Daha temiz bir dünya için kadınlar kimyasallardan vazgeçebilir mi? Deneysel bir çalışma

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı temizlikte kullanılan kimyasalların zararlarına ilişkin verilen bir psikoeğitimin kimyasalları kullanma biçimi ve sıklığı, kimyasalları kullanma miktarını azaltmaya yönelik niyete ilişkin değişim aşaması ve özyeterlik algısı üzerindeki etkisinin boylamsal olarak incelenmesidir. Yöntem olarak zayıf deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya 44 kadın gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Katılımcılara evlerde kullanılan kimyasal temizlik maddelerinin çevreye ve insan sağlığına zararlarını anlatan bir psikoeğitim verilmiş ve katılımcıların psikoeğitim öncesi, hemen sonrası ve 3 ay sonrası bulundukları değişim aşamaları ve özyeterlikleri değerlendirilmiştir. Aynı zamanda psikoeğitim öncesinde kimyasal temizlik malzemelerini kullanma sıklıkları, kimyasallara ilişkin düşünceleri ile kullanma biçimleri değerlendirilmiş ve bu değerlendirme 3 ay sonra tekrarlanmıştır. Katılımcıların özyeterlik algılarındaki değişim Friedman, temizlik maddelerinin kullanım sıklığındaki değişim ise Marginal homojenlik testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları incelendiğinde katılımcıların özyeterlilik algılarının psikoeğitimden hemen sonra anlamlı oranda arttığı (p<0,05); üç ay sonra etkinin azaldığı ancak hala psikoeğitim öncesine göre sürdüğü; kimyasal temizlik malzemelerinin kullanım sıklıklarında ise anlamlı oranda azalma olduğu bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Psikoeğitimden hemen sonra hazırlık aşamasındaki kişi sayısının, izlemde de hareket aşamasındaki kişi sayısının arttığı görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak, psikoeğitim kişilerin evlerde kullandıkları kimyasalları azaltmakla ilgili niyetini ve davranışlarını olumlu yönde değiştirmesine katkı sağlamış ve kişilerin bunu yapabileceğine ilişkin özyeterlik algılarını arttırmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kimyasal temizlik malzemeleri
• Çevreci davranış
• Özyeterlik
• Değişim aşamaları

Can women give up chemicals for a cleaner world? An experimental study

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the effect of a psychoeducation about the harmful effects of chemicals used in cleaning on the frequency of using chemicals, the stages of change regarding the intention to reduce the amount of using chemicals, and perception of self-efficacy. The research is a longitudinal study which utilized weak experimental design. 44 women voluntarily participated in the study. Participants were provided with a psychoeducation about the harmful effects of chemical cleaning agents used in homes to the environment and human health. The stages of change and self-efficacy of the participants before, after and 3 months after the psychoeducation were evaluated. At the same time, the frequency of using chemical cleaning materials, their thoughts on chemicals and the way of using them were evaluated before the psychoeducation and this evaluation was repeated 3 months later. The change in the self-efficacy perceptions of the participants was evaluated with the Friedman test and the change in the frequency of using cleaning agents with the Marginal homogeneity test. When the analysis results were examined, it was found that the self-efficacy perceptions of the participants increased significantly right after the psychoeducation (p <0.05), after three months the effect diminished but still lasts compared to pre-pschoeducation and there was a significant decrease in the usage frequency of chemical cleaning materials (p <0.05). It is observed that after the psychoeducation the number of people in the preparation stage and in the follow-up period the number of people in the movement stage of the deacreasing the use of chemicals increased. Conclusion: Psychoeducation has contributed to positively change the intention and behavior of people in reducing the chemicals they use at home and increased people's self-efficacy perceptions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chemical cleaning agents
• Environmental behavior
• Self efficacy
• Stages of change

Kaynakça

1. Atik, A. D., ve Doğan, Y. (2019). Üniversite öğrencilerinin çevre dostu davranışları. Muallim Rıfat Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 1-21.
2. Alp, E., Ertepinar, H., Tekkaya, C., ve Yilmaz, A. (2008). A survey on Turkish elementary school students’ environmental friendly behaviours and associated variables. Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 129-143.
3. Baltacı, A. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri ve örnek hacmi sorunsalı üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 231-274.
4. Bamberg, S. (2007). Is a stage model a useful approach to explain car drivers' willingness to use public transportation? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(8), 1757-1783.
5. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
7. Bernard, A. (2007). Chlorination products: emerging links with allergic diseases. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 14(16), 1771-1782.
8. Burn, S. M. ve Oskamp, S. (1986). Increasing community recycling with persuasive communication and public commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(1), 29-41.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., Demirel, F. ve Kılıç, E. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
10. Carpenter, D. O., Arcaro, K. F., Bush, B., Niemi, W. D., Pang, S., ve Vakharia, D. D. (1998). Human health and chemical mixtures: an overview. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106(6), 1263-1270.
11. Carson R. L. (1962). Silent Spring. MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. https://fb2bookfree.com/uploads/files/2020-11/1606011490_silent-spring.pdf
12. Clayton, S., Litchfield, C. ve Geller, E. S. (2013). Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 377–382.
13. Cunningham, T. R., Galloway-Williams, N. ve Geller, E. S. (2010). Protecting the planet and its people: how do interventions to promote environmental sustainability and occupational safety and health overlap? Journal of Safety Research, 41(5), 407-416.
14. Çatı, K. ve Öcel, Y. (2019). Yeşil pazarlama faaliyetleri çerçevesinde çevreci bilinç düzeyinin çevreci davranış üzerine etkisi: Düzce ili örneği. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 1412-1431.
15. DeLeo, P. C., Summers, H., Stanton, K. ve Lam, M. W. (2020). Environmental risk assessment of polycarboxylate polymers used in cleaning products in the United States. Chemosphere, 258, 127242.
16. De Young, R., Duncan, A., Frank, J., Gill, N., Rothman, S., Shenot, J. v.d. (1993). Promoting source reduction behavior: The role of motivational information. Environment and Behavior, 25(1), 70-85.
17. Dijkstra, A., De Vries, H. ve Bakker, M. (1996). Pros and cons of quitting, self-efficacy, and the stages of change in smoking cessation. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 64(4), 758.
18. Dumas, O. ve Le Moual, N. (2020). Damaging effects of household cleaning products on the lungs. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 14(1), 1-4.
19. DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Self-efficacy and the addictive behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 302−315.
20. DiClemente, C. C. ve Prochaska, J. O. (1982). Self-change and therapy change of smoking behavior: A comparison of processes of change in cessation and maintenance. Addictive Behaviors, 7(2), 133-142.
21. DiClemente, C. C., Prochaska, J. O. ve Gibertini, M. (1985). Self-efficacy and the stages of self-change of smoking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9(2), 181-200.
22. DiClemente, C. C.. Rochash J. O., Fairhurst. S. K.. Velicer. W. F., Velasquez. M. ve Rossi. J. S. (1991). The process of smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 295-304.
23. Fu, T., Mundorf, N., Redding, C., Paiva, S. ve Prochaska, J. (2012). Promoting behavior change among campus commuters. Transport Research Forum, 53rd Annual Forum, March 15e17, 2012, Tampa, Florida.
24. Gatersleben, B. ve Appleton, K. M. (2007). Contemplating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(4), 302-312.
25. Geller, E. S. (1989). Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: An integration for environmental preservation. Journal of Social Issues, 45(1), 17-36.
26. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigationand adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290.
27. Grotewohl, E. (2017). Chapter 830: Cleaning products are coming clean. University of the Pacific Law Review, 49, 333.
28. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. ve Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
29. Kimble, M., Klintman, M. ve Johansson, M. (2005). Finding the sustainable few: Environmental behavior and issues of self-identity, context and demographics [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Lund University.
30. Kiraz, E., Demirkıran, F., Memiş, S., Ergin, F., Önde, M., Bilgen, M. A. v.d. (2011). Ev temizlik malzemeleri farkındalık araştırması-Aydın. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin, 10(4).
31. Kollmuss, A. ve Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
32. Köylü, M. (2011). Çevre sorunlarından çevre eğitimine. Eskiyeni, 21, 56-64.
33. Le Cann, P., Bonvallot, N., Glorennec, P., Deguen, S., Goeury, C. ve Le Bot, B. (2011). Indoor environment and children's health: Recent developments in chemical, biological, physical and social aspects. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 215(1), 1-18.
34. Leung, R., Koenig, J. Q., Simcox, N., Van Belle, G., Fenske, R. ve Gilbert, S. G. (1997). Behavioral changes following participation in a home health promotional program in King County, Washington. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(10), 1132.
35. Li, J. T. ve Tseng, Y. C. (2018). The effect of doing and messaging pro-environmental behavior on fostering the behavior. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 Chı Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188585
36. Hughes, M., Weiler, B. ve Curtis, J. (2012). What’s the problem? River management, education, and public beliefs. Ambio, 41(7), 709-719.
37. Kraft, P., Sutton, S. R. ve Reynolds, H. M. (1999). The transtheoretical model of behaviour change: Are the stages qualitatively different? Psychology & Health, 14(3), 433-450.
38. Mitchell, J. D. (1997). Nowhere to hide. World Watch, 10(2), 26-36.
39. Nazaroff, W. W. ve Weschler, C. J. (2004). Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmospheric Environment, 38(18), 2841-2865.
40. Prochaska, J. O. ve DiClemente, C. C. (1992). The transtheoretical approach. Handbook of Psychotherapy İntegration, 2.
41. Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., Velicer, W. F., Ginpil, S. ve Norcross, J. C. (1985). Predicting change in smoking status for self-changers. Addictive Behaviors, 10(4), 395-406.
42. Prochaska, J. O., Johnson, S. ve Lee, P. (2009). The transtheoretical model of behavior change. S. A. Shumaker, J. K. Ockene ve K. A. Riekert (Ed.), the handbook of health behavior change içinde (s. 59–83). Springer Publishing Company.
43. Rosenman, K. D., Reilly, M. J., Schill, D. P., Valiante, D., Flattery, J., Harrison, R. v.d. (2003). Cleaning products and work-related asthma. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(5), 556-563.
44. Schutte, N. S. ve Bhullar, N. (2017). Approaching environmental sustainability: Perceptions of self-efficacy and changeability. The Journal of Psychology, 151(3), 321-333.
45. Schwartz, S. H. ve Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision making model of altruism. J. P.Rushton (Ed.), altruism and helping behaviour: Social personality and developmental perspectives içinde (s. 189-211). Erlbaum.
46. Tabernero, C. ve Hernández, B. (2011). Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658-675.
47. Tapio, P. ve Willamo, R. (2008). Developing interdisciplinary environmental frameworks. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37(2), 125-133.
48. Tuncay, S. (2002). İnsan davranışlarının ekolojik sisteme etkilerinin çevre psikolojisiyle örtüştürülmesi. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7, 155-168.
49. Van Bekkum, J. E. (2011). Understanding and encouraging cycle commuting in workplace setting: A psychological perspective [Doktora tezi]. Edinburgh University. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/5533
50. Velicer, W. F., Rossi, J. S., Prochaska, J. O. ve Diclemente, C. C. (1996). A criterion measurement model for health behavior change. Addictive Behaviors, 21(5), 555-584.
51. Werner, C. M. ve Adams, D. (2001). Changing homeowners’ behaviors involving toxic household chemicals: A psychological, multilevel approach. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1(1), 1-32.
52. Werner, C. M. ve Stanley, C. P. (2011). Guided group discussion and the reported use of toxic products: The persuasiveness of hearing others’ views. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 289-300.
53. Werner, C. M. (2013). Designing interventions that encourage permanent changes in behavior. Green Organizations: Driving Change with Io Psychology, 208-230.
54. Winter, D. D. N. (2000). Some big ideas for some big problems. American Psychologist, 55(5), 516.
55. World Health Organization (2019). Healthy envıronments for healthıer populatıons: why do they matter, and what can we do? Geneva: Switzerland.
56. Yalçınkaya Alkar, Ö. ve Karanci, A. N. (2007). What are the differences in decisional balance and self-efficacy between Turkish smokers in different stages of change? Addictive Behaviors, 32(4), 836-849.
57. Isildar Yücel, G. ve Yildirim, F. (2008). The effectiveness of environmental education on environmentally-sensitive behaviors. Egitim ve Bilim, 33(148), 13.
58. Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I. M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K. v.d. (2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689-703.
59. Zota, A. R., Aschengrau, A., Rudel, R. A. ve Brody, J. G. (2010). Self-reported chemicals exposure, beliefs about disease causation, and risk of breast cancer in the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study: a case-control study. Environmental Health, 9(1), 40.
60. Zota, A. R., Singla, V., Adamkiewicz, G., Mitro, S. D. ve Dodson, R. E. (2017). Reducing chemical exposures at home: Opportunities for action. J Epidemiol Community Health, 71(9), 937-940.