and political factors to be more salient than environmental ones; (2) show a 

 preference for and use of scientific and technical information over economic 

 or political facts; (3) promote environmental values; (4) demonstrate an 

 ideological adherence to the mission of "environmental protection;" and 

 (5) react to projects and proposals initiated by others. A guardian exhibits 

 behaviors that are the mirror image of those of an advocate, and the questions 

 in Query measure the degree to which this is the case. 



All of these role-related questions are presented to the respondent in 

 random order by the Query program. This is done so that the respondent will 

 be unable to anticipate questions and will have to think out the answer to 

 each question prior to responding. Furthermore, each type of question has 

 been phrased in three different ways; the computer randomly selects one of the 

 three to measure each of the particular behavioral components. Thus, no two 

 questionnaires will ever be exactly alike. The point is to force the respon- 

 dent to carefully analyze each organization for each resource conflict, not 

 just respond in a rote manner, based on familiarity with the questionnaire. 



The computer retains the answer for each role question, assigns it a 

 numerical score, and combines the scores given for all of the questions 

 associated with each role type. In this manner, a score for each role type is 

 generated for each organization examined. The combined score for each role 

 type is called an index, and these indices determine the specific behavioral 

 patterns that organization is expected to exhibit, along with the degree to 

 which it is expected to do so. This is done by separating the index scores 

 (one for each role type) into two sets; one set of indices represents behaviors 

 associated with preference for procedure (broker/arbitrator), while the other 

 represents behaviors associated with preference for outcome (advocate/ 

 guardian) . 



For each set of indices, the smaller index score is subtracted from the 

 larger one along each of the two dimensions (broker from arbitrator, or vice 

 versa; advocate from guardian, or vice versa). This is done to get closer to 

 the element of degree. Since "ideal" role types are extremely rare — if not 

 nonexistent — an organization that scores high on all measures of the broker 

 role type is likely to also exhibit behavior commonly associated with arbi- 

 trators, even if only to a minimal degree. Since an arbitrator is located at 

 the opposite end of the broker-arbitrator continuum, however, this score must 

 be subtracted from the score obtained on the broker index in order to determine 

 just how extreme that organization's brokering behavior is apt to be. The 

 difference between the two indices indicates that organization's location on a 

 particular behavioral continuum — or, the degree to which that organization can 

 be expected to exhibit that type of behavior. For example, if an organization 

 scores 4, 3, 4, and 4 on the questions related to broker, these numbers are 

 added by the computer and an average "broker" score is calculated by dividing 

 that sum (15) by four. Thus the broker score for this organization is 3.7. 

 Further, if the same organization receives 2.0 as its arbitrator score 

 (calculated in the same fashion), then the computer subtracts 2.0 from 3.7, to 

 arrive at a final broker index of 1.7. 



The same process is used to locate that organization on the second con- 

 tinuum, associated with goal preferences. If the hypothetical organization in 



52 



