Journal of Leisure Research, Fall 1995 v27 n4 p326(18)

Author's Abstract: COPYRIGHT National Recreation and Park Association 1995

Full Text: COPYRIGHT National Recreation and Park Association 1995 Introduction

Damage to natural and cultural resources due to visitors' violation of protective rules is a major problem facing outdoor recreation management agencies. Such damage can have adverse psychological effects on visitors, as well as major impacts on organizational budgets (Heywood, Mullins, & Blower, 1984). One estimate of the cost of repairing and preventing resource and facility damage in outdoor recreation areas placed the total at over $500 million a year (Christensen, 1984).

Theoretical Background

Indirect Management and Prosocial Behavior

Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of indirect management in reducing rule violations and damaging behavior in outdoor recreation settings. In a review of this research, Gramann and Vander Stoep (1987) argued that the results of these studies could be explained by prosocial behavior theory. Prosocial behavior is voluntary helping behavior carried out to benefit others without the incentive of material rewards for helping or the threat of probable punishment for not helping (Bar-Tal, 1982). Prosocial behavior often entails a sacrifice by the helper that may range from minor inconveniences to significant social, economic, and physical costs. Schwartz (1977) hypothesized that helping behavior is more likely to occur when potential helpers are made aware of the consequences of their helping (or not helping) for others, and when they feel personally responsible to help in specific situations. Schwartz referred to the first of these factors as awareness of consequences," and to the second as "ascription of responsibility."

Psychologists often distinguish between different types of prosocial actions (McGuire, 1994). Grace, Bell, & Sugar (1988) defined "spontaneous helping" as a decision to help strangers in surprise and/or emergency situations, while "asked-for" (or casual) helping entails a verbal or nonverbal request for help in a non-emergency situation. The second of these appears to correspond most closely to the types of actions that occur when people voluntarily obey protective regulations in recreation areas, even when there may be reasons to disobey.

Prosocial behavior theory suggests that one key to promoting rule conformity in recreation areas is to use information and education to increase visitors' awareness of the negative consequences for resources of disobeying protective rules (Vander Stoep & Gramann, 1987). This approach should be especially effective if rules are being disregarded out of ignorance of the impact of violations on resources, rather than as a result of malicious or vindictive intent (Namba & Dustin, 1992), and if people perceive that conforming will not jeopardize their personal safety (Smitherman, 1992). Indeed, field experiments in outdoor recreation areas have shown repeatedly that educating both youthful and adult visitors about the reasons for a particular rule can reduce violations significantly compared to the level observed in control groups (Oliver, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1985; Roggenbuck & Berrier, 1982; Vander Stoep & Gramann, 1987).

Direct Management and Protection Motivation

Field research in outdoor recreation settings also supports the efficacy of direct approaches in the form of sanctions in deterring rule violations (Johnson & Swearingen, 1992; Martin, 1992; Samdahl & Christensen, 1985). Although the theoretical basis for this research has not been discussed extensively, it appears to have its underpinning in various versions of persuasion theory, particularly protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1985). As its name implies, protection motivation theory assumes that people are motivated to defend themselves against physical, psychological, or social harm. The original version of the theory explained persuasion as a function of anxiety-producing messages called "fear appeals." These messages are designed to deter particular behaviors by informing people of the personal harm that engaging in such actions will produce. Examples of fear appeals include the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packages and messages describing sanctions for littering and other forms of law-breaking. Fear appeals differ from awareness-of-consequences messages in that the former focus on harm to the actor, while the latter describe harm to others or to the environment arising from specific behaviors.

Protection motivation theory hypothesizes that the effectiveness of fear appeals in activating protection motivation is contingent upon three characteristics of a message: 1) the noxiousness or severity of the threatened harm, 2) the probability of the harm's occurrence, and 3) the efficacy of recommended coping responses. The more severe the danger, the more likely its occurrence, and the greater the perceived effectiveness of recommended actions to avoid harm, the stronger should be the motivation to engage in a coping response. In a revision of this theory, Maddux and Rogers (1983) added a fourth antecedent of successful persuasion: self-efficacy, or people's belief that they are capable of performing the recommended coping behavior.

Protection motivation theory has been applied primarily in health-related and marketing contexts (Robberson & Rogers, 1988; Tanner, Jr., Hunt, & Eppright, 1991). Research in these arenas has supported the importance of each of the four factors in producing positive attitudes and intentions to engage in recommended behaviors. In a recreation context, fear appeals, either in the form of threatened fines for rule-breaking (Johnson & Swearingen, 1992; Martin, 1992), or as warnings about health-related dangers (Schwarzkopf, 1984), has significantly increased rule-compliance by visitors. An experiment designed to reduce wildlife feeding in a national park (Schwarzkopf, 1984) is of special interest because it is the only one to directly compare the effectiveness of awareness-of-consequences messages and fear appeals in reducing rule violations in a recreation setting. In this study, a sign describing the danger of contracting bubonic plague from squirrel bites was more effective in reducing squirrel-feeding by visitors than a sign that described the harm to squirrels from a diet of visitor handouts.

Social Responsibility

Despite successes, experimental research in recreation settings has left important theoretical questions unanswered. Among these is the role played by trait variables in affecting responses to educational messages and fear appeals. The distinction between the two forms of helping behavior described earlier becomes especially relevant in this regard, since previous research shows that they tend to have different determinants. Situational factors, such as the number of potential helpers present, often predicts spontaneous helping actions better than individual traits (Grace et al., 1988). On the other hand, individual characteristics appear to play a more important role in asked-for helping (Eisenberg, 1991; Grace et al., 1988; Knight, Johnson, Carlo, & Eisenberg, 1994). These personal traits include such characteristics as dominance, affective reasoning, perspective-taking, sympathy, and the trait that is the focus of this research: social responsibility.

Gough, McCloskey, & Meehl (1952) conceptualized social responsibility as a dispositional trait which reflects an individual's dependability, sense of obligation to the group, and willingness to accept the consequences of his or her own behavior. Subsequent research has demonstrated that socially responsible persons have an enhanced sense of commitment to the collective good, a strong tendency to delay personal gratification, and a proclivity to help others, even when there is nothing material to be gained by doing so (Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986; Berkowitz & Lutterman, 1968; Willis & Goethals, 1973; Witt, 1990). Indeed, Rushton (1981) has gone so far as to argue that social responsibility is a basic element of a person's "helping personality."

It seems probable that people who are more socially responsible will be more receptive to educational messages promoting their awareness of the negative environmental effects of violating rules in outdoor recreation areas. Since social responsibility correlates positively with educational achievement (Willis & Goethals, 1973), and many visitors to parks and similar rural recreation settings tend to be highly educated, this may explain the success of information and education in reducing depreciative behavior in these areas. On the other hand, persons who are less socially responsible may be less likely to respond to awareness-of-consequences approaches, since these persons tend to elevate personal comfort and convenience above the welfare of others. Although we have not found research describing the relationship between social responsibility and responses to fear appeals, it seems reasonable to argue that the threat of a sanction for violating rules may be more effective than awareness-of-consequences messages in bringing about rule conformity in low social-responsibility visitors. This is because such visitors should be primarily concerned about their own welfare, and thus should be strongly motivated to avoid threats to their own well-being.

Hypotheses

This experiment tested the following five hypotheses, which are based on the above review of research:

[H.sub.4]: Subjects who are high in social responsibility will be more likely to intend to obey protective rules after receiving awareness-of-consequences information than subjects who are low in social responsibility (interaction of social responsibility with awareness of consequences).

[H.sub.5]: Subjects who are low in social responsibility will be more likely to intend to obey protective rules after receiving information on probable sanctions for violations than subjects who are high in social responsibility (interaction of social responsibility and fear appeals).

Methods

Although field conditions provide excellent opportunities for observing managerially relevant behavior, it is cumbersome to measure personality traits in these settings. Experimental research analyzing the theoretical role of personality in rule conformity is more easily conducted in the controlled environment of a laboratory.

Subjects in this laboratory experiment were students enrolled in undergraduate history and political science courses at Texas A&M University. In June, 1992, 514 students completed a condensed version of Perloe's (1967) Social Values Questionnaire designed to measure their level of social responsibility. The questionnaire was self-administered and was completed during normal class hours. Subjects who scored above the median on the questionnaire were placed in a "high" social-responsibility group, while those scoring below the median were placed in a "low" social-responsibility group.

Of the original 514 subjects, 203 (39.5%) indicated that they would be willing to complete a second questionnaire at a later date. This second instrument was described as a "relatively short and interesting scenario questionnaire about outdoor recreation experiences." Students were told that they would receive $5.00 for completing the second part of the study. The second questionnaire was developed originally by Kim (1990) and revised for the current study. Because it asks subjects to project themselves into scenarios that involve dilemmas related to either observing or violating a regulation in a recreation setting, it was labeled the "Social Dilemma Questionnaire" (SDQ).

The SDQ consists of six scenarios that describe dilemmas that might be faced by visitors in outdoor recreation areas. In each dilemma there is a compelling reason to disobey a regulation. The scenarios are: 1) a dilemma concerning camping at an unauthorized area in a wilderness; 2) a dilemma involving too many vehicles parked at a campsite during a family reunion; 3) a dilemma concerning the use of glass beverage containers at a beach; 4) a dilemma about building an illegal campfire during dry weather conditions; 5) a dilemma concerning a prohibition against wood fires in a backcountry area; and 6) a dilemma about not taking trail shortcuts during a thunderstorm.

Subjects were asked to project themselves into the specific situation described in each scenario and decide the likelihood that they would violate or not violate the rule in question. For each dilemma, subjects completed two six-point bipolar response scales (-3 to +3) measuring their behavioral intention. The first scale assessed the likelihood that the subject would break the rule, while the second measured the likelihood that the rule would be obeyed. Correlations between these two intention measures ranged from -0.64 to -0.80, indicating, as expected, that persons who recorded a high probability of intending to disobey a rule in the first question indicated a low probability of conforming to the rule in the second response.

Subjects were also asked to indicate the number of times they had been camping or backpacking within the last two years. Responses were recorded in the following categories: none, one-to-two, three-to-four, five-to-six, and seven or more times.

Experimental Procedures

Initial selection of the 120 participants from the pool of 203 volunteers was subject to two conditions. In order to obtain maximally different groups on social responsibility, students who scored at or near the median on the Social Values Questionnaire were not included among the pool of potential subjects. In addition, those who scored at the extremes of the scale were also excluded from consideration because of concern that their scores may have been an artifact of response set. From the remaining pool, 120 subjects were assigned randomly to one of four experimental conditions, such that each cell contained equal numbers of high and low social-responsibility subjects, as well as equal numbers of males and females. The experimental conditions were: 1) communication of an awareness-of-consequences (AC) message describing the reason for a rule, plus communication of a probable sanction for violating this rule; 2) communication of a probable sanction only; 3) communication of an AC message only; and 4) the absence of both probable-sanction and AC messages (control condition). In accordance with protection motivation theory, particular care was taken to make the sanctions seem both very likely and serious ($100 fine). An example of a scenario representing the AC+Sanction treatment is shown in Figure 1. The full experimental design is illustrated in Figure 2.

Subjects were telephoned to arrange a convenient time to complete the SDQ in the laboratory. Depending upon which cell they were assigned to, subjects received one of the four versions of the SDQ. After completing the SDQ subjects filled out a "rationale questionnaire" in which they explained the reasons for their decisions in each dilemma.

To check the internal validity of the experimental treatments, manipulation checks were performed after the SDQ and the rationale form were completed. For each of the six dilemmas, subjects replied to a set of three questions asking how aware they were of the reason for the regulation in the dilemma, and how aware they were of patrolling rangers and potential fines (described in treatments that included a probable-sanction message). If the treatments worked correctly, subjects in the AC and the AC + Sanction cells should have been more aware of the reasons for regulations than those in either the Sanction or Control groups, since these reasons were communicated only in the AC message. Similarly, subjects who received a probable-sanction message (Sanction or AC + Sanction cells) should have been more aware of patrolling rangers and fines than those who did not receive this message (i.e., the AC-only and Control groups).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

A check was made for significant differences in social-responsibility scores between the 120 subjects who participated in the study and the 394 persons who completed the Social Values Questionnaire, but did not take part in the experiment. No significant difference was found between participants and nonparticipants (F = 0.02, df = 1/489, p = 0.89). There was also no significant difference in social-responsibility scores by gender or by academic classification (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). However, subjects who filled out the Social Dilemma Questionnaire did report a somewhat greater amount of recent camping and backpacking experience than did students who did not complete the SDQ.

The means for each of the treatment groups on the manipulation-check items were consistent with expectations. Subjects who received an AC message scored significantly higher in their awareness of the reasons for a rule than did subjects who did not receive an AC message. Furthermore, those receiving a probable-sanction message scored significantly higher in their awareness of sanctions than did subjects who did not receive this message. Finally, subjects in the control group (who received neither the AC nor probable-sanction messages) scored significantly lower than other subjects in their awareness of reasons for a rule, and significantly lower in their awareness of sanctions and fines. Based on these results, it was concluded that the experimental treatments were internally valid and were understood by study participants.

Data Reduction

Responses to the four dilemmas in the first set were summed to yield a composite behavioral-intention score describing the subjects' self-reported likelihood of obeying the regulations described in that set. The reliability of this summated scale, as measured by a standardized Cronbach's alpha, was 0.73. When averaged to preserve the original metric, the composite score ranged from +2.90 (extremely likely to obey the rules) to -2.50 (extremely unlikely to obey the rules), with a mean of +1.01 and a standard deviation of 0.90. A composite scale constructed from responses to the two dilemmas that loaded on the second principal component achieved a standardized Cronbach's alpha of 0.69, and ranged from +3.00 to -3.00, with a mean of +0.06 and a standard deviation of 1.37.

Hypothesis Tests

The third hypothesis concerned the effectiveness of probable sanctions in deterring rule violations. This hypothesis was also supported in the case of the falcon dilemma, as well as in the case of Dilemma 2. This scenario concerned a choice between parking too many vehicles at a campsite during a family reunion (contributing to vegetation damage and soil erosion) or [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] moving to another site located some distance from the rest of the group. In both dilemmas, subjects who were aware of the probable sanctions for rule violations were more likely to say they would obey the rules described in the scenarios

Hypothesis 4, which involved the interaction of AC messages with social responsibility, was supported only in the case of the third dilemma. This scenario dealt with a choice between using glass beverage containers at a beach, despite a prohibition against them, or driving ten miles to a store to buy other beverages for a beach picnic. Subjects who were high in social responsibility indicated that they intended to obey the prohibition, but only when they received an explanation about the danger to wildlife and other users from broken glass. Otherwise, high SR-subjects intended to disobey the rule.

A three-way ANOVA employing the four-item index failed to find a significant effect of social responsibility on intentions to obey rules (Table 2 and Figure 2), even though SR had been a significant determinant in one of the individual dilemmas. However, in the case of the four-item index, subjects who were high in SR were only slightly more likely to intend to obey rules (m = 1.10) than were those who were low in SR (m = 0.91).

In contrast to the absence of an SR effect on the first composite score, a significant effect of AC information on composite intentions was found. Subjects who were exposed to the AC message reported stronger intentions to obey regulations (m = 1.16) than those who did not receive this message (m = 0.85).

The three-way ANOVA also revealed a significant effect of probable sanction on intentions. Those who were informed of a high probability of sanctions for rule violations were more likely to indicate that they would obey rules (m = 1.23) than those who were unaware of sanctions (m = 0.78).

A significant disordinal interaction between SR and AC also occurred. As illustrated in Figure 3, subjects who scored in the top half of the SR scale were significantly more likely to intend to obey rules after exposure to an AC message than those who scored in the lower half of the scale. Receipt of an AC message had no effect on the behavioral intentions of low-SR subjects.

As in the case of the individual dilemmas, the fifth hypothesis was not supported. No significant interaction occurred between SR and probable sanction. In other words, contrary to predictions, both high and low social-responsibility groups were affected equally by the sanction treatment.

The eta coefficient displayed in the right-hand column of Table 2 is a measure of the relative effect of each factor on the dependent variable. As can be seen, the greatest effect came from probable sanctions (0.25), followed AC (0.18), and SR (0.10).

Effect of Camping/Backpacking Experience

Discussion

The results of the hypothesis tests regarding AC messages are consistent with findings from field experiments on depreciative activity, where the dependent variable has been actual behavior or behavioral traces, such as litter (Vander Stoep & Gramann, 1987; Oliver, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1985; Roggenbuck & Berrier, 1982; Schwarzkopf, 1984). When asked to project themselves into dilemmas where there was a temptation to violate a regulation, subjects were more willing to comply with regulations when they were told the reasons for the rule, as well as the negative consequences for resources or for others of not obeying them. This result supports the application of indirect management in outdoor recreation areas, including the use of interpretive programming to reduce depreciative actions and promote protective behavior by visitors.

The conjecture about the findings concerning the fifth and sixth scenarios was reinforced by responses to the rationale questionnaire in which subjects explained their answers to each dilemma. In the scenario involving the prohibition against wood fires, rationales relating to the health and safety of the actors were the most common reasons given for decisions, while in the dilemma involving the thunderstorm the danger of injury or death was the most common reason given for answers.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). Benefits of leisure: A social psychological perspective. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 411-417). State College, PA: Venture.

Ajzen, I. & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 207-224.

Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial behavior: Theory and research. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing.

Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H. (1986). Where is the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Sociat Psychology, 50, 212-220.

Berkowitz, L. A. & Lutterman, K. (1968). The traditionally socially responsible personality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 169-185.

Christensen, H. H. (1984). Vandalism: An exploratory assessment of perceived impacts and potential solutions. In C. Levy-Labor (Ed.). Vandalism, behavior and motivations (pp. 269-279). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.

Christensen, H. H., Istvan, L. B., & Sharpe, G. W. (1992). Characteristics of trailhead vandalism in the Pacific Northwest. In H. Christensen, D. Johnson, & M. Brookes (Eds.). Vandalism: Research, prevention and social policy (pp. 89-102). General Technical Report PN-W-GTR-293. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Eisenberg, N. (1991). Meat-analytic contributions to the literature on prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 273-282.

Gough, H. G., McCloskey, H., & Meehl, P. E. (1952). A personality scale for social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 73-80.

Grace, C. R., Bell, P. A., & Sugar, J. (1988). Effects of compliance techniques on spontaneous and asked-for helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 525-532.

Gramann, J. H., Christensen, H. H., & Vander Stoep, G. A. (1992). Indirect management to protect cultural and natural resources: Research, ethics, and social policy. In H. Christensen, D. Johnson, & M. Brookes (Eds.). Vandalism: Research, prevention and social policy (pp. 251264). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-293. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Gramann, J. H. & Vander Stoep, G. A. (1987). Prosocial behavior theory and natural resource protection: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management, 24, 247-257.

Heywood, J. L., Mullins, G. W., & Blower, S. (1984). A user orientation to managing vandalism. Trends (Vandalism), 21, 25-27.

Johnson, D. R. & Swearingen, T. C. (1992). The effectiveness of selected trailside sign texts in deterring off-trail hiking at Paradise Meadows, Mt. Rainier National Park. In H. Christensen, D. Johnson, & M. Brookes (Eds.). Vandalism: Research, prevention and social policy (pp. 103-119). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-293. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Kim, Y. G. (1990). Depreciative behavior in outdoor recreation settings: An experimental application of prosocial behavior theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

Knight, G. P., Johnson, L. G., Carlo, G., & Eisenberg, N. (1994). A multiplicative model of the dispositional antecedents of a prosocial behavior: Predicting more of the people more of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 178-183.

Lucas, R. C. (1982). Recreation regulations - when are they needed? Journal of Forestry, 80, 148-152.

Maddux, J. E. & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469-479.

Martin, D. C. (1992). The effect of three signs and a brochure on visitors' removal of pumice at Mount St. Helens. In H. Christensen, D. Johnson, & M. Brookes (Eds.). Vandalism: Research, prevention and social policy (pp. 121-131). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-293. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McGuire, A.M. (1994). Helping behaviors in the natural environment: Dimensions and correlates of helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 45-56.

Namba, R. & Dustin, D. (1992). Towards new definitions of depreciative behavior and vandalism. In H. Christensen, D. Johnson, & M. Brookes (Eds.). Vandalism: Research, prevention and social policy (pp. 61-69). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-293. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Oliver, S. S., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. (1985). Education to reduce impacts in forest campgrounds. Journal of Forestry, 83, 234-236.

Perloe, S. I. (1967). Final report to Office of Education on Project S-308. Bureau No. 5-8210. In J.P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.). Measures of social psychological attitudes (pp. 576-585). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute of Social Research.

Robberson, M. R. & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 277-287.

Rogers, R. W. (1985). Attitude change and information integration in fear appeals. Psychological Reports, 56, 179-182.

Roggenbuck, J. W. & Berrier, D. L. (1982). A comparison of the effectiveness of two communication strategies in dispersing wilderness campers. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 77-89.

Rushton, J. P. (1981). The altruistic personality. In J.P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 251-266). Hillsdale, NJ:: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Samdahl, D. M. & Christensen, H. H. (1985). Environmental cues and vandalism: An exploratory study of picnic table carving. Environment and Behavior, 17, 445-458.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences in altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 221-279. New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. Sorrentino (Eds.). Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality and developmental perspectives (pp. 189-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schwarzkopf, S. K. (1984). Feeding of golden-mantled ground squirrels by park visitors at Crater Lake National Park. Research Paper CPSU/OSU 84-9. Corvallis, OR: National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

Smitherman, H. O. (1992). Helping: The importance of cost/reward considerations on likelihood to help. Psychological Reports, 71, 305-306.

Tanner, J. E, Jr., Hunt, J. B., Eppright, D. R. (1991). The protection motivation model: A normative model of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing, 55(July), 36-45.

Vander Stoep, G. A. & Gramann, J. H. (1987). The effect of verbal appeals and incentives on depreciative behavior among youthful park visitors. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 69-83.

Willis, J. A. & Goethals, G. R. (1973). Social responsibility and threat to behavioral freedom as determinants of altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality, 14, 376-384.

Witt, L. A. (1990). Person-situation effects and gender differences in the prediction of social responsibility. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 543-553.

Young, R. A. & Kent, A. T. (1985). Using the theory of reasoned action to improve the understanding of recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 90-106.

Zeller, R. A. & Carmine, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The link between theory and data. London: Cambridge University Press.