Findings: Qualitative Data: Decision-Making

Some key themes drawn from the focus groups and from the interviews in Pascoag revolved around decision-making, and how individuals make important decisions. Decision-making lies on continuum of dependence, from acceptance of given information and decision-making completely based on the advice of others at one end to complete rejection of given information and independent decision-making based on personally gathered information at the other.

Where an individuals lies at on this continuum regarding a given decision is a factor of the situation, as well as the basic degree of trust the individual has and the individual's personality. It's not the case that an individual moves from one point on the continuum to another during a contamination event; it's more that people can be grouped according to their placement at any given time at a different point on this continuum.

Points on this continuum, based on the focus groups and the Pascoag data, are acceptance, desiring more, actively gathering, and emergent advocacy.

Acceptance

When individuals are at the “acceptance” point, they take the information given to them, digest it, and take the prescribed action based on this information. This could be because of a variety of factors: because they trust the source of the information, because they have a particular reason to believe in the accuracy of the information presented to them, or because the information and subsequent action do not seem very important or grave to them.
When posed the hypothetical situation and asked how they would get information about this “contamination,” participants said,
“I think I’d rely on the EPA or the government to come up with the answers.”
“Something this big. . . I think either the TV or the newspapers would be quite thorough.”

There was also a sense among participants that even if they did not merely accept given information, that acceptance would be a common response among others.
“I think people are willing to believe what they’re told by people who are the supposed experts. If the Department of Health says the levels are safe, people start drinking. Not all people. . . the majority of people.”
And, regarding additional information,
“While it’s be great to have this information in the back of your head, you can’t know how the trains work. . . you can’t be in control of everything. While you take it for granted, you gotta trust the people who do it for a living.”

It’s true that many people, especially for a short-term situation or one that does not affect them personally are very accepting of given information. However, this can also be a factor of the circumstances creating the incident. In Pascoag, the fact that a homeowner, and not the officials responsible for monitoring water quality, effectively discovered the contamination created a situation less likely to breed acceptance. Residents had called to complain about their water quality before the contamination was discovered, and their acceptance of the official information had proven to be misled. Therefore, when the contamination was discovered, they were less likely to accept information and more likely to move along the decision-making continuum.

Desiring More

The next stage is desiring more information and asking questions, but not in a systematic or extensive manner. For example, asking questions at a public meeting, reading all the information in the media and sent out about the situation, or privately wanting additional information are all activities conducted at this point on the continuum. Here, people make decisions based on all the information provided to them, even when they realize that there is some information that they want but do not have.

In the hypothetical situation, some people expressed thoughts in line with this stage, especially after they had heard two different communication forms. The Internet was mentioned here, in terms of looking at the websites of the media organizations covering the event as well as the relevant agency websites to get more information. An man who had previously worked for a state agency commented, very manner-of-factly, as if it was still his daily work, that he would simply call the Department of Health to get the answers he needed.

Community meetings seem to be an important turning point at this stage. Individuals who have some questions and do desire more information are likely to attend a community meeting about the event. The course of that community meeting determines if individuals will receive satisfactory additional information and then have the ability to make decisions, or if they will leave unsatisfied and move to independent information gathering.

Actively Gathering
The next point on the continuum is actively gathering information. This could be based on a feeling of scarcity of given information, on a lack of trust in given information or its sources, or on a personal concern that given information does not address. Individuals who actively gather their own information seem likely to make decisions based on that information, particularly where it conflicts or does not quite parallel that from official information sources.

Again, the Internet was mentioned here, in terms of finding other groups or experts with available research. Oil companies, regarding MTBE, as well as universities, were named as potential information sources. In Pascoag, a member of the advocacy group handed to the first researcher to arrive in the town a giant stack of printouts, all reports from government and university sources on MTBE. Focus group participants mentioned library searches and getting a variety of different sources as well. This stage is very context-driven; some individuals in a given situation will always want to seek additional information, while some will only do so if something drives them to it.

People at this point on the continuum seemed to feel a strong sense of personal responsibility and the importance of making behavior decisions based on personal values and independent information.
“We can’t rely on the government for everything, or for much of anything depending on how you want to look at it, and I think we as individuals have to take a certain amount of responsibility for what happens.”
A woman who seemed to be comfortably hyper-vigilant about health concerns, in commenting about the ability of a political system to resolve crises, commented that “you just have to decide whether you’re going to err on the side of caution for your own self.” Decision-making here is based on much more than the officially given information and instructions.

Emergent Advocacy
There are many well-publicized examples of advocacy groups forming out of contaminated communities. Some of those discussed as examples in this work include the groups at Love Canal, NY; Woburn, MA; Times Beach, MO; and Pascoag, RI.

The focus group participants were not focused on the idea of advocacy. In fact, it was only mentioned once, and then in a half-joking manner. The concept was presented seriously, but putting the concept into reality, in terms of actually “forming a committee,” drew assorted laughs from the other participants.

Advocacy in contaminated communities is not planned. While some individuals are indeed more likely, due to past experience and their personalities, to be come activists, it is precisely those more seemingly unlikely candidates for advocacy who often become those speaking the loudest for their cause. For example, Lois Gibbs of Love Canal repeated over and over that she was just a housewife, trying to make a better place for her children and family to live. Anne Anderson of Woburn had a similar message. Advocacy does emerge from contaminated communities, but not always in a predictable way.

Acceptance

Desiring more

Actively gathering

Emergent advocacy

“I think I’d rely on the EPA or the government to come up with the answers.”
“Something this big. . . I think either the TV or the newspapers would be quite thorough.”

“I think people are willing to believe what they’re told by people who are the supposed experts. If the Department of Health says the levels are safe, people start drinking. Not all people. . . the majority of people.”

“While it’s be great to have this information in the back of your head, you can’t know how the trains work. . . you can’t be in control of everything. While you take it for granted, you gotta trust the people who do it for a living.”

“We can’t rely on the government for everything, or for much of anything depending on how you want to look at it, and I think we as individuals have to take a certain amount of responsibility for what happens.”

“You just have to decide whether you’re going to err on the side of caution for your own self.”