Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Reducing Use of Toxic Household Products Through Guided Group Discussion Carol M. Werner, Sari Byerly, & Carol Sansone University of Utah USA Paper presented at iaps2004, Vienna Environmental Behavior Change No Silver Bullet Holistic approach individual & supportive context social milieu (friends, society) political/economic system physical environment Supportive Context Political-economic system: Are there mechanisms to support the new behavior? (nontoxic alternatives; health department education program; HHW) Physical environment. Does the physical environment support the new behavior? (making it easy to use nontoxics and hard to use toxics) Individual Strong Attitudes Predict Behavior. Strength of attitude related to depth of processing and attitude accessibility. Social Milieu Perceived opinions of: Immediate Friends/Family Larger Social milieu TV, radio, print: advertising, commentary Social Processes: “False consensus” (believe others agree w/them) “Pluralistic ignorance” (disagree, but fear rejection) Hearing others endorse new behavior opens the individual to change. Creating positive social milieu: A route to individual attitude change Guided group discussions (Lewin) Not a lecture: Group members endorse new idea Group members discuss problems and solutions Leader guides discussion in support of nontoxics DV=attitudes & intended behaviors (11-pt scales, >6 is positive) Results: Community Groups Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting ALL ORGANIZERS (n = 46) PERSONAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSa Took things to HHW facility? Shared leftovers? Begin/continue sharing? Important to reduce use Plan to use nontoxicsb 33%35% 36% 6.6 9.7 8.4 MATCHED SAMPLE Organizer 35% 5.3 9.7 8.7 10%* n Control 20 12%* 3.6* 9.0* 7.2* 17 18 23 23 * matched groups differ at p < .05, 1-tailed dependent t-tests Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers with their matched controls; n’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls. a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” b Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives. Results: Community Groups Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting ALL ORGANIZERS (n = 46) ESTIMATES OF GROUP’S ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Group valued meeting 9.4 Group shared leftovers 24% Group begin/continue sharing? 5.7 MATCHED SAMPLE Organizers 9.2 Control Not asked n 23 27% No answers 22 6.0 4.2* 12 * matched groups differ at p < .05, 1-tailed dependent t-tests Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers with their matched controls; n’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls. a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” b Mean of three items: 1) likely to use more nontoxics around the home; 2) likely to use nontoxics to care for landscaping; and 3) satisfaction with nontoxic alternatives. Replication: High School Classes True experiment: Lecture vs. Guided Discussion Random assignment to treatment Is guided group discussion more effective than a lecture format? Mediation Analysis Relevant Discussion ? Attitude change WHY? WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES MIGHT BE ACTIVATED? INCREASED PROCESSING OF STRONG MESSAGE? MORE LEARNING? ACTIVE LEARNING? PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT? Strategy for showing “Why” Mediation analysis What psychological process occurred? Do perceptions that group agrees with message mediate attitude change? Three Steps to Mediation: 1. Does the treatment affect outcome? (is there an effect to be mediated?) 2. Does the treatment affect proposed mediator? (did the treatment activate the mediator?) 3. Is the treatment effect reduced or eliminated when the mediator is added to the analysis? Design: 2(lecture/guided group discussion) by 2(relevance: low/high) PREDICTORS Discussion vs. lecture Topic Relevance: How many products do you choose (vs. parents choose for you) 2 groups, “little choice” vs. “some/complete choice” Initial attitude: How favorable are you towards nontoxic alternatives? Single item, 7-pt. scale Preliminary results (22 classes, 300 students) DV Post-meeting Attitude towards Nontoxics: 6-item scale: effectiveness of nontoxics, importance of using nontoxics, likelihood of using a nontoxic, interest in learning more, no problem using nontoxics, concerns re: toxics and health; alpha = .76 PROPOSED MEDIATORS: “Perceived group endorsement” 5-item scale, similar to above, “what would your classmates say?”; alpha = .77. Cognitive Elaboration (positive-negative comments) “what were you thinking about during presentation?” (inter-rater r = .86). Step 1. Something to be mediated: Discussion increased attitude change, when topic relevant Initial attitude Discussion vs. lecture Topic relevance (.00) Discussion x relevance Class was not significant. F(5, 294) = 9.70, p < .001. *p < .05 +p < .10 Attitude towards nontoxics PREDICTED “ATTITUDE TOWARDS NONTOXICS” Non Relevant Relevant Lecture -.03 -.02 Discussion .02 .26 Step 2a. Potential Mediator “perceived endorsement” is activated by Treatment, especially when topic is relevant: After Discussion, students said “group endorsed nontoxics” Initial attitude Discussion vs. lecture Topic relevance (-.04) Discussion x relevance .17* Perceived group endorsement Predicting “perceived group endorsement” Class was not significant. F(5, 294) = 6.01, p < .001 *p < .05 +p < .10 Step 2b. Potential Mediator “elaboration” is not clearly activated by Treatment, even when relevant: Small differences for “positive minus negative” thoughts Initial attitude Discussion vs. lecture Topic relevance Discussion x relevance -.04 Predicting cognitive elaboration. Class was not significant. F(5, 294) = 1.70, p > .10 *p < .05 +p < .10 Cognitive elaboration Step 3. Adding mediators to predictors of attitudes. Discussion of relevant information leads to attitude change because students believe others endorse new information Initial attitude Discussion vs. lecture .08 Attitude towards nontoxics Topic relevance (.03) Discussion x relevance Perceived group endorsement Cognitive elaboration Coefficients (ßs) in red are from the final analysis. Class was not significant F(7, 292) = 17.14, p < .001. *p < .05 +p < .10 Step 3. “Mediation” and “Partial Mediation” (smaller ß’s) Discussion leads to attitude change because students believe others endorse new information Initial attitude Discussion vs. lecture (.13*) .08 Attitude towards nontoxics Topic relevance (.02) Discussion x relevance Perceived group endorsement Cognitive elaboration Coefficients (ßs) in red are from the final analysis, those in green are from Step 2, and those in parentheses are from Step 1. Class not sig. F(7, 292) = 17.14, p < .001. *p < .05 +p < .10 Discussion PGE Attitude Change PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT (PGE) MEDIATED ATTITUDE CHANGE WHEN TOPIC RELEVANT. Implications/Discussion Environmental behaviors are social behaviors. Attitude and behavior change require social support, e.g., Staats’ EPT program. Results suggest cognitive elaboration was activated equally for all groups.