---) 2 ¢-— N e S e
_ 0.80 1.20 1.60 ' 2.00

 

1775

Appendix D (continued).

Action 10 (vote)

Maslow

level N MEAN
I 77 1.662
II 23 1.652
IV 16 1.750
V! 36 1.694

POOLED STDEV I 0.992

Action 11 (campaign)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow

level N MEAN
I 77 0.7273
II 23 0.4783
III 11 0.7273
IV 16 0.6250
VI 36 0.6667

POOLED SIDEV I 0.9310

Action 12 (lawbreaker reported)

naslow

N MEAN
§‘V'1 77 0.3506
II 23 0.3043
III 11 0.3636
Iv 16 0.1875
VI 36 0.4444

POOLED STDEV I 0.6477

Action 13 (lawsuit)
Maslow

level N MEAN
I 77 0.20779
II 23 0.08696
:11 11 0.09091
IV 16 0.31250
VI 36 0.05566

POOLED STDEV I 0.50777

Action 14 (run/serve in

Maslow

level N MEAN
I 77 0.2208
11 23 0.2609
111 11 0.6364
IV 15 0.1675
VI 35 0.1111

POOLED STDEV I 0.6474

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV 8-
STDEV i i I - 0.04
0.954 (--..-e--_-) r
1.191 ( I -
1.027 ( . ) ) if
0.856 ( .
0.980 ( . , ’ 153
I I I t N.S.
1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED 0N BooLED SIDEV E-
SIDEV i ; . - 0.34
0.9547 (.-—-~---)
0.8458 (-----~----—-) 0:-
o.904s ( . ) 4,
0.9574 (---—---*------) 158
0.9258 ( . )
t ; : _NOSO
0.40 0.80 1.20
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV E-
SIDEV i i i I 0.47
0e6838 (..---.-.--)
0.4705 ( . )
0.5045 ( t ) df-
0.S439 ( a ) 4,
0.7346 ( a ) 155
0.00 0.24 0.48 0.72 N.S.
INDIVIDUAL 95 per CI'S FOR NEAN
BASED 0N PooLED SIDEV 8-
STDEV — : ¢ : — 1.08
0.63531 (----*-—-)
0.28810 ( --------- . ------- ) df-
o.30151 (— ‘-'—— ) 4.
0.60208 (— —* ) 158
0.23231 ( -~ -,
_ : I I "N.S.
0.00 0.24 0.48
public office)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN ?_
BASED ON POOLED SIDEV L *_ 1.42
SIDEV -— r . I -
0.6412 (--- ;‘-1____) d:_
0.6887 ('7““‘ ‘ __________ . ........... )4,
1.0269 . ( _______ ) 153
0.5439 (----- ----- ) .
0.5225 (“:’-*'.‘---. r +—
—— 0.00 0.32 0.64 0.96

 

Appendix D (continued).

1376

Action 15 (volunteer in charity campaign)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maslow BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F-
level N MEAN SIDEV I I I 0 55
I 77 1.1039 1.0206 (---....._-, °
II 23 1.0000 0.9535 ( . ) dz.
III 11 1.0000 1.1832 ( * 4
Iv 16 1.2500 1.0000 ( * 158
v1 36 0.8611 0.9607 ( . )
POOLED STDEV - 1.0078 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 "'5'
Action 16 (serve in bone)
INDIVIDUAL 95 per CI'S FOR MEAN
T“1§" BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F'
°V° N MEAN SIDEV I I I I 0°79
i1 77 1.338 1.034 (-------)
III 23 .1.130 1.058 ( * )
Iv 11 1.273 1.009 ( ~ ) df'
VI 16 1.062 0.854 ( . ) 4.
36 1.028 0.810 ( ‘ ) 153
pooLED sIDEV - 0.974 0.50 1.20 1.60 2.00N-8.
Aeti°n 17 (°d“°‘ti°n‘l p‘Ogtam) INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S r05 MEAN
E'-

Maslow

BASED ON POOLED STDEV

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N MEAN SIDEV I I
i'v'l 77 1.792 0.908 (---*--)
II 23 1.565 0.945 ( - 6:-
III 11 1.818 1.158 ( ‘ 4'
Iv 16 1.437 0.964 ( . ) 153
VI 36 1.556 0.998 ( I )
:2 15 A; N.S.
POOLED SIDEV - 0.957 1 20 1.60 2.00 2.40
e sonebod )
Aeti°n 18 (educat Y INDIVIDUAL 95 per CI'S Ion MEAN F
BASED ON POOLED STDEV '
T:::$w N MEAN SIDEV I I I 1.25
I 77 1.688 1.103 (---~--—)
I: 23 1.652 0.935 ( ~ ) 6:-
III 11 1.909 1.044 ( w 4,
16 1.125 0.806 < - ) 158
IV 36 1.556 1.027 (-----*-----)
VI I I I N.S.
POOLED SIDEV - 1.035 1.20 1.80 2.40
Ac“°“ 19 (att°nd m'°tlng) INDIVIDUAL 95 PCI CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED SIDEV P-
"“1°' N MEAN SIDEV I I I 0.92
1‘V‘1 77 1.2857 1.0495 (----*--)
I 23 0.9565 0.9760 ( . ) , 6:-
II 11 1.5455 1.2136 ( . 4,
III 16 1.0625 0.8539 ( . ) 158
IV 36 1.1667 0.8106 ( ----- - ------ )
VI I I I N.S.
1.00 1.50 2.00

POOLED SIDEV I 0.9851

 

177

Appendix E. ANOVA and 95% confidence interval estimates for

each environmental action when comparing mean
env1ronmental action frequencies among the
seven most common Rokeach dominant terminal
values. *

Action 1.8 (pick up litter - home)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rokoach INDIVIDUAL 95 per CI'S 808 MEAN F.
valu. BASED ON POOLED SIDEV 0.51
14 N MEAN SIDEV I I I I
4 72 0.08333 0.40246 (---*---) dr-
9 27 0.74074 1.19591 ( ) 5'
a 18 0.66667 1.08465 ( . ) 139
15 9 0.77778 1 30171 (
3 8 1.00000 1.41421 ( . § ”.5.
18 6 0.66667 1.21106 ( . ) .
POOLED SIDEV - 0.87917 00 0.50 00 1.50
Action 1.b (pick up litter - neighborhood)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N PooLED SIDEV ’-
value N MEAN SIDEV I I I I 2.10
14 72 1.778 0.953 (---5--)
4 27 2.185 0.622 (----5--—-) di-
9 18 2.167 0.618 ( . ) 6.
8 9 1.889 0.782 . 139
15 8 2.375 0.518 ( )
3 6 2.500 0.548 ( . ) N.S.
13 6 2.333 0.816 ( )
POOLED SIDEV - 0.816 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Action 1.: (pick up litter - parks)

INDIVIDUAL 95 pcr CI'S r03 MEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F-
valu. N MEAN SIDEV I I I I 4-07
14 2 1.639 0.737 (--*--)
4 27 2.222 0.698 (-—--I ----- ) di-
9 18 2.167 0.514 (---*----) 6.
3 9 1.889 0.601 ( 5 ) 139
15 8 1.875 0.835 ( * )
3 6 2.167 0.408 ( t ) P<.01
18 6 2.500 0.548 ( * )
POOLED SIDEV - 0.688 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

. - t r - commercial)
3°“°“ l°d (F‘Ck up lit ° INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S ron MEAN '_

 

 

 

 

 

Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV L L 1.15
Vilfl. N MEAN STDEV I .:-) I I
14 72 1.1250 0.7680 (-- _-_-) d£_
4 27 1.4444 1.0127 (-: ______ ) 6'
9 18 1.2778 0.5745 £ ------ 139
a 9 3-2223 . ,

8 1.37 o . ___ _-_.__-___. . .
15 6 1.6667 0.5164 (----:::-—;:_---) ) N S
is 6 1.3333 0.8165 .( ------ -:— ¢ ¢

0.60 1.20 1.80 2.40

POOLED STDEV I 0.8028

Appendix E (continued).

Action 2.a (recycle - paper)

Rokeach

value N MEAN
14 72 0.9167
4 27 1.6296
9 18 1.3889
8 9 1.7778
15 8 2.2500
3 6 2.1667
18 6 2.0000
POOLED SIDEV - 1.2173

STDEV
1.1598
1.3053
1.1950
1.3944
1.1650
1.3292
1.2649

Action 2.b (recycle - glass)

Rokeach

value N MEAN
14 72 0.4306
4 27 1.4444
9 18 1.3333
8 9 1.4444
15 8 1.8750
3 6 1.6667
18 6 1.1667

POOLED STDEV I 1.1679

STDEV
0.9319
1.3960
1.3284
1.4240
1.3562
1.5055
1.1690

Action 2.c (recycle - metal)

Rokeach

value N MEAN
14 72 0.4722
4 27 1.0741
9 18 1.3333
8 9 0.5556
1s 8 1.7500
3 6 1.0000
13 6 1.1667

POOLED STDEV I 1.1327

STDEV
0.9490
1.3566
1.2834
1.1304
1.2817
1.0954
1.4720

Action 2.d (recycle - motor oil)

1378

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rokeach MEAN STDEV
N

121“. 72 0.08333 0.40246
4 27 0.74074 1.19591
9 18 0.66667 1.08465
8 9 0.77778 1.30171
15 8 1.00000 1.41421
3 5 0.66667 1.21106
13 6 0 0
POOLED STDEV I 0.37917

Action 3.a (Sign petitio

Rokeach

N MEAN STDEV
{:1“' 72 0.6111 0.8649
4 27 1.3333 1.0000

13 1.7222 1.0178
9 9 1.3333 1.1180
3 a 1.3750 0.9161
:5 5 1.0000 0.8944
13 6 1.3333 1.5055

POOLED STDEV - 0.9594

 

 

 

 

 

n - friends)

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASED 0N POOLED STDEV E-
: i ¢ ¢ 3 . 4 0

(---*---)

( ----- *---) df-

( * ) 6,
( . ) 139
( t )
( * ) P<.01
( i )

0 75 1.50 2.25 3 00
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCI CI'S Eon MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F-

I I I 5.02

(---~->

( ..... a-----) df-
( 5 ) 6.
( a ) 139
( * )
( ‘ ) P<.01
( . )
0.75 1.50 2.25
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCI CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F-
I I I I 3.07
(--~--)
(----I ----- ) d:-
( ‘ ) 6.
( . ) 139
( t
( ' ) P<.01
( ' )

0.00 0 75 1.50 2.25
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Ion MEAN ‘
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV g-84

(-:'--)
<—------) 6:-
(----~----) 6,
( ' > 139
( * )
( * ) P<.01
( * ) L
o 00 0.75 1 50
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN ?_
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV - 4.72
---;---) T _

( (___..._____) _ g:
t ) I

( -“M---*-------‘-'.' )

( y ) P< o 01
< ‘ 1
o 60 1.20 1.80

 

Appendix E (continued).

1'79

Action 3.b (sign petition - public)

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

N
72
27
18

9

8

6

6

MEAN
0.5833
1.2593
1.6111
1.4444
1.6250
1.3333
1.0000

POOLED STDEV I 0.9685

STDEV
0.8999
0.9842
1.0369
1.0138
1.0607
1.0328
1.2649

Action 4.a (distribute petition -

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

N
72
27
18

9

8

6

6

MEAN
0.1667
0.6296
0.9444
0.8889
0.6250
0.3333
1.0000

POOLED STDEV I 0.7743

STDEV
0.5566
0.8389
1.1100
1.0541
0.9161
0.5164
1.0954

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR.MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action 4.b (distribute petition - public)

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

MEAN
0.08333
0.40741
0.83333
0.77778
0.62500
0.33333
0.66667

POOLED STDEV I 0.63821

STDEV
0.43605
0.74726
0.85749
0.97183
0.74402
0.51640
0.81650

Action 5.a (write/call official -

Rokeach
Value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

72
27

H
00003900

MEAN
0.3611
1.2222
1.0556
1.1111
0.6250
1.8333
0.6667

POOLED STDEV I 0.8360

STDEV
0.7181
0.9740
1.0556
0.9280
0.5175
0.7528
1.0328

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action 5.0 (write/call official - state)

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

MEAN
0.2778
1.4815
1.1111
1.0000
1.3750
2.1667
1.1667

POOLED STDEV I 0.8418

STDEV
0.6548 (..n-)

0.9755
1.0786
0.8660
0.9161
0.7528
1.3292

 

 

 

BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV P-
I I I 4.73
(--~--)
(.....n--...) df-
( ) 5:
( ) 139
( )
( ‘ ) P<.01
( ‘ )
0.60 1.20 1.80
friends)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Eon MEAN
BASED ON POOLED SIDEV P-
: I I I 4.15
(--~--)
(...-....) df-
(m......) 6'
( ( ‘ ) 139
(--.-0......m) P< .01
0.00 0.60 1.20 1.80
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S ton MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV P-
I I I I 5.02
(-----)
(-...-a...—-) df-
( I ) 5 ,
( ) 139
( * ) P<.01
( )
0.00 0.30 0.80 1.20
local)
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S FOR MEAN
BASED ON POOLED SIst :-43
<-—~-) 7
(---~----) df-
(..--..‘n’ 6'
( I ) 139
( a ) 6
(-----'--“--) P< .01
< ~ 1 -
0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25
INDIVIDUAL 95 Bcr CI'S ton MEAN !_
BASED 0N PooLED SIDEV . . 11.49
("""“") 139
( __.
“""' ' ( "" . ) 94.01

(-----—-'----->

 

 

Appendix

Action

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

?OOLED

Action

Rokeec
value
14

POOLE!

Action

Rokeac
value
14

4

9

8

15

3
18
POOLE!

 

Actim

Rokel
Vllu
14

9001

Aetia

ROkeI

P001

 

1(30

-Appendix E (continued).

Action S.c (write/call official - national)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35k..¢h INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
5,1“. BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F-
14 N MEAN SIDEV I I I 7-23
4 72 0.3472 0.8077 (--...,
9 27 1.4074 1.1522 (-....--.., df-
8 18 1.4444 1.1490 (........---, 6,
15 9 1.0000 1.0000 4 139
3 8 1.1250 0.8345
18 6 1.6667 1.0328 3<.01
6 1.5000 1.2247 ( )
POOLED SIDEV - 0.9633 0.75 1.50 2.55
Action 6.a (campaign - local)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S roa MEAN '

Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV '-
value N MEAN SIDEV I I I I 6.70
14 72 0.1250 0.4421 (--'-)
4 27 0.9630 1.1596 (-----~-----) 01-
9 18 1.2222 1.1660 6.
8 9 0.5556 0.8819 139
15 8 0.5000 0.7559
3 6 0.8333 0.7528 P<-°1
18 6 0.6667 1.0328 (
POOLED STDEV - 0.8062 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Action 6.b (campaign - state)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV 5'
Value N MEAN SIDEV I I I I 7'7°
14 72 0.1111 0.4297 (--t--)
4 27 1.1481 1.1670 (.........) 9"
9 18 1.0556 1.1618 (-----~---) 5'
8 9 0.7778 1.2019 ‘ 139
15 8 0.2500 0.7071
3 6 1.0000 0.6325 P<.01
1a 6 0.6667 0.8165

POOLED STDEV I 0.8129

Action 6.0 (campaign - national)

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rah-sch BASED ON POOLED SIDEV !-
value N 333” srpzv I ~ 11.90
14 72 0.1250 0.5018
4 27 1.4444 1.2506 d:-
9 18 1.2778 1.1785 (--'--) 6,
8 9 0.5556 0.8819 139
15 8 0 0
3 6 ‘ 1.1667 0.7528 P<.01
13 6 0.5000 0.8367 A -
POOLED STDEV I 0.8470 0.00 0.75 1.50
Action 7.a (vote - local)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN '-
Rokeach 8A5ED ON POOLED STDEV 1 - 9.72
value N MEAN STDEV I I I I
14 72 0.9028 1.0768 (--‘--) d:-
4 27 2.1481 0.9488 (III-‘----) 6
9 18 2.0556 1.1618 (---'---) 159
a 9 1.5556 0.5325
8 2.5000 .
:5 6 2.3333 1.0328 P<-°1
13 6 2.6667 0.5164

POOLED STDEV I 1.0373

 

Appendix
Action

Rokeac!
value
14

POOLED

Actim

Rokoa
value
14

 

._-AAH¢~

 

Appendix E (continued).

Action 7.b (vote - state)

1&31

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BORODCh
v‘lu. N MEAN STDEV BASED 0N 800LED SIDEVL L 10 47
14 7 0.9722 1.0873 (--t..) f r '
4 27 2.2963 0.9121 (-...-..... 4:
9 18 2.1111 1.1318 (-—-_.-..-...)) c -
a 9 1.5556 1.2360 ( . ) °'
15 a 2.7500 0.4629 ( , 139
3 6 2.6667 0.8165 ( , ’
18 6 2.3333 0.8165 ( - . ) ’P<-°1
900LED SIDEV . 1.0310 0.75 1.50 2.55 3,30
Action 7.0 (vote - national)
INDIVIDUAL 95 ICI CI'S Ion NEAN
Roieach BASED ON POOLED SIDEV 5'83
va no N NEAN SIDEV I I I .
14 72 1.014 1.144 (-—-*--)
9 18 2.167 1.150 ( - ) 6.
3 9 1.667 1.323 ( . ) 139
15 8 2.750 0.463 (---------—--)
3 6 2.667 0.816 ( - )P<.Ol
13 6 2.667 0.816 (------'-—----)
200LED SIDEV - 1.078 1.50 2.25 3.00
Action 8.a (lights of: - home)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S roa NEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV p.
value N NEAN STDEV I I I 1 53
:4 :3 I333 3°33: “7'77 '
. . ( ‘ ) .
g 13 2.333 0.323 ( - 1 2‘
. 0.333 ( - > '
15 8 3.000 0.000 ( - ) 139
3 6 3.000 0.000 < * )
18 6 2.833 0.408 (—— . ) “~5-
BooLED SIDEV - 0.514 2.70 3.00 3.50
Action 8.b (1190:: at: - triand/relativo)
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S FOR NEAN '.
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDBV L 1__ 0.75
value N MEAN STDEV -—— i I '
14 72 41.431 1.059 (7"") dz-
4 27 1 778 1.155 (---"“') 5
9 18 1.167 0.985 (----~---) '
8 9 1 556 1 014 (-—------'-----) 139
a 12375 1.188 (--------------)
15 .5 1 333 1.211 (--------'----'7-") "-5°
is 6 1.833 1.329 - (--—--f---'---:----) ¢__
" ' v 2.25 3.00
EooLED SIDEV - 1.090 O-7$. , 1:5°,,_
Action 8.6 (lights of: 7 Public’ .
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S Ion NEAN P_
k n BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV 1__ 1 97
no eac __ . 3 . T .
NEAN SIDEV - __
value N 2.028 1.043 (--' ) d:-
72 ......)
14 1.556 1.155 (““" --
4 27 (--.—......- ) 6'
18 2.333 00840 (-“-_“_*-”--O--)139
9 9 2.556 1.014 .-....--)
a 1" .....u‘dO-O.) N.S.
15 5 1.333 1.211 (---'—“ _....-.......—-)
3 5 2.000 1.265 A (----f“ y 1--
18 '—0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00

POOLED SIDEV . 1.042

 

Appendix
Actim

Rokea
value
14

POO:

Act

80k

 

 

182

Appendix E (continued).

Action 9.8 (purchase - recyclable)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PC'! CI’S FOR MEAN
STDEV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rokeach 3A5 :
value N NEAN SIDEV ED 0“ ‘OOLED :‘46
14 72 1.417 1.045 (--.__, -
4 27 2.630 0.492 __._ a _
9 18 1.722 0.826 (---__.-___.,( ' ’ 6‘
I
3 9 1.889 1.167 (--.-...--e_....__) 139
15 g 2.000 0.926 (-----_--._-__-__)
2.667 0.516 -....--... .......__
18 6 1.667 1.366 (-...._.__._.£______) ' ) P<.01
POOLED SIDEV - 0.941 1.50 2.25 3.00
Action 9.b (purchase - energy efficient)
. INDIVIDUAL 9s Bcr CI'S POR MEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV P-
VIluO N MEAN SIDEV I 1.39
14 72 2.042 0.926 (--..., .
4 27 2.407 0.636 (.........-) dz.
9 18 2.000 0.907 (..-._-......) 5,
B 9 2.556 0.527 (---—---—-~---—--—-) 139
15 8 2.000 0.756 (----—-----—-
3 6 2.333 0.816 (----—-----—---) N.S.
18 6 1.667 1.366 (---—--——-~—--—......)
POOLED SIDEV - 0.866 _ _ ..1.2g __ 1:80 _ 2.40 3.00
Action 9.: (purchase - minimize harm)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S r0: AEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED SIDEV P-
N NEAN SIDEV I 1_ 3.42
14 72 1.625 1.067 <-----)
4 27 2.444 0.847 (-....._--) dg-
9 18 2.111 0.900 (--—--~-—---) .
3 9 2.111 0.601 (---—---~----—--—) 139
IS 8 2.375 0.518 (----_._..__._____,
3 6 2.667 0.516 (---—---------) P<.01
18 6 2.000 1.549 (---—..----.-__._.__.)
POOLED SIDEV - 0.972 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75
Action 9.0 (purchase - concerned company)
INDIVIDUAL 95 Bcr CI'S FOR MEAN ?_
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV 2 14
value N MEAN STDEV -
14 72 1.000 1.101 (------ at-
4 27 1.704 0.993 <---—------) 6
9 18 1.500 1.043 (----...-..___) ,
8 9 1.667 1.1%: ( (-d-—-—:------—-7-) l3
8 1.500 0.7 ------—- --------
:5 6 1.833 1.169 (----—---------«---) N.S.
13 6 1.167 1.472 ( ------ —-—--------—----)
POOLED SIDEV - 1.079 0.75 1.50 2.25
Action 10.a (into - to friends)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S Ion MEAN r
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV -
a k n
V:I::C N NEAN SIDEV - I 9.28
14 72 0.5972 0.9881 (-'--)
4 27 1.6296 1.0795 (.......-) d1-
9 18 1.7778 1.0603 (..-....___-) 5'
3 9 1.7778 1.0929 (-...._-.-_._.__ 13
8 2.1250 0.6409 (-----........_._)
15 6 1.6667 1.2111 <-------_-._-..-_...) 9<.01
is 6 2.3333 0.5164 (---...---.-....._.-)
0 80 1.60 2.40 3.20

POOLED STDEV - 1.0030

 

 

 

Appendix

Action 17.c

Rokeach
value

14

4

9

8

15

3

18

POOLED SID!

183

Appendix E (continued).

Action 17.c (donate

5 - national)

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN

 

 

Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
value N MEAN STDEV 14.81
14 72 0.3333 0.7506 (-*--)

4 27 1.8889 1.1209 (-----..-) di-

9 18 1.2778 1.0741 ( ..... e ..... )

8 9 1.6667 0.7071 ( ----- t ....... ) 139
15 8 1.7500 1.0351 ( _______ e ________ )

3 6 2.0000 0.8944 ( ....... 4 ________ ) p< 01
13 6 1 8333 1.1690 ( ........ e .........

POOLED SIDEV - 0.9080 0.75 1.50 2.25

- Rokeach values

salvation

peace

health

Ereedom

sell-respect

sense 01 accomplishment
wisdom

 

Appendix

-Action I

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

100180
Action

Rokeac
value
14

 

POO!

Act:

Act
val
14

15
18
PO(

 

Appendix E (continued).

-Action 10.: (info — to strangers)

Rokeach
value N
14 72
4 27
9 18
3 9
8
:5 .
18 5

MEAN
0.3472
1.1111
1.0556
1.1111
1. 5
1.5000
1.1667

’OOLED STDBV - 0.9057

STDEV
0.7720
0.9740
0.8725
1.4530
0.6409
1.3784
0.9832

1184

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN

 

 

Action 11.a (discussion - sim11ar views)

Rokeach

value N
14 72
4 27
9 18
a 9
15 g
3

18 5

2.333
2.000

POOLED STDEV - 0.941

STDEV
0.918
1.001
0.938
0.928
0.744
1.211
0.894

 

 

 

Action 11.b (discussion - ditterent views)

Rokeach
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

l-‘NQ
mmcnsomxluz

POOLED STDEV - 0.989

 

 

 

Action 12.a (public appearance — local)

Rokeach
value

14 7
4 2
9 1
8
15
3

N
2
7
8
9
8
6
18 6

POOLED‘STDEV . 0.8165

1.3292

 

 

Action 12.b (public appearance - state)

Rokeach

value N
14 72
4 27
9 18
8 9
15 8
3 6
18 6

POOLED STDEV I

0.33333
0.33333

0.58126

0
.

m
4
a
m
m

1.00000
0

0.81650
0.81650

 

BASED ON POOLED SIDEV P-
6.58
(---)
<----~--) d:-
(-—--«-) 6.
(-----------) 139
(-------~-------)
(--—----—------- P<.01
( ----«.-- ---—--- )
0.75 1.50 2.25
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S Ion MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV g"3
(--~--)
.1.....) d1-
(----------)
(--...._..1-_._._..._) 139
(--—--——--——--—----)
(__---_......n-....-_.——-) P<.01
t--—--—---—'--—--—---)
1.20 . 1.80 2.40 3.00
INDIVIDUAL 95 Ice CI’S FOR NEAN
BASED ON BooLtD SIDEV 4.10
(-'—-)
(---'- ) d1-
..---e-..__.)
(------~-----) 139
_____ ...._..-....-)
(---—---—------) P<.01
(---—-----------)
1.50 2.25 3.00
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI’S FOR MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV "
3.96
(--~---)
(----e....) df-
-—--— I -----
( ..--l---e----._-_) 139
(---—----e------—--)
--... ..... e-—_-—._-—-) P<.01
( ------ -«---—--—-—-—)
0 00 0.60 1.20 1.80
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S eon MEAN
BASED 0N POOLED SID [-
3.18
(...---)
(-—---~—---) 8:-
( --.... ......— ) I
(------------------J 139
..----_..e....-.-—)
(-------'------‘--) ' P<.01

(----------——------)

 

 

4.. ...--
---

0.00 0.40 0.80

 

Appendix 1

Action

Rokeac!
value
14

4

9

8

15

3

18

POOLE!

Actioi

Rokee
value
14

 

Hmwmmbwfg

 

Appendix E (continued).

1235

Action 12.: (public appearance - national)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not..ch INDIVIDUAL 9s ecr CI'S 808 MEAN
v.1“. N 12A" BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F-
l‘ ‘ STOW 4? i “ 2 43
4 72 0.01389 0.11785 (--.-..) * °
9 27 0.03704 0.19245 (....-._. ) d£_
8 18 0.38889 0.97853 ( , 6
9 0.33333 1.00000 ( . '
3 6 0.33333 0.81650 ( 1
?OO - i t i :
LED SIDEV 0.48245 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.50
Action 13.a (report violation - acquaintance)
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S 808 MEAN
52:3:ch BASED 0N BooLED SIDEV P-
1‘ N MEAN STDEV ¢ , I I I 0.57
4 72 0.2361 0.6165 (---~--)
9 27 0.2222 0.5774 (---a---) d:-
8 . 18 0.1111 0.3234 ( - ) 6.
9 0.4444 0.8819 ( . ) 139
15 8 0 0 ( - )
3 6 0.3333 0.8165 ( - ) N.S.
13 6 0.1667 0.4082 ( a )
POOLED SIDEV - 0.5019 0.20 0.00 0.40 0.80
Action 13.b (report violation - stranger)
INDIVIDUAL 95 ecr CI'S FOR MEAN
fi°ksach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV ’-
thue N 333” sfpgv I I ; ¢ 0.50
14 72 0.4444 0.7485 (--*--)
4 27 0.5556 0.8473 (-------) di-
9 18 0.5000 0.7071 ( a ) 6.
8 9 0.2222 0.4410 ( . ) 139
15 8 0.5000 0.7559 ( a ) ‘
3 6 0.8333 0.9832 ( s ) N.S.
18 6 0.3333 0.8165 ( - )
POOLED SIDEV - 0.7618 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Action 14.a (lawsuit - yourselfi)
P-
Rokeach
value 4'44
14 INDIVIDUAL 95 per CI'S r08 MEAN d:—
4 BASED ON POOLED SIDEV 6'
9 N MEAN SIDEV I I 139
3 , 72 0.02778 0.16549 (.......)
15 27 0.07407 0.26688 (—---*--') __. e<.01
is 6 0.33333 0.81650 - (-f -
POOLED SIDEV g“9;3§438 °~°° °'15 °°32 0'48
Action 14.b (lawsuit - group)
INDIVIDUAL 95 BCI CI'S Ion MEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV I-
value N MEAN STDEV —— I I I 1.66
14 72 0.06944 0.34910 (..-.....)
4 27 0.40741 0.79707 (......._....., d:-
9 18 0.16667 0.51450 (...............-) 5,
8 9 0.33333 0.70711 4—--—-----—---:---------) 139
15 8 0.37500 0.51755 (-—~ . )
3 6 0.33333 0.81650 (— - -) N.S.
18 6 0.33333 0.81650 (— 1 —:e—— - -—)
- 0.00 0.30 0.60 0 90

POOLED SIDEV - 0.55108

1136

Appendix E (continued).

Action 15.a (injunction - yourself)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S 80R MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
value N MEAN SIDEV I I I 2.03
14 72 0.02778 0.16549 (-a-)
4 27 0.07407 0.26688 (----....) .81.
9 18 0 0 (---‘-.-) 6,
8 9 0 0 ( ‘ ) 139
15 a 0 0 ( ‘ )
3 6 0.33333 0.81650 ( - ) “.5.
18 6 0 0 ( c—‘ )
POOLED STDEV - 3.;:-:; 0.00 0.20 0.40
Action lS.b (injunction - group)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED 0N POOLED SIDEV F'
value N MEAN STDEV I I I I 2.53
14 72 0.09722 0.47943 (--‘---)
4 27 0.59259 0.88835 ( e ) di-
9 18 0.16667 0.51450 ( * ) 6.
8 9 0.55556 0.88192 ( = )139
15 8 0.50000 0.75593 ( e )
3 6 0.33333 0.81650 ( - ) p<.os
13 6 0.33333 0.81650 ( e )
POOLED STDEV - 0.64722 0.00 0.32 0.64 0.96
Action 16 (stop buying — harmful)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV P-
value N MEAN STDEV I I I I 2.17
14 72 1.639 1.052 (-'--)
4 27 2.222 0.641 (------) d:-
9 18 1.889 0.963 (---'---) 6.
a 9 2.111 0.928 ( - ) 139
15 8 1.875 0.641 < - )
3 6 2.667 0.516 ( - ) P<.05
13 5 1.333 1.159 ( A . )
POOLED STDEV - 0.941 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75
Action l7.a (donate 5 - local)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED STDEV ’-
value N MEAN STDEV I I I I 12.74
14 72 0.5833 0.8999 (~-*--)
4 27 2.1481 0 .9488 (...—.9..-) d!-
9 18 1.5000 1.1504 (----'---) 6.
a 9 1.4444 1.1304 I ) 139 1
15 8 2.1250 0.3536 ( I )
3 6 2.0000 0.6325 ( 5 ) P<.01
13 6 1.8333 0.9832 4 1 - - ) 1
poogzp srpgv . 0.9343 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00
Action 17.b (donate 5 - state)
INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN
Rokeach BASED ON POOLED SIDEV F- 6
va1u. N MEAN STDEV I I I 13-0
14 72 0.4306 0.8192 (-*-)
4 27 1.8889 1.0127 (--e--) di-
9 18 1.3333 1.0847 (---a--) 6.
a 9 1.3333 0.8660 ( . ) 139
15 8 2.0000 0.5345 ( : )
3 6 2.0000 0.6325 ( ) P<.01
18 6 1.1667 0.9832 ( t 1 ) -
0.75 1.50 2.25

POOLED SIDEV - 0.8862

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

Abelm

ArbuU

Balla

Beer,

Berry

Borde

Borde

Burru

Butte

Champ

Child

 

187

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abeles, T. "Environmental Education: A Community/University
Approach". Journal of College Science Teaching.
October 1973.

Arbuthnot, J. "The Roles of Attitude and Personality
Variables in the Prediction of Environmental Behavior
and Knowledge." Environment and Behavior. Vol. 9. N0.
2. 1977.

Ball—Rokeach, S.J., M. Rokeach, J.W. Grube. The Great
American Values Test, The Free Press, New York, 1984.

 

 

'Beer, M. The Ohio State University Bureau of Business
Research, 1966.

Berry, M. and G. Lowe. "The Challenge of Environmental
Education". EPA Journal. April 1978.

 

Borden, R. and P. Powell. "Androgyny and Environmental
Orientation". Current Issues in Environmnental
Education. ed. A. Sacks, L. Iozzi, and R. Wilke. Vol.
8. 1983.

 

 

Borden, R. and A. Schettino. "Determinants of
Environmentally Responsible Behavior". Journal of
Environmental Education. Vol. 10. No. 4. Spring, 1979.

 

Burrus-Bammel, L. "Information's Effect on Attitude - a
Longitudinal Study to Investigate Immediate and
Long—Term Effects in a Camp". Journal of Environmental
Education. Vol. 9. No. 3. Spring 1978.

 

 

Buttel, F. and W. Flinn. "Social Class and Mass
Environmental Beliefs". Environment and Behavior. Vol.
10. No. 3. September 1978.

 

Champeau, R. "Development of a Perceived Locus of Control
Instrument for Environmental Action", unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1982.

Childress, R. "Public School Environmental Education
Curricula: A National Profile". Journal of
Environmental Education. Vol. 9. No. 3. Spring 1978.

 

 

 

 

 

Cofer,

Dambaci

Davis,

Dillma

Dunla]

Dunla

Force

Gallc

Hart

Harv

Hebe

Hebe

Heb

188

Cofer, C. and Appley, M. Motivation: Theory and Research,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964.

 

Dambach, C. "Conservation Through Adult Education". Journal
of Environmental Education. Vol. 1. No. 2. Winter
1969.

 

Davis, C. and F. Surls. "Community-Oriented Environmental
Education". Journal of Environmental Education. Vol.
6. No. Summer 1975.

 

Dillman, D. and J. Christenson, "The Public Value for
Pollution Control", in W.R. Burch, N.H. Cheek, and L.
Taylor, ed. Social Behavoir, Natural Resources, and
the Environment, New York, Harper and Row, 1972.

 

 

Dunlap, R.; R. Gale; and B. Rutherford. "Concern for
Environmental Rights Among College Students". American
Journal of Economics and Sociology. Vol. 32. 1973.

 

.Dunlap, R.; J. Grieneeks; and M. Rokeach. "Human Values and
Pro—Environmental Behavior". AAAS Selected Symposium
75. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. 1983.

Force, J; T. Seliga; and R. Swain. "A Community
Environmental Education Program on Air Quality".
Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 8. No. 3.
Spring 1977.

 

Gallo, V., "Adult Learning: Motivation Key to Success".
Clearing House. Vol. 7. December, 1971.

 

Hart, R.; G. Friedrich; and W. Brooks. Public Communication.
New York. Harper and Row. 1975.

 

Harvey, G. "Environmental Education: a Delineation of
Substantive Structure". Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Southern Illinois University. 1976.
Found in H. Hungerford; B. Peyton; and R. Wilke. "A
Framework for Environmental Education Curriculum
Planning and Development".

Heberlein, T. "Environmental Attitudes". Zeitschrift fur
Umweltpolitik. 1980

 

 

Heberlein, T. and J. Black. "Attitudinal Specificity and the
Prediction of Behavior in a Field Setting". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 33. No. 4.
1976.

 

 

Heberlein, T. and J. Black. "Cognitive Consistency and
Environmental Action". Environment and Behavior. Vol.
13. No. 6. November 1981.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hines

Horsl

Hunge

Hunge

Hunge

John:

Karl

Know

Knut

KUpc

Lars

Lewi

Made

189
Hines, J.

"Synthesis Report of Research in Environmental
Education 1971—1982

Part V: Environmental Action",
Presentation at National Association for Environmental
Education meeting, Fall 1983.
Horsley, A.

"Effects of a Social Learning Experiment on
Attitudes and Behavior Toward Environmental
Conservation". Environment and Behavior. September
1977.
Hungerford, H. and R. Peyton. Teaching Environmental
Education. Portland ME. J. Weston Walch. 1976.
Hungerford, R.; R. Peyton; and R. Wilke. "A Framework for
Environmental Education Curriculum Planning and
Development". Current Issues in Environmental
Education. Ed. A. Sacks et al. Vol. 6. 1980.

Hungerford, H.; A. Tomera; and R. J. Wilson.

"An Analysis of
(Intervention) and Allied Variables in Studies
Abstracted in RIEE 1971—1980".
Environmental Education.
Vol. 8. ed

the Emphasis Placed on Overt Environmental Behavior

Current Issues in
. by A. Sacks, L Iozzi, and R. Wilke.
Johnson, D.; R. Champeau;

1983.
and C. Newhouse.

"Perspectives on
the Status and Success of Environmental Education for
Adults“. Current Issues in Environmental Education.
Ed. A. Sacks et al. Vol. 6. 1980.
Karlins, M.

 

and H. Abelson. Persuasion. New York. Springer
Publishing Co. Inc. 1970.

Knowles, M. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. 2 ed.
Gulf Publishing Co. Houston. 1978.

Knutson, J. The Human Basis of the Polity. Chicago.
Aldine-Atherton. 1973.

Kupchella and Levy. “Basis Principles in the Education of
Environmentalists".
Education. Vol. 6.

Journal of Environmental
Spring 1975.

Larson, M.; M. Forrest; and L. Bostian. "Participation in
Pro—Environmental Behavior“ Journal of Environmental
Education. Vol. 12. No. 3. 1981.

Lewin, K. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics“. Human Relations.
Vol. 1. No. 2. 1947.

Maddi, 8. Personality Theories a comparative analysis, The
Dorsey Press, Homewood, Ill. 1968.

 

 

 

V‘-

Ma

Ma

Ma

Ma

Mi

Mi

Ra

RI

 

190

Maloney, M. and M. Ward. "An Objective Scale for Measurement
of Ecologic Attitudes and Knowledge". American
Psychologist. Vol. 28. July 1973.

Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper and
Bros., 1954.

Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality (2 ed.). New York
Harper and Row. 1970.

Matthews, J. "Environmental Education and Community Action".
Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 6. No. 2.
Winter 1974.

Michigan Department of Education. "Life Role Competencies".
1978.

Miller, H. "Participation of Adults in Education: A
Force—Field Analysis". Center for Studies of Liberal
Education for Adults. Occasional Papers No. 14.
Brookline, Mass. ERIC # ED011996. 1967.

'Moore, H. "Energy—Related Information/Attitude Measures of
College—Age Students". Journal of Environmental
Education. Vol. 12. No. 4. Summer 1981.

Peyton, R. B., and H. Hungerford, "An Assessment for
Teachers' Abilities to Identify, Teach, and Implement
Environmental Action Skills.", Current Issues VI,
1980.

 

Ramsey, C. and R. Rickson. "Environmental Knowledge and
Attitudes". Journal of Environmental Education. Vol.
8. No. 1. Fall 1976.

Renshon, S. Psychological Needs and Political Behavior. New
York. The Free Press. 1974.

Robinson, J.P., and P.R. Shaver, Measures of Social
Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI. Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973.

 

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco.
Jossey—Bass. 1968.

Rokeach, M. “Terminal Values Survey", copyright, Halgren
Tests, San Francisco, CA 1972

Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values. New York. The Free
Press. 1973.

Schoenfeld, C. “President's Address to the 1980 NAEE
Conference“. Current Issues in Environmental
Education. Ed. A. Sacks et al. Vol. 6. 1980.

 

 

191

Sia, A., Hungerford, H., and Tomera, A. "An Analysis of
Selected Predictors of Pro—Environmental Behavior: A

Preliminary Study presented at National Association
for EnVironmental Education conference, Fall 1983.

Stapp, W. et. al.(12 others),

"Toward a National Strategy
or EnVironmental Education".
Environmental Education

Current Issues in
Vol. 5. 1979.
Tichenor, P.; G. Donohoe; C. Olien; and J.

"Environment and Public Opinion Journal of
Environmental Education. Vol. 2. No. 4. Summer 1971.
Tucker, L. "The Enviromnentally Concerned Citizen,

Correlates“. Environment and Behavior
September 1978

Bowers.

Some
Vol. 10.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Notes on Coordinating a
Community Program in Environmental Education"
Minneapolis. Jenny Publishing 1977.
Van Liere, K

and R. Dunlap.
Behavior:

"Moral Norms and Environmental
An Application of Schwartz’s Norm-Activation
Model to Yard—Burning" Journal of Applied Behavioral
Psychology. Vol. 8. No. 2. 1978.

Van Liere, K. and R. Dunlap. "The Social Bases of
EnVironmental Concern. A Review of Hypotheses,
Explanations, and Empirical Evidence". Public Opinion

Quarterly. Vol. 44. No. 2. 1980.
Ward, T. "Non Formal Education — What Is It?". Class
Handout. Education 821 E. Michigan State Univer51ty
Winter 1982.

Weigel, R. and L. Newman, “Increasing Attitude-Behavior
Correspondence by Broadening the Scope of the
Behavioral Measure" Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, No. 6, 1976
Weigel, R. and J. Weigel, "Environmental Concern the

Development of a Measure" Environment and BehaVior, V
10 ,No. 1, 1978.

Wicker, A. “Attitudes vs Actions

The Relationship of Verbal
and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Ob3ects"
The Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 25. No. 4. 1969.