Perceived Benefits of Recreational Fishing to ...

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6:153–172, 2001 Copyright © 2001 Taylor & Francis 1087-1209 /01 $12.00 + .00

Peer-Reviewed Articles

Perceived Benefits of Recreational Fishing to Hispanic-American and Anglo Anglers KEVIN M. HUNT ROBERT B. DITTON Human Dimensions of Fisheries Research Laboratory Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Based on cultural differences we expected Hispanic-American and Anglo males would differ on the importance placed on five constructs related to the perceived benefits of recreational fishing: escaping individual stressors, the importance of others, being in a natural environment, interacting with fish, and achievement. Thirteen experience preference items were grouped into five measurement scales to measure perceived benefits of recreational fishing. Only four constructs were measurable. The “importance of others” scale was not reliable enough for statistical testing. Secondary data analysis of four Texas statewide angler surveys conducted from 1989–1997 was made to calculate an effect size (standardized mean difference) between Hispanic-American and Anglo males on the remaining four constructs. The study focused on males only because of insufficient sample size for female Hispanic anglers. Meta-analysis was used to determine treatment by study interactions and provide a weighted average effect size. Hispanic-Americans and Anglos differed significantly on three of the four constructs; two were in the hypothesized direction. As hypothesized, Anglos placed significantly greater importance on escaping individual stressors and being in a natural environment. Contrary to what was hypothesized, Hispanic-American males placed greater importance on achievement, defined here in terms of the competence testing aspects of fishing. No statistical difference was found on the importance of interacting with fish. Keywords ethnicity, perceived benefits, recreational fishing, meta-analysis The authors appreciate the funding support of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Fisheries Divisions of Texas Parks and Wildlife for the data collection efforts relied on in this research. Additional grant support provided by the Race and Ethnic Studies Institute at Texas A&M University was instrumental to this project and is recognized. We thank each of the graduate and undergraduate students in the Human Dimensions Lab involved in completing the four statewide angler surveys (1989–1997). Finally, we appreciate the helpful review comments provided by James McNamara, Myron Floyd, Alex McIntosh, and Robert D. Brown of Texas A&M University, and two anonymous reviewers of this paper. Address correspondence to Robert B. Ditton, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, 210 Nagle Hall, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

153

154

K. M. Hunt and R. B. Ditton

Increases in Hispanic population segments will cause the structure of the angling population to change in the next quarter century. In 1991, about 9% of anglers in the U.S. general population were Hispanic; this is expected to increase to 16% by 2025 (Waddington, 1995). The changes are even more dramatic in Texas where Hispanics constituted nearly 18% of freshwater anglers and over 31% of saltwater anglers in the Texas general population in 1991; these percentages are expected to rise to 29% and 46%, respectively, by 2025 (Murdock, Backman, Ditton, Hoque, & Ellis, 1992). As a result, Hispanics will account for up to 55% and 69% of the new participants in freshwater and saltwater fishing, respectively, in the next quarter-century (Murdock et al., 1992). As a result of rapid growth in minority populations, Dahl (1993) suggests managers need to examine their assumptions about service priorities. In this regard, previous research and managerial attention has focused primarily on the preferred recreational activities of various ethnic groups rather than on participation in activities that are enjoyed by members of all cultural groups. Recreational fishing is an example of such a shared activity. Whereas researchers have called for comparative research exploring ethnic differences in shared activities (Allison, 1988; Fedler & Ditton, 1994; Floyd, 1998; Murdock, Loomis, Ditton, & Hoque, 1996), little has been done to understand recreational fishing from such a perspective. Determining whether Hispanic-Americans and Anglos differ in terms of the importance placed on the perceived benefits of recreational fishing, and understanding why discrepancies occur is essential for service provision and development of educational programs that target Hispanic population segments (Fedler, Ditton, & Duda, 1998). Culture embodies a system of shared beliefs, values, customs, and behaviors that members of a society use to cope with their world and with one another (Bates & Plog, 1990). From infancy, members of various cultural groups learn their patterns of behavior and ways of thinking through interaction, observation, and imitation until they are internalized and habitual (Samovar, Porter, & Stefani, 1998). Additionally, individuals develop a basic definition of self and groups through this interaction process (Kelly, 1993) as well as specific perceptions of reality. These perceptions are based on belief and value systems that are learned and perpetuated from generation to generation through shared experiences (Bates & Plog, 1990; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Samovar et al., 1998; Washburne, 1978). An individual’s leisure activity patterns and experience preferences are formed and perpetuated as a result of socialization (Kelly, 1993). Several researchers have concluded that Anglo and Hispanic cultures differ in terms of their social, behavioral, and perceptual patterns (Hall, 1983; Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Stewart & Bennett, 1991). Four cultural patterns have been identified as key descriptors of differences in leisure and environmental orientation: humankind–nature orientation, time orientation, activity orientation, and relational orientation (Jackson, 1973; Simcox, 1993).

Perceived Benefits to Cultural Groups

155

Part of every culture’s worldview is its perceptual orientation toward the natural world; this is defined in terms of beliefs and values that are attached to nature (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984). Utilitarian cultures perceive themselves as being dominant over nature, and do so to provide the “greatest good” for humans. Cultures with advanced technologies and a strong scientific paradigm tend to hold this view. Anglo-American culture has been classified as utilitarian (Altman & Chemers, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Nash, 1982). Mexican culture has a fatalistic orientation where humans are seen as powerless against the forces of nature. Vulnerable to environmental hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, and hurricanes, they are seen as having less of a scientific and technological orientation compared to others (Diaz-Guerrero, 1979; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Simcox, 1993). Their perspective infers that human beings are an integral part of the landscape, rather than being separate from it and in control. Lynch (1993) believes Hispanic culture does not separate people from the natural landscape; the ideal landscape is seen as being “peopled and productive” all the time. A culture’s concept of time includes its philosophy toward the past, present, and future, and the importance (or lack of importance) it places on time (Samovar et al., 1981). Gudykunst and Kim (1984) characterize Anglo culture as futureoriented. Accordingly, they emphasize schedules, segmentation of time, and expect promptness so that desired future outcomes can be achieved. Conversely, Hispanic cultures are seen as present-oriented and not strongly tied to highly segmented uses of time. For them, it is the “here and now” that is important, and time is based more on repeating natural patterns than on future events which are unknown. Anglo culture makes a distinct separation between work and leisure (nonwork) time, whereas this separation is less pronounced in Hispanic cultures (Simcox, 1993). Activity orientation includes the patterns and values that a culture maintains for decision making, goal attainment, and the initiation of behavior (Simcox, 1993). Two common modes of activity orientation are “doing” and “being” (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Anglos tend to concentrate on short-term goals with specific desired outcomes; they focus on activity, rationality, and efficiency. A “being” orientation is dominant in non-Anglo cultures and is more closely related to a present perception of time. They believe the Anglo orientation is too aggressive, competitive, and achievement-oriented (Simcox, 1993). In cultures where “being” is dominant, goal-oriented behavior is subordinate to societal and group norms, and collective approaches to tasks and problems (Samovar et al., 1981). Here, value is placed on behavior encouraging group cohesiveness, belonging, and reaching consensus among group members (Simcox, 1993). In this regard, Diaz-Guerrero (1979) found Mexican culture emphasizes the creation of predictable physical, social, and interpersonal situations, where value is placed on creating pleasurable and often festive experiences that emphasize family cohesiveness and relaxed social interaction.

156


Finally, cultures can be individualistic or collectivistic (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Triandis, 1990). Within individualistic cultures, the focus is on independence, personal accomplishment, and self-reliance. The individualistic orientation is a Western phenomenon, mainly rooted in Anglo-American culture (Simcox, 1993). In the dominant American culture, Samovar et al. (1981) see individuals as having their own separate identities. Further, the interests of individuals are paramount, and all values, rights and duties originate in individuals. This individualistic character reinforces many of the value orientations consistent with “doing” (Simcox, 1993). Conversely, collectivistic cultures focus on societal norms and preserving the values and integrity of the group (Samovar et al., 1981). Individuals are seen as defining themselves more by the group’s success (Simcox, 1993). This view is characteristic of Hispanic cultures, including the Mexican-American subculture (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Triandis, 1990). Assimilation theory suggests that immigrants will eventually abandon their culture, and adopt the values of the mainstream Anglo culture as structural barriers are removed and social distance is reduced (Floyd, Gramann, & Saenz, 1993; Gordon, 1964). Nevertheless, this Anglo-conformity model doesn’t seem to hold for many ethnic groups in the United States (Gramann, Floyd, & Saenz 1993; Teske & Nelson 1976). Additionally, Kleg and Yamamoto (1995) found that social distance separating ethnic groups has remained relatively stable over the past 7 decades, further challenging the inevitability of assimilation. Alternatively, the cultural pluralism ideology suggests voluntary immigrant groups seek structural assimilation in education, occupations, housing and politics, but they seek to maintain their cultural distinctiveness in other areas of life (McLemore, 1991). Keefe and Padilla (1987) argue that Mexican-Americans differ from the traditional assimilation process in that they retain certain core cultural traits such as family organization, child-rearing practices, and traditional foods and music patterns, while others such as language are adopted fairly quickly. They termed this process selective acculturation. Leisure facilitates the expression of culture, thus reinforcing core cultural patterns (Allison, 1988; Floyd & Gramann, 1993; Gramann et al., 1993; Kelly, 1987). First, because it is freely chosen, it provides an outlet for cultural expression that is not possible at work or school (Floyd & Gramann 1993; Kelly, 1987). Second, leisure activity occurs mainly in the context of family and friendship groups (Cheek & Burch, 1976). In the case of Mexican-Americans, personal communities tend to be “ethnically enclosed” (Keefe & Padilla, 1987). Therefore, leisure activities provide a secure and supportive space for cultural expression (Baas, Ewert, & Chavez, 1993; Carr & Williams, 1993; Hutchinson, 1987; Shaull & Gramann, 1998). Because leisure is an expression of culture, the cultural patterns described previously should lead to differences in the meanings assigned to shared recreation activities such as fishing (Allison, 1988; Carr & Williams, 1993). From the previous literature review, the four cultural patterns characteristic of Anglos have created a view of consumptive wildland recreation (i.e., hunting


157

and fishing) that focuses on the individual, nonwork time, and natural settings (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; de Grazia, 1962; Kraus, 1984). First, like many other outdoor recreation activities, consumptive wildland recreation has been characterized as activity occurring in nonwork time and allowing people to renew or recreate themselves. From a societal standpoint, the consequences of such activities are that the individual will supposedly be more productive in both personal and work environments (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; de Grazia, 1962). Second, hunting and fishing are seen as primarily taking place outside urbanized areas and affords the opportunity for the renewal of oneself to occur in an undisturbed natural environment (Kelly, 1993). Thus, for Anglos, consumptive activities like fishing allow the individual to experience independence, personal accomplishment, and self-reliance through what Meeker, Woods, and Lucas (1973) argue is the “reenactment of the conquest of nature.” These views of consumptive wildland recreation suggest that for Anglos the intrinsic benefits of recreational fishing (e.g., relaxing or being outdoors) are more important than benefits involving their social group of participation (i.e., family recreation or being with friends). Most Anglo recreational fishing participation, however, does occur in social groupings of family and friends (Cheek & Burch, 1976; Hunt & Ditton, 1997); accordingly, we do not imply that family or friends are unimportant to their leisure experiences. Nevertheless, because of differences in their orientation towards nature, collectivistic values, time orientation, and the resultant work–leisure relationship, recreational fishing may mean something quite different to Hispanic-American anglers (Allison, 1988; Carr & Williams, 1993). First, they may view fishing more as an opportunity for relaxed social interaction with family and extended family. Second, because their ideal natural setting is one that is “peopled and productive,” an undeveloped natural environment is not necessarily a requirement; the setting need only provide a secure and supportive social space for shared experiences with family and extended family (Noe & Snow, 1989; Schaull & Gramann, 1998). Finally, because of their “being” orientation and fatalistic view of nature, the “conquest of nature” should not be as important to Hispanics as the opportunity to experience the moment in the “here and now,” that is, the actual act of catching fish is what is important, not subduing or conquering the fish. Therefore, we expect differences in cultural patterns also to influence the perceived benefits of recreation to these groups as well. Specifically, we expect to find differences between Hispanic-Americans and Anglos on five constructs related to the perceived benefits of recreational fishing, namely, escaping individual stressors, the importance of others, being in a natural environment, achievement, and interacting with fish. First, because Anglos are likely to view recreational fishing more as a way to re-create themselves than an opportunity for relaxed social interaction with family and extended family, we hypothesize they will attach greater importance to perceived benefits of recreational fishing that allow for escaping individual stressors. Second, because of their individualistic nature, we

158


would expect that being in a natural environment would be more important to Anglos when fishing because natural settings offer greater opportunity for experiencing independence and self-reliance. Conversely, because Hispanics focus more on the social environment, we would expect that the importance of others would be of greater importance to them when fishing. Also, because Hispanic groups have been found to participate more in developed environments that facilitate social interaction, we expect that being in a natural environment would be less important to them. Next, because of their emphasis on enjoying the moment, we expect that the fun and excitement that is produced through catching, or interacting with fish, would be of greater importance to Hispanics. Finally, because of the emphasis on science and technology in Anglo culture, we would expect them to place more importance on achievement, defined here in terms of the competencetesting aspects of recreational fishing. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Hispanic-Americans who have negotiated many of the structural and interpersonal constraints of participating in recreational fishing (as evident by their purchase of a fishing license) exhibit differences from Anglo licensed anglers on five constructs related to the perceived benefits of recreational fishing. Further, we expect that differences will persist after controlling for income levels, access to resources, and age because cultural patterns are so enduring and resistant to assimilation patterns (Bates & Plog, 1990; Lustig & Koester, 1998; Samovar et al., 1998).

Methods Data for group comparisons were obtained from four independent statewide angler surveys conducted in Texas. Specifically, results from the 1989, 1990, 1994, and 1997 statewide surveys of Texas anglers were used for this paper (Bohnsack & Ditton, 1999; Ditton & Fisher, 1992; Ditton & Hunt, 1996; Hunt, Ditton, Riechers, Gutreuter, Osborn, & Matlock, 1991). Each survey sampled approximately 10,000 anglers, respectively, and requested data regarding their fishing participation during the 1988, 1989, 1993, and 1996 license years, respectively. In each study, a stratified random sample of anglers was selected from agency fishing license files (51% and 49% from inland and coastal counties, respectively). Anglers who purchased a general fishing license, or a combination hunting and fishing license, constituted the sampling frame for each of the studies. Effective response rates ranged from 50% to 65% for the four studies with an overall effective response rate of 59%. Questionnaires were mailed during the Fall and Spring sampling windows advocated by Brown, Decker, and Connelly (1989), and followed methodology prescribed by Dillman (1978) for the first three surveys, and Salant and Dillman (1994) for the 1997 survey. Nonresponse bias was statistically corrected for using weighting methods developed by Fisher (1996) in the 1993 and 1997 studies. Nonrespondent follow-up phone surveys were conducted in the 1989 and 1990 studies, but no measure of race and ethnic origin was ascertained. Based on the corrected studies, the 1989 and 1990 studies likely


159

underrepresented minority anglers under 25 years. Unfortunately, females were excluded from group comparisons. This was because insufficient numbers of Hispanic females in the random samples left race by gender interactions unexplorable, that is, statistical power was too low to make meaningful comparisons. Including only Anglo females was seen as possibly biasing group comparisons between primarily male Hispanic anglers and the Anglo group. The ethnic origin of anglers served as the independent variable and was measured using self-identification questions consistent with the race and ethnic questions as used in the 1990 U.S. Census. First, anglers indicated whether they were White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, or “Other,” and then whether they were of Spanish/Hispanic origin. Those who indicated they were of Spanish/ Hispanic ethnic origin were grouped into a “Hispanic” category, and removed from their respective race designation. Preliminary analysis showed all anglers who reported they were of Spanish/Hispanic origin considered themselves as “White” in the race category, or opted to fill in “Hispanic” in the “Other” category of the race question. For this study, anglers who responded they were White and not of Hispanic origin were considered “Anglo.” Over 95% of those who indicated they were Hispanic indicated they were Mexican-American. Further, male angler samples were matched based on residence location, income, and age. Matching was done because insufficient sample size precluded analyses at the residence, income, and age subgroup levels. Specifically, statistical power was too low for meaningful comparisons. Matching enabled us to control for the effects of these variables (i.e., competing explanations) prior to analysis. First, in each of the four datasets, each Hispanic male was categorized by his zip code of current home residence (5-digit), income level (low = $1 to $29,999; mid = $30,000 to $69,999; high = $70,000 and above), and age group (5-year categories). Next, for each Hispanic male, we identified all Anglo male respondents living in his zipcode area, having the same income level, and being in the same age group in that dataset. One Anglo male was then randomly selected from all possible matches in each respective dataset to be included in the analysis. Similar procedures were used previously for investigating racial and ethnic diversity in outdoor recreation (Cheek, Field, & Burdge, 1976; Washburne, 1978; Washburne & Wall, 1980). In each of the four statewide angler surveys, anglers were asked to rate the importance of each of 18 reasons for participating in recreational fishing on a 5point importance continuum. Scale items were drawn from the recreation experience preference (REP) scales developed by Driver (1977) and additional items developed for angler research in Texas. However, because this was an analysis of secondary data, all of the original 18 items were not related to the constructs developed in the literature review for this paper. Operationalization of the perceived benefit constructs took place in the following manner. First, the original 18 items were intuitively assigned to one of the five identified constructs: 1) escaping individual stressors, 2) the importance of others, 3) being in a natural environ-

160


ment, 4) interacting with fish, and 5) achievement. Five of the original 18 items dealt with aspects of recreational fishing not related to the five constructs and were removed from the analysis; these were related to seeking trophy fish, eating fish, and winning a prize. Scale items for each of the five constructs were then subjected to scale reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha (Miller, 1995). Four of the scales had reliabilities above the 0.60 level and were felt to adequately measure the construct (Table 1). The importance of others construct, which included two items (“for family recreation” and “to be with friends”), had reliabilities below 0.35 and was removed from the analysis. Thus, we were not able to adequately investigate this hypothesis (Miller, 1995). In each of the four surveys, the summated score for Hispanic-American and Anglo males was computed for each of the four remaining constructs. Total scores were then averaged for Anglo and Hispanic males. Next, we calculated an effect size (standardized mean difference) for Hispanic and Anglo males on the four measurement scales used to operationalize the constructs using matched samples (zip code, income, and age) from each of four Texas statewide angler surveys. Meta-analysis techniques developed by Hedges & Olkin (1985) were used to de-

Table 1 Scale Items Used to Measure Perceived Benefit Constructs for Hispanic and Anglo Males and Scale Reliability Construct

Scale Itemsa

Escaping Individual Stressors

for relaxation to get away from the regular routine to get away from the demands of other people

Being in a Natural Environment

to be outdoors to be close to the water to experience unpolluted natural surroundings

Interacting with Fish

to experience adventure and excitement for the experience of the catch for the fun of catching fish

Achievement

to develop my skills to test my equipment

Scale reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 1989

1990

1993 1997

0.71

0.72

0.72 0.69

0.63

0.61

0.63 0.64

0.79

0.80

0.77 0.80

0.67

0.69

0.71 0.71

response format: 1 = “not at all important,” 2 = “slightly important,” 3 = “moderately important,” 4 = “very important,” and 5 = “extremely important.” a


161

termine if effect sizes were homogenous across studies, and, if so, a weighted average effect size was calculated.1 Further, 95% confidence intervals around the weighted average effect sizes were used to determine if they were statistically 1 Using each group’s average score and its standard deviation on each of the measurement scales, an effect size (Cohen, 1969; Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981), denoted by g, was calculated using the observed sample mean difference as the numerator, and the pooled standard deviation as the denominator. Because g is a slightly biased estimate of the population effect size (d), tending to overestimate it for small samples, a slight correction for g presented by Hedges (1981) provides an unbiased estimate, d, of g. Additionally, the variance of d (vi ), the reciprocal of the variance (wi), and resultant wi di, and wi di 2 were calculated for use in the meta-analysis of the data. Meta-analysis techniques developed by Hedges & Olkin (1985) were then used to test whether effect size estimates were homogenous over the four studies (i.e., vary only by unsystematic sampling error) using a Chi-square goodness of fit test (Equation [1]) and comparing the value obtained to the critical c2 value for the appropriate degrees of freedom (3 in this case): k

k

H T = å wi d 2 i

( å wi d i )

2

i=1

.

k

åw

i=1

(1)

i

i=1

If studies were homogenous (indicating no treatment by study interactions), a weighted average effect size was computed by weighting each study’s individual effect size estimate by the inverse of its variance due to sampling error using the following equation: k

åw d i

d. =

i=1 k

åw

i

.

(2)

i

i=1

This test is conceptually a test for the “main effect” of ethnicity across studies. This weighted average effect size has a variance of v. =

1 k

åw

i

i=1

.

(3)

Finally, a corresponding 95% confidence interval was computed around the weighted average effect sizes to determine if they were statistically significant. For all constructs, effect sizes were computed with Hispanics as the leading mean in the equation. Therefore, a positive weighted average effect size whose 95% confidence interval did not include zero indicated a significant difference at the alpha = 0.05 level favoring Hispanic males. Conversely, a negative weighted average effect size whose 95% confidence interval did not include zero indicated a significant difference favoring Anglo males. If the confidence interval did not include zero, then the research hypothesis for that construct was accepted (if it was in the hypothesized direction). The effect size allows one to express sample mean differences in standard deviation units and allows an effect size indicator to be interpreted using a normal distribution. Hence, a percentage difference can be determined (McNamara, 1992).

162


significant. Beta, the probability of making a Type II error, was determined using statistical power tables provided by Cohen (1988) specifying a medium effect. Statistical power ranged from 0.88 to 0.98 for the individual studies. Thus, beta (the probability of failing to find group differences when they actually exist) ranged from 0.02 to 0.12. Next, to test the viability of subcultural theory (Washburne, 1978; West, 1989), the weighted average effect sizes for matched samples were compared to the weighted average effect sizes produced from identical analyses on the entire male Anglo and Hispanic angler population (unmatched). Subcultural theory would be supported if there is no change in the weighted average effect size between unmatched and matched samples, or the weighted average effect size increases or decreases only slightly from unmatched to matched samples, but still accounts for most of the observed difference (Cheek et al., 1976; Washburne, 1978). Tables for unmatched sample results are available in Hunt (2000).

Results Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for Hispanic-American and Anglo males in each study for the four perceived benefit measurement scales (Table 2). For each measurement scale in each study, an effect size (gi) was calcuTable 2 Matched Sample Size, Mean Score, and Standard Deviation for Hispanic and Anglo Males on Scales Used to Measure Perceived Benefit Constructs Construct

Study

n per group

Hispanic Hispanic M SD

Anglo M

Anglo SD


1989 1990 1993 1997

188 154 137 144

11.30 11.57 11.95 11.98

2.89 2.65 2.70 2.37

11.60 12.12 12.23 12.22

2.66 2.26 2.30 2.27


1989 1990 1993 1997

188 154 137 144

10.52 10.99 11.53 11.85

2.91 2.56 2.47 2.58

11.08 11.42 11.98 11.91

2.37 2.26 2.38 2.26


1989 1990 1993 1997

188 154 137 144

11.61 11.55 11.93 11.92

2.71 2.73 2.43 2.67

11.63 11.55 11.91 12.26

2.49 2.36 2.34 2.14

Achievement

1989 1990 1993 1997

188 154 137 144

5.75 5.55 5.72 5.60

2.12 2.19 2.07 2.26

4.88 4.74 5.20 5.08

1.88 1.87 2.02 2.03

163


lated using the mean score of Hispanic-American males as the leading mean in the equation (Table 3). Additionally, a corrected effect size (di), its variance (vi), the reciprocal of the variance (wi), and resultant widi, and wid i2 were calculated for use in the meta-analysis (Table 3). The homogeneity of the effect sizes assumption was tested and accepted for all four constructs, indicating no treatment by study interactions (Table 4). Thus, combining individual effect size estimates was appropriate for calculation of a weighted average effect size for each of the constructs (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hyde & Linn, 1986). For the escaping individual stressors construct, the weighted average effect size for matched samples was d. = –0.135. Because the confidence interval did not include zero (Table 4), this was a statistically significant difference favoring Anglo males. As hypothesized, Anglos placed significantly greater importance on escaping individual stressors as a perceived benefit of recreational fishing. The

Table 3 Effect Size Estimate for Hispanic and Anglo Males, Corrected Effect Size Estimate, Variance of Corrected Effect Size, and Resultant wi, widi, and widi2 for Scales Used to Measure Perceived Benefit Constructs Construct

Study

g ia


1989 1990 1993 1997

–0.108 –0.223 –0.112 –0.103

–0.108 –0.223 –0.111 –0.103

0.0107 0.0131 0.0146 0.0139

93.863 –10.118 76.525 –17.049 68.394 –7.617 71.904 –7.417 310.687 b –42.199

1.091 3.798 0.848 0.765 6.502

Being in a 1989 Natural 1990 Environment 1993 1997

–0.207 –0.182 –0.186 –0.025

–0.207 –0.182 –0.185 –0.025

0.0107 0.1030 0.1047 0.0139

93.500 76.683 68.208 71.994 310.386

–19.339 –13.939 –12.620 –1.777 –47.675

4.000 2.534 2.335 0.044 8.913


–0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.008 –0.141 –0.140

0.0106 0.0130 0.0146 0.0139

93.999 –0.721 77.000 0.000 68.499 0.572 71.824 –10.066 311.322 –10.215

0.006 0.000 0.005 1.411 1.421

0.0109 0.0132 0.0147 0.0140

91.844 39.800 17.248 75.514 29.964 11.890 67.954 17.230 4.369 71.479 17.258 4.167 306.791 104.253 37.673

1989 1990 1993 1997

Achievement 1989 1990 1993 1997 a b

0.434 0.398 0.254 0.242

di

0.433 0.397 0.254 0.241

vi

wi

w id i

Effect size was calculated as (mean Hispanic – mean Anglo) / pooled SD. Apparent inconsistencies in summated scores are due to rounding.

w id i2

164 d. = 0.340

Ht = 1.59 < c 2(3, 0.05) 4 Effect Sizes are homogenous



Achievement

Critical value for c2(3, 0.05) = 7.815.

d. = 0.033



a

d. = –0.154

Ht = 0.77 < c2(3, 0.05)a 4 Effect Sizes are homogenous


d. = –0.135

Result of H(T) test

Construct

Weighted Average Effect Size

Prob(0.228 £ d £ 0.452) = 0.95

Prob(–0.144 £ d £ 0.078) = 0.95

Prob(–0.265 £ d £ –0.042) = 0.95

Prob(–0.247 £ d £ –0.024) = 0.95

95% Confidence Interval

12