BY <to

THEEFFECTS OF PRET ESTING ANDGROUPDISCUSSION ON REACTIO NS TO ANAIDS EDUCAT IO N VIDEOTAPE

BY

<toShelleyAnne Keilty

Athesissubmittedto the Schoolof Graduate Studiesinpartialfulfilmentofthe

requiremen ts forthe degreeof Masterof Science

Depart mentofPsychology MemorialUniv ersity ofNew fo undland

Sept ember1993

St .John's Newfoundland

•••

NaliOnillLibfasy

ci

ceoeoa

^BrbliOlheQlle nahonale coc eoece Acqutsibonsand DirectIOndesacQUiSrtl()l1$el BIbliographic Services Branch desservicesb1bliographiques

~~r~ ~~

The author has granted an irrevo cab lenon-exclusivelicence allowing theNat ionallibrary of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of his/her thesisbyanymeans and in anyform or for mat ,mak in g thisth esis avai labletointerested person s.

Th e aut hor retainsowners h ipof thecopyrig htin his/herthesis.

Neithe rthe thesisnor su bsta ntial extrac ts fromitmaybeprinted or oth er wise reproduced witho ut his/he rpermiss ion.

L'auteur a

accor de

une licence

irrevocable et non exclusive perm ettant

a

la Bibllctheq ue nationale du Canada de reproduire,preter ,dist ribuerou vendre descopiesde sathes e de quelq ue manlere et sous quelqueformeque ce solt pour mettr e des exempla ires de cette these

a

^la dispo sition des personneslnteres se es,

l'auteur conserve laproprletedu droi t d'auteur qui protege sa these.Ni la these nidesexi raits subs tantiels de celle -ci ne doiv en t etre imp rimes ou autreme nt reprodu its sans son autorisa tio n.

ISBN0-315-86684-5

Canada

Abstract

The prese ntstudy examinedtheeffectsof pretestingand group discussiononreactionsto an AIDS educational videotape.One hundr ed and tw entyundergradua tespart ici pat edin a-persongroups offriends.

Beforeviewin gthe 20-minute videot ape, halfof the subjec ts were given apretestof their knowledgeof AIDS,their attitudes aboutAIDS,and theirestimat es ofriskandtheimportance of preventive measuresfor target personsin variouscategor ies ,Afterviewingthevideotape, half of theprete sted and half ofthenon- pretest edsubjects engaged in discussionwiththeirfriends.Finally,allsubjec ts completedapost-test, identicaltothe pretestcompleted earlierby half the subjects,withthe exception of a videotape knowled gequestionnaire.

Group discussion,especiallywh enit followedpretesting,made subjects morewillingto acceptth e threatthat AIDSposes to hetero sex ualsaswell as tohomo sexuals.Althoughpretest and discussioncombined to enhancesubjects' perceived understandingof the video tape material,no similareff ectswer...• found withregardtoact ual know ledge scores.

Males and femalesexpressedsimilar sympathy for aperson with AIDS but malesexpressedless willin gness tohavesuch a personintheir ho me.Onthelattermeasure,group discussion madefemalesmore

iii

acceptingofaperson with AIDSbut had little effecton the attitudesof males.Male and female groups were lesslikely to agreethat AIDSis a gay disease and more likely to agree that a heterosexualcan catchAIDS, during andafter a group discussionthan on theirpretest.

Ratingsof the risk of AIDSand theneed for preventive measures were influenced by thetarget person's sex,sexual orientation,and numberof sex partners. Ratings for all categories of target tncreesec from pretest to post-test. On the post-test,differential ratings across target categoriesbecameless evident,

Severalrecommendationsare offered concerning themost eff ec t iv e use of instructionalmaterialsinAIDS educationprograms.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to ackno wl edgethe MemorialUnive rsityof Newfoundland. fortheirfinancialandacademic support.Sincerethanks are extendedto my comm ittee members,Dr.AbrahamRoss and Dr.

RussellHarpur,for theirknowledgeableadviceand recom mendat ions.A heart feltthankyouis expressedtoMarilynHillforherend lesscompassion and encourage ment.Finally,a specialtha nkyouto my advisor.Malco lm Grant.forhisconst antguidance .expertiseandpatience throughoutthis

CONTENTS

ABST RACT ACKNOWL EDGEMENTS TA BLE OF CONTENTS

usr

^OFFIGURES

Chapter1:INTRODUCTION

1.1Increasing theEff ect iv eness of AIDS Educatio n 1.2Eff ects ofGroup Discussionon theEd ucat ion Process 1.3Effects of Discussion on AttitudeChange 1.4Group Polarization

1.5Summary

Chapter2:OVERVIEW 2. 1Design 2.2DependentMeasures 2.3Hypot heses

coecter3:METHOD 3.1Subjects 3.2Mat erials 3.3Procedure

page

viii

10 11 12 12

15 15 15 16

Chapt er4:RESULTS

4.1DesignandMethod of Analysis 4.2Analyses ofPost-testScores

4.2.1AIDSAttitudeItems 4.2.2Risk Rat ings

4.2.3PreventionImportanceRatings 4.2.4AIDSKnowledgeScores 4.2.5 Videotape KnowledgeScores 4.2 .6PerceivedUnderstandingofvideotaoe 4.2.7Summary

4.3AnalysesComparingPretest andPost-testData 4.3.1AIDS AttitudeItems

4.3.1.1GroupDiscussionData 4.3.2Risk Ratings forDifferentTargets 4.3 .3PreventionImportanceRatings 4.3.4 AIDS KnowledgeScores 4.3.5Summary

Chapter5:DISCUSSION 5.1Knowledge About AIDS 5.2AttitudesTowa rdAIDS 5.3GroupPolarization

5.4Rati...gsof AIDS Risk and PreventionImportance 5.5OtherFindings

5.5 .1RatingsofAIDSRisk

5.5.2Ratingsof AIDSPreventionImportance

Chapter 6:CONCLUSIONS 6.1Recommendations

REFERENCES

19 19 20 20 22 25 27 27 27 30 31 31 33 34 34 40 40

43 43 44 46 47 49 49 50

53 54

56

FOOTNOTES

APPENDICES

A.Attitu de Meas uremen t B.The AIDS Quiz C.Vid eot ape Que stionn aire D.ReleaseForm E.Feedback Sheet

vii

63

64 64 69 72 73 74

vif FIGURES

Figure 1. Post-testagree men twit hthe st at em ent, "AIDS is a gay disease" as a funct ion of pretest, discu ssion, andsex oj' subject .

Figure 2. Post-testratings ofAIDSrisk asa function ofprete stand sex oftarget.

Fig ure3. Post-t estratings of AIDS risk as afunct ionofsexual orientationand sexoftarge t.

Figure4. Pest-t estrati ngs oftheimpo rtance of AIDSprev entionas a functio nof pret est,sexu al orien t atio n.andsexof target.

Figu re 5. Post-test ratings oftheimport an ce of AIDSpreve ntionasa func tio nofsexofsubjectandnumberofpartne rs . Fig ure6. Perceived und ersta nding ofAIDS videotap emater ialas a

functionofpretest and discussion.

Figure7. Agreementwith the statement."I wo uldnotwantaperson with AIDSin my home" asa func ti o n of timeof testing, discussion ,and sexof subject.

FigureB. Rati ngsof AIDSriskas afunc tio n oftime oftesting and sex oftarget .

Figure9. Ratingsofthe importance of AIDS preve nt ion asa functionof timeof testingand number ofpart ners.

Figure10. Rati n gs of the importanceof AIDS prevention as afunc tio n oftime of testing,sexual orientatio n .andsex oftarget . Figure11. Rat in gs of the importance of AIDS preve nt ionasa functio n

ofdiscussion,time of testing. andsex of target.

Figure12. Knowledge scores as a function of discussion,timeof testing,and sexof subject.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)has proved to be a fast growing health emergency, As of April, 19 93 there were289, 3 2 0 kno w n casesof AIDSin theUn ited Statesand7,770 in Canada (Federal Centre for AIDS ,19 93).The initialreactio nTOtheAIDS epidemic involved an examination of treatment methodsfor personswithAIDS (PWAsl and a callfor education .So far, these efforts havemetwith little success. Devisin g an effectivetreatmentagainstHIV infectionhas become a challenginggoal. Although there have been promisingleadsin the area of drug therapy, the developmentof a vaccineor cur eremains in the distantfuture(Eisenberg,19891,Educ at ion about AIDSremainsthe most effectivestrategy in AIDSprevention(Porte r , 199 3 ).

Many attemptshave be enmade toeduc at e thepublicaboutthe safe-sex practic esthat are necessarytoav oidHIV infection,but, unfortunately,these attemptshave notproducedsign ificantchanges.

Althoughpublic knowledgeaboutAIOS seems to be increasin g(Orns te in, 198 9 ; Westerman & David son ,1993 1, involvementin high risk behaviou rs is notsignificantly decreasing(Brown,Fritz,&Barone, 19 8 9;

Phill ips,198 81.Thenum berof heterosexu alcases ofAIDSis growin g ev ery year (FederalCentr eforAIOS,19 9 3;Seigel&Gibson,1988). At

least in thisdomain,knowreoqe doesnotap pearto beaffecting behaviour .

Presentlv, manyschools are adding inform ationabout AIDSto their curriculum(Baker& Fish,1991;Brown ctal.,19 89 ; Carter&

Carter,19 9 3 ). Educ ati onal video tapeshaverecentl y become a common meansof provi ding inform ati on tolarge groupsof stude nts le.g..AIDS: WhatEve ryStudent Sho uldKnow,MarylandInstructionalTelevision, 19 8 7; AIDS:WhatEveryoneNeeds To Know,Churc hillFilms, 198 6;

AIDS:AcquiredImm u ne DeficiencySyndrome,DisneyProduc tions, 1986).Although theseeducat ionalefforts are eff ec tiv e in con v eyingthe fact s aboutAIDS, they are muchless effectivein ch an ging attit udesand behavio ur (Coh en, MacKinnon,Dent, Mason,& Sull ivan,199 2; MacNair, Elliott,&Yoder, 1991; Rhodes & Wolitsk i,19 8 9 ).

1.1Incr easing theEffecti ve ness of AIDS Education

Rhodes&Wolitski{1989) examinedthe effects of AIDS-education videotapeson un ivers itystuden tsand found that attho uqh ther ewert, increasesin knowl edge,there was litt lechangeinattitudes.Onerea son maybethat,especiallyamongyoungpeople, thereis alack of percei ved perso nalvulnerability (West erma n & Davids on,19 9 3).It isim perativ e that the populat ionbeing addressed be awarethatAIDSis a resultof behaviour (e.g.,unp ro tected sex ) and that riskisnot limited to personsin particularcategoriesIe.q.,homos exuals ).Th is is mo s timpor t ant

becauseanyindi vidual can contractAIDS.Regardlessof age,sex, or sexualorientation,acc urate appraisal of the riskassociatedwit hone's ownbehavi ourisvital.

Thetendencyfor peopleto minimizetheir ownpersonalrisk and vulnerab ility to disease (Mic kler, 19 93;Phillips,19881 is not unique to AIDS.For example,many ciga rettesmokersalsobelieve they are invulnerabletothe diseasesassociatedwithsmoking {Kelly&St.

Law rence, 1988}.Ifasmoke r know sthat smokingcigarettesmay result in cancer butfeels that he or st.ewillneverdevelop the disease,that personwillbe unlikely tochan ge hisorher smokingbehavi our. Any mtormatlcn received may be disregardedif itis perceived asirrelevant . Although know ledgemay be gained, that knowledge willnot likelybe incorpor atedintoattitudes an d behaviour(Ashworth, Durant,Newman,&

Gaillard , 199 2).Students'perceptionsof personalvulnerability to AIDS willbe animporta ntfocus of the present stuov.

Anot herreason for minimalattitudechange in response to AIDS-ed ucatio n videotapes may be thatthe beliefswhichunderlie our socialand health-related behaviours frequentlyhave their orig inin and are sustained by the soctelgroups to which we belong (Romer&Hornik , 1992).For example ,Abramsand Abraham(1988) have shown that whetherornot a heroin -usersharesneedles depends uponthe practices

thatwere initiallyintr oducedtothe drug user by thosein his/her current socialgroup.

Theconcept ofreferencegroup sisrelevanthere.The term referencegroup simplymeansanygroupto which aperson'sattitudes arere lated oranchored(Kelley, 1965).Thereare twomajorfunctio ns whichreferencegrou ps may play inthe determ inationofone'sattitudes.

The firstfunctionis a normativeone.To be acceptedby a group,an individual may need to adjusthis or heratti tudes to makethe mconf orm morecloselyto thegroupnorms. Thesecondfunctionofreference groups is an Informati o nal one.The individual usesthegrou p as a source ofinformation about reality.Inthe caseofthenorm at ive func tion,the group isina posit iontorew ard conformityand punish devian ce, butin the case ofthe informationalfunction , thegroupismer elyastandardor checkpointformaking judgme nts (Kelley,19 6 5). Parnuvandfriendsh ip groupsoftenserve both norm ativ e andinformati onfunctions andthus are often veryinfluential.

Ifattitu des arerootedin people 's reference group s, this needsto betaken intoaccountwhencampaignsto changeattitudesaredes.qneo . Winslow,Pranalnt,andHwang(1992 ) found"perceivedpeer norms" to be a majorpredictorinAIDS riskbehaviour.The effectivenessof educationalattemptsmightbe greatly enhancedif suchefforts were

directedat groups offriends.Thepresent study explored this possibility.

1.2 Effects of Group Discussion onthe EducationProcess

Accordingto Moore (1988 ),themost effectiveway')f educ ating peop le about AIDSisthro ugh some combinationof videota pes and group discussion.Groupdiscuss ion canbetriggeredby theuse ofaudiovi sual mat erials.In turn,discussionmay influ encemanyaspect s ofthe educat ionprocess. People whoparticipate indiscussionwill likelybe moreattentive,interested,and involvedin the subjectmatter than will personswho approach the materialinamore passivemanner, MacNair etal.(199 11discovered that participationwithinanAIDS-prevention groupsignificantly increasedknow ledgeabo utAIDSandHIV transmission.

Inaddition,discussionmayfacilitate the ex plorati onof att itudes and feelingsconcerning th e topic(Moo re, 19881. Groupdiscussion has beenappliedinmany kindsofeduc at ional campaignsin the past .Such effo rtshave beensuccessf ulin increasing knowled ge andchanging attitudes about alcoholconsumpti on(Kunkle-Miller& Blane,1977), cautious driving (Clark&Powell,19841,sexual behavIour(Wanlass, Kilma nn,Bella,&Tarnow ski,1983), andcontraceptives(Owle,19 831.

In the follow ing secti onssomeof the theoretic al reasons for expe cti ng grou p discussion toaffectatt itud echange will be considered.

1.3 EffectsofDiscussion on Attitude Change

McGuire(1985) analyzed howthe present ationof information might eventuallyresultin atti tudechange.He believed th ere are successive steps thatarec ipient mustbe induced to take ifthe communica tion is tohaveitsintended persuasiveimpact. Accordingto McGuire(1985), if the communication is tohave aneffect,therecipient mustbeex posed to thomaterial,attendto thecommunication,andbe interested inthe message.Theindi vidual mustalso comprehendthe materialand be ableto generateandretrievefrommemor yanyrelated cog nitiv e content .tnaddit ion, itis necessarythat the personacquire the skillsnecessarytoengagein the advocatedbehavi our.If the pers on' s attit udechanges,thenew positionand the informationonWhichit is based mustbe stored in memoryand later retrieved when relevant decisionsaremade.Actions in accordancewith the decis ion will, acco rding to McGuire.leadto an intrapersonalcognitivereorganization thatlinks the complia ntactwith the person'soverallbelief system .

It seems likely thatgroup discussioncould affectmany ofthe processes towhic h McGuire refer s. For example. compreh ensio n maybe increased becausediscussion withothersprovidesthe opportunityfor every member to ask questionsand clearup misconceptio ns.An Indfvtcual, forinstance,may not understandsome of the terminology

used,but it is likelythat at least one mem ber ofthe group willbe able to pro v idetheneceeearvinfo rmation.

Group discussionmayalso enhance theret enti on of information.

The process ofexchangingideasandinfo rmation shouldhe lpthe group me m bers to remembe r the materialdiscussed .Discussingatopic with ot h ers can enhanc e thesalience of thematerialendthereby increase the likel ihoodthatitwillbeeffec tivelyencoded inme mory(Y a ger, Johnson, John son, & Snider,1986).

Discus sionmay also providean opportunityformembers to recall previous in format io n or experiencesof their own. Thiswillnot only add totheknowledge and understandingofother grou p members,but it will als o elicit cognitiv e processin gwhichmay enhance the comprehension and retention of the materia l (Yage r atal..1986;Gerrard & Reis,1989;

Phillips,19 8 8).

Allof the pr oc esses discussed so farmayfacilitatechangesin attitudesconcerningAIDS. The actualdiscussionaboutthe issuesraised inan AIDS educational vid eot apewillundoubtedlycause particular poin t sle.q., means of disease transmission)to be broughtup againand again. Different memberswillspeak onthetopic in various ways.Thus, gro u p discussionmay encouragea reiterationofmaterialWhich,In turn, may enhancecompre hensionand retention,and resultin attitude change.

1.4 Group polarization

Groupdiscussionhas frequently been showntoresult in whatis calledgrouppolarizat ion.Group polarizationreferstothetendency for people.whoseattitudesareinclinedin aparti culardirection,to advocate a more extreme positionaftergroupdiscussio n(Myers&Lamm,19761.

Thetwotheori esmostcommonly usedtoexplain the occurre nce of group polarizat ionare socialcom pariso ntheor y(Sanders&Baron,1977;

Brown .1986; Whyte,1989;Myers&Lamm,1975;Myers&Lamm , 1976) and persuasive-argumentstheorytvlno kur.Trope,&Burnstein , 1975;Brown ,1986;Whyte, 1989;Myers&Lamm,1975;Myers&

t.arnm,1976;Hlnz&Davis,19 841.

Grouppolarizatio nresearchgrew outofearlierstudiesof the risky-shiftphenomenon (Myers&lamm, 1976 ).These earlierstudies showed that ,intheirresponsesto chorce-dnem maitems,grou ps were usually morerisky thanthe averageindividual member.Itwaslater discovered(Mv ers&Lamm,1975)that a shift togreatercautioncould alsobedemons tr ated. Researchers th enbeganto examine how the dominantattitudes(riskyorcautious)expressed by subjects before discussion were relatedtothedirectionin which atti tude sshifted after discussion(Myers&.ternm,19 7 6).

Be cause grouppolarizatio nstudies havefrequentlyInv olved attitudes of riskorcauti on,suc hstudies seem especiallyreleva nt to

research concerningattitudesabout AIDS.Specifically,attitudesabo ut AIDSinvo lve posit ions that may lie on a risky-to-c autiouscontinuum. For example, jfa groupdiscuss estechniques foravoiding AIDSinf ection and initia lly dismisse sthe lm pcrtenc e ofsuchprecautions(e,g" as a result of perceived AID Srisk).furtherdiscussionmay result inashifttoward

'in

even morerisky attitu de. Thiscouldbe detrime ntal totheentire educationaleffort .On theotherhand,ifthegroupmem bers initially expressconcern andfear ofthe disease,morecautiousattit udesmay developas theresult of groupdiscussion.Suchatt itudesmaybe associated with the kinds of changes in behavio urthat AIDS educators aretypi c nllytry ing to bring about . Therefore,a considerat ionof group polarization appearsrelevant tothe present study .

1.5Summary

On thebasisof theresearc hdisc ussed above,it is reasonableto expect thatgro up discussio nwill influenceattitudechange,and therefor e that itcanplayan importantrolein theeducatio nprocess.The present researchexaminedthispossibility inconnection withstudents' responsesto an AIDS education videotape.

10 CHA PTER 2

OVERVlEW

The importance of group discu ssionamongfriendswas the main fo cus of this research.An AIDSeducationalvideotapewasusedto prov ide inf or mation to smallgroups offrie n d s. Before wat ch ing thetape, halfofthesubject s receiveda pretest measureof attitudesand knowledgeabout AIDS.The otherSUbjec tsdidnot receiv e a pret est measure.After watchingtheAIDSvideot a pe,half of theSUbject sin the prete stcon dition an d half inthe no-pretestconditionengagedin group disc u ssion . The remainingsubjectswere asked to complete awo rd puzzle.Finally. allsubject s receivedpost-test measuresof att itud es towardAID S.perceivedAIDS risk and prevention im port an c e, general kno wl edge ano-n AIDS,and comprehensionof the materialon the- videotape.

Thepretestfact or was includ edinordertoexaminethepossibility thatbeingex posed to a pretes tbefore an informatio nalpresent ation incre ases knowledgeandcomprehensionofthat material(Pressley, Tane nbaum,McDaniel,&Wood,19901.Forexample,the knowledge quiz to be used in thepresent study conta ins trueor false Questio ns whIchmay by themselvesprovideinformati onto thereaderIe.a..A personcanreducetheriskof contractfnq theAIDSvirusbynothaving sexualcont actwit hanypersonwhosepast history andcurrenthealth

11 stat usare not kno wn) . Manipulating the presence or absence of a pretestmayhelp answerth e prac t ic al quest ionofwhethe rornotAIDS educ ators shouldincludepretests when vi deotape present ations are given.

Discus sionstook place amo n gfrien dswhocametothela borat ory ingroupsofthree. Althoug hlabo ratory groupsin mostsocial PSYChologicalstud iesare made upofstrange rs, there areatleasttwo goo d reason stost u dygroupsof friends.First,discussionsamon g friends,com petedtothoseamongstrange rs,are more likely to be con ducted ina spontaneous andhonest fa shion.Second , andperhaps moreimport ant,dis cussion amon g friendsis whatcommonlyoccurs out si dethe laborato ry.IfAIDSeducat ion is presentedin school classrooms.itisvery likely that friendswill discuss the material afterwardandformulate anopiniontogether.In therealworld,attitudes developandchangethroughthis kindofint eraction(Abrams&Abraham, 1988:Newcomb,1965).Thus,theuse of friendsh ip groups sho uld enhance theexternalvalidity ofthepresent proced ure.

2.1Design

A2 x2x2factorial designwas employed. withsexofsu bject.

pret est(presentor ebsentl , andgrou pdiscus sion (present or absent ) as between- subjectfactors.AllsubjectsviewedanAIDS educational videotape,The Solomonfour-groupdesignwas chosenbecause itcan

12 provide evide nce conce rningpretest,treatment,and pretestsensit ization eff ec t s. Although not oftenusedinthe past, thisdesign hasbeen shown to exhibitconsiderablestatisticalpower (Walto n-Braver & Braver, 1988).

2.2 Dependent Measures

The dependen tmeasuresconsisted of a pretestattitud e questionnairemeasuring perceived AIDSrisk and prevention importance , att itudesaboutAID S,and ashort version of theAIDS KnowledgeQu iz (A IDa)(Fish,Rye,Bell,&Keilty ,19 9 0 ).The condensedAIDQhas a standa rdizedalphacoefficientof.72.The attitudequestionnairewas also administ e redtosubjec tsdurin g groupdiscussio n, as a group consensusmeasure . Post-t estsincludedthe attitud e and kno wledge questionnairesused inthe pretest,and a comprehensionquizon the mater ial presen tedinthe AIDS videotape .Finally ,subj ectswere aske d how muchof the materialon the videotape theyfelt they had understood.

2,3 Hypothes es

1.Males willexpressmore negative attitudesaboutAIDSthan will females. In paststudieste. q., Young & whertvlne,1982;Keilty,1989:

Fish&Rye,19 9 1:1males have generallyexpressed morenegati ve att it ud estow a rd homosexualsaswell as towa rdpersonswithAIDS.

13 2.Individuals whoengage in groupdiscussio nafterviewing th eAIDS videotapewill,on thepost-test measures, have more knowledge of the tapeco ntentsand generalknowledgeaboutAIDS than will individuals who do notengagein groupdiscussion.This hypoth esisis based on research whichhas shownthat groupsengagedin discussion remember morematerialthan do groupsnot engagedindiscussion(Yager,John son,

& Johnson, 19 8 5).

3. Onthe post-test, individuals exposedto a pretestwillexhibitgrea ter knowledgeaboutAIDSthanwill those not exposedto a pretest.This hypothesis isbased simply on thereasoning that increasedexposureto informa tionincreasesknowledge (Pressley et

at..

1990).

4. The effect of groupofscusstondescribedin Hypothesis2,will be greateramongsubjectswho have been exposedto pretestmeasures . Thishypothesisisbased on theassumptionthatthepretest willstart subjectsthinki ngaboutthetopic andthis intu rn willincreasetheir involvement in the discussion.

5. A grouppolarizationeffectwill beobservedIn discussiongroups.

That is, the attitudesexpressed priorto discu ssi onwillbecomemore extreme duringand follo winggroupdiscussion. Thispredictionis based on findin gs in theliteratureongroup polarizat io n(Myers&Lam m,1975;

Myers& Lamm; 1976;Lemm,1988).

"

6.The finalhypothesisis that,on the post-test . subject swho engage in group discussion willratetheir riskof AIDS contractionandAIDS prevention impo rt ance higherthanwillsubjectswho donot engagein group discussion .Thishypothesisis based on the assump tionthat discussionwill allow su bjectsto reveal personalknowledgeand experiences ofAIDStran smissionwhich in turn will inc rease subjects' interestinand concernabout thetopic.

15 CHAPT ER3

METHOD

3.1Subjects

Twenty femalesand twentymales were recruitedfrom the student populationof MemorialUniversityof Newtcu noeno .Each of these subjectswas askedtobrin g alongtwo other same-sexfriends to the exp erimen t . Thus,in total,60 females and 60 mates were tested.Each sub ject was paid$4.25foreach hour of parti cipation.

3.2Materials

AnAIDSeducational videot a pe titled ,"AIDS: The New Facts of Ufe(1989 ) " was purchasedfromthe CanadianPubli cHealth Asso oreucn.

Test materia ls inclu d ed a z t-tternLikertattitudeQuestionnaire.Six teen of theseitem s asked subjectsto estimate therisk of AIDSand the importanceof preventive measures foreightdifferentcategoriesor target person,Each target personwas described as either maleor female, homosexualor heterosexual,and havinghad eitheroneor five sexual partnersinthe past year,For example,subjectswereaskedto "Imagine that Xis a homosexualmaleandhas had one sexua lpartner inthe past year," Tw o questions followed this description: "What chancedo YOIl think Xhas of contractingAIDS?"and"How importantdo you thinkitis forX to use AIDSpreventionmethodsduring sex?" Subjectsresponded tothefirst questionusinga scalethat rangedfrom 1(very lowchancel

16 to7(very high chancel.Theyresp ondedtothe second question usinga scalethatranged from 1 (notimpo rt ant) TO7(verytrnpcrterm.

Theremainingfive items onthe attitudeques u cnoatr eassessed subjects'responsestothe followingstatements; "AIDSisa gay disease";

"A he terosexualcan catch AIDS";"AIDSprevention isno timporta nt for

heterosexual s"; "I wouldfeel sympathyfor a person withAIDS";an d"I woul dnot want a person withAIDSin myhome."Eachof these statem ents was follo wedbya scalethat range d from1(str ongly disagree) to 7(stro nglyaqreel. Theattit ude questionnairecan be fou nd inAppendix A.

Alsoincluded inthe test materialswas the shortverscn of the AIDSKnowledgeQuizIAIOo,(Fish etal.,19 901(see AppendixBland an a-itemquestionna ireto measureknowledgeandcom prehen sionof the

issues dealt...it hinthevide ot ape{see AppendixCI.

3.3Procedure

Five male andfive femalethree-persongroup swere randomly assig n ed to each of thefourexperimentalconditions. When subjects, in groupsofthree.arriv e datth e laborat ory.theyweretoldthatthe study had todo wit hAIDS education.' Theywereassured thatth eir Questionnaire ruspc n ses wo uldbe anonymous .

If the grouphadbeenassignedtothe pretestcondition.each of the three subj ects wastakento a sep aratecubiclewhereheOfshe first

17 completed the attitudeQuestionnaireand thenthe AIDQ.Thisorder was followed becauseitseemedless likely thattheattitudequestionnaire would affect knowledge thanth atthe knowledgequestionnairewould affect attitudes. When subject shad completedthe questionnaires,they were broughttogether in alargerroomtoview the videotape. Ifthe group had been assignedto the no-prete stcondition,subjects proceeded immediate lyto the videotape view ingroom.

The roomwheresubjectswatched theAIDSvideotape was equipped with an audiorecording systemand a one-waywindow. The experimenterunobtrusivelyobserved the groupthrough this window.

Whenthevideotape ended,the experimenterrejoined the group. If the grouphad been assignedto the discussioncondition,SUbjects were asked to engage ina discussion for app roximatel y20 minutes,durin g whichtime they were toreach a group consensus concerning each of the items onth e AIDSattitude questionnaire. The groupwasinfor med that their discussionwould be recorded on audiotape.The experimenter randomlyselectedone of the three subjects andasked thisperson to record the group's decision oneach item. If tile group had been assigned to theno-discussion condition, subjectsspent approximately 20minutes workingindependent ly on a filiertask that involved finding wordsin a letter matrix.

18

In the final phase of the procedure, each subjectret urn ed to a

separate cubicle and completed the AIDSattitudeouesr'cnnetre.the AIDa,and a questionnairecontaining some questions about the content ofthe videotape.In the case of subjects who engaged in group discussion, the experimenter madeitclear that the positionsthey took now on the attitude questionnaire,"mayormay not be the same as the group position."

After all subjectshad finishedtWingout the questionnaires,the experiment was over. Subjects whohad engaged in group discussion were asked to sign a release form (AppendixOl giving the experimenter permission to retainand use the recording.2To ensureanonymity, each subject's questionnaires werecoded to identify the partic ipant'sgroup and then sealed in an envelope until time of analysis. AllSUbjects received a verba! debrief ingand some written materialconcerning the study (AppendixEl,

19 CHAP TER4

RESULTS 4.1Desi gn an d Meth od of Analy sis

Analysesofvariancewere carriedoutinwhichgroups,comprised ofthreesub jects,weretheunitsofanalysis. For eachof the dependent variables, the scoresof the three members in each group were totalled to giv e a singl egro upscore.

Two types ofanalysiswereundertaken:

1. Analysesof variancewere conducted on the poet-test data of all sub jects .In these analyses, the presenceor absence of a pretest, the presence or absence of discussion,and sex ofsubject werebetw een- subjectfactors,

2. Analysesof variancewere conductedon thepretestandpost-test data ofthe SUbjectsin the twopretest-pre sentconditions .In these anal yses. the presence or absence ofdiscussion and sexofsubjectwere between-subjectfactorsand pretest -post-testwas a within-subject factor.

Eachof these types of analysiswas applied to all of the dependent variables for whichit was appropriate. Inthe case ofthe twodependent variables thatinvolved assessingthe risk of AIDS and theimportanceof preventionmethods for target persons indiff erentcategories,the

20 analyses were extendedto Includesexoftarget , sexualorientationof target,and numberof sex partners as wtttrln-sublectrecto rs."

4.2 Analys es of Post-t estScore s

4.2.1AIDS AttitudeItems. Group attitude scoreson eachitem couldrange from 3to21.Significanteffects werefoundinth e analyses ofthreeofthe fiveattitudeitems. On the item,"AIDSis a gay disease,"

therewas a tripleinteractionamong thepretest.discussion,and sex-of- subjecttactor e.EI1,32)=4.21,.Q<.05(see Figure1). Females in discussiongroups agreed with the statement somewhat lesstha n did femalesinnon-discussion groups,lila )= 1.88, 12< .10.This wastrue regardlessofthe presenceorabsence ofa pretest.Amongmales,a similareffect ofdiscussionwasfound, butonlyamong subjectswho had been pretested , t(8) :: 2.12 ,U<.10.When no pretestwas given,the effect ofdiscussionwas inthe oppositedirection.Males in disc ussion groupsagreedwiththe statementmorethandid malesin non-discussion groups,although the differencewas notsignificant.

Onthe item,"A heterosexualcan catch AIDS",a significant main effectofdiscussion wasfound, EI1.32) :: 4.90,D.<.0 5. Subjects who had engaged in group discussionagreed withthis statementmore thandid thosewhohad not engagedin a discussion ,1M==21.0 0vs M

=20.651.

10

"' .':::":.:.'m:.:.':.:."''- -,

Males Females

_ NoOil cuI8lon ~Discus 'lo n

Fig ure1. Post-testagreement with the statement,

"AIDSis a gaydisease" as a function of pretest, discussion, andsex of subj ect.

21

22 Finally.consistentwith the firsthypothesis,males were morelik el y than femalesto stro nglyagreethat they wouldnot want a person with AIDSintheirhome1M= 8.95vs M=:5.40).Ef1,321==23.1 2,12<

.01,

Nosignificanteffects were foundonthe itemdeali ng withthe importance ofAIDS prev ent ion for het erosexuals or the oneth at assessedsympathy fora personwithAIDS.

4.2. 2 Risl, Rating s.Asign ificantinterac t ionbetween the pretest and sex of target factorswas found on subjects'risk ratings, Ell,32)= 9.35,Q<.0 1(seeFigure 21.Subjectswhohad a pretest rated male andfemaletargetsatsimilarrisk; those who had no prete strat ed a male targetat greater riskthanafema le target,1(191

=

4.06,g<.01.

An interaction wasfoundbetweensexualorientation of targetand sexof target,f(1,321

=

65.92, .u<.0 1{seeFigure3). Inthe case of maletargets ,subjects thoughttheriskwas considerablyhigherfor a homosexualthan fora heterosexual, 1(3 9)=10.29,.u<.01. In the caseof female targets,however,homosexualand heterosexualtargets were rated similarlyforAIDS risk.

Notsurprisingly.there was a strongly significant maineffectfor numberof partne rs,f(1,32):::481,05 .Q<.01. Subjects rat ed targets with fivepartners muchhigher forriskofAIDSthantargets with only one partner1M ::::17.5 9vsM:::10.901. The strengt hof thismain

16;::"' ''' ' ':';':;'':.; ""'0':... ----,

23

15

13

No Pretest Pretest

_Maletarget ~Female l6rgel

Fi g ur e 2. Post-testratingsof AIDS risk as a function of pretest and sex of target .

RiSkofAIDS

17 r=:..c;..= '-- - --- - - - - - - - - ---,

Sex ofTarget _ HeterOll ltua'taroet E2ZaHomo••lIul'targat

Figure3. Post-tes t rat i ngsof AIDSri s k as a fun ct ion of sex u a l orientat i o n and sex of targe t.

24

25 effect, althou ghnotitsdirection,depended on three otherfactors. The numner-ct-oerrn ers effect was stro ngerfor a heterosexual targetthan for a homosexualone,E{l,321 :: 32.70,J2<.01, strongerfor a male targetthanfor a female,E( l ,32)=5.40,12<.0 5,and strongeramong subjectswho hadnot engagedin gTUUpdiscussionthan among those who had,E(l,32)= 5.08, I!<.0 5 . Concerning the latterfinding ,itis impo rta nt to note that the effect of discuss ionseems mainly to have

been to increasesubjects 'estimates ofrisk for targets withonly one partner.Disc u ssion and ncn-dlscuss toneubjectedifferedverylittl e inthe high ratingsof riskthey assigned to targets withfivepartners.

4.2.3PreventionImport anceRatings. Athree-w ay interaction

among thepretest,sex-of-target.andsexualorientationfactorswas found ,£11,32)

=

8.00,J2< .01(see Figure 4). Subjectswho had a pretestgave similarly r-ighrat ings ofpreventionimport ance to male and femaletargets, regardlessof theirsexual orientat ion.SUbjectswhodid not havea pretest ratedpreventionlmoortencelower overall,but differentiatedemong the targets. These subjects rated prevention importance higher for maleho mosexu als than for either male heterosexuals, 1(19)

=

2.27,J2<.0 5, or femaleheterosexuals,11191= 2.77,Q<.0 5 . Ratings ofimportance,;Jrfemale homosexuals,howev er, weresignif icantlylow er than for eithermaleheterosexuals, 1(19)= 3.45,Q<.01, orfemale heterosexuals, 1(191 ;: 3.22,n<.01.

21

r: ".:: ".:: e':: "::: '":..:'m "'.::':..: ".::: ':.:"'-- -,

26

'0

19

18

17

NoPreteat

_ MI1I-Hetl rollxuI1 OFflrn l le· H. le roU~1l11

Pretnl I:Z::JM, le-HOll1ol u uI I I:S'S)Fe mal, - Hornou xul l

Figure4. Post-testratings of the Lmpo ztanceof AIDS prevention asiifunction of pretest, sexual orientation, and sex of target.

27 Aninteractio n bet w een sexof subject andnumberof partner swas alsofound,fll.32)

=

4,74 , 12<.05(seeFigure5). Preventi on importancefor target swithfive partnerswasrat ecequally high by male and female subjects. For a targetwith onlyonepartner, how ev er,there was a tendencyfor malesto rate the importanceofprev ention somewha t lowerthan didfemaJes, 1(19)~1.79.Q < .10 .

4.2.4AIDSKnowl edgeScores.The range of possible scores on the AIDSkn owl ed ge quizforthe three-membergroupswas from0to 105.No significant effects onpost-testscoreswere found.

4.2 .5 VideotapeKnowledgeScor es.Th erange of possible scores on videotape knowledgeforthe three-membergroups was from 0 to21.

Therewerenosignificantdifferencesin videotapeknowledgescores across conditions .

4.2 .6Perceived Understand ingof Videot ape. On thequest ionthat asked subjects how much of thevideotape mate r ialtheyundersto od,the ran ge of possiblegrou pscores was from3to21. A sign ifica nt interaction was foundbetween the pretestand discussion factors, Ht, 32 1=4.59,g<.05 (seeFigure 51.Among subject swhohad been pretested,perceivedunderstandingwashigherinthediscussion con dition than intheno-discussioncondition,1(191 '"2.06,Q-c.0 6.

Amongsubjects who hadnot heenpretested,there wasaslight diffe rence intheopposite direction.

21;-:p':;;:":;;:'"::.:":;;:"::.:'m:;;:p::.:"::.:"::.:"':;;:' ---,

20

19

One Part ner FivePartners Number of Partner s - Mal eSubJecte - FemaleSubJecle

Fi gure 5. Post-testratings of the importanceof AIDS preventionas a function of sex of subject; and number of partners.

22;..:P'","""'-""",-d-"U"",d~"~"~,"~dI~"''- ~

19

18

17 NoPre les l Pret eal

_ NoOiBcuII81on lZ}']Oilcueslon Und.rlllndingIc (>ru1'1llrouplo tl ll

Figure 6. Perceivedunderstanding of AIDS videotape mate r ial as afunc t ion of prete s t and discussion.

as

30 4.2.7Summary.Thefindin gs concerningAIDSattitudesIndicate that grou pdiscussion,especiallywhenitfollowedpretesting,made subjects mor e willingto acceptthethreat that AIDS posesto heterosexualsas well asto homosex ua ls.Interest ingly, this effect do es notappeartohave beenmediat ed byinc reasesinknowledgeofspecif ic fact s, Althoug hpret estand discuss ionenperenttv com binedto enha nce subjects ' perceivedundersta nding of the videotapemate rial,no such effectwas fou ndwith regard totheiractual score son eithe r thegeneral AIDSknow ledge quizorontheitems th at assessed theirspecific kno w ledge ofthevide ot ap e mate rial.

Compa red to female subj ec t s,male sub jectswere relativ ely negativein theirattitudestowardapersonwithAIDS, asindicated by theirgreaterwishto avoidhaving sucha person intheir homes.

However, no sex dif ferencewasfoundon theitemdealingwith compassionfora personwith AIDS.

Finally, withregard to risk andpreventio nim portanceratings, sub jec tsshowedclearawarenessofthedanger associatedwith multiple sex partners. Incontrast,thedangerfora personwith onlyonepartner wasperceived to bemuchless,especiallybymale subjectsandby subjects,bothmale andfemale,who had not engage dingroup discu ssion. Subjectswereincli ned tothink thatthe danger of AIDSwas greaterfor a matetarget than for a femaletarget,particularly if thetarget

31 was homosexual. These differentialperceptionsofrisk were,however, less evidentamong subjects who hadbeen pretested earlier.

4.3Anal y sesCom paringPret estandPo st-test Data

The analysesrepon edinthis secti on involvedonly those subjects who weregivena pretest. As would be expected,manyof thefindings that reachedsignificanceinthese analyses duplicatedfindingsalready reported for the entire sam ple. To avoid repetition.onlyfindingsthat invo lv e thetlme-nf- t eatin q factor will be reportedhere.

4.3.1 AIDSAttitude Items.As inthe case ofthe post -test ana lyses.significanteffectswerefoundonthree ofthe five attitude items. Comparedtothei r pretestattitudes,onthe post-test,subjects wereless likelyto agreethat AIDSis a gay disease, (Pretest M ""7.35;

Post-testM= 5.551,f{1,16)= 14. 40 ,Q<.01,andmorelik ely to agree thata heterosexual can catch AIDS,(pretes tM =20. 30 ;Post- te st M:.::20.80),E(1,16) =6.67,Q<.05. It is clearthat onthese items subjectswere becomingmoreextremein thedirectionin which they were initiallyinclined.There is, however, no eviden ce that this polarizationwas anygreater in the groupsthatengaged in group discuss ionthanin the groups thatdidnot.

Onthe statement "Iwould not want a personwithAIDS inmy home," there was a three-wayint eract ionamong discussion,sex of subject,andtime oftesting,E(1 , 32)""9.11,Q<.0 1(see Figure7).

P,ete "

-tr.l.~.-DI. Cl.

-..-101. . . . -H"Clle.

... . .... -

...

POll-telt Time of Testing

- fl... .. .·OIlc. -e- F''''II•• -NODiIC.

32

Fig ur e 7. Agreemen t withthe st at e men t, "I would no t wanta personwith AIDSin my home"as a fun c tionof time of testing,discus sion,and sexof sub j e c t .

33

Discussion appearstohave had a polarizingeffectIn female groups.

Agreement withthe statementwas relativelylow among females on the pretest and decreasedstillfurt herafter group discussion,1(4)

=

2.98,

a

<.0 5. Intheabsence of group discussion,no suchdecreas eoccurred .

Inthecase ofmale groups,pretest attitudesonthis item were closeto the middle ofthe scaleand,perhapsforthisreason,group discussion pro du cedlittl e change .In fact ,as canbe seen in Figu re7.formales the greate stdecrease in agreementwith the statementoccurredingroups that didnot engage indiscuss ion ,1(4)=2.99,£!<.05.The resultsare typic al of a grouppolarizationeffect. That is.a person'sattitudeswhich areinitiall y inclinedina part icular direction ,pcterfzeto a more extreme positionafter grou p disc ussion.Thus, group polarizatio nwas only evident for groupsthathada definiteagreementat thepretestlevel.

4.3. 1.1Group DiscussionDat a.Inadditiontopretestand post- testdata, analyseswereperfor med on the group discussiondata to inves t igate for group polarizationeffects.This setof analyses included only the data of subjectswhoengagedin a group discussion .Repeated measuresanalyses ofvariancewere performedwith sex asabetween- groupfactorandsequence as a within-groupfactor.The sequence factor representsvariationsin thethree pointsof attitude testing

u.e.,

pre- discussion ,disc uss ion ,and post-discus sion).

3.

There was a significantmain effectfor the sequence factor on the attitude ,"AIDSIs a gaydisease,"EI2 , l6}:=18.54,Q.<.01,Subjects werelessinclined to agree withthis statementduring and after discussionthanbefore discussion(Pre-discussion:M

=

2,43 ;Discussion : M.=1.40;Post-ctscussron:M =,.53).Both the discussion andpost- discussionmeansdiffered signif icantlyfrom thepre-discussio n mean,!18)

""4.89and4.86,respectively ,Q.<.0 1 . Thus,subje cts' average post- groupresponseswere more extreme than, andinthe samedirectionas, the average oftheir pre-groupresponses.

A significantmain effect forthe sequence factor was also found on the att itude,"Aheterosex ualcan catc hAIDS," El2,16)::=5.75 ,.Q<

.0 5. Before discussion,subjectschose either 6 or7 onthis item(M::=

6.74) .During and after discussion,all subjec tschose 7.

4.3 .2RiskRatin gsforDifferentTarget s.There was a significant interaction between time of testing andsex of target ,fll,16}=20.6B, JJ:<.0 1 {see Figure BI.Subjects 'risk ratings increased from pretestto post-testbut this increase was especially marked for female targets.On the pretest ,the risk for female targets was thought to be muchless than the risk formale targets. Thi s differencedisappearedon the post-test.

4.3 .3PreventionImport anceRati ngs.An analysis of variance on the creventtonimportance ratingsrevealed one two-way andtw o three- way interactions,all of which involvedthe time-of-testingfactor.First,

te^{Risk 01AIOS}

ts

->

, .

13

"

^{Pretea t Poet- teet}

Time of Test ing - MaleTarge! - -FemaleTarget RI.klc:g .. . .r. grOllpl ol .l .

Figur e 8. Rat ing s of AIDS risk as afu nc t i o n of time of te st ingandsex oftar g e t.

J5

36 therewas a significant interaction between timeof testingandnumberof partners,Ell.16 ) ::: 17,83,.Q<.01(see Figure91.Subjects(CitedAIDS preventionmoreimportantfortargetswithfive partnersthanfor targets withonly one, butthis was more true onthe pretest, 1(19)'" 5.99 ,Q<

.01,than on the post-test,tllS)R 2.37,2<,05, Prevent ion importancerating sincreas edmore steeply foratarget wit h one partner, 1(191⁼4.56.Q<.0 1 .tha nfo r onewithfive, 1(191=2.95 .D<.0 "1.

Second,therewas athree-way interaction amongtimeoftesting, sex of target, and sexualorientation,Ell ,16)'" 9.95,D<.01 (see

Figure 10) .On the pretest,prevention Im port anc ewasrat ed highestfor a malehomosexual and lowestfora female homosexual. On thepost- test, rat ings were generallyhigher and thediff erences amongthe target categories had largely disappeared.

Finally,therewas a three-way interaction among the discussion, time-of-t esting ,andsex-of-target factors,f(1,16)

=

6.18,Q<.05(see Figure11).As noted above,ratinqoof preventio nimportan ceincreased from pretest to post-test.For femaletargets ,this increasewas especiallymarkedamongsubjectswhoengaged indiscussion.Formale targets,theincrease frompretest to post-test wasonlyslightlystronger fordiscussionSUbjects .

Prevention Importanc e

22, -"'-"'--'--- "'-- - - ,

21

~

20

19

IS

17

37

Pretest

Timeof Testing Poet- Ieet

- One Partner - -Five Partners

Imporl.~e"leore'.rll group lo'ala

Figure 9. Ratings of the importa nc eofAIDS prevent ion as a func t i o n of time of testing and nu mbe r of partners.

TimeofTesting

~l.4a le HelerO"lUal

...MaleHomoa•• ual

- Female Hel .ro ua' -013-FemaleHomo ual

Figure 10. Ratingsof the importance of AIDS prev e ntio nas a function of timeof testing, sexual orien tation,andsex of target.

:r-·'''~

17

39

Prs tes!

- OII C.6t.t.I . Tlrg at ....Nocillo-Ma IITI .g.

PosHes t Time of Test ing

- Dllc. -Flm. ra,,,,I.

--e--No dll <;1°F&m.Ta.g.

Figure11. Ratings of theimportance of AIDS prevention as a function of discussion, time of test ing^I and sex of target.

40 4.3 .4AIDSKnow ledge Scores.Knowledgescores showed a marked incr ease frompretest (M ;: 86,8)to post-test(M

=

95.41.E(1, 161=64.17,I!.<.01.The strength ofthismaineffect ,but not its direc ti on , was qualified by athr ee-wa yint eract ion among the discussion, sex-ct-eublect,andtime -ot-testingfact o rs,E11.40)'" 5.42,J;!<.05 (seeFigu re12).Inmalegro ups ,knowledgescoresincreasedmore in discussion thanin non-discussiongroups, mainly becausethe discussion groupshad relativelylow pretest scores.Infemalegroups,knowl edge scoresincreased less in groupsthat engagedin discussion,perhaps becausethese groupsstarted outwith relatively high pret estscores.

4.3 .5Su mmary.The analysesreport ed inthis sectionshow severalchangesinsubjects'responses frompretestto post-te st.In general,subjec ts'post-te stresponses showed greaterknowledge about AIDS, greater appreciationofthe factthatthe diseaseis not limitedto homosexuals,higher ratingsof the risk of AIDS,espec ially for female targets,and hig her ratingsof theimportan ce of takingpreventive measures,Among both male and femalesubjects,the increaseinratings of prevention im po rtancefrom pretestto post-te stwas moremarked whenthetarget was describedas haVingonlyone sex partner.

When subjectswere able to engageindiscussionwith their friends,ratingsof preventionimportance,especiallyfor femaletargets, showeda strongincreasefrom pretest to post-test .The effects of group

Timeof Testing

41

- "'eln-D IU.

'.,lfo-'Meln-NoDleo.

- Ferneln- Dleo,

.-G- .Ferneln .No Clec.

Figur e12. Knowledge scores as a function of discussion, time of testing, and sex of sub j e c t.

42 discussi on onsubjects' knowledgeabout AIDSandtheirattitud es toward a personwithAIDSwere somewhatdiffe rentin male and femalegroups.

In malegroups, discussionwas assoc iatedwith greaterincreasesin overallknowledgebutinfem alegroups ,great ergainsin knowledge occurredin groups thatdid not engageIndiscussion.

Comparedto females, maleswere morelikely to want to avoid contactwitha personwithAIDSand groupdiscussiondidlitt leto changethisattitude , In contrast.femalesfelt more posi tivelytoward a personwithAIDSfromthe beginningand became eve nmorepositive aftergroupdiscussion.

Further support for a grouppolarizationeffectwasrevealed throug hresults which suggested thatgroupdiscussionproduceda respon seshift toward a more extremeposit iononth eitem s,"AIDS is a gay disease" and"Aheterosexua!can catch AIDS."

43 CHAPTE R5

DISCUSS ION

The purpose of this study was to test severalhypotheses

concern ing the effects of a pretest and groupdiscussion on people's react ions to an AIDS educationalvideotape. Hypoth e ses relatedto sex differences and group polariza tionprocesses were also tested.

5.1KnowledgeAbou tAIDS

In the present study,pretesting and group discussionhad little effect on people'sknowledge of AIDS.Althoughknowledge scores increased considerably from the pretest to the post-test.the expected enhancingeffectsofpretestand group discussionfail e d to materialize . This is surprising in view of the severalstudiesinth e literaturele.g., Baker&Fish,1991;MacNair,1991)that wouldlead one to expect such effects.

Or-e possibleexplanation centres on the contentof the group discussions in the present experiment. Subjectswere asked to discuss the videotapeand answer,as a group,the items on theattit ude questionnaire. As itturn ed out, groups spent much more timeon the second part ofthis task than they didon the first.As a result,although subjects may have gainednew informationfrom thediscussion sessio n, thisinformation may not have been particularly helpfu l tothe min answering the questionsonthe AIDSKnowledgeQuiz.

44 Anothe rposslbleexplanat ion for the lackof a consis tent effect s of pretest and discuss iononknow ledge scores mayhave to do wit h the natureof the AIDS KnowledgeQuiz itself. Thisparticularmeasureof AIDSknowledgemay not havebeen ext ensiv eenou gh for thelevel of students used andthe year in whichitwas admin iste red . Alt houg hthe testprovedveryusef ul wit h first year universityst ude nts in19 8 8·19 8 9 (Fish & Rye,1991;Keilty,198 9 ), the majority of the pre s ent subject s had an unexpected ly goo dknowle dgeofAIDS,especiall yalter viewinq th evideo t ape.Hadamo re diff icu ltand up-to-datemeas u re been used, difference sacross theex perim entalconditions mighthav e emerged.

Desp ite thelackof evidence forpret est and disc us sion effectson knowledgescor es,perceive d understandin g of the mater ialontheAIDS videota pe was enhancedbybot hof these fac torsininterac tion with each other.The connectionbetweenknowledgeandperceptionsof understandingis apparen t lynotasimpleone andneeds tobe studied further.

5.2 Attitudes To w ardAIDS

The presentst udyfoundmales to agreemorethan females that AIDSis a gaydisease,Males werealso less willingtohaveaperson withAIDS in their home,Thesefindings are consiste ntwiththoseof past research in whichmale subjectshaveexpressedmore negative attit udes tow ards homosexualbehaviour (Bouton etat.,19 8 7;Marsiglio ,

45 1993;Young&.wnertvtne.19821. have rated personswithAIDSmore negatively (Keilt y,1989;Fish &. Rye,1991),andhave been less willing tointe ra ctwitha personwith AIDS(e. g.•in aclassro o m setti ng ). (Fish&

Rye , 19 91). Males havealsosco red higheronahomoph obia scale than have females (Bouton ataI., 1987;Keilty ,19B5).

Research indicates thatattitudestow ardhomosexualsare co rrelat edwith attitu des tow ardsperso ns withAIDS.Because thefirst reportedcases of AIDSinvolvedgay men, initialresearchwas foc used on gayand btsexua! malebehavi our(Batch elor,198 41.Thisinturn led to an immediat e associationbetween AIDSand homosexuality(Saha &

Pilklnton ,1993). Fish andRye(199 1) found that mostpeople,especially males, were morewilling to inte ract wit h atarget describ edas being heterosex ualthan homosexual. However ,subjects werealso less likely toint eract withboth het erosexualand hom osex ual target swhenthey weredescribedashaving AIDS.Theauthorssuggested that,becauseof the cont inu ous pairing of AIDSand homosex uality ,reeponseetowarda person wit hAIDS might beinfl uenc ed by theassumptionthat the person is ahomosexua l.

Groupdiscuss ionappearsto have madesubjects less likelyto dism issAIDSasa gay disease,alt houlJhamong males,this was true only for subjectswhohad received a pretest .In addition,aftertalking totheir friends, bot hmalesand femaleswere moreaccepti ngofthe factthat

46 heterosexuals can catch AIDS, The se results are encouraging andseem especiallyimportant when one takesinto account thatvirtually all AIDS

educationprogramsstriveto inducecautious attitudes and behaviour.

Assumingthat mostof the subjectsin the present experiment were heterosexual,the above resultsmay alsoindicate that appropriate

changeswereoccurring in subjects'feelingsof theirown personal vulnerability .

5.3GroupPola rization

Evidence for a group polarizationeffect[Larnrn,1988 ; Myers &

Lamm, 1975;19761was indicated on the attitudeitem inv o lving a

personwith AIDSstaying in one's home.Female subjectstended to have morepo sitiv e and acceptingattitudestoward a personwithAIDS.

These attitudes werestrengthened by groupdiscussion.The attitudesof male subjects were,on average,closer to thescale midpoint on this issue and groupdiscussion withother malesproduced little change.

As polarizationtheory predicts,subjects'attitudes polarizeonlyit they expressa strongopinion on one end of the scale.After a discussion,subjects' attitudespolarize to the extreme end of the scale.

Subjectswho express a weak or moderateopinionhave littlechanceof polarizing to an extremeend ofthe scale due to the differenceofopinion between thethreefriends orto their indecisivenessregarding the statement.

47 This was alsothe case when subjects were discussingwhether AIDSwas a gaydiseaseand whethera hete rosexualcouldcatchAIDS.

Initiall y,the groups disagreed that AIDSwas a gaydiseaseandagreed that a heterosexualcouldcatch AIDS.Ho w ever,theiropinions became much strongerwhen they gottoget hertodiscuss the statementsand againwhen they completed theirpost-tests.

It should be noted that subj ects'attit udes polarized towarda more cautio usandpositiveposition.Itis encouragingtoAIDS educa tional ef fort sthat havingfriendsdiscussatt itudes aboutAIDScan instillsafer and more re a listic views.

5.4RatingsofAIDS Riskand Preventi onIm port ance Subject s' ratingsof the riskofAIDSand theimportanceof preventivemeasuresfor personsindiff erent categoriesshoweda number ofinteresting effec ts.Subjectsratingson thesemeasurestended to increase(i.e., they becamemore caut ious) fromthe pretestto the post- test.This was part icularlytrue whensubjectsratedfemaletargetsand targetswithonesex partner.Itappea rs that subjectscameto believe that unprotect edsex withev en one part nercouldbe risky,thus stimulating amorecautiousrating.

It was foundthataftersubjectsdiscu ssed AIDSprevention importancewit htheir friends, they feltmuch more favo rable toward AIDSprevention. Friends who werenotgiven the opportunitytodisc uss

48 thetopi cbecame only slightlymore favorabletowardAIDSprevent ion.

From an educationalperspectivethis findingis encouraging.If a group discussi onispart ofanAIDSeducatio nprogram,itis possiblethat this techniquewill aidin thestruggletoinc rease theuseofAIDSprevention measu resamongindividuals.

In additionto the itemsint ended to measuresubjects' riskof AIDS tl.e.,riskof AID Sandimportanceof AIDSprevention),threeitems contained in theAIDSattitudequesti onnairemayalsobe consideredas AIDSrisk measur es.The attitudes "AIDSis a gaydisease" and"AIDS preventionis not importantfo r heterosexual s " indicate no risk of AIDS contractionforheterosexuals, whereastheattitude" Aheterosexualcan catchAIDS"indicatesriskfo r heterosexuals. Assuming that most of the subjectswere heterosexual,the above attitudeswould be goodmeasures ofthe subjects'percept ionsof AIDS risk.

Subjectswho discussedwhethera heterosexualcould catchAIDS express edmoreagreementwiththe statem entthan did subjectswho did nothave a groupdiscu ssion.Inaddit ion, it was foundthatsubjects disagr eed morethat AIDSIs a gay disease andagreedmore thata heterosexu al cancatchAIDS, on the post-testthan on the pretest .

Friends who disc ussed the attitudes agreedmorethan did those not invol ved in discussion,thatAIDS preventionIs notimportan t for heterosexua ls. Thisfinding contradicte dthose describedabove. ThIs

49 may bedue to thequestions wh ich referredto heterosexual sand homosex ualscontractin g AIDS.Groupsinvolvedin adisc ussion may haveshared the beliefthatAiDS preventionisimp ort antfor heterosexu alsbut ismoreimport antforhomosexuals. This belief maybe

ba sed on the factthat mor e homosexualsthanheterosex ualshave

contract edtheAIDSvirus(Fede ral Cen trefor AIDS,19 9 3).

5.5Other Findin g s

Th roughout the aboveanalyses ot her find ingswere disco veredthat alt houg himportan t,were notdirec t lyrelatedtothemain purposesofth e stud y.

5.5.1 Rat ings of AID SRisk.Subje cts whohada pretestbelieved thatmalesand femaleshavea similar risk ofcontract ing AIDS.Subje cts without a pretestbelieved males have a higherriskof contractingAIDS than females.It appearsthatrepeated exposuretothe AIDStopicmay have reinforcedbeliefsthat anyonecan be atrisk.

Group s wer e foundto believethat theriskof contractingAIDS wouldbe much higherfor a male homosexual than a maleheterosexual.

They also thoughtthe riskofcontractingAIDSforafemal e homosexual would be slightly higher than for afemale hererosexuat.

Targetsdescribed ashavingfive sexual partnerswere believed to be at avery high risk for AIDS.Subjects felt a personwho had onlyone

50 par tnerwasatmuch lessrisk.This held true tor bothmale andfemale targets ,alth oughmalesweretho ught to be at a slightlyhigherrisk.

RiskofAIDSwasthoug ht to be highe r forhomosex uals than heterosexuals,especially iftheindividu al was described as havingfive part nersrather than one.In addition,a homosexua lwithone sexual partnerwas believedtohaveamuch higherAIDSrisk than a het ero sexualwit h onepartne r.Thisindica tes thathomos exua lbehaviour is perceivedasrisky even ina mon ogamousrelat ionsh ip.

5.5.2Ratings of AIDS Prevent ionImport an ce,Overall,fema le subject s in thisstudyfeltAIDS prevention wasveryimpor ta nt . Male sub jectsagreedbutnot as strongly.This findingmay be related tothe fact that femalesexhibitmore positiveattitudes towardsa personwith AIDSthando males. Females have also been found tobe more kn o wledga ble about AIDSthan males (Chliaoutakis ,Socratakf,Darviri.

Gousgounis,&Trakas,1993;Goodwin & Roscoe ,1988;Keilty ,1989), On the whole,subjectsgave higherratings of AIDS prevention import ance formales andfemales on theirpost- teet thanon their pretest.

Th ey believedAIDSpreventiontobe moreimport ant for a homosex ual male thanfora heterosexualmale, How ev er,theyfeltpreventionwas less importantfor a homosexual femalethanfor a heterosexual female.

This findingmay indicatesubject'sknowledge of the differingrtsk s between sexualpractices .FemalehomosexualsareinaJaw- risk

51 category and malehomosexuals are ina high-riskcategory(Federal CentreforAIDS, 1993).Based onthe highknowledgescores ofthe subj ect s,itis likelythat most groupswereaw are of these differences.

Subjec ts agre ed more stronglyon thepost -testthat AIDS preve nti on wasImpo rtan t for bothmale and femaleheterosexuals.The same was true for male and femalehomosexuals. Init ially,subjects indicat ed thatprevention importance was highestformale homosexuals.

towerfor maleandfemale het erosexuals, and lowest forfemale homosex uals.However,on thepost-test ,subjects believedAIDS preventio nwasequally import ant forall groups,Th is suggeststhat repeatedexpo sureto the issue may haveinstilled a belief that AIDS protecti onisimportantforeveryone.

Subject swho were not exposed toapretestbelievedprevent ion importance to bevery highfor male homosex ualtargets,slightlylower formaleandfemaleheterosexualtargets, and lowest for female homosexualta rgets.

Ahomosexualdescribed as havingone sexualpartner wasgiven higher ratingsof AIDSpreventionimport ancethan a heterosexualwith one partner . When describedashaving five partners,subjectsgave both heterosexual and homosexual targetsvery highratings.

Male andfemalesubjectsagreed thatAIDS preventio nwas very impo rt ant for targets withfive sexualpartners. Males rated prevention

52 importa nce muchlow er for one partner,whereas femaleswere more cautious about aone-partner relationship.

Itshould benotedthat allratings were highonthe scaleof3-21 . The abovefindi ngs demonstr atethatsubjec tswererelativ ely well- informed aboutthe risksof AIDS.

53 CHAPTE R6

CONCLUSIONS

The presentstudydiscoveredthat, compared to females, males continueto expressmore negative attitudes towardAIDSis sues and

persons with AIDS.It was also found that subjects believed their knowledgeregarding the AIDSeducation videotape to be highest when theycompleted a pretestand engagedin group discussion. Ilwas concludedthat a discussionmore focused on AIDSinformation and a more extensive knowledgequestionnairemight revealchanges in subjects'AIDS knowledgescoresthat were obscured in the present study .

Evidence forgroup polarizationwas revealed onthree of the five questionnaireitems dealing with attitudes towardAIDS.Femaleswho were relativelyaccepting of a person withAIDS became even more positivein theirattitudes after groupdiscussion.Males were less acceptingof such a person and showed little change as a result ofgroup discussion .Maleand femalegroupswho initially disagreedthatAIDSis a gay disease and that a heterosexual cannotcatch AIDS,expressed evenstronger disagreement duringandafter a groupdiscussion.

Finally,it was found that,especiallyfor discussiongroups, AIDS preventionimportance wasrated higheron the post-test thanon the pretest.Discussion groupsalso agreed morethata heterosexualcan

54

catch AIDSand disagreed more that AIDSis a gay diseasethan did groups not involved in a discussion.

In addition to findingsrelatedto the hypotheses,males were perceived to be at greater risk of contracting AIDS than females, homosexualswererated at greater risk than heterosexualsandhaving five sexual partners was perceived as being very riskywhencompared to one sexual partner.

Overall, females gave higherratingsof AIDSprevention importance thanmale subjects.Thisreinforces the suggestionthat femalesare more cautiousand in some cases, more knowledgable aboutAIDSthan males, and that homosexualityis more frequentlyassociated with AIDS than is heterosexuality.The findings alsosuggestedthatmales are believedto be more at risk forAIDS, possiblybecausethey are perceived as more promiscuous.Subjectsratings very stronglyindicated the belief that having a sexual relationship with multiple partnersis veryrisky for AIDS contraction.

6.1 Recomm endat ions

Thefoll owin g recommendations are offered to those who are

trying todevelop an effective AIDS educationprogram.

1.Along with the implementationof factual knowledge about AIDSandHIVtransmission,groupparticipationand group discussion amongfriends shouldbe encouraged.Groups shouldconsistof a

55 relatively few persons in orderto ensureparticip at ionby all individua ls.

This will also allow for any grouppolarizationeffects that maybe enco untered,which willin turn help to iormstro ngerand hopefully more cau tious attit ude s about AIDS.

2.A more extensivemeasure ofAIDSknowledge should be devised to cope withthe grow ingchanges intheAIDS knowledgeamong persons in the generalpopulation.

3. Becausefemales werefou nd torat e AIDSprevention import ance highe rand tohave moreposit iveattitudestowardsAIDSthan males,itseemslogical toensuretheinclusion of atleastoneor more femalesineach discussiongroup.

4.Ac cord ingto Moore(198 8 1.the combinationof videotapes and groupdiscussionis the most effective way of educat ingpeopleabout AIDS. The present studydidnot controlfor the separateeffects of the AIDSeducationvideotap e.Therefore,it would be beneficial to include some form ofvisual presentation ofAIDSinformationin anyfuture educa tio nalefforts .

56 REFERENCES

Abrams,D.,&Abraham,C.119881. Social psychologyandtnespread ofAIDS.ThePs yc hQlogist,Z.47.

As hw o rth,C. ,Durant.R.,Newma n,C.,&Gaillard .G.1199 21.An evaluati on of a school-based AIDS/HIV educat ion-programforhigh·

schoo l studen ts.Joy rnalofAdo les ce ntHe a lth ,1.J.17J.582-5 88. Baker.A.,&Fish,T. (1991). Evaluation ofAIDSeducationintwo New

Brunsw ickjuniorhighsch ools. Unpublished manuscript . Batchelor,W.(19841.AIDS:A publichealthandpsyc hological

emergency.AmericanPsyc holog ist,~(1 11.1279· 128 4,

Brown,R.t1986).Socia!psycholo gySecondEd itio n.NewYork: The Free Pre ss.

Bro wn.l.,Fritz,G.,&Ba ro ne, V.(1SSS). Theimpa ct of AIDS education on junior andseniorhigh schoolstudents.~

~~, 1Q,386-392.

Bouton.R.,Gallaher,R.,Garlinghouse.P.,leal.T.,Rosenstein .L,&

Young. R.(19871. Scales for measuringfearofAIDSand homophobia..LQ.I.lUlB.LQfPersonalit v Assessment,.ll(4 1,60 6-614.

Carte r,S.,&Carter,D. (1993).Gende rdiffe rentiated recepti vity to sexualit yeducationcurricu la by adolescen ts.HealthEducatjon Boilililll.~121.233· 24 3.

57

Chliaoutakis,J.,Socrat ekt.F.,Darvlr t,C.• Gousgounis,N"& Trakas.D.

(1993),Know ledge andattitudes about AIDSof residentsof greater Athens. Social Science&Medicine,n ( 1),77-83. Clark,A.,&Pow ell,R.(1984). Changingdrivers'attitu des throug h peer

groupdec ision.HumanRelations,J1(2),155-162 .

Cohen,D.,MacKinnon,D.,Dent,C.•Mason,H..&Sullivan,E. (1992 ).

Group-counselingat

sro

clinicsto promoteuse of condoms. Public HealthRe port s ,.1Ql(61,727-731.

Eisenberg,L.(1989). Healtheducatio nandthe AIDS epidemic. fuLti.§.Il Journal of PSYChiatry ,~754·76 7.

Federal Centre for AIDS.(April, 1993).Surveillanceupdate:AIDSin Canada.Ottawa:Health andWelfare Canada .

Fish,T.• & Rye,B. (19 9 1).Attitudestowarda homosexualora heterosexual personwith AIDS. Journal ofAppli edSocial

~,ll(8),651· 667,

Fish, T"Rye,B"Bel!,L,Keilty,S.(1990, June).Reliabili ty andvalidity data fora test of AIDSknowl edge, Posterpresented at a meet ing of the Canadian Psycholog icalAssociation,Ottawa,Ontario, Canada.

Gerrard ,M.,& Reis,T.(198 9). Retenti onofcontrace ptiv eandAIDS informati onin the classroom. TheJournal of SexResearch,2.§(31, 315-323.

58 Goo dw in, M.&Roscoe,B. (19881. AIDS:Students'knowledge and

attitudes at a midwesternuniversity . Journalof AmericanCollege

~• .J..Q(4L214-2 2 2.

Hinz,V.,&Davis,J.(19 84).Persuasive argumen tstheory,group polarization,and choiceshifts.Personality andSocialPsy ch Qlo gy .!lY.!1!Uln,1Q(21. 260-268.

Keilty, S. (1989). Attitudestow ardmale and femalehete rosexual and homosexualpersonswith AIDS. Unpublish ed honours thes is,St.

ThomasUniv ersity,Freder icton,NB.

Kelley,H. (19 65). Twofunctions ofreference gro ups .InH.Proshansky

&B. Seidenberg (Eds.).Basic Stud iesinSo c ial Psychology {pp . 210- 2141.Toront o:Holt,Rinehartand Winston.

Kelly,J .•&St.lawrence,J.{l9BBI. AIDSpreve ntionand treatment : Psychology'srole in thehealthcrisis.Clinical Psychology Review , .8.,255-284.

Kunkle-Miller , C.,& Slan e,H.(19 77). A smallgroupapproachtoyouth educationabo utalcohol.Jo urnalof DrugEd ucation,1(4),381·

386.

Lamm,H.(19881. Arev iewofour research on group polarization:

Eleven experimen tson the effectsof group discussionon risk accep tance,probab ilityestimation, andnegotiationpositio ns.

~B.e.lJ..Qr.t.s.,.62,807·8 13 .