dr. ronald e. mcnair acknowledgements - University of St. Thomas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UST McNair Scholars Program Research Journal information, and provided a link to the online survey. Posting the study in the daily online bulletin allowed the researcher to contact students not on campus during the summer session. Paper posters were placed near campus dining halls, student centers, and residence halls. Finally, the researcher created a facebook invitation to recruit volunteers for the anonymous online survey. Each of the recruitment methods informed students of a drawing for two $25 gift cards to the campus bookstore upon completion of the survey. MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE The study methods were adapted from procedures used by Nolan and colleagues (2008) in their experiment (Study 2) examining California residents’ motivations to conserve energy. Qualtrics Survey Software hosted the online survey. Participants logged on and were presented with a consent form that included the purpose of the study, contact information of the researcher, and the option to withdraw from the study at any point. After indicating their consent to participate, students were randomly assigned to an experimental condition in which they were presented with a scenario and then asked to answer a set of questions. The study used a 2x5 factorial design. The first independent variable, with two levels, was the presence or absence of an image accompanying the text scenario. The second independent variable was the type of message. There were five message conditions, each presenting a different reason for reducing wasted food: descriptive norm, self interest (economic), environment, social responsibility, or informational control. All message conditions except the information only conditions contained motivational information as to why the student should reduce the amount of food they waste. In addition to varying the message, half of the participants were shown a picture of food waste in a cafeteria setting, while the other half received no picture along with the message (see Figure 1). Each participant was then asked “How much did the information provided motivate you to reduce the amount of food you waste?” They then responded to a series of statements to assess their perceived psychological distance to the issue of food waste. The set of 19 statements described their personal reactions to the idea of food wasted on campus and students indicated their level of agreement with each one. As part of the personal reactions measure, 52 participants then were asked to write-in three words that came to mind when they thought of food waste. Finally, the survey concluded with a demographic section to give a general picture of who took the survey. When participants reached the end of the survey, they read a message thanking them for their participation and were shown a debriefing page. RESULTS These preliminary results are based on 239 responses. Participants were asked “How much did the information in this message motivate you to reduce food waste on campus?” with responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Participants rated the environmental message (M = 2.35, SD = .80) as the most motivational for conditions with no picture present, followed by the financial self interest message (M = 2.29, SD = .64) and the social responsibility message (M = 2.25, SD = .55). The descriptive social norm message (M = 2.05, SD = .80), and the informational control message (M = 1.95, SD = .70) were rated as the least motivational by participants for conditions with no picture present. Participants rated the financial message (M = 2.62, SD = .88) as the most motivational for conditions with a picture present, followed by the social responsibility message (M = 2.56, SD = .77) and the environmental message (M = 2.25, SD = .99). Once again, the descriptive social norm message (M = 2.16, SD = .69) and the informational control message (M = 1.96, SD = .82) were rated as the least motivational by participants for conditions with a picture present. Overall, participants rated the financial messages (M = 2.47, SD = .79) as being the most motivational, followed by the social responsibility messages (M = 2.42, SD = .69) and the environmental messages (M = 2.31, SD = .88). Participants rated the descriptive social norm messages (M = 2.12, SD = .73) and the informational only messages (M = 1.95, SD = .76) as being the least motivational overall (refer to Table 1). Pairwise comparisons showed that the scores for the information control conditions were significantly lower than those in the financial self interest conditions (t = - .503, p = .003), the environmental conditions (t = -.350,
Bridgette Kelly Environmental Sciences Reducing food waste p = .030), and the social responsibility conditions (t = - .453, p = .007) but not significantly different from the descriptive social norm conditions. These comparisons also showed that the scores for the descriptive social norm conditions were significantly lower than those in the financial self interest conditions (t = -.351, p = .029) but not significantly different from the environmental conditions, the social responsibility conditions, and the informational control conditions (see Table 2). An ANOVA showed that, overall, the presence of a picture of food waste did not have significant effect on rated motivations (F (1, 229) = 1.72, p = .19), as there was not a significant difference between picture present conditions (M = 2.31, SE =.07) and no picture present conditions (M = 2.18, SE = .08) (refer to Table 3). However, the ANOVA did show that message type had a significant effect on motivation ratings (F (4,161) = 2.81 = p < .05) (refer to Table 4). These results did not address the set of 19 statements describing participants’ personal reactions to the idea of food wasted on campus, nor did they address the three words participants wrote in as ones that came to mind when they thought of food waste. DISCUSSION The results show that message type has a significant affect on participants’ rated motivation to reduce food waste on campus. These results cannot confirm that the presence of an image displaying food waste has a significant affect on participants’ rated motivations to reduce food waste on campus. With a larger number of participants the influence of image on motivation may have become clearer. While no definitive statements can be made regarding the image presence conditions, there are speculations as to which messages may be most affected by presenting a picture of food waste. The financial self-interest and social responsibility messages demonstrated the greatest differences between the no picture present and picture present conditions (see Figure 2). One explanation for this may be that participants found the financial and social responsibility messages with a picture to have provided them with the most experiential learning (Marx et al, 2007). As a result of the experiential learning, participants may be able to conceptualize financial loss and nationwide hunger easier than they could conceptualize environmental degradation, social comparison, and straightforward information. Further exploration is necessary to affirm any of these assumptions. Collapsing the data across variables to focus on the significant variable, message type, shows that the financial self interest, social responsibility, and environmental messages were rated as the most motivational by participants, and the descriptive social norm and the informational only messages were rated as being the least motivational (see Figure 3). These findings partially supported my first hypothesis that the social responsibility message would be rated as one of the most motivating messages. However, the environmental message was rated as the third most motivating message and the financial selfinterest message reported higher motivational ratings among participants than the social responsibility message. This may be because college students are slightly more concerned with financial hardship than hunger in America at this point in their lives. These students may also not be as familiar with hunger in America as they are with financial stresses. The results did not support my hypothesis that the descriptive social norm message would be rated as the least motivational. This may be due to the fact that wasting food is not a topic which is discussed as frequently as energy conservation. Energy conservation has become a behavior which is considered to be positive due to the popularization of “going green” campaigns. However, food waste has not been as heavily focused upon in these conservation efforts; therefore, participants may not have automatically considered the action itself to be motivating. Though, it is noteworthy that these messages were still rated as being less motivating than the environmental, financial, and social responsibility messages, following a similar pattern to the results of the Nolan et al. (2008) study. Limitations included a lack of participants due to the time constraints. The researcher would have liked to collect 300 participant responses total to conduct a final analysis of the data. Also, students may not wish to take the time for the survey. The researcher also found difficulty in recruiting St. Thomas students during the summer months since not as many students were on campus. 53
Page 1 and 2:
DR. RONALD E. MCNAIR Ronald E. McNa
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT The purpose of the present
Page 5 and 6: Oluwademilade Adediran Psychology M
Page 21 and 22: ABSTRACT Early childhood education
Page 23 and 24: Kesha Berg Public Policy Enhancing
Page 43 and 44: ABSTRACT Human immunodeficiency vir
Page 45 and 46: Mondraya Howard Pharmacy HIV-1 Resi
Page 47 and 48: Mondraya Howard Pharmacy HIV-1 Resi
Page 49 and 50: ABSTRACT Food waste in the United S
Page 51 and 52: Bridgette Kelly Environmental Scien
Page 53: Bridgette Kelly Environmental Scien
Page 63 and 64: ABSTRACT This research discusses he
Page 65 and 66: Chia Lee Public Health Health care
Page 75 and 76: Mai-Eng Lee Social Work Teachers’
Page 83 and 84: APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Back
show all

dr. ronald e. mcnair acknowledgements - University of St. Thomas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?