RISK COMMUNICATION, RECYCLING AND YOUNG PEOPLE
FINAL REPORT
June 1993
Prepared by: i
David R. Holtgrave, PhD
University of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center
Department of Family Medicine
Barbara J. Tinsley, PhD
University of California - Riverside
Psychology Department
This material has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement CR-817465-
01-0 to the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. It has
been subject to the Agency's review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 2
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the following individuals for their helpful support
and/or suggestions during the course of this project: Drs. Ann Fisher,
Bob Volk, Frank Lawler, Jim Shanteau, Alan Wehmeyer, Derry Allen,
Alison Taylor, Paul Slovic, Ms. Lynn Luderer and Mr. Jim Cole. We
greatly appreciate the research assistance of numerous individuals,
especially Mr. Richard Tutt, Ms. Leah Danley and Mr. Mark Determan.
Additionally, we thank the EPA for- the financial support that made
this research possible.
Finally, we very gratefully acknowledge the schools and school
districts that participated so generously in this |research effort:
i
0 McLoud School District, McLoud, Oklahoma
0 Edmond School District, Edmond, Oklahoma ;
0 St. Francis School, Riverside, California area
0 St. Catherine School, Riverside, California area
0 Terrace Elementary School, Riverside, California area
0 Loma Vista Intermediate School, Riverside, California area
0 Foothill Elementary School, Riverside, California area
0 Alvord Unified School District, Riverside, California area
0 Rubidoux Unified School District, Riverside, California area
Authors' Current Mailing Addresses and Phone Numbers
David R. Holtgrave, PhD
1401 Briarhill Lane NE
Atlanta, GA 30324
Ph: 404-639-0908
Barbara J. Tinsley
Psychology Department
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Ph: 909-787-3889
-------
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 3
Table of Contents
Chapter paqe
Executive Summary 4
1. Background and Overview of Research Program i 10
2. Phase l Detailed Methods and Results: i
How Do Young People Make Choices About Recycling? 13
3. Phase' 2 Detailed Methods and Results:
What Recycling Educational Efforts are Underway? 24
4. Phase 3 Detailed Methods and Results '
Does Recycling Education Have a Positive Impact? 27
5. Overall Discussion and Conclusions ! 34
Appendix
A. A Stages of Behavior Change Approach to
Recycling Education 37
i
i
B. References and Related Readings 43
I
C. Curriculum Material Sources (References) and
Additional Educational Material Located . *
D. Survey Instruments *
E. Curriculum ' *
* denotes materials available upon request from authors or Project
Officer (see page 2)
-------
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 4
Executive Summary
Overview
A major emphasis in pollution control and prevention is on the
recycling of paper, glass, metal and plastic products. While school
children and adolescents have limited control over ssome sources of
environmental pollution, they can play a major role in recycling
efforts. They can assist their families in recycling, they can learn
to recycle consumer goods purchased out of their own disposable
income, and they can learn to purchase recyclable goods. Further, it
seems likely that young people who learn to recycle are relatively
more likely to become adults who recycle. They even might (as
children) influence the adults around them to adopt recycling
behaviors.
No systematic program of research has been focused on determining the
best way to educate children and adolescents about recycling. There
are some efforts by industry, government, schools arid other community
members to teach young people about recycling, but these efforts
apparently have not undergone formal program evaluation. Our research
has been a first step in establishing this type of research. The
primary objectives of our research were threefold:
(1) to understand the developmental psychological processes by which
children and adolescents think about recycling and recyclable goods,
(2) to use this understanding to critique available recycling
educational materials geared toward children and adolescents, and
(3) to conduct a formal program evaluation on the field use of the
most promising of these educational materials.
i
Objective 1 j
.
The first objective was accomplished by surveying over 1200 students
in the Oklahoma City, OK, and Riverside, CA areas,. Students were from
the 5th, 6th, 10th and llth grades. These survey data enabled- us to
describe in detail the factors used by young people in making
decisions about recycling, and to compile a profile of the young
recycler (Chapter 2). Additionally, the survey data yielded useful
insights which allowed us to suggest desirable properties of recycling
education campaigns. These suggestions are as follows.
Any successful recycling education campaign must get students'
attention, address factors that they consider important, and come from
a source they wish to hear. Students will not be motivated to recycle
if these criteria are not met. The survey data tell us that students
are very likely to listen to what "environmental groups," and to a
limited extent what teachers, have to say about recycling. Therefore,
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 5
Students are very concerned about what pollution is doing to wildlife
Recycling information that uses "pollution's harm to animals" as a
motivating factor seem promising. Successful recycling educational
materials must also address the following dimensions that students
?I!L1In§0f f in t?eir decision making: the benefits of recycling in
*?n* L^^^i resource utilization (including land utilization
around dumps) , (b) human health and (c) ecology.
Stepwise Degression analyses helped identify factors that
differentiate "young recyclers" from their peers. Numerous factors
were statistically significant predictors of self-reported recycling
behavior (Chapter 2) . However, the predictor variables that explain
the most variance in self-reported recycling behavior are as follows:
(1) city,
(2) grade,
(3) perceived importance of habit in making decisions about recycling
(4) perceived sense of personal control (i.e., internal "locus of
control") over pollution, and
(5) having friends (and significant others) who recycle.
These factors suggest other characteristics of successful recycling
educational programs: ^~
a. Habit seems to play a major role in recycling behavior;
recycling educational campaigns must show students how
they _ can make recycling a part of their everyday life. This
implies local -custom-tailor ing of programs.
b. Students must be shown that they themselves can do something
about pollution (i.e., their internal "locus of control" over
pollution must be fostered) .
c. Since having friends, family and/or neighbors who recycle is
an important predictor, programs that encourage group
recycling activity OR that encourage students to teach their
peers, family or neighbors about recycling are to be
favored.
The data from this study also indicate that there is more self-
reported recycling in Riverside than in the Oklahoma City area, and
younger children are more likely to report recycling behavior. Race
and gender mattered little. This suggests that it is especially
important to customize recycling materials for different age groups in
j
Data were also collected on the students' most preferred educational
medium -- books, videos, field trips or discussions. Although the
mean rating for all media was favorable (i.e., that studentswouM
like to use the medium to learn more about recycling) , the rank order
of _ the media is as follows (from most to least favorable)- field
trips, class discussions, videos and books. This ordering was '
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 6
consistent across cities and grades with only one exception
Riverside elementary school students prefer videos; to class
discussions. Given that field trips are difficult for schools to
arrange, and given that class discussions are a close runner-up in
terms_of student preference, discussion oriented programs seem
especially promising. Videos might be considered, but books are not
the communication channel of choice (unless they support class
discussion programs). In all grades and cities, mean ratings
indicated that students wanted to learn more about pollution and
recycling, but that the notion of 'staying after school or coming in on
weekends to do so is disagreeable.
Obi ective 2
' " i
The second phase of the research program focused on locating the
recycling educational materials already available. Our search for
materials included three major types of effort: (a) contacting all
relevant EPA offices, (b) surveying a national sample of 300 US
schools, and (c) contacting the professional organization for each
industry that manufactures commonly recycled materials. This search
yielded many materials. Nearly every industrial organization
contacted was able to provide some extant recycling education
materials.
Of the 300 schools contacted, 118 responded. This seems like a low
response rate, especially since we sent a prompting letter a few days
after the initial mailing. However, there may be response bias;
schools that did not respond probably are less likely to be engaging
in recycling education.
Of the 118 schools responding,
(1) 109 reported some form of recycling education,
(2) 63 report some form of education or activities to teach students
to make consumer choices which include consideration of environment-
related aspects of products,
(3) 48 indicate that these activities incorporate the families of
students,
(4) 53 state that the activities are purely educational (others
involve some element of fundraising), and
(5) 22 could provide written copy of their education materials.
Although the response rate was low, it does seem justified to say that
recycling is not a universally taught, purely educational topic in
schools.
!
After pulling together the extant materials, we reviewed them in light
of the survey data gathered in phase 1. The most promising materials
were put into a hybrid curriculum for school-based recycling
education. One version of the curriculum was intended for 5th and 6th
graders, another version for 10th and llth graders,, Both the grade- '
and high-school versions of the curricula involve five classroom
sessions each of about one hour in length. The major learning
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 7
objectives for each of the five sessions are given below. Note the
congruence between these major objectives and the major empirical,
phase 1 findings described above regarding students' recycling habits.
perceived locus of control over pollution, importance of having
friends that recycle, and concern about wildlife, natural resources
and the environment. For 5th and 6th grade students, the following
major learning objectives were involved (listed for each of the five
learning sessions):
(1) to enable students to identify solid waste concepts and problems,
and to start problem solving^about potential solutions.
(2) to enable students to identify (a) ways in which our waste
endangers wildlife and domestic animals, (b) ways to reduce these
harmful effects, and (c) nature's cycles which resemble recycling.
(3) to enable students to investigate and identify (a) the components
of "trash," (b) what resources are consumed in making trash, and (c)
ways to avoid making trash in the first place.
(4) to enable students to identify ways in which they, their families
and their friends actually can help solve certain environmental
problems by recycling, precycling and composting.
(5) to enable students to identify ways that they will actually be
able to incorporate into their lives changes which will help to solve
solid waste problems.
The major learning objectives for the 10th and llth grade version of
the curricula are similar to those listed above. However, changes
were made to reflect those students7 (a) higher reading level, (b)
ability to cover more material in a set period of time, (c) ability to
grasp more technical scientific information, and (d) developmental
status (e.g., the videos used were matched to the student audience's
age group). .
Objective 3
A formal field evaluation of the curriculum was conducted in the
Riverside, CA area. One hundred six students participated in all
components of a pre-/post-intervention evaluation study (Chapter 4).
Five hours of class time were devoted to the teaching of the recycling
educational material described above. The day before Day 1 of the
instruction, and the day after Day 5 of the instruction students
filled out a survey.
The pre- and post-intervention survey instrument contained four sets
of questions:
(1) demographic information (3 questions),
(2) measures related to recycling attitudes, beliefs and behaviors
(86 questions),
(3) decision making factors related to recycling (40 questions), and
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 8
>
(4) consumer product preferences (37,questions). \
We assessed demographic variables because such factors were found to
be important in phase 1 research. Question sets 2 and 4 were assessed
because the material contained in the curriculum should directly
impact recycling attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, as well as consumer
preferences. The decision making factors found to be informative
in phase 1 research were not directly addressed in the curriculum
and hypothesized not to change as a function of exposure to our
curriculum (Chapter 4).
The data, f-rom this evaluation-study suggest that the recycling
education intervention did have a positive impact on attitudes,
beliefs and behaviors related to recycling. The positive impact also
was seen on numerous product preference measures. As could be
expected, the recycling education intervention had little impact on
the decision making variables. The pre-/post-test difference scores
had some association with gender and grade, but these associations
occurred for only a few variables and did not indicate any systematic
trends. Therefore, we conclude that the education intervention
affected the student group nearly equally across grades and genders.
This is true even though there are some differences in the grade-
school and high-school versions of the curriculum,, Based on this
evidence, it appears that the hybrid curriculum developed under this
cooperative agreement is promising for helping stxadents to choose to
become young recyclers and be aware of environmental issues when
buying products. (Chapter 4 has further details about the evaluation
study, its limitations and needed further evaluative research.)
Overall Conclusions arid" Recommendations
The research funded by this cooperative agreement provides an
empirically based profile of "the young recycler,111 information about
the types and extent of recycling education in the United States, and
a hybrid recycling education curriculum supported by an empirical
field evaluation. Chapter 5 contains further details on practical
implications and related suggestions derived from this research.
First, the results from our phase 1 survey of over 1200 students
provide concrete suggestions about how to construct effective
recycling education programs. Educational (and all risk
communication) messages must be tailored to the needs of the target
population.
Second, to assist in tailoring recycling educational messages, we have
constructed Appendix A. This Appendix describes the state of the art
in the application of health behavior change models and theories to
the customization of health and risk communication messages.
Third, our search for extant recycling education materials showed that
many industrial organizations produce such material. We suggest that
government (especially the EPA) consider forging an educational
partnership with these industrial organizations. This partnership
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 9
would promote the sharing of recycling educational materials, and
sharing of information about any evaluations of such materials. This
would help to eliminate (a) reinvention of materials and (b)
distribution of educational materials that are not effective.
Fourth, bur national survey of schools indicates that there is much
the EPA and others could do to foster recycling education in schools.
Even given the possible response bias in our survey, it appears that
many schools are still not providing recycling education. Of the 109
respondent schools providing such 'instruction, just over one-half are
using the educational experience as a fund raising opportunity (or,
perhaps, using the fund raising opportunity as an educational
experience). Given the financially strapped condition of many local
schools, it may be wise to develop diverse creative strategies for
combining recycling education with fund raising possibilities. The
notion of combining sound recycling education with the possibility of
raising funds might be appealing to schools in need of further
financial resources. These strategies could be disseminated through
the teacher training programs operated by the EPA's Office of
Environmental Education.
Fifth, the results indicate that environmental education can influence
attitudes toward consumer products. The EPA's Office of Environmental
Education and others may wish to foster further development of
exercises through which students can learn to evaluate the
environmental soundness of various consumer products.
Sixth, it should be recognized that the formal evaluation of recycling
education materials is just beginning. Further formative, process,
outcome and economic evaluative efforts in this area are urgently
needed.
Seventh, it is important to consider how to use school-based programs
to complement other types of recycling education programs. For
instance, some worksites have recycling programs. Adult employees may
bring home some of this knowledge about recycling to teach their
children. Some communities are implementing curb-side recycling
programs. In order to convince adult citizens to participate in the
programs, some recycling educational effort is expended. If the EPA
(and others) could help communities integrate the local worksite,
school-based and community-based recycling informational messages,
these message sources might reinforce one another.
These are but a few of. the ways in which the results of the research
program described here can be put to practical benefit in the current
efforts to reduce and prevent pollution. Chapters 4 and 5 provide
other details about implications and needed research (e.g., specific
suggestions for further evaluative research, and a call for teachers'
formal appraisals of the hybrid curriculum developed here).
The various phases of this research project have helped to establish
the foundation of a scientific basis for developing recycling
educational materials. Implementation of an effective, efficient and
widespread recycling educational program for children and adolescents
would help to prevent the polluting of our environment.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 10
.
CHAPTER 1: ;
Background and Overview of Research Program
Background
A major emphasis in pollution control and prevention is on the
recycling of paper, glass, metal and plastic products (Fuerst, 1988).
While school children and adolescents have limited control over some
sources of environmental pollution, they can play a major role in
recycling. They can assist their families in recycling, they can
learn to recycle consumer goods purchased out of their own disposable
income, and they can learn to purchase recyclable goods. Further, it
seems likely that young people who learn to recycle are relatively
more likely to become adults who recycle. They even might (as
children) influence the adults around them to adopt recycling
behavior.
No systematic program of research has focused on determining the best
way to educate children and adolescents about recycling. This is true
even though (a) the amount of work in the field of risk communication
is large and rapidly increasing (witness, for example, recent issues
°f Risk Analysis. Environmental Science and Technology, and the
Journal of Communication), and (b) there is increasing research on
recycling behavior (see Appendix B, "Related Readings on Recycling
Behavior"). There are some efforts by industry, government, schools
and other community members to teach young people about recycling, but
these have not undergone formal program evaluation. Our research
program constituted a first step in establishing this; much needed type
of research. Specifically, the primary objectives of the research
program were threefold:
(1) to gain understanding into the developmental psychological
processes by which children and adolescents think about recycling and
recyclable goods,
(2) to use this gained understanding to critique available recycling
educational materials geared toward children and adolescents, and
(3) to conduct a formal program evaluation on the field use of the
most promising of these educational materials. '
Overview of Research Program
i
In order to accomplish these objectives, we conducted a three phase
research project one phase for each objective. Phase 1 utilized
survey research methods to study how young people think about
recycling. The second phase included a compilation and review of
recycling education programs aimed at children and adolescents. The
final phase consisted of a formal program evaluation of the recycling
education campaign deemed most promising by the phase 2 evaluation.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 11
This research program has yielded a developmental model of the
psychological processes by which children and adolescents think about
recycling and recyclable goods. Two different age groups were studied
so that we could assess whether differences in cognitive developmental
status necessitated the construction of two different cognitive
models. Two different sites were studied so that we could assess
whether differences in geographic location necessitated separate
cognitive models. Specifically, data was successfully gathered which
addressed the following research issues:
(1) the extent to which young people are concerned about pollution and
the developmental patterns that exist in children's pollution
concerns,
(2) the degree to which school children and adolescents believe that
recycling efforts will actually reduce pollution,
(3) whether young people have a sense of personal control (i.e.,
internal locus of control) over recycling efforts and pollution
reduction, and how this changes developmentally,
(4) young people's level of knowledge about the effects of non-
recyclable garbage on the earth,
(5) the family dynamics of recycling efforts and the children's roles
therein,
(6) whether young people have an optimistic bias regarding the harmful
effects of their non-recyclable garbage,
(7) the attitudes of school children and high-schoolers toward various
modes of communication about recycling programs, and
(8) the impact of cognitive, moral and locus-of-control developmental
stages on attitudes towards recycling.
The first five of these research issues are important according to the
Health Decisions Model (Eraker, et al., 1984) an update of the
famous Health Beliefs Model (Becker, 1976) which is often used as a
rough approximation of health-related decision making behavior. This
model posits that the adoption of a healthy behavior to avoid a
particular disease is determined (in part) by the factors of perceived
susceptibility to the disease, perceived disease severity,
effectiveness and costs of the behavior to avoid the disease, and cues
that prompt the disease-avoiding behavior. The sixth research issue
listed above should be important if the optimistic biases found by
Weinstein (1987) in adults' thinking about environmental health issues
can be extrapolated to children and adolescents. The seventh issue
needs to be addressed if we are to get any a priori indication of what
communication vehicles might be especially appropriate for young
people. The last issue, as well as aspects, of issues 1 and 3, need to
be addressed according to very basic principles of developmental
psychology (Brown, et al., 1983; Shantz, 1983; Cohen, et al., 1990).
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 12
I
Answers to the research questions raised by this list have allowed for
the informed construction of a recycling education campaign for
children and adolescents. A number of different types of recycling
educational campaigns already exist from informal campaigns such as
informative placemats at McDonald's restaurants to formal classroom
study of pollution. Therefore, the empirical data collected here were
used to guide the critical evaluation of extant programs (or hybrids
of extant programs), but not the creation of a totally new educational
campaign. By gathering all (or at least many) of the extant programs,
we are able to provide a compreherisive program lissting. Further we
are able to provide information about which types of programs are
likely (given our data) to be most effective. This evaluation
research should prove useful to school teachers arid community leaders
interested in educating their local young people on recycling.
Lastly, we conducted a formal field evaluation of one hybrid
educational campaign. This provides an important set of data on the
impact one educational campaign is likely to have on the behavior of
children and adolescents.
The various phases of the research project have helped to establish
the foundation of a scientific basis for developing recycling
educational materials. Implementation of an effective, efficient and
widespread recycling educational program for children and adolescents
would help to prevent the polluting of our environment.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 13
CHAPTER 2:
Phase 1 Detailed Methodology and Results
How Do Young People Make Choices About Recycling?
Objective
As stated above, the purpose of this phase of the research was to gain
an_understanding of the developmental psychological processes by which
children and adolescents think about recycling and recyclable goods.
Retailed Methodology
Phase 1 subjects were recruited from grade schools and high schools in
each of two cities: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Riverside, California.
Using two geographically and demographically diverse cities makes
generalization of results to the country as a whole more tenable ,
(provided that statistical tests confirm a lack of differences between
the two cities).
Within each city, attempts were made to enroll at least 100 students
from each of the following grade levels: fifth-, sixth-, tenth- and
eleventh-grade. In the metropolitan Oklahoma City area, these
recruitment goals were met and substantially exceeded (see Table 1).
In this metropolitan area, two school districts participated. One is
located in a rural area within an hour's drive from Oklahoma City.
The other is located in a suburban area just outside of Oklahoma City.
Subjects in these districts were surveyed in December 1990 and January
1991. The University of California at Riverside in conjunction with
the California Educational Research Cooperative supported subject
recruitment in that city. Recruitment goals essentially were met in
all but one grade level in that city (see Table 1). Several schools
in various parts of that metropolitan area participated.
Within each school and grade, classrooms of students were enrolled
depending on the willingness of individual principals and teachers to
participate. Parental permission for study participation was then
obtained for these subjects. In Oklahoma, the University Health
Sciences Center's Institutional Review Board approved one high school
principal's request to inform parents of the research but not require
active consent (given the innocuous nature of the research). Students
were not paid for their participation.
A survey was used to collect the data. In some schools, all recruited
subjects were called to the school cafeteria for a 2 hour testing
session (including breaks). In a few cases, teachers indicated a
desire to perform the study in the classroom. A Co-Principal
Investigator was responsible for each session and was aided by
research assistants. As was expected, some students were absent on
the day of survey administration.
A copy of each survey instrument used in this research is available
from the authors or the Project Officer upon special request. These
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 14
instruments are not routinely distributed because we obtained
permission to use some scales which are the property of other authors.
Hypotheses
.
The questions on the survey forms addressed all ressearch issues
described in Chapter 1. Given that the young peoples' general
decision making styles might well be related to their specific
decision making about recycling, we also administered Mann's
Adolescent Decision Making Questionnaire (ADMQ) [Mann, et al, 1989] to
all students. The ADMQ has five subscales: (a) student confidence in
'self-made --decisions, (b). level of care and completeness in information
gathering and decision making, (c) tendency to impulsive decision
making, (d) tendencies to put off decisions or leave them to others,
and (e) tendency to be apathetic about decisions. We hypothesized
that subjects scoring high on items from subscales a and b, and low on
items from subscales c, d and e would be more likely to report
recycling activities (or positive attitudes toward recycling) than
subjects showing the opposite pattern.
More specifically, we measured the following variables which directly
address recycling-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviors:
(1) extent of concern about pollution,
(2) perceived efficacy of recycling with regard to pollution
reduction and prevention,
(3) knowledge about the positive effects of recycling on the
environment,
(4) self-report of personal recycling activities,
(5) self-report of family's recycling activities, and
(6) attitudes toward various recycling information communication
channels. - f
|
We also measured the following variables which could be hypothesized
to be correlated with recycling behavior (see research questions
listed in Chapter 1):
(1) self-esteem,
(2) health locus of control [i.e., perceived sense, of control
over health status],
(3) locus of control over pollution,
(4) optimistic biases in health matters,
(5) optimistic biases about the effects of personal pollution,
(6) family dynamics of recycling efforts,
(7) risk attitudes, ,
(8) decision making style,
(9) demographic variables, and
(10) importance ratings of the influence mother, father, friends,
teachers, the media, etc. have on the decision of whether or
not to engage in recycling behaviors.
The goal was to develop an empirically-supported profile of the young
recycler. Based on some pilot research (not described here) and the
health psychology models cited in Chapter 1, we hypothesized that the
following characteristics would identify the prototypical young person
who is most likely to recycle:
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 15
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) often, consciously considers issues related to pollution,
(2) believes recycling to be effective in reducing pollution, reducing
garbage, saving natural resources, and/or saving energy,
has an intermediate level of optimistic bias regarding the effects
of their own garbage on the environment,
knows basic facts about recycling,
finds the barriers to recycling (such as cost, time and
"messiness") to be surmountable,
possesses at least one major rtole model who endorses recycling,
has a teacher who supports or has discussed recycling,
belongs to a family supportive of recycling,
indicates a willingness to precycle (consider environmental
factors when making consumer purchases) and to pay extra for
recyclable goods,
(10) has a high internal locus of control over pollution
(11) has high self-esteem,
(12) perceives self to be outspoken and a "gambler" but not a rule
breaker,
(13) carefully thinks about decisions,
(14) is confident in own decisions,
(15) has a long time horizon,
(16) is beyond the "rule-following" stage in terms of moral
development,
(17) has carefully thought of the pros and cons of recycling,
(18) has a high level of concern over health matters,
(19) has a high level of concern over injury,
(20) has a high level of concern over the environment, and
(21) believes recycling to be a morally correct thing to do.
Analyses and Results
The primary analyses and results presented here are those necessary, to
(a) test the substantive hypotheses described above, and (b) develop a
list of recommendations for properties needed in recycling educational
materials. Other secondary analysis and analytic approaches are
possible, of course, but will not be described in this report. Even
so, the analyses presented in this section are highly detailed, and
for this reason a summary section on the most important findings
follows this detailed one.
Demographic information collected on the sample is as follows:
(table begins on next page)
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 16
Table 1. Demographic Information
Total sample size: 1,278 :
Geographic characteristics:
Oklahoma City Area 731
Riverside, CA Area 543
Gender:
Male 582
Female 685 .
!
School Grade:
In Okla. City In Riverside
5th 154 149
6th 149 ' 259
10th 200 94
llth 213 38
Race/Ethnicity:
In Okla. City In Riverside
Native American 32 4
Asian 5 34
Black 16 27
Hispanic 22 139
White 600 ; 304
Other 31 30
Several points about Table 1 are worth noting. First, for each
category (e.g., race), the total number of subjects may not equal the
overall total of 1,278. This is because students could decline to
answer any question on the survey. Second, the proportion of male to
female students is not significantly different between the two cities
(X2 = 0.39, p=.54). Third, there is a significant interaction between
city and race (X2 = 209.25, p<.001), and between city and grade (X2 =
168.62, p<.001). These two interactions reflect the facts that there
is a large Hispanic population in Riverside, and that the Riverside
sample is underrepresented in llth graders.
Next, bivariate analyses were done to see whether there was a
relationship between a number of predictor variables and self-reported
recycling behavior. For each of these bivariate etnalyses, we used as
our indicator of self-reported recycling behavior an item which read:
"How often do you put trash in a recycling bin rather than a garbage
can? Mark one: a lot (code=l), pretty often (code=2), sometimes
(code=3) , once in awhile (code=4), or never (code==5)." Overall, 12%
of the students responded "a lot", 20% "pretty often", 25%
"sometimes", 24% "once in awhile", and 19% "never." Below, we report
on the results of a number of hypothesis tests all of which employed
the commonly used Type I error rate of .05 (i.e., five times out of
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 17
100, a null hypothesis of "no relationship" or "no difference" between
two variables would be rejected by chance alone).
1. The study sites differ in terms of recycling behavior (X2 = 76.79,
p<.001). (There is more recycling reported in Riverside.)
2. There is no difference in recycling behavior between boys and
girls (X2 - 5.85, p=.21).
3. There is a difference in recycling behavior across grades (X =
99.02, p<.001). (Older children report less recycling behavior; this
is true.in-both cities.)
4. After controlling for study site, there is no interaction between
race and recycling behavior (X2 = 19.86, p=.47 in Oklahoma City; X =
25.24, p=.19 in Riverside).
5. Analyzing the data across cities and grades, significant Spearman
(rank order) correlation coefficients were found between self-reported
recycling behavior and the following psychosocial variables measured
in Section la (questions 1-62) of the survey:
a. concern over environmental problems
b. living in a neighborhood where people try to recycle
c. belief that one's family produces relatively little garbage
d. belief that recycling is effective in tackling environmental
problems
e. belief that recycling is good for human health and animal
welfare
f. belief that recycling is a good way to save money
g. belief that recycling is important for one's future
h. knowledge that-recycled plastic can be used to make park
benches and toys (other recycling knowledge items were not
significant at the .05 level)
i. belief that recycled paper and glass is clean and alright to
touch and use
j. eagerness to learn more about pollution and recycling
k. belief that recycling is a family activity (but that parents
are not the only ones who should decide that a family
recycles); includes belief that children can help a family
recycle
1. increased level of familial discussion about pollution and
recycling
m. concern over whether consumer product packaging can be
recycled
n. belief that people have a duty to recycle
o. belief that friends approve of recycling
p. has thought carefully about the decision of whether or not
to recycle
q. perceives recycling to be something that everyone (including
the student him/herself would like to do)
r. heightened concern over sickness, injury and environmental
problems
s. has family and friends that try hard to buy environmentally
sound products
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 18
-.-:' :»,;.- . -Sf
6. Significant rank order (Spearman) correlation coefficients were
found between the item (mentioned above) which measures general, self-
reported recycling behavior and a number of items measuring recycling
of particular types of products (e.g., soda cans, glass, and plastic).
This is noteworthy because it provides some evidence of the
reliability of the item measuring general recycling behavior.
7. Analyzing the data across cities and grades, significant rank
order correlation coefficients were found between self-reported
recycling behavior.and the following psychosocial variables measured
in the survey:
a. optimistic bias in matters of chance
b. a risk taking profile of social risk aversion, financial risk
seeking, and ethical risk taking coupled with a propensity
to seek cognitive and limited physical sensations
, c. high internal locus of control over pollution, high level of
belief that adults are NOT the only ones who can do something
about pollution, and low level of belief that chance
determines how much garbage and pollution is in the world
(when measuring similar dimensions of locus of control over
health in general, similar results were obtained)
e. high degree of diligence in decision making, and high
propensity to quickly enact decisions
8. Subj ects were asked to rate how important various; factors were in
their decision making about whether or not to recycle. Forty-one
factors were listed. The top six factors are remarkably stable across
cities and grades (see Table 2). ,
(table begins on next page)
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 19
Table 2. Six Most Important Factors in Recycling Decision Making
In Oklahoma City
Grade 5. 1. concern about wildlife
2. what env. groups say
3. saving nat. resources
4. worry about wasting
nat. resources
5. concern about env.
6. what teachers say
Grade 6. i. concern about wildlife
2. what env. groups say
3. worry about wasting
nat. resources
4. saving nat. resources
5. concern about env.
6. concern about human
health .
Grade 10. 1. concern about wildlife
2. saving nat. resources
3. worry about wasting
nat. resources
4. concern about env.
5. reducing garbage in
dumps
6. concern about human
health
Grade11. l. concern about wildlife
2. saving nat. resources
3. worry about wasting
nat. resources
4. concern about env.
5. what env. groups say
6. concern about human
health
In Riverside, CA
1. concern about wildlife
2. what env. groups say
3. worry about wasting
nat. resources
4. concern about env.
5. concern about human
health
6. saving nat. resources
1. saving nat. resources
2. concern about wildlife
3. worry about wasting
nat. resources
4. what env. groups say
5. concern about env.
6. making money by
recycling
1. concern about wildlife
2. concern about env.
3. saving nat. resources
4. concern about human
health
5. reducing garbage in
dumps
6. consequences of not
recycling
1. what env. groups say
2. reducing garbage in
dumps
3. concern about wildlife
4. concern about env.
5. worry about wasting
nat. resources
6. concern about human
health
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 20
9. We also sought to determine whether these importance ratings could
be used to predict self-reported recycling behavior. Note that just
because students tell us that certain factors are important in their
decision making, it does not mean that these factors are the same ones
that best predict recycling behavior. So, all 41 variables which
involved students giving importance ratings on decision making factors
were entered into a stepwise regression (using standard default
options in the SAS software package); variables indicating study site
(i.e., city) and grade were "forced" into the regression equation.
The variables "city" and "grade" account for approximately 10% of the
variance in self-reported recycling behavior. Ten of the importance
ratings variables entered the.equation:
a. recycling trash is a habit (this variable alone accounts for
21% of the variance in self-reported recycling behavior)
b. how dirty one might get while recycling
c. other decision making factors not addressed in our survey
d. how friends feel about recycling
e. how mother feels about recycling
f. how easy it is to recycle '
g. how messy it is to recycle
h. how government leaders feel about recycling
i. how difficult it is to recycle
j. how much time it takes to recycle
As a group, these ten variables, along with "city" and "grade" account
for 33% of the variance in self-reported recycling behavior.
10. It was stated above that many of the psychosocial and attitudinal
variables (e.g., risk attitudes) tapped in our survey are
significantly correlated with self-reported recycling behavior.
Because a number of these psychosocial variables ctre intercorrelated
(with each other, and with subjects' city, grade, and the importance
ratings variables) , it is important to know if they can account for
additional variance in recycling behavior above arid beyond that
accounted for by city, grade, and the importance rating variables.
Therefore, another stepwise regression was performed which included
the following set of predictor variables:
a. city and grade
b. all importance rating variables that entered into the
stepwise regression described just above
c. all psychosocial/attitudinal variables that (i) specifically
referred to environmental issues and (ii) had a bivariate
correlation of .2 or higher with self-reported recycling
behavior
d. all psychosocial/attitudinal variables that (i) did NOT
specifically refer to environmental issues and (ii) had a
bivariate correlation of .1 or higher with, self-reported
recycling behavior !
This stepwise regression yielded the following results. A set of 17
variables accounts for 37% of the variance in self-reported recycling
behavior. Again, city and grade account for 10% of this variance; the
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 21
importance rating on the item "Recycling trash is a habit with you"
accounts for 23% of the variance. The other variables (which together
account for less than 5% of the variance) are as follows:
a. internal locus of control over pollution
b. having friends that recycle
c. importance rating of what friends say about recycling
d. importance rating of "other factors that help you decide
whether or not to recycle"
e. importance rating of what mother says about recycling
f. ethical risk taking
g. physical sensation seeking
h. having a family that discusses pollution
i. importance rating of how messy it is to recycle
j. importance rating of'how dirty you might get while recycling
k. living in a neighborhood where people try to recycle
1. importance rating of how difficult it is to recycle
m. item on "powerful others" dimension of health locus 'of control
n. importance rating of how easy it is to recycle
This analysis was also redone, eliminating all of the decision making
factors from the regression equation. The variables of city and
grade, and the significant psychosocial variables (listed below)
account for 25% of the variance in the outcome measure of self-
reported recycling behavior:
a. internal locus of control over pollution
b. having friends that recycle
c. ethical risk taking
d. physical sensation seeking
e. having a family that discusses pollution
f. believing that recycling is something that one would like to
do
g. having a consumer awareness of product packaging
h. having neighbors that, recycle as much as possible
i. having a family that would listen if the student told
them about recycling.
Summary of Phase 1 Primary Data Analyses. Above, we listed a number
of traits which we believed would distinguish the "young recyclers"
from their peers. Many of these hypotheses were supported by the
data.
Remarkably stable results were obtained when students were asked to
rate how important each of 41 factors are in making their decision of
whether to recycle. Identifying these factors allows us to understand
what factors students consciously believe are important when they
decide whether to recycle. Addressing these factors will be necessary
for any recycling education program that hopes to capture students'
attention. Some of the most important decision making factors are
concern about wildlife, natural resources, the environment and human
health, what environmental groups say about recycling, and reduction
of garbage in dumps.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 22
A somewhat different subset of the importance, rating variables was
shown to be useful in predicting .self-reported recycling behavior.
These "importance rating" predictor variables, along with another set
of psychosocial/attitudinal variables AND the students' city and
grade, were shown to account for 37% of the variance in self-reported
recycling behavior. The predictor variables that explain the most
variance in self-reported recycling behavior are city, grade,
importance rating on the item "recycling trash is a habit with you,"
internal locus of control over pollution, and having friends that
recycle. When the importance rating variables ares dropped from the
regression analysis, the predictors that explain the most variance are
city, grade, internal locus of control over pollution, and having
friends that recycle (these plus seven other predictors account for
25% of the variance). The variables measured in the survey form an
important set of predictor variables.
i
Desired Properties of a Recycling Education Campaign
Although every variable having significant bivariate correlation with
self-reported recycling behavior should be addressied in a recycling
education campaign, we will try to limit attention to those factors
found to be most important in (a) students' direct, ratings of
importance and (b) multivariate statistical analyses.
\
Common principles of communication design would suggest that any
successful recycling education campaign must, first, get students'
attention, address factors that they consider important, and come from
a source they wish to hear. Students will not be motivated to recycle
if these criteria are not met. The survey questions which asked
students to rate the factors they considered most important in their
decision making about recycling give us relevant data. These data
(summarized in Table 2 above) tell us that students are very likely to
listen to what "environmental groups," and to a limited extent
teachers, have to say about recycling. Therefore, recycling
educational materials which come from environmental groups (and
perhaps the EPA) are to be favored.
Further, students are very concerned about what pollution is doing to
wildlife. Recycling materials that use "pollution's harm to animals"
as a motivating factor would seem promising. Successful recycling
educational materials must also address the following dimensions that
students deem important factors in their decision making: the benefits
of recycling in terms of (a) natural resource utilization (including
land utilization around dumps), (b) human health and (c) ecology.
The stepwise regression analyses helped us identify factors that
differentiate "young recyclers" from their peers. These factors give
us indications about other characteristics of successful recycling
educational programs (note that items a through c in this list should
be given the highest consideration):
a. Habit seems to play a major role in recycling behavior;
recycling educational campaigns must show students how
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 23
they can make recycling a part of their everyday life
(this will call for local custom-tailoring of programs).
b. Students must be shown that they themselves can do something
about pollution (their internal locus of control over
pollution must be fostered).
c. Since having friends, family and/or neighbors who recycle is
an important predictor, programs that encourage group
recycling activity OR that encourage students to teach their
peers, family or neighbors about recycling are to be
favored.
d. Recycling must be shown as an activity that is not
necessarily dirty,, messy or time-consuming.
e. Young recyclers tend to shun large physical risks, so it
should be emphasized that they need not go out to the
dump or take any sort of risk with their well-being when
they recycle. It could be emphasized that precautions can
be taken against the few risks (such as getting cut on
cans or broken glass) accompanying recycling behavior.
f. Young recyclers tend to say they would break minor rules if
the circumstances justified it, and that they think through
their decisions carefully. This seems to indicate that
young recyclers are independent thinkers. The choice of
whether to recycle should be presented to them rather than
telling them they must or should recycle. If the educational
campaign is well-designed, their free-choice is likely to.be
a choice to make recycling a part of their lives.
Data were also collected on the students' most preferred educational
medium books, videos, field trips or discussions. Although the
mean rating for all media was favorable (i.e., that students would
like to use the medium-to learn more about recycling), the rank order
of the media is as follows (from most to least favorable): field
trips, class discussions, videos and books. This ordering was
consistent across cities and grades with only one exception
Riverside elementary school students prefer videos to class
discussions. Given that field trips are difficult for schools to
arrange, and given that class discussions are a close - runner-up in
terms of student preference, it seems that discussion oriented
programs are especially promising. Videos might be considered, but
books are not the communication channel of choice (unless they support
class discussion programs). It is also interesting to note that in
all grades and cities, mean ratings indicated that students wanted to
learn more about pollution and recycling, but that the notion of
staying after school or coming in on weekends to do so is
disagreeable.
The data suggest that there is more recycling in Riverside than in
Oklahoma City, and that younger children are more likely to report
recycling behavior. Race/ethnicity and gender mattered little in this
study. If extrapolations can be made from this data, they suggest
that agencies may wish to focus- their efforts on customizing recycling
materials for different age groups in different areas of the country.
Since it appears that older children, and children in Oklahoma recycle
less, these groups might be targeted for especially intensive
educational campaigns.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 24
CH[APTERi?3: .,; i
Phase 2 Detailed Method's and Results
What Recycling Educational Efforts are Underway?
Ob-jective; Search for Materials
Phase 2 of the research required searching for all
of the available recycling educational materials.
accomplished in the following ways.
First, the Phase 2 work plan was circulated for ccmment to EPA
personnel (selected in conjunction with our Projec
, or at least many,
This was
t Officer). Second,
we were in close contact with EPA's Pollution Prevention Education
Task Force. They have compiled a large bibliography on pollution
prevention education materials including recycling education
materials. This bibliography was compiled by a contractor who
contacted all EPA regions, national environmental groups, some
industries, and many other sources for information on available
educational materials. In mid-March, 1991, they provided us with four
lines of information on each recycling program in the database; a few
weeks later, we received the rest of the information on each recycling
program listed in the database. All entries found which related to
recycling were considered in light of the survey results of Phase 1 of
our study. Promising materials were requested from the listed
sources.
Third, we contacted the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and asked for
information about, and copies of, any recycling educational materials
they developed that are suitable for children and/or adolescents.
Fourth, a formal survey of recycling activities in schools was
accomplished; finally, an extensive effort to contact industrial
sources regarding recycling educational activities! was undertaken.
These last two activities are described in more detail immediately
below.
School Survey
In order to better understand the level of recycling education
currently ongoing in United States schools, a modsirate-size national
survey was conducted. Three hundred schools were selected from across
the United States. Letters were sent to 100 grade school, 100 middle
school and 100 high school principals across the country. Schools
were selected in the following way. First, names of 100 standard
metropolitan areas were randomly selected from the Statistical
Abstract of the United States. Then, using the telephone book from
each of the 100 cities, one grade-, middle- and high school was
arbitrarily selected. Short surveys were mailed to these schools.
The surveys primarily asked for information about the schools'
activities with regard to recycling education. ;
Of the 300 schools contacted, 118 .responded. This seems like a low
response rate, especially since we sent a prompting letter a few days
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 25
after the initial mailing. However, there may be a response bias
present it is very plausible (although not immediately verifiable)
that schools who did not respond are not engaging in recycling
education. Of the 118 schools responding, (a) 109 report some form of
recycling education, (b) 63 report some form of precycling education
or activities, (c) 48 indicate that these activities incorporate the
families of students, (d) 53 state that the activities are purely
educational (others involve some element of fundraising), and (e) 22
could provide some written copy of their education materials.
Although the response rate was low, it does seem justified to say that
recycling is not a universally taught topic in contemporary American
schools.
Industrial Contacts
Multiple industries were contacted so as to better inventory the
recycling educational materials currently available from such sources.
First, we made a list of all industries which are.relevant to, or
manufacture commonly recycled, products. Then we identified the
professional organization associated with each of these industries.
These professional organizations were contacted by a research
assistant from the University of California at Riverside. The
organizations were quite forthcoming and most sent materials.
Listing of Located Materials and Development of Curricula
This search for recycling educational materials yielded a large number
of items. A listing is available from the authors or the Project
Officer.
Always keeping in mind the survey results from Phase 1 of our
research, the most promising materials found were assembled into a
hybrid curriculum. Some items were taken from documents produced by
the EPA's Office of Solid Waste. Some original material was added to
provide for continuity. One version of the curriculum was developed
for 5-6th graders, and another for 10-llth graders.
These versions of the curriculum were sent to the EPA's Office of
Environmental Education, the EPA's Office of Solid Waste, the EPA's
Pollution Prevention Education Task Force in Region 7, our Project
Officer and a paid recycling consultant at the Harvard School of
Public Health. The received commentary was largely supportive of the
curriculum; suggested changes were taken into account.
While the reader is encouraged to contact the authors or Project
Officer for further information about the curriculum, its contents can
be summarized briefly. There were two versions developed one for
5th and 6th grade students, the other for 10th and llth grade
students. The curricula use videos, puzzles, games, participant
interaction, discussions, silent reading, and lecture formats to
impart knowledge about recycling. Students learn basic information
about pollution and natural resource depletion, how recycling can help
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 26
combat these problems, and ways they can recycle and have a personal
impact. !
Both the grade- and high-school versions of the curricula involve five
classroom sessions each of about one hour in length. The major
learning objectives for each of the five sessions are given below.
Note the congruence between these major objectives and the major
empirical findings described in the previous chapter of this report
regarding students7 recycling habits, perceived locus of control over
pollution, importance of having friends that recycle, and concern
about wildlife, natural resources and the environment. For 5th and
6th grade ,students, the following major learning objectives were
involved (listed here with the title for each learning session):
(1) Introduction: to enable students to identify solid waste concepts
and problems, and to start problem solving about potential solutions.
(2) Garbage and Nature Don't Mix; Nature Recycles, Man Should Too!: to
enable students to identify (a) ways in which our waste endangers
wildlife and domestic animals, (b) ways to reduce these harmful
effects, and (c) nature's cycles which resemble recycling.
(3) What is Trash?: to enable students to investigate and identify (a)
the components of "trash," (b) what resources are consumed in making
trash, and (c) ways to have avoided making trash in the first place.-
(4) What You Can Do - Recycling, Precycling and Composting: to enable
students to identify ways that they, their families and their friends
actually can help solve certain environmental problems by recycling,
precycling and composting.
. '
(5) Personal Action: to enable students to identify ways that they
will actually be able to incorporate into their lives changes which
will help to solve solid waste problems.
The major learning objectives for the 10th and llth grade version of
the curricula are similar to those listed above. However, changes
were made to reflect those students' (a) higher reading level, (b)
ability to cover more material in a set period of time, (c) ability to
grasp more technical scientific information, and (d) developmental
status (e.g., the videos used were matched to the student audience's
age group).
We feel confident when we say that the curricula represent a hybrid of
some of the best available recycling educational material. However,
there is an important copyright issue to note here. Although all
educational materials were voluntarily provided by their original
sources, and all providers were informed (verbally or in writing) of
the nature of our evaluative research, we must be certain that proper
copyright clearances are obtained if anyone wishes1, to make further use
of the curricula.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 27
CHAPTER 4:
Phase 3 Detailed Methods and Results
Does Recycling Education Have a Positive Impact?
Objective; Detailed Methods
Phase 3 was devoted to the actual field evaluation of the hybrid
curriculum developed in phase 2. A pre-/post-intervention design was
employed. Originally, it was planned that this field evaluation would
take place in both cities (Riverside and Oklcihoma City) .' However, we
noted in the original workplan that while schools in both cities had
indicated an interest in this phase of the research, no school would
give final consent until they saw what curriculum actually was
developed and knew how much time it would take in the classroom. This
was a reasonable stance by schools that must look out for the best
interest of their students and must cover vast amounts of course
material in a limited school year.
Unfortunately, we were unable to complete this field evaluation in
Oklahoma City. The school superintendent who had indicated the most
interest in this phase of the research moved between phases 1 and 3 of
the research project. Extensive efforts were made to recruit subjects
from other school districts in the Oklahoma City area, but to no
avail. Although these other schools seemed genuinely interested in
the material, they felt unwilling to provide seven hours of class time
for this phase of the research (two hours for survey work pre- and
post-intervention, and five hours of experimental instructional
material).. Further, this was a time of considerable restructuring in
the public school system in Oklahoma. These statements should not be
taken as a criticism of Oklahoma City area school districts; the
contacted schools gave fair consideration to the research proposal and
made careful decisions not to participate. However, this does raise a
logistical issue that is important for persons doing future research
in this area to consider.
Much better results were obtained in California, and the field
evaluation was conducted successfully in Riverside. All that follows
in this chapter refers to the evaluation conducted in. California.
Elementary School Subjects. Fifth and sixth grade students
participating in the intervention study were recruited from the Alvord
Unified School District. These students were enrolled in a magnet
summer school program, pulling from all of the eight elementary
schools in the Alvord District. Students in this district come from
middle- and low-income Anglo and Hispanic families; all participating
students were proficient in English.
Alvord Unified School District has no specific environmental
education; some of the students have money-making soda can recycling
projects at their schools of origin, although there was no such
project at the summer magnet school.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 28
High School Students. Tenth and eleventh grade students participating
in the intervention study were«;recruited from the Rubidoux Unified
School District In Rubidoux, CA. These students were participating in
summer school and fall biology courses at Rubidoux High School and
Jurupa Valley High, the two high schools in the Rubidoux Unified
School District. As in the case of the elementary school subjects in
this project, these high school students come from middle- and low-
income Anglo and Hispanic families. All participating students were
proficient in English.
Rubidoux Unified School District, and the Rubidoux and Jurupa Valley
High schools have no specific environmental education in their
curricula.
Subject Recruitment. Subjects were recruited through the use of
parental permission forms, sent to parents through the students.
Students returned the permission forms, signed by parents, indicating
the parents' willingness or unwillingness for the students to
participate in the study. Students returning signed parent permission
forms were rewarded with a pencil bearing the likeness of the
University of California seal. Parent refusal was; very low in both
the grade school and high school groups.
Survey and Instruction. The curriculum was implemented in the
classroom by Dr. Tinsley and her team of research assistants. Five
hours of class time were devoted to the instruction. The day before
Day 1 of the recycling instruction, and the day after Day 5 of
instruction students filled out a survey. Schools declined to permit
a follow-up survey to assess long-term impact of the instruction.
This was because long-term tracking would be (a) problematic for the
short time-frame summer school program and (b) place a further burden
on participating schools.
The survey contained four sets of questions; the first three sets of
questions were identical to some of the questions on the Phase 1
research instrument described in Chapter 2. The sets of questions are
as follows:
a. demographic information (3 questions)
b. measures Delated to recycling attitudes, beliefs and behaviors
(86 questions)
c. decision making factors related to recycling (40 questions)
d. consumer product preferences (37 questions)
We assessed demographic variables because such factors were found to
be important in phase 1 research. Question sets b and d were assessed
because the material contained in the curriculum should directly
impact recycling attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, as well as consumer
preferences. The decision making factors found to be informative
in phase 1 research were not directly addressed in the curriculum
and hypothesized not to change as a function of exposure to our
curriculum.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 29
The measures in set b included (a) extent of concern about pollution,
(b) perceived efficacy of recycling with regard to pollution reduction
and prevention, (c) knowledge about the positive effects of recycling
on the environment, (d) self-report of personal and family recycling
activities, (e) perception of locus of control over pollution, and (f)
attitudes toward various recycling information communication channels.
Each question in set d (consumer product preferences) asked students
which of two similar products they preferred on a -3 to +3 scale (with
a midpoint response of 0 indicating no preference). Students were
visually shown real products, and the endpoints on the scale gave
brief description of each of a pair of products. The brief
descriptions included (a) type of product, (b) price per unit, and (c)
product features noteworthy from an environmental perspective (e.g.,
"block of chocolate" or "individually wrapped bars"). It was stated
that neither the EPA, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences
Center, nor the University of California made any endorsements of any
particular consumer products.
Pre- and Post Test Differences; Attitudinal/Behavioral Measures. One
hundred and six students completed all components of the phase 3
evaluation: pre-test survey, instruction, and post-test survey.
Considerably more students were exposed to some aspect of the study,
but failed to complete all three components.
The demographic information on the students is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Demographic Information for Evaluation Study
Total sample size: 106
Gender:
Male 54
Female 51
School Grade:
Elementary 40 . ,
High School 65
Race/Ethnicity:
Native American 1
Asian 4
Black 4
Hispanic 34
White 50
Other 10
It should be noted that the values for the demographic variables do
not add up to the total number of subjects due to missing data
(students were told that the survey was voluntary and that they could
skip an item if they so chose).
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 30
Question sets b, c, and d were analyzed via paired comparisons t-test
(comparing pre-intervention, mean responses with post-intervention,
mean responses). First, we report on analyses done across grades, and
then on regression modelling in which pre-/post-iritervention
difference scores were predicted from the demographic, binary
variables of "male/female" and "elementary/high school."
Of the 86 questions in set b (attitudinal/behavioral items), 17 had
paired comparisons, two-tailed t statistics significantly different
from zero at the .05 level. At the .05 level, one would have expected
only four or five significant t-tests by chance alone. Therefore, the
intervention did seem to have some non-random impact on set b
questions (i.e, the number of significant t-tests was about 3.5 times
what one would have expected by chance alone). The items with
significant t-tests are summarized in Table 4. Iri each case, the
effect of the intervention was in the desired direction. The items
with non-significant t-tests can be identified by looking at the rest
of the questions in sections 1 and 9 of the Phase ;l survey instruments
(available from the authors or Project Officer).
Table 4. Attitudinal/Behavioral Items with Significant t-tests
a. Perceived locus of control over pollution
b. Perception that one's garbage is more harmful than other people's
garbage
c. Belief that recycling helps reduce garbage in dumps
d. Belief that recycling harms human health
e. Feeling helpless when thinking about pollution
f. Knowledge that recycled plastic can be used in pillow and,jacket
filling
g. Desire to learn more about pollution (s) : -
h. Belief that young people can do a lot to help families recycle
(g/s)
i. Belief that family would listen if student told them about
recycling (g)
j. Belief that recycling is wrong (s)
k. Belief that the student is free to make choices about recycling
1. Belief that throwing away tin cans (rather than recycling) is
something that the student would like to do
m. Belief that throwing away tin cans is something that everyone
would like to do (g)
n. Reporting that the student recycles cardboard
o. Reporting that the student's family recycles newspapers
p. Reporting that the student's family recycles cardboard
q. Reporting that the student's family recycles glass;
Note: "g" indicates that "grade" is a significant predictor of the
difference score; "s" indicates that student gender is a significant
predictor of the difference score. Some items were reverse scored and
are presented here in their "negative" wording.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 31
Table 4 also indicates which difference score variables can be
predicted from the demographic variables of grade (g) and gender
(denoted as "s" for sex). The demographic variable for race/ethnicity
was not used because, in phase 1 of the research, it did not appear to
be an important predictor variable of recycling attitudes and
behavior. For two of the 17 variables in Table 4, gender was a
significant predictor; for three of the 17 variables, grade ,was a
significant predictor (alpha = .05). For only one difference score
variable was both grade and gender significantly related. Whenever
gender was significantly associated, the regression coefficient
indicated that the educational intervention has a bigger impact on
boys than girls. The regression coefficients for grade indicated that
the intervention had a 'bigger impact on elementary school students
(relative to high school students) for the variable regarding their
feeling that they could to a lot to help their families recycle. The
opposite was true for the difference scores on these two variables:
(a) feeling that their families would listen to them if they told
their families about recycling and (b) that throwing away tin cans is
something that everyone would like to do. The predictor variables of
grade and sex (when significant at the .05 level) accounted for
between 3% and 11% of the variance in the associated
attitudinal/behavioral difference score measure.
In summary, it does appear that the intervention had a non-random
impact on the responses to the attitudinal/behavioral set of
questions. Grade and sex are apparently not very useful predictors of
pre-/post-intervention difference score measures in this question set.
Again, the purpose of Table 4 is to display the measures on which the
curriculum had a significant impact; Table 4 is not meant to display a
profile of persons who recycle (as was provided in Chapter 2 above).
Pre-/Post-Test Differences; Decision Making Factors. Four of the
forty decision making factor items in question set c showed a
significant effect of the educational intervention (at the .05 level).
One would have expected two to be- significant by chance alone. These
four decision making factors are as follows: (a) "how your brothers
and sisters feel about you recycling trash", (b) "how your friends
feel about you recycling trash", (c) "what you know about what happens
when you recycle", and (d) "how environmental groups feel about
recycling trash." In no case was gender or grade a significant
predictor of the difference score measures associated with these four
decision making variables.
In summary, the educational intervention appears to have had little
impact on the perceived relative importance of the decision making
factors. This was expected because the intervention was not
specifically designed to influence the relative importance of the
students' decision making factors (e.g., how the students rate the
importance of their friends' opinions about recycling).. Rather it was
designed to convince the students that recycling scores highly on
these various decision making factors (e.g., that recycling really is
important to one's friends).
-------
Recycling and Youth -"Page 32
I
Consumer Product Preference. of the 37 questions in set d (consumer
preference items) , 16 had paired.', comparison, two-tailed t statistics
significantly different from zero at the .05 level. At the .05 level,
one would have expected only about two significant t-tests by chance
alone. Therefore, the intervention did seem to have some non-random
impact on set d questions (i.e, the number of significant t-tests was
about 8 times what one would have expected by chance alone). The
items with significant t-tests are summarized in Table 5. In each
case, the effect of the intervention was in the desired direction.
The items with non-significant t-tests can be identified by looking at
the rest of the questions in consumer product preference survey given
in the survey instruments (available from the authors or Project
Officer)'.
Table 5. Consumer Product Preference Items with Significant t-tests
a. oatmeal in a large box (as opposed to single serving packs)
b. candy in a large box (as opposed to single serving packs)
c. chocolate in a large bar (as opposed to individual bars)
d. energy saving light bulbs (as opposed to regular bulbs) [s]
e. unbleached tissue paper (as opposed to regular tissue paper)
f. canned soup (as opposed to other packaging)
g. unbleached coffee filters (as opposed to regular filters)
h. bagged cookies (as opposed to individually packaged) [s]
i. recycled note paper (as opposed to non-recycled)
j. peanut butter in a glass jar (as opposed to in, plastic)
k. recycled-paper toilet paper (as opposed to non-recycled)
1. rechargable batteries (as opposed to non-rechargable)
m. juice-added beverage in glass (as opposed to in plastic) [g]
n. whipping cream in paper carton (as opposed to in plastic)
o. block cheese (as opposed to individual slices)
p. reusable cake pan (as opposed to disposable)
Note: "g" indicates that "grade" is a significant predictor of the
difference score; "s" indicates that student gender is a significant
predictor of the difference score.
Table 5 also indicates which difference score variables can be
predicted from the demographic variables of grade (g) and gender
(denoted as "s" for sex). The demographic variable for race/ethnicity
was not used because, in phase 1 of the research, it did not appear to
be an important predictor variable of recycling attitudes and
behavior. For two of the 16 variables in Table 5, gender was a
significant predictor; for one of the 16 variables-,, grade was a
significant predictor (alpha = .05). Whenever gender was
significantly associated, the regression coefficient indicated that
the educational intervention has a bigger impact on girls than boys.
When grade was significantly associated, the regression coefficient
for grade indicated that the intervention had a bigger impact on high
school students (relative to elementary school students). The
t predictor variables of grade and sex (when significant at the .05
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 33
level) accounted for between 4% and 11% of the variance in the
associated consumer product preference difference score measure.
In summary, it does appear that the intervention had a non-random
impact on the responses to the consumer product preference set of
questions. Grade and sex are apparently not very useful predictors of
pre-/post-intervention difference score measures in this question set.
Overall Conclusions for Phase 3. In conclusion, the evidence suggests
that the recycling education intervention did have a non-random,
positive impact on. attitudes and self-reported behaviors related to
recycling. Further, the positive impact also was seen on numerous
product preference measures. As could be expected, the recycling
education intervention had little impact on the decision making factor
variables. The pre-/post-test difference scores had some association
with gender and grade, but these associations occurred for only a few
variables and did not indicate any systematic trends. Therefore, we
conclude that the education intervention affected the student group
nearly equally across grades and genders. This is true even though
there are some differences in the grade-school and high-school
versions of the curriculum. Based on this evidence, it appears that
the hybrid curriculum developed under this cooperative agreement zs
promising for helping students to choose to become young recyclers and
environmentally-aware consumers (for a description of key
characteristics of this curriculum, see Chapter 3).
Because of this encouraging result, it appears worthwhile to invest in
an even more rigorous (and resource intensive) evaluation employing
random assignment of subjects to control and intervention conditions.
Such a study would add further credibility to the causal argument that
exposure to this curriculum results in changes in recycling and
consumer preference attitudes and self-reported behaviors. Future
work should also include a formal evaluation of teachers' reaction to
such a curriculum. In this study, we obtained informal reports from
several of the teachers involved in the evaluation research phase that
they found the material interesting, appropriate and potentially
useful. However, this deserves more formal attention in future
research. Finally, future work should attempt to assess which of
several versions of the curriculum.might be most cost-effective in
terms of actually changing students' recycling and consumer behaviors.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 34
CHAPTER :;5: ;
Overall Discussion and Conclusions
The research program funded by this cooperative agreement appears to
have been highly successful. This is true even though the level of
subject enrollment in Phase 3 was not at the level originally hoped.
We have been able to provide an empirically-based profile of "the
young recycler," information about the types and extent of recycling
education in the United States, and a hybrid recycling education
curriculum which is supported by an empirical field evaluation
(although we note in Chapter 4 above the need for further evaluative
research). Information learned from this research program has been
shared with US EPA Headquarters and Region 7 Offices, and its
Pollution Prevention Education Task Force. Research progress reports
have been presented at the Society for Risk Analysis, the Nags Head
Invitational Conference on Judgment and Decision Making, and the
Society for Judgment and Decision Making. Various aspects of this
research are being published in multiple outlets (for copies of this
work, please contact the authors or Project Officer); and further
publications are planned.
Practical Implication and Related Suggestions. As the EPA and others
further their efforts in recycling education, they may make use of the
results of this research program in several ways.
First, the results from our phase 1 survey of over 1200 students
provide concrete suggestions about how to best construct recycling
education programs. These are clearly stated in Chapter 2 and will
not be repeated here. It is crucial to tailor educational (and all
risk communication) messages to the needs of the target population.
Chapter 2 provides specific suggestions regarding the content of
recycling educational messages as well as the message channels (e.g.,
books, videos, and so on).
Second, in order to further assist in custom tailoring recycling
educational messages, we have constructed Appendix A., This Appendix
describes what we perceive to be the state of the art in the
application of health behavior change models and theories to the
customization of health and risk communication messages. Emphasis is
given to Prochaska's Stages of Behavior Change Model (Prochaska, et
al., 1983; DiClemente, et al., 1991; Curry, et al., 1992). This model
is receiving great attention currently as a highly useful tool for the
tailoring of risk communication messages to the needs of individual
audience members. It has been used in the past for cinti-smoking
campaigns, and is currently in vigorous application by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in HIV prevention programs. (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 1992) To our Jcnowledge, no one
has ever described the relevance of this model to recycling education;
we do so in Appendix A. Combined with the results of our research
program reported here, the Stages of Behavior Change model would allow
for even more powerful customization.of recycling education (and other
risk communication) messages. However, a recycling education campaign
based on the Stages of Behavior Change model would require more
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 35
resources than our research program used. This is so because the
Stages of Behavior Change model would necessitate the construction of
five versions of the education program for each developmental grade
level (as explained in Appendix A).
Third, our search for extant recycling education materials uncovered
the fact that many industrial organizations produce such educational
matter. Therefore, we suggest that governmental agencies (e.g., the
EPA) consider forging an educational partnership with these .industrial
organizations. This partnership would allow for the sharing of
educational materials between .industries and government. Furthermore,
information about any evaluations of specific types of recycling
education materials could be shared. This would help to eliminate (a)
reinvention of materials and (b) distribution of educational materials
that are not effective.
Fourth, our moderate-sized national survey of schools indicates that
there is much that could be done to foster recycling education in -
schools. Even given the possible response bias in our survey
(discussed in Chapter 3), it appears that many schools are still not
providing recycling education. Of those that are, a sizable
proportion are using the education experience as a fund raising
opportunity (or, perhaps, using the fund raising opportunity as an
educational experience). Given the financially strapped condition of
many local schools, it may be wise to develop diverse creative
strategies for combining recycling education with fund raising
possibilities. The notion of combining sound recycling education with
the possibility of raising funds might be appealing to schools in need
of further financial resources. These strategies could be
disseminated through the teacher training programs operated by the
EPA's Office of Environmental Education.
Fifth, the research reported here (in Chapter 4) appears to
demonstrate that environmental education can influence attitudes
toward consumer products. The EPA's Office of Environmental Education
and others may wish to develop exercises through which students who
are exposed to televised programming and advertising in the classroom
could evaluate the advertised products for environmental soundness.
If the EPA forged a partnership with industrial organizations (as
suggested in recommendation 3 above), it might work with industry to
test the perceived attractiveness of alternative consumer product
packaging. It appears from our data (see Chapter 4) that students^
attitudes toward consumer products can change as a function of their
environmental education; marketers and advertisers may wish to use
this notion to make their wares more attractive to young buyers. This
would help their sales and the environment at the same time.
Sixth, it should be recognized that the formal evaluation of recycling
education materials is just beginning. Further efforts in this area
are urgently needed. These evaluations should include formative,
process and outcome steps. Formative research (such as our Phase 1)
involves understanding the target audience even before the first
communication message is drafted. Process evaluation involves
tracking the actual delivery of communication messages and answering
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 36
the "journalism questions" of message delivery (who heard what, where,
when and how). Outcome evaluation;assesses whether the communication
message changed some measure of interest in the audience (e.g., our
phase 3 pre-/post-test evaluation). Outcome evaluation studies are
needed of long-term impacts on actual recycling behavior, for example,
as measured by examining actual garbage containers in homes and
schools. Additionally, community level demonstration projects should
be conducted in which some school districts implement recycling
education while other school districts (matched on demographic
variables) delay their educational projects. Thiss would enable
community level measures (such as actual burden on local recycling
centers) to be used as outcome markers. It is alsso important to
consider the cost-effectiveness of these education efforts. For
instance, how much does it cost per month (in terms of the fiscal and
human resources consumed by recycling educational effort) to decrease
a school district's non-recyclable garbage by, say, 10%? Is it more
cost-effective to have a peer-education recycling program after
school, or an in-class program operated by adult teachers? Chapter 4
describes other ideas for important evaluation resjearch.
Seventh, it is important to consider how to use school based programs
to complement other types of recycling education programs. For
instance, some worksites (such as the University of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center) have recycling programs. The adult employees may
bring home some of this knowledge about recycling to teach their
children. Additionally, some communities are implementing curb-side
recycling programs. In order to convince adult citizens to
participate in the programs, some recycling educational effort is
expended. If the EPA could help communities integrate the local
worksite, school-based and community-based recycling informational
messages, these message sources might reinforce one another.
These are but a few of the ways in which the results of the research
program described here can be put to practical benefit in efforts to
reduce and prevent pollution in the United States.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 37
APPENDIX A:
A Stages of Behavior Change Approach to
Recycling Education
It is vital to tailor every health and risk communication message to
the needs of the target audience (National Research Council, 1989;
Rice, et al., 1989; Atkin, et al., 1990). As Professor Baruch
Fischhoff noted in.his address at the 1991 Meeting of the Society for
Risk Analysis, risk communicators must know what information the
audience members need to make real life decisions. Then, the risk
communicators must provide this sort of relevant information. Failure
to do so will only result in wasted communication efforts that are
perceived by the audience/public to be irrelevant.
In the research described in this report, we attempted to understand
how young people make decisions about recycling. This was done even
before the first recycling education messages were developed. The
information gained from our formative, survey research directly aided
the development of a successful, hybrid recycling education
curriculum.
Given the resources available in this cooperative agreement, we were
able to develop two versions of one curriculum one version for
elementary school students and one for high school. However, if
resources were available to do even more fine-tuning of the recycling
education messages to the needs of the student audience, another
powerful tool is available. This tool is Prochaska's Stages of
Behavior Change model (Prochaska, et al., 1983; DiClemente, et al.,
1991; Curry, et al., 1992; for information on other stage models, see
Baranowski, 1992-1993; Catania, et al., 1990; Weinstein, et al.,
1992) .
In this appendix, the Stages of Behavior Change model is described.
We also provide illustrations of how it might be used to target
messages in recycling education (and all risk communication efforts).
The SBC Model and a Recycling Illustration
The Stages of Behavior Change (SBC) model posits that people do not
suddenly go from being unaware of some preventive health behavior to
consistent engagement in that behavior. For instance, people do not
suddenly go from complete unawareness that condoms could help protect
them against HIV infection, to adoption of condom use on each and
every sexual encounter (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
1992). In another example, tobacco smokers do not go from a lack of
realization that smoking can hurt them immediately to complete smoking
cessation. A third example is that of recycling behavior. People do
not suddenly go from unawareness of recycling to being consistent
users of their curb side bins and community recycling centers. The
behavior change is much more gradual.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 38
Behavior change occurs through a series of stages. The SBC model
posits that there are five stages. The first three stages are
cognitive and the last two are behavioral.
The very first of the stages is called PreContemplative (PC). In this
stage, people do not perceive themselves at risk and/or do not feel
that there is any need for them to engage in the preventive behavior.
For instance, someone in the PC stage with regard to recycling might
not believe that pollution is a problem in their community. They do
not perceive the risk from failing to recycle.
The second-stage is Contemplative (C). People in this stage do
perceive some risk, but they are still making up their minds about
whether to engage in the preventive behavior. For example, they may
feel that pollution and garbage overflow are problems in their
community. However, they are still deciding if recycling is something
that they will do personally to alleviate these risks. Persons in the
C stage are making a decision (or series of decisions) and are
weighing the costs and benefits (or pros and cons) of engaging in the
preventive behavior.
The third stage (and last cognitive stage) is Ready-for-Action (RFA).
People in the RFA stage have made a decision to engage in the
preventive behavior but have yet to enact it.. For instance, they may
have decided that recycling is something they wish to do, but they-are
not yet recycling. This might be because they feel like they lack the
skills to recycle or don't have the tools to recycle (such as curb
side bins or a car to drive to the recycling center). In general,
people in RFA perceive some barriers to engaging in the preventive
behavior.
.,_, I
The fourth stage (and first behavioral stage) is called Action (A).
In this stage the person is actually starting to engage in the
preventive behavior (here, recycling), but is not doing the behavior
consistently. People in the A stage are trying out the behavior
experimenting with it, trying to implement it. But they are not yet
consistent.
The final stage is called Maintenance (M). Here, people are
consistently doing the preventive behavior (e.g., recycling).
However, this does not mean that the person in the M stage cannot
relapse to any of the other stages. Indeed, the construct of relapse
is an important feature of the SBC model.
j i
Changing Behaviors
I
The SBC model can be a powerful tool for assisting communicators to
encourage preventive health behaviors among audience members. It
could be used in the following way to encourage recycling behavior.
The communicator first needs to know the distribution of audience
members as categorized by the five stages of the mbdel. This can be
learned by using a rather short survey instrument. The questions for
-------
Of
Recycling and Youth - Page 39 ;
"staging" an audience member have been well formulated in the smoking
and HIV prevention applications mentioned above; development of
recycling questions would be straightforward. Then, a separate
message can be constructed specifically for the needs of people at
each particular stage of change.
In order to move people from the PC to C stage of recycling behavior,
the communicator needs to focus on perceived risk among the audience
members. If the audience perceives no risk in failure to recycle,
they probably will not even seriously consider recycling behavior.
course, "risk" does not have to refer only to health or ecological
risk. Audience members might perceive financial risk related to fines
that will be incurred if they do not recycle; or these people might
believe that they will "lose out" on money that their neighbors are
making by hauling cans and paper to the community recycling center
every weekend.
In the C stage people are making decisions about recycling. To move
them into the RFA stage, it is important to try to convince them that
the benefits of recycling outweigh the costs. The communicator might
even help the C stage people make a list of the pros and cons of
recycling, and then try to point out benefits that are not on the
list. For instance, someone in the C stage may think that recycling
is something that they might do, but they perceive recycling to be (a)
time consuming, (b) dirty, and (c) just something else to remember to
do. They might already believe, though, that recycling helps the
environment. The communicator might proceed by recognizing that there
are some possible costs to recycling, but suggest ways to minimize
them (e.g., suggest ways to combine recycling with other, existing
habits of garbage disposal). The communicator should also point out
some benefits that the C stage person has not yet thought of (e.g.,
the benefits to human health of recycling; the energy saving aspects
of recycling).
Once someone is RFA, they have chosen to engage in the behavior. But
they have not yet implemented it and need help to get to the Action
(A) stage. Usually this will take the form of skills building and
barrier reduction. For instance, the person may want to recycle, but
does not know how to sort their family garbage into various categories
(e.g., newspaper, glossy paper, colored paper and so on). They need
to build such skills and the risk communicator can help to do that.
Also, the person may need some barrier reduction. For example, the
person may live in an apartment in a large city and not own a car. If
the city does not have a curb side recycling program and the recycling
center is far away, this can be a problem. The risk communicator can
help here by suggesting real solutions to this problem (e.g,, by
locating charitable groups raising funds through recycling that are
willing to pick up donations; or by locating community members willing
to haul away recyclable goods if they are allowed to keep any money
that is paid by the recycling center).
Once the A stage is reached, experimental recycling behavior is taking
place. The risk communicator needs to help this person reach the M
stage by supporting the person's "pilot efforts" to recycle. This
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 40
stages of behavior I r«lapse to any of the other
i-plrtant P^^
Measurement Model vs Theory
a way that is complementary with the SBC model. " be USSd in
Limitations of SBC
The SBC model has excellent face validity
"
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 41
A second limitation relates to the application of the five stages of
behavior change to children and adolescents. The SBC model makes good
intuitive sense regarding the way adults adopt preventive behaviors.
However, it is not immediately clear that very young children go
through such stages as they adopt preventive behaviors. For instance,
do four year old children go through these five stages when they adopt
the preventive behavior of looking both ways when they cross the
street? Do three year old children go through the SBC stages when
they successfully drop a tin can into a recycling bin (with the help
of their parents)? The answer to these questions is "probably not.
Rather, these behaviors probably are more a function of learning
principles-. Therefore, .we are left with the situation in which the
SBC model seems to make excellent sense as a description of adult
behavior change, but less so for very young children. Further, we are
left with the question, "At what age or developmental stage do young
people seem to behave in accordance with the SBC model?" Eight years
old? In the fifth grade? In the tenth grade? The answer is not
immediately clear. However, one might reasonably conclude that the
SBC model is at least partially relevant after the developmental stage
in which students are able to perceive risk and engage in some form of
decision making. This is probably likely to occur in the early school
grades.
It is interesting to consider these limitations in light of possible
future attempts to apply the SBC model to school-based recycling - -
education programs. These school-based programs are time limited.
They are usually focused more on information than on supporting long-
term behavior change. Such features of school-based programs suggest
that they might be useful in moving students from stage PC to C, C to
RFA and perhaps RFA to A. However, they will probably not be very
useful for moving students from A to M, or for preventing relapse,
unless students are taught techniques for modifying and reinforcing
their own behavior. The recycling curriculum developed under this
cooperative agreement begins to attempt such teaching that includes
the development of a personal recycling action plan for each student.
However, the five day format of the curriculum necessarily implies >
that the student who begins recycling as a function of our program is
left to positively reinforce his/her own behavior (or find a source of
positive reinforcement) after the education program is ended.
Further, school-based programs often do not have sufficient resources
to develop as many versions of a recycling education program as the
SBC model would suggest. (Indeed, we did not have such resources in
this cooperative agreement.) Therefore, the sharing of models among
schools is very important. The EPA's Office of Environmental
Education could help greatly in this regard.
Finally, it seems that recycling programs for very young children
should not rely on the SBC model since it is not likely to describe
the young people's cognitive processes. However, the SBC model still
may be relevant at rather early grade levels. We have seen evidence
in our own research (some of which was conducted as part of this
cooperative agreement) that children in the fifth grade are not only
making decisions but can meaningfully reflect on their own decision
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 42
Conclusion
reported elsewhere in this document?wTii r^ ( * research results
education efforts in the Sni?S Sate^"1 PrOVe USetUl in '"
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 43
APPENDIX B:
References and Related Readings
References
Atkin C, Wallack L (eds). Mass Communication and Public Health;
Complexities and Conflicts. Newbury Park, California, Sage
Publications, 1990.
Baranowski T. Beliefs as motivational influences at stages in behavior
change. International Quarterly of Community Health Education. 1992-
1993; 13: 3-29.
Becker MH. Sociobehavioral determinants of compliance. In DL Sackett &
RB Haynes (eds.), Compliance with therapeutic regimens. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
Brown AL, Bransford JD, Ferrara RA, Campion JC. Learning, remembering
and understanding. In PH Mussen (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology.
1983; III: 77-166.
Catania JA, Kegeles SM, Coates TJ. Towards an understanding of risk
behavior: An AIDS risk reduction model. Health Education Quarterly.
1990; 17: 53-72.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCPS AIDS Community
Demonstration Projects; What We Have Learned 1985-1990. Atlanta,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1992.
Cohen RY, Brownell KD, Felix MRJ. Age and sex differences in health
habits and beliefs of schoolchildren. Health Psychology. 1990; 9: 208-
224.
Curry SJ, Kristal AR, Bowen DJ. An application of the stage model of
behavior change to dietary fat reduction. Health Education Research.
1992; 7: 97-105.
Di Clemente CC, Prochaska JO, Fairhurst SK, et al. The process of
smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and
preparation stages of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 1991; 59: 295-304.
Eraker SA, Kirscht JP, Becker M. Understanding and improving patient
compliance. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1984; 100: 258-268.
Fuerst L. Recycling. In DB Sachsman, MR Greenberg, PM Sandman (eds.),
Environmental reporter's handbook. Newark, Hazardous Substances
Management Research Center of the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
1988.
Mann L, Harmoni R, Power C. Adolescent decision making: the
development of competence. Journal of Adolescence. 1989; in press.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 44
National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington
DC, National Academy Press, 1989.
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of
smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 1983; 51: 390-395.
Rice RE, Atkin CK (eds.). Public Communication. Campaigns. Second
Edition. Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications, 1989.
Shantz CV .^Social cognition. In PH Mussen (ed.), Handbook of Child
Psychology. 1983; III: 495-555.
Shumaker SA, Schron EB, Ockene JK (eds.). The Handbook of Health
Behavior Change. New York, Springer-Verlag Publishing, 1990.
Weinstein ND. Cross-hazard consistencies: conclusions about self-
protective behavior. In ND Weinstein (ed.), Taking care. New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Weinstein ND, Sandman PM. A model of the precaution adoption process:
Evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology. 1992; 11: 170-
180.
Related Readings on Decision Making
Mann L, Harmoni R, Power C, Beswick G, Ormond C. Effectiveness of the
GOFER course in decision making for high school students. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making. 1988; 1: 159-168.
Klayman J. Children's decision strategies and their adaptation to task
characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
1985; 35: 179-201.
Arborelius E, Bremberg S. "It is your decision!" behavioral effects
of a student centred health education model at school for adolescents.
Journal of Adolescence. 1988; 11: 287-297.
i
von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral
research. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986,.
Baron J, Brown RV. Teaching Decision Making to Adoleiscents. Hillsdale,
New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
Yates JF (ed.). Risk-Taking Behavior. New York, John Wiley and Sons
1992.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 45
Related Readings on Evaluation
Fisher A, Pavlova M, Covello V. Evaluation and Effective Risk
Communications Workshop Proceedings. Washington DC, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA/600/9-90/054), 1991.
Related Readings on Recycling Behavior
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA.' A focus theory of normative
conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public
places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990; 58: 1015-
1026.
deJager H, Van der Loo F. Decisionmaking in environmental education:
Notes from the Dutch NME-VO Project. Journal of Environmental
Education. 1990; 22: 33-43.
Oskamp S, Harrington MJ, Edwards TC. Factors influencing household
recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior. 1991; 23: 494-519.
Simmons D, Widmar R. Motivations and barriers to recycling: Toward a
strategy for public education. Journal of Environmental Education.
1990; 22: 13-18.
Hopper JR, Nielsen JM. Recycling as an altruistic behavior: Normative
and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community
recycling program. Environment and Behavior. 1991; 23: 195-220.
Williams E. College students and recycling: Their attitudes and
behaviors. Journal of College Student Development. 1991; 32: 86-88.
Vining J, Ebreo A. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers
and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior. 1990; 22: 55-73.
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 46
.APPENDIX C:
Curriculum Material Sources (References) and
Additional Educational Resources Located
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 47
APPENDIX D:
Survey Instruments
-------
Recycling and Youth - Page 48
APPENDIX E:
Curriculum
-------
------- |