Jump to main content.

Promoting Proper Use of a Household Hazardous Waste Facility: A Systems Approach

Quick Links

Research Funding

Metadata


The purpose of the proposed research is to use the new Salt Lake City/County Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHW Facility) as an opportunity to study attitude, motivation, and behavior change. The target behavior is source reduction, not just proper disposal. The project uses a combination of individual persuasion and small group involvement to effect change and support the change on a long-term, internalized basis. Psychological research including research by the PI guides the analyses of the processes by which individuals change attitudes and maintain new behaviors. A small group project teaches church members to develop a HHW Exchange. It can serve as a model for other communities interested in reaching large numbers of citizens efficiently and effectively.

The proposed project addresses four weaknesses in previous efforts to manage household hazardous waste. In so doing, it contributes to our understanding of the psychological processes underlying long-term attitude and behavior change. First, it emphasizes proper use (source reduction, proper storage for extended shelf-life, proper disposal) whereas many communities have focused entirely on disposal of household hazardous waste. Second, it targets values about home appearance and upkeep that underlie the use of hazards. People use their homes to express personal and social values and to demonstrate their status in the community. Currently, achieving the ideal home and conveying that ideal image require the use of hazardous materials. Until the ideal image of home changes, use of hazardous products will continue. Third, the project uses education and persuasion at multiple social levels to embed attitude and behavior change in its social context. Extensive research indicates that norms and attitudes are support
ed or changed by input from friends and community, yet many programs focus entirely on individual level persuasion efforts. This project emphasizes social context at the community level (with messages from government health personnel) and at the small group level (church groups). And finally, the project uses attitude theory, research, and prescaling to design optimum message content.

Expected Results:

Study 1 examines relations among attitudes, intrinsic motivation (viz: ongoing phenomenal experiences, and task persistence. People who express strong attitudes early on should be more committed to success at reducing use of household products, more likely to learn and practice proper storage, more likely to transform tedious tasks into more interesting or pleasant ones, and more likely to continue more difficult or time consuming cleaning methods over the long term--i.e., to reduce their use of more convenient but environmentally hazardous products. Study 2 uses the findings of Study 1 to design optimum persuasive messages and then embeds this information in a significant reference group (church groups). It has three purposes. First, as a case study, it allows us to compare successful and unsuccessful groups and understand the correlates of success at reducing use of hazardous household products. Second, as a practical matter, it institutionalizes programs for reducing use and increasing proper disposal of hazardous products. And third, it provides a basis for development of booklets that can be shared with other communities interested in learning more about source reduction and in developing local HHW Exchanges.

Metadata

EPA/NSF ID:
R825827
Principal Investigators:
Werner, Carol M.
Technical Liaison:
Research Organization:
Utah, University of
Funding Agency/Program:
EPA/ORD/Valuation
Grant Year:
1997
Project Period:
October 1, 1997 to December 31, 1998
Cost to Funding Agency:
$128,211
Project Status Reports:
      In 1998:

      Objective(s) of the Research Project:

      The general purpose of the project is to reduce pressure on household hazardous waste (HHW) facilities by reducing the amount of HHW being discarded. This is consistent with policies developed by the Salt Lake City/County Health Department, with whom we are working. The objectives are to: (1) Develop educational materials that encourage the use of effective alternative nontoxic products, while treating toxic chemical products as a "last resort option" (used when the nontoxic products are inadequate). (2) Develop programs to teach residents to use "product exchanges," so that they share leftover chemical products with friends rather than disposing of them. We encourage people to share purchases so that any products can be used up by the group rather than being stored away. (3) Teach proper storage practices that keep chemicals out of the reach of children and pets while maintaining their viability (e.g., storing in basement rather than garage so that products do not freeze and lose their effectiveness). (4) Educate people about the HHW facility and free reuse center.

      Progress Summary/Accomplishments:

      Experiment 1: Description and Objectives of Research. One purpose of the experiment was to develop effective brochures for use in the subsequent study. The second and primary purpose was to ask whether positive phenomenal experiences mediate between attitudes and long-term behavior change. Positive phenomenal experiences include people describing tasks as "interesting," "fun," or saying "it just feels good to help." (Sansone's research shows that if people have a reason to persist at a boring or unpleasant task (i.e., have strong attitudes favoring), they will reconstrue the task to make it appear more positive. These positive experiences and positive reconstruals are thought to be the basis of long-term behavior change. We hypothesized that our attitude change manipulations would set in motion this reconstrual process, and people would come to enjoy using nontoxic alternatives.

      For Experiment 1, more than 300 potential participants were contacted and useable materials were received from more than 250 of them. Eight versions of the materials were made to create different levels of persuasiveness. All participants were contacted by telephone (some by mail) to ascertain whether they had tried any nontoxic alternatives since the first mailing. This phone call also measured their phenomenal experiences with the nontoxic alternatives (e.g., some enjoyed the clean fragrance of baking soda compared with the odors of ammonia-based cleaners). Six months later, all participants were sent a final questionnaire to determine whether they had tried additional nontoxics (i.e., whether there was long-term behavioral change). We are still receiving the followup postcards and data still are being analyzed.

      Study 1: Description and Objectives of Research. The purpose of this study was to see if we could work effectively with church groups on a household toxics reduction program. We wanted to develop a program that: (a) would be a self-sustaining program, requiring little followup work from the county; and (b) would result in long-term reductions in the use of toxic products (i.e., long-term behavioral change). Another goal of the study was to develop educational materials that other county health departments could use to organize waste-reduction groups in their local communities. Churches were contacted and asked to: (1) distribute the brochure developed in Experiment 1, so that people would learn about nontoxic alternatives and proper disposal of toxic leftovers; (2) organize a product exchange to reduce waste (sharing of leftovers, sharing of new purchases); and (3) learn more about integrated pest management (each church received a book with instructions and pictures of beneficial and harmful insects).

      For Study 1, nearly 400 churches were contacted and approximately 50 have committed to the project. We have been unable to reach many ministers, in part because our policy is not to bother them on days of worship. We offered contests with free publicity for the churches, but the response to date has been muted. We are continuing to contact everyone (even those who refused) with additional opportunities (e.g., an "enjoying nature at home" essay contest). The Liaison, a newsletter for Liaisons sharing successes and activities from other churches, is being published.

      Publications/Presentations:

      Isaac JD, Werner CM, Haggard LM, Adams D, Sansone C, Huong H. Informational brochures and attitude change: differential effectiveness of messages. Presented at the American Psychological Association conference, Boston, MA, August 1999.

      Werner CM, Altman I. Humans and nature: insights from a transactional view. In: Wapner S, Demick J, Minami H, Yamamoto T, eds. Theoretical perspectives in environment behavior research: underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodology. New York: Plenum Press, 1999:21-38.

      Werner CM. Changing environmental behaviors. Presented at the German Psychological Association Meeting (Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie), Dresden, Germany, October 1998.

      Werner CM, Sansone C, Makela E. Intrinsic motivation and green consumers. In: S. Beckmann, chair. Citizen-consumers and the environment. Presented at the International Congress on Applied Psychology, San Francisco, CA, August 1998.

      Future Activities:

      Study 1: Approximately 8 months after initial contact, followup interviews are being conducted with about 60 churches (20 refusers, 20 low successful, and 20 high successful) to gather their impressions of the program, their impressions of their congregations' success, their plans for the future, and their suggestions for methods to involve more people and more churches in similar programs. Based on these interviews, we are expanding the program into other settings. The City/County Health Department has just released a video about household hazardous products that we are presenting to church groups. We are trying to build local awareness about HHW through publicity releases, newspaper interviews, and word-of-mouth contacts. We are sponsoring a second K–12 essay/drawing contest through the local school systems, and a second adult essay contest through local media advertising (results of the first contest will be published in a local newspaper next month).

      Supplemental Keywords: psychology of behavior change, household hazardous waste, attitude change, intrinsic motivation, behavioral self-regulation, reference groups, churches, K–12 education, pollution prevention.

      In 1999:

      Objectives of the Research Project:

      The general purpose of the project is to reduce pressure on household hazardous waste (HHW) disposal facilities by reducing the amount of HHW being discarded. This is consistent with policies developed by the Salt Lake City/County Health Department with which we are working. We are developing educational materials that encourage use of effective alternative nontoxic products, while treating toxic chemical products as a "last resort option" (used when the nontoxic products are inadequate). We are developing programs to teach residents to use "product exchanges" so that they share leftover chemical products with friends rather than disposing of them. We encourage people to share purchases, so that any products can be used up by the group rather than being stored. We are teaching proper storage practices that keep chemicals out of the reach of children and pets while maintaining their viability (e.g., storing in basement rather than garage, so that products do not freeze and lose their effectiveness). Finally, we are educating people about the HHW facility and free reuse center. We target school children and adults with our outreach programs.

      The purpose of this study was to determine if we could work effectively with local groups (church groups and community centers) on a household toxics reduction program. We wanted to develop a program so that it would be self-sustaining, requiring little follow-up work from the county, and would result in long-term reductions in use of toxic products (i.e., long-term behavior change). Another goal was to develop educational materials that other county health departments could use to organize their own waste-reduction groups.

      Progress Summary/Accomplishments:

      In 1999, we continued the outreach program begun in 1998; however, we made several significant changes, all designed to minimize our demands on church groups (feedback from participants indicated that we had been making this a chore, rather than something routine and beneficial). For example, we are working with existing environmental groups within local churches. In addition, we are taking advantage of regularly scheduled meetings rather than suggesting new meeting times (e.g., in the LDS church, Homemaker's meetings; in community centers, providing presentations as part of regular lunch-time activities or attending "information fairs"). Finally, we give each audience member several handouts to serve as long-term resources and behavior-change motivators (these "gifts" are popular and provide an incentive for attending). The handouts include: a 2-year activity calendar (described below), a bookmark with basic "take-away" points, three stick-on labels containing the nontoxic "recipe" or instructions (for labeling nontoxic products, such as insecticidal soap), and our basic HHW handout describing nontoxic alternatives and disposal instructions for HHW. Undergraduate research assistants gave approximately 30 presentations, reaching about 300 adults.

      Another major change in 1999 is that we began targeting school children, giving presentations to third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders. We have developed a presentation about HHW that is linked to each grade's science curriculum, especially "pollution prevention" units. We use the presentation to get children excited about protecting local wildlife in their backyards (e.g., we show them pictures of colorful native birds, butterflies, and dragonflies). Our guiding theory suggests that when people have a highly desirable, long-term goal (backyard wildlife), they will be more likely to maintain short- and long-term behavior change (reduction of HHW). We give each child an activity and coloring calendar containing more information about reducing toxics around the home and yard. The 2-year calendar is designed to gradually teach the children and their parents about HHW reduction and proper disposal. Thus, although we are only in contact with people for a brief period, the handouts help to sustain interest in the information. The research team gave almost 80 presentations, reaching approximately 2,400 children.

      The outreach per se is being evaluated through simple questionnaires that provide basic feedback about the presentations. The actual effectiveness of the program is being measured more indirectly, through a laboratory experiment. In 1999, approximately 65 students participated in the laboratory experiment. An additional 60 students will be added in 2000.

      Publications/ Presentations:

      Werner CM, Altman I. Humans and nature: insights from a transactional view. In: Theoretical perspectives in environment behavior research: underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodology. Wapner S, Demick J, Minami H, Yamamoto T, eds. New York: Plenum Press, 1999. Also presented at the International Congress on Applied Psychology Symposium, San Francisco, CA, August 14, 1998.

      Werner CM, Sansone C, Makela E. Intrinsic motivation and green consumers. Citizen-consumers and the environment. Presented at the International Congress on Applied Psychology Symposium, San Francisco, CA, August 1998.

      Werner CM. Changing environmental behaviors. Presented at the German Psychological Association Meeting (KongreB der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie), Dresden, Germany, October 1999 (available in Conference Proceedings).

      Isaac JD, Werner CM, Haggard LM, Adams D, Sansone C, Kesner L, Huong H. Informational brochures and attitude change: differential effectiveness of messages. Poster presented at the American Psychological Association Meeting, Boston, MA, August 1999.

      Werner CM, Adams D, Sansone C, Isaac JD, Kesner L, Huong H. Reference groups and behavior change: a study of household hazardous waste reduction. Poster presented to the American Psychological Society Meeting, Denver, CO, June 1999.

      Future Activities:

      We are continuing the presentations to church groups and finishing up the laboratory "evaluation" of the presentations. We are trying to build local awareness about HHW through publicity releases, newspaper interviews, and word-of-mouth contacts. We sponsored a second K-12 essay/drawing contest through the local school systems, and a second adult essay contest through local media advertising. Winning essays/pictures will be published in the Earth Day issue of "Catalyst," a local magazine, and in "KOPE Chronicles," a local children's newsletter.

      Supplemental Keywords: psychology of behavior change, household hazardous waste, attitude change, intrinsic motivation, behavioral self-regulation, reference groups, churches, K–12 education, pollution prevention.

Project Reports:
Final

Objective: The general purpose of the project was to reduce pressure on household hazardous waste (HHW) disposal facilities by reducing the amount of HHW being discarded. The research asked the questions "Why do people use toxic household products?" and "Can we teach them to be more careful in their use and disposal of these products?" Five behaviors were targeted: (1) switch to nontoxic alternative products, (2) store chemicals at proper temperatures to extend shelf life, (3) use up leftovers instead of disposing of them, (4) share unwanted leftovers with friends, and (5) take spoiled products to the HHW facility. Over a 2.5-year period, we developed a holistic program, based on the general idea that individuals' attitudes and behaviors are embedded in and informed by important reference groups. We also based the program on fundamental psychological principles relating to how people process messages, what increases acceptability of the message, what increases memory of the information, and what can be done to help people maintain new behaviors. The project is relevant to basic theory in psychology as well as HHW managers, and different presentations and articles targeted these different audiences.

Summary/Accomplishments: During the first year of the grant, we focused on the development of brochures. We developed brochures to interest residents in nontoxic alternatives and to convince them to use the HHW facility. These brochures were based on two psychological theories. First was a standard persuasion strategy?coupling a moderate level of fear with clear instructions for preventing the fear-arousing outcome (home safety and protection of groundwater). Second was information about positive phenomenal aspects of the alternatives, such as the fresher fragrance. This strategy was suggested by research on behavioral self-regulation that people who emphasize such features are more likely to maintain a new behavior (Sansone and Smith, 2000). Several pilot studies and a field experiment (n = 188, representing a 60 percent response rate) demonstrated that the brochure would be an effective handout (Isaac, et al., 1999).

Also during Year 1, we tried to change residents' values about the ideal home and yard so as to reduce their need for toxic products. However, focus groups and ratings of sample brochures suggested that it would be difficult to change residents' views about these ideals. At the same time, we learned that residents were receptive to the idea that nontoxic alternatives were just as effective as toxic products. As a consequence, we made the "just as effective" message one of our major themes, and "modifying images of the ideal home and yard" a longer-term goal. A second consideration was social embeddedness?the idea that people embrace these ideal images in part because of a desire to fit into a neighborhood or other social group. It may be that hearing others endorse a new image is essential to changing one's own image. That is, if these are socially constructed and endorsed ideals, they can be replaced only by new ideals that also are socially constructed and endorsed. This consideration was an important basis for our decision to use group discussions as a setting for attitude and behavior change.

During the second year of the grant, our objective was to develop a successful education and behavior-change program. We tried a variety of strategies for getting local groups interested in our behavioral objectives. One strategy that did not work was to send materials to church groups and ask them to develop programs in conjunction with our "liaison." Liaisons contacted over 300 churches (every non-Latter Day Saints (Mormon) congregation in the County and a random sample of LDS congregations) by phone, mail, or in person, and sent or dropped off packets of materials that each group could use to educate its members. We developed a regular newsletter with nontoxic recipes and other relevant information. A handful of churches provided us with the name of a person interested in organizing their group, and only one group reported a successful leftover exchange. Therefore, we abandoned this approach as unproductive.

Two of the programs we implement during the second year were successful. These programs were more structured and more specifically designed to facilitate the five target HHW behaviors. The first successful program we tried was the Elementary School Pollution Prevention Program. It targeted pollution prevention components of Utah's elementary school curriculum (3rd, 4th, and 5th graders). We aimed to increase children's interest in science classes, but also hoped that the children would share their enthusiasm with their parents. The idea was to arouse interest in "enjoying backyard nature," a goal that is incompatible with overuse of toxic products. Six undergraduate students were trained and gave presentations about the desirability of "nature friendly backyards" to 40 elementary school classes. A nature friendly backyard provides habitat for native species of birds, insects, and other native wildlife. The undergraduates developed and distributed a 2-year calendar of fun backyard activities as a way to maintain interest after our presentation. Some of the calendar projects specifically focused on our program's five target behaviors. The calendar was deliberately a little above the students' level so that they would have to involve their parents in the activities. We had intended to do a formal program evaluation to ascertain the program's effectiveness, but we could not get adequate cooperation from the school districts. We stopped this program, but would continue it if we could conduct an evaluation that included feedback from parents about the calendar and whether their home and yard care behaviors had been changed. Based on feedback from the teachers (questionnaires with open- and closed-format items), and on the children's spontaneous reactions, we continued to refine the calendar and used it as a hand-out in our second outreach program.

Our second and most successful approach, the Adult Lewinian Groups Program, was derived from Lewin's (1952) group-based education and behavior-change program. The program targeted the five behaviors listed above (use nontoxics, store chemicals properly, use up and share leftovers, and dispose of spoiled products at the HHW facility). Key features are that the individual's attitude and behavior change are embedded in a significant reference group, and the program involves discussion of issues rather than a unidirectional presentation of information. The discussion format allows participants to learn each other's diverse opinions, and this knowledge can open participants to new information. To date, over 80 groups have participated, mostly church groups, but a few high school classes, senior centers, and service clubs (e.g., Lion's Club). Trained presenters show a video about the County's new HHW-disposal facility and lead a discussion of what group members can do to cooperate with new health department regulations regarding HHW. In addition to suggesting proper disposal, the presenters encourage group members to discuss nontoxic alternative products, ways of sharing leftovers, proper storage, and so on. We distribute several handouts as memory prompts to extend the impact of the meeting, and we provide recipes for and demonstrate homemade nontoxic products to show their effectiveness. The meetings end with free samples of a homemade product.

This group-based program assumes that there is no "silver bullet" for changing behavior. Instead, a program must address multiple aspects of a total system?including the individual, his or her social group, and the physical environment in which behavior occurs. Effective education and change efforts must do all of the following:
1. Address the individual's thoughts and memory processes with persuasive and memorable messages.
2. Include information about the behavior?how to be successful at it, and how to ground the behavior in its physical and behavioral setting (the natural flow of events).
3. Suggest ways of making the physical environment more supportive of the new behavior.
4. Target or involve the local social milieu in which the individual and behavior are embedded.
5. Change the broader societal pressures and public information that informs the individual and social group.
6. Education and change efforts also must be sensitive to temporal qualities, such as short- and long-term aspects of change. New behaviors need to be supported by the physical and social environments, and long-term support needs to be "institutionalized" so that it becomes an integral part of other group activities.

Evaluation of the Program: Questionnaires. To evaluate the impact of these discussions, we distributed two questionnaires to each program organizer (the contact person who had invited us to present to the group). The first was for the organizer, and the second was for "a member of the group who had missed our presentation." Our aim was to evaluate the impact of the program by comparing the attitudes and behaviors of people who had seen the presentation with a "matched control group"?people similar to the organizers in socioeconomic status, religion, and education level, but who had by choice or chance missed the presentation. We used two techniques for increasing honest responses: we provided complete anonymity so they would feel comfortable being honest, and we asked for their help in improving the program?only honest answers would help us improve the program.

We received useable responses from 49 organizers. These organizers reported a very positive reaction to the presentation, with high marks for the nontoxic ideas, presenters, and handouts. The overall favorability rating was 9.2 on an 11-point scale (where 11= extremely favorable). They also reported that they planned to use more nontoxic alternatives (mean score across three 11-point items is 8.4). With respect to sharing leftovers with friends, 16 (36 percent), of the organizers reported they had begun sharing, and strongly intended to continue sharing.

Since our presentation, 39 percent of the organizers had taken something to the HHW disposal facility (including 3 who noted they were sharing or using up leftovers as per our presentation). If this percentage of "proper disposers" generalized to everyone who saw our presentation, we potentially changed the behaviors of almost 500 households (39 percent of the estimated 1275 households not already using the facility).

How does this level of change compare to previous promotion campaigns? Five other organizers?or 10 percent of the 49 respondents?reported they had already been using the facility in the 5 years since it had opened. We could consider that 10 percent to represent a baseline, indicating what percentage of this population had known about and used the facility before our presentation. In other words, our presentation?which induced 39 percent to treat HHW properly?appears to be almost four times as successful as the publicity, announcements, and word of mouth that had been going on for the previous 5 years. Another comparison group comes from the survey conducted in Year 1 of the grant. In that sample of 170 homeowners, a similar 11 percent had disposed of leftovers at the facility (Werner and Sorod, 2001), providing further support for our group meetings. Costs for this impact are fairly modest. With an average group size of 31, and approximately $25.00 per group for the presentation (includes supplies, handouts, scheduling, and presenter), the cost for contacting each household is less than $3.00.

For comparison purposes, we asked each organizer to give an additional questionnaire to a group member who had missed our presentation. In theory, this "matched control" person should be similar to the organizer in many personal and demographic qualities, including their initial attitudes about household chemicals. A comparison of the organizer with the matched control would give some idea of the importance of seeing the presentation. As expected, those who had seen the presentation were more likely to have begun sharing leftovers, and also more likely to be practicing proper disposal at the HHW facility.

Results also indicated that organizers were significantly more favorable than the matched controls on all of the other items (e.g., using nontoxic alternatives, and the importance of reducing use of toxic chemical products). Of particular interest was a difference between the organizers and their matched control group with respect to predictions about how the group would behave. Organizers were more aware of whether their group had begun sharing leftovers and had higher expectations that the group would continue to share leftovers. Thus, the matched control group?who had not seen our presentation?had a rather dismal view of whether their friends would be interested in sharing leftovers. In contrast, organizers who had been present for the discussion and could see the enthusiasm of their friends, believed the group would share leftovers instead of discarding them. This is consistent with our view that group discussions allow people to see each other's enthusiasm for a new idea and encourages people to consider the new behavior with greater enthusiasm.

The feedback from organizers is encouraging, and differences between organizers and group members who had missed the meeting (the "matched controls") support the theory that people attend to how their friends react to new information. However, there are two issues that weaken this inference. One is the sample size (n = 44). Although the differences are statistically reliable (would occur again), a larger sample would help assure that the findings are generalizable (true of a broader population). The second problem is self-selection by the control group. Although we asked the organizer to use a random procedure for selecting a person who had missed the meeting to complete the extra questionnaire, that did not tell us whether the person had missed the meeting by choice or by accident. If the control group contained many people who were disinterested in toxics reduction but the organizers were all interested in the message, the differences between their reported opinions could be due to initial interest, not any impact of our meeting. Note that this is primarily a concern about respondents' own opinions. It is less likely to be a concern about their estimates of their group's reactions, and it is these estimates that support the idea that hearing friends embrace new ideas is a key part of individual attitude and behavior change.

Evaluation of the Program: Follow-up Interviews
. A random sample from the 73 organizers was contacted several months after the presentation. They were interviewed in more depth about their group's behaviors since the presentation. The questionnaires had been completely anonymous (to increase honest responding), and we made no effort to connect this interview with the original questionnaire. All 22 interviews indicated that the organizer had been thinking about issues raised in the presentation, especially lifestyle changes and leftover sharing.

Eight (36 percent) said that their biggest lifestyle change had been trying to reduce use of toxic products and increase use of nontoxic alternatives. They said group members also were changing, and all liked the safety and the financial savings of nontoxics.

Twelve organizers (55 percent) said that their group already had begun sharing or had held an exchange in some form (note that this number is higher than had been reported in the questionnaires, suggesting groups had taken a month or so to organize their exchanges). Two people said that they or another member had been making regular announcements to the group, or had put reminders in newsletters and other mailings. Two said that their group regularly had a "sharing" table or a "give and take" table for clothing, food, etc., and they planned to dedicate one week to sharing leftover paints and chemicals (we sent instructions for safety in leftover sharing). About half the people said that their group would share leftover toxic products with friends, but that the idea of a major exchange did not appeal to them. Five people said their group would not have an exchange and attributed that to a variety of factors: "my fault?I need to get going on this" (n = 1); a lack of leadership (n = 2); personal discomfort at pushing people to reduce use of toxic products or share leftovers (n = 2); and the difficulty of organizing and managing an exchange (n = 2).

Three types of organizers emerged from the interviews. The first type was comfortable making information available?they put articles into newsletters, made announcements at meetings, talked to group members about nontoxic alternatives, and so on. They expressed no hesitation or reluctance about promoting toxics reduction, treating it as something that needed to be done. Indeed, very early in this program (before we developed the presentations), the very first leftover exchange was organized by this kind of individual. She announced the upcoming exchange three Sundays in a row?accompanied by two of her friends whom she had induced to dress up in plastic garbage bags and put on a skit. When complimented on her ingenuity, she seemed surprised, and said it had not been difficult at all.

This comfortable, direct style was completely different from the second group. This group seemed to feel very uncomfortable in any leadership role, hoped that someone else would take over, were embarrassed about nagging people (e.g., "I'm not comfortable pushing people" and "I've been trying to get people to change for years, but it's hard to talk to them"), and in general seemed to lack skills needed to organize and motivate others. They may have assumed that people would not be interested or would resent any reminders (although no negative reactions were reported). The third group was intermediate. They seemed to be very good at working with their close friends, but very uncomfortable operating at a more public level. These two latter "types" may benefit from meetings with the first "type," and we hope to organize informal meetings at which organizers could share their experiences and motivate each other to try different kinds of outreach.

Summary. Over a 2.5-year period, a program was developed for teaching citizens how to reduce generation of household hazardous waste. Group meetings were used as a context in which to discuss alternatives to toxic products, sharing of leftovers with friends, proper storage to extend shelf-life, and other ways of reducing household hazardous waste. The meetings emphasized group discussion so that group members could hear each other's opinions about the issues. This program was estimated to be approximately 4 times as successful as the County's previous efforts to teach people about the new HHW disposal facility. The program was based on a holistic model of behavior and attitude change that incorporated social-psychological principles of memory, information processing, and attitude change, environmental psychology principles of connections between behavior and the physical environment, and environmental psychology principles of the ideal images of home. Two publications explain how to develop similar programs and are written for HHW managers (Werner and Adams, 2000 and 2001); one article is written for psychologists and provides details on the theoretical rationale and program evaluation (Werner, submitted).

Book Chapters:

Werner CM, Altman I. Humans and nature: insights from a transactional view. In: Wapner S, Demick J, Minami H, Yamamoto T, eds. Theoretical Perspectives in Environment Behavior Research: Underlying Assumptions, Research Problems, and Methodology. New York: Plenum Press, 1999, pp. 21-38.

Werner CM, Altman I. Humans and nature: insights from a transactional view. Presented at the International Congress on Applied Psychology Symposium, San Francisco, CA, August 14, 1998.

Werner CM, Brown BB, Altman I. Planning and doing transactionally-oriented research: examples and strategies. In: Bechtel R, Churchman A, eds. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Journal Article:

Werner CM, Adams D. A multi-level approach to long-term behavior change: teaching proper use of a household hazardous waste facility. ASAP (an on-line journal sponsored by the American Psychological Association's Division 9, Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues, available January, 2001 at www.spssi.org ).

Presentations:

McVaugh N, Werner CM, Sansone C, Livsey S, Smith JL. Behavior change to support environmental policy: the "enjoying backyard nature" calendar. Poster session presented at the ISSRM conference (Eighth International Symposium for Society and Resource Management), Bellingham, WA, June 2000.

Werner CM. Changing environmental behaviors. Presented at the German Psychological Association Meeting (Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie), Dresden, Germany, October 1998.

Werner CM. Changing environmental behaviors. Presented at the German Psychological Association Meeting (Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie), Dresden, Germany, October 1999 (available in Conference Proceedings).

Werner CM, Sansone C, Livsey S, McVaugh N, Smith JL. Changing environmental behaviors: inspiration from persuasion and behavioral self-regulation research. Paper presented at the ISSRM conference (Eighth International Symposium for Society and Resource Management), Bellingham, WA, June 2000.

Livsey S, Werner CM, Sansone C, McVaugh N, Smith JL. Encouraging nature friendly gardening: strategies that combine persuasion and behavioral self-regulation. Poster session presented at the ISSRM conference (Eighth International Symposium for Society and Resource Management), Bellingham, WA, June 2000.

Isaac JD, Werner CM, Haggard LM, Adams D, Sansone C, Huong H. Informational brochures and attitude change: differential effectiveness of messages. Presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Boston, MA, August 1999.

Werner CM, Sansone C, Makela E. Intrinsic motivation and green consumers. In: S. Beckmann, chair. Citizen-consumers and the environment. Presented at the International Congress on Applied Psychology, San Francisco, CA, August 1998.

Werner CM, Adams D, Sansone C, Isaac JD, Kesner L, Huong H. Reference groups and behavior change: a study of household hazardous waste reduction. Poster presented to the American Psychological Society Meeting, Denver, CO, June 1999.

Werner CM, Adams D. Strategies for behavior change: the "no more chemically-dependent homes" program. Presented at the 2000 Northwest Household Hazardous Waste Conference, Portland, OR, May 2000.

Werner CM. Changing environmental behaviors. In: Proceedings of the German Psychological Association Meeting (Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Psychologie), Dresden, Germany, October 1999.

Werner CM, Adams D. Strategies for behavior change: the "no more chemically-dependent homes" program. In: Proceedings of the 2000 SWANA/NAHMMA Conference, Boston, MA, November 2000.

Report:

Werner CM, Sorod B. Salt Lake County residents' knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions about household hazardous waste disposal. Technical report to Salt Lake Valley Health Department, January 2001.

Supplemental Keywords: persuasion, behavior change, reference group, intrinsic motivation, household hazardous waste.


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.