Resultados y discusión 1. Test teórico

This part of the questionnaire addressed one of the key issues that had arisen in the first phase of research - that information was considered to be an important factor in influencing responsible behaviour. Three different scenarios were developed to represent situations where responsible behaviour could be encouraged through information presented in an economic situation, an environmental situation and a cultural situation. Respectively the three scenarios related to voluntary payments for a geothermal walk, behaviour when viewing seals and behaviour during a Maori concert. For each of the scenarios six different rationales were given for displaying the desired behaviour. These different messages were designed to be based on Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development (see Figure 3.6). Though this part of the questionnaire was less challenging to develop than Section B, it still took some time to develop realistic scenarios and to find the right wording with which to represent communication based on Kohlberg’s stages.

Figure 3.6: Example of Section C question

The following 3 imaginary scenarios show realistic cases where management of tourists is required.

For each scenario you are shown persuasive messages designed to influence your behaviour. Please indicate whether each message would persuade you.

1 = not very likely 3 = neutral 5 = very likely

1. Geothermal walk in Rotorua

You are about to walk in a geothermal reserve in Rotorua. The managers of the land want tourists to pay $5.00 for the cost of the walk. You are supposed to put the money into a ticket machine at the start of the walk and the machine issues you with a ticket. However, in this scenario, you are travelling on a budget and are reluctant to spend too much money, so you are thinking of entering the reserve without paying. Which of the following are likely to influence you to pay the $5.00?

Influence on my behaviour

Not very likely to influence behaviour Very likelytoinfluence behaviour

A sign saying… 1 2 3 4 5

a. “Please pay $5.00. It’s up to you to do the right thing.”

b. “Please pay $5.00. Contribute towards New Zealand’s beautiful environment.”

c. “Please pay $5.00. If you are found without a ticket you will be asked to leave the reserve.”

d. “Please pay $5.00. $50 fine for non-compliance.”

e. “Please pay $5.00. Don’t spoil this experience for other visitors”.

f. “Please pay $5.00. Walking the path causes erosion and is costly to repair; your money will help pay for essential maintenance.”

1.1a Which of the above is the most likely to influence you? (enter letter) _____

1.1b Please explain your answer?__________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

1.2a Which of the above the least likely to influence you? (enter letter) ______

1.2b Please explain your answer?__________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 3

114

Internal validation

Although the main section of the questionnaire was filled in by the researcher, the first part of this question (ticking the 1-5 scale) was given to the respondent to fill in themselves. The questionnaire was then returned to the researcher who completed the remaining questions for the respondent. As with Section B, the question was designed to allow for some internal validation. Asking the respondents to choose which type of information was the most or the least likely to influence them enabled the researcher to check that the first part of the question had been filled in correctly. For example, if a respondent had checked sign a. as being a ‘5’ (very likely to influence) and then subsequently answered in question 1.2a that it was the least likely to influence them then this highlighted a discrepancy. In this case the respondents were asked to clarify their answers with the clarified answer recorded.

Asking for a rationale of why each sign was more or less likely to influence also validated the success of the design to represent each stage of moral development. For example, if the majority of respondents answered that sign a was chosen because they wanted to avoid punishment then this would validate that this way of presenting information truly reflected Stage 1 of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.

There were problems with using hypothetical scenarios. Some respondents found this kind of question very difficult to answer as they found it hard to imagine themselves in the situation which was described for them. For example, the scenario based at the Kaikoura seal colony evoked responses such as “but I don’t like seals so I wouldn’t go to see them…can I pretend it’s a bird colony?”.

A further problem was ‘companion interference’. The questions were formulated around a social-psychological framework and so were intended to relate to the individual’s experience, rather than the group. The researcher constantly had to remind respondents at the start of the questions, and throughout the three scenarios, that the main respondent as identified at the start of the questionnaire should be the only one to answer. Some couples, in particular older married couples, would ask if they could collaborate on the answers. Their justification would be that they had been married for so long that they acted as a unit, and in

Chapter 3

115

reality would make a joint decision. There was also some conflict between travelling companions over what the ‘right’ answer was. Some couples would challenge the truth of their companion’s response, while others disagreed with their companion’s choice and would try to persuade them to change their answer in accordance with their own choice. In all these cases, the importance of the influence of significant others should be emphasised and would be an important point to bear in mind for future work. In real situations people may not respond individually; they may be more inclined to negotiate their course of action with their travelling companion. Consequently, there may be merit in designing a research approach which allowed companions travelling in the same group to negotiate their actions rather than taking the individual’s responses in isolation.

There was also a tendency by some respondents to try and answer how they thought other people would respond, rather than how they personally would respond. This would result in answers such as, “well, I would have to answer d.

[the fine] because most people would only respond to a fine”. It had to be reinforced by the researcher that the required answer was how the respondent would be influenced and not how the respondent thought other people would react. In the above cases, the importance of holding the interviews face-to-face is emphasised, as the researcher had to ensure the questions were controlled and answered appropriately. This could not have been done with self-completion questionnaires.