An Analysis of Some Determinants of Attitude toward Fluoridation

Abstract

Four variables, education, income, age, and number of children are simultaneously related to attitude toward fluoridation. The relationship of education to attitude toward fluoridation is largely explained by the other three variables. Income, age, and number of children, however, each bear some independent relationship to fluoridation attitude. These three variables are used to construct an index of predisposition to fluoridation and it is hypothesized that knowledge of fluoridation represents an intervening variable between this index and attitude toward fluoridation. The index and knowledge of fluoridation, however, have independent relationships to fluoridation attitude. Consequently, knowledge of fluoridation is incorporated into the index. Finally, this index is shown to account for a considerable amount of the variation in attitude toward fluoridation. T he fact that the fluoridation of public water supplies has become a controversial issue in many communities has made it of considerable interest to social scientists. One major concern of social science research in this area has been the analysis of individual attitudes toward fluoridation. Attempts to attitudes toward fluoridation have shown a number of variables to be relevant. Certain background variables, in particular, education, income, age, and number of children have consistently been shown to relate to attitude toward fluoridation (higher income, higher education, lower age, and presence of children in the home being associated with a favorable attitude toward fluoridation).1 The interrelated effect of these variables on fluoridation attitude, however, has not as yet been examined. To the extent that these four variables each have a relationship independent of the other three, their combined relationship to attitude toward fluoridation should be additive. Since, however, education, income, and age are themselves interrelated, and since age and number of children would be related for married persons, it is possible that the relationship of one or more of these variables to attitude toward fluoridation is accounted for by the others. Thus two or three of the variables may explain attitude toward fluoridation as well as do all four in combination. This paper will, then, examine the additive effect of education, income, age, and number of children on attitude toward fluoridation by combining them into a * The data used in this study come from a National Opinion Research Center survey Attitudes and Practices in the Field of Dental Care under the direction of Louis Kriesberg and Beatrice Treiman. I would like to express my appreciation to the National Opinion Research Center for making this data available. I would further like to thank Myron J. Lefcowitz, formerly of the Social Studies Branch, Division of Dental Health, U.S. Public Health Service, for many valuable suggestions during the preparation of this paper. tSocial Science Analyst, Resources Analysis Branch, Division of Dental Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 1 The following two community surveys reported relationships for all four variables, education, income, age, and number of children with attitude toward fluoridation: Arnold Simmel, AHt Analysis of Opinion on Fliuoridation (New York State Department of Health, 1961), mimeo.; Bernard Mausner, Allan Leavitt, and Sidney Robbins, Some Determinants of Vote on Fluoridation, Universit of Massachusetts, undated, mimneo. Relationships of education, income, and age with attitude toward fluoridation are reported in George F. Taylor, Michael S. Munro, and H. Fuqua, Study in a California Community, Stanford University, 1956, typescript. In the following study of two communities, relationships for education, age, and number of children with attitude were found for one community but not for the second community: Ilse J. Volinn and Olin E. Hoffman, Fluoridation Voting Behavior in Two Washington Comnminvities (State of Washington, Department of Health, February, 1963), mimeo. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.198 on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:45:21 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms