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.