Need A Light? Smoking Preference and the Environment

This topic submitted by Michelle Bennett, Sandy Buban, Chelsea Kaiser, Katie Pell ( bennetml@muohio.edu ) on 12/14/03 .

Natural Systems 1 Syllabus---Western Program---Miami University

NEED A LIGHT?
SMOKING PREFERENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Introduction
Does student smoking preference correlate with environmental concern? The purpose of the lab is to explore student behavior in relation to their outlook. Specifically, it would determine if smoking or other basic demographic factors determine Miami studentsÕ stance on environmental issues. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that if a student smokes, then his or her environmental concern will be less than that of a non-smoker.
Smoking obviously is an issue among western students, as evident by chalk lines delineating the smoke free zones surrounding buildings. Since Western houses environmental science majors, it seems logical that its residents would display this sort of dedication to the earth and not pollute the air, or their bodies, with smoke. However, smokers are often seen huddling near building entrances on campus. Our curiosity was sparked. Were the environmentalists a different sect of people than the smokers? Were there inconsistencies between their views and actions? We would survey students about their environmental concern and basic demographic information and divide responses according to smoking preference. By researching current environmental issues, we were able to formulate questions that addressed these topics. After analyzing any apparent correlations and testing for significance, our results would show if the environment was truly important to those who contributed to its contamination. We also hoped to find distinctions between Western campus and Main, family trends, or intensity of the practice. The information gathered would be relevant to the Miami community. It could provide insight to students about their effects on the earth. The experiment could better define our home and what it represents.

Hypothesis
If a student smokes, then his or her environmental concern will be less than that of a non-smoker.

Relevance and Research
Studies on smoking, its impact on the environment, and environmental concern related to our investigation. Research has shown that many smokers started in their youth, most likely before they analyzed their impact on the global and local community. Therefore, the practice may have developed separately from environmentalism, lacking correlation. The Journal of Adolescent Health reported an investigation done on connections between individual smoking experimentation and peer smoking in adolescents. The experiment sampled 2525 students in grades seven through twelve, questioning best friend smoking, peer network smoking, and school smoking prevalence. The data concluded that adolescent smoking was higher if a best friend smoked, over half of a peer network smoked, and the school had a higher smoking prevalence (Alexander, Piazza, Mekos, & Valente, 2001). Therefore, popularity and peers seemed to affect smoking choice. According to a separate investigation, being white, weak academic orientation, prosmoking attitudes, and less parental support also put middle school students at risk to begin smoking (Tucker, Ellickson, & Klein, 2003). A study by AmericaÕs Children 2000 targeted smoking behavior among varying racial and ethnic groups. The study concluded, ÒWhite students have the highest rates of smoking, followed by Hispanics and then blacksÓ (Johnston, OÕMalley, & Bachman, 1999). The Journal of Health and Social Behavior suggested that adolescent smoking directly related to parental smoking as well (Foshee & Bauman, 1992).
Although both genders may begin smoking at a young age, studies suggested motives differed in males and females. Preventive Medicine presented a study, which determined how personal issues, social conformity, and rebelliousness influenced student smoking. Conclusively, ÒMale and female students differ in how stress, depression, and smoking are related in the presence of psychosocial factorsÓ (Koval, Pederson, Mills, McGrady, & Carvajal, 2000). Health Education Research embellished upon these results. The article examined the motives for teenage girls to begin smoking. Reputation enhancement and coping strategies were an obvious lure to those who smoke (Snow & Bruce, 2003). Jeanie Lerche Davis supported these findings in her article for WebMD. She proposed that the pressures to be thin, find a boyfriend, and fit in with the crowd drove teenage girls to experiment with smoking. They would use smoking to socially conform and mask their anxieties (2001).
Whatever the cause, underage smoking is of increasing concern in society. The American Lung Association composed data relating to teen smoking trends. Use of tobacco typically began by age 16. Over 4,800 teens smoked for the first time each day, Ò2,000 of these will become regular smokers Ð thatÕs 730,000 annuallyÓ (ÒAmerican Lung Association fact sheet,Ó 2002). Currently, approximately 4.5 million adolescents are smokers. In addition, the article reasoned that cigarette advertisements correlated smoking with youthful energy, sexual attraction, and independence, therefore enticing teens to smoke. Peers and siblings were also a forceful influence on tobacco use (ÒAmerican Lung Association fact sheet,Ó 2002).
Can the trend be reversed? Certainly, teens would not be convinced that social image, stress, and peer relationships were negligible. Nor would the majority choose to quit because of their environmental concern. However, The Review of Economics and Statistics reported that education has a strong correlation to quitting behavior. A solid educational foundation seemed to have a positive effect on the number of young adults, ages 25 and older, that eventually quit smoking. Perhaps an increased knowledge of personal health and environmental awareness was responsible for these conclusions (Sander, 1995).
However, smoking affects more than simply the individual who participates in such behavior. An article in Ethics investigated the effect of smoking on non-smoking individuals, including health concerns and civil rights (Goodin, 1989). Startling facts supported that second hand smoke is a lethal concern. According to the American Lung Association, second hand smoke put 20% of the nationÕs population is at risk for developing lung disease. In addition, spouses of smokers were twice as likely to develop lung cancer as spouses of non-smokers were and had a 30% greater chance of developing heart disease. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency emphasized these hazards when they, Òclassified second-hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen. This category includes only the most dangerous cancer causing substanceÓ (Rowley, 1997). Experimental data from Science, further supported the dangers of passive smoke by exploring the concentration of air pollution from indoor smoking (Repace & Lowrey, 1980). Since urban residents spent approximately 90% of their time indoors, concentrations of poisonous chemicals was of paramount concern. Second hand smoke was one of the main causes of indoor air pollution (Spengler & Sexton, 1983).
Due to its dangerous traits, smoking is of concern to environmentalists. The depletion of EarthÕs natural resources as a whole is an impending danger upon the global community. A limited supply of wildlife, fossil fuels, land, trees, water, and air emphasize the necessity to preserve such resources. Certainly, the pollution from smoking only causes increased distress on the planet (Van Esch, 2000). Delegates voiced concerns about smoking during the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Officials discussed the environmental impact and health affects of smoking, as well as cultural use. The session concluded that anti-smoking campaigns were needed to battle common smoking stereotypes. In addition, smoking hindered the economies of developing nations, further hampering the global community (Yoon, 2002).
As a result, smoking hampered both the individual smoker and the surrounding environment. Since prior research demonstrated that adolescent smoking resulted from social and intrapersonal pressures, it seemed logical to infer that environmental concern was not a significant matter with teenage smokers when they began the habit. However, their peers, family members, and other social environments influenced the studentsÕ choices. In addition, the smokersÕ personal development and education should make them more environmentally conscious, causing them to question their pollution. The large proportion of adolescent smokers caused environmentalists to analyze global affects. Smoking polluted the outdoor atmosphere, but its danger indoors was of primary concern. The hazards of second hand smoke were vast, relating environmental impact directly to smoking trends, yet another reason for individuals to rethink their decision to smoke.
By conducting this experiment, we hope to investigate smoking trends to clarify characteristics of the global community. By researching why students began smoking and why they continue to poison the environment, we may be able to deduce preventative conclusions. By understanding smokersÕ motives, society can better form solutions to their addiction problems and find ways to benefit the environment. Overall, this study also explores human compassion and concern for the environment that supports our lives. We can only hope that empathy will dominate over apathy, before it is too late.

Materials and Methods

To conduct our experiment we will be using basic materials, since our experimental design is survey based rather than observation based. We will be using survey sheets to be filed out by the people we are gathering data from, data sheets which will be used to compile our data, and computer programs to analyze our results. Instead of measuring something physically, we are measuring Miami residentsÕ smoking (or non-smoking) habits and how they correlate to environmental concern. Therefore, our experimental techniques will be easily controlled because we do not have to worry about unanticipated mistakes or changes. We will simply be gathering information that already exists (i.e. peopleÕs smoking habits and their present environmental awareness) and will use this data to either confirm or contest our original hypothesis. After receiving survey data, we will choose six individuals, three who display smoking tendencies and three who are nonsmokers. We will interview these persons to analyze trends in environmental concern.
Survey
The following survey is an exact replica of the half-page piece of paper we will be handing out to the people we interview.

The following questions, which consist of basic demographic information, will be used as data in an experiment we are conducting. Please answer truthfully and do not include your name.
1. Gender: F M

2. Year: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

3. Campus: Main Western

4. What is your major?______________________________________________

5. Do you smoke? Yes No

If so, please rank yourself: 5= 2 or more packs per day 4= 1 pack per day
1 2 3 4 5 3= less than 1 pack per day
2= occasionally during the week
1= occasionally during the month
6. How long have you been a smoker?

Please answer the following questions quickly, based on your first instinct. You will need to rate yourself on each question: 10 meaning very concerned/agree/always and 1 meaning no concern/disagree/never.
1. How concerned are you about the pollution increase affecting the environment?

No concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very concerned

2. How concerned are you about the use of alternate energy sources?

No concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very concerned

3. Do you agree or disagree that more money should be spent annually on conservation?

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Agree

4. Do you recycle?

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Always

5. Do you take action against certain environmental issues?

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Always

Research Time Line
Starting November 4th, we, as a group, are going to travel to eight separate dorms to survey people. We will be choosing sixteen people, eight smokers, and eight non-smokers, at random from each dorm we visit and will ask them to fill out our questionnaire. We will be doing this, one dorm a day, every Tuesday and Thursday until we have reached all eight dorms and surveyed all 128 people. Our estimated time spent at each dorm will be approximately 45 minutes, or until we have successfully gathered information from sixteen people. We are visiting the four dorms located on Western campus and four others located on main campus. Here is what our schedule looks like:
Tuesday, November 4th ~ Peabody
Thursday, November 6th ~ Mary Lyon
Tuesday, November 11th ~ Clawson
Thursday, November 13th ~ Havighurst
Tuesday, November 18th ~ Tappan
Thursday, November 20th ~ Anderson
Tuesday, November 25th ~ Emerson
Thursday, November 27th ~ Morris
Interviews
Following the survey collection, we will compile results and choose three smokers and three nonsmokers at random to interview. The following will be asked to each subject:
Nonsmoker Interviews

1. Would you consider yourself environmentally aware/concerned?
2. Why did you decide not to smoke?
3. Do you feel smoking is a threat to the environment?
4. Would you ever consider smoking?

Smoker Interviews

1. Would you consider yourself environmentally aware/concerned?
2. Does smoking factor into your decision to be environmentally aware?
3. Do you feel smoking is a threat to the environment?
4. Why did you start smoking, and do you have plans to quit? Why?

Data Sheet
Our data sheet will simply tally the answers we received from the finished questionnaires. After we have compiled the information into one collection, we will begin to analyze our results and produce visual representations.

Our Day
In order to share the details of our experiment, we will engage the class in an interactive presentation. We will start by passing out the same survey we used in our fieldwork. The class and professor will fill out the survey. After they have completed the form, we will divide the class into four groups to examine the results, drawing distinctions between smoking trends and environmental views within the classroom. We will then further their comprehension of the subject by presenting results from our prior studies. Using technology, we will display these findings for the class, explaining how we collected and analyzed our data. We will ask them if they see any correlations within these results. We will then disclose to them what we thought of the data. Next, we will discuss the differences in how we interpreted the figures, making conclusions about the Miami community as a whole. Using our classmatesÕ survey results, we will explore how this data relates to, or differs from, the campus as a whole. We are hoping that they have fresh ideas or new ways to look at the data we collected. We will end the presentation by summarizing our findings.
Results
The data resulted in a statistically significant correlation between smoking preference and environmental concern. Please see attached spreadsheets for specific survey results. First, line graphs representing average environmental rankings were generated from the original data. We divided results by smokers and nonsmokers, then further divided among Western students and Main Campus students for future analysis.

A bivariate relationship compared nonsmokersÕ ratings to environmental questions to smokersÕ ratings. A p-value of .0026 demonstrated that there was a .26% chance that the patterns observed occurred by chance alone, making the data statistically significant.

To further analyze the data, a bivariate comparison was made between all Western students surveyed, smokers and nonsmokers, and all Main Campus students. Again, a t-test was performed, yielding a p-value of .0391, making the data statistically significant.

Following data collection from the surveying process, we conducted personal interviews which yielded the following results:
Nonsmoker 1
1. Yes, in general, moderate concern
2. Health concerns first, environmental issues second reason
3. Tobacco keeps hemp from growing, which makes better clothing than cotton and better paper than trees; hemp replenishes much faster than trees. Therefore, it is threatening.
4. No, never

Nonsmoker 2
1. Yes, but not huge priority, doesnÕt take action
2. Individual preservation, then environmental reasons, doesnÕt think Òoh my God, youÕre smoking, you are going to kill the treesÓ
3. There are long term consequences, but doesnÕt think itÕs a huge deal
4. Would never do it, bad for health

Nonsmoker 3
1. Yes, big with recycling, doesnÕt like wasteful packaging, concerned with consumption issues
2. Would never smoke, repulsive, bad for children to see and breathe
3. Not really, maybe in starting forest fires, homes burn chemicals when on fire
4. Never, but if started would smoke weed because better for health than cigarettes

Smoker 1
1. Yes, concerned with environment, doesnÕt litter, pick up stray trash
2. No
3. Yes, definitely
4. Started because of architecture program as a release, plan to quit because bad for self and environment, Òpeople should vaporize, not smokeÓ

Smoker 2
1. Yes
2. Nope
3. Yes, it emits carbon dioxide and it causes litter
4. Bored, idleness, why not? Planned to when turned 18, want to quit because doesnÕt want kids to be around smoking

Smoker 3
1. Very environmentally aware, want to become an environmental lobbyist
2. No
3. Yes, a little, but not a huge concern
4. Parents smoke, friends smoke, but doesnÕt do it very often, no plans to quit because not addicted, but does not plan on becoming a full-time smoker

Discussion and Conclusions
According to the survey data collected, we failed to reject the hypothesis based on statistical calculations. Nonsmokers generally had a higher ranking of environmental concern as compared to smokers. This was demonstrated by the positive correlation on the bivariate fit of nonsmokers by smokers. As the average response for smokers increased, responses for nonsmokers increased as well. However, since the slope of the regression line was less than one, nonsmokersÕ responses were higher, signifying a greater level of environmental concern. It could be argued that nonsmokers displayed a greater concern for personal health and wellness and therefore would be more apt to be sympathetic and mindful about the health and wellness of the area surrounding them. In addition, calculations inferred that Western students generally had a greater level of concern for the environment than did Main Campus students. Again the positive correlation on the bivariate fit of Western students by Main Campus students displayed this pattern, since the slope of the regression line was less than one. This trend could simply be due to the fact that many Western students were environmental science/studies majors. Such students would logically share a concern for nature, influencing other Western students of different majors in the community.
More specifically, students who smoked displayed demographic trends that varied from nonsmoker patterns. The Main Campus smokers surveyed were mostly all male and many were business majors. All but one student was a first year. It was interesting to see that the only premed major ranked himself the highest level of smoking and had relatively no level of environmental concern. In comparison, Western smokers more evenly represented the sexes and the various years in school. This group also displayed higher scores for environmental concern. In contrast, a slight majority of Main Campus nonsmokers were female, although first years continued to dominate the group. Many different majors were represented. Western nonsmokers also had a majority of females. A variety of education levels and majors were represented.
In the survey, the five environmental questions were intentionally separated into two focuses. The first three questions dealt with environmental awareness and concern, while the last two specifically inquired about environmental action taken. Main Campus smokers displayed a fairly steady level of concern and a drastic variation in action. Western smokers demonstrated a slightly higher level of concern than action taken, but without much variation. Main Campus nonsmokers had no strong distinction between the two focuses, whereas Western nonsmokers displayed a much greater level of concern than action.
Results from the interview portion of the lab also revealed patterns. Each student considered themselves to be environmentally concerned, whether they were a smoker or nonsmoker, western or main. Nonsmokers said their reason for not participating in the habit was primarily their concern with their health; the health of the environment came in second. Students felt smoking was a minor environmental threat. The fires cigarette butts could produce or the tobacco grown was more of a concern as opposed to the act of smoking itself. These nonsmokers had no desires to begin the habit. Smokers who were interviewed all denied that smoking affected their decision to be environmentally aware. However, all agreed that smoking was a threat to the environment. This seemingly hypocritical stance did not disturb the students. The smokers planned to quit or stay a mild smoker, but not typically to protect the environment.
From these interviews, it could be inferred that most students did not originally connect smoking to environmental damage. Even after awareness was raised, it seemed students were not overly sympathetic to the idea that smoking impacted their surroundings. Different smoking concerns were more important to them, such as health of the smoker, second hand smoking, the tobacco industry, and setting an example for children. In addition, they felt smoking was not a significant threat to the environment in comparison to other world struggles.
If this study was to be conducted again in the future, certain improvements could be made. Although we surveyed a generous number of students, additional studies could be conducted for more accurate results. Additional interviews could also be conducted to maximize accuracy and provide a wider perspective on studentsÕ reasoning. Even investigations on other campuses across the area would provide more precise measures. Most of the students in the population were first years. The study could benefit from a more equal representation of education levels, especially students living on Main Campus. Also, smoking students were more difficult to find than nonsmokers, resulting in an unequal data set for the two groups. However, perhaps this difference is reflective of the actual proportion of smokers versus nonsmokers, making the inequality justifiable. It was especially difficult to survey smokers in Clawson Hall. This dorm houses many of MiamiÕs international students, possibly inferring that foreign students tend to smoke less than Americans. This observation provided support to the previously noted study done by AmericaÕs Children 2000, claiming that Caucasian individuals have a higher proportion of smokers than people of other races.
Another way to enhance the study could be to investigate different correlations among demographics and environmental concern. We analyzed Western versus Main Campus students, but did not run t-tests against gender, year, or major. These comparisons could yield some statistically significant trends. The categories could also be evaluated against one specific environmental question as opposed to all five for more specific concern trends.
In closing, by collecting data on Miami studentsÕ smoking preference and environmental concern, we failed to reject the hypothesis that smokers had less environmental concern than did nonsmokers. Surveys and interviews allowed us to analyze trends and correlations, which were supported by visual representations and statistical calculations. This study explored how lifestyle choices can reflect more than what meets the eye. Who you are, and what you stand for, is a reflection of your decisions. A complex network of action and thought weave together to form your character. It just so happens that some life choices fit together more precisely than others.

REFERENCES
Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29 (1), 22-30.
(4 October 2003). American Lung Association fact sheet Ð teenage tobacco use [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/teenager_factsheet99.html
Davis, J. L. (4 October 2003). Girls: Lighting up to calm down? [On-line]. Available WWW: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/14/1674_51445
Foshee, V., & Bauman, K. E. (1992). Parental and peer characteristics as modifiers of the bond-behavior relationship: An elaboration of control theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33 (1), 66-76.
Goodin, R. E. (1989). The ethics of smoking. Ethics, 99 (3), 574-624.
Johnston, L. D., OÕMalley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (7 October 2003). Behavior and social environment indicators [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.childstats.gov/ac2000/behtxt.asp
Koval, J. J., Pederson, L. L., Mills, C. A., McGrady, G. A., & Carvajal, S. C. (2000). Models of the relationship of stress, depression, and other psychosocial factor to smoking behavior: A comparison of a cohort of students in grades 6 and 8. Preventive Medicine, 30 (6), 463-477.
Repace, J. L., & Lowrey, A. H. (1980). Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science, 208 (4443), 464-472.
Rowley, C. H. (4 October 2003). Passive smoke Ð danger in the air we breathe [On-line]. Available WWW: http://quitsmoking.about.com/library/weekly/AA051297.HTM?rnk=81&terms=Teenage+Smoking
Sander, W. (1995). Schooling and quitting smoking. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77 (1), 191-199.
Snow, P. C., & Bruce, D. D. (2003). Cigarette smoking in teenage girls: Exploring the role of peer reputations, self-concept and coping. Health Education Research, 18 (4), 439-452.
Spengler, J. D., & Sexton, K. (1983). Indoor air pollution: A public health perspective. Science, 221 (4605), 9-17.
Tucker, J. S., Ellickson, P. L., & Klein, D. J. (2003). Predictors of the transition to regular smoking during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32 (4), 314-324.
Van Esch, S. (21 September 2003). The environmentalists will win in the end [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.spark-online.com/august00/trends/esch.html
Yoon, S. Y. (21 September 2003). Tobacco at the World Summit on Sustainable Development [On-line]. Available WWW: http://www.pagu.org.br/leituras/36_leitura.doc

Smoker Information

Main Campus
Gender Year Campus Major Rank Duration Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5
Male 1st Main Business 2 6 Months 5 6 7 7 2
Male 1st Main Business 2 6 Months 6 6 6 7 3
Male 1st Main Business 1 Less than 1 Year 5 5 5 8 0
Male 1st Main Business 3 24 Months 4 4 5 8 3
Male 1st Main Business 3 2 Months 3 2 4 6 1
Male 1st Main Business 2 36 Months 1 1 6 8 5
Male 1st Main Business 1 approx. 54 Months 2 6 5 5 2
Male 1st Main Business 2 3 Months 7 6 9 5 2
Male 1st Main Business 3 12 Months 7 4 8 4 2
Male 1st Main Communications 4 3 Months 3 6 5 4 1
Male 1st Main Computer Science 2 24 Months 6 3 5 8 4
Male 1st Main Education 4 approx. 78 Months 3 7 8 10 3
Male 1st Main Education 3 18 Months 1 1 1 1 1
Male 1st Main Journalism 2 12 Months 4 5 6 4 1
Male 1st Main Mass Communication 2 12 Months 6 7 3 9 3
Male 1st Main Mass Communication 3 approx. 36 Months 7 3 9 10 3
Male 1st Main Pre. Med 5 24 Months 1 1 1 1 1
Male 1st Main Undecided 3 84 Months 4 4 6 9 6
Male 1st Main Undecided 1 12 Months 8 6 4 10 8
Male 1st Main Zoology 1 24 Months 7 8 10 10 9
Male 2nd Main Biochemistry 1 12 Months 6 6 6 9 1
Female 1st Main Economics 2 24 Months 5 3 9 10 2
Female 1st Main Psychology 1 36 Months 6 6 6

SUM: 107 106 134 153 63
Average 4.652173913 4.608695652 5.826086957 6.954545455 2.863636364

Western Campus
Gender Year Campus Major Rank Duration Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5
Male 1st Western Architecture 1 12 Months 2 2 8 6 6
Male 1st Western Environmental Studies 3 36 Months 9 10 10 10 6
Male 1st Western Undecided 1 36 Months 8 9 8 4 3
Male 2nd Western Interdisciplinary Studies 2 24 Months 8 8 10 8 7
Female 1st Western Interdisciplinary Studies 2 24 Months 7 7 10 9 9
Female 1st Western Interior Design 2 18 Months 7 3 8 8 1
Female 2nd Western Art 2 60 Months 3 4 2 1 0
Female 2nd Western Spanish and Business 2 48 Months 10 5 10 8 4
Female 5th Western Spanish Education/Spanish 3 72 Months 10 10 10 7 7

SUM: 64 58 76 61 43
Average 7.111111111 6.444444444 8.444444444 6.777777778 4.777777778

Nonsmoker Information

Main Campus
Gender Year Campus Major Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5
Male 1st Main Accounting 10 6 7 7 6
Male 1st Main Business 8 8 10 8 7
Male 1st Main Business 10 10 10 10 4
Male 1st Main Business 7 5 8 7 4
Male 1st Main Business-Marketing 8 8 9 5 4
Male 1st Main Political Science 7 6 5 7 2
Male 1st Main Pre-med/Undecided 7 5 5 9 3
Male 1st Main Pre-Pharmacy 8 5 10 3 7
Male 1st Main Science 8 8 8 8 8
Male 1st Main Sociology 2 4 2 4 1
Male 1st Main Undecided 6 4 5 8 4
Male 1st Main Undecided 4 4 7 8 2
Male 1st Main Zoology 10 9 10 9 9
Male 2nd Main Computer Science 8 8 6 7 4
Male 2nd Main Undecided 7 8 7 8 1
Male 4th Main Theater 8 10 10 8 7
Female 1st Main Accounting 6 4 4 9 7
Female 1st Main Art History/Architecture 6 6 6 7 5
Female 1st Main Business 5 5 10 8 1
Female 1st Main Business 9 9 9 10 7
Female 1st Main Business 5 6 10 2 2
Female 1st Main Business Finance 1 1 5 2 1
Female 1st Main Early Childhood Education 6 5 8 10 2
Female 1st Main Early Childhood Education 10 10 10 10 10
Female 1st Main Education 6 3 10 2 1
Female 1st Main Education 3 5 7 3 1
Female 1st Main Fine Arts 7 6 10 10 6
Female 1st Main Graphic Design 9 10 9 8 6
Female 1st Main Math Education 9 5 9 10 6
Female 1st Main Middle Childhood Education 9 7 5 8 4
Female 1st Main Middle Childhood Education 3 3 3 10 4
Female 1st Main Pre. Med/Microbiology 3 4 7 8 5
Female 1st Main Pre-Communications 5 5 7 9 2
Female 1st Main Psychology 5 3 7 5 6
Female 1st Main Psychology 7 6 8 9 3
Female 1st Main Sociology 6 4 7 7 5
Female 1st Main Undecided 6 6 7 8 2
Female 1st Main Undecided 9 6 8 6 5
Female 1st Main Undecided 1 1 5 1 4
Female 1st Main Undecided 8 8 5 10 5
Female 1st Main Zoology 8 8 7 10 8
Female 1st Main Zoology 7 8 7 9 4
Female 1st Main Zoology 4 2 4 3 3
Female 1st Main Zoology 8 3 7 7 5
Female 2nd Main International Studies 6 8 8 8 4
Female 2nd Main International Studies 10 10 10 7 7
Female 2nd Main Spanish Education 2 2 7 2 0
Female 3rd Main GLG 9 5 8 8 5
Female Graduate Main Accounting/Finance 8 9 10 8 2

SUM 324 291 363 350 211
Average 6.612244898 5.93877551 7.408163265 7.142857143 4.306122449

Western
Gender Year Campus Major Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5
Male 1st Western Architecture 5 4 5 7 3
Male 1st Western Architecture 5 6 3 2 5
Male 1st Western Business 5 4 7 5 2
Male 1st Western Environmental Science 7 4 8 6 5
Male 1st Western Environmental Science 7 8 9 5 7
Male 1st Western Environmental Studies 9 9 8 10 9
Male 1st Western Foreign Affairs 7 4 8 6 5
Male 1st Western Interdisciplinary Studies 7 7 7 8 4
Male 1st Western Political Science/Spanish 9 9 8 10 9
Male 1st Western Undecided 5 4 5 7 3
Male 1st Western Undecided 6 8 8 9 2
Male 2nd Western General Business 10 10 10 10 10
Male 2nd Western General Business 10 10 10 10 10
Male 4th Western History 7 7 8 10 5
Male 4th Western Interdisciplinary Studies 7 7 8 10 5
Female 1st Western Communications 6 3 6 9 7
Female 1st Western Creative Writing 6 8 10 7 5
Female 1st Western Creative Writing 6 8 10 7 5
Female 1st Western Finance 10 10 7 6 6
Female 1st Western Interior Design 8 8 7 6 3
Female 1st Western Interior Design 4 3 4 7 1
Female 1st Western Interior Design 8 6 8 9 5
Female 1st Western Interior Design 10 10 7 6 6
Female 1st Western Marketing 8 8 8 9 7
Female 1st Western Microbiology 7 7 9 9 5
Female 1st Western Music Education 8 8 9 7 2
Female 1st Western Undecided 3 4 7 6 3
Female 1st Western Undecided 8 8 9 8 7
Female 2nd Western Creative Writing 7 7 8 9 8
Female 2nd Western Interdisciplinary Studies 6 6 5 7 4
Female 2nd Western Microbiology 6 6 5 7 4
Female 2nd Western Political Science 9 9 8 7 4
Female 2nd Western Strategic Communication 6 6 7 3 3
Female 2nd Western Undecided 10 5.5 5.5 10 5.5
Female 2nd Western Undecided 10 5.5 5.5 10 5.5
Female 3rd Western Education 10 10 9 8 9
Female 3rd Western Interdisciplinary Studies 10 10 9 8 9
Female 3rd Western Spanish 7 8 7 7 6
Female 4th Western Architecture 7 7 10 10 6
Female 4th Western Economics 7 7 10 10 6
Female 4th Western Education 7 5 10 10 3
Female 4th Western English Lit and Philosophy 8.5 9.5 8.5 7.8 5.5

SUM 308.5 293.5 320.5 324.8 224.5
Average 7.345238095 6.988095238 7.630952381 7.733333333 5.345238095