INFORMATION TO USERS This m aterial was produoad from a m icrofilm copy of the original docum ant. W hile the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this documant have bean used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original subm itted. The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "targ et" fo r pages apparently lacking from the documant photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity. 2. Whan an image an the film is obliterated w ith a large round black m ark, it is an indication th at the photographer suspected th at the copy may have moved during exposure and thus causa a blurred image. You w ill find a good image o f the pegs in the adjacent fram e. 3 . Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the m aterial being photographed the photographer follow ed a definite method in "sectioning" the m aterial. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from le ft to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the firs t row and continuing on until com plete. 4 . The m ajority o f users indicate th at the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the disserta tion. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by w riting the O rder Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE N O TE: Some pages may have indistinct p rin t. Film ed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zaab Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA St John'* Road, Tylar's Oraan High Wycomba, Bucks. England HP10 8HR 7 7 -1 8 ,4 9 9 K1NZEL, Steven Frank, 1947A Q-METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE 1975 MICHIGAN YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Environmental Sciences Xerox University M icrofilm s, AnnArbor. Michiganwoe © C o p y r i g h t by STEVEN PRANK KINZEL 1977 A Q-METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE 1975 MICHIGAN YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS By Steven Frank Kinzel 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 1977 ABSTRACT A Q-METHODOLOGICAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE 1975 MICHIGAN YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS By Steven Frank Kinzel The residential, state-sponsored, Youth Conservation Corps in Michigan, during the summer of 1975, was operated with two five-week sessions. Camps were located at Yankee Springs and Headquarters Lake in the Lower Peninsula and Alberta in the Upper Peninsula. The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) identify attitudes of members of the 197 5 Michigan Youth Conservation Corps toward the environment and related areas; (2) determine if there was any shift in attitudes after members had been involved in the program and (3) find any relationship between attitude "types" and age, sex, education, family income, relig­ ious orientation, participation in clubs, summer camps, and various outdoor activities. In order to determine attitudes toward the environment and any possible attitudinal shifts, Q-methodology was used. Interviews were conducted with enrollees involved in the first five-week session to sample attitudes about the environment, interviews yielded sixty statements about the environment which were used to construct the Q-sample. It was administered Steven Frank Kinzel on a pre and post basis to camp participants and members of a church youth group. types. Data analysis revealed four attitudinal These "types" were named: trol , Want Satisfiers Proponents of Social Con­ (Hedonists), Proponents of Personal Involvement, and Disbelievers: There Is No Problem. The Proponents of Social Control view people as being responsible for our environmental problems. They believe people are too materialistic and should know better than to do the things they do. Changing people's values, even if it means legislative action, The Want Satisfiers is their solution. (Hedonists) do not feel limits should be imposed on them or that they need to personally change their habits in order to bring about a solution to the problem. They have a hands-on approach to Mother Nature and feel that tech­ nology, which helps to satisfy their wants, will also get them out of their environmental problems. The Proponents of Personal Involvement are not anxious to place the blame for environmental problems, but they do believe that others, as well as themselves, are ready to get involved to solve the problems at hand. The Disbelievers: There Is No Problem do not seem to recognize the problems the other types do. Generally, they feel people who create problems should be and are concerned with taking care of the problems they create. The consensus statements indicated that subjects agreed that we are a wasteful nation with most people being part of the problem. Subjects also saw industry as an untrustworthy Steven Frank Kinzel culprit who must be forced to stop polluting. Finally, sub­ jects were in general agreement that we should consume less, recycle more, and have a greater respect for life and the en­ vironment. Factors such as sex, education, grade average, mechanized sports activities, and other outdoor related activ­ ities appear to be important when describing the various attitudinal types found in this study. Of particular interest to this study was the shift in attitudes that could be seen between the pre and posttests. While Factor I (Proponents of Social Control) and Factor II (Want Satisfiers) had several people with significant factor loadings on both the pre and posttest. Factor III of Personal Involvement) (Proponents represented a type of attitude found mainly on the pretest while Factor IV (Disbelievers: There Is No Problem) represented another type of attitude found only on the posttest. YCC has provided the opportunity Proponents of Personal Involvement have sought. After involvement in the YCC program, their attitudes toward the environment have changed. Factor IV (Disbelievers: There Is No Problem) represents a coalescing of unidentifiable types of people into an identi­ fiable one. After several weeks in the YCC program. Disbeliev­ ers did form recognizable attitudes toward the environment. From all evidences, it seems that the YCC program has accomplished some measurable objectives. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this study would not have been possible had it not been for the support and guidance of a number of individuals. In his role as chairman of my graduate c o m m i t t e e , Dr. Gilbert Mouser has provided ceaseless g u i d a n c e , patience and encouragement. He has also been a model of personal integrity, and the special friendship he has extended has been greatly valued and will long be remembered. My thanks is also extended to the other members of my guidance committee: Dr. Eugene Roelofs, Dr. Milton S t e inmueller, and Dr. Henry Foth. For the enthusiasm and cooperation of Celia Denny, YCC program coordinator, in allowing this study to be conducted, and the support and help of the YCC camp staff (Appendix A ) , enrollees, and members of the church youth group, I am sincerely grateful. I am also greatly indebted to Dr. Charles Mauldin for his time, energy, support, and helpful suggestions while guiding me through the intricacies of Q - m e t h o d o l o g y . My appreciation is extended to others who have shared in roles of guidance, help, and encouragement: Dave Johnson, Bob Hinkle, Paul Risk, Richard Kasul, John Craig, and Jackie Church. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Lynn, support in a multitude of ways. ii for her TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .............................................. v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..........................................1 The Youth Conservation C o r p s ....................... 1 4 Definitions of Terms Used ....................... Statement of the P r o b l e m ............................ 5 General Plan of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n ................ 6 Literature Review ................................ 7 Advantages of Using Q-Methodology............... 12 L i m i t a t i o n s ........................................ 14 II. M E T H O D O L O G Y ........................................ 17 Selection of the 0-Sample ......... . . . . . . 17 Selection of R e s p o n d e n t s........................... 22 Administration of the Q - S a m p l e .................... 23 Analysis of the D a t a ............................... 24 III. INTERPRETATION...................................... 27 Brief S k e t c h e s ...................................... 28 Factor I, Proponents of Social Control. . . 28 Factor I I , Want Satisfiers (Hedonists). . . 29 Factor III, Proponents of Personal I n v o l v e m e n t ................... ............ 29 Factor IV, Disbelievers: There Is No P r o b l e m ...................................... 30 Consensus Items .................................. 30 Factor I : Proponents of Social C o n t r o l ........... 37 Biographic D a t a ............................... 37 Attitudinal D a t a ............................... 38 Factor II: Want Satisfiers (Hedonists)......... 49 Biographic D a t a ............................... 49 Attitudinal D a t a ............................... 50 Factor III: Proponents of Personal Involvement. 60 Biographic D a t a ............................... 60 Attitudinal D a t a ............................... 61 Factor IV: Disbelievers: There Is No Problem. . 71 Biographic D a t a ............................... 71 Attitudinal D a t a ............................... 72 iii CHAPTER IV. Page SUMMARY AND DI S C U S S I O N ............................ 82 Recommendations for Further Study ........... 91 APPENDICES A. STAFF PARTICIPATING IN THE YCC PROGRAM. . . . B. ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE 1975 YOUTH CONSERVATION C O R P S ......................... 95 C. FOCUS INTERVIEW S C H E D U L E ........................ 100 D. STATE YCC ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION OBJECTIVES. E. STATEMENTS IN THE Q - S A M P L E .................... 10 7 F. PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETING THE Q - S O R T ........... Ill G. STAFF PERSONAL DATA Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ............. 115 H. ENROLLEE PERSONAL DATA Q U E S T I O N N A I R E........... 118 I. SAMPLE SCORE S H E E T ............................... 122 J. FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR PRETEST K. VARIMAX ROTATION: PRETEST ..................... L. FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR POSTTEST M. VARIMAX ROTATION: P O S T T E S T ...................... 129 N. VARIMAX ROTATION: PRE A N D POSTTESTS COMBINED. O. FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR PRE AND POSTTEST C O M B I N E D ........................................... 135 P. TEST DISTRIBUTION ON F A C T O R S .................... 136 Q. STANDARD S C O R E S .................................. 137 R. BIOGRAPHIC D A T A ..................................139 (100 SORTS) 93 101 . 123 124 (100 S O R T S ) . 128 13 3 LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S .................................... 14 4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Correlations Between F a c t o r s ...................... 30 2. Consensus S t a t e m e n t s ............................... 32 3. Discriminating Statements: Factor I ........... 4. Q-Sort for Factor I: Proponents of Social C o n t r o l ............................................. 43 5. Discriminating Statements: Factor I I .............53 6. Q-Sort for Factor II: Want Satisfiers ( H e d o n i s t s ) ........................................ 55 7. Discriminating Statements: 8. Q-Sort for Factor III: Proponents of Personal I n v o l v e m e n t ........................................ 65 9. Discriminating Statements: Factor I V ........... 10. 41 Factor I I I ........... 64 75 Q-Sort for Factor IV: Disbelievers: There Is No P r o b l e m ........................................... 76 11. Factor Distribution for Pretest 12. Varimax Rotation: P r e t e s t ....................... 124 13. Factor Distribution for Posttest 14. Varimax Rotation: P o s t t e s t .......................129 15. Varimax Rotation: Pre and Posttests Combined. .133 16. Factor Distribution for Pre and Posttest Combined. .............................. 135 17. Test Distribution on F a c t o r s .................... 136 18. Standard S c o r e s .................................. 137 19. Biographic D a t a .................................. 139 v (100 Sorts) . .123 (100 Sorts). .128 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Youth Conservation Corps On August 13, 1970, federal legislation (Public Law 91-375) established the Youth Conservation Corps as a pilot program for the Departments of Agriculture and I n t e r i or. Public Law 92-597, which was enacted on October 27, 1972, enabled non-federal environmental agencies to participate in the YCC program beginning the summer of 1974. House Resolu­ tion 14897, which set annual appropriation authorizations of $60 million, passed the House and was signed into law by the president on September 3, 1974. This resolution, in conjunc­ tion with Public Law 92-597, expanded and made permanent the Youth Conservation Corps. The policy and purpose of the Youth Conservation Corps can best be seen in Section 1 of Public Law 92-597, which states: The Congress finds that the gainful employment during the summer months of American youth, rep­ resenting all segments of society in the healthful outdoor atmosphere afforded in the national park system, the national forest system, the national wildlife refuge system, and other public land and water areas of the United States creates an oppor­ tunity for understanding and appreciation of the Nation's natural environment and heritage. Accord­ ingly, it is the purpose of this Act to further the development and maintenance of the natural resources of the United States by the youth, upon 1 2 whom will fall the ultimate responsibility for maintaining and managing these resources for the American p e o p l e . The Act further states that the Corps will be open to youth of both sexes from fifteen to eighteen years of age and will not discriminate due to any social, economic, or racial classifications, but the youth must be permanent residents of the United States, its territories, possessions, or trust territories. Thus, federal funds were made available not only to federal YCC programs but to state and locally sponsored pro­ grams as well. Programs may be either residential or non- residential in nature depending on the goals and funds avail­ able to the administering agency. During the summer of 1975, the Division of Information and Education, under the Depart­ ment of Natural Resources of Michigan, administered three seven-day residential programs as well as two non-residential programs. The non-residential programs were headquartered in Washtenaw County and Alpena. It is the purpose of this study to take an in-depth look at the state's residential camps. The Ford Forestry Center in Alberta, Michigan, which is eight miles south of L'Anse, was the headquarters for the residential camp situated in the Upper Peninsula. The two residential camps in the Lower Peninsula were located at Headquarters Lake, which is nineteen miles north of Cadillac, and at Chief Noonday Outdoor Center located in Yankee Springs. The residential, state-sponsored program in Michigan employed a total of 249 youths with 70 working out of Alberta, 3 81 working out of Headquarters Lake, and 98 working out of Yankee Springs. Forty-two staff personnel (Appendix A) were hired to take care of the various administrative and logis­ tical needs of the c a m p s . The three camps were operated for two five-week sessions so that a maximum number of youths could be given the opportunity to participate in the program. The youths worked thirty hours a week and participated in environmental education related studies another ten hours each week. The youths worked on a variety of projects from trail planning and building to bank stabilization on streams. While not working or studying, the youths were given the opportunity to participate in various athletic activities or various crafts or hobbies of their choice. An alternate life-style was stressed throughout the time the youths were in the camps. This alternate life­ style was practiced by stressing conservation practices and an appreciation for life as it exists in all forms. Mechan­ ized forms of entertainment such as snowmobiles and motor­ cycles ridden on trails were played down so that the youths could hopefully slow down and appreciate natural aspects of their environment. Observations indicated that actions changed as the youths were involved in the camps. An example of changed actions occurred with regard to litter in the camps. At the beginning of camp many youths carelessly discarded litter on the ground. As the weeks progressed, same youths could be observed voluntarily picking up any litter they found. Actions indicate a real change in the 4 attitude as demonstrated by the youths becoming almost in­ censed by the sight of litter wherever they went. Definitions of Terms Used Q-Methodology. Kerlinger (1964) says that, "Q-method- ology is a general name used by William Stephenson to express a group of psychometric and statistical procedures he devel­ oped ." Q-Tec h n i q u e . Schlinger (1969) defines Q-technique as ”a set of procedures for classifying respondents into groups or types on the basis of their attitudes toward a subject under investigation.” Structured Q - S o r t . sort, Kerlinger (1964) In writing about a structured Q- says, "In a structured Q-sort, the variables of a 'theory,' or of a hypothesis or set of hypoth­ eses, are built into a set of items along Fisherian experi­ mental and analysis of variance design principles." Q-Sample. A selected number of statements about a given topic which make up the statement deck in a particular study using Q - m e thodology. Q-Sort. An individual's specific distribution of statements in a particular study using Q-methodology. Factor-Arrays. Stephenson (1953) has the following to say concerning factor-arrays: Factor-arrays consist of all the statements or the like of a Q-technique sample, arrayed in rank order of their factor scores. The statement which gains the highest score for a factor is placed at the head of the list and that scoring least is placed at the bottom. In this way all statements 5 are laid out before us; we can then look them over, much as we might look down a list of names of students who have been ranked in order of their achievement at s c h o o l . Kerlinger (1964) adds, "A factor array is a Q sort con­ structed from factor analytic results." Consensus St a t e m e n t . A statement from the Q-sample about which people on all factors feel essentially the same. It is operationally defined as a statement whose factor scores differ by less than 1.0 standard score across the four factors (Mauldin, 1970) . Discriminating S t a t e m e n t . A statement from the Q- sample about which the people on a particular factor feel a great deal more positively or negatively than people on the other factors. In this study, a discriminating statement is one which rated ±.80 z-scores from the average of the other three factors. Enrollee or C a m p e r . These terms are used interchange­ ably in this study to designate the youth participating in the Youth Conservation C o r p s . Statement of the Problem For quite some time educators have wanted to instill certain attitudes as well as knowledge into the population in order to make the world a better place in which to live. It has been thought and felt, as well as taught, by many that the best way to instill or change attitudes and feelings is through experiential learning. Others have felt that if the youth can be reached, attitudes, feelings and ideas can 6 be transformed within a generation. One need only look at countries at war to see the reality of this statement. With the importance of reaching the young in order to change attitudes, feelings and ideas, as well as the effect it is believed that experiential learning has on any member of our population, it should be no small wonder as to the potential effectiveness of the Youth Conservation Corps in instilling certain responsibilities, feelings, attitudes and ideas in the youths of today. Living in an age in which decisions concerning the environment will have such a profound effect for generations to come, we need to have a populace aware of and sensitive to the needs of a stable environment in which they and future generations are to live. It is the purpose of this investigation to (1) identify attitudes of members of the 1975 Michigan Youth Conservation Corps toward the environment and related areas; (2) determine if there is any shift in attitudes after members have been involved in the program for approximately five weeks; and (3) find any relationship between attitude "types’* and such factors as age, sex, education, family income, religious orientation, participation in clubs, summer camps, and various outdoor activities. General Plan of the Investigation In order to determine attitudes toward the environment, any possible attitudinal shifts, and possible relationships of attitudinal types to biographic data, Q-methodology was 7 used in this study. An interview schedule was constructed so that differing opinions about various aspects of the environment could be sampled from campers in the first fiveweek session. Attitudinal statements were pulled from the interviews so that a Q-sample could be constructed. After the instrument was checked for polarity and discriminating statements, it was administered to participants in the second session of the YCC program as well as to members of a church youth group on a pre and post basis. Biographic data were gathered during the posttest. Data from the Q-sorts were coded, keypunched, and fac­ tor analyzed using the SPSS program for factor analysis on the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan State University. Pre and posttest results were run through QUANAL to give statement arrays and discriminating statements for the various types (those with similar Q-sorts) of people found. Since the pre and posttest results appeared similar, a third factor analy­ sis and run through the QUANAL program was employed to yield the final results used for interpretation. The statement arrays and discriminating statements for each type, as well as biographic data, were used for interpreting each of the types found in this study. Literature Review Luag (1960), Whiteman (1965), and George (1966) con­ ducted studies in which they showed significant attitude change on a pre and post basis. Laug (1960) investigated conservation attitude changes with a college biology class 8 and found that: a combination of a two week conservation unit and additional field experiences provided for a significant change in conservation a t t itudes. Whiteman (1965) conducted a study of students in the Freshman biology class at Spring Arbor College in which he looked at the effectiveness of course content in changing conservation attitudes and found there was a significant positive conservation attitude change in his experimental group. He found that growing up in a rural environment as opposed to suburban and urban environments provided for a significant change in attitudes between the pre and posttests. Whiteman (1965) also found that students with 4-H training as well as those with summer camp experience scored signif­ icantly higher on the pretest than those without the exper­ iences . George (1966) found that in the analysis of "special" conservation educational experiences, changes in attitude do take place and are associated with interest motivation and exposure to conservation k n o w l e d g e . He found that age and education were the most significant characteristics associated with differences in attitudes toward conservation among high school students. George (1966) also found that activities in which conservation was emphasized had the greatest effect on the development of conservation attitudes. Conservation clubs, nature camps, summer camps, and hike club activities were related significantly to high scores on the Linkert-type attitude scale. 9 Appendix B contains the first chapter of the Youth Conservation Corps Source Book for Environmental Awareness which deals with the definition of environmental education and the objectives of the program including purpose, general environmental education objectives (knowledge and attitudes), and specific environmental education objectives for YCC en­ vironmental education and work goals. In order to evaluate the 1973 YCC Program, Johnston, Lingwood, Morris, and Marans (1974) used the following pro­ cedure for the collection of primary data: The data for this report were collected in self-completed tests and questionnaires designed and printed by the Institute and administered to groups of enrollees in each camp by the camp staff. There were three separate sessions. (1) A pretest of environmental knowledge was given within the first three days of camp. (2) During the first part of the second week of camp, a questionnaire on staff-camper relations and camper participation in camp governance plus a short test of verbal skills were given. Finally, (3) during the last week of camp two instruments were filled out by enrollees: a post-test of environmental knowledge and a questionnaire asking for their assessment of camp quality and their self-assessment of how much they had learned in the several learning areas. It is not the purpose of this study to evaluate in any way the knowledge objectives which have been studied by the Institute for Social Research of the University of Michigan. It is, however, important to look at the general attitudinal objectives that have not been sufficiently evaluated to date. In the 1973 YCC evaluation by Johnston, Lingwood, Morris, and Marans, the authors feel that the attitudinal objectives should really be dealt with as behavioral disposition toward the use of natural resources. They further state that the 10 disposition is made up of two components— knowledge and the predisposition to behave— "choosing the 'environmentally sound* type of resource use in any given situation..." authors go on to state, The "We could think of no way to assess these predispositions to behave using a paper-and-pencil instrument administered to the enrollees." The authors further mention that enrollees would prob­ ably endorse ecologically sound practices in camp if they could understand the necessary distinctions, even though they (the enrollees) may not act the part at home. reasons the authors finally state, Due to these "For these reasons, it was decided that the attainment of these 'attitude' objec­ tives could not be properly measured, although some attempt could be made to see if enrollees knew the seven distinctions thought to be important.” In another portion of the 19 73 evaluation concerning ecological learnings that were not measured by the tests, Johnston, Lingwood, Morris, and Marans (1974) write, "We noted another type of learning which had occurred which we feel is equally important, but which simply cannot be quan­ tified." In relation to this aspect of learning the authors mention four instances in which observation indicated that something had happened: (1) a girl in California who ac­ quired a new sensitivity toward a clean environment; (2) a boy's appreciation for a whooping crane as it flew overhead; (3) enrollees in Utah voting to shut off the electricity in camp to conserve an energy resource; and (4) efforts of 11 enrollees in a camp in the East to "raise the consciousness" of people living in a nearby town. In respect to the above examples, Lingwood, Morris, Marans, 1974) state, the authors (Johnston, "All of these examples demonstrate that enrollees in YCC can learn an appreciation for an unspoiled natural environment and they frequently ac­ quire a new sensitivity to man's impact which fits perfectly the sense of the legislation that created the YCC..." In conclusion of this section of the 1973 YCC evaluation, the authors point out, "It is learnings such as these which paper-and-pencil tests cannot measure, but which we observed in many of the camps we visited." The evaluation of the 1973 Youth Conservation Corps by the University of Michigan, while gathering valuable informa­ tion which has been useful in improving the YCC program, has not been able or even sought to identify attitudes and feel­ ings of YCC participants toward the environment and related areas. George (1966) states in his study that investigations using a knowledge test and investigations using an attitude test have been used to evaluate conservation e d u c a t i o n . those works using a knowledge test, George (1966) Of says, "While each work has made a contribution to the need for effective evaluation, only a few have been effective in fo­ cusing on the real objective of conservation education— the changing of attitudes based upon knowledgeable understanding." It is the purpose of this study, using Q-technique, to identify environmental attitudes and attempt to recognize 12 significant attitudinal shifts which relate to the Environ­ mental Attitude Objectives of the Youth Conservation Corps. Many studies have used Q-technique to identify types of attitudes in a given population. Mauldin (1970) used it in a study in which he identified five types of members in the American Angus Association. types, Zimmerman In classifying golfers into (1974) used Q-technique to find six types of golfers who play the game for one reason or another. A Q-study on attitudes toward water resources was conducted by Kahle and Lee (1974) which identified four types of attitudes toward water resources. as a prototype, Hinkle (1976), using another Q-study identified four types of interpretive natur­ alists in southern Michigan. Thus, Q-technique can be used on a variety of topics, and on using Q-technique, Schlinger (1969) states, "It can be used to study advertisements, slo­ gans, themes, products, brands, company images, magazines, television programs— almost any stimuli about which consumers might have ideas." Advantages of Using Q-Methodology Several reasons can be given for choosing Q-methodology for this study on environmental attitudes. With Q-methodol- ogy insight is gained of environmental attitudes subjects possess; subjects can be classified into types with similar profiles, independent of demographic variables; quantitative (Schlinger, aspects of Q, Schlinger 1969). and Q is Identifying more positive (1969) states: 13 Q-technique, like depth interviews, elicits intensive, in-depth data about individual respon­ dents . But unlike depth interviews, the data of Q-technique are structured and are readily adapted to statistical analysis. Using correlation and factor analysis, each respondent's evaluation of a set of stimuli is compared with every other re­ spondent's rankings of the same stimuli, and types of respondents are objectively and mathematically defined. Kerlinger (1964) mentions several other aspects of Q that can be viewed as strengths. He finds that Q-sorting is somewhat enjoyable to subjects since it is perhaps challeng­ ing and realistic. Kerlinger also expresses that with Q- methodology the verbal expressions of those things common to many subjects are laid out to be viewed and interpreted. Lastly, Kerlinger finds structured Q-sorts to be theoreti­ cally oriented and the methodology a valuable tool in explor­ atory research. Stephenson (1967) finds the structure of Q-samples im­ portant because they allow for repetition of any Q - s a m p l e . In another positive note, Stephenson ology (1967) views Q-method­ as being important because it is subjective to any per­ son performing the sorting routine. R methodologies, Stephenson In a comparison of Q and (1967), in relation to self­ referent sorts, states: The importance of this becomes clear when it is realized that in all measurement along sampling (R) lines this self-reference is everywhere over­ looked. The concern in Q-method is with a person's ideas, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, as these are modeled by the individual as such. A profound and basic error is made in R-method to achieve its ob­ jectivity: it measures ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and so on categorically— that is, as ab­ stractions— oblivious of the self-reference which attaches to all such m a t t e r s . In Q-method this 14 mistake is remedied and all measurements retain self-reference. Where R-methodology would look at test relationships, Qmethodology looks at relationships between individuals taking the tests (Stephenson, Finally, Stephenson 1953). (1953) and Kerlinger (1964) see a major strength of Q resting with its close affinity to theory. Stephenson (1953) states that theory is present throughout a Q-study in that: 1. It indicates what the sample of state­ ments will be initially; it defines the 'popula­ tion* of statements for us in Q-methodology. 2. From the theory certain propositions are ordinarily derived, and, in turn, the variates are chosen which will put these propositions to test. 3. The theory is used to guide us in the factor solution, telling us what sort of facts to look f o r . With theory and practicality in mind, Kerlinger (1964) b e ­ lieves Q is a flexible and useful tool when looking into attitudinal changes and evaluating various educational pro­ grams. With these positive aspects of Q-methodology in mind, and the need to identify environmental attitudes as well as any possible attitudinal changes that took place with par­ ticipants in the YCC program, it was decided that Q was not only the most sensitive instrument available, but the best mechanism for this study. Limitations A study such as this would not be complete unless a frank appraisal was given concerning limitations that are 15 present when Q-methodology is used. Since Q-methodology in­ volves small samples, due to computer capacity limitations (Schlinger, 1969), projections of results, including relative proportions of the factors or image t y p e s , cannot be made onto the population Lee, 1974). (Stephenson, Kerlinger 1967; Mauldin, 1970; Kahle and (1964) also feels that one cannot escape the necessity for testing theory on larger numbers of individuals. This may seem to be more of a limitation than it actually is since Mauldin (1972) found in his research that a large random sample confirmed results he had earlier found in a small Q-study of the American Angus Association. Another limitation of Q-methodology is that it does not find all the attitudinal types in a given population. Even though all the attitudinal types are not found, Q does not claim to find all the types were collected, (Mauldin, 1970). If more sorts it is assumed that more types would be found, but it is also assumed that the major types would again be found if the study were repeated and similar subjects were used for the interviews (Schlinger, 1969). A criticism of Q-methodology that is viewed by many as a limitation is that it forces subjects to conform to a flat­ tened normal distribution by making subjects place the cards in an already prescribed manner linger (Kahle and Lee, 1974). (1964) does not feel this is a valid criticism. K er­ He believes that most complaints about the forced procedure come from critics who think it constrains the individuals being studied. In actuality, Kerlinger and his students 16 have found very few individuals who complain about the forced procedure (Kerlinger, 1964) . Kerlinger (1972) cites Block in defending the forced sorting p r o c e d u r e : Block (1956) compared forced and unforced Q sorting procedures with personality descriptions. His unforced procedure was not completely 'free'; he used an upper limit of nine categories. Stabil­ ity and discriminating power were used as criteria. He found the correlations between the two procedures to be high, generally over .90. And the forced pro­ cedure with a quasi-normal distribution provided greater stability and more discriminations. He con­ cluded that the forced Q-sort method appeared to be equal or superior to the unforced p r o c e d u r e . It is important to force people to make discriminations that they would otherwise not make unless required (Kerlinger, 1964) . It is often said that the interpretation of Q-data is subjective. Mauldin (1970) counters this argument to a de­ gree by stating that the data, the factor arrays of state­ ments representing the factors, and the combinatorial activ­ ity involved in producing the Q-factors are objective. The researcher has no idea or control of what the factors will turn out to be. As can be easily seen, the only subjective part of interpreting Q-data is the explaining of the combin­ ations of statements (Mauldin, 1970). Other publics might have been used in such a study as this, but only those considered most important were used. Publics not sampled, but of interest to those involved in the YCC program, would be those involving YCC members in nonresidential camps in various urban to rural environments as well as other YCC members in other residential camps in Michigan and other states. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The residential, state-sponsored. Youth Conservation Corps in Michigan, during the summer of 1975, was operated with two five-week sessions so that a maximum of high school youths could participate. Camps were located at Yankee Springs and Headquarters Lake in the Lower Peninsula and at Alberta in the Upper Peninsula. Selection of the Q-Sample In order to gather statements that would later be used in the Q-Sample, in-depth interviews were conducted with eighteen enrollees who were participating in the first fiveweek session at the various camp locations. The interviews varied in length from one-half hour to three and one-half hours. All the interviews were taped with the permission of the enrollees being interviewed. Eight interviews were con­ ducted at Yankee Springs, six at Headquarters Laka, and four at Alberta. After the first ten interviews, the remaining interviews proved to be repetitious. Enrollees were chosen to be interviewed in such a way as to give a diversity of responses, so that a wide variety of feelings and attitudes about the environment could be sampled. Interviews were conducted with subjects who were 17 18 either Mexican, Japanese, Negro, or Caucasian. Eleven fe­ males and seven males were interviewed with family incomes varying from under $5,000 to well over $15,000. The enrol­ lees were from fifteen to seventeen years of age and came from rural to urban environments. Their grade averages ran from 2.0 to 3.8 out of a 4.0 possible. rather large families of five to eleven. Subjects came from Some of those in­ terviewed would have rather been home while others thought the YCC experience was the best thing that could have hap­ pened to them. Please refer to Appendix C for the focus interview s c h e d u l e . Due to the desire to connect the environmental educa­ tion in the YCC camps with the environmental education guide­ lines set forth by the State YCC Environmental Education Objectives Committee (Appendix D ) , twelve cards were used in the six initial interviews with one of the main topics from the basic objectives of the educational guidelines written on each card. Each of the first six enrollees at Yankee Springs were asked to comment on the cards they thought re­ lated to the environment and also on those they thought did not relate to the environment. The cards were labeled with the following topics: Life Support System Free Enterprise System Industrialization Production-Consumption Environmental Problems - Cause & Effect Biological Implications Social Implications Psychological Implications Political Implications 19 Economic Implications Technological Implications Geographical Implications After conducting the first six interviews it was thought by this researcher that the enrollees felt they were too confined by the cards to talk about other important as­ pects of the environment. The last twelve interviews were conducted using fifty cards listing various aspects of the twelve main topic areas. After talking to the enrollee for ten to fifteen minutes, he or she was given the fifty cards that had been shuffled prior to the interview and was asked to divide the cards into two groups— those that related to the environment and those that did not relate. After this task was completed the enrollee was asked to comment why each card was placed in its perspective pile. With this method the enrollees appeared to feel more at ease and were able to talk at some length concerning the sub-topics they were given. The twelve main topic areas and sub-topics that related to them follow: LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM Components of Life Support System FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM Free Enterprise System & Energy Consumption Profit Motive Supply & Demand (prices) INDUSTRIALIZATION Penalization of Industries for Not Cleaning Up the Environment Government Control of Industry Industry & Incentives to Clean Up the Environ­ ment Industry & Environmental Problems 20 Environmental Improvement Do Industries Waste Natural Resources? PRODUCTION—CONSUMPTION Resources ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS - CAUSE & EFFECT Trade-Offs in Cleaning Up an Environmental Problem BIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Contamination Effects on Life Support System Population Dynamics Soil Depletion Man's Manipulations of Biological Factors Fertilizers Food Supply & Demand SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS Where Our Society Is Headed Quality of Life Role of Values in Policy Choices Ecological Way of Living Environmental Problems - birth control, disease, services (garbage pick-up, etc.) Society - Ecologically Sound? Environmental Problems - crowding, congestion, jobs, poverty, education, crime, war PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Luxuries & Necessities Fast Pace of Life Wilderness Consumer Habits and Advertising Life Style Popularity of a Sound Ecological Life Style Needs v s . Wants Off-the-Road Vehicles POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS Jurisdiction & State, Local, & Federal Powers Legislation Government Agencies Working Together Decision Making ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS Support of Our Population Economics of Recycling Materials Michigan and the Auto Industry Rising Costs Due to Scarcer Resources (Energy too) 21 TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Alternate Energy Sources Changes in Environmental Standards? Automation Acceleration of Automation & Energy Consumption Technology & Our Environmental Problems Control Weather? GEOGRAPHICAL IMPLICATIONS Weather and Climate Control Sprawl vs. Agricultural Production Climatic Conditions and Changes Population Density Since all the interviews were t a p e d , it was possible to review many of them with notes in hand from the actual inter­ views so that opinion statements might be pulled. eighteen interviews, taken. From the roughly 1,000 opinion statements were These statements were put on cards, then categorized so that similar statements and ideas could be eliminated. Some opinion statements were eliminated while others were combined so that sixty statements emerged to be used as the Q-Sample. The initial instrument was given to several people to check the balance of the instrument and the possible polarity of the statements. The eight people used to check the instru­ ment included four males from the Fisheries and Wildlife De ­ partment at Michigan State University, a male engineer from the Board of Water and Light in Lansing, a female high school student, a female high school graduate, and a female secon­ dary education teacher. After the instrument was adminis­ tered and the statements checked, a few statements were d e ­ leted while others were added to eliminate some confusing 22 statements as well as statements which did not appear to be very discriminating. Statements in the final Q-Sample (Appendix E) related to the main topics of the basic objectives of the environ­ mental education guidelines in the following manner: Statement Numbers 9, 59 22, 32, 35 13, 24, 25, 27, 33, 53, 57, 60 5, 34, 42 7, 14, 28, 43, 52 Life Support System Free Enterprise System Industrialization Production-Consumption Environmental Problems - cause and Effect Biological Implications 1, 46, 4, 45, 11, 39, 15, 8, 10, 2, Social Implications Psychological Implications Political Implications Economic Implications Technological Implications Geographical Implications 3, 55, 6, 56 17, 40, 36, 12, 21, 31, 16, 20, 58 19, 23, 26, 30, 49, 48 37, 54 18, 41, 47, 29 44, 51 38, 50 Selection of Respondents Members of the staff, enrollees, and members of a church youth group were included in this study. Staff mem­ bers, who were included in this study, were those who spent a great amount of time with the enrollees including the ac­ tivity coordinators, and group leaders. environmental education coordinators, Nine staff members from Yankee Springs, eight staff members from Headquarters Lake, and eight staff members from Alberta were included. Campers were chosen ran­ domly from each of the camps with twenty-six from Yankee Springs, twenty-two from Headquarters Lake, and seventeen from Alberta. Ten people from the church youth group were 23 included in the study to be used as a control group. 100 people were included in this study Thus, (25 staff members, 65 enrollees, and 10 youth from the church youth g r o u p ) . Administration of the Q-Sample The statements composing the final Q-Sample (Appendix E) were put on cards and printed so that the Q-Sample might be administered to participants in a particular camp at the same time. The tests were administered during the first few days of the second camp session as well as during the last week of the session. The Q-Sample and instructions F) were personally administered to the camp staff, the enrollees, test. (Appendix then to so that the staff could help administer the This type of procedure seemed to work quite well with relatively few problems. The Q-Sample was also personally administered to the members of the youth group on a pre and post basis. Biographic data was gathered during the posttest from the staff (Appendix G ) , enrollees and members of the church youth group (Appendix H ) . Subjects were asked to sort the statements into three piles. Those statements subjects agreed with were to be placed in a pile on their left, statements they disagreed with were to be placed in a pile on their right, and state­ ments they were neutral or undecided about were to be placed in a middle pile. Subjects were then asked to further sort the statements into a quasi-normal forced distribution with statements ranging from those on the left which they most strongly agreed with to those on the right which they most 24 strongly disagreed with. The frequency distribution was as follows: (N = 60) Value: Most agree +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 Number 1 2 3 No. of Statements 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 Most Disgree 0 — 1 — 2 — 3 —4 —5 —6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 10 11 12 13 6 5 4 3 3 After sorting the statements and recording the numbers in the distribution diagram that was provided (Appendix I ) , subjects were asked to circle their neutral statements and indicate with an arrow the column each thought was their neutral column. The neutral point ranged from 0 to -2 with most between 0 and -1. Analysis of Data Three hundred and forty-eight sorts were coded (one hundred and seventy-four pretest sorts and one hundred and seventy-four posttest sorts) which included sorts from the YCC camps at Yankee Springs, Headquarters Lake, and Alberta as well as the sorts from the church youth group. Sorts were selected for the study by first discarding any sorts that were not administered while I was present. Secondly, any sorts which had a number recorded more than once were also discarded. Data were factor analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). One hundred pretest sorts were first analyzed which produced three interpretable fac­ tors (Appendix J) after the principal axes solution 25 underwent varimax rotation (Appendix K) . One hundred post­ test sorts were then factor analyzed whi c h produced two interpretable factors rotation (Appendix M ) . (Appendix L) after undergoing varimax The factors in the pre and posttests appeared to be quite similar so one more factor analysis was run using the following sorts from the pre and posttest sorts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Twenty high loadings from Factor I on the pretest Twenty high loadings from Factor I on the posttest All ten sorts from Factor II on the pretest All twenty-one sorts from Factor II on the posttest All eleven sorts from Factor III on the pretest Thus, a total of eighty-two sorts were used for the final factor analysis. After the principal axes solution underwent varimax rotation (Appendix N ) , four interpretable factors were found with seventy— five sorts having significant loadings on one and only one factor. Significant factor loadings are determined by computing the standard error for a zero correlation coefficient: of statements. In this case, SE = 1//60 = .129. loadings greater than .322 (Mauldin, SE = l//n, where n = number (2h Thus, SE) are significant at p < .01. 1970). Each of the three tests was run through the QUANAL p ro­ gram developed by N. Van Tubergen after factors were found using SPSS for the factor analysis. The QUANAL program pro­ duced an array of statements for each factor which is con­ sidered a "typical" Q— sort along with z— scores for each state­ ment from those statements most positive to those statements 26 most negative for each "typical" sort. Using the statement arrays as well as discriminating statements for each factor provided the means for interpreting each factor. Those subjects w i t h low significant factor loadings on the pre and posttests for Factor I are included in the re­ sults since their factor loadings were significantly found on the factor analysis for the pre and posttests. tribution of people on the factors The dis­ (Appendix O ) , which in­ cludes some subjects who were found on two separate factors when their sorts were combined in the final factor analysis, is as follows: Factor I: Factor II: Factor III: Factor IV: 54 13 9 8 Subjects which showed up on the pre and posttests of a given factor numbered forty-three with thirty-eight on Factor I, four on Factor II, one on Factor III, and none on Factor IV. Twenty-three subjects were found just on the pretest with nine on Factor I, six on Factor II, eight on Factor III, and none again on Factor IV. On the posttest eighteen sub­ jects were found with seven from Factor I, three from Factor II, none from Factor III, and eight from Factor IV. eighty-four subjects entered into the four factors P) with one hundred and nineteen sorts being used. Thus, (Appendix CHAPTER III INTERPRETATION Subjects in the study were asked to sort sixty state­ ments in a prescribed manner that would reflect their feel­ ings and attitudes about the environment. The resulting Q- sorts were factor analyzed with the individual sorts being correlated with each other. Those which correlated at a cer­ tain level of significance were grouped together to form fac­ tors . The sorts of each factor were averaged to produce a typical Q-sort representing each factor (Appendix Q) as well as those individuals with significant loadings on the factor. An explanation of each factor is sought which is both subjective and creative. Subjectivity is limited in that the explanation must fit the data. As stated earlier, the data, the factor arrays, and the combinatorial activity involved in producing the factors are objective and arrived at mathemat­ ically. Each reader is encouraged to study the various data and make his own interpretation. Thumbnail sketches (Mauldin, 1970) are included to give the reader insight as to the characteristics of each factor before a more detailed explanation is given. After the thumbnail sketches the consensus items are studied to give the reader insight as to the opinion statements the subjects were in agreement with in the study. 27 Finally, the individual 28 factors are studied in detail using the representative factorarray, discriminating statements, and biographic data dix R) to arrive at the detailed explanation. (Appen­ Numbers in parenthesis refer to particular statements in the Q-sample. The discriminating statements and typical Q-sort for each factor follow the detailed factor interpretations. Labels have been attached to each factor so that they m a y be more easily remembered. Brief Sketches The factor analysis yielded four interpretable factors. A thumbnail sketch of each factor is provided before a de­ tailed interpretation is given. Factor I, Proponents of Social Control The Proponents of Social Control view people as the ultimate problem in relation to environmental issues. They believe that we have to change people or control them to solve the problems. Proponents of Social Control feel that we have to change people's values on many fronts that relate directly or indirectly to the environment. We may even have to resort to legislative action to solve the problems such as in the case of limiting family size. materialistic and are to blame. better. People are too Really, people should know The Proponents of Social Control are very serious- minded when it comes to problems and solutions concerning the environment. 29 Factor II, Want Satisfiers (Hedonists) The Want Satisfiers do not feel they should have limits placed on them. After all, technology, which helps to sat­ isfy our wants, can also get us out of our ecological prob­ lems. The Want Satisfiers have a hands-on approach to Mother Nature believing we can continually change the environment to suit our needs. They do not feel the need to personally change their habits in order to bring about a solution to the problems since the problems will be taken care of by technol­ ogy. It's just a matter of time. Factor III, Proponents of Personal involvement The Proponents of Personal Involvement feel very strongly that the solution to the problems rests with indi­ vidual involvement. As they see us as wasteful, they be­ lieve if we would all pitch in, we would lick the problems such as garbage and wastes. They do not believe we have to cut our life-styles to necessities; involved. all we have to do is get The Proponents of Personal Involvement are willing to do their part by getting involved and believe others are too. They see more elbow room on the planet if people would get involved by moving to less inhabited areas. In general, the Proponents of Personal Involvement are not interested in placing the blame for environmental problems, but are inter­ ested in getting personally involved for the solution. 30 Factor IV, Disbelievers: There Is No Problem The Disbelievers really do not see a problem as the other types would. They do not believe there is a gas shortage or other such problems. The Disbelievers feel everyone has the right to do w h a t he wants until he has evidence that it interferes with the freedom of others. Dis­ believers do not see a problem with people's life-styles and believe people who create environmental problems should only be concerned with cleaning up their own messes. Consensus Items Twenty-seven of the sixty statements in the Q-Sort emerged as consensus items. Because of this there is a high degree of correlation between the four factors. TABLE 1 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FACTORS Factor I Factor Factor Factor Factor I II III IV Factor II 1.000 0.649 0.695 0.653 Factor III Factor IV 0.649 0.695 0.653 1.000 0.740 0.740 0. 700 0.711 0.700 1.000 0.711 1.000 Although it would be ideal to have more clear-cut types in such a study, it is important to keep in mind the population that was studied and certain common interests the members of the population shared. After considering the consensus items it will be necessary to look at the four factor types to determine subtle differences. 31 At least sixty-eight percent of each type had par­ ticipated in family or small group camping experiences. Over eighty percent of each type enjoyed participating in canoeing and hiking activities while at least fifty percent of each type enjoyed participating in other outdoor related sports such as backpacking, bogganing. swimming, and sledding or to­ With this high degree of contact with the out­ door environment, one would expect a study such as this to produce types that are highly correlated. The nature of the YCC program would also seem to be more attractive to "outdoor types." The consensus items (Table 2) indicate that subjects agreed that we're a wasteful nation with most people being part of the problem. Subjects see industry as an untrust­ worthy culprit who must be forced to stop polluting. Sub­ jects agreed that we should consume less, recycle more, and have a greater respect for life and the environment. In Table 2, the statement and statement number appear at the left. The factors are indicated as FI, F I I , Fill, and FIV and are found at the right with the standard scores from the individual factor arrays. 32 TABLE 2 CONSENSUS STATEMENTS Statement FI FII Fill FIV J Vfrage Z-Score 52. I believe man should take the responsibility for most of our environmental problems * 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.5 +1.58 12. One of our important ob­ jectives as a society should be increasing our capacity to recycle and reuse our waste products and b y - p r o d u c t s . 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.2 +1.47 0.8 1.4 1.6 1.5 +1.34 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.2 +1.32 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 +1.26 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.5 +1.24 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 +1.12 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.8 +1.10 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.9 +1.09 9. It's our responsibility to look after, care for, and save animals and plants from extinction. 46. Americans waste an awful lot of food and could do as well on much less. 59. We don't put enough e m ­ phasis on life and re­ spect for the natural environment. 27. People who really care about the environment will try to improve it. 44. There should be stricter environmental standards to make the environment more stable, and to get it cleaned up. 14. People have to be educa­ ted so they will be made aware of our environ­ mental p r o b l e m s . 13. The government should place controls on indus­ try in relation to the wastes they produce and enforce these controls with strict fines for violati o n s . 33 TABLE 2 (cont'd.) Statement PI FI I 6. If people organize, enough pressure can be put on industry to change and clean up the environment. 0.7 1.2 23. If a lot more people were interested in environ­ mental problems, we'd really be on the road to a sound, secure environ­ ment. 0.8 1.0 28. As a person becomes more aware of the problem of litter, he will think more about it, will feel guilty when he does it, and will tend to stop doing it. 0.6 0.4 36. Politicians are usually more concerned with get­ ting elected than in taking definite stands on environmental issues. 0.5 0.8 33. We ought to give indus­ tries credit for the en­ vironmental improvements they have made in air and water purification systems. -0.1 0.1 29. Rising costs of products are due to scarcer re­ sources being more diffi­ cult to find and take from the earth. -0.1 0.0 4. When I leave an unneces­ sary light on, I am more concerned about the money wasted than about the energy used. -0.8 -0.1 3. Because environmental problems are so massive, we must rely on govern­ ment to plan and coordin­ ate the solution to such problems. -0.5 -0.7 Fill FIV £l|£ore 0.8 1.6 +1.04 1.0 1.0 +0.98 0.4 1.1 +0.62 0.3 0.6 +0.54 0.6 -0.1 +0.12 0.1 -0.4 -0.09 -0.5 -0.4 -0.45 -1.2 -1.0 -0.84 34 TABLE 2 (cont'd.) statement 60. Generally, industries use only the materials and energy they have to for production. 47. Local government can do little on environmental issues unless it is backed by the state and federal go v e r n m e n t s . 57. We should keep our hands off the environment and let Mother Nature improve it the way she wants. 10. We should try and con­ trol weather more to benefit mankind. 43. There is little I can do personally to stop major forms of pollution. 18. The faster the pace of life, the more there is in life we can enjoy. 16. I don't believe there is an important connec­ tion between environ­ mental problems and a growing population. 7. Small types of litter like gum wrappers or cigarette butts have little effect on the environm e n t . 20. The loss of one organ­ ism from our environ­ ment really doesn't matter that much. 25. It's sad that all our efforts to clean up the environment are in vain since the earth will eventually die anyway. FI FI I Fill FIV * Vf rage z—score -1.1 -0.7 -0.7 -1.1 -0.92 -0.8 -0.8 -1.4 -0.8 -0.97 -0.7 -1.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.99 -1.2 -0.7 -0.9 -1.7 -1.14 -1.2 -1.2 -1.6 -1.0 -1.27 -1.6 -1.4 -1.1 -1.3 -1.35 -1.9 -1.4 -1.4 -1.2 -1.49 -1.0 -1.4 -1.9 -1.9 -1.53 -1.4 -1.6 -1.3 -2.0 -1.58 -1.4 -1.9 -1.7 -1.9 -1.75 35 In looking at the consensus items in greater detail, we find that many attitudes are indeed shared by most of the subjects in the study. lem areas. Subjects identified a few key prob­ They see us as a wasteful nation (12, 46) com­ posed of many people who are not really that interested in environmental problems (2 3). The problems continue due to a growing population which is a problem itself lems with litter are significant. (16). Prob­ Even small types of lit­ ter have a large effect on the environment (7). Subjects also believe that we do not put enough emphasis on life and respect for the environment (56). They also recognize the problem of animals and plants becoming extinct (9) and e m ­ phasize this by feeling that the loss of even one organism from our environment is important (20). In placing the responsibility for our problems, sub­ jects see man as the offender icans are very wasteful (52, 59). They believe Ame r ­ (46), but go a step further in plac­ ing the blame even though they do recognize that we contrib­ ute to environmental problems by having an ever growing pop­ ulation (16). Subjects see industry as the culprit who wastes materials and resources clean up after itself (60) and has to be forced to (6, 13). In looking at solutions to the problems, we should strive to live on less subjects feel (46) and that an important goal should be to recycle and reuse more waste products (12). They believe that people who really care about the environ­ ment will work to improve it (27, 57). People will do this 36 in several ways. Subjects really believe their efforts will make, a difference (25). They believe people need to be educated to be made more aware of the problem (14) . If people organize, enough pressure can be put on industry so that they will clean up the environment (6). Subjects also see a big part of getting the environment cleaned up resting with stricter environmental standards (44) . they do not see as solutions to the problems. in favor of trying to control the weather Some things They are not (10) and do not believe we can enjoy life more with a faster pace of life (18) . Subjects were unsure about giving industry credit for improvements they are responsible for, if any (33). They also wonder who or what is really responsible for higher prices on goods (29). Lastly, they know they should be con­ cerned about the waste of energy when leaving an unnecessary light on, but still know it might be the incentive of wasting money that encourages them to turn off the light (4). Subjects also agreed on who is responsible to see that the solution is found and carried out. They see the respon­ sibility not only resting on the population as is the case in saving animals and plants from extinction (9) or on people who care about the environment working to improve it (27), but also recognize that the local and federal gov­ ernment can do something (13, 47). Subjects also agreed that in some cases we cannot rely on the government (3), and in some cases we must find our own answers to get things done as individuals (43). 37 Factor I : Proponents of Social Control Biographic Data Fifty-four persons loaded on Factor I. fifty-four, Of these thirty-eight loaded on the factor on both the pre and posttests. Nine subjects were found to have loaded on the factor on just the pretest while seven subjects loaded on the factor just on the posttest. Thirty were enrollees, twenty-two were members of the staff, and two were from the church youth group. and twenty-one were males. Thirty— three were females Eighteen of the subjects were from the Yankee Springs camp, twenty were from the Head­ quarters Lake camp, fourteen were from the Alberta camp and two were from the church youth group. The enrollees and youth group members were from fifteen to eighteen years of age with a mean age of 16.43 years while the twenty-two staff members were between the ages of twenty and thirty. The enrollees and youth group members mean education was 10.75 years while the staff's mean education was 15.5 years with seven possessing B.S. degrees and one possessing an M.S. degree. The mean grade average was 3.25 out of a possible 4.0 for the enrollees and members of the youth group. (Grade average was computed using the following values: A = 4.0; A- = 3.5; B+ = 3.5; B = 3.0; B- = 2.5; C+ = 2.5; C = 2.0; and C- * 2.0.) Fifty-one of the subjects were white, and one was Spanish. two were black, 29.6% participated in ecology or 38 environmental clubs as well as photographic activities. 46.2% participated in family camping activities, 68.5% par­ ticipated in small group camping, and 53.7% participated in individual camping while only 12.9% had no type of camping experience. Only 9.2% indicated that they rode in dune buggies or snowmobiles, while 12.9% participated in power boating, dicating an aversion to mechanized sports activities. in­ 48.1% participated in fishing while only 16.6% participated in hunting. As would be expected by many, a great number (75.9%) indicated they enjoyed watching animals. Over 50% of this type participated in such outdoor sports as canoeing (88.8%), hiking (87.0%), backpacking (85.1%), running or jogging ganing (59.2%). (61.6%), swimming (57.4%), and sledding or tobog­ For additional data and a comparison of activities with the other types, please refer to Appendix R. Attitudinal Data Proponents of Social Control feel that people are the real problem in relation to environmental issues. People are too materialistic and do many things they shouldn't. The Proponents of Social Control feel that the answer or solution to the problems we have lies with changing people or even controlling them through legislation if necessary. The Proponents of Social Control look at life very seriously in relation to the environment and solutions to problems that need to be solved. Subjects who were found on this factor identified 39 several problem areas relating to the environment. of their feelings, backgrounds, and attitudes, referred to as Proponents of Social Control. Because they will be The Proponents of Social Control felt that people are too materialistic and make decisions that hurt the environment (19, 40). This materialism can be seen in people's life-styles in which their wants exceed their needs (11, 37, 40). They do not see a higher quality life developing in the world (56). The freedoms and quality of life we now enjoy are being threat­ ened by a growing population (31). Control believe in a gas shortage The Proponents of Social (5) and feel that many wasteful forms of mechanized entertainment are harmful to the environment in one way or another (39). This is in keeping with their behavioral data which shows a lack of par­ ticipation in this type of activity. In placing the blame for the problems which confront us, the Proponents of Social Control tend to blame the free enterprise system with industry and technology contributing quite significantly to the problem (32, 21). The Proponents of Social Control do not limit the blame to technology, industry, or the free enterprise system, but see man in a very important position regarding responsibility for some problems (19). The Proponents of Social Control believe that man really has a knack for messing up the environment when he tries to control various biological factors (55). Proponents of Social Control allow us a way out of our problems by providing for some solutions. They believe 40 people's values must change (19). These changing values would dictate the need to cut our life-styles to necessities thus allowing us to conserve precious energy and other nat­ ural resources (51). Values would also change our view of population control which is a must to take care of the prob­ lem of a growing population (31). Another related solution to the problems is the belief that it is not really necessary to maintain our capability to provide for man's wants as well as his needs (11) . If our values do not change we might have to be limited in our food and product consumption so that there will be enough for everyone (34). In limitations, the Proponents of Social Control are not as opposed to the possibility of leg­ islation limiting family size as are the other three types (1) . In solving environmental problems, the Proponents of Social Control are not convinced that we should try to control biological factors (55) or that there is really a need to have the auto industry in Michigan in order that the state will survive (8). Proponents of Social Control see people as being re­ sponsible for the solution to the problems at hand (19, 31, 54, 30) and also do not negate the possibility for the need of legislation to take care of the problems that man is un­ able to solve on his own (34, 1). Finally, the Proponents of Social Control believe man should be aware of the possible results of his actions without having to be told (45). 41 TABLE 3 DISCRIMINATING STATEMENTS: FACTOR I _. , Statement Factor I Average Z-Score other Z's 19. People's values have to change because they are too materialistic and make decisions that hurt the environment. 31. Population control is a must if we are going to enjoy the freedoms we have today. 54. Everyone should cut their life-style to necessi­ ties, conserving goods as well as other natural re­ sources such as water and energy. 37. If everyone's wants were satisfied, the environ­ ment would be a mess. 32. Through free enterprise, companies tend to use up too much energy and pro­ duce too many goods. 21. Industry and technology have created the biggest share of our environmen­ tal problems. 55. When man tries to change biological factors, they usually backfire on him leaving him faced with a worse situation than he began with. 34. There should be some limit placed on every­ one concerning their food and product c o n ­ sumption. Difference (z~ z Average) 1.80 0.15 +1.64 1.30 0.19 +1.11 0.95 -0.62 +1.58 0.85 -0.19 +1.04 0.79 -0.06 +0.86 0.56 -0.27 +0.83 0.50 -0.47 +0.98 0.15 -0.75 +0.90 42 TABLE 3 (cont'd.) cfafomanf Statement Factor I Average Difference _ _______ or _ _ . Z-Score Qther z .a (Z-Z Average) 1. If we are not willing to voluntarily limit our family size, legislation should be passed that would force us into lim­ iting the size of our families. -0.01 8. In spite of environmen­ tal problems, a state must also preserve its industry. Michigan, for example, needs the auto industry to survive. -0.47 45. Everyone has the right to do what he wants until he has evidence that it in­ terferes with other people's freedom. -0.56 5. There really isn't a gas shortage; just old misers trying to collect more money. -0.79 11. I think it's important that we maintain our capability to provide not just for man's basic n e e d s , but also for things he wants. -0.80 39. Off the road vehicles are a fun type of recreation, loosen up tensions, and don't hurt the environ­ ment that much if they stick to designated areas. -0.82 40. Most people's life­ styles show we are more concerned about the future now than ever before. -1.16 56. A higher quality life is developing in the world. -1.26 -0.92 +0.91 0.37 -0.84 0.37 -0.94 0.19 -0.99 0.48 -1.29 0.19 -1.01 0.19 -1.35 0.03 -1.30 43 TABLE 3 (cont'd.) Factor I Average Z-Score other Z's Statement 30. We should continue to improve our standard of living as much as pos­ sible. -1.50 Difference ^2“ z Average) -0.15 -1.35 TABLE 4 Q-SORT FOR FACTOR Is PROPONENTS OF SOCIAL CONTROL Standard Score +6 Statements Most in Agreement With 19. People's values have to change because they are too materialistic and make decisions that hurt the environment. 58. Each individual should be educated in the specific ways that he or she can contrib­ ute less to environmental problems and contribute more to environmental solutions. 59. We don't put enough emphasis on life and respect for the natural environment. 1.80 1.58 1.49 +5 12. One of our important objectives as a society should be increasing our capacity to recycle and reuse our waste products and by-products. 14. People have to be educated so they will be made aware of our environmental problems. 52. I believe man should take the responsibility for most of our environmental problems. 1.49 1.40 1.36 +4 31. Population control is a must if we are going to enjoy the freedoms we have today. 1.30 46. Americans waste an awful lot of food and could do as well on much less. 1.10 44 TABLE 4 (cont'd.) Standard Score +4 Continued 44. There should be stricter environmental standards to make the environment more s t a b l e , and to get it cleaned up. 54. Everyone should cut their life-style to necessities, conserving goods as well as other natural resources such as water and energy. +3 13. The government should place controls on industry in relation to the wastes they produce and enforce these controls with strict fines for violations. 27. People who really care about the env i r o n ­ ment will try to improve it. 37. If everyone's wants were satisfied, the environment would be a mess. 38. One of the most real problems of the environment is the growing problem of garbage and how to get rid of it. 23. If a lot more people were interested in environmental problems, w e'd really be on the road to a sound, secure environ­ ment . +2 9. It's our responsibility to look after, care for, and save animals and plants from extinction. 41. Advertising, by creating unnecessary desires, causes m a n y of our environmental problems. 32. Through free enterprise, companies tend to use up too m uch energy and produce too many goods. 24. Just because I didn't make an environmental mess doesn't m e a n I shouldn't h elp to clean it up. 48. We have to let. our elected representatives know how w e feel about environmental issues before we can expect them to act favorably toward t h e m . 1.02 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.8 3 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.68 45 TABLE 4 (cont'd.) Standard Score +2 Continued 49. Everyone should spend some time in a wilderness situation so that they will understand and have more of a feeling for the environment. 0.66 +1 6. If people organize, enough pressure can be put on industry to change and clean up the environment. 2. Agricultural land should be saved for food production and building should only take place where land cannot be harvested. 21. Industry and technology have created the biggest share of our environmental problems. 28. As a person becomes more aware of the prob­ lem of litter, he will think more about it, will feel guilty w hen he does it, and will tend to stop doing it. 17. Consumers show they support environmental issues by buying ecological products and disposing of them correctly. 55. When man tries to change biological factors, they usually backfire on him leaving him faced with a worse situation than he began with. £ Neutral or Not Sure Statements 36. Politicians are usually more concerned with getting elected than in taking definite stands on environmental issues. 53. Every individual or company should mainly be concerned with cleaning up the pollution they create. 35. People w h o try to get ahead in life through business usually care very little about the environment and consume more than their share of goods and energy. 34. There should be some limit placed on every­ one concerning their food and product con­ sumption. 0.66 0.63 0.56 0.56 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.37 0.24 0.16 46 TABLE 4 (cont'd.) Standard Score 0 Continued 1. If we are not willing to voluntarily limit our family size, legislation should be passed that would force us into limiting the size of our families. 29. Rising costs of products are due to scarcer resources being more difficult to find and take from the earth. Statements Most in Disagreement With I don't believe there is an important con­ nection between environmental problems and a growing population. 18. The faster the pace of life, the more there is in life we can enjoy. 15. Our government spends too much money in trying to clean up our environment. -0.01 -0.07 -6 16. -5 30. We should continue to improve our standard of living as much as possible. 25. It's sad that all our efforts to clean up the environment are in vain since the earth will eventually die anyway. 20. The loss of one organism from our environ­ ment really doesn't matter that much. -4 56. A higher quality life is developing in the world. 10. We should try and control weather more to benefit mankind. 43. There is little I can do personally to stop major forms of pollution. 40. Most people's life-styles show we are more concerned about the future now than ever before. -1.87 -1.63 -1.61 -1.50 -1.4 5 -1.41 -1.26 -1.23 -1.20 -1.16 -3 42. Going 55 mph on the highway instead of 70 mph really doesn't make that big a difference in conserving our energy supplies. -1.13 47 TABLE 4 (cont'd.) Standard Score -3 Continued 60. Generally, industries use only the materials and energy they have to for production. 51. We have a lot more room for more people on this earth if they would only spread across the land. 7. Small types of litter like gum wrappers or cigarette butts have little effect on the environment. 26. Manufactured chemical fertilizers are a necessity or else we wouldn't be able to grow the foods we need to survive. -2 47. Local government can do little on environ­ mental issues unless it is backed by the state and federal governments. 39. Off the road vehicles are a fun type of recreation, loosen up tensions, and don't hurt the environment that much if they stick to designated areas. 11. I think it's important that we maintain our capability to provide not just for man's basic needs, but also for things he wants. 5. There really isn't a gas shortage; just old misers trying to collect more money. 4. When I leave an unnecessary light on, I am more concerned about the money wasted than about the energy used. 57. We should keep our hands off the environ­ ment and let Mother Nature improve it the way she wants. -1.11 -1.08 -0.96 -0.93 -0.84 -0.82 -0.81 -0.79 -0.79 -0.69 -1 22. Because they must maintain public accep­ tance, most businesses are motivated to help in the effort to solve environmental problems. 45. Everyone has the right to do w hat he wants until he has evidence that it interferes with other people's freedom. -0.59 -0.56 48 TABLE 4 (cont'd.) Standard Score -1 Continued 3. Because environmental problems are so massive, we must rely on government to plan and coordinate the solution to such problems. 8. In spite of environmental problems, a state must also preserve its industry. Michigan, for example, needs the auto indus try to s u r v i v e . 50. I believe technology will help us to find a way out of our environmental problems. 33. We ought to give industries credit for the environmental improvements they have made in air and water purification systems. -0.50 -0.47 -0.43 -0.11 49 Factor II: Want Satisfiers (Hedonists) Biographic Data Thirteen subjects loaded on Factor II. this factor on both the pre and posttests. Four loaded on Six of the sub­ jects were just found on the pretest while three others were found only on the posttest. Eight were enrollees, only two were staff m e m b e r s , and three were from the church youth group. Seven were females and six were males. There was an even distribution among the camps with four from Yankee Springs, three from Headquarters Lake, three from Alberta, and three from the church youth group. The enrollees were from sixteen to eighteen years of age with a mean age of 16.8 years. One of the members of the youth group was fourteen while the two staff members w ere from twenty to thirty. The enrollees and youth group members had a mean education of 10.72 years and the mean education of the staff members was 17.0 years w ith one possessing a B.S. degree and the other an M.S. degree. The mean grade average for the enrollees and members of the youth group was 3.0 4 out of a possible 4.0. Twelve of the subjects were white and one was black. Although 30.6% were Catholics and 46.0% were Protestants, 68.1% of this type felt they were at best seldom active in church, which is the greatest lack of participation of any of the types. Only 38.4% participated in family camping (the lowest of any type), while 84.6% participated in small group camping (the m ost of any t y p e ) , and 5 3.8% participated in individual camping (the m o s t of any t y p e ) . Only one 50 person (7.6%) experience loading on this factor had no type of camping (the least of any t y p e ) . Participation was shown in such mecahnized sports as riding in dune buggies (23.0%) , snowmobiling skiing (38.4%), and power boating (38.4%). (38.5%), water 69.2% partici­ pated in fishing while 30.7% participated in hunting. 30.4% indicated they spent time watching animals. Only Over 50% of these subjects participated in such outdoor sports as canoeing (84.6%), hiking backpacking ganing half (92.3%), downhill skiing (76.9%), swimming (76.9%). (61.5%), (69.2%), and sledding or tobog­ It should also be noted that nearly one- (46.1%) participated in mountain climbing activities. For a comparison of activities with the other types and additional data, please see Appendix R. Attitudinal Data The Want Satisfiers (Hedonists) feel that technology, which helps to satisfy our wants, will also help us out of our environmental problems. They feel that individuals should not have limits placed on them since it's just a matter of time before the solution will be found which will not limit us anyway. The Want Satisfiers have a hands-on approach to Mother Nature which will continue to demand more and more from her. The Want Satisfiers identify problems in terms of whether or not we can continue on the road to success. In believing that a higher quality of life is developing in the world (56), the W ant Satisfiers believe that it is important 51 to maintain our capability to provide for m a n ’s wants (11) and does not see a problem with e v e r y o n e ’s wants being a factor in environmental quality (37). They do not feel that strongly about agricultural land needing to be saved from development (2) and do not feel that there is a problem with companies wasting too much energy in producing their products (32) . The Want Satisfiers do not identify themselves by placing blame for environmental p r o b l e m s , but rather, they express their belief that several parties are innocent of being a factor in the environmental problems that exist. They do not believe the responsibility lies with advertising (41) or with companies who use only what they have to for production (32). The Want Satisfiers feel that businessmen should not be blamed because they care more than just a little for the environment (35). Businesses are not just motivated to help solve environmental problems because of public pressure, but do so because of their feelings for the environment (22) . The Want Satisfiers get their name due to the solutions they see in getting the environment where it should be. They believe technology will help to get us out of our environ­ mental problems (50) and thus believe we should take an active part in trying to improve the environment we live in (57). The Want Satisfiers feel that we should continue to improve our standard of living (30) and that the solution does not lie in trying to limit people (34). Even though 52 somewhat: negative in using chemical fertilizers, the Want Satisfiers feel stronger than the other types that chemical fertilizers might be necessary to produce the foods we need to survive (26). In looking at who is responsible for the solutions to our environmental problems, involvement the Want Satisfiers see man's (57) and technology (50) as the key. 53 TABLE 5 DISCRIMINATING STATEMENTS: Statement 56. A higher quality life is developing in the world. 50. I believe technology will help us to find a way out of our environ­ mental problems. 11. I think it's important that we maintain our capability to provide not just for man's basic needs, but also for things he wants. 30. He should continue to improve our standard of living as much as p o s ­ sible. 26. Manufactured chemical fertilizers are a nec­ essity or else we wouldn't be able to grow the foods we need to survive. 2. Agricultural land should be saved for food production and building should take place where land can­ not be harvested. 41. Advertising, by creating unnecessary desires, causes many of our environmental problems. 32. Through free enter­ prise, companies tend to use up too much energy and produce too many goods. FACTOR II factor II Average Z-Score Qther z>s 0.88 Dif£erence (Z-Z Average) -0.6 7 +1.56 0.85 -0.25 +1.10 0.79 -0.0 5 +0.84 0.60 -0.85 +1.45 -0.02 -1.18 +1.15 -0.46 0.43 -0.89 -0.47 0.42 -0.89 -0.53 0.37 -0.91 54 TABLE 5 (cont'd.) statement 35. People who try to get ahead in life through business usually care very little about the environment and consume more than their share of goods and energy. 37. If everyone's wants were satisfied, the environ­ ment would be a mess. 22. Because they must m a i n ­ tain public acceptance, most businesses are motivated to solve en­ vironmental problems. 34. There should be some limit placed on every­ one concerning their food and product con­ sumption. 57. We should keep our hands off the environ­ ment and let Mother Nature improve it the way she wants. Factor a Ja 9e _ _ _ II A v or Z-Score other Z's Difference ._ _ . ( Average) -0.76 0.18 -0.95 -0.78 0.35 -1.13 -0.79 0.0 8 -0.87 -1.15 -0.31 -0.84 -1.66 -0.76 -0.89 55 TABLE 6 Q-SORT FOR FACTOR II: WANT SATISFIERS (HEDONISTS) Standard Score +6 Statements Most in Agreement With 12. One of our important objectives as a society should be increasing our capacity to recycle and reuse our waste products and by-products. 52. I believe man should take the responsibility for most of our environmental problems. 44. There should be stricter environmental stan­ dards to make the environment more stable, and to get it cleaned up. +5 13. The government should place controls on in­ dustry in relation to the wastes they pro­ duce and enforce these controls with strict fines for violations. 58. Each individual should be educated in the specific ways that he or she can contribute less to environmental problems and contrib­ ute more to environmental solutions. 9. It's our responsibility to look after, care for, and save animals and plants from ex­ tinction. 1.57 1.49 1.48 1.4 5 1.4 4 1.38 ±1 59. We don't put enough emphasis on life and re­ spect for the natural environment. 14. People have to be educated so they will be made aware of our environmental p r o b l e m s . 31. Population control is a must if we are going to enjoy the freedoms we have today. 6. If people organize, enough pressure can be put on industry to change and clean up the environment. 1.29 1.27 1.26 1.19 +3 46. Americans waste an awful lot of food and could do as well o n much less. 1.19 56 TABLE 6 (c o n t *d .) Standard Score +3 Continued 48. We have to let our elected representatives know how we feel about environmental issues before we can expect them to act favorably toward t h e m . 27. People who really care about the environ­ ment will try to improve it. 23. If a lot more people were interested in environmental problems, we'd really be on the road to a sound, secure environment. 56. A higher quality life is developing in the w o r I d . 1.11 1.11 1.04 0.89 +2 50. I believe technology will help us to find a way out of our environmental problems. 11. I think it's important that we maintain our capability to provide not just for man's basic needs, but also for things he wants. 36. Politicians are usually more concerned with getting elected than in taking definite stands on environmental issues. 17. Consumers show they support environmental issues by buying ecological products and disposing of them correctly. 8. In spite of environmental problems, a state roust also preserve its industry. Michigan, for example, needs the auto industry to survive. 38. One of the most real problems of the environ­ ment is the growing problem of garbage and how to get rid of it. 0.85 0.80 0.76 0.74 0.61 0.60 +1 30. We should continue to improve our standard of living as much as possible. 53. Every individual or company should mainly be concerned w ith cleaning up the pollution they create. 0.52 49. Everyone should spend time in a wilderness situation so that they will understand and have more of a feeling for the environment. 0.48 0.60 57 TABLE 6 (cont'd.) Standard Score +1 Continued 28. As a person becomes more aware of the problem of litter, he will think more about it, will feel guilty when he does it, and will tend to stop doing it. 19. People's values have to change because they are too materialistic and make decisions that hurt the environment. 24. Just because I didn't make an environmental mess doesn't mean I shouldn't help to clean it up. 0 Neutral or Not Sure Statements 39. Off the road vehicles are a fun type of rec­ reation, loosen up tensions, and don't hurt the environment that much if they stick to designated areas. 5. There really isn't a gas shortage; just old misers trying to collect more money. 33. We ought to give industries credit for the environmental improvements they have made in air and water purification systems. 26. Manufactured chemical fertilizers are a necessity or else we w o u l d n ’t be able to grow the foods we need to survive. 29. Rising costs of products are due to scarcer resources being more difficult to find and take from the earth. 4. When I leave an unnecessary light on, I am more concerned about the money wasted than about the energy used. -6 Statements Most in Disagreement With 25. It's sad that all our efforts to clean up the environment are in vain since the earth will eventually die anyway. 15. Our government spends too much money in trying to clean up our environment. 57. We should keep our hands off the environ­ ment and let Mother Nature improve it the way she wants. 0.42 0.34 0.27 0.14 0.13 0.12 -0.03 -0.04 -0.14 -1.92 -1.68 -1.66 58 TABLE 6 (cont'd.) Standard Score ^5 20. The loss of one organism from our environ­ ment really doesn't matter that much. 16. I don't believe there is an important con­ nection between environmental problems and a growing population. 18. The faster the pace of life, the more there is in life we can enjoy. -1.63 -1.45 -1.38 =i 7. Small types of litter like gum wrappers or cigarette butts have little effect on the environment. 43. There is little 1 can do personally to stop major forms of pollution. 34. There should be some limit placed on every­ one concerning their food and product con­ sumption. 54. Everyone should cut their life-style to necessities, conserving goods as well as other natural resources such as water and energy. -1.37 -1.21 -1.16 -1.11 -3 51. We have a lot more room for more people on this earth if they would only spread out across the land. -1.06 1. If we are not willing to voluntarily limit our family size, legislation should be passed that would force us into limiting the size of our families. -0.91 47. Local government can do little on environ­ mental issues unless it is backed by the state and federal governments. -0.83 22. Because they must maintain public acceptance, most businesses are motivated to help in the effort to solve environmental problems. -0.80 37. If everyone's wants were satisfied, the environment would be a mess. -0.79 59 TABLE 6 (cont'd.) Standard Score -2 35. People w h o try to get ahead in life through business usually care very little about the environment and consume more than their share of goods and energy. -0.77 60. Generally, industries use only the materials and energy they have to for production. 10. We should try and control weather more to benefit mankind. -0.74 40. Most people's life-styles show we are more concerned about the future now than ever before. -0.73 -0.7 4 3. Because environmental problems are so massive, we must rely on government to plan and coor­ dinate the solution to such problems. -0.71 55. When man tries to change biological factors, they usually backfire on him leaving him faced with a worse situation than he began with. -0.69 zl 21. Industry and technology have created the big­ gest share of our environmental problems. -0.59 42. Going 55 mph on the highway instead of 70 mph really doesn't make that big a difference in conserving our energy supplies. -0.54 32. Through free enterprise, companies tend to use up too much energy and produce too many goods. -0.54 41. Advertising, by creating unnecessary desires, causes many of our environmental problems. -0.47 2. Agricultural land should be saved for food pro­ duction and building should only take place where land cannot be harvested. -0.46 45. Everyone has the right to do what he wants until he has evidence that it interferes with other people's freedoms. -0.41 60 Factor III: Proponents of Personal Involvement Biographic Data Out of the nine people who loaded on Factor III, only one person was found to be on both the pre and posttests. The othereight subjects were all found on just the pretest. Eight of the nine people were enrollees with the ninth being a member of the church youth group. found on this factor. were males. N o staff member was Seven w ere females while only two Four subjects were from the Yankee Springs camp, three were from the Alberta camp, only one was from the Head­ quarters Lake camp, and again, one was from the church youth group. The subjects on this factor were from fifteen to seventeen years of age with a mean age of 15.66 years. The enrollees and youth group member had a m ean education of 9.77 years. The mean grade average on this factor was 3.11 out of a possible 4.0. Seven of the subjects were white, one was black, and one was Spanish. Protestants, in church. While 44.4% were Catholic and 3 3.3% were 66.6% felt they were at least moderately active Only one subject was from a metropolitan environ­ ment while six were from a suburban environment and two were from a small city or town. camping, 55.5% participated in family 77.7% participated in small group camping, and 22.2% participated in individual camping. had no type of camping experience. Only one (11.1%) Factor III, as Factor I, has few w h o are interested in mechanized sports such as water skiing (33.3%), snowmobiling (22.2%), riding in dune buggies 61 (0.0%) , an yv 51 HS 5 8 V* <78 Selecting statements from the Neutral or Undecided Pile Draw a box around the remaining empty spaces on your Distribution Diagram. Your diagram should now look something like this: +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +i y 7 A 3 77 9 -2/ 2 70 30 Y9 3! 56 3k 5Y 37 V/ 57 Y* 6 C. -2 A sy Hi -l A A 0 -l -2 JL 2 0 -3 -4 -5 -6 79 Ad d o 23 * 6 •?y 75 A S 7Y 5*3 SA 3y 33 35 78 56 31 57 Y<> 59 ys w* / Next, record the numbers of the remaining statements in the remaining empty spaces of the Distribution Diagram so that when the diagram is completed, all the statements are ranked from those you Agree Most with to those statements you Disagree Most w i t h . 114 APPENDIX P (cont'd.) D. Lastly, use an arrow to mark the column you feel would be neutral on your diagram. On the left of this column should be those statements you agree with and on the right of this column should be those statements you disagree with. Step 5 . Complete the information asked for on the bottom of the Distribution Diagram. Step 6 . Complete the Personal Data Sheet Remember that you can change the order and placement of these statements whenever you wish until you are satisfied with the results. When you are done you should have numbers in all the boxes of the Distribution Diagram representing a range of statements from those you agree most with to those you d is­ agree most with. I would like to thank you at this time for your patience and cooperation in completing this task. APPENDIX G STAFF PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE 115 APPENDIX G STAFF PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE Date Name Type of camp Position Camp ___ P E R S O N A L (Staff) D A T A 1. What is your age bracket? 18-19 20-30 31-40 2. Sexi Male 41-50 61+ Female 3. Highest grade completed in school: 12 th 10th 11th 9th 15 th 51-60 13 th 14th 16th 4. Please check the degree(s) B.A. B.S. M.A. you have earned: M.S. Ed.D Ph .D 5. with what major and minors did you graduate? Major Minor 6. Ethnic background: White Black American Oriental Spanish 1 2 3 Indian (Spanish includes people of Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Spanish descent.) 7. What is your present occupation? 116 APPENDIX G (cont'd.) 8. Do you feel your political orientation is: Very liberal Liberal M oderate Conservative Very conservative 9. What is your religious orientation? fundamental or conservative Catholic liberal Protestant Jewish - liberal o rthodox _ fundamental or conservative traditional reformed Eastern Religion Atheist_ Agnostic None of the above ~Tl 10. Please check your level of church activity: Moderately active Active Very active 1 2 Not active Seldom active 11. What type of community did you spend most of your life in? Other metropolitan area Large metropolitan (Detroit) Suburban Small city or town Rural (non-farm) Farm 12. To what clubs, organizations or professional societies do you belong? ____________________________________________ 13. Check those of the following activities in which you have partici p a t e d : FFA 4-H Club Boy Girl Camp Fire 1 2 work 3 Scouts 4 Scouts ” 5“ Girls E cology or EnvironBird PhotogOutdoor £ mental Clubs i clubs 8 raphy “ 5~~ Sports Family Small group camping Individual Clubs 10 Camping 11 (other than family) 12 camping 117 APPENDIX G (cont'd.) 14. Please check the types of summer camps you have attended Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Camp Fire Girls, etc. Athletic 2 Church related 3 Survival type camp Educational (music, 4 art, drama, science) 15. Please check the following outdoor activities in which you like to participate: Canoeing Hiking Water Skiing D ownhill 1 2 3 4 Skiing Cross Country Skiing Snowmobiling Riding in Dune Buggies Mou n t a i n Climbing nr Swimming Ice rr rr Power boating 16 IV Fishing Backpacking TT~ skating rr~ Hunting IT Photography Running or jogging A nimal w a tching Sledding or 18 tobogganing 16. If given the opportunity some other summer, w o u l d you like to participate in the Youth Conservation Corps? Yes No APPENDIX H ENROLZ jEE p e r s o n a l d a t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e 118 APPENDIX H ENROLLEE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE Date ________________________ Name Type of Camp _________________ Position Date of Birth ________________ Camp ___ P E R S O N A L D A T A (Enrollee) 1. What is your age? 14 15 16 2. Sex: M ale 17 18 19 Female 3. Highest grade completed in school: 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th "I" T ~ ~ “T ~ “ 5* 15th 16th 4. Ethnic b a c k g r o u n d : White Black 1 2 American 3 Indian T 14th “ Oriental 4 Spanish 5 (Spanish includes people of Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Spanish descent.) 5. Father's occupation: ________________________________________ 6. Mother's occupation: ________________________________________ 7. Present grade average: (please check) A AB+ B BC+ “ 1“ T " 4 5 6 D+ D DF T " TO” t t ~ TT~ C 7 C- 119 APPENDIX H (cont'd.) 8. Family income range Below $5,000 __ Between $5,000 - $10,000 Between $10,000 - $15,000 Between $15,000 - $20,000 D o n 't know Over $20,000 9. Previous YCC participant: Yes No If yes, enter program year 10. Please check the person in the YCC program who did the most for your understanding of the environment. Camp Director Environmental Education Coordinator 1 2 Group or Crew leader O ther (If other what was S 4 person's position in c a m p ? )__________________ 11. What is your religious orientation? ^fundamental or conservative Catholic liberal Protestant Jewish - liberal o rthodox ^ fundamental or conservative ^ traditional ^ reformed Eastern Religion Atheist Agnostic___ 10 None of the above T T 12 Please check your level of church activity: Very active Active Moderately active Seldom active Not active 13. In what type of community did you spend most of your life? Large metropolitan (Detroit) Other metropolitan area Suburban Farm Small city or town Rural (non-farm) 120 APPENDIX H (cont'd.) 14. To what clubs, organizations or professional societies do you belong? ____________________________________________ 15. Check those of the following activities in which you have participated: FFA 4-H Club work Boy Scouts Girl Scouts Campfire Girls Bird Clubs 10 Ecology or Environmental Clubs Photography Family camping IT Outdoor Sports Clubs Small group camping family camping (other than Individual camping TT ~ 16. Please check the types of summer camps you have attended: Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Campfire Girls, etc. A thletic 2 Church related 3 Survival type camp Educational (music, 4 a r t , drama, science) 17. Please check the following outdoor activities in which you like to participate: Canoeing Hiking Water Skiing D ownhill 1 2 3 — 4 Skiing Cross Country Skiing Snowmobiling Riding in Dune Buggies M ountain Climbing TJT Swimming IT" Backpacking Ice skating IT” Power boating 16 IT" Fishing Hunting Photography IT" Running or jogging IT" A nimal watching 17 18 Sledding or tobogganing 18. Did you stay in the same work group or work crew all suininfir? Yes No (If yes, who was your group or “I 2 crew leader? First and last n a m e .)_______________ ___ 19. If given the opportunity some other summer would you like to participate in the Youth Conservation Corps? Yes No 121 APPENDIX H (cont'd.) 20. How many courses have you taken in school where a unit on the environment was included? 21. How many environmental, ecology, or conservation courses have you taken in school? __________________________________ 22. How many group or crew leaders did you have this summer? one two three four ^ five six seven eight nine If you had more than 1 group or crew leader this summer, please answer questions 2 3 and 24. 23. Who were the group or crew leaders if any who did the most for your understanding of the environment? (First and last names) __________________________________ 24. Who were the group or crew leaders if any who did the least for your understanding of the environment? (First and last names) __________________________________ APPENDIX I SAMPLE SCORE SHEET 122 APPENDIX I SAMPLE SCORE SHEET Distribution Diagram Agree Most +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 Name ___ Camp ___ Position Date Neutral or Undecided +1 -1 -2 Disagree Most -3 -4 -5 -6 APPENDIX J FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR PRETEST (100 SORTS) 123 APPENDIX J TABLE 11 FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR PRETEST Camp Yankee Springs Staff Campers (100 SORTS) Not on Factor Factor Factor significant I II III factor Total 6 9 1 3 0 5 2 9 9 26 Staff Campers 7 12 0 1 0 1 1 8 8 22 Alberta Staff Campers 7 5 1 2 0 3 0 7 8 17 Church Group 1 2 2 5 10 20 26 1 2 6 2 0 9 2 3 24 5 25 65 10 Headquarters Lake Totals Staff Campers Church Group 100 APPENDIX K VARIMAX ROTATION: PRETEST APPENDIX K TABLE 12 VARIMAX ROTATION: PRETEST* I II III IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 65 39 50 54 56 55 64 51 29 58 55 66 75 33 37 52 17 35 12 09 30 51 46 3** 37 18 26 50 ko 1*3 17 18 1U 3k 27 10 35 37 69 73 07 31 05 13 30 34 00 10 05 13 04 05 06 06 13 03 12 17 11 04 23 07 -09 03 21* 19 24 05 14 07 14 05 -20 09 16 12 05 16 -04 03 03 02 -08 -02 32 18 12 03 -05 13 05 35 02 04 21 11 -11 17 09 12 19 -10 06 -02 22 10 03 27 -01 -06 07 -07 09 -01 13 11 04 24 06 -24 -05 12 21 08 39 05 20 -03 00 12 -05 01 14 -03 28 03 06 08 -02 08 -07 -06 25 12 31 -10 14 01 22 -03 00 -06 01 04 10 27 21 05 47 02 17 -00 08 -03 33 18 17 05 16 -12 -04 12 05 08 22 16 11 06 -02 10 12 06 00 03 25 19 07 25 -04 12 03 30 14 12 18 25 11 20 26 32 -21 39 -12 -03 37 25 01 09 15 03 -01 14 04 03 1*7 29 07 06 -04 08 06 17 18 07 63 21 23 -17 07 09 09 -00 -10 02 to 12 24 07 17 12 03 18 06 -01 22 01 -02 -00 05 07 14 03 -07 -06 10 26 13 30 00 12 -00 25 -08 02 65 15 06 12 00 12 06 04 03 -01 07 13 15 20 11 04 04 09 10 -00 64 12 -03 00 -15 -02 -03 13 00 10 06 18 25 67 30 *A11 decimal points omitted V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII Respondent 23 14 -13 07 -00 11 22 16 02 26 10 17 16 07 05 -02 14 08 -07 -09 06 20 20 30 06 -05 12 14 -03 16 22 -05 -10 -00 28 -00 -02 02 -04 23 07 -10 19 04 06 00 10 -04 -13 -04 -06 -00 25 14 06 30 01 -00 -02 00 12 10 08 06 19 22 11 -08 19 31 24 19 05 13 04 07 05 -01 -07 01 08 12 -08 06 -06 -00 08 01 07 -10 04 23 10 -11 -07 -17 01 -12 04 -02 29 -19 -07 -14 03 07 06 05 09 02 01 -09 -0 8 45 09 11 -00 -05 12 01 -13 18 -0 8 07 01 APPENDIX K Respondent II III IV V VI VII VIII IX 11 26 21 09 21 -06 11 61 20 05 30 19 17 00 11 78 08 32 04 08 06 53 -04 30 05 06 06 37 45 36 47 16 01 -01 10 16 21 56 -17 20 36 -14 44 44 47 23 06 11 08 29 25 01 07 10 08 72 -24 16 -06 -01 -00 03 02 14 15 -05 74 24 15 08 61 43 10 22 09 02 -17 79 20 29 -03 06 -01 07 69 26 23 11 13 -08 04 49 54 23 07 -01 -01 08 65 37 26 17 -07 15 09 56 15 43 12 10 -01 10 58 00 22 18 -00 07 32 71 26 23 -00 09 09 03 55 32 39 19 06 11 19 46 19 15 32 03 18 09 28 27 28 -02 18 -09 06 17 11 16 10 07 00 12 66 22 25 09 25 00 17 31 09 33 06 14 -09 -06 46 07 12 28 09 03 -06 21 09 03 21 15 -10 15 -02 13 -01 -01 12 -04 11 -02 16 05 22 -00 13 -10 15 -04 01 05 X XI 28 -05 04 -12 28 01 00 02 03 -07 28 00 -03 13 05 10 03 -04 10 14 -09 -03 13 01 15 07 -02 -0 8 -00 -17 02 08 -11 02 08 14 -00 16 -04 -14 04 08 01 20 14 10 00 21 -05 05 05 -05 05 -00 -02 26 00 07 33 07 -15 09 05 07 01 -00 21 05 05 16 15 15 05 65 -02 XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII 02 01 -03 -04 -04 08 02 -06 -00 01 02 04 18 07 -06 08 20 11 -18 08 11 12 -05 -35 08 11 -16 03 19 20 05 -00 15 04 76 01 -01 08 01 04 19 09 -18 16 09 -03 03 11 -04 08 06 11 09 06 03 -07 10 08 -23 -04 04 12 -14 39 19 26 12 05 12 16 -05 06 16 17 02 10 08 09 06 05 -01 11 -00 -01 73 02 15 00 01 -06 -21 06 07 30 -01 13 -05 02 06 -04 -03 -07 -03 08 06 -00 01 -01 00 -04 -11 02 -00 35 08 -05 -07 09 02 14 09 02 10 47 00 02 00 07 22 09 16 05 10 01 -08 14 12 -06 18 07 -13 00 -00 -05 16 -08 01 02 01 01 125 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3** 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 *♦5 46 47 48 49 50 I ont'd.) APPENDIX K (cont'd.) I 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 n 73 V VI VII VIII IX 05 12 -05 -05 -05 -04 -03 07 13 07 -13 X 02 15 20 30 02 06 16 30 31 -00 28 -02 02 20 04 17 17 24 13 31 12 21 12 00 15 08 12 03 12 -0 8 00 02 -19 -14 10 09 00 09 24 XI XII XIII XIV XV 17 -01 07 02 30 -27 11 -01 08 -0 2 09 13 -00 03 79 08 02 15 08 12 05 17 05 12 03 02 08 -02 -11 -03 04 08 03 14 20 09 02 -07 28 -07 00 20 -11 -02 -11 -05 16 00 14 27 27 -12 -02 -04 05 10 03 -1 8 -04 14 58 -02 09 01 06 07 -0 6 02 19 -00 16 -09 01 20 04 -0 6 19 04 06 17 05 03 -01 02 03 29 04 14 07 00 02 -0 8 03 -0 6 09 -0 6 00 13 03 05 17 XVI XVII 01 01 -23 14 -14 30 -11 02 -02 15 03 06 00 03 -0 0 00 01 01 02 -10 08 -05 04 04 -04 -03 08 -04 08 09 09 15 -04 02 06 08 -05 06 -0 8 03 -12 01 -15 -10 00 -00 -00 -0 6 03 06 -10 -10 02 15 -06 13 11 02 15 -00 17 08 06 -06 05 01 03 -09 -00 13 60 13 01 26 126 60 54 62 1*6 26 III IV 1*5 -01 19 04 -10 -0 8 17 07 -01 16 -0 8 06 11 11 33 08 17 -03 14 31 48 33 20 13 -13 01 00 19 11 18 -03 12 05 13 10 -0 7 14 12 01 08 05 -0 0 82 53 52 20 32 08 12 00 -01 77 25 15 07 00 11 -0 0 -03 58 -01 16 08 03 08 04 00 44 24 07 32 23 03 -14 -01 49 32 38 19 17 07 16 15 65 14 -05 22 25 06 23 05 31 31 06 59 32 06 06 01 47 27 20 08 03 -00 09 16 23 25 49 31 -13 16 16 20 66 -0 2 14 12 06 27 04 -1 2 43 30 21 08 01 03 04 06 63 27 40 05 -05 -16 04 -22 67 09 -02 16 15 07 13 -00 72 11 27 05 13 13 -0 6 -0 9 22 74 15 04 12 03 10 05 41 29 20 18 14 17 08 -00 42 37 24 24 11 12 -42 -0 6 37 25 51 19 12 04 26 08 23 12 30 05 21 09 06 21 29 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 II APPENDIX K (cont'd.) 76 77 78 79 80 81 84 85 66 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 II III IV 23 81 24 54 20 48 46 50 48 31 44 29 34 31 56 19 21 24 46 30 04 30 46 39 13 27 10 08 19 09 47 20 31 43 35 60 43 13 27 31 35 11 20 28 52 60 23 02 33 02 55 -13 20 35 10 13 15 02 07 06 14 06 03 12 05 44 -06 32 35 11 08 06 16 02 18 72 09 00 05 -00 27 08 28 -15 11 -00 12 36 39 17 17 08 25 -05 12 23 09 -09 26 06 24 09 17 09 16 22 38 15 09 04 25 09 -02 13 -05 07 36 11 21 -21 -20 16 31 04 61 07 17 20 50 -10 18 18 14 -10 28 08 26 -09 03 -07 39 11 -04 00 25 -11 13 19 76 12 00 03 19 08 13 01 22 00 49 02 19 20 -04 10 15 29 -06 02 04 00 20 10 02 35 04 01 48 27 21 03 11 30 07 12 38 32 01 10 56 03 24 11 06 06 00 00 02 03 -00 -04 V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII -05 22 23 21 10 -07 11 -10 15 -13 00 07 11 -01 -00 02 04 -01 13 22 -36 -00 15 15 08 30 00 08 23 -24 12 08 04 15 09 33 00 15 04 14 -08 -05 04 03 06 03 07 -08 07 00 -05 15 01 04 -03 11 18 04 08 -01 08 13 00 12 -01 -11 -25 01 01 -17 -01 27 05 38 -10 05 13 02 24 -01 -09 -00 17 02 14 14 16 01 -34 -03 -12 20 27 08 09 -12 -00 01 07 -10 07 00 22 23 03 -01 05 07 -0 8 05 -15 04 04 -10 01 17 19 -04 -05 17 01 -02 02 28 13 -00 -04 12 04 07 08 -13 04 02 21 -02 11 28 03 42 -12 09 11 09 09 16 08 05 10 04 02 -01 02 02 60 02 09 01 -00 07 05 13 -01 11 -04 08 22 16 05 08 14 -00 18 -02 38 24 09 01 -00 18 16 17 02 18 16 -12 -09 05 30 03 29 05 11 24 -07 24 08 08 -02 -05 -27 -02 34 -02 -08 -18 -01 -05 19 04 13 25 07 09 10 01 79 03 04 04 -04 10 00 02 01 127 82 83 I APPENDIX L FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR POSTTEST (100 SORTS) 128 APPENDIX L TABLE 13 FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR POSTTEST Camp Yankee Springs Staff Campers Factor I Factor II (100 SORTS) Not on Significant factor Total 7 10 1 8 1 8 9 26 Staff Campers 7 9 0 4 1 9 8 22 Alberta Staff Campers 7 4 1 2 0 11 8 17 Church Group 1 5 4 10 21 23 1 2 14 5 2 28 4 25 65 10 Headquarters Lake Totals Staff Campers Church Group 100 APPENDIX M VARIMAX ROTATION: POSTTEST APPENDIX M TABLE 14 VARIMAX ROTATION: POSTTEST* spondents I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 62 *0 58 65 57 79 81 67 19 7k 67 6k 57 16 34 54 23 47 19 36 19 40 62 40 II 27 32 60 42 46 21 04 09 57 35 39 31 31 34 67 65 36 70 47 56 34 74 62 10 21 XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII III IV V VI VII VIII IX 12 -11 -12 -10 13 15 07 06 03 36 -04 -04 07 15 27 -11 15 15 08 -07 18 05 07 34 -05 -04 13 22 -00 09 03 02 -00 21 15 19 -07 07 04 08 11 09 11 16 -04 11 17 07 02 01 13 16 19 -04 05 -04 24 11 -06 -10 08 10 -00 -06 26 11 12 07 -04 -33 -01 -05 06 11 15 22 16 20 06 -05 -14 -06 19 -04 -01 -17 -13 14 -13 01 19 07 02 10 25 08 -03 01 00 00 -22 08 -02 14 05 00 04 -02 19 -08 11 06 12 -08 01 11 23 00 00 06 20 16 -02 00 -07 -10 14 31 13 -01 -06 36 09 -04 02 03 04 04 21 -03 -02 -02 15 09 13 10 -03 -01 14 25 04 -02 03 -04 -00 -02 03 10 12 04 10 -10 12 17 40 -03 -08 05 09 00 28 07 -07 -07 04 34 16 -04 -01 -03 03 03 21 00 13 -04 04 14 05 02 06 -00 15 07 05 16 20 -03 04 32 00 -05 -04 14 18 -04 22 23 30 -01 08 09 17 16 11 01 04 10 09 -02 02 -10 -00 08 03 05 55 21 -06 -03 03 -14 06 08 -09 -06 02 19 -00 11 29 06 28 -02 06 05 -23 17 30 -02 13 -21 10 11 04 21 -11 14 -03 15 -15 -01 07 -09 -09 -03 08 -01 -10 18 13 09 -05 -07 27 -18 13 -12 08 14 01 08 07 05 00 16 17 09 -06 -06 -28 26 -10 -20 -09 16 10 24 01 -17 -03 16 38 -12 05 16 -01 13 -05 -02 10 -00 35 27 19 11 16 24 26 -01 -13 07 06 02 24 11 *A11 decimal points omitted 08 -06 19 10 10 -15 13 12 04 15 16 16 24 -01 -07 24 -01 04 -01 17 23 -01 19 02 07 08 -04 13 -13 17 12 -00 05 10 06 02 -01 00 00 04 -04 -10 03 25 -13 -02 10 04 33 X APPENDIX M (cont'd.) jondents 48 77 07 36 29 34 50 05 -18 69 55 78 80 74 73 54 62 65 47 68 23 31 71 28 37 II III 26 32 03 17 52 48 57 27 08 26 21 40 24 26 30 44 02 46 43 24 27 56 22 28 28 IV V 00 03 03 00 15 03 12 14 01 60 18 31 34 20 04 05 38 -07 27 13 12 08 03 76 11 08 08 28 -01 05 05 -03 -01 06 16 -09 00 -01 -03 05 14 06 00 08 08 10 01 15 50 13 19 07 13 02 21 20 07 23 21 19 28 32 10 04 08 36 13 -05 24 -02 30 10 17 27 06 VI VII VIII 02 01 04 17 17 10 14 05 00 -10 05 05 06 17 14 00 00 09 -06 08 -06 00 16 -04 -07 -05 -00 80 10 -14 23 -01 -01 -04 12 08 10 -06 22 -12 01 00 -04 05 -07 01 09 -07 14 -32 IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV 18 10 19 19 06 22 13 -11 00 05 04 04 -05 01 10 -02 13 19 28 -03 22 27 02 -07 -03 35 07 01 14 16 07 34 04 00 09 09 05 10 -07 07 -01 02 81 02 -01 09 14 03 -03 -02 05 11 -00 04 -01 10 19 -00 03 -01 01 06 05 -00 15 12 07 03 21 02 14 09 -13 11 11 -02 16 25 01 -06 02 10 -09 16 01 06 -08 -17 -22 20 24 35 -12 -04 31 30 04 03 03 14 38 38 -21 04 21 13 03 00 01 10 03 02 -11 14 18 32 33 15 11 -00 -01 -10 -13 19 28 20 19 03 16 01 -00 00 -16 13 -09 -01 28 14 -06 06 01 00 01 01 26 15 02 07 04 -12 -06 11 06 11 11 20 -07 -04 03 -00 -0 8 -00 -00 04 02 -02 -12 -03 12 14 10 25 02 06 -04 -34 05 01 02 10 16 01 02 -05 05 14 -00 17 03 07 -09 -05 07 13 18 -15 04 03 11 35 XVI XVII -10 07 -01 02 -03 03 00 15 04 13 13 11 -03 -02 01 21 08 11 -04 02 02 -01 -00 10 10 -02 02 02 23 -08 -03 08 02 -01 00 -01 00 14 -10 15 23 15 03 12 02 -01 -04 07 00 08 130 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 I APPENDIX M (cont’d.) Respondents 44 79 49 4) 10 11 64 74 53 55 64 63 32 27 41 59 63 82 66 75 37 48 59 49 39 II III IV V VI VII VIII IX 61 04 05 -06 07 -14 03 33 04 -01 08 02 22 31 26 -09 -00 16 49 15 21 -04 -08 08 16 12 10 -00 06 17 13 03 78 02 05 13 50 00 07 -00 13 05 25 22 17 13 -11 09 22 55 -07 -04 -24 02 11 19 07 22 -08 03 45 23 28 00 -08 -02 25 00 05 12 16 16 50 -03 07 25 -17 10 31 15 11 07 -09 07 60 04 -02 27 15 -10 02 33 01 -12 08 20 20 -00 25 17 16 02 20 04 01 01 11 -01 26 16 -08 -08 -22 -08 29 10 23 18 02 02 52 -11 -01 -12 34 02 16 16 00 -13 -06 02 42 03 21 11 05 07 48 11 15 11 03 -09 08 04 05 15 -06 02 -02 15 06 06 00 04 02 09 16 23 08 14 10 -06 10 27 24 -00 02 13 -12 10 00 11 67 10 -02 15 20 45 16 28 15 12 28 05 -01 04 19 -01 -06 04 19 -01 08 25 07 05 22 04 X 03 03 -24 -04 16 06 03 -06 -06 -06 08 -15 06 -08 -02 03 04 -05 -11 -05 02 01 -04 06 01 XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII 11 00 38 -10 02 02 04 04 11 -13 -10 04 21 18 -02 -00 09 11 27 15 27 -04 10 -04 -02 14 05 08 -25 10 -00 05 03 -00 00 -04 03 06 07 10 01 00 04 -06 09 05 21 00 04 -08 08 11 11 -30 11 -08 36 08 08 07 -14 11 12 05 18 -00 19 02 -01 08 02 -02 -00 12 01 08 01 11 11 04 08 06 48 16 17 10 -04 00 -18 12 31 13 -01 -07 -03 02 08 -06 16 04 -09 21 12 01 03 -05 14 03 23 10 -05 -03 06 -15 08 01 -02 -00 09 05 16 21 24 14 04 21 54 09 06 03 07 -01 09 -05 15 24 03 16 09 14 13 -03 -21 -07 04 19 05 -02 -05 08 -02 13 03 13 22 01 -03 -03 -05 -07 11 -09 02 -03 -03 -19 07 03 -10 02 -04 00 -29 -02 04 131 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 I APPENDIX M (cont'd.) Respondents I 76 77 78 79 80 IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 11 15 30 -02 -04 29 25 10 08 36 08 31 10 07 -02 -07 05 06 09 -17 06 23 15 72 02 02 06 09 03 -03 09 -01 08 38 2k 38 22 -01 31 02 -01 06 06 00 20 37 18 07 -23 20 00 05 08 08 06 35 -15 -02 06 18 15 22 22 14 19 02 38 17 14 24 09 10 40 09 -07 02 08 21 15 05 06 03 -07 09 18 -18 05 12 58 17 15 01 10 -19 09 06 11 31 03 59 19 06 16 08 -03 15 01 04 -01 -00 ko 09 05 -12 15 -01 38 18 -26 16 -17 11 10 06 -04 -00 54 -06 11 16 31 O k 20 05 06 10 15 14 15 08 -03 06 72 **9 11 02 08 -01 28 20 32 -17 08 -04 k3 13 15 13 07 11 22 06 12 10 31 46 10 10 30 09 21 09 19 17 -02 28 59 23 09 19 -03 09 11 04 02 00 24 kl 28 09 19 -10 08 28 -02 16 32 13 33 -04 25 02 15 15 05 57 -05 03 -03 53 06 07 24 17 -09 -00 21 09 00 06 09 03 05 05 82 06 -02 07 01 -02 07 55 25 09 26 27 -14 08 30 02 -04 15 11 20 -02 -00 -05 07 03 01 13 02 14 26 16 13 28 02 00 10 28 04 19 35 13 16 -05 18 -05 -02 06 17 03 -00 -00 XIII XIV XV 42 08 06 -01 00 -11 II -00 -11 03 15 00 01 13 20 05 08 07 26 08 00 09 -00 -02 03 17 -04 07 30 03 -04 15 01 10 16 25 12 02 02 -13 24 -05 03 02 45 01 01 -03 07 03 XVI XVII 06 24 -07 10 03 22 20 -04 08 -14 12 -07 -00 -01 -00 -00 11 -07 -02 13 -07 -00 06 14 01 -01 03 12 -04 -12 03 24 -21 05 02 21 12 11 -02 20 -04 -04 14 08 01 00 05 -03 07 65 01 -02 -04 03 -04 -10 45 -10 15 08 00 -04 -02 32 07 00 00 08 06 09 00 09 -01 16 00 132 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 13 7k 16 37 kk 51 35 68 46 ko 2k 30 21 **3 51 25 17 07 33 27 \k Ik 18 *9 18 II III APPENDIX N VARIMAX ROTATION: PRE AND POSTTESTS COMBINED 133 APPENDIX N TABLE 15 VARIMAX ROTATION: PRE AND POSTTESTS COMBINED* ndents I IX III IV 61 34 08 43 14 20 33 67 36 48 18 16 41 36 18 29 21 76 21 03 12 28 70 13 76 28 06 01 26 40 18 33 41 06 67 19 72 18 18 28 21 30 67 29 12 28 23 77 32 16 43 35 34 52 17 37 42 42 13 33 22 16 29 53 36 36 17 51 14 16 73 29 12 12 72 35 21 08 01 67 21 38 17 37 32 72 29 23 32 33 29 57 1 1 36 71 09 64 08 29 09 76 26 26 18 32 22 30 35 24 22 61 05 26 36 39 29 14 18 71 19 04 28 75 17 20 10 23 77 28 27 75 13 22 21 70 13 22 75 15 03 24 14 74 29 14 72 36 28 43 27 71 15 21 66 19 17 26 10 19 65 *A11 decimal points omitted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1*0 V VI VII VIII IX -04 10 61 56 -05 -00 -01 03 28 16 12 01 07 44 17 17 14 22 14 15 17 05 26 -15 16 -00 13 -00 00 14 13 -05 07 15 12 10 -01 -03 00 05 20 04 04 -01 02 05 01 11 05 -01 09 12 03 02 11 02 -00 -22 -01 12 -13 08 02 01 18 03 00 -04 02 -10 05 -06 02 15 14 02 18 11 03 06 12 -11 05 15 07 -04 01 07 24 08 44 -04 46 -10 03 09 22 13 12 08 02 03 01 -03 07 -00 13 -03 -03 -00 22 01 02 09 10 -07 16 01 -00 -00 13 -02 11 -09 21 -10 06 -01 03 15 08 07 48 -12 -16 -05 14 05 00 -04 05 -05 24 03 16 09 -02 09 04 -00 -04 -01 01 -06 -03 -05 06 43 34 -14 05 -00 n -03 09 03 03 45 06 17 13 05 14 -01 00 05 -08 09 04 01 -06 -01 -04 09 06 05 11 11 -00 32 33 02 09 -04 -23 04 -16 -17 00 -03 134 APPENDIX N Respondents 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 I 71 31 71 70 39 85 62 34 79 76 67 32 23 34 68 67 78 71 71 72 76 24 29 38 26 77 78 71 44 46 26 27 33 24 21 20 30 21 15 32 35 40 II 12 15 20 30 53 05 12 53 22 09 16 30 29 46 -03 20 25 12 10 08 17 79 75 30 35 12 25 14 35 61 36 43 34 44 27 13 52 62 63 31 45 36 (cont’d.) III IV 26 24 27 19 33 09 09 32 11 18 -04 13 44 21 17 32 26 -00 00 26 24 11 21 53 54 18 12 23 21 26 33 34 51 12 31 09 13 10 28 44 31 56 V VI 03 33 07 22 29 47 19 -07 15 11 15 19 21 16 -13 00 15 -07 38 06 10 02 30 05 18 17 07 24 16 -01 39 15 -05 52 06 07 06 10 39 -02 34 23 21 15 -14 18 -06 23 -08 16 19 33 -03 -05 18 30 -15 04 01 18 16 14 11 -04 09 -01 04 02 08 34 -02 -19 25 -03 -07 14 00 -12 17 -05 -13 12 11 07 58 11 13 -08 03 23 08 10 -07 20 18 -00 10 09 -25 12 40 01 64 -03 -23 06 74 07 02 55 29 41 02 39 02 21 13 01 47 07 34 08 13 04 11 25 VII VIII IX 22 04 14 03 05 -10 02 01 10 -15 08 -00 03 05 -02 17 01 07 12 12 02 -04 -02 09 00 20 24 03 -05 -15 -02 -00 04 06 08 -04 -20 -25 13 09 11 -03 05 -04 06 10 09 -18 17 19 -10 25 14 -05 05 -07 00 -11 10 -09 06 -27 16 13 06 03 22 17 06 -01 -00 -00 08 -02 12 17 -06 01 28 23 46 06 12 15 00 01 -13 -11 -05 -04 06 11 12 00 -02 02 -11 -00 08 -17 -14 -03 -02 08 -01 -00 -05 01 02 24 -01 18 20 03 01 14 19 07 02 03 05 15 -02 -18 -00 09 APPENDIX O FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR PRE AND POSTTESTS COMBINED 135 APPENDIX O TABLE 16 FACTOR DISTRIBUTION FOR PRE AND POSTTESTS COMBINED Type I Type II Type III Type IV Camp Distribution Yankee Springs Headquarters Lake Alberta Church Group Totals Types of People Campers Staff Church Group Totals 18(33.3%) 4(30.7%) 4(44.4%) 1(11.1%) 3(33.3%) 3(37.5%) 20(37.0%) 14(25.9%) 3(23.0%) 3(23.0%) 2(25.0%) 1(12.5%) 2( 3.7%) 54(64.2%) 3(23.0%) 13(15.4%) 1(11.1%) 9(10.7%) 2(25.0%) 8( 9.5%) 30(55.5%) 22(40.7%) 2( 3.7%) 54(64.2%) 8(61.5%) 2(15.3%) 3(23.0%) 13(15.4%) 8(88.8%) 0( 0.0%) 1(11.1%) 9(10.7%) 6(75.0%) 0( 0.0%) 2(25.0%) 8( 9.5%) APPENDIX P TEST DISTRIBUTION ON FACTORS 136 APPENDIX P TABLE 17 TEST DISTRIBUTION ON FACTORS Type I Pre and Posttests 38(70.3%) Pretest Posttest Totals 9(16.6%) 7(12.9%) 54(100.%) Type II Type III Type IV 4(30.7%) 1(11.1%) 0( 0.0%) 6(46.1%) 3(23.0%) 13(100.%) 8(88.8%) 0( 0.0%) 9(100.%) 0( 0.0%) 8(100.%) 8(100.%) APPENDIX Q STANDARD SCORES 137 APPENDIX Q TABLE 18 STANDARD SCORES (N=60) Score and Rankings on Factor Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I -0.01 0.63 -0.50 -0.79 -0.79 0.66 -0.96 -0.47 0.83 -1.23 -0.81 1.49 0.92 1.40 -1.61 -1.87 0.52 -1.63 1.80 -1.41 0.56 -0.59 0.83 0.75 -1.45 -0.93 0.89 0.56 -0.07 -1.50 II 32 23 37 41 42 22 47 36 16 53 43 4 11 5 58 60 26 59 1 55 24 39 15 19 56 46 12 25 33 57 -0.91 -0.46 -0.71 -0.14 0.13 1.19 -1.37 0.61 1.38 -0.74 0.80 1.57 1.45 1.27 -1.68 -1.45 0.74 -1.38 0.34 -1.63 -0.59 -0.80 1.04 0.27 -1.92 -0.03 1.11 0.42 -0.04 0.60 III 49 35 41 33 29 10 54 20 6 43 17 1 4 8 59 56 19 55 26 57 39 47 14 27 60 31 13 25 32 22 -0.73 0.35 -1.17 -0.46 -0.56 0.76 -1.87 0.75 1.64 -0.86 0.32 1.66 1.06 0.97 -1.36 -1.42 -0.41 -1.07 -0.15 -1.30 -0.57 0.57 1.04 1.88 -1.69 -1.46 1.48 0.43 0.09 -0.44 IV 45 22 52 39 40 15 60 16 5 48 23 4 11 14 54 55 37 50 35 53 41 18 12 2 59 57 7 21 27 38 -1.14 0.32 -0.96 -0.42 1.03 1.57 -1.92 -0.24 1.51 -1.72 0.33 1.17 0.94 0.77 -0.61 -1.24 0.52 -1.34 0.29 -1.98 0.34 0.27 0.99 -1.26 -1.94 -1.16 1.48 1.07 -0.36 -0.61 51 27 47 39 11 1 58 37 4 56 26 7 15 18 40 53 20 55 28 60 24 29 12 54 59 52 5 10 38 41 138 APPENDIX Q Statement 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 I 1.30 0.80 -0.11 0.16 0.24 0.50 0.85 0.84 -0.82 -1.16 0.80 -1.13 -1.20 1.02 -0.56 1.10 -0.84 0.68 0.66 -0.43 -1.08 1.36 0.37 0.95 0.51 -1.26 -0.69 1.58 1.49 -1.11 (cont'd.) Score and Rankings on Factor II III IV 7 18 34 31 30 28 13 14 44 51 17 50 52 9 38 8 45 20 21 35 48 6 29 10 27 54 40 2 3 49 1.26 -0.54 0.12 -1.16 -0.77 0.76 -0.79 0.60 0.14 -0.73 -0.47 -0.54 -1.21 1.48 -0.41 1.19 -0.83 1.11 0.48 0.85 -1.06 1.49 0.52 -1.11 -0.69 0.89 -1.66 1.44 1.29 -0.74 9 37 30 52 45 18 46 21 28 42 36 38 53 3 34 11 48 12 24 16 50 2 23 51 40 15 58 5 7 44 0.00 0.08 0.55 -0.14 -0.66 0.30 0.12 1.53 0.10 0.46 0.04 -0.71 -1.65 1.03 0.66 1.75 -1.44 0.03 1.10 -0.30 -0.06 1.92 -0.66 -1.14 -0.12 -0.95 -0.83 1.13 1.14 -0.73 31 28 19 34 42 24 25 6 26 20 29 44 58 13 17 3 56 30 10 36 32 1 43 51 33 49 47 9 8 46 -0.69 0.26 -0.09 -0.96 0.96 0.62 0.08 0.25 0.33 0.84 0.45 -1.74 -1.03 0.96 0.88 1.25 -0.76 1.08 1.55 -0.03 -0.90 1.55 -0.13 0.37 -0.62 0.18 -0.79 0.42 1.13 -1.10 43 30 35 48 14 19 33 31 25 17 21 57 49 13 16 6 44 9 2 34 46 3 36 23 42 32 45 22 8 50 APPENDIX R BIOGRAPHIC DATA 139 APPENDIX R TABLE 19 BIOGRAPHIC DATA Type I Type II Type III Type IV 21(38.8%) 33(61.1%) 6(46.1%) 7(53.8%) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 7(77.7%) 7(87.5%) 1(12.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 8(14.8%) 7(12.9%) 1 2 (2 2 .2 %) 5 { 9.2%) 22(40.7%) 1{ 7.6%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 5(38.4%) 2(15.3%) 3(23.0%) 2(15.3%) 0( G.0%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1(12.5%) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 5(62.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) Grade Completed 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B.S. M.S. 3 ( 5.5%) 10(18.5%) 11 (2 0 .3%) 8(14.8%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1 ( 1 .8 %) 1 1 (2 0 .3 %) 2( 3.7%) 7(12.9%) 1 ( 1 .8 %) 1( 7.6%) 3(23.0%) 5(38.4%) 2(15.3%) Ethnic Background White Black Spanish Sex Ma les Females Age 14 15 16 17 18 20-30 Grade Average A AB+ B BC+ C CNot applicable (staff) 5(55.5%) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 3(37.5%) 5(62.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 .0 %) 0 .0 %) 0 .0 %) 7.6%) 7.6%) 4(44.4%) 3(33.3%) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 51(94.4%) 2( 3.7%) 1 ( 1 .8 %) 12(92.3%) 1( 7.6%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 7(77.7%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 8 (1 0 0 .%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 4(12.5%) 10(31.2%) 7 (2 1 .8 %) 5(12.5%) 2 ( 6 .2 %) 3( 9.3%) 1( 3.1%) 1( 3.1%) 22 3(27.2%) 1( 9.0%) 1( 9.0%) 1( 9.0%) 2(18.1%) 1( 9.0%) 1( 9.0%) 1( 9.0%) 2 1 (1 1 .1 %) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 3(33.3%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 3(33.3%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 1(12.5%) 1(12.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1(12.5%) 3(37.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 2(25.0%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0( 0( 0( 1( 1( ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 { 0 .0 %) 140 APPENDIX R Type I Type II Type III Type IV 0( 0.0%) 1( 9.0%) 3(27.2%) 2(18.1%) 4(36.3%) 1{ 9.0%) 1(11.1%) 0( 0.0%) 3(33.3%) 2(22.2%) 2(22.2%) 1(11.1%) 0( 0.0%) 1(12.5%) 3(37.5%) 2(25.0%) 1(12.5%) 1(12.5%) 2 0 0 11(20.3%) 3(23.0%) 4 (44.4%) 6(75.0%) 2( 3.7%) 1( 7.6%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 14 (25.9%) 4(30.7%) 2(22.2%) 1(12.5%) 8 (14.8%) 2(15.3%) 1(11.1%) 1(12.5%) 2( 3.7%) 3( 5.5%) 5( 9.2%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 1( 7.6%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 8(14.8%) 1( 1.8%) 2(15.3%) 0( 0.0%) 1(11.1%) 1(11.1%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 6(11.1%) 6(11.1%) 2(15.3%) 2(15.3%) 0( 0.0%) 1(11.1%) 1(12.5%) 1(12.5%) 12(22.2%) 13(24.0%) 16(29.6%) 1( 1.8%) 0( 0.0%) 7(53.8%) 2(15.3%) 0( 0.0%) 5(55.5%) 3(33.3%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 4(50.0%) 2(25.0%) 0( 0.0%) 0( 0.0%) 8(14.8%) 4(30.7%) 1(11.1%) 0( 0.0%) 4 ( 7.4%) 20(37.0%) 1( 7.6%) 4(30.7%) 0( 0.0%) 6(66.6%) 0( 0.0%) 4(50.0%) Family Income Range 3 ( 9.3%) Below $5,000 $5,000-$10,000 4(12.5%) $10,000-$15,000 7(21.6%) $15,000-$20,000 8(25.0%) 6(18.7%) Over $20,000 D o n 't Know 4(12.5%) Not: applicable 22 (staff) Religious Orientation Catholic Liberal Catholic Fundamental Protestant Liberal Protestant Fundamental Eastern Religion Atheist Agnostic None of the above Blank Level of Church Activity Very Active Active Moderately Active Seldom Active Not Active Blank Size of Community Large Metro­ politan (Detroit) Other Metro­ politan areas Suburban (cont'd.) 141 APPENDIX R Size of Community (Continued) Small City or Town Rural (non­ farm) Farm Activities Partic­ ipated In FFA 4—H Club Work Boy Scouts Girl Scouts Campfire Girls Ecology or En­ vironments 1 Clubs Bird Clubs Photography Outdoor Sports Clubs (cont'd.) Type I Type II Type III Type IV 10(18.5%) 4(30.7%) 2(22.2%) 3(37.5%) 9(16.6%) 3( 5.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1(12.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 10(18.5%) 7(12.9%) 21(38.8%) 2( 3.7%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1( 7.6%) 3(23.0%) 5 (38.4%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 3(33.3%) 1 (1 1 .1%) 4(44.4%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1(12.5%) 3(37.5%) 0 ( 0 .0%) 0 ( 0 .0%) 16(29.6%) 3( 5.5%) 16(29.6%) 1( 7.6%) 1( 7.6%) 2(15.3%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 1 (1 2 .5 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 21(38.8%) 4(30.7%) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 4(50.0%) Camping Activities Participated In 25(46.2%) Family Camping Small Group Camping (Other 37(68.5%) Than Family) Individual 29(53.7%) Camping No Type of Camping Ex­ 7(12.9%) perience 5(38.4%) 5(55.5%) 6(75.0%) 11(84.6%) 7(77.7%) 2(25.0%) 7(53.8%) 2 (2 2 .2%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1< 7.6%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 2(25.0%) Types of Summer Camps Attended Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Campfire Girls, etc. 16(29.6%) Athletic 8 (14.8%) Church Related 16(29.6%) Educational (Music, Art, Drama, Science, etc.) 13(24.0%) 6(46.1%) 4(30.7%) 4(30.7%) 3(33.3%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 3(37.5%) 1(12.5%) 2(25.0%) 1( 7.6%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 0 ( 0 .0%) 142 APPENDIX R (cont'd.) Type I Type II Type III Type IV 6 (1 1 .1 %) 2(15.3%) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 15 (27.7%) 3(23.0%) 4(44.4%) 3(37.5%) 48 (88.8%) 47(87.0%) 15(27.7%) 18(33.3%) 11(84.6%) 12(92.3%) 5(38.4%) 8 (61.5%) 8(88.8%) 8(88.8%) 3(33.3%) 1(11.1%) 8(100.%) 7(87.5%) 2(25.0%) 4(50.0%) 14(25.9%) 5( 9.2%) 4(30.7%) 5 (38.4%) 1(11.1%) 2(22.2%) 4(50.0%) 3(37.5%) 5( 9.2%) 26(48.1%) 9(16.6%) 3(23.0%) 9 (69.2%) 4(30.7%) 0( 0.0%) 3(33.3%) 0( 0.0%) 2(25.0%) 7(87.5%) 5(62.5%) 15(27.7%) 33(61.1%) 30(55.5%) 46(85.1%) 24(44.4%) 6 (46.1%) 10(76.9%) 2(15.3%) 9(69.2%) 5(38.4%) 2(22.2%) 5(55.5%) 3(33.3%) 7(77.7%) 6(66.6%) 1(12.5%) 4(50.0%) 2(25.0%) 6(75.0%) 5(62.5%) 31(57.4%) 7 (12.9%) 41 (75.9%) 5(38.4%) 5(38.4%) 4(30.7%) 3(33.3%) 2(22.2%) 2(22.2%) 7(87.5%) 3(37.5%) 4(50.0%) 32 (59.2%) 10(76.9%) 8(88.8%) 6(75.0%) Courses Taken in School""Where A Unit on the Environment Was Included 7 (2 1 .8 %) 0 1 9(28.1%) 7 (2 1 .8 %) 2 3 4(12.5%) 4 3( 9.3%) 5 1( 3.1%) 6 0 ( 0 .0%) 7 1( 3.1%) 22 Not applicable (staff) 1< 9.0%) 2(18.1%) 4 (36.3%) 2(18.1%) 2 (18.1%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 2(25.0%) 3(37.5%) 1(12.5%) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 2(25.0%) 0 ( 0 .0%) 0 Types of Summer Camps Attended (Continued) Survival Type Camp None of the Above Outdoor Related Activities Canoeing Hiking Water Skiing Downhill Skiing Cross Country Skiing Snowmobiling Riding in Dune Buggies Fishing Hunting Mountain Climbing Backpacking Photography Swimming Ice Skating Running or Jogging Power Boating Animal Watching Sledding or Tobogga n i ng 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0%) 2 3(33.3%) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 1 (1 1 .1 %) 2 (2 2 .2 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 0 ( 0 .0 %) 1 (11.1%) 0 143 APPENDIX R (cont'd) Type I Environmental, Ecolo