reducing use of toxic household products through guided group discussion carol m. werner, sari...
TRANSCRIPT
Reducing Use of Toxic Reducing Use of Toxic Household Products Through Household Products Through
Guided Group DiscussionGuided Group Discussion
Carol M. Werner, Sari Byerly,Carol M. Werner, Sari Byerly,
& Carol Sansone& Carol Sansone
University of Utah USAUniversity of Utah USA
Paper presented at iaps2004, ViennaPaper presented at iaps2004, Vienna
Environmental Behavior Environmental Behavior ChangeChange
No Silver BulletNo Silver Bullet Holistic approachHolistic approach
individual & supportive contextindividual & supportive context
social milieu (friends, society)social milieu (friends, society)
political/economic system political/economic system
physical environment physical environment
Supportive ContextSupportive Context
Political-economic system: Are there Political-economic system: Are there mechanisms to support the new behavior? mechanisms to support the new behavior? (nontoxic alternatives; health department (nontoxic alternatives; health department education program; HHW)education program; HHW)
Physical environment. Does the physical Physical environment. Does the physical environment support the new behavior? environment support the new behavior? (making it easy to use nontoxics and hard (making it easy to use nontoxics and hard to use toxics)to use toxics)
IndividualIndividual
Strong Attitudes Predict Behavior.Strong Attitudes Predict Behavior.
Strength of attitude related to depth Strength of attitude related to depth of processing and attitude of processing and attitude accessibility.accessibility.
Social MilieuSocial Milieu PerceivedPerceived opinions of: opinions of:
Immediate Friends/FamilyImmediate Friends/Family
Larger Social milieu Larger Social milieu TV, radio, print: TV, radio, print:
advertising, commentary advertising, commentary Social Processes:Social Processes:““False consensus” (believe others agree w/them)False consensus” (believe others agree w/them)
““Pluralistic ignorance” (disagree, but fear rejection)Pluralistic ignorance” (disagree, but fear rejection)
Hearing others endorse new behavior opens the Hearing others endorse new behavior opens the individual to change.individual to change.
Creating positive social milieu: Creating positive social milieu: A route to individual attitude A route to individual attitude
changechange Guided group discussions (Lewin)Guided group discussions (Lewin) Not a lecture:Not a lecture:
Group members endorse new ideaGroup members endorse new idea Group members discuss problems and solutionsGroup members discuss problems and solutions Leader guides discussion in support of nontoxicsLeader guides discussion in support of nontoxics
DV=attitudes & intended behaviors (11-pt DV=attitudes & intended behaviors (11-pt scales, >6 is positive)scales, >6 is positive)
Results: Community GroupsResults: Community Groups Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the MeetingTable 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting
ALL ORGANIZERSALL ORGANIZERS MATCHED SAMPLE MATCHED SAMPLE ((nn = 46) = 46)
PERSONAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSPERSONAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSaa
OrganizerOrganizer Control Control n n Took things to HHW facility? Took things to HHW facility? 33%33%35% 10%*35% 10%* 2020 Shared leftovers? Shared leftovers? 36%36% 35% 12%*35% 12%* 1717 Begin/continue sharing? Begin/continue sharing? 6.66.6 5.3 3.6*5.3 3.6* 1818 Important to reduce use Important to reduce use 9.79.7 9.79.7 9.0* 9.0* 2323 Plan to use nontoxicsPlan to use nontoxicsbb 8.48.4 8.7 7.2*8.7 7.2* 2323
* matched groups differ at * matched groups differ at pp < .05, 1-tailed dependent < .05, 1-tailed dependent tt-tests-tests Column one shows responses of all 46 organizers (for comparison to the reduced sample). Columns two and three show the subgroup of organizers 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; with their matched controls; nn’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched ’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls.controls.
a a Percentages indicate percent of respondents saying “yes” to that item. Other items were rated on 1-11 scales, with ends labeled “Extremely 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.” Unlikely/Extremely Likely,” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.”
bb 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 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.nontoxic alternatives.
Results: Community GroupsResults: Community Groups Table 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the MeetingTable 1. Attitudes and Behaviors Since the Meeting
ALL ORGANIZERSALL ORGANIZERS MATCHED SAMPLE MATCHED SAMPLE ((nn = 46) = 46)
ESTIMATES OF GROUP’S ESTIMATES OF GROUP’S ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Organizers Control ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Organizers Control
nn Group valued meetingGroup valued meeting 9.4 9.4 9.2 9.2 Not asked Not asked
2323
Group shared leftovers 24%Group shared leftovers 24% 27% 27% No answers No answers 2222
Group begin/continue sharing? 5.7Group begin/continue sharing? 5.7 6.0 6.0 4.2* 4.2* 1212
* matched groups differ at * matched groups differ at pp < .05, 1-tailed dependent < .05, 1-tailed dependent tt-tests-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; 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;
nn’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls.’s for the subgroups are in parentheses; statistical tests compare the subgroup of 23 organizers with their matched controls. a 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,” 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.” “Extremely Unimportant/Extremely Important,” or “Extremely Unsatisfied/Extremely Satisfied.” bb 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. 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 ClassesReplication: High School Classes
True experiment:True experiment:Lecture vs. Guided DiscussionLecture vs. Guided Discussion
Random assignment to treatmentRandom assignment to treatment
Is guided group discussion more Is guided group discussion more effective than a lecture format?effective than a lecture format?
Mediation AnalysisMediation Analysis
RelevantRelevant AttitudeAttitude
DiscussionDiscussion changechange
WHY?WHY?
WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES MIGHT BE WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES MIGHT BE ACTIVATED?ACTIVATED?
INCREASED PROCESSING OF STRONG MESSAGE?INCREASED PROCESSING OF STRONG MESSAGE?
MORE LEARNING? ACTIVE LEARNING?MORE LEARNING? ACTIVE LEARNING?
PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT?PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT?
?
Strategy for showing “Why”Strategy for showing “Why”
Mediation analysisMediation analysis
What psychological process occurred?What psychological process occurred?
Do perceptions that group agrees with Do perceptions that group agrees with message mediate attitude change?message mediate attitude change?
Three Steps to Mediation:Three Steps to Mediation:
1. Does the treatment affect outcome? (is there 1. Does the treatment affect outcome? (is there an effect to be mediated?)an effect to be mediated?)
2. Does the treatment affect proposed 2. Does the treatment affect proposed mediator? (did the treatment activate the mediator? (did the treatment activate the mediator?)mediator?)
3. Is the treatment effect 3. Is the treatment effect reduced or reduced or eliminatedeliminated when the mediator is added to when the mediator is added to the analysis?the analysis?
Design: 2(lecture/guided group discussion) by Design: 2(lecture/guided group discussion) by 2(relevance: low/high) 2(relevance: low/high)
PREDICTORSPREDICTORSDiscussion vs. lectureDiscussion vs. lecture
Topic Relevance:Topic Relevance: How many products do you choose (vs. parents choose for How many products do you choose (vs. parents choose for
you)you)2 groups, “little choice” vs. “some/complete choice”2 groups, “little choice” vs. “some/complete choice”
Initial attitude:Initial attitude:How favorable are you towards nontoxic alternatives? How favorable are you towards nontoxic alternatives? Single item, 7-pt. scaleSingle item, 7-pt. scale
Preliminary results (22 classes, 300 students)Preliminary results (22 classes, 300 students)
DVDV Post-meeting Attitude towards Nontoxics:Post-meeting Attitude towards Nontoxics:6-item scale: effectiveness of nontoxics, importance of using 6-item scale: effectiveness of nontoxics, importance of using
nontoxics, likelihood of using a nontoxic, interest in nontoxics, likelihood of using a nontoxic, interest in learning more, no problem using nontoxics, concerns re: learning more, no problem using nontoxics, concerns re: toxics and health; alpha = .76toxics and health; alpha = .76
PROPOSED MEDIATORS:PROPOSED MEDIATORS:““Perceived group endorsement”Perceived group endorsement” 5-item scale, similar to above, “what would your classmates 5-item scale, similar to above, “what would your classmates
say?”; alpha = .77.say?”; alpha = .77.
Cognitive Elaboration (positive-negative Cognitive Elaboration (positive-negative comments)comments)
““what were you thinking about during presentation?” (inter-what were you thinking about during presentation?” (inter-raterrater r r = .86). = .86).
Initial attitude
Discussion vs. lecture
Attitude towards nontoxics.13*
.29*
Class was not significant. F(5, 294) = 9.70, p < .001. *p < .05 +p < .10
Step 1. Something to be mediated:Discussion increased attitude change, when topic relevant
Topic relevance (.00)
Discussion x relevance
.11*
PREDICTED “ATTITUDE PREDICTED “ATTITUDE TOWARDS NONTOXICS”TOWARDS NONTOXICS”
LectureLectureDiscussionDiscussion
Non RelevantNon Relevant -.03 -.03 .02.02
RelevantRelevant -.02 -.02 .26.26
Initial attitude
Discussion vs. lecture
Perceived groupendorsement
.11+
Predicting “perceived group endorsement”Class was not significant. F(5, 294) = 6.01, p < .001 *p < .05 +p < .10
.15*
Step 2a. Potential Mediator “perceived endorsement” is activated by Treatment,especially when topic is relevant:After Discussion, students said “group endorsed nontoxics”
Topic relevance (-.04)
Discussion x relevance
.17*
Initial attitude
Discussion vs. lecture
Cognitive elaboration
.11+
Predicting cognitive elaboration.Class was not significant. F(5, 294) = 1.70, p > .10 *p < .05 +p < .10
.05
Step 2b. Potential Mediator “elaboration” is not clearly activated by Treatment,even when relevant: Small differences for “positive minus negative” thoughts
Topic relevance
Discussion x relevance
-.04
Initial attitude
Discussion vs. lecture
Attitude towards nontoxics
Perceived groupendorsement
.08
.23*
33*
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. Adding mediators to predictors of attitudes.Discussion of relevant information leads to attitude changebecause students believe others endorse new information
Topic relevance(.03)
Discussion xrelevance
.06
Cognitiveelaboration
.18*
Initial attitude
Discussion vs. lecture
Attitude towards nontoxics
Perceived groupendorsement
.08
.23*
33*
.11+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
Step 3. “Mediation” and “Partial Mediation” (smaller ß’s)Discussion leads to attitude change because students believe others endorse new information
Topic relevance(.02)
Discussion xrelevance
.06
.17*
.15*
(.29*)
(.13*)
(.11*)
Cognitiveelaboration
.18*
DiscussionDiscussion Attitude Change Attitude Change
PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT PERCEIVED GROUP ENDORSEMENT (PGE)(PGE)
MEDIATED ATTITUDE CHANGE WHEN MEDIATED ATTITUDE CHANGE WHEN TOPIC RELEVANT. TOPIC RELEVANT.
PGE
Implications/DiscussionImplications/Discussion
Environmental behaviors are social Environmental behaviors are social behaviors.behaviors.
Attitude and behavior change require Attitude and behavior change require social support, e.g., Staats’ EPT social support, e.g., Staats’ EPT program.program.
Results suggest cognitive elaboration Results suggest cognitive elaboration was activated equally for all groups.was activated equally for all groups.