SOME EFFECTS OF THREAT APPEAL IN MESSAGES ABOUT HAZARDS 0F GRIZZLY BEARS IN NATIONAL PARKS: AN EXPERIMENT Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE "UNIVERSITY RONALD WAYNE HODGSON 1974 IIIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIII , J““'”“‘ on“ - fl om L'J’r' :0 -1_293 10743 J n v , v, IRE-‘3‘: LIIII‘II' .KY I' MI‘II I: TI Still» I? ULIVLI'bs‘s-y "'Cflsu r, W This is to certify that the _.._. -. thesis entitled Some Effects of Threat Appeal in Messages About Hazards of Grizzly Bears in National Parks: An Experiment presented by Ronald Wayne Hodgson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy degree in Resource Development / ,. h‘ ,7 VZ/éZ/M /cfi ”moczom mmucmscmmcou m_nmco>me:: ou mmuzmmmmmm Aqeop zmmwuw>mu: gummy =um»muwo: gummy umco_OUmwv co »_m: mszm UmEmecw .cm—FOZm .mLOm ”mcowuummcw zuzoz mepcmp 8;“ Op om Op mcw>mg Lo anwa mmruw>mu ocw>mz xcoz _mucmv _swcwmq gmnuo Lo .up~_wtp mawpwsmp .ppsfisa £8883 mcw>pz mmmmmwu Agmucoomm cmguo Lo mmmcnchn .mwmxrmcma .Lmucmu mmcumzuoou Eoc» cvma mmpmmmz mmmmmmz ppmcch _mswcwz ppmczp mupcmuoz mammmmz ummegp mcocum vwawcummo mucmscmmcou .mcmx umumpznm» mew mmmmmmmz mmcge mcp cw umm: mummczp mEOmmzcw mo mmmmm_u mzowcp> on mmucmcmwmm mo mg¢nE=2 mck .uum_mmz panama mo mmucmzommcou mEOmmzcw mg“ cu mmucmcmmmm mo mmmcuwuw_axm vcw swaggz ms» mcpmwmcucH xn pmmggk we Pm>m4 msu umuszaecmz comacmmm vcm mwcmw Xe acmewcmaxm mzhii _ mqmqh 23 that treatment failed to arouse differential fear between high and mild threat.16 Hewgill and Miller found results diametrically opposed to those of Janis and Feshbach. Janis and Feshbach found high threat to inter- fere with persuasion; Hewgill and Miller found it to facilitate per- suasion! It might be as Hewgill and Miller suggest: the threat to family, especially when presented by a highly credible source, is more difficult to repress than the threat to self. However, the explanation might as easily lie in the different kinds of fear aroused. Anticipation Threat.--All of the messages used by Hewgill and Miller contained the same basic information. Fear levels were manipu- lated by inserting, ". . . thirteen statements concerning physical injury or death to spouses and children.“17 Examples of the messages indicate the likelihood of experiencing the threatened event is the variable manipulated rather than the magnitude of the negative feelings to be experienced should the event occur. Emphasis in Hewgill and Miller is on the numbers of persons who might be injured or killed if community fallout shelters are not provided rather than upon vivid description of the radiation sickness that the victims would suffer. Those subjects exposed to the high threat message can be expected to subjectively estimate the probability of injury in an attack to be higher than the probability estimated by those subjected to the low threat message. The two groups might be ¥ 16Hewgill and Miller, “Source Credibility and Response," pp. pi_t_. P. 99. ”ma, p. 96. (Ii 24 expected to have approximately equal mental pictures of the magnitude of self-destruction experienced in the event Of an attack. Three examples from the messages used by Hewgill and Miller to arouse fear illustrate the anticipation as Opposed to the inhibition nature of the threat they employed: . the children of thousands of families would be killed in a nuclear war; . since many of them will perish if such protection is not available;‘ and "Even minimal community shelter precautions would Spare the lives of thousands of 18 The authors used references to radiation adults and children.” sickness but apparently did not vary the gruesomeness of the descrip- tions from message to message. Hewgill and Miller manipulated anticipation threat. When the source of the threat appeal was perceived as having high credibility, the relationship between the level of threat and persuasion in the Hewgill and Miller experiment was positive. NO interference from aggression or defensive avoidance was observed. pranthal and Trembly Leventhal and Trembly attempted to test the differential effects of anticipation and inhibition threat. They felt anticipation fear would be aroused by ". . . descriptions of threat agents, their approach and method Of attack." Inhibition fear would be aroused by description of destruction. Anticipation threat would facilitate persuasion by exciting attention to the environment and ways of avoiding danger. y 1pm., p. 96. 25 Inhibition threat would lead, from a focus on self—destruction, to ". . . depression, anger, and a sense of loss."19 The authors had two objectives. The first was to associate descriptions of a danger agent and descriptions of the destruction attending the threat with the feelings associated with the two kinds of fear. The second was to test the hypothesis that anticipation threat would be associated with coping behavior while inhibition threat would be associated with defensive avoidance. Subjects were male high school students between 16 and 20 years Old. All were licensed drivers. Motion pictures illustrating a message on automobile safety were used to arouse emotions. Threat level was manipulated by the size of the projected image. Low threat messages were illustrated with small pictures from which the subjects were seated at a distance Of 20 feet. The high threat message was illustrated by a larger image from which the subjects were seated at a distance of 12 feet. The inhibition threat message was illustrated with scenes of the wreckage and injured. It included ". . . close-ups of mutilated bodies and bloody wounds. The moans of victims also were audible.”20 The anticipation threat message was illustrated by scenes of contrived automobile collisions in which dummies were the passengers. The messages resulted in different emotions being reported. Changes in intensity of both treatments produced increased expression 19Leventhal and Trembly, "Negative Emotions," pp, p13,, p. 154. 1919, p. 156. 26 of intentions to take protective measures. The differences Observed were attributed by the authors to differential instructional effect resulting from the manipulation of stimulus intensity through changes in the size of the image and not necessarily the kind Of threat used. Leventhal and Trembly did not find the two kinds of fear to be different in their persuasive effect. The failure to do so, however, may have resulted from inadequate operations used for and the method for varying anticipation threat. The authors discuss the possibility that the larger films may have been more effective for instruction as well as more effective for arousing emotional tension. The film showing destruction of dummies in contrived collisions seems to be a milder version Of the film showing destruction of real people in real collisions. The message in both cases manipulates the magnitude of negative feelings (inhibition fear) to be expected and not the sub— jective probability of injury (anticipation fear). The lack Of evidence in this study, therefore, cannot be interpreted as evidence for the lack of different effects on per- suasion and the interfering variables, aggression and defensive avoid- ance. The experimenters found both films to increase anxiety and fear reports and the inhibition threat film to strengthen ". . . reports of disgust, depression, egotism, and aggression.”21 The results tend to support the hypothesis that increased inhibition threat, at least, results in aggression and defensive avoidance. The results contain no evidence about the effects of increased anticipation threat. __ 23139... p. 164. 27 Anxiety The relationship between the level of anxiety aroused by a threat appeal and persuasion is complex. McGuire identifies multiple factors that mediate the effects Of variables such as anxiety on persuasibility.22 He calls two of these factors, “yielding" and "receptivity." The probability of Opinion change is described as a multipli- cative function of the probability of yielding [Pr(Y)], the probability Of effective message reception [Pr(R)], and of a residual factor [Pr(K)] which is the probability of other mediating variables such as retention. The relationship is expressed mathematically as: Pr(o) = Pr(Y) x Pr(R) x Pr(K) [a] McGuire suggests that if only the yielding factor is considered, one would expect persuasability to increase monotonically with anxiety. As subjects become more anxious, they become less self-confident and more insecure, and, therefore, more susceptible to social influence. However, anxiety also influences other mediating variables such as receptivity. As subjects become more anxious, they may become preoccupied with worry about the threat. That worry may interfere with their ability to comprehend and interpret the information presented in the threat appeal. Thus, while increased anxiety might motivate the subject to yield to social influence and accept the recommendations in the threat 22McGuire, “Personality and Susceptibility," pp, pip., pp. 1142- 1147. 28 appeal, increased anxiety might also cause the subject to become pre- occupied and inattentive to the information in the appeal. Depending on the parameters of the function relating anxiety to the probability of yielding and to the probability of effective reception, one might expect the product of equation [a], above, to be a nonmonotonic relationship: the probability of opinion change at first increasing, then, after a point, decreasing as anxiety increases. Such a relationship would explain the confused results of empirical persuasion studies arousing anxiety. Predictions are further confused because anxiety appears to be associated with other mediating factors. The probability of re- jecting the recommendations of a message source perceived to be respon- sible for arousing the negative feelings of anxiety is one of these. The greater the anxiety aroused, the more probable such hostile re- jection would seem. The net effect of anxiety arousal on the probability of opinion change is, therefore, the product of a number of functions relating mediating factors to anxiety level. Some of these mediating factors vary directly with anxiety; others vary inversely. It is unlikely that opinion change will vary monotonically with anxiety arousal. Anxiety, of course, may be only one of the variables that influences the response of subjects to threat appeals. Increased attention to the threat message and a fascination with gruesome detail to the exclusion of other information also predict some of the results observed in threat appeal research. (9; an of a! 29 A frequently used explanation of the effects of threat appeal depends upon anxiety. Strong threat is associated with greater anxiety than mild threat. Anxiety is a drive and motivates adoption of recommendations. In another formulation, anxiety results in pre- occupation with worry and reduced comprehension of threat appeal recommendations. In still another formulation, the negative feelings associated with anxiety result in rejection of recommendations as an expression Of hostility or in defensive avoidance of further information about the threat. Because anxiety is central to many explanations of the observed relationships between the level of threat and opinion change, a measure of anxiety is included in the experiment described here. Conclusions If one desires to influence the attitude or behavior of a receiver, one might arouse the receiver by demonstrating that an event associated with negative feelings is very likely unless certain recom- mended actions are taken. The recommendations, if accepted, would substantially reduce the likelihood that the threatening event would occur. Thus, the greater the arousal of anticipation fear, the more motivated the receiver will be to accept the recommendations. Of course, acceptance of the recommendations might not reduce the subjective probability of experiencing the threatened event ade- quately, leaving the receiver with residual emotional tension. Since anticipation fear was aroused, anticipation fear remains. The receiver can be expected to seek further recommendations that, if accepted, will 3O reduce the probability of experiencing the negative event. The emo- tional tension will be dissipated in implementation of the recommen- dations and the search for other behaviors effective in reducing the probability of the occurrence of the negative event (coping behavior). If one arouses emotional tension by vividly describing the painful or gruesome consequences of the event and then offers recom- mendations that again promise to reduce the likelihood that the event will occur, and if acceptance of those recommendations is unsuccessful in reducing the subjective probability that the event will occur to near zero, the receiver will be left in a state of residual emotional tension. Since inhibition fear was aroused, inhibition fear will remain. The receiver has learned that the magnitude of affect arousal is usually beyond his control, and he will be more likely to engage in defensive avoidance than in coping. Similarly, even if the recommendations are such that they reduce the expected magnitude of negative feelings, unless the expected magnitude is reduced to near zero, the residual emotional tension will be likely to motivate defensive avoidance. Defensive avoidance might take the form of aggression towards the source or others, misinterpre- tation of the arousal message, efforts not to think about the subject and avoidance of further communication on the topic. 21.111.111.411 Two kinds of fear seem to have been manipulated in research on threat appeal persuasion. Inhibition fear is aroused by vivid description of the destruction a threatened event will mean for the 31 receiver's psychological and biological self. Anticipation fear is aroused by descriptions of the likelihood that the threatened event will actually occur. Inhibition fear is the expected magnitude of negative affect if the event occurs. Anticipation fear is the receiver's subjective probability that the event associated with negative feelings will occur. Experience, it is suggested, has taught that the magnitude of feelings to be experienced in case of an event is largely beyond the control of the individual. Therefore, inhibition fear can effectively be reduced, in general, only through defensive avoidance. On the other hand, experience has taught that the probability that an event will occur can be influenced by personal behavior. Therefore, anticipation fear can be reduced by adopting appropriate coping behavior. Persuasive strategies that employ inhibition threat, it is hypothesized, will result in increased defensive avoidance as the level of threat is increased. Examples of this outcome are the experiments by Janis and Feshbach and Leventhal and Trembly. Strategies employing anticipation threat, it is hypothesized, will result in increased coping behavior as the level of threat increases. Hewgill and Miller provide an example of that effect. The study by Leventhal and Trembly attempted to test for some of the predicted effects of the arousal of the two kinds of fear in persuasion. Their results were inconclusive, perhaps because of difficulties with the Operationalization of the anticipation threat and manipulations of threat intensity. CHAPTER III THE HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH DESIGN Thus, the arousal of "neurotic anxiety" by fear-arousing stimuli may cause subjects to attempt to reduce fear by eliminating thoughts about danger (via repression, denial, aggression, etc.), whereas those subjects in whom "realistic fear" is aroused may take realistic action (e.g., adopt the communicator's recom- mendations) to eliminate or avoid the danger.1 The Hypotheses Hypothesis One When anticipation threat is used, subjects exposed to higher levels of threat will evaluate the grizzly bear as more dangerous than will subjects exposed to lower levels of threat. The level of threat will not be related to evaluations of grizzly bear aesthetics. When inhibition threat is used, subjects exposed to higher levels of threat will evaluate the grizzly bear as more dangerous and less aesthetic than will subjects exposed to lower levels of threat. Rationale.--On the basis of the literature reviewed in Chapter II, inhibition threat is expected to be associated with aggression. One way in which aggression is expressed is by showing contempt.2 It would be difficult for a subject feeling contempt for a grizzly bear to continue to think it aesthetic. Such feelings would be inconsistent with one another. Therefore, as inhibition threat is increased, A 1Higbee, "Fifteen Years of Fear Arousal,“ pp._pip., pp. 433- 34. 2Janis and Feshbach, ”Effects of Fear~Arousing," pp, pit,, pp. 78-92. 32 33 aggression towards the grizzly should increase, expressed as contempt, and as a consequence, the subject should evaluate the grizzly bear as less aesthetic. It is possible to argue that at the higher levels of inhibition threat, subjects will be more likely to deny the existence of the threat. If that occurs, one would expect the grizzly bear to be evaluated as more safe as the level of inhibition threat increases. However, intuitively, subjects aware of the unpleasant consequences that might attend an attack by a grizzly could not avoid reevaluating the bear as more dangerous. Because it is on that basis that stronger threat appeals for bear management communications have been recommended, the positive relationship between the level of threat and evaluations of the grizzly bear as more dangerous is hypothesized. When anticipation threat is used, coping behavior is predicted. Coping behavior involves those activities that would increase the subject‘s safety. Reevaluation of grizzly bear aesthetics towards unaesthetic would result in no increase in safety. Therefore, antici- pation threat is expected to shift the evaluation on the safety dimension towards dangerous but to leave the evaluation on the aesthetic dimension unchanged. In summary, when inhibition threat is used, the evaluation of the grizzly bear on the safety dimension will shift towards more dangerous and the evaluation on the aesthetic dimension will shift towards unaesthetic. When anticipation threat is used, only the evaluation on the safety dimension will change, towards more dangerous. 34 Analysis includes a test of the significance of the relation- ship between the safety and the aesthetic dimension. It is possible to argue that the subject's image of a grizzly bear is an interconnected set of evaluations that are consistent with one another. If changes are affected in one element of the image (safety), all elements should be influenced.3 Images, however, are more or less complex, more or less well organized. They include "compartmentalized" elements within which the components are consistently interwoven but between which there is little organization. Components in one element may be incon- sistent with components of other elements, but because the elements are not closely tied to one another, no inconsistency will be perceived by the subject and, therefore, no stress for balance will exist. Because the grizzly bear is an unusual event in the lives of most individuals, it is likely that images of the bear are relatively undeveloped. Elements of the image may be fairly vivid; however, a great deal of information about bears is included in the verbal and non-verbal communications available to the population at large. With the exception of a review of the unofficial communications about bears available to the visitor of Glacier National Park,4 no 3Kenneth E. Boulding, The Imagp_(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1956), William A. Scott, “Psychological and Social Correlates of International Images,” in International Behavior, a Social- Epychologjcal Analysis, ed. by Herbert C. KelmanETNew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 78- 79, Karl W. Deutsch and Richard L. Merritt, “Effects of Events on National and International Images," in International _Behavior, A Social- Psychologjcal Analysis, ed. by Herbert - —._........._ C. Kelman (New Yo1l HOlt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965). 4Susan F. Hodgson, “Unofficial Messages about Bears in the McDonald Valley and West Glacier," Report to the National Park Service, Glacier National Park, Montana (unpublished paper, 1973). 35 summary of the content of generally available messages about bears has been made to the knowledge of the author. However, it seems from the author's experience, that discussions about bears tend to focus either upon the aesthetics, safety, or biology and natural history of the animal. Most messages, apparently, deal with one of these topics almost to the exclusion of the others. If that is the case, this message characteristic would encourage compartmentalization of aesthetic and safety dimensions. The subject would tend to think about the safety of bears or the beauty of bears, but not about both at the same time. If the two elements are more or less independent, a shift in the evaluation of grizzly bears safety should not automatically be a source of stress on the subject's evaluation of aesthetics. No significant interaction is expected, therefore. Hypothesis Two _ When inhibition threat is used, the amount of aggression displayed by subjects will vary directly with the level of threat. When anticipation threat is used, no relationship between the level of threat and aggression will be Observed. Rationale.--The reasons for expecting the predicted relation- ship are discussed thoroughly in Chapter II. Briefly, it was argued that experience teaches that an individual can control to some extent the probability that an event will occur, but has less control over the magnitude of negative affect associated with the possible event. Anticipation threat stresses the probability that an event will occur. Inhibition threat stresses the magnitude of negative feelings (affect) that might result. Individuals avoid negative affect. Coping behavior 36 can reduce anticipation threat but not inhibition threat. Individuals must resort to defensive avoidance to reduce inhibition threat. One manifestation of defensive avoidance is aggression. Therefore, it is expected that subjects exposed to higher levels of inhibition threat will exhibit aggression, but no effect will be observed for level of anticipation threat. Hypothesis Three When anticipation threat is used, the likelihood that a subject will seek further information about grizzly bears will increase with the level of threat. When inhibition threat is used, the likelihood that a subject will seek further information about grizzly bears will decrease as the level of threat increases. Rationale.--Hypothesis three is related closely to hypothesis two. The arguments above explain why one might expect higher antici- pation threat to result in more information seeking. Defensive avoid- ance again explains why higher levels of inhibition threat are expected to result in less information seeking. Inhibition threat is expected to result in defensive avoidance. One manifestation of defensive avoidance is repression. Subjects avoid further messages or thoughts about the distressing subject. Thus, higher levels of inhibition threat should be associated with less information seeking. Operations of the Concepts Kind of Threat Inhibition threat is operationalized as a written message describing a single grizzly bear attack in which the gruesome 37 consequences of the attack are detailed. Pain, death, disfigurement, blood, etc. are mentioned. Anticipation threat is a written message describing in sequence a number of grizzly bear attacks upon hikers and backpackers. Details of the injuries sustained are few. Victims are described as badly mauled, or killed. NO mention is made of pain, disfigurement, or blood. Inhibition threat emphasizes the gruesome aspects of an attack by a grizzly bear. Anticipation threat emphasizes the probability that the subject will experience an attack. Level of Threat For inhibition threat, level was increased by adding progres- sively "stronger" descriptions of injury to persons by the grizzly bear in the described attack. Descriptive sentences were ranked by a panel of five undergraduates selected to represent the population of subjects used in the experiment. The judges were Michigan State University students enrolled in the televised sections of the wilderness survival course at the same time the subjects of the experiment were enrolled in the live section. The strongest version of the inhibition threat was composed. Sentences, groups of sentences, and phrases describing the gruesome consequences of the attack were extracted and typed on 3" by 5" cards. The judges were each given a deck of cards containing all the descrip- tions. They were instructed to rank the descriptions according to how strongly each aroused their feelings. 38 The low threat message contained the least strong one-third of the descriptions. The medium threat message contained the least strong two-thirds of the descriptions. The strongest threat contained all of the original descriptions. The level of anticipation threat was manipulated by increasing the number and recency of attacks described. The strongest version of the threat was composed first. The sequence of attacks described dated from 1959 through 1973. The low threat message contained the description of three grizzly attacks that occurred in the late 1950's and early 1960's. The medium threat message contained the descriptions of six attacks: the three from the low threat message and three more from the late 1960's. The strongest threat contained nine descriptions Of attacks: the six used in the milder versions and three from 1973. Safety and Aesthetics As part of a survey Of attitudes towards grizzly bears and the use of the backcountry in Glacier National Park conducted in 1973, visitors were asked to complete a scale consisting of twenty-four pairs of polar adjectives describing grizzly bears. The adjectives in each of the polar pairs were separated by seven spaces labeled: Very, Somewhat, A Little, Neutral, A Little, Somewhat, and Very. Positive and negative poles were reversed randomly. The adjectives selected for the scale included words related to the aesthetics and safety of the bear. Examples of the safety descriptors are, Safe-Dangerous and Violent-Peaceful. Examples of the aesthetic descriptors are, Beautiful-Ugly, and Homely-Handsome. 39 Three hundred twelve usable scales were completed by a random sample of visitors to the Logan Pass Visitor Center in Glacier National Park. A factor analysis of the responses with one, two, and three rotations resulted in the expected two dimensions: safety and aes- thetic. An arbitrary minimum factor loading of .69 was selected to reduce the number of items in each dimension scale. The adjective pairs in each dimension are listed in Table 2. TABLE 2.--Adjective Pairs Comprising the Aesthetic and Safety Dimensions of the Grizzly Bear Image, Glacier National Park Visitors, 1973. Dimension Factor Loading Communality SAFETY Bad Tempered--Pleasant .6907 .5206 Violent--Peaceful .6953 .5071 Savage--Meek .7325 .5486 Tender-~Brutal .6957 .4929 Gentle--Vicious .7643 .5967 AESTHETIC Grotesque--Pretty .6722 .4819 Beautiful-~Ugly .7027 .5270 Ordinary--Splendid .6913 .4603 Homely--Handsome .7371 .5483 Subjects' evaluations of the safety and aesthetics of grizzly bears in the experiment reported here were measured with a modified version of the scales used in Glacier National Park. The paired adjec- tives described under the safety and aesthetic dimensions in Table 2 were used. However, only six spaces were allowed between adjectives. The neutral space was eliminated to force a response. Pretesting with 40 a group of university students indicated that many deferred making a judgment when the neutral space permitted them an escape. Even so, one subject refused to respond to one adjective pair because the adjectives were "too anthropomorphic." Grizzly bear safety scores were measured as the arithmetic mean of the values assigned to each of the five adjective pairs in Table 2 listed under the safety dimension. A high score means the subject considers the grizzly to be "dangerous” as opposed to “safe.“ Grizzly bear aesthetic scores were measured as the arithmetic mean of the values assigned to each of the four adjective pairs in Table 2 listed under the aesthetic dimension. A high score means the subject considers the grizzly to be "ugly" as opposed to "beautiful." Aggression Two measures of aggression are used. Aggression 1 was measured by asking subjects to agree or disagree with six statements, three of which suggested restricting either grizzlies or peOple or punishing the Park Service, and three which suggested voluntary behavior. The index is reproduced in Figure 1. Subjects were scored "1" if they agreed with any of the three aggressive foils and ”0” if they disagreed with all aggressive foils. The second measure of aggression, Aggression II, was modeled upon the Borgadus Social Distance Scale.5 Subjects were asked to agree or disagree with statements ranging from, “It is all right for grizzly bears to roam free in remote areas of Canada and Alaska," to Q-nn—o—c-p— - r 0Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, California; Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973), pp. 270-271. 41 BELOW ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS MADE BY BACKCOUNTRY USERS IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK IN A STUDY LAST SUMMER. PLEASE MARK WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH ONE. MARK ALL STATEMENTS. AGREE DISAGREE ( ) ( ) Grizzlies should be controlled to insure the safety of park users. ( ) ( ) People who don't know how to behave in grizzly country should be kept out. ( ) ( ) If the Park Service can't protect people ppp grizzlies, the parks should be taken away from them and run by someone else. ( 1 ( ) People should be encouraged to learn about how to behave around dangers like bears before they go hiking or backpacking. ( l ( ) The Park Service should provide information about grizzlies. ( ) ( ) Some kind of warning system should be devised so people can know when grizzlies are around. Figure 1.--The index used to measure Aggression I in the experiment. "It is all right for grizzly bears to roam free around campgrounds and lodges." The scale is reproduced in Figure 2. A subject's score was the number of the lowest numbered foil marked "Agree." A low score indicates the subject would restrict the grizzly's range very little; a high score indicates the subject would restrict the range of the grizzly more. Information Seeking Four measures of information seeking behavior were devised. The first asked the subject to provide name and address on a form if he 42 BELOW YOU WILL FIND A SENTENCE WITH SIX DIFFERENT ENDINGS. READ EACH SENTENCE CAREFULLY. THEN, MARK AGREE FOR EACH ENDING THAT DESCRIBES HOW YOU WOULD COMPLETE THE SENTENCE. MARK DISAGREE FOR EACH ENDING THAT YOU WOULD NOT USE TO COMPLETE THE SENTENCE. IT IS ALL RIGHT FOR GRIZZLY BEARS TO ROAM FREE. . . . AGREE DISAGREE ( ) ( ) l. . . . around campgrounds and lodges. ( ) ( ) 2. . . . along roads and highways. ( l ( ) 3. . . . in all of the backcountry. ( ) ( ) 4. in that part of the backcountry not used by. many hikers or backpackers. ( ) ( ) 5.. . in remote areas of northern Canada and Alaska. Figure 2.--The social distance type scale used to measure aggression in the experiment. wanted more information about grizzly bears. The subject was told there might be a 15 cent charge for the pamphlet. This measure was the last item in the experimental booklet. The effort required to complete the form and the possible charge were included as hurdles, requiring some threshold of motivation to overcome. Subjects completing the form were scored ”1” and those leaving it blank were scored "0”. The second measure (and the third and fourth) were included in the follow-up questionnaire administered one week after the experiment. Subjects were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to the question, Since 1"!“ D'- 43 you participated in the experiment last week, have you looked for more information about grizzly bears?" A "yes” was scored "1"; a "no" was scored "0". The third measure was the question, "Since you participated in the experiment last week, have you thought about how to avoid a grizzly bear attack or what you would do if you were attacked?" The fourth measure was the question, "Since last week, have you discussed the experiment with your classmates? (Don't include the in-class discussion after the experiment.)" Again, a "yes" answer was scored as ”l" and a "no" answer was scored as "0". Together, the measures account for information seeking from the source of the message, other unspecified sources, the individual's own store of information, and the subject's peers. Two other measures combining responses to the above measures were formed. One was the sum of responses to the four items. A high score would indicate many sources were consulted; a low score would indicate few sources were used. The second measure was scored ”0” if none of the items was answered, “yes" and "1" if any of the items was answered ”yes". We College students enrolled in a wilderness survival course offered by the Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University during Spring Quarter, 1974, were used as subjects. College students were selected because of availability and the oppor- tunity provided by the classroom for careful control necessary to the experiment. Those enrolled in wilderness survival were selected because of a demonstrated interest in wild land recreation. 44 The student population, in this case, bears a strong resemblance to the population of backcountry users surveyed in the 1973 survey of Glacier National Park visitors. A comparison is made in Table 3. This resemblance adds to the generalizability of the results. However, the artificial conditions of a laboratory experiment reduce generalizability. Before communication strategies are devised, a field experiment using wild land recreators in a wild land environment should be conducted to test the relationships described here. However, most of the students used as subjects are wild land recreators. Sixty-five per cent of a sample of wilderness survival students indicated they were hikers or backpackers. The majority of subjects will be among the recreators using wild lands and will be targets for hazard-warning communications. They are, therefore, representatives of a population relevant to land managers, independent of their similarity to the hikers and backpackers of Glacier National Park. Relevance of the Grizzly Bear Threat In order for a threat appeal to arouse motivating emotional tension, the threat must be of importance to the subject. It must seem possible that he will experience the event or, at a minimum, the subject must identify with the potential victims. The fact that the subjects have an interest in wilderness sufficient to motivate them to enroll for a course in wilderness survival and that a high percentage are wild land hikers or backpackers suggests an attack by a grizzly bear would seem at least possible to them. 45 TABLE 3.--A Comparison of Some Characteristics of Glacier National Park Backcountry Users and Students Enrolled in Wilderness Survival. Respondents Backpacking Characteristics in Park Students Sex Female: 24.0% Female: 37.5% Male: 76.0% Male: 62.5% Age 16 - 25: 26.0% 16 - 25: 95.0% 26 - 35: 52.0% 26 - 35: 5.0% 36 up: 22.0% 36 up: 0.0% Belong to a Conservation or Environmental organi- Yes: 22.0% Yes: 15.0% zation No: 78.0% No: 85.0% Years of Education 13: 0.0% 13: 20.0% 14: 4.0% 14: 7.5% 15: 9.0% 15: 20.0% 16: 17.0% 16: 32.5% 17: 13.0% 17: 17.5% 18+ 35.0% 18+ 2.5% Urban-Rural: Background 10 Years of Age to 15 Extreme Rural 0.0% Extreme Rural 2.5% Years of Age Rural Farm 15.0% Rural Farm 2.5% Rural Town 19.0% Rural Town 12.5% Open Suburban 17.0% Open Suburban 32.5% Urban-Rural: Where Subject Would Prefer to Live Plan to Hike in Northern Rockies Someday Soon Are Wild Land Hikers or Backpackers Dense Suburban 40.0% Open Urban 2.0% Dense Urban 7.0% Extreme Rural 23.0% Rural Farm 17.0% Rural Town 21.0% Open Suburban 31.0% Dense Suburban 4.0% Open Urban 1. % Dense Urban 2.0% N.A. N.A. Dense Suburban 37.5% Open Urban 7.5% Dense Urban 5. % Extreme Rural 42.5% Rural Farm 22.5% Rural Town 10.0% Open Suburban 17.5% Dense Suburban 2.5% Open Urban 2.5% Dense Urban 2.5% 15.0% 65.0% 46 In addition, the sorts of dangers one might encounter in the wilderness are discussed in the survival course. The subjects, there- fore, might be expected to have a mental set favorable to considering wild land related threats as important. From a management standpoint, it is desirable to inform wilder- ness users of the grizzly bear threat during the planning stage of their visit to the national park. By doing so, one avoids the possibili- ty of degrading the recreational experience by frustrating plans for a backcountry experience to which the visitor is committed by long antici- pation and the expense of traveling in the area. The wilderness survival students closely approximate other wilderness hikers and backpackers during the planning stages of their experience. The one element missing might be a commitment to hike in the Northern Rocky Mountains in the near future. To increase that commit- ment, efforts were made to unobtrusively suggest the region as a hiking and backpacking area during the weeks prior to the experiment. Topographic maps of Glacier National Park and posters were placed in the classroom and references to hiking in the Northern Rockies were incorporated as examples in lectures. Wilderness survival students may be a self-selected sample of those interested in wild land recreation. Choosing to take a course in survival may demonstrate a prOpensity to "cope" rather than to "avoid." Certainly, the course material stresses ways of coping with natural threats. Consequently, the subjects used may be more uniformly ”COpers" than the general population of wild land recreators. 47 The effect of such a bias, if it exists, will be to make it more difficult to demonstrate differences in the effects of the two kinds of threat, particularly with regard to information seeking. As a result, those significant differences observed are more convincing than they might be otherwise. On the other hand, if self selection has occurred, the results may be "representative" only Of those wilderness users who have a coping style like that of the subjects. There is no information known to the author that describes the coping styles of wilderness users. Consequently, in the absence of such information, the results are cautiously "generalized" to wilderness users as a whole to the extent justifiable in an experiment Of this type. One may conclude that the threat of grizzly bear attack will be as relevant to the subjects as to visitors to Glacier National Park under similar conditions. However, the threat cannot seem as immediate when read in a classroom as it might when read at a trail head just prior to setting out upon a wilderness hike. The lack of immediacy of threat may have the effect of reducing the magnitudes of response to the threat. Subjects who learn of the threat in the classroom experiment and are persuaded to change or abandon plans for a hike in grizzly country will be less frustrated, for example, than will recreators who abandon or change plans after investing time and money to make the trip to the park. Aggressive responses among recreators when exposed to threats on site may be more pronounced, therefore, than when exposed to threat before commitments 48 and investments have been made. The relationships observed in the experiment should be verified in a field experiment conducted under conditions similar to those in which the actual hazard-warning communication program will be conducted. Administration of the Exppriment Six different treatments can be combined from two types of fear appeal and three levels of threat. Subjects were assigned to the six treatments at random. A test booklet combining a threat message and the battery of tests was assembled for each treatment. The six kinds of booklets were reproduced in equal numbers, 17 of each. The 108 booklets were randomly ordered by thoroughly shuffling a deck of 108 cards marked to represent the booklets, then ordering the booklets to match the shuffled deck. The randomly ordered pile of booklets was systematically distributed to the subjects as they sat in the classroom. In order to collect information about exposure to further information about the grizzly bear threat, it was necessary to admins- ter a follow~up questionnaire one week from the first testing. To match responses with treatment type, the different booklets had different colored covers. Subjects were asked to remember the color of their booklet. To fix the color in their memories more indelibly, subjects were asked to raise their hand when the name of each color was said. No reason for remembering the color was stated. One week after the initial experiment, the subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their behavior towards grizzly 49 bear communication in the intervening period. They entered the color of the test booklet on the questionnaire. Subjects used their student numbers to identify their responses in the experiment. They also entered their student number on the questionnaire. Thus, it was possible to match Observations. The number of usable, paired experiment and follow-up obser- vations was 78. The attrition was accounted for almost entirely by diminished attendance at the class in which the follow-up was adminis- tered. In the experiment, subjects recorded a portion of their responses directly on a mark sense form. Other responses were made directly in the test booklet and transferred to the mark sense sheet later by a coder. The follow-up answers were marked on the question- naire. Cards were punched manually from the coded follow-up and mechanically from the mark sense forms. Subject Welfare Whenever variables such as fear are manipulated, there is some danger that subjects will experience adverse effects. None of the fear levels certainly are high enough to cause any sort of trauma. However, subtle effects, such as a lasting distaste for grizzly bears or fear of backcountry travel in grizzly country might result. Consequently, it is necessary to debrief the subjects. Subjects were informed that they were participating in an experiment to evaluate some messages about safety in grizzly country. They were told no details could be provided in advance without the Al 50 danger of biasing the results. Upon completion of the experiment, the entire experiment would be described, however. It was made clear that participation was voluntary, but subjects were encouraged to complete the instruments. The only reward offered was the personal satisfaction of another opportunity to contribute to research providing useful information for management of national parks. One week after completion of the experiment after the follow- up questionnaire, a debriefing session was held. The theory behind the experiment and the procedures and, most importantly, an as accurate as possible assessment of the danger of bear attacks and the efficacy of suggested defenses was presented. Subjects were provided with a summary of National Park Service recommendations for recreators in grizzly country. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS If any criticism is due the administration and ranger staff in this prepared and vigorous campaign of warning about the big bears, it is one of over-reaction. So many warnings were in so many places during the 1968 season that many peOple were just plain scared away from backcountry travel. Introduction The methods of analysis, the results and an interpretation of the results are reported for each hypothesis in order. The chapter is concluded with a summary Of the findings. Briefly, the results of the evaluations of the hypotheses are as follows. 1. Scores on the safety index are not significantly related to the level of either anticipation or inhibition threat. Scores on the aesthetic index are not significantly related to the level of anticipation threat but the relationship between the level of inhibition threat and the aesthetic index scores is significant near p=.05. One measure of aggression is significantly related to the kind of threat. However, neither measure of aggression is significantly related to the level of either anticipation or inhibition threat. None of the measures of information seeking is signifi- cantly related to the level of either anticipation or inhibition threat. l Eldon G. Bowman, "The Grizzly Bear in the National Parks: Part I," American Forests, 75:7 (July, 1969), 57. 51 52 A measure of anxiety about grizzly bears was included among the tests. The relationships between the various variables and anxiety are described and the meanings interpreted in the discussions of each hypothesis. However, the major discussion of the meaning of the results and their importance for management and theory is reserved for the last chapter. Null hypotheses are rejected when the probability of observed relationships is less than or equal to .05 when the null hypothesis is true. Because the research reported here concerns a topic about which theory is not well developed, a more appropriate significance level might have been .1 or even some greater probability. The appropriate level of significance could be estimated if the willingness Of resource managers to accept the chance of adopting recommendations based on relationships thought to exist when they do not could be determined. Such information is not known by the experi- menter and, perhaps, is not known by the resource managers themselves. Consequently, the .05 significance level is selected because it is "conventional" in social science research. However, because some readers may have better estimates of the number of times they can afford to be wrong in rejecting the null hypothesis, observed proba- bilities are reported. The readers, therefore, can reinterpret the results according to their own requirements. 53 Descriptive Statistics Anxiety Index The Zuckerman Affect Adjective Check List index of anxiety2 has a possible range of 21. Subjects' scores range from O to 17. The median score is eight; the mode is nine (see Figure 3). Anxiety Index Per Cent of Subjects Score Assigned the Score 0 a 2 xxxxx (5%) ' 3 - 5 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16%) 6 - 8 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (33%) 9 - ll XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (32%) 12 - l4 XXXXXXXXXX (10%) 15 and Greater XXXX (4%) Figure 3.--Histogram of scores on the anxiety index for 78 subjects in the experiment, 1974. Safety Index The safety index has a possible range from one to six. The minimum score observed is two and the maximum is six. The median score is 4.6 and the mode is 5.0 (see Figure 4). Hpsthetic Index The aesthetic index also has a range from one to six. The minimum score observed is l and the maximum is 4.75. The range of 2 - “ l ment of an Affect Adjective Marv1n Zuckerman, The Deve op H . Check List for the Measurement of Anx1ety, Journal of Counsulting E§ychology, 24:5 (Oct., 1960), 4574462. 54 Safety Index Per Cent of Subjects Score Assigned the Score < 2.0 - 2.0 X (1%) 2.1 - 3.0 XXXXXXXX (8%) 3.1 - 4.0 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (28%) 4.1 - 5.0 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (39%) 5.1 - 6.0 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24%) Figure 4.--Histogram of scores on the safety index for 78 subjects in the experiment, 1974. subjects' scores is 3.75. The median score is 2.5 and the mode is 2.0 (see Figure 5). Aesthetic Index Per Cent of Subjects Score Assigned the Score 1,0'. 1.9 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26%) 2.0 - 2.9 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (45%) 3.0 - 3.9 XXXXXXXXXXXX (24%) 4.0 - 4.9 XXX (5%) Figure 5.--Histogram of scores on the aesthetic index for 78 subjects in the experiment, l974. Aggression The first measure of aggression, Aggression I, is a dichotomous variable. Subjects are scored either as aggressive or as not aggressive. Eighty-three per cent (83%) of the subjects in the experiment scored as aggressive. The remainder, 17 per cent, scored as not aggressive. 55 The second measure of aggression, Aggression II, has a possible range from one to six. The minimum score observed is one and the maximum is four. The range of observed scores is three. The median score is two and the mode is three (see Figure 6). Aggression II Per Cent of Subjects Score Assigned the Score 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (27%) 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (31%) 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (36%) 4 XXXXXX (6%) Figure 6.--Histogram of scores on the Aggression II scale for 78 subjects in the experiment, 1974. Information Seeking There are four measures of information-seeking behavior. The first of these is completion at the end of the experiment of a form requesting further information about grizzly bears. Twenty-nine per cent of the subjects completed the form. In the second measure, subjects are asked, "Since you partici- pated in the experiment last week, have you looked for more information about grizzly bears?” Only three per cent of the subjects reported looking for more information. In the third measure, subjects are asked, "Since you partici- pated in the experiment last week, have you thought about how to avoid a grizzly bear attack or what you would do if you were attacked?" Of 56 78 subjects, 65 per cent responded that they had thought about how to avoid or survive an attack; 35 per cent had not. In the last measure of information seeking, subjects were asked, "Since last week, have you discussed the experiment with your classmates?” Of 78 subjects, 36 per cent had discussed the experiment; 64 per cent had not. Hypothesis One When anticipation threat is used, subjects exposed to higher levels of threat will evaluate the grizzly bear as more dangerous than will subjects exposed to lower levels of threat. The level of threat will not be related to evaluations of grizzly bear aesthetics. When inhibition threat is used, subjects exposed to higher levels of threat will evaluate the grizzly bear as more dangerous and less aesthetic than will subjects exposed to lower levels of threat. The Test The set of Observations was partitioned into those subjects exposed to the anticipation threat and those exposed to the inhibition threat. The relationships between the level of each kind of threat and the scores on the safety and aesthetics indexes were evaluated with the Kruskal-Wallis test for "analysis of variance“ by ranks. The test assumes an ordinal measure of a continuous variable (the safety and aesthetic indexes) and a nominal measure (the level of threat). 3 ' ‘ h'-S uare Tests and Analysis of John Morris, Nonparametric C 1 .q . . . , , Variance, Technical Report 42 (East Lans1ng, Michigan. Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Sc1ence Research, June 1, 1966). 57 Assignment of treatments to subjects is assumed to be at random. The assumptions of the test are met by the data used and by the experi- mental design. The Results When anticipation threat is used, no significant differences in distributions of ranks is observed among the levels Of threat for either the safety index scores or the aesthetic index scores. The probability of a value of the statistic (H) equal to or greater than that observed for the safety index is .69. For the aesthetic index, it is .55. When inhibition threat was used, there was no significant difference among the distribution of ranks for the safety index scores among the three levels of threat. The probability of a value for the statistic (H) equal to or greater than that Observed is .88. However, the differences among the distributions of ranks was significant at .06 for the aesthetic index scores (see Table 4). P Anxiety Arousal The lack of a significant relationship between the level of threat and the evaluations of the relative safety of the grizzly bear might be explained by a failure of the messages to arouse differential anxiety about grizzlies. To investigate that possibility, the Affect Adjective Check List developed by Zuckerman was incorporated among the measurements.4 The index is effective in measuring anx1ety at a 4Marvin Zuckerman, “The Development of an Affect Adjective Check List," pp, pip. 58 TABLE 4.--The Average Rank of the Aesthetic Index Scores by Level of Threat Under Anticipation and Inhibition Threat. Level of Threat Kind of Threat Strong Medium Mild Anticipation Threat 28.39 23.07 24.59 Inhibition Threat 28.38 18.26 27.47 Anticipation Threat: H = 1.20, df = 2, Sig. = .55 Inhibition Threat: H = 5.74, df = 2, Sig. = .06 point in time as well as generally depending on the wording of the instructions. Subjects were instructed to check the affect adjectives that described, “. . . how you feel now"5 (see Table 5). TABLE 5.--The Average Rank of the Anxiety Index Scores by Level of Threat Under Anticipation and Inhibition Threat. Level of Threat Kind of Threat Strong Medium Mild Anticipation Threat 25.36 29.50 22.12 Inhibition Threat 29.73 25.21 17.50 Anticipation Threat: H = 2.07, df = 2, Sig. = .36 Inhibition Threat: H = 5.91, df = 2, Sig. = .05 Ibi Q. ., p. 462. l Va 59 The different levels of anticipation threat apparently did not vary significantly in the degree Of anxiety they aroused. Under inhi- bition threat, however, the scores on the anxiety index varied directly with the level of threat. The differences between levels were signifi- cant at p = .05 when the relationship was tested with the Kruskal- Wallis test, and at p = .03 when the relationship was tested with the medians test.6 The results of the medians test are presented in Table 6. TABLE 6.--The Percentages of Anxiety Scores Above and Below the Median for Each Level of Threat Under Inhibition Threat. Level of Threat Anxiety Level Strong Medium Mild Above Median Anxiety 69.23% 52.63% 20.00% Below Median Anxiety 30.77% 47.37% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Chi Square = 7.21, df = 2, Sig. (two-tailed) = .03 The Kendall rank order correlation coefficient7 was calculated to test the null hypothesis that no relationship existed between the level of anxiety and the safety and aesthetic index scores. The 6Morris, Nonparametric Chi-Square Tests and AnaLysis of Variance, 22. 9.8.. 7Computer programs to calculate statistics were all contained in the SPSS-6000 package used by the Computer Laboratory at Michigan State University, May through July, 1974, unless specifically noted. 60 Kendall method was selected in preference to the Spearman method because there are large numbers of ties within the ranks of the variables. When all treatments are considered together, the correlation coefficient between the anxiety score and the safety score is .16. That value is significant at p = .02. When the relationships are analyzed by kind of threat, the correlation coefficient between the anxiety score and the safety score under inhibition threat is .24, significant at p = .02. Under anticipation threat, the correlation coefficient is .26, significant at p = .007. Note that N is approxi- mately halved when the relationships are analyzed by kind of threat. The correlation coefficient between anxiety and aesthetic scores when all treatments are considered together is -.09, not sig- nificant at p 5_.05 (p = .12). Under inhibition threat alone, the correlation coefficient is -.05, again not significant at p 5_.05 (p = .35). Under anticipation threat, the correlation coefficient is -.O3, also not significant at p 5_.05 (p = .38). The results clearly indicate a relationship between anxiety and the safety index scores. As anxiety increases, the grizzly bear is evaluated as more dangerous. The correlation coefficient between anxiety and the aesthetic index scores is not significant. The rank order correlation coefficient essentially tests for a monotonic relation- ship, however, and a nonmonotonic relationship between the level of threat and aesthetic index scores is indicated by the results displayed in Table 4 for inhibition threat. The relationship between the level 61 of anxiety and the aesthetic index score is displayed in a scatter diagram presented in Figure 7. Aesthetic Scores and Safety Scores The aesthetic index scores and the safety index scores were predicted to be unrelated on the assumption that the nature of com- munications about the grizzly seldom concerned both characteristics. The Kendall rank order correlation coefficient between the two variables is significant, however (tau = .25, Sig. = .001). The hypothesis that no relationship exists between the safety and aesthetic evaluations of the grizzly bear must be rejected. Apparently, safety index scores and aesthetic index scores vary directly. interpretation Neither the level of anticipation threat nor the level of inhi- bition threat is associated significantly with the safety index score for the grizzly bear. Stronger threat appeals in bear management communications probably will not be associated with reevaluations of the grizzly as more dangerous by the receivers of the messages. One of the arguments used to support the suggestion to use stronger threat, therefore, appears to be without basis. The relationship observed between the level of inhibition threat and evaluations of the aesthetics of the grizzly bear is nearly significant at p = .05. One can conclude that as the level of inhi- bition threat increases, the grizzly is at first evaluated as more aesthetic and then as the threat increases from medium to strong, reevaluated as less aesthetic. Although there is a relationship between 62 .mm_nmwem> ms» cmmzuma awcmcowumpmc uwcouocoEco: 6 mo xuw~wn_mmoa map mmumcum:P_w cowusawgpmwu .xmuCW uwymzummm msu co mmLoum cu mmLoum xumwxcm mcwuumc Emcmmwv emuumum <11.“ mczmwn mch mmmoom >Hmez< no.0» no.6" oc.ca oo.~a 501°” 00.0 no.9 90.. , oo.N a con-ounvu«ovoconoovcmnonoruoacavooOOOtooctotoonuuo-nuoonouuccnnuoonnocnucuoouuronuncoauooouuouo. ~ ~ 6 u . cc.“ 0 n on w o o c~ I O O a ~ 0 u c 0 u D o c 9 oo.N a u a a o c a o o N h o o u o u a N a N o o _ . N . . . . 09. n N 0 ~ n c n n a . uv O m Q ~ 1 N o 00.4 mm C m l _ mu 0 u I u N . oc.m mm _ VA g ,s _ m a no w cc...» Q n ~ ~ 0 u _ 63 the level of inhibition threat and the aesthetic index score, increases in the level of threat within the ranges explored is apparently not associated with a reevaluation of the grizzly as less aesthetic. The average rank of the strong threat was about that of the mild threat. It appears that the use of inhibition threat would not reduce the value of the grizzly bear to the users of the national parks. The increase in the degree to which the grizzly is seen as aesthetic as threat increases from mild to medium is unexpected. The messages used increased in the detail and gruesomeness of the detail of the attack described. There is no increase in the descriptors of the aesthetics of the bear. The evaluation of the bear as more aesthetic might represent some kind of compensation phenomenon or denial. As the threat increases, the subject may "deny" the gruesomeness of the descrip- tion by describing the bear as more aesthetic. Hypothesis Two When inhibition threat is used, the amount of aggression dis- played by subjects will vary directly with the,level of threat. When anticipation threat is used, no relationship between the level of threat and aggression will be observed. The Test Two measures of aggression are used. The first, Aggression I, is a nominal measure in which subjects are classified either as aggressive or not aggressive. The second measure, Aggression II, is an index of six levels. The level of threat is ordinal with three 64 levels. The relationship between the level of threat and aggression is elaborated by kind of threat. The chi square test is used to evaluate the relationship between the level of threat and the measures of aggression and between the kinds of threat and aggression. The Kruskal-Wallis test for “analysis of variance" by ranks was used to test the relationship between the measures of aggression and anxiety.8 The Results: Aggression I NO significant relationship was observed between the level of threat and Aggression I under either anticipation or inhibition threat. Under anticipation threat, the chi square value is 1.37, significant at p = .51 with two degrees of freedom. Under inhibition threat, the chi square value is .54, significant at p = .76 with two degrees of freedom. Aggression I did not differ significantly between kinds of threat. The relationship between the kind of threat and Aggression I is illustrated in Table 7. It is significant at p = .84. Anxiety and Aggression l.--No significant relationship was observed between Aggression I and the level of anxiety (H = .026). With one degree of freedom, the relationship is significant at p = .87. Therefore, the null hypothesis that no relationship exists cannot be rejected. _— 8Morris, Nogparametric Chi—Sgpare Tests and Analysis of Variance, 92. 9;:- 65 TABLE 7.--A Table of Percentages to Illustrate the Relationship Between the Kind of Threat and Aggression I Scores. Kind of Threat Row Total Aggression I Inhibition Anticipation Percentages Yes 85.7% 81.4% 83.3% No 14.3% 18.6% 16.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi Square = .041, df = l, Sig. .84 IHe Results: Aggression II When the kind of threat is controlled, no significant relation- ship between the level of threat and Aggression II is observed. Under inhibition threat, the value of chi square is 5.94, significant at P = .43, two-tailed test, with six degrees of freedom. Under antici- pation threat, the value of chi square is 2.33, significant at p = .68, two-tailed test, with four degrees of freedom. However, the relationship between the kind of threat and the Aggression II scores is significant. Subjects exposed to inhibition threat are significantly more aggressive towards grizzly bears than are subjects exposed to anticipation threat. The value of chi square is 9.06 which is significant at p = .03, two-tailed test, with three degrees of freedom. The relationship is illustrated in Table 8. Anxiety and Aggression II --The relationship between Anxiety 11 and the level of anxiety was not significant (H = 2.93). With three degrees of freedom, the relationship is significant at p = .40. It can 66 TABLE 8.--A Table of Percentages to Illustrate the Relationship Between the Kind of Threat and Aggression II Scores. Level of Aggression II Kind of Threat High High Medium Low Medium Low Inhibition 100.0% 42.9% 29.2% 52.4% Anticipation 0.0% 57.1% 70.8% 47.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi square 9.06, df = 3, Sig. = .03 Cramer's V .34 be concluded that the willingness to restrict the range of the grizzly bear probably is not associated with the level of anxiety about the grizzly. _pterpretation The level of threat apparently does not influence the aggressive- ness of the subject towards the grizzly bear under either kind of threat. However, subjects exposed to inhibition threat are more aggressive towards grizzlies than subjects exposed to anticipation threat. The difference cannot be explained by the level of anxiety; the level Of anxiety is not significantly related to the measure, Aggression II. The results, therefore, appear to provide convincing evidence for the existence of two kinds of threat. The effects on aggression are in the direction predicted. 67 Hyppthesis Three When anticipation threat is used, the likelihood that a subject will seek further information about grizzly bears will increase with the level of threat. When inhibition threat is used, the likelihood that a subject will seek further information about grizzly bears will decrease as the level of threat increases. The Test The relationship between the level of threat and information- seeking behavior is evaluated with the chi square test, elaborating by the kind of threat. Information-seeking behavior was measured by requests for further grizzly bear information at the experiment and by reports by the subjects of; (a) looking for more grizzly bear information, (b) thinking about what to do to avoid or survive an attack, and (c) talking with classmates about the experiment. The level of threat is measured as it has been throughout the experiment. Ipe Results None of the observed relationships is significant at p = .05. The significance levels and the chi square values for the relation- ships between the level Of threat and the various measures of infor- mation seeking under each of the two kinds of threat are displayed in Table 9. Information seeking did not vary significantly with the kind 0f threat. The relationship between requesting further information about grizzly bears immediately following the experiment and the kind of threat is significant at p = .93, chi square = .008, two~tailed 68 . 8 OP meg cowpumewe mgu cw mw chmcowueme mew .pmmp em_wep1mco e sew; mp. u a we eceuwwwcmwmee u .e ¥ . m up meg eeweeetwe wee cw m_ ewemee_ee_ee pew .emee ee_eee-eee e sews __. u e um peee_weeeam e e .e .1 u we .eom. n mgezom wcu N u we .Nwm. n mcezcm wcu .pcmswgwaxm ecu mm. H museuwwwcmwm mm. u museOwwwcmwm mewzowwow xmmz one cw wwaNNwLm uzooe mmpeEmmmwo cpwz emxpew u we .mmm. u meescm wee N u we .ee.N u menacm wgu .ucme mm. u mucouwwwcmwm om. u museuwwwcmwm 1wLmme mzu mcwzowwow «a xmwz we» mcweze xueupe :e m>w>eam Lo ewo>e op ee ee pee; beeee eeeeeee u we .Fm.F u mgeaom wcu N n we .mN.N n menace wee .ucwewcmaxm mm. u wuceuwwwcmwm mm. u museuwwwcmwm mcwzompow xwmz cw mm__-wc “some cow“ -eEcowcw wees Low emxooe u we .mm.N n meeecm wee N u we .mem. u wgeecm ecu .mgemn eNN. u mucouwwwcowm me. u museuwwwcmwm xPNNwLm co uwwcaaeq me Ecow “mm: mg empww Eou ee_eeeeewee< eeepweweee eewseeee-ee_xeem 1cowpeseowcH wo mmezmemz eeeeew we ee_¥ Ne eeeeew we _e>ee new: .eeeeew we eewx seem Leeee eewxeem cowueELowc~ wo mmezmemz maowge> ecu ece Hemecw wo wm>m4 . mg» cmmzumm muwcmcowaewmm em>meao we» Low mmceacm wco ecu mwm>me muzmuwwwcmwm mzwii m m4m wN—J O E Ohm-bWN—l \lmU‘I-bWN—J II II II II II II u NAH\D¢UV.1I\\.\\\\N\\I \ 112 339me $06 230+.--émzw mug—HUN. NW. Rafi #36. \nle sssgxsmsfiexm NXWW .1.. It. Afi-\.mm\x\\ \I ll3 2