Demographic Characteristic of Respondent
Table 1 shows the respondent gender of each village with Kampung Pasu recording the highest male of respondent with 31.9% and followed with Kampung Penderas recording female of respondent 15.0%.
Mean while the lowest male that have been recorded is Kampung Terboi with 7.5% male and female 1.3%. Overall of respondent that include four Kampung for male is 67.1% and female is 32.9%.
Table 1 : Percentage of Respondent Gender
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
Gender
n = 44 n = 178 n = 130 n = 34 n = 386
Male 9.1 31.9 18.7 7.5 67.1
Female 2.3 14.2 15.0 1.3 32.9
Table 2 : Marital Status of Respondent
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
Marital Status n = 44 n = 176 n = 130 n = 33 n = 383
Bachelor 1.0 7.3 7.8 0.8 17.0
Married 10.2 38.6 26.1 7.8 82.8
Duda 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Table 3 : Etnik Group of Respondent
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
Etnik Group n = 44
n = 178 n = 130 n = 34 n = 386
Malay 0.3 2.1 9.3 0.0 11.7
Chinese 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Indian 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Che Wong 0.0 1.6 0.8 0.3 2.6
Jahut 11.1 42.0 22.3 8.5 83.9
Jakun 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.8
Table 4 : Respondent Percentage According to village
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
n = 44 n = 207 n = 150 n = 34 n = 435
Respondent 10.1 47.6 34.5 7.8 100
Table 5 : Respondent Education Level
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village
Pasu
Village
Penderas
Village
Terboi
Village
Overall
Level of Education
n = 44
n = 177
n = 128
n = 33
n = 382
No education 4.5 21.5 10.7 4.2 40.8
UPSR 3.7 20.7 11.5 1.6 37.4
PMR 2.9 1.0 2.9 2.4 9.2
SPM 0.3 2.9 5.5 0.5 9.2
STPM 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 1.0
DIPLOMA 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
BACHELOR 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.3
Table 6 : Respondent Monthly Income
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
Monthly Income
n = 42
n = 170
n = 121
n = 34
n = 367
<800
11.4
46.3
28.3
9.3
95.4
801 – 1499 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9
1500 – 2499 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6
2500 – 2999 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
>3000 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1
Table 7 : Respondent Occupation
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
Occupation n = 44 n = 175 n = 128 n = 34 n = 381
Goverment
0.3
2.4
2.9
0.3
5.8
Firm 0.3 1.0 3.9 0.5 5.8
Self working 9.7 40.4 22.3 7.9 80.3
Non Working 1.3 2.1 4.5 0.3 8.1
Table 8 : Respondent Second Occupation
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Pian
Village Pasu
Village Penderas
Village Terboi
Village Overall
Occupation n = 2 n = 38 n = 35 n = 1 n = 381
Government
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Firm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Self working 2.6 50.0 42.1 1.3 96.1
Non Working 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9
Table 9 : Level Of Agreement Percentage on Attitude Statement among Respondent toward Non Conforming Behavior
Percentage of Respondent in Villages 6
Attitude Item
Mean7
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
N
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
2.37 25.3 8.5 60.9 412
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.43 24.8 3.7 66.2 412
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
2.44 25.3 2.3 67.1 412
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.32 29.4 5.5 59.8 412
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.19 35.6 5.1 54.0 412
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.37 26.0 6.9 61.8 412
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.48 22.5 3.4 68.7 412
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.42 23.0 8.5 63.0 411
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.06 40.2 7.8 46.7 412
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
2.37 21.1 17.0 56.6 412
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
2.46 16.6 17.0 60.7 410
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.02 38.6 14.9 41.1 412
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
2.34 24.4 13.3 57.0 412
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
2.58 15.4 8.5 70.8 412
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.49 20.0 7.8 66.9 412
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.34 25.3 11.3 58.2 412
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
2.33 25.3 12.2 57.2 412
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.42 18.6 17.0 58.6 410
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
2.23 28.3 15.9 50.6 412
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
2.04 40.0 10.1 43.9 409
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.53 17.7 8.0 68.5 410
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.40 22.1 11.7 60.7 411
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
1.8 49.2 14.3 31.0 411
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
2.46 20.5 9.2 64.6 410
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.54 62.8 11.5 20.2 411
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
2.31 17.2 30.3 46.9 411
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
1.80 50.3 12.4 31.7 411
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
2.06 21.6 45.1 28.0 412
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
1.90 23.4 54.3 14.3 400
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
1.91 21.6 54.5 14.3 393
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
2.39 23.2 7.6 58.6 389
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.52 62.1 7.8 19.3 388
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.62 10.3 12.4 66.4 388
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
2.10 19.8 40.5 29.0 388
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.20 16.6 37.0 34.9 385
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
2.69 11.0 4.8 72.9 386
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
2.54 18.4 3.7 66.7 386
6Variables were recoded to Agree = combination of strongly agree and agree, Neutral = neutral and Disagree = combimation of strongly disagree and disagree
7Means were calculated based on the original responses coded as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
Table 10 : Level Of Agreement Percentage on Behavior Intention Statement among Respondent toward Non Conforming Behavior
Percentage of Respondent in Villages6
Behavior Intention Item
Mean7
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
N
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.56
15.4
7.8
65.5
386
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
2.12 23.0 31.5 34.0 385
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.61 14.0 5.7 68.7 385
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.05 38.9 6.2 43.4 385
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
2.30 27.1 7.6 53.8 385
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
2.44 23.0 3.4 62.1 385
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.23 26.4 17.9 48.5 404
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.6 55.9 15.2 21.6 403
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.01 37.7 15.9 39.1 403
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
2.35 18.6 23.9 52.2 412
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
2.10 31.0 22.3 41.1 411
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
2.06 33.8 21.1 39.8 412
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.21 33.1 8.0 52.9 409
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
1.70 54.9 11.7 26.9 407
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
2.50 18.4 9.9 66.0 410
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.21 33.6 7.4 53.8 412
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.20 36.6 2.5 55.6 412
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.90 44.8 12.9 36.3 409
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
2.35 27.8 5.7 61.1 412
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
1.64 60.7 6.2 27.1 409
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.15 37.0 6.0 51.7 412
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.55
19.8 2.5 72.0 410
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.67 57.7 9.9 27.1 412
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.76 52.2 12.2 30.1 411
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.29 30.1 6.2 57.9 410
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
1.95 45.3 7.6 41.4 410
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
2.02 26.7 37.7 29.4 408
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.12 22.5 37.2 34.5 410
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.77 52.6 10.8 31.3 412
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.20 33.6 8.5 52.6 412
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
2.66 12.9 6.2 75.2 410
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.08 40.5 5.3 48.5 410
6Variables were recoded to Agree = combination of strongly agree and agree, Neutral = neutral and Disagree = combimation of strongly disagree and disagree
7Means were calculated based on the original responses coded as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
Table 11 : Level Of Positive Agreement Percentage On Using Resource toward Non Conforming Behavior
Mean7
Kegunaan harian
n
Mean7
Untuk jualan
n
Mean7
Mengisi masa lapang
n
Mean 7
Ketika perlu sahaja
n
Mean 7
Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber
n
Gaharu 1.95 3.9 412 1.58 38.9 412 1.99 0.2 412 1.97 2.8 411 1.46 50.8 412
Rotan 1.37 59.3 412 1.63 34.5 412 1.91 7.8 412 1.77 21.6 412 1.80 18.2 412
Buluh 1.33 63.2 412 1.88 11.0 412 1.99 0.5 412 1.68 29.9 412 1.89 10.1 412
Mengkuang 1.60 37.2 412 1.88 10.8 412 1.98 1.1 412 1.92 7.1 412 1.52 44.8 412
Herba ubatan 1.43 53.3 412 1.79 19.3 412 1.99 0.5 412 1.62 35.4 412 1.86 13.1 412
Ulam 1.35 61.1 412 1.72 26.2 412 1.99 0.5 412 1.69 28.7 412 1.94 5.3 412
Rusa 1.85 13.3 412 1.99 0.7 412 1.96 3.2 412 1.96 3.2 412 1.29 67.1 412
Kijang 1.88 10.8 412 1.99 0.2 412 2.0 94.7 412 1.96 3.7 412 1.23 72.6 412
Tenggiling 1.88 10.8 412 1.99 0.2 412 1.99 0.2 412 1.98 1.4 412 1.18 77.0 412
Tanah 1.51 46.0 412 1.99 0.2 412 1.99 0.2 412 1.84 14.7 412 1.67 30.3 412
Ikan 1.38 58.4 412 1.98 1.4 412 1.84 14.3 412 1.71 27.1 412 1.91 8.0 412
7Means were calculated based on the original responses coded as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
Table 12: Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis for items on the Response to attitude statement.
Attitude Statement
Corrected
Item
Total
Correlation Alpha if
item
deleted
Utilisation activity relate to Wild Life Act 8
Wood Resource
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.15
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
0.08 .ª
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
0.08 .ª
Entering Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.659
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan. 0.491 .ª
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
0.491 .ª
Taking Keruing Oil
Cronbach’s Alpha = -.636
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
-.241 .ª
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang.
-.241 .ª
Others activity
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.213
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
0.12 .ª
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau. 0.12 .ª
Attitude Statement
Corrected
Item
Total
Correlation Alpha if
item
deleted
Utilisation activity relate to Knowledge8
Knowledge
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.327
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab.
0.12 0.385
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
0.296 -0.006 ª
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
0.151 0.309
Utilisation on Using Resource for Self Use8
Herb
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.704
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
0.545 .ª
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
0.545 .ª
Vegetables “ulam”
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.792
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
0.666 .ª
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
0.666 .ª
Others
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.637
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
0.487 .ª
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
0.487 .ª
Utilisation on Using Resource for Sell8
Multi resource
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.635
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
0.421 0.565
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
0.242 0.645
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
0.379 0.587
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
0.511 0.517
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
0.392 0.58
Utilisation on Impact to The Resource8
Wood
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.312
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.23 0.113
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
0.462 -0.445 ª
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
-0.071 0.702
Reserve Area
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.341
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
0.206 .ª
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
0.206 .ª
Bamboo
Cronbach’s Alpha = -.094
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
-.225 0.432
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
-.019 -.132 ª
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
0.177 -.858 ª
Keruing Oil
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.566
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
0.515 0.259
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
0.647 0.039
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
0.089 0.915
Others
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.559
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
0.397 0.413
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
0.29 0.579
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
0.426 0.368
8Response to item were coded as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
Table 12: Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis for items on the Response to Behavior Intention statement.
Behavior Intention Corrected
Item
Total
Correlation Alpha if
item
deleted
Utilisation on Used Resource For Self Use8
Wood
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.697
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
0.538 0.579
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
0.462 0.668
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
0.545 0.563
Bamboo
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.513
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
0.345 . ª
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
0.345 . ª
Wild Life
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.319
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
0.19 . ª
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.19 . ª
Recreation/ Leisure
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.885
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.794 . ª
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.794 . ª
Fish
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.335
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
0.201 . ª
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.201 . ª
Rubbish
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.269
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
0.156 . ª
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.156 . ª
Vegetables
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.614
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
0.45 . ª
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
0.45 . ª
Honey
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.528
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.359 . ª
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.359 . ª
Utilisation on Using Resource For Sell8
Wild Life
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.636
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.467 . ª
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
0.467 . ª
Others
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.706
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
0.615 0.588
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
0.264 0.732
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
0.585 0.602
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
0.327 0.706
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
0.534 0.626
Utilisation activity relate to Wild Life Act 8
Report On Wrong Act
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.555
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.393 . ª
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
0.393 . ª
Asking on Information
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.840
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
0.658 0.82
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
0.767 0.714
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
0.689 0.793
8Response to item were coded as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Village against Attitude on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items9
Penderas
Pasu
Pian
Terboi
F
P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.7067 3.673 3.59 3.352 0.604 0.613
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.586 3.543 3.136 3.176 2.368 0.07
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.813 3.858 3.272 2.941 6.037 0.00
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.073 3.755 3.295 4.058 8.451 0.00
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.773 3.201 4.181 4.235 17.859 0.000
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.64 3.38 3.181 2.764 5.323 0.001
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.753 3.684 3.318 2.705 7.857 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.409 3.483 4.159 3.117 5.817 0.001
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.94 3.125 3.295 2.264 5.153 0.002
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.52 3.695 3.636 2.735 5.408 0.001
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.413 3.884 3.863 3.5 4.522 0.004
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.306 2.972 2.545 2.823 3.76 0.011
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
3.106 3.548 3.295 3.882 5.245 0.001
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
4.266 3.695 3.568 3.264 11.566 0.000
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.873 3.478 3.727 3.352 3.518 0.015
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.32 3.353 3.613 3.294 0.742 0.528
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.446 3.472 3.727 3.294 0.761 0.516
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.44 3.631 3.204 3.205 2.618 0.051
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
3.313 3.282 3.272 3.205 0.068 0.977
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
2.686 3.077 3.25 3.558 4.789 0.003
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.094 3.737 3.227 3.382 7.709 0.000
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.42 3.704 3.909 3.47 2.21 0.086
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.406 2.388 3.727 3.411 17.308 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
3.913 3.351 3.181 3.588 7.793 0.000
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.713 2.174 3.386 3.735 48.907 0.000
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
3.546 3.131 3.386 3.941 7.757 0.000
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.32 2.803 3.34 2.941 9.784 0.000
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.073 2.902 3.363 3.029 2.298 0.077
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.795 2.761 3.113 3.176 3.916 0.009
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.676 2.875 3.159 3.176 5.58 0.001
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.691 3.588 2.704 3.235 8.023 0.000
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.742 2.316 2.909 3.058 20.433 0.000
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.772 4.327 3.34 3.794 13.713 0.000
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
2.4779 3.229 4.0 3.941 44.856 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.977 3.254 4.045 3.235 12.571 0.000
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
4.492 4.074 3.84 3.0 19.689 0.000
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
4.158 4.023 3.068 2.558 21.973 0.000
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Gender against Attitude on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items9
Male
Female
F
P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.476
4.086
45.849
0.000
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.453 3.37 1.42 0.234
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.624 3.811 10.638 0.001
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.643 3.252 1.499 0.222
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
3.484 2.866 1.778 0.183
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.31 3.7 26.372 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.48 3.685 1.008 0.316
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.404 3.582 10.148 0.002
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.949 3.259 0.716 0.398
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.616 3.496 0.055 0.815
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.918 3.378 5.825 0.016
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.085 3.086 0.008 0.93
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
3.469 3.315 3.45 0.064
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
3.728 4.055 17.82 0.000
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.546 3.653 0.114 0.736
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.387 3.401 6.215 0.013
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.624 3.133 2.615 0.107
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.544 3.381 0.346 0.557
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
3.368 3.0 0.697 0.404
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
3.128 2.873 2.454 0.118
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.712 3.96 16.74 0.000
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.801 3.354 1.959 0.162
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.828 2.291 0.16 0.689
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
3.439 3.96 52.046 0.000
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.323 2.212 3.57 0.06
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
3.299 3.629 2.062 0.152
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.805 2.527 10.951 0.001
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.139 2.889 0.705 0.401
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.952 2.669 17.58 0.000
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
3.016 2.584 33.245 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.449 3.534 1.139 0.287
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.247 2.252 2.503 0.115
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.105 3.617 21.607 0.000
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.319 2.808 0.12 0.729
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.404 2.894 0.162 0.687
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
3.967 4.33 15.312 0.000
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
3.724 4.2 38.245 0.000
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Status Marrige against Attitude on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items 9 Bujang Berkahwin Duda F P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.906 3.634 2.0 1.67 0.19
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.187 3.466 4.0 1.431 0.24
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.531 3.722 4.0 0.504 0.605
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.39 3.523 5.0 0.752 0.472
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.859 3.359 5.0 3.743 0.025
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.609 3.403 4.0 0.822 0.44
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.906 3.479 4.0 3.093 0.047
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.203 3.515 4.0 1.792 0.168
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.906 3.091 2.0 0.857 0.425
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.75 3.539 4.0 0.783 0.458
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.515 3.781 4.0 1.284 0.278
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.218 3.063 1.0 1.311 0.271
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
3.187 3.46 4.0 1.321 0.268
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
4.062 3.788 4.0 1.389 0.251
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.781 3.542 4.0 1.01 0.365
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.593 3.353 4.0 1.214 0.298
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.437 3.46 4.0 0.09 0.914
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.539 3.477 4.0 0.179 0.836
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
3.046 3.283 4.0 1.069 0.344
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
2.967 3.047 5.0 1.01 0.365
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.109 3.73 4.0 2.465 0.086
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.656 3.648 5.0 0.532 0.588
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.359 2.705 4.0 2.09 0.125
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
3.937 3.542 4.0 3.035 0.049
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.14 2.303 4.0 1.338 0.264
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
4.0 3.275 5.0 13.631 0.000
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.453 2.765 2.0 1.756 0.174
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.359 2.993 3.0 3.077 0.047
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.857 2.869 3.0 0.017 0.983
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.623 2.936 3.0 3.495 0.031
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.7 3.428 3.0 1.241 0.29
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.05 2.278 4.0 1.962 0.142
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.05 3.922 4.0 0.315 0.73
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
2.766 3.241 4.0 5.307 0.005
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.016 3.303 2.0 2.541 0.08
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
4.233 4.05 4.0 0.648 0.524
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
4.233 3.808 4.0 2.764 0.064
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Ethnic against Attitude on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items 9 Malay Chinese Indian Che
Wong Jahut Jakun
F P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
4.288 4.0 1.5 3.3 3.62 3.0 3.063 0.01
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.488 1.5 4.5 3.5 3.551 4.333 7.927 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
2.933 3.5 4.5 4.3 3.77 3.333 3.4 0.005
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.511 2.0 1.5 3.5 3.668 4.333 6.912 0.000
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.511 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.405 4.333 4.281 0.001
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.4 2.5 1.5 3.5 3.448 4.666 1.795 0.113
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.955 1.0 4.5 3.8 3.625 4.333 4.511 0.001
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.155 2.5 4.5 3.5 3.633 4.666 14.520 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.044 4.0 1.5 3.8 3.027 3.666 1.594 0.161
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.2 2.0 1.5 3.3 3.668 2.666 3.303 0.006
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.34 2.5 1.5 3.3 3.832 3.333 3.528 0.004
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.822 3.0 1.5 3.5 3.111 4.0 1.18 0.318
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
1.866 1.5 1.5 3.4 3.659 3.333 22.319 0.000
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
4.044 5.0 4.5 3.2 3.823 3.0 1.645 0.147
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.755 1.0 4.5 3.4 3.715 3.333 7.018 0.000
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.066 2.5 1.5 3.4 3.455 3.333 2.122 0.062
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.288 2.0 4.5 3.9 3.489 2.0 1.868 0.099
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.177 2.5 4.5 3.888 3.521 3.666 1.617 0.155
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
2.355 2.0 4.5 3.5 3.362 3.333 6.048 0.000
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
2.704 2.5 1.5 2.9 3.102 3.666 1.252 0.284
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.34 4.5 3.0 3.6 3.726 3.666 2.236 0.05
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.477 2.0 1.5 3.3 3.715 3.333 2.253 0.049
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.363 2.0 1.5 2.5 2.693 4.0 1.358 0.239
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
4.159 5.0 1.5 3.1 3.562 3.0 4.575 0.000
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.727 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.368 2.333 2.152 0.059
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
4.136 4.0 3.0 3.1 3.322 3.0 4.977 0.000
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.068 2.0 3.0 2.8 2.798 3.0 2.774 0.018
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.822 3.5 3.0 3.2 2.938 3.666 5.861 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.555 2.5 3.0 2.7 2.906 3.333 1.685 0.137
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.177 2.0 3.0 2.7 2.986 3.333 8.478 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.311 3.0 4.5 3.777 3.49 3.333 0.591 0.707
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.8 2.0 1.5 2.444 2.318 2.0 1.689 0.136
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.444 2.0 4.0 3.888 4.036 4.333 3.54 0.004
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
1.866 1.5 3.0 3.111 3.358 3.666 20.394 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.088 2.0 3.0 3.222 3.273 3.666 0.897 0.483
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
4.311 4.5 4.5 4.333 4.033 4.333 0.7 0.623
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
4.466 4.0 1.5 4.0 3.79 4.666 3.913 0.002
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Education Level against Attitude on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items 9
Tidak
Bersekolah
UPSR
PMR
SPM
STPM
DIPLOMA
IJAZAH
F
P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.634
3.496
3.657
4.314
4.75
4.5
4.0
2.243
0.039
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.333 3.631 3.885 2.942 3.5 1.75 2.0 5.016 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.621 3.773 4.314 3.142 4.25 2.25 3.2 3.089 0.006
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.557 3.687 4.057 2.485 3.0 1.5 2.0 6.956 0.000
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
3.455 3.198 4.2 2.485 3.0 1.0 2.0 7.153 0.000
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.294 3.468 4.285 2.942 4.5 3.75 3.4 4.73 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.487 3.595 4.285 3.085 3.75 3.5 2.2 3.936 0.001
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.496 3.638 3.885 2.514 2.75 2.0 2.8 6.451 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.16 3.092 2.285 2.857 3.5 3.5 4.4 3.486 0.002
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.5 3.666 4.085 3.028 4.25 3.75 2.6 3.033 0.007
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.671 3.886 4.142 3.176 4.0 3.5 2.4 3.468 0.002
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.096 3.276 2.685 2.714 2.75 3.5 3.0 1.315 0.25
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
3.525 3.531 3.914 2.428 3.25 1.25 1.8 9.045 0.000
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
3.589 3.907 4.257 4.057 4.25 4.0 4.4 2.421 0.026
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.538 3.687 4.285 2.942 3.75 3.0 2.0 5.34 0.000
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.365 3.411 3.8 3.114 4.0 3.0 2.6 1.643 0.134
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.378 3.475 3.971 3.4 4.25 3.25 2.4 1.772 0.104
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.435 3.51 4.2 3.085 4.0 3.0 2.4 4.348 0.000
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
3.243 3.333 3.971 2.714 3.25 1.0 1.8 6.571 0.000
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
3.071 2.978 3.828 2.47 3.25 1.5 2.6 3.705 0.001
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.503 3.844 4.285 4.058 4.25 4.75 4.4 3.337 0.003
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.609 3.73 4.028 3.323 3.75 3.25 2.6 1.585 0.15
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.609 2.581 3.771 2.264 2.5 1.0 2.0 5.707 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
3.329 3.624 4.428 3.705 4.25 4.0 4.2 5.043 0.000
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.307 2.127 3.342 1.941 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.939 0.000
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
3.211 3.241 4.028 3.911 4.25 5.0 4.2 7.335 0.000
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.82 2.836 2.142 2.47 3.0 1.75 2.2 2.343 0.031
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
2.788 3.134 3.142 3.6 3.25 4.5 3.6 4.971 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.826 2.881 3.371 2.742 3.0 1.5 2.4 4.474 0.000
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.91 2.939 3.428 2.457 3.0 1.0 1.8 9.871 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.317 3.526 4.029 3.4 4.25 3.5 3.2 1.862 0.087
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.298 2.106 3.117 1.857 2.25 1.0 2.0 4.897 0.000
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.875 4.16 4.029 3.628 3.75 3.75 2.6 2.675 0.015
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.451 3.167 3.382 2.314 2.25 1.0 1.8 11.999 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.284 3.207 3.911 2.971 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.434 0.000
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
3.833 4.297 4.117 4.085 4.0 4.75 4.4 2.271 0.037
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
3.569 4.015 4.235 3.942 4.25 5.0 4.4 2.827 0.011
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent First Occupation against Attitude Statement on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items 9
Goverment
Firm
Self
working
Non Working
F
P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.909
4.0
3.602
4.0
1.381
0.248
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.136 2.818 3.493 3.387 2.427 0.065
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.636 2.863 3.74 3.645 2.627 0.05
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.545 2.59 3.667 3.0 9.073 0.000
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.0 2.863 3.434 2.871 8.322 0.000
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.136 2.772 3.421 4.0 4.673 0.003
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.181 2.59 3.598 3.774 5.325 0.001
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.909 2.59 3.514 3.774 6.097 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.227 2.772 3.023 3.258 0.764 0.515
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.136 2.681 3.638 3.774 5.204 0.002
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.181 3.095 3.821 3.645 4.167 0.006
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.545 2.454 3.069 3.612 3.459 0.017
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
2.727 2.818 3.513 3.516 4.624 0.003
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
4.227
3.772
3.782
4.0
1.175
0.319
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.136 2.681 3.677 3.354 5.726 0.001
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.363 2.681 3.47 3.0 4.207 0.006
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.636 3.045 3.519 3.193 1.482 0.219
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.227 3.181 3.531 3.5 1.092 0.352
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
2.818 2.636 3.361 2.935 3.981 0.008
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
2.318 2.727 3.119 3.032 2.546 0.056
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.863 3.727 3.711 4.451 3.328 0.02
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.954 3.09 3.749 3.387 4.498 0.004
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.0 2.409 2.736 2.548 2.25 0.082
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
3.727 3.863 3.5 4.29 4.752 0.003
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.954 2.454 2.3 2.258 0.641 0.589
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
3.545 3.818 3.336 3.774 2.78 0.041
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.818 2.818 2.716 2.451 0.531 0.661
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.5 3.136 3.032 3.225 1.532 0.206
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.727 2.636 2.924 2.633 1.954 0.121
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.454 2.318 3.003 2.517 9.343 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.727 2.863 3.491 3.633 2.248 0.082
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.863 2.363 2.297 2.066 1.179 0.318
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.454 3.363 4.109 3.233 10.098 0.000
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
2.636 2.636 3.305 2.666 7.628 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.681 2.909 3.363 2.966 4.73 0.003
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
4.136 3.681 4.056 4.333 1.41 0.24
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
3.909 3.727 3.819 4.233 0.998 0.394
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Second Occupation against Attitude Statement on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items 9
Self
working
Non Working
F
P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.78
4.666
0.849
0.36
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.89 4.333 0.656 0.421
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
4.287 4.666 0.307 0.581
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.931 1.333 9.64 0.003
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
3.506 1.333 5.568 0.021
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.89 4.333 0.656 0.421
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
4.013 4.333 0.313 0.578
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.835 4.333 0.689 0.409
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.904 1.666 2.493 0.119
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.849 3.0 1.613 0.208
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.72 3.0 1.017 0.317
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.082 4.666 2.701 0.105
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
3.835 4.333 0.558 0.458
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
4.274 4.333 0.01 0.92
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.958 4.333 0.386 0.537
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.616 1.666 9.659 0.003
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.739 1.666 6.905 0.01
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.671 4.333 1.4 0.241
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
3.726 1.666 8.937 0.004
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
3.26 1.333 5.117 0.027
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.15 4.666 0.536 0.467
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.137 1.666 11.906 0.001
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.547 1.333 1.909 0.171
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
4.0 4.333 0.378 0.541
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
1.972 1.333 0.921 0.34
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
3.328 3.0 0.575 0.451
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.671 1.666 1.697 0.197
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
2.945 3.0 0.014 0.906
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.861 3.0 0.117 0.733
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.971 3.0 0.005 0.941
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.845 4.333 0.727 0.397
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.028 1.333 1.015 0.317
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.507 1.333 41.407 0.000
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.056 3.0 0.012 0.914
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.985 3.0 0.001 0.973
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
4.591 4.666 0.027 0.871
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
4.436 4.333 0.037 0.848
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Monthly Income against Attitude on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages10
Attitude Items 9
<
RM800
RM801 – RM1499
RM1500 – RM2499
>
RM3000
F
P- Value
Saya berasa mengambil kayu di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.606
4.142
4.333
4.75
1.614
0.186
Mengambil kayu balak tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.462 3.285 1.666 2.0 5.971 0.001
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.729 4.0 1.666 3.5 4.373 0.005
Seringkali saya mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.58 2.714 1.666 1.25 7.762 0.000
Sering kali saya mengambil rotan kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
3.35 2.857 1.5 1.25 6.023 0.001
Mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.419 3.714 2.833 4.0 0.843 0.471
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit hasil kayu untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak mungkin menjejaskan sumber asli di Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.566 3.285 3.0 1.75 3.108 0.027
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dibuat pagar dusun tidak mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.518 2.285 1.666 2.75 7.306 0.000
Mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh mendatangkan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.023 2.857 3.0 4.75 2.377 0.07
Saya merasakan mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan rezab tidak salah kerana ia adalah aktiviti turun temurun kami.
3.589 3.428 3.0 2.5 1.42 0.237
Mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau boleh meningkatkan pendapatan saya
3.78 3.142 3.166 2.75 2.114 0.098
Saya tidak akan melaporkan pada pihak berkuasa jika terdapat orang luar memburu hidupan liar di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.114 2.428 2.833 3.25 0.569 0.636
Saya merasa memburu untuk makanan sendiri tidak mendatangkan kesan terhadap rezab
3.52 1.571 1.5 2.0 13.415 0.000
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN tidak menghalang penduduk kampung memburu untuk makanan sendiri.
3.787 4.428 4.5 4.25 1.447 0.229
Pengambilan hasil hutan untuk kegunaan sendiri tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.594 3.428 2.833 1.75 3.58 0.014
Memasuki kawasan Rezab tanpa kebenaran tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
3.416 3.142 3.0 3.0 0.5 0.682
Membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak menjadi satu kesalahan.
3.479 3.857 2.833 2.5 1.403 0.241
Merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.53 3.714 3.0 2.75 1.179 0.318
Penduduk kampung dibenarkan oleh PERHILITAN untuk membuat rentis di dalam kawasan Rezab
3.319 3.142 1.5 1.25 7.736 0.000
Saya selalu merentis di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk mencari hasil yang boleh di jual
3.075 3.285 1.5 2.75 2.544 0.056
Saya merasakan PERHILITAN membenarkan orang kampung memungut tumbuh-tumbuhan ubatan untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.748 4.285 4.5 4.0 1.127 0.338
Saya berasa bersyukur dapat mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.674 3.285 2.833 2.5 2.013 0.112
Kadang kala saya mengambil herba dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk dijual.
2.677 2.714 1.5 1.25 2.776 0.041
Saya merasakan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab.
3.557 4.0 4.5 4.25 1.921 0.126
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.322 1.571 1.5 1.25 2.544 0.056
Saya merasakan Pihak PERHILITAN membenarkan penduduk kampung mengambil buluh untuk membuat lemang di musim perayaan
3.357 4.285 4.5 4.75 6.11 0.000
Saya berasa bersalah jika mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau
2.749 2.0 2.166 2.25 1.364 0.254
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau adalah salah di sisi undang-undang
3.051 3.857 4.5 3.25 5.137 0.002
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
2.899 3.285 2.166 1.5 5.878 0.001
Mengambil minyak Keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk pada kawasan rezab.
2.951 3.0 1.5 1.25 12.359 0.000
Saya merasakan mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan rezab tidak mendatangkan kerosakan dalam kawasan rezab
3.497 4.142 2.833 3.25 1.249 0.292
Kadang- kadang saya mengambil sedikit buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk jualan
2.29 1.571 1.5 1.25 2.558 0.055
Kadang –kadang saya mengambil buluh untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.003 3.285 3.833 2.25 4.242 0.006
Mengambil minyak keriung dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak salah di sisi undang-undang
3.281 1.714 1.5 1.25 16.729 0.000
Minyak keruing yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau tidak memberikan kesan yang buruk terhadap rezab
3.3 3.0 3.0 1.25 5.464 0.001
Saya merasakan masih terdapat hasil ulam-ulaman yang boleh di ambil di kawasan Rezab Krau oleh penduduk kampung.
4.055 4.571 4.5 4.0 0.759 0.518
Saya berasa gembira jika dapat mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di buat lauk pauk.
3.837 4.0 4.5 4.75 1.184 0.316
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Village against Behavior Intension on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intension Items10
Penderas
Pasu
Pian
Terboi
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.604
4.046
4.022
3.0
9.872
0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
3.037 3.235 3.204 3.294 0.917 0.433
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.894 4.109 3.363 3.882 4.629 0.003
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.654 2.971 3.909 4.0 14.906 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
2.744 3.511 3.977 3.794 17.078 0.000
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
3.691 3.839 3.022 2.823 8.509 0.000
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.29 3.64 3.022 2.617 7.858 0.000
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.959 2.488 2.818 3.058 11.57 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.374 3.432 3.068 3.529 18.743 0.000
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
3.326 3.25 3.977 4.058 7.951 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
3.206 2.668 3.953 3.705 18.189 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
3.36 2.755 3.204 3.441 7.448 0.000
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.128 3.442 2.886 3.558 2.864 0.037
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
2.108 2.445 3.558 3.558 24.095 0.000
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
4.16 3.796 2.886 2.735 21.118 0.000
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.5 2.875 4.136 3.264 11.181 0.000
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.286 2.967 4.045 3.588 6.918 0.000
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.493 2.955 3.068 2.735 4.112 0.007
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
3.226 3.875 3.181 3.382 6.612 0.000
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
2.094 2.186 3.636 2.529 17.231 0.000
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.293 3.152 3.477 2.794 1.556 0.199
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.113 3.835 3.954 2.852 8.666 0.000
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.033 2.168 3.522 3.323 22.269 0.000
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.46 2.322 3.0 3.176 5.255 0.001
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.308 3.786 2.909 3.176 6.432 0.000
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.59 2.694 4.0 3.617 16.985 0.000
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
2.384 2.939 4.136 4.352 65.18 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.778 3.224 3.545 3.676 10.104 0.000
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.206 2.619 3.136 2.823 6.249 0.000
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.173 3.282 3.136 3.147 0.228 0.877
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
4.25 4.059 3.931 3.088 10.433 0.000
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.635 3.195 3.977 2.852 11.331 0.000
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Gender against Behavior Intension Statement on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intension Items 10
Male
Female
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.898
3.434
34.49
0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
3.187 3.347 1.938 0.165
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.004 3.704 9.401 0.002
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.296 2.721 5.233 0.023
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
3.569 2.973 0.001 0.974
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
3.666 3.321 0.589 0.443
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.503 3.056 12.2 0.001
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.633 1.991 41.739 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.114 2.869 0.841 0.36
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
3.523 3.322 2.375 0.124
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
3.12 3.15 1.046 0.304
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
3.003 3.22 0.302 0.583
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.319 3.24 2.361 0.125
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
2.675 2.33 18.238 0.000
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
3.624 3.976 32.365 0.000
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.364 3.11 0.077 0.782
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.368 3.039 0.49 0.484
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.988 2.511 0.53 0.467
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
3.639 3.378 5.986 0.015
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
2.737 2.142 7.233 0.007
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.492 2.559 0.114 0.736
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.816 4.086 13.672 0.000
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau. 2.581 1.992 18.235 0.000
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.72 2.19 0.831 0.363
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.515 3.416 1.357 0.245
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
3.05 2.624 6.429 0.012
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
3.302 2.479 0.537 0.464
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.251 2.96 4.938 0.027
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.748 2.267 3.271 0.071
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.36 3.189 0.058 0.809
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
3.945 4.349 22.592 0.000
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
3.166 2.92 1.04 0.308
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Marriage Status against Behavior Intention on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intention Items 10
Bujang
Berkahwin
Duda
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.433
3.815
5.0
3.139
0.045
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
3.633 3.154 5.0 5.773 0.003
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.066 3.865 5.0 1.082 0.34
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.8 3.161 5.0 2.397 0.093
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
2.916 3.457 5.0 5.36 0.005
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
3.783 3.505 5.0 1.549 0.214
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.451 3.346 4.0 0.277 0.758
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.258 2.453 4.0 1.354 0.26
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.306 2.977 4.0 1.553 0.213
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
3.296 3.489 5.0 1.436 0.239
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
3.234 3.104 5.0 1.322 0.268
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
3.234 3.041 5.0 1.645 0.194
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.238 3.295 5.0 0.755 0.471
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
2.396 2.584 5.0 2.226 0.109
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
3.968 3.692 5.0 1.669 0.19
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.265 3.283 4.0 0.118 0.888
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.281 3.252 4.0 0.127 0.881
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.887 2.81 4.0 0.473 0.623
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
3.406 3.571 4.0 0.379 0.685
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
1.75 2.409 5.0 8.556 0.000
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.656 3.296 3.0 4.815 0.009
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.064 3.883 3.0 0.744 0.476
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.875 2.492 3.0 5.216 0.006
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.296 2.604 4.0 1.628 0.198
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.593 3.454 4.0 0.313
0.731
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
3.062 2.879 4.0 0.726 0.485
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
2.73 3.092 4.0 2.987 0.052
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.031 3.181 4.0 0.703 0.496
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.171 2.675 4.0 3.863 0.022
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.234 3.318 4.0 1.99 0.82
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
4.093 4.075 4.0 0.01 0.99
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.937 3.113 4.0 0.562 0.57
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Ethnic against Behavior Intention on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intention Items 10
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Che
Wong
Jahut
Jakun
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.644
1.0
4.5
3.777
3.916
5.0
13.794
0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
4.022 3.5 1.5 3.111 3.136 3.0 6.118 0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.466 3.0 4.5 4.333 3.96 4.333 1.918 0.091
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.2 2.0 1.5 2.777 3.27 4.0 5.609 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
1.8 2.0 1.5 3.555 3.63 3.666 22.456 0.000
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
2.711 1.5 4.5 3.333 3.7 3.333 5.422 0.000
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.888 2.0 3.0 2.888 3.444 3.666 2.104 0.064
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.844 1.5 3.0 2.666 3.088 2.333 3.754 0.002
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
4.288 4.5 3.0 3.1 3.346 3.666 0.941 0.454
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
4.088 4.5 3.0 2.4 3.006 3.666 5.439 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
4.088 4.5 3.0 2.3 2.941 4.0 7.347 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
4.088 4.5 3.0 2.3 2.941 4.0 8.171 0.000
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
1.866 1.5 1.5 2.888 3.526 3.333 14.149 0.000
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
1.933 2.0 1.5 2.333 2.67 2.333 2.893 0.014
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
4.311 5.0 4.5 3.2 3.663 3.666 2.85 0.015
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
4.466 5.0 4.5 2.3 3.114 4.666 9.532 0.000
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
4.488 4.5 4.5 2.6 3.092 3.333 8.163 0.000
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.4 1.5 1.5 2.6 2.909 3.333 2.14 0.06
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
2.244 1.5 1.0 4.0 3.743 4.333 12.017 0.000
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
1.622 1.5 4.5 2.0 2.394 2.0 4.013 0.001
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.177 1.5 4.5 3.3 3.315 4.0 5.734 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.133 5.0 1.5 2.9 3.912 4.0 3.176 0.008
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.977 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.452 1.666 1.147 0.335
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.688 3.5 3.0 1.8 2.543 2.333 0.806 0.546
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.533 2.0 1.5 3.555 3.636 3.333 6.195 0.000
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.6 2.0 1.5 2.777 2.968 3.333 1.16 0.328
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
2.022 2.0 3.0 3.111 3.181 3.333 9.369 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.866 1.5 3.0 2.777 3.211 4.0 2.039 0.073
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.222 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.684 1.0 2.371 0.039
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.622 5.0 1.5 3.1 3.275 2.333 1.904 0.093
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
4.155 5.0 1.5 4.0 4.087 3.333 2.987 0.012
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.2 2.0 1.5 2.5 3.242 3.333 5.199 0.000
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Education Level against Behavior Intension on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intension Items 10
Tidak
Bersekolah
UPSR
PMR
SPM
STPM
DIPLOMA
IJAZAH
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.895
3.923
3.794
2.914
3.5
2.0
2.0
7.726
0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
3.111 3.045 3.617 3.657 4.25 4.5 4.2 4.473 0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.818 4.053 3.911 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.2 0.903 0.493
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.23 3.084 3.823 2.428 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.958 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
3.524 3.618 3.617 2.171 2.75 1.0 2.0 11.487 0.000
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
3.517 3.748 3.852 2.942 3.5 3.25 2.0 3.023 0.007
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.401 3.405 3.771 2.914 3.25 3.0 2.0 2.222 0.04
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.404 2.449 3.342 1.885 1.5 1.0 2.2 5.508 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.304 2.724 3.457 2.885 3.0 2.75 2.0 3.021 0.007
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
3.307 3.269 3.942 4.285 3.25 4.25 4.4 5.711 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
2.909 2.964 3.771 3.885 3.0 4.25 4.20 6.167 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
2.82 2.914 3.714 3.971 3.0 4.25 4.2 7.22 0.000
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.4 3.518 3.657 2.0 2.75 1.25 2.0 9.047 0.000
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
2.597 2.529 3.514 1.942 1.5 1.0 2.0 6.178 0.000
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
3.448 3.87 4.142 3.828 4.25 4.0 4.4 2.473 0.023
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.871 3.347 4.142 3.714 4.0 4.0 4.4 5.541 0.000
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.884 3.255 4.0 3.857 4.0 4.75 4.4 5.417 0.000
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.735 2.913 3.714 2.314 2.75 1.25 2.0 5.26 0.000
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
3.653 3.78 3.771 2.371 3.5 1.75 2.0 7.119 0.000
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
2.316 2.242 3.171 1.771 1.75 1.75 2.0 3.733 0.001
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.012 3.531 3.714 2.485 3.0 1.75 1.6 5.363 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.846 3.92 4.028 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.4 0.264 0.953
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.359 2.368 3.342 1.942 2.25 1.0 2.0 4.098 0.001
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.4 2.439 3.828 2.371 3.0 1.75 3.4 5.759 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.432 3.642 3.942 2.914 3.25 2.0 2.0 3.539 0.002
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.941 2.807 3.714 2.571 3.5 2.0 2.0 3.124 0.005
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
3.13 3.092 3.485 2.428 2.25 2.0 2.0 4.579 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.193 3.007 3.971 3.085 3.25 2.25 2.0 4.831 0.000
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.442 2.617 3.828 2.142 2.75 1.25 2.2 6.439 0.000
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.98 3.489 4.028 3.057 4.0 3.0 4.6 4.248 0.000
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
3.877 4.17 4.485 4.028 4.25 4.0 4.6 2.137 0.049
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
3.058 3.12 3.828 2.571 3.5 1.0 2.2 4.018 0.001
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent First Occupation against Behavior Intension Statement on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intension Items 10
Goverment
Firm
Self
working
Non Working
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
2.954
2.636
3.922
3.233
14.761
0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
3.454 3.318 3.202 3.366 0.512 0.674
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.454 3.772 4.0 3.5 2.839 0.038
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.409 2.59 3.217 2.866 3.477 0.016
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
2.636 2.454 3.523 3.133 8.169 0.000
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
3.272 2.318 3.683 3.2 7.869 0.000
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
2.863 2.545 3.488 3.161 5.03 0.002
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.181 2.181 2.528 1.933 2.624 0.05
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.909 2.454 3.124 2.433 3.382 0.018
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
4.045 4.227 3.358 3.806 6.324 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
3.5 4.09 2.99 3.7 8.201 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
3.681 4.0 2.917 3.774 10.113 0.000
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
2.363 2.142 3.422 3.225 8.917 0.000
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
1.954 2.381 2.632 2.466 2.007 0.113
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
3.5 3.954 3.709 4.193 1.765 0.153
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.818 4.227 3.227 3.677 4.643 0.003
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.0 4.227 3.197 3.516 3.679 0.012
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.409 2.09 2.943 2.612 4.087 0.007
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
2.681 2.045 3.746 3.161 14.032 0.000
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
1.909 2.045 2.311 2.806 2.316 0.075
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.909 2.227 3.305 3.032 4.006 0.008
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.954 3.636 3.874 4.322 1.424 0.235
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau. 1.909 2.0 2.493 2.129 2.276 0.079
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.318 2.409 2.597 2.612 0.341 0.796
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.318 2.5 3.556 3.322 3.935 0.009
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.409 2.681 2.973 2.903 1.289 0.278
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
2.772 2.59 3.133 2.774 2.779 0.041
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.0 2.636 3.211 2.967 2.107 0.099
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.272 1.727 2.68 2.709 3.592 0.014
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.09 3.363 3.332 3.258 0.208 0.891
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
4.363 3.727 4.036 4.387 2.272 0.08
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.454 2.09 3.24 2.612 7.077 0.000
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table 10 : Comparison Of Respondent Second Occupation against Behavior Intention on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intention Items 10
Self working
Tidak Bekerja
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
4.197
1.333
37.026
0.00
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
2.857 1.333 8.586 0.005
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.428 1.333 36.365 0.00
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.1 1.333 3.912 0.052
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
3.642 1.333 12.856 0.001
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
4.271 1.333 23.663 0.00
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.68 3.0 0.922 0.34
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.472 1.333 2.511 0.117
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.041 1.666 2.119 0.15
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
3.15 4.333 1.937 0.168
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
2.917 4.333 3.233 0.076
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
2.917 4.333 3.282 0.074
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.945 1.333 13.171 0.001
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
2.52 1.333 2.407 0.125
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
4.15 4.333 0.077 0.782
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.328 4.333 1.165 0.284
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.219 4.333 1.37 0.246
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.205 1.666 3.492 0.066
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
4.095 1.333 12.055 0.001
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
1.89 4.333 10.99 0.001
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.589 1.333 6.153 0.015
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.671 4.666 0.0 0.99
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
1.89 1.333 0.603 0.44
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.708 1.333 2.239 0.139
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
4.205 1.333 16.504 0.0
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.671 1.333 2.531 0.116
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
2.527 3.0 0.67 0.416
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.178 3.0 0.098 0.755
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.643 1.666 1.174 0.282
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.808 1.666 6.521 0.013
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
4.493 4.333 0.103 0.749
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
3.246 1.0 7.293 0.009
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Monthly Income against Behavior Intention on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Behavior Intention Items 10
<
RM800
RM801 – RM1499
RM1500 – RM2499
>
RM3000
F
P- Value
Saya ingin memotong kayu dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri
3.813
3.285
1.5
1.75
12.454
0.000
Saya akan mengambil buluh di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau pada waktu perayaan sahaja untuk membuat lemang.
3.196 4.142 4.0 4.5 4.247 0.006
Saya akan mengambil buluh dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika perlu untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.929 3.571 4.5 2.75 1.933 0.124
Saya ingin mengambil rotan dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.153 2.857 1.5 1.25 4.937 0.002
Saya ingin mengambil kayu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk membuat pagar dusun.
3.493 1.428 1.5 1.25 16.075 0.000
Saya akan mengambil kayu dari Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri sahaja
3.604 3.285 3.0 1.0 5.287 0.001
Saya teringin mengambil kayu gaharu dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau hanya untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan saya.
3.407 3.0 3.166 1.25 3.755 0.011
Saya ingin menjual hasil buruan yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.495 1.571 1.5 1.25 3.45 0.017
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak yang berkenaan jika terdapat aktiviti pemburuan di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.055 3.0 2.833 1.0 2.678 0.047
Saya hendak mengetahui apakah itu akta hidupan liar .
3.445 4.285 4.5 5.0 4.794 0.003
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Akta Hidupan Liar.
3.083 4.142 4.5 5.0 6.997 0.000
Saya ingin bertanya kepada kakitangan PERHILITAN tentang apakah Kawasan Perlindungan.
3.0 4.142 4.5 5.0 7.477 0.000
Saya akan mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.366 1.571 1.333 1.0 11.641 0.000
Saya mahu mengambil hidupan liar dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambah pendapatan.
2.627 1.571 1.5 1.25 4.257 0.006
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau di masa terdekat.
3.74 4.428 4.5 4.25 1.494 0.216
Saya mahu mengajak rakan- rakan saya berekreasi dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.261 4.571 4.5 4.25 3.645 0.013
Saya mahu mengajak keluarga saya berkelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.229 4.428 4.666 5.0 4.872 0.002
Saya ingin mengajak rakan-rakan saya membuat rentis baru di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.881 2.857 1.333 1.0 5.319 0.001
Saya akan memasuki kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk memancing.
3.626 2.714 1.5 1.0 9.501 0.000
Saya mahu menanam sampah dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau kerana tiada pilihan lain.
2.335 2.0 1.666 2.0 0.676 0.567
Saya ingin membuang sampah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.224 3.285 1.666 2.0 2.945 0.033
Saya ingin mengambil ulam- ulaman dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.89 3.857 4.5 4.25 0.519 0.67
Saya hendak mengikuti rakan saya mengambil madu di kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.433 3.0 1.5 1.25 2.133 0.096
Saya mahu membeli madu yang di ambil dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.587 3.857 1.5 3.5 3.344 0.019
Saya ingin mengambil herba ubatan dalam kawasan rezab untuk kegunaan sendiri.
3.508 2.714 2.333 1.25 5.231 0.002
Saya hendak mengambil herba dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
2.913 2.857 2.333 1.25 2.144 0.094
Saya akan mengambil minyak keruing dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau jika saya kesempitan wang.
3.136 1.714 2.333 1.25 8.391 0.000
Saya akan melaporkan pada pihak berkenaan jika terdapat penduduk kampung yang mengambil minyak keruing dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.196 3.0 2.166 1.0 6.396 0.000
Saya mahu memakan daging rusa dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
2.658 2.857 1.333 1.0 3.562 0.014
Saya ingin memakan ikan kelah di dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau.
3.321 4.0 3.166 4.25 1.049 0.371
Saya ingin mengambil ulam dalam kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk di jadikan hidangan keluarga.
4.051 4.0 4.5 4.25 0.372 0.774
Saya mahu mengambil ulam dari kawasan Rezab Hidupan Liar Krau untuk menambahkan lagi pendapatan.
3.138 2.714 1.5 1.25 4.745 0.003
9 Means were calculated based on reponses that were coded as as: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree
10 All cell entries are mean scores and means with different superscripts (a,b, c, ab) across the rows differ significantly at p < 0.05 and LSD was used as the post hoc test
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Village against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages9
Using Resource Items 10 Penderas
Pasu Pian Terboi F P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
1.993 2.71 1.977 1.97 7.847 0.000
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.486 2.415 1.818 1.735 9.32 0.000
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.777 2.0 2.0 9.51 0.000
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.96 2.758 1.977 2.0 9.518 0.000
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.52 2.343 1.204 1.294 11.017 0.000
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.546 2.082 1.34 1.5 4.142 0.007
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.686 2.454 1.454 1.647 8.898 0.000
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.98 2.671 1.886 1.882 7.726 0.000
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.713 2.574 1.886 1.882 9.011 0.000
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.68 2.7 1.886 1.705 13.894 0.000
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.486 2.033 1.363 1.529 3.786 0.011
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.966 2.7 1.568 1.764 11.144 0.000
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.772 2.0 2.0 9.369 0.000
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.466 2.579 1.886 1.882 13.951 0.000
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.866 2.729 1.909 1.705 11.529 0.000
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.733 2.396 1.363 1.558 7.949 0.000
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.933 2.734 1.568 1.735 12.71 0.000
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.98 2.768 2.0 2.0 9.425 0.000
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.913 2.7 2.0 1.941 8.709 0.000
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.326 2.391 1.909 1.705 11.827 0.000
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.54 2.178 1.431 1.588 5.162 0.002
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.84 2.613 1.59 1.764 9.925 0.000
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.768 2.0 2.0 9.134 0.000
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.573 2.463 1.795 1.529 9.709 0.000
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.733 2.695 2.0 2.0 11.51 0.000
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.36 2.149 1.409 1.588 6.807 0.000
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.766 2.516 1.613 1.764 8.215 0.000
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.772 2.0 2.0 9.369 0.000
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.553 2.574 1.909 1.647 12.498 0.000
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.88 2.753 2.0 2.0 10.59 0.000
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.926 2.705 1.5 1.705 12.564 0.000
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.772 1.954 2.0 9.477 0.000
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.92 2.768 2.0 2.0 10.362 0.000
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.986 2.724 1.977 2.0 8.221 0.000
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.193 2.13 1.613 1.411 8.845 0.000
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.946 2.739 1.522 1.705 13.249 0.000
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.777 1.977 2.0 9.512 0.000
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.777 2.0 2.0 9.413 0.000
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 7.344 0.000
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.073 2.106 1.59 1.41 10.563 0.000
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.993 2.71 1.5 1.705 12.039 0.000
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.777 1.977 2.0 9.512 0.000
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.772 2.0 2.0 9.272 0.000
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.986 2.763 2.0 1.97 9.285 0.000
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.046 2.038 1.568 1.411 9.575 0.000
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.606 2.309 1.272 1.647 7.661 0.000
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.777 1.977 2.0 9.512 0.000
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.777 2.0 2.0 9.51 0.000
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.853 2.661 1.84 1.676 10.119 0.000
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.493 2.545 1.977 1.794 12.379 0.000
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.42 2.169 1.295 1.705 6.773 0.000
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
1.993 2.758 1.977 2.0 9.051 0.000
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.673 2.715 2.0 2.0 13.367 0.000
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.62 2.608 1.818 1.47 13.294 0.000
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.886 2.705 1.977 1.941 9.317 0.000
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Gender against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items
Male
Female
F
P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
1.992 1.937 1.262 0.262
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.579 1.661 3.139 0.077
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.023 2.0 1.934 0.165
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.992 1.984 1.129 0.289
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.513 1.448 0.711 0.4
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.386 1.378 0.359 0.55
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.613 1.692 3.985 0.047
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.949 1.889 1.139 0.287
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.714 1.897 35.071 0.000
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.899 1.74 11.066 0.001
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.39 1.244 8.941 0.003
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.888 1.913 3.53 0.061
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.023 1.992 0.956 0.329
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.691 1.661 0.151 0.698
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.918 1.968 9.058 0.003
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.648 1.574 0.003 0.959
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.895 1.905 1.839 0.176
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.015 1.984 0.325 0.569
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.918 1.984 13.749 0.000
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.61 1.44 0.159 0.691
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.513 1.315 5.738 0.017
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.799 1.834 3.574 0.059
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.023 1.992 0.956 0.329
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.579 1.7 6.02 0.015
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.945 1.818 9.478 0.002
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.428 1.252 10.587 0.001
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.71 1.787 6.778 0.01
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.023 1.992 0.956 0.329
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.679 1.724 2.918 0.088
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.988 1.976 0.496 0.482
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.868 1.874 1.333 0.249
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.023 1.992 0.956 0.329
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.023 1.897 9.774 0.002
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.984 1.976 0.757 0.385
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.312 1.338 0.001 0.98
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.888 1.913 3.53 0.061
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.027 1.992 0.975 0.324
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.027 2.0 1.974 0.161
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.98 1.968 0.47 0.494
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.297 1.196 6.595 0.011
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.884 1.921 5.217 0.023
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.027 1.992 0.975 0.324
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.027 1.992 0.975 0.324
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.007 1.992 0.889 0.346
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.239 1.165 4.506 0.034
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.409 1.7 4.298 0.039
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.027 1.992 0.975 0.324
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.023 2.0 1.934 0.165
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.806 1.944 29.922 0.000
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.88 1.44 27.13 0.000
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.413 1.37 1.016 0.314
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
2.015 1.976 0.037 0.847
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.903 1.795 4.705 0.031
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.702 1.732 2.154 0.143
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.953 1.952 1.215 0.271
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Status Marrige against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items Bachelor Married Duda F P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
2.092
1.949
2.0
3.234
0.04
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.615 1.605 2.0 0.205 0.815
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 1.996 2.0 2.558 0.079
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.092 1.968 2.0 2.572 0.078
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.707 1.444 2.0 5.129 0.006
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.492 1.362 1.0 1.374 0.254
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.784 1.608 2.0 2.396 0.092
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 1.892 2.0 6.036 0.003
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.861 1.753 2.0 1.048 0.352
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.969 1.823 2.0 2.138 0.119
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.415 1.328 1.0 0.709 0.493
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
2.0 1.873 2.0 1.817 0.164
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 1.993 2.0 2.652 0.072
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.753 1.662 2.0 0.757 0.47
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.092 1.905 2.0 4.685 0.01
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.723 1.602 1.0 1.535 0.217
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
2.015 1.873 2.0 2.306 0.101
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 1.984 2.0 2.938 0.054
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 2.107 1.905 2.0 5.573 0.004
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.538 1.561 2.0 0.283 0.754
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.523 1.435 1.0 0.781 0.458
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.846 1.804 2.0 0.215 0.807
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 1.993 2.0 2.652 0.072
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.692 1.602 2.0 0.757 0.47
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.046 1.873 2.0 3.486 0.32
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.507 1.343 1.0 2.096 0.124
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.676 1.747 2.0 0.496 0.609
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 1.993 2.0 2.652 0.072
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.738 1.684 2.0 0.347 0.707
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.076 1.965 2.0 2.086 0.126
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
2.0 1.848 1.0 3.927 0.021
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.092 1.996 2.0 1.852 0.158
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 1.977 2.0 0.081 0.923
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.092 1.959 2.0 2.943 0.054
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.369 1.309 2.0 0.899 0.408
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
2.015 1.873 1.0 3.983 0.019
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.092 2.0 2.0 1.767 0.172
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.107 2.0 2.0 2.465 0.086
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 2.076 1.955 2.0 2.35 0.097
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.246 1.268 2.0 0.825 0.439
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
2.015 1.873 1.0 3.983 0.019
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.092 2.0 2.0 1.767 0.172
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.092 2.0 2.0 1.767 0.172
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.092 1.984 2.0 2.202 0.112
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.246 1.208 2.0 1.094 0.336
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.676 1.47 1.0 3.265 0.039
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.092 2.0 2.0 1.767 0.172
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.092 2.0 2.0 1.767 0.172
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.83 1.858 2.0 0.113 0.893
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.707 1.741 2.0 0.191 0.826
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.446 1.391 1.0 0.416 0.66
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
2.061 1.99 2.0 0.944 0.39
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.738 1.895 2.0 2.622 0.074
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.846 1.684 2.0 2.132 0.12
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.061 1.93 2.0 2.439 0.089
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Ethnic against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Che
Wong
Jahut
Jakun
F P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
1.977
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.978
1.666
0.404
0.846
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.644 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.598 1.0 0.984 0.427
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.027 1.0
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.987 1.666 1.046 0.39
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.166 0.325
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.955 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.305 1.0 11.254 0.000
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.777 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.614 1.333 1.132 0.343
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.977 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.925 2.0 0.293 0.917
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.577 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.805 1.333 1.827 0.107
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.511 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.904 2.0 7.142 0.000
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.977 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.25 1.0 14.608 0.000
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.977 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.885 1.666 0.446 0.816
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.102 0.992
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.133 1.0 2.0 1.7 1.762 1.333 10.618 0.000
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.955 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.941 2.0 1.948 0.086
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.955 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.574 1.666 3.432 0.005
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.844 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.904 2.0 0.179 0.97
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.009 2.0 0.056 0.998
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.933 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.938 2.0 0.063 0.997
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.155 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.62 1.666 5.419 0.000
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.955 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.376 1.333 8.184 0.000
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.955 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.799 1.0 2.188 0.055
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.102 0.992
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.288 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.663 1.333 3.333 0.006
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.8 1.5 1.0 1.9 1.925 2.0 2.303 0.044
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.777 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.308 1.0 6.015 0.000
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.722 1.666 0.338 0.89
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.977 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.021 2.0 0.313 0.905
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.088 1.0 2.0 1.9 1.777 1.333 13.433 0.000
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.993 2.0 2.958 0.012
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.848 2.0 0.737 0.596
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.015 2.0 0.018 1.0
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.755 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0154 2.0 3.994 0.002
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.911 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.99 2.0 0.311 0.906
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.4 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.321 1.0 0.738 0.595
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.879 2.0 0.476 0.794
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.027 1.0
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.021 2.0 0.038 0.999
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.888 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.987 2.0 0.466 0.801
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.177 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.284 1.0 0.58 0.715
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.879 2.0 0.476 0.794
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.027 1.0
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.027 1.0
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.977 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.006 2.0 0.044 0.999
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.066 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.24 1.0 0.972 0.434
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.755 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.456 1.666 2.585 0.026
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.027 1.0
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.018 2.0 0.027 1.0
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.688 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.879 1.333 1.759 0.12
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.555 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.771 2.0 2.663 0.022
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.933 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.321 1.333 9.415 0.000
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.003 2.0 0.001 1.0
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.4 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.929 2.0 9.938 0.000
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.244 1.0 2.0 1.8 1.784 1.0 8.993 0.000
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.95 2.0 2.082 0.067
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Education Level against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items
Tidak
Bersekolah
UPSR
PMR
SPM
STPM
DIPLOMA IJAZAH F P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
1.967 2.035 1.942 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.248 0.96
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.609 1.622 1.628 1.742 1.25 1.5 2.0 0.581 0.746
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.09 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.472 0.829
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.98 2.035 2.0 2.028 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.134 0.992
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.467 1.629 1.4 1.371 1.75 1.5 1.0 1.525 0.169
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.301 1.412 1.257 1.828 1.75 2.0 1.8 3.698 0.001
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.576 1.706 1.657 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 0.876 0.513
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.871 2.021 1.971 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.847 0.534
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.788 1.825 1.771 1.714 1.75 1.5 2.0 0.342 0.915
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.903 1.944 1.914 1.485 1.75 1.5 1.2 3.842 0.001
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.243 1.377 1.2 1.828 1.75 2.0 1.8 4.675 0.000
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.839 1.979 1.914 1.971 2.0 2.0 1.8 0.758 0.603
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.09 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.513 0.798
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.762 1.748 1.685 1.428 1.5 1.0 1.2 2.331 0.032
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.923 1.007 2.0 1.828 1.75 2.0 2.0 0.665 0.678
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.576 1.72 1.342 1.857 1.75 2.0 1.8 2.262 0.037
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.859 2.0 1.914 1.857 2.0 2.0 1.8 0.792 0.576
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.987 2.076 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.404 0.876
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.923 1.993 1.971 1.942 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.198 0.977
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.615 1.629 1.685 1.228 1.25 1.0 1.2 2.453 0.024
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.461 1.447 1.2 1.771 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.343 0.031
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.737 1.881 1.914 1.885 1.75 2.0 2.0 0.897 0.497
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.09 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.513 0.798
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.641 1.699 1.714 1.342 1.75 1.25 1.6 1.421 0.205
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.871 2.0 1.971 1.857 1.75 1.75 1.6 1.105 0.358
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.352 1.419 1.085 1.657 1.5 2.0 1.6 2.508 0.022
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.685 1.783 1.885 1.828 1.75 1.5 2.0 0.765 0.598
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.09 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.513 0.798
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.75 1.818 1.714 1.285 1.5 1.0 1.2 4.1 0.001
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.98 2.049 2.0 1.942 1.75 2.0 2.0 0.432 0.857
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.923 1.951 1.4 1.942 2.0 2.0 1.8 4.145 0.000
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.097 1.942 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.703 0.647
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.076 2.0 1.828 2.0 1.75 1.6 1.694 0.121
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.955 2.062 1.971 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.528 0.0.787
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.224 1.384 1.657 1.371 1.0 1.25 1.6 2.212 0.041
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.948 1.986 1.428 1.942 2.0 2.0 1.8 4.391 0.000
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.097 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.613 0.72
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.097 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.555 0.766
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.948 2.062 1.971 1.942 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.614 0.719
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.205 1.335 1.628 1.171 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.261 0.037
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.948 1.993 1.371 1.971 2.0 2.0 1.8 5.566 0.000
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.097 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.613 0.72
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.993 2.097 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.598 0.732
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.987 2.076 2.0 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.444 0.849
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.147 1.286 1.6 1.114 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.592 0.018
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.544 1.51 1.142 1.714 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.418 0.026
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.097 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.613 0.72
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.09 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.472 0.829
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.833 1.93 1.885 1.771 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.721 0.633
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.698 1.881 1.914 1.542 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.612 0.017
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.359 1.384 1.257 1.857 1.5 2.0 1.8 3.364 0.003
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
1.987 2.076 1.971 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.444 0.849
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.91 1.986 1.857 1.6 1.75 1.25 1.6 2.858 0.01
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.743 1.811 1.742 1.457 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.86 0.087
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.929 2.042 2.0 1.828 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.899 0.496
Table : Comparison Of Respondent First Occupation against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items
Goverment
Firm
Self
working
Non Working
F
P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
2.0 2.0 1.933 1.967 0.24 0.995
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.818 1.727 1.611 1.645 0.694 0.556
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.042 2.0 0.139 0.937
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.0 2.045 2.006 2.0 0.04 0.989
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.227 1.318 1.552 1.387 0.208 0.087
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.59 1.909 1.366 1.387 4.331 0.005
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.818 1.863 1.634 1.58 1.183 0.316
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.954 2.0 1.97 1.677 2.432 0.065
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.818 1.772 1.797 1.709 0.173 0.915
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.545 1.409 1.934 1.677 7.958 0.000
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.5 1.909 1.336 1.193 5.268 0.001
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.954 1.909 1.905 2.0 0.257 0.857
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.039 2.0 0.117 0.95
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.59 1.363 1.758 1.387 4.607 0.004
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.863 1.772 1.964 2.0 0.967 0.408
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.727 1.909 1.634 1.483 1.61 0.186
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.954 1.818 1.921 1.967 0.293 0.83
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.029 2.0 0.064 0.979
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.954 1.909 1.957 2.0 0.106 0.956
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.272 1.227 1.63 1.516 3.611 0.013
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.454 1.818 1.473 1.225 2.808 0.039
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.863 1.909 1.82 1.871 0.184 0.907
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.039 2.0 0.117 0.95
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.454 1.318 1.676 1.58 2.263 0.081
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.863 1.863 1.944 1.838 0.468 0.705
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.454 1.772 1.385 1.193 2.847 0.037
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.863 1.863 1.732 1.806 0.526 0.665
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.039 2.0 0.117 0.95
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.409 1.227 1.771 1.645 5.789 0.001
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.954 1.909 2.013 2.0 0.314 0.815
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.818 1.954 1.888 1.871 0.179 0.911
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.039 2.0 0.117 0.95
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.909 1.727 2.035 1.935 2.706 0.045
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.0 1.909 2.009 1.967 0.274 0.844
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.363 1.409 1.326 1.451 0.351 0.789
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.818 1.954 1.915 1.935 0.224 0.88
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.042 2.0 0.139 0.937
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.045 2.0 0.163 0.921
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 2.0 1.863 2.006 2.0 0.468 0.705
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.181 1.181 1.297 1.322 0.371 0.774
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.863 1.909 1.915 1.935 0.063 0.979
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.042 2.0 0.139 0.937
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.042 2.0 0.139 0.937
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.0 1.954 2.029 2.0 0.172 0.915
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.181 1.136 1.245 1.29 0.276 0.843
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.636 1.863 1.467 1.709 3.02 0.03
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.042 2.0 0.139 0.937
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 2.042 2.0 0.139 0.937
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.818 1.681 1.879 1.935 0.81 0.489
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.545 1.454 1.82 1.58 3.699 0.012
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.636 1.863 1.362 1.548 4.359 0.005
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 2.026 2.0 0.05 0.985
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.772 1.59 1.924 1.838 2.334 0.074
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.681 1.272 1.761 1.741 3.409 0.018
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.772 1.954 1.99 1.967 1.021 0.383
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Second Occupation against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items
Self
working
Non Working
F
P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
1.931
2.0
0.215
0.644
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.452 2.0 3.541 0.064
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.986 2.0 0.041 0.841
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.931 2.0 0.215 0.644
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.616 1.0 4.695 0.033
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.232 2.0 9.622 0.003
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.479 2.0 3.171 0.079
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.972 2.0 0.082 0.775
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.739 2.0 1.028 0.314
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.89 1.0 23.734 0.000
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.164 1.0 0.575 0.451
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.863 2.0 0.464 0.498
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.986 2.0 0.041 0.841
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.657 1.0 5.608 0.02
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.945 2.0 0.169 0.682
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.643 2.0 1.616 0.208
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.945 2.0 0.169 0.682
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.972 2.0 0.082 0.775
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.89 2.0 0.36 0.551
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.424 1.0 2.156 0.146
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.232 1.0 0.887 0.349
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.739 2.0 1.028 0.314
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 - -
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.602 1.333 0.853 0.359
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.931 2.0 0.215 0.644
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.123 1.0 0.411 0.524
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.561 2.0 2.28 0.135
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 - -
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.726 1.0 7.741 0.007
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.986 2.0 0.041 0.841
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.986 2.0 0.464 0.498
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 - -
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.986 2.0 0.041 0.841
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.986 1.666 13.18 0.001
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.178 1.0 0.633 0.429
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.835 2.0 0.575 0.451
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 - -
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 - -
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.986 2.0 0.041 0.841
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.178 1.0 0.633 0.429
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.89 2.0 0.36 0.551
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 - -
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 - -
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.958 2.0 0.125 0.724
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.123 1.0 0.411 0.524
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.356 1.666 1.181 0.281
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.0 2.0 - -
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.0 2.0 - -
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.835 1.333 5.031 0.028
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.739 2.0 1.02 0.314
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.205 1.333 0.277 0.6
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
1.958 2.0 0.125 0.724
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.78 2.0 0.82 0.368
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.78 1.666 0.000 0.987
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.89 2.0 0.36 0.551
Table : Comparison Of Respondent Monthly Income against Using Resource on Non Conforming Behavior toward Krau Wild Life Reserve Area
Percentage of Respondent in Villages
Using Resource Items
<
RM800
RM801
- RM1499
RM1500 – RM2499
>
RM3000
F
P- Value
Gaharu (Kegunaan harian)
1.991
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.001
1.0
Gaharu (Untuk jualan)
1.64 1.571 1.5 2.0 0.413 0.744
Gaharu (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Gaharu (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.005 2.142 2.0 2.0 0.142 0.935
Gaharu (Tidak pernah
menggunakan sumber)
1.511 1.428 1.5 1.0 0.642 0.588
Rotan (Kegunaan harian)
1.385 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.798 0.011
Rotan (Untuk jualan)
1.637 1.571 2.0 2.0 0.82 0.483
Rotan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.945 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.044 0.988
Rotan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.788 1.571 1.5 2.0 0.692 0.557
Rotan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.891 1.428 1.5 1.0 4.358 0.005
Buluh (Kegunaan harian)
1.337 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.531 0.004
Buluh (Untuk jualan)
1.911 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.11 0.954
Buluh (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.034 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.023 0.995
Buluh (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.72 1.142 1.0 1.0 4.731 0.003
Buluh (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.954 1.857 2.0 2.0 0.082 0.97
Mengkuang (Kegunaan harian)
1.625 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.417 0.238
Mengkuang (Untuk jualan)
1.92 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.395 0.756
Mengkuang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.025 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.013 0.998
Mengkuang (Ketika perlu sahaja) 1.954 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.032 0.992
Mengkuang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.614 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.798 0.011
Herba Ubatan (Kegunaan harian)
1.454 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.939 0.033
Herba Ubatan (Untuk jualan)
1.831 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.346 0.792
Herba Ubatan (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Herba Ubatan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.642 1.428 1.0 1.75 1.727 0.161
Herba Ubatan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.942 1.571 2.0 1.25 2.574 0.054
Ulam (Kegunaan harian)
1.385 1.571 2.0 1.75 1.792 0.148
Ulam (Untuk jualan)
1.748 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.716 0.543
Ulam (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.034 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.023 0.995
Ulam (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.734 1.142 1.0 1.0 4.997 0.002
Ulam (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
2.005 1.857 2.0 2.0 0.165 0.92
Rusa (Kegunaan harian)
1.885 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.174 0.914
Rusa (Untuk jualan)
2.034 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.023 0.995
Rusa (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.022 1.857 1.5 1.75 2.321 0.075
Rusa (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.000 1.0
Rusa (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.345 1.142 1.5 1.25 0.29 0.833
Kijang (Kegunaan harian)
1.911 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.11 0.954
Kijang (Untuk jualan)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Kijang (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.04 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.032 0.992
Kijang (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.997 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.000 1.0
Kijang (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.305 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.984 0.4
Tenggiling (Kegunaan harian)
1.911 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.11 0.954
Tenggiling (Untuk jualan)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Tenggiling (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Tenggiling (Ketika perlu sahaja)
2.022 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.01 0.999
Tenggiling (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.254 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.711 0.546
Tanah (Kegunaan harian)
1.494 1.571 2.0 2.0 1.512 0.211
Tanah (Untuk jualan)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Tanah (Mengisi masa lapang)
2.037 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.027 0.994
Tanah (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.865 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.784 0.503
Tanah (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.805 1.428 1.5 1.0 2.841 0.038
Ikan (Kegunaan harian)
1.405 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.528 0.015
Ikan (Untuk jualan)
2.022 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.01 0.999
Ikan (Mengisi masa lapang)
1.925 1.428 1.0 1.75 5.884 0.001
Ikan (Ketika perlu sahaja)
1.754 1.142 1.5 1.0 3.298 0.021
Ikan (Tidak pernah menggunakan sumber)
1.974 1.857 2.0 2.0 0.101 0.959
01 Februari 2010
research_statistic_reliabilty
Total reliability
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.871 20
Reliability even
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.756 10
Reliability odd
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.793 10
Correlations
swbtotal rwbtotal ewbtotal setotal retotal lstotal
swbtotal Pearson Correlation 1 .937(**) .934(**) .117 -.144(*) .380(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .086 .035 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
rwbtotal Pearson Correlation .937(**) 1 .749(**) .083 -.125 .272(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .226 .068 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
ewbtotal Pearson Correlation .934(**) .749(**) 1 .137(*) -.144(*) .441(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .044 .034 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
setotal Pearson Correlation .117 .083 .137(*) 1 -.611(**) .260(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .086 .226 .044 .000 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
retotal Pearson Correlation -.144(*) -.125 -.144(*) -.611(**) 1 -.111
Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .068 .034 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
lstotal Pearson Correlation .380(**) .272(**) .441(**) .260(**) -.111 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Saifuddin,
Dr Sohail.
1) Title of the project
2) Introduction ( background of the study, objective, statement of problem, significance of the study, limitation, and decimation if any.)
3) Literature Review
4) Data analysis and finding
5) Conclusion, comment and recommendations.
6) References/bibliography
Reliability=coefficient correlation= alpha= biasa nak 0.75 hinggga 0.9 highly reliable
Validity ada dua jenis:
1.convergent
2.discriminant
Cuba lihat scree plot adakah negative atau posotif
Jika positive mean ada hubungan antara variable yang cuba dihubungkan mean directly relationship
Jika negative mean investly relationship
Nilai validity kita rujuk kepada nilai standard error…jika SE tinggi mean tidak valid…low validity
Content validity describes a judgment of how adequately a test samples behaviour representative of the universe of behaviour that the test was designed to sample. (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
Standard Error of Estimate
Assuming SD = 10 and criterion-related validity = .36
Jika SE rendah mean high validity
Jika SD tinggi biasanya SE jua tinggi…
P<0.05.... mean 95% ada significant relationship...mean highly reliability relationship between the variable
P<0.01...mean 99% ada significant relationship...mean highly significant relationship between the variables
Jika dua categories (biasanya variable…kita pakai T test…atau Chi Square
Jika tiga (>2…categories / variable yang kita measure…maka kita pakai ANOVA untuk analisa
Kita harus buat hipothesis (andaian kajian kita berdasarkan fakta researcher yang lalu…
15 tahun lalu kita pakai hypothesis null dan hypothesis alternative
Kini kita pakai
HI:
H2:
H3:
contoh
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.871 20
Reliability even
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.756 10
Reliability odd
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.793 10
Correlations
swbtotal rwbtotal ewbtotal setotal retotal lstotal
swbtotal Pearson Correlation 1 .937(**) .934(**) .117 -.144(*) .380(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .086 .035 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
rwbtotal Pearson Correlation .937(**) 1 .749(**) .083 -.125 .272(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .226 .068 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
ewbtotal Pearson Correlation .934(**) .749(**) 1 .137(*) -.144(*) .441(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .044 .034 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
setotal Pearson Correlation .117 .083 .137(*) 1 -.611(**) .260(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .086 .226 .044 .000 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
retotal Pearson Correlation -.144(*) -.125 -.144(*) -.611(**) 1 -.111
Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .068 .034 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
lstotal Pearson Correlation .380(**) .272(**) .441(**) .260(**) -.111 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Saifuddin,
Dr Sohail.
1) Title of the project
2) Introduction ( background of the study, objective, statement of problem, significance of the study, limitation, and decimation if any.)
3) Literature Review
4) Data analysis and finding
5) Conclusion, comment and recommendations.
6) References/bibliography
Reliability=coefficient correlation= alpha= biasa nak 0.75 hinggga 0.9 highly reliable
Validity ada dua jenis:
1.convergent
2.discriminant
Cuba lihat scree plot adakah negative atau posotif
Jika positive mean ada hubungan antara variable yang cuba dihubungkan mean directly relationship
Jika negative mean investly relationship
Nilai validity kita rujuk kepada nilai standard error…jika SE tinggi mean tidak valid…low validity
Content validity describes a judgment of how adequately a test samples behaviour representative of the universe of behaviour that the test was designed to sample. (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
Standard Error of Estimate
Assuming SD = 10 and criterion-related validity = .36
Jika SE rendah mean high validity
Jika SD tinggi biasanya SE jua tinggi…
P<0.05.... mean 95% ada significant relationship...mean highly reliability relationship between the variable
P<0.01...mean 99% ada significant relationship...mean highly significant relationship between the variables
Jika dua categories (biasanya variable…kita pakai T test…atau Chi Square
Jika tiga (>2…categories / variable yang kita measure…maka kita pakai ANOVA untuk analisa
Kita harus buat hipothesis (andaian kajian kita berdasarkan fakta researcher yang lalu…
15 tahun lalu kita pakai hypothesis null dan hypothesis alternative
Kini kita pakai
HI:
H2:
H3:
contoh
research_statistic_data measurement
Total reliability
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.871 20
Reliability even
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.756 10
Reliability odd
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.793 10
Correlations
swbtotal rwbtotal ewbtotal setotal retotal lstotal
swbtotal Pearson Correlation 1 .937(**) .934(**) .117 -.144(*) .380(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .086 .035 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
rwbtotal Pearson Correlation .937(**) 1 .749(**) .083 -.125 .272(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .226 .068 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
ewbtotal Pearson Correlation .934(**) .749(**) 1 .137(*) -.144(*) .441(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .044 .034 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
setotal Pearson Correlation .117 .083 .137(*) 1 -.611(**) .260(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .086 .226 .044 .000 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
retotal Pearson Correlation -.144(*) -.125 -.144(*) -.611(**) 1 -.111
Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .068 .034 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
lstotal Pearson Correlation .380(**) .272(**) .441(**) .260(**) -.111 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Saifuddin,
Dr Sohail.
1) Title of the project
2) Introduction ( background of the study, objective, statement of problem, significance of the study, limitation, and decimation if any.)
3) Literature Review
4) Data analysis and finding
5) Conclusion, comment and recommendations.
6) References/bibliography
Test reliability refers to the proportion of the total variance attributed to true variance.
The greater the proportion of total variance attributed to true variance the more reliable the test.
Hence there are different degrees of reliability.
Test construction:
Item sampling
Content sampling
Test administration:
Test environment
Test taker variables
Examiner-related variables
Test scoring and interpretation
Types of Reliability
1.Test-retest reliability
2. Parallel-forms or Alternate-forms reliability
3. Internal Consistency reliability
3.1 Split-half reliability
3.2 Kuder-Richardson reliability (KR 0)
3.3 Coefficient alpha reliability
4. Inter-scorer reliability
Test-retest Reliability (Temporal Stability Reliability):
1. Obtain a representative sample of the target population.
2. Administer the test on this sample.
3. After some time interval re-administer the same test on the sample.
4. Compute product moment correlation between the test and retest scores to obtain the test-retest reliability coefficient.
What should be the time interval between the two administrations?
Generally, as the time interval between administrations of the test increases the correlation between the scores obtained on each testing decreases.
Length of time interval between the two testing sessions?
The interval should be less than six months.
Report time interval along with test-retest reliability.
Limitations:
Sometimes if the interval is very short, practice, memory, fatigue and motivation may influence the reliability coefficient.
There are possible intervening factors between administrations that can influence the reliability coefficient even if the interval is ideal.
They should be taken into consideration. For example tutorials, counseling or emotional trauma.
Suitability of test-retest method:
This method, which is for estimating the temporal stability reliability, is appropriate for tests that purport to measure a characteristics that are relatively stable over time. E.g., personality test or tests of reaction time or perceptual judgments.
Parallel-forms or Alternate-forms reliability
(Equivalence reliability):
Administer form A on a representative sample
of the target population.
After some interval administer form B on the
same sample.
Compute product moment correlation between
the two sets of scores to obtain the parallel-
forms or alternate-forms reliability.
The objective is to evaluate the degree of relationship between forms of the same test.
The coefficient of reliability obtained is termed as the coefficient of equivalence.
Limitations:
Like in test-retest reliability, test scores are affected by motivation, fatigue and intervening events like practice, learning and therapy, though not as much as in test-retest method.
Suitability of parallel-form or alternate-form method.
It is used for tests that have parallel-forms or alternate-forms and is appropriate for tests that purport to measure relatively stable characteristics.
Internal Consistency Reliability
3.1 Split-half reliability estimate
3.2 Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability estimate
3.3 Coefficient Alpha reliability estimate
Split-half Reliability Estimate
1.Administer the test on a representative sample of the target population.
2. Divide the test administered once into equivalent halves randomly, by odd and even method or according to content and difficulty.
3. Compute the product moment correlation between the two pairs of scores obtained
Adjust the half-test reliability using the modified Spearman-Brown formula which is:
Estimates of reliability of the entire test is higher than the reliability estimate of half a test.
Suitability of split-half method:
It is appropriate for homogeneous tests that are unifactorial and inappropriate for heterogeneous tests, which are multifactorial or speed tests.
Kuder-Richardson formula 20
This method does not require the test to be split.
In this method the following formula of Kuder-Richardson is used
Items p q p q
__________________________________
1. .9 .1 .09
2. .85 .15 .1275
3. --- --- ---
4. --- --- ---
Nth. --- --- ---
___________________________________
Σp q
Participants Total Scores
_________________________
1. 20
2. 22
3. 18
4. --
5. --
nth 19
_______________________
=
Suitability of KR-20 statistic:
It is suitable for tests with dichotomous items i.e. items that can be scored right or wrong like MCQ’s
Coefficient Alpha
The Coefficient alpha or Cronbach alpha method:
Items
________________________________
Participants 1 2 3 4 nth. Total
_____________________________________________
1. 4 3 2 5 1 15
2. 3 2 1 3 2 11
3. 2 4 3 2 4 15
nth. 1 3 4 4 2 14
_____________________________________________
= =
Coefficient alpha equals the mean of all possible split-half correlations corrected by Spearman-Brown formula.
Suitability of coefficient alpha:
It is suitable for tests with non-dichotomous items, e.g., Likert type scales.
Inter-scorer Reliability
It is the degree of agreement or consistency between two or more scorers, judges or raters
Factors Affecting Reliability Coefficients
1. Range of scores
2. Length of test
3. Probability of guessing (nilai P<0.05 mean 95%…nilai P<0.01 mean 99%…
C = (R – W) ÷ (N-1)
C = the corrected score;
R = number of correct responses;
W = number of incorrect responses;
N = number of alternatives available.
Kline (1993,2000) proposed to have five responses
instead of four for multiple-choice items and make sure
the four incorrect responses are “equally attractive.”
Reliability=alpha=coefficient correlation…
Reliability=coefficient correlation= alpha= biasa nak 0.75 hinggga 0.9 highly reliable
Validity Definitions
• The validity of a test is a judgment or estimate of how well a test measures what it purports to measure in a particular context (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
The validity of a test concerns what the test measures and how well it does so (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It tells us what can be inferred from the test scores
Validity ada dua jenis:
1.convergent
2.discriminant
Cuba lihat scree plot adakah negative atau posotif
Jika positive mean ada hubungan antara variable yang cuba dihubungkan mean directly relationship
Jika negative mean investly relationship
Nilai validity kita rujuk kepada nilai standard error…jika SE tinggi mean tidak valid…low validity
Content validity describes a judgment of how adequately a test samples behaviour representative of the universe of behaviour that the test was designed to sample. (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
Standard Error of Measurement
Let’s assume that the SD for a test is 10 and its reliability coefficient is .90. We use these numbers to derive the standard error of measurement:
= 3.0
We use this number to calculate a confidence interval.
The standard error of measurement is a type of standard deviation that indicates the amount of variability due to measurement error.
An examinees true score, at the 68% confidence interval, would fall between + or –1SEms of his/her obtained score; at the 95% level, the true score would fall between +or-2SEms; and finally at the 99% level, the true score would fall between + or -3SEms
The standard error of measurement is used to construct a confidence interval, or range within which an examinee’s true score is likely to fall.
Example:
Examinee’s obtained score is 90.
90 ± 1(3.0) = 87 – 93
90 ± 2(3.0) = 84 – 96
90 ± 3(3.0) = 81 – 99
Increasing or decreasing the reliability and the standard deviation affects the standard error of measurement
Jika nilai alpha tinggi then SD rendah SE measurement juga rendah
Standard Error of Estimate
Assuming SD = 10 and criterion-related validity = .36
Jika SE rendah mean high validity
Jika SD tinggi biasanya SE jua tinggi…
P<0.05.... mean 95% ada significant relationship...mean highly reliability relationship between the variable
P<0.01...mean 99% ada significant relationship...mean highly significant relationship between the variables
Jika dua categories (biasanya variable…kita pakai T test…atau Chi Square
Jika tiga (>2…categories / variable yang kita measure…maka kita pakai ANOVA untuk analisa
Kita harus buat hipothesis (andaian kajian kita berdasarkan fakta researcher yang lalu…
15 tahun lalu kita pakai hypothesis null dan hypothesis alternative
Kini kita pakai
HI:
H2:
H3:
contoh
Factors affecting Reliability coefficients
1. Range of scores…directly relationship between range of scorea and reliability
2. Length of test…directly relationship between length of test and reliability
3. Probability of guessing…investly…if probability low , the reliability is high
Biasa kita pakai P<0.01 and P<0.05
Long test is reliable than shorter test
r stand for correlation coefficient
P stand for probability
If P low…than r is high…investly related
If r low maka SE of measurement is high…invest relationship
If r is high…maka SE is low
SE stand for standard error
If SD high…maka SE also high…directly related with SE
SD and SE have directly relationship
Coefficient alpha is the mean of all possible split half correlitions correlated by Spearman-brown formula
R=correlation coefficient=reliability purpose=correlation between two or more variables
Administrating item analysis …to modified the r
Correlation coefficient=r=reliability
R=0.9=highly reliability
UIAM biasa pakai 0.64
Prof di sini biasa pakai 0.75 untuk nilai r bagi kajian sains social…
Bagi kajian sains…baiknya nialai r ialah 0.85
Validity is a test of truth or accuracy
Biasa kita pakai likert scale sebab senang ada paparkan nilai r for reliability of the test item…
Nilai r cronbach
Likert scale
Seperti
5_ strongly agree
4_agree
3_neutral
2_disagree
1_strongly disagree
Factors affecting Reliability coefficients
1. Range of scores…directly relationship between range of score and reliability
2. Length of test…directly relationship between length of test and reliability
3. Probability of guessing…investly…if probability low , the reliability is high
Biasa kita pakai P<0.01 and P<0.05
Long test is reliable than shorter test
r stand for correlation coefficient
P stand for probability
If P low…than r is high…investly related
If r low maka SE of measurement is high…invest relationship
If r is high…maka SE is low
SE stand for standard error
If SD high…maka SE also high…directly related with SE
SD and SE have directly relationship
Coefficient alpha is the mean of all possible split half correlitions correlated by Spearman-brown formula
R=correlation coefficient=reliability purpose=correlation between two or more variables
Administrating item analysis …to modified the r
Correlation coefficient=r=reliability
R=0.9=highly reliability
UIAM biasa pakai 0.64
Prof di sini biasa pakai 0.75 untuk nilai r bagi kajian sains social…
Bagi kajian sains…baiknya nialai r ialah 0.85
Validity is a test of truth or accuracy
Biasa kita pakai likert scale sebab senang ada paparkan nilai r for reliability of the test item…
Nilai r cronbach
Likert scale
Seperti
5_ strongly agree
4_agree
3_neutral
2_disagree
1_strongly disagree
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.871 20
Reliability even
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.756 10
Reliability odd
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 215 99.5
Excluded(a) 1 .5
Total 216 100.0
a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.793 10
Correlations
swbtotal rwbtotal ewbtotal setotal retotal lstotal
swbtotal Pearson Correlation 1 .937(**) .934(**) .117 -.144(*) .380(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .086 .035 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
rwbtotal Pearson Correlation .937(**) 1 .749(**) .083 -.125 .272(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .226 .068 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
ewbtotal Pearson Correlation .934(**) .749(**) 1 .137(*) -.144(*) .441(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .044 .034 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
setotal Pearson Correlation .117 .083 .137(*) 1 -.611(**) .260(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .086 .226 .044 .000 .000
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
retotal Pearson Correlation -.144(*) -.125 -.144(*) -.611(**) 1 -.111
Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .068 .034 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
lstotal Pearson Correlation .380(**) .272(**) .441(**) .260(**) -.111 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .104
N 215 215 215 215 215 215
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Saifuddin,
Dr Sohail.
1) Title of the project
2) Introduction ( background of the study, objective, statement of problem, significance of the study, limitation, and decimation if any.)
3) Literature Review
4) Data analysis and finding
5) Conclusion, comment and recommendations.
6) References/bibliography
Test reliability refers to the proportion of the total variance attributed to true variance.
The greater the proportion of total variance attributed to true variance the more reliable the test.
Hence there are different degrees of reliability.
Test construction:
Item sampling
Content sampling
Test administration:
Test environment
Test taker variables
Examiner-related variables
Test scoring and interpretation
Types of Reliability
1.Test-retest reliability
2. Parallel-forms or Alternate-forms reliability
3. Internal Consistency reliability
3.1 Split-half reliability
3.2 Kuder-Richardson reliability (KR 0)
3.3 Coefficient alpha reliability
4. Inter-scorer reliability
Test-retest Reliability (Temporal Stability Reliability):
1. Obtain a representative sample of the target population.
2. Administer the test on this sample.
3. After some time interval re-administer the same test on the sample.
4. Compute product moment correlation between the test and retest scores to obtain the test-retest reliability coefficient.
What should be the time interval between the two administrations?
Generally, as the time interval between administrations of the test increases the correlation between the scores obtained on each testing decreases.
Length of time interval between the two testing sessions?
The interval should be less than six months.
Report time interval along with test-retest reliability.
Limitations:
Sometimes if the interval is very short, practice, memory, fatigue and motivation may influence the reliability coefficient.
There are possible intervening factors between administrations that can influence the reliability coefficient even if the interval is ideal.
They should be taken into consideration. For example tutorials, counseling or emotional trauma.
Suitability of test-retest method:
This method, which is for estimating the temporal stability reliability, is appropriate for tests that purport to measure a characteristics that are relatively stable over time. E.g., personality test or tests of reaction time or perceptual judgments.
Parallel-forms or Alternate-forms reliability
(Equivalence reliability):
Administer form A on a representative sample
of the target population.
After some interval administer form B on the
same sample.
Compute product moment correlation between
the two sets of scores to obtain the parallel-
forms or alternate-forms reliability.
The objective is to evaluate the degree of relationship between forms of the same test.
The coefficient of reliability obtained is termed as the coefficient of equivalence.
Limitations:
Like in test-retest reliability, test scores are affected by motivation, fatigue and intervening events like practice, learning and therapy, though not as much as in test-retest method.
Suitability of parallel-form or alternate-form method.
It is used for tests that have parallel-forms or alternate-forms and is appropriate for tests that purport to measure relatively stable characteristics.
Internal Consistency Reliability
3.1 Split-half reliability estimate
3.2 Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability estimate
3.3 Coefficient Alpha reliability estimate
Split-half Reliability Estimate
1.Administer the test on a representative sample of the target population.
2. Divide the test administered once into equivalent halves randomly, by odd and even method or according to content and difficulty.
3. Compute the product moment correlation between the two pairs of scores obtained
Adjust the half-test reliability using the modified Spearman-Brown formula which is:
Estimates of reliability of the entire test is higher than the reliability estimate of half a test.
Suitability of split-half method:
It is appropriate for homogeneous tests that are unifactorial and inappropriate for heterogeneous tests, which are multifactorial or speed tests.
Kuder-Richardson formula 20
This method does not require the test to be split.
In this method the following formula of Kuder-Richardson is used
Items p q p q
__________________________________
1. .9 .1 .09
2. .85 .15 .1275
3. --- --- ---
4. --- --- ---
Nth. --- --- ---
___________________________________
Σp q
Participants Total Scores
_________________________
1. 20
2. 22
3. 18
4. --
5. --
nth 19
_______________________
=
Suitability of KR-20 statistic:
It is suitable for tests with dichotomous items i.e. items that can be scored right or wrong like MCQ’s
Coefficient Alpha
The Coefficient alpha or Cronbach alpha method:
Items
________________________________
Participants 1 2 3 4 nth. Total
_____________________________________________
1. 4 3 2 5 1 15
2. 3 2 1 3 2 11
3. 2 4 3 2 4 15
nth. 1 3 4 4 2 14
_____________________________________________
= =
Coefficient alpha equals the mean of all possible split-half correlations corrected by Spearman-Brown formula.
Suitability of coefficient alpha:
It is suitable for tests with non-dichotomous items, e.g., Likert type scales.
Inter-scorer Reliability
It is the degree of agreement or consistency between two or more scorers, judges or raters
Factors Affecting Reliability Coefficients
1. Range of scores
2. Length of test
3. Probability of guessing (nilai P<0.05 mean 95%…nilai P<0.01 mean 99%…
C = (R – W) ÷ (N-1)
C = the corrected score;
R = number of correct responses;
W = number of incorrect responses;
N = number of alternatives available.
Kline (1993,2000) proposed to have five responses
instead of four for multiple-choice items and make sure
the four incorrect responses are “equally attractive.”
Reliability=alpha=coefficient correlation…
Reliability=coefficient correlation= alpha= biasa nak 0.75 hinggga 0.9 highly reliable
Validity Definitions
• The validity of a test is a judgment or estimate of how well a test measures what it purports to measure in a particular context (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
The validity of a test concerns what the test measures and how well it does so (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It tells us what can be inferred from the test scores
Validity ada dua jenis:
1.convergent
2.discriminant
Cuba lihat scree plot adakah negative atau posotif
Jika positive mean ada hubungan antara variable yang cuba dihubungkan mean directly relationship
Jika negative mean investly relationship
Nilai validity kita rujuk kepada nilai standard error…jika SE tinggi mean tidak valid…low validity
Content validity describes a judgment of how adequately a test samples behaviour representative of the universe of behaviour that the test was designed to sample. (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005).
Standard Error of Measurement
Let’s assume that the SD for a test is 10 and its reliability coefficient is .90. We use these numbers to derive the standard error of measurement:
= 3.0
We use this number to calculate a confidence interval.
The standard error of measurement is a type of standard deviation that indicates the amount of variability due to measurement error.
An examinees true score, at the 68% confidence interval, would fall between + or –1SEms of his/her obtained score; at the 95% level, the true score would fall between +or-2SEms; and finally at the 99% level, the true score would fall between + or -3SEms
The standard error of measurement is used to construct a confidence interval, or range within which an examinee’s true score is likely to fall.
Example:
Examinee’s obtained score is 90.
90 ± 1(3.0) = 87 – 93
90 ± 2(3.0) = 84 – 96
90 ± 3(3.0) = 81 – 99
Increasing or decreasing the reliability and the standard deviation affects the standard error of measurement
Jika nilai alpha tinggi then SD rendah SE measurement juga rendah
Standard Error of Estimate
Assuming SD = 10 and criterion-related validity = .36
Jika SE rendah mean high validity
Jika SD tinggi biasanya SE jua tinggi…
P<0.05.... mean 95% ada significant relationship...mean highly reliability relationship between the variable
P<0.01...mean 99% ada significant relationship...mean highly significant relationship between the variables
Jika dua categories (biasanya variable…kita pakai T test…atau Chi Square
Jika tiga (>2…categories / variable yang kita measure…maka kita pakai ANOVA untuk analisa
Kita harus buat hipothesis (andaian kajian kita berdasarkan fakta researcher yang lalu…
15 tahun lalu kita pakai hypothesis null dan hypothesis alternative
Kini kita pakai
HI:
H2:
H3:
contoh
Factors affecting Reliability coefficients
1. Range of scores…directly relationship between range of scorea and reliability
2. Length of test…directly relationship between length of test and reliability
3. Probability of guessing…investly…if probability low , the reliability is high
Biasa kita pakai P<0.01 and P<0.05
Long test is reliable than shorter test
r stand for correlation coefficient
P stand for probability
If P low…than r is high…investly related
If r low maka SE of measurement is high…invest relationship
If r is high…maka SE is low
SE stand for standard error
If SD high…maka SE also high…directly related with SE
SD and SE have directly relationship
Coefficient alpha is the mean of all possible split half correlitions correlated by Spearman-brown formula
R=correlation coefficient=reliability purpose=correlation between two or more variables
Administrating item analysis …to modified the r
Correlation coefficient=r=reliability
R=0.9=highly reliability
UIAM biasa pakai 0.64
Prof di sini biasa pakai 0.75 untuk nilai r bagi kajian sains social…
Bagi kajian sains…baiknya nialai r ialah 0.85
Validity is a test of truth or accuracy
Biasa kita pakai likert scale sebab senang ada paparkan nilai r for reliability of the test item…
Nilai r cronbach
Likert scale
Seperti
5_ strongly agree
4_agree
3_neutral
2_disagree
1_strongly disagree
Factors affecting Reliability coefficients
1. Range of scores…directly relationship between range of score and reliability
2. Length of test…directly relationship between length of test and reliability
3. Probability of guessing…investly…if probability low , the reliability is high
Biasa kita pakai P<0.01 and P<0.05
Long test is reliable than shorter test
r stand for correlation coefficient
P stand for probability
If P low…than r is high…investly related
If r low maka SE of measurement is high…invest relationship
If r is high…maka SE is low
SE stand for standard error
If SD high…maka SE also high…directly related with SE
SD and SE have directly relationship
Coefficient alpha is the mean of all possible split half correlitions correlated by Spearman-brown formula
R=correlation coefficient=reliability purpose=correlation between two or more variables
Administrating item analysis …to modified the r
Correlation coefficient=r=reliability
R=0.9=highly reliability
UIAM biasa pakai 0.64
Prof di sini biasa pakai 0.75 untuk nilai r bagi kajian sains social…
Bagi kajian sains…baiknya nialai r ialah 0.85
Validity is a test of truth or accuracy
Biasa kita pakai likert scale sebab senang ada paparkan nilai r for reliability of the test item…
Nilai r cronbach
Likert scale
Seperti
5_ strongly agree
4_agree
3_neutral
2_disagree
1_strongly disagree
UNIVERSITI ISLAM ANTARABANGSA MALAYSIA
ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT AND CHANGE
DR HARIYATI SHAHRIMA ABDUL MAJID
NAZRIN
MOHD SAIFUDDIN MAT YUNUS
ZULHIJJAH 1430 HIJRIYAH
Performance appraisal rating, supervisor-subordinate relationship and their implication on employee job satisfaction attitude.
Performance appraisals are used widely in many organizations for administrative decisions, such as for promotions, pay raises, and termination of contracts, and also for developmental purposes. Whatever the use of the performance appraisal, the effectiveness of the appraisal system boils down with employee satisfaction of the system particularly during the performance feedback session in which employee were informed of their achievement by their immediate supervisor.
Keeping and Levy (2000) conceptualised appraisal satisfaction in three ways: (a) satisfaction with the appraisal interview or session, (b) satisfaction with the appraisal system, and (c) satisfaction with performance ratings. Probably the single most important information that employees have about the performance appraisal system is the actual ratings they receive, because these signify recognition, status, and future prospects within the organization. Moreover, when ratings fall short of ratees’ expectations; unfavorable attitudes often develop (Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002). Performance appraisal feedback involved interaction between supervisor and their subordinate and from the study by Whiting, Kline and Sulsky (2007), satisfaction with performance appraisal is dependent on supervisor-subordinate relationship in which trust and supportiveness of a supervisor predict the level of employee satisfaction.
In this paper we investigated the effect of performance rating, affective state and supervisor subordinate relationships on employee’s job satisfaction attitude. Particularly we were interested to know;
How these variables are related to each other?
And what types of relationships that exist between them?
The study adopted the Affective Event Theory (AET) model developed by Weiss and Cropanzano with level of performance rating, individual affective state and supervisor-subordinate relationship as input variables and job satisfaction attitudes at the outcome.
Work attitudes and the consequences of appraisal feedback satisfaction.
Attitude according to the definition is a learned predisposition to respond positively or negatively to a specific object, situation, institution or a person and comprises of three components namely affective, behavioral and cognitive (Hariyati Sharima A Majid, 2009). “In the context of work psychology, many job-related attitudes have been studied by psychologist, but the two most commonly studied are job satisfaction and organizational commitment” (Aamodt, 2007, p. 335). The attribution of organizational commitment as an attitude has been widely acknowledge by many researches such that Meyer (as cited in Doyle, 2003) summarised organizational commitment comprises of three distinct components; desire to maintain membership (affect), belief in and acceptance of the values and goals of an organization (cognition), and willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization (behavior). On the other hand, job satisfaction has always been conceptually defined only as an affect (Brief, 1998). Building from the working definition of Locke in which job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences, Brief defined job satisfaction as an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor or disfavor. This definition in the essence captures the affective and cognitive components of an attitude but not the behavioral component, to this Brief explained that the exclusion of behavior responses was because they often are considered consequences of job satisfaction. In another perspective in defining job satisfaction as an attitude, Weiss (2002) asserted that the fundamental property on an attitude is the evaluation process. In operationalising attitude, basic attitude measures ask respondents to place the attitude object along a scale of evaluation and in the case of job satisfaction, although normally measurement is phrased in ways that make them seem like they are tapping affective states but make no mistake, evaluation is the essential construct being measured.
There are many factors that have been describe as the antecedents of organizational commitment and job satisfaction, Brief (1998) for example in his discussion on antecedents for job satisfaction argued that personalities and objective circumstances of one’s jobs influence their job satisfaction level. Brief added that the objective circumstances of job are the facets of the job that exist external to the mind of the job occupant whose job satisfaction is of interest. These facets might include for example pay level, hours worked and status attached to the job. Organizational commitment on the other hand also shares similar antecedents as job satisfaction. Van Dyne and Graham (as cited in Coetzee, 2005) described that various personal, situational and positional factors can affect one’s organizational commitment.
Bearing on the discussion by Brief (1998) and Van Dyne (as cited in Coetzee, 2005) we focus our study on appraisal feedback satisfaction as job facet or situational factor that will have an implication towards one work attitude outcomes. The study of appraisal feedback satisfaction and work attitudes has long been investigated by many researches. Satisfaction with appraisal feedback however can be attributed through many feedback related factors, according to Jawahar (2006b) they are four significant factors which have been commonly established by many researchers independently, these are satisfaction with performance appraisal rating, satisfaction with appraiser, satisfaction with appraisal system and participation during the performance appraisal feedback session. Using the hierarchical regression to test these four factors in one study, Jawahar established that there are a significant relationship between employees’ appraisal satisfaction with performance rating (ΔR2 = .167, β = .43, t = 3.583, ρ< .001), satisfaction with rater (ΔR2 = .144, F = 14.212, β = .42, t = 3.77, ρ< .001) and performance appraisal system (ΔR2 = .07, F = 5.962, β= .27, t = 2.45, ρ< .05), whilst employee participation during performance feedback session was only partially supported. Testing for unique variance of each predictor on appraisal satisfaction, Jawahar established that only satisfaction with rater (sR2 = .16, β = .473, t = 4.028, ρ< .001) and performance rating (sR2 = .06, β = .29, t = 2.472, ρ< .05) explained unique variance in satisfaction with appraisal feedback. The study of Jawahar had also indicated that gender, age, tenure and department do not explain any variance in satisfaction with appraisal feedback.
Focusing on the effect of performance rating on work attitude, a longitudinal study by Pearce and Porter (1986) on the effect of performance rating on organizational commitment, indicated that those who received relatively low performance rating register a significant dropped in organization commitment and remain significantly low a year later while the commitment of those who received high rating remain stable over the study period. Extending Pearce and Porter finding with the inclusion of individual dispositional factor over a study period of six months, Lam, Yik, and Schaubroeck, (2002) found that the immediate reaction of employees either with high or low negative affectivity trait revealed a similar results in which upon receiving a positive appraisal rating, the employee’s organizational commitment and job satisfaction at time 2 were significantly higher than their respective level at time 1 despite the return to normal on work attitudes for those with high negative affectivity at time 3 whilst the work attitudes of those with low negative affectivity trait remain relatively stable. However contrary to the significant finding of Perce and Porter on negative performance rating and organizational commitment, Lam et al., result do not revealed a significant relationship between negative performance rating, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
In a cross sectional study by Jawahar (2006a) on the consequences of feedback satisfaction toward organizational commitment and job satisfaction, conducted on 256 employees from a software development company in the US West Coast, results also indicated that satisfaction with appraisal feedback significantly correlate with employee job satisfaction (r = .32, p <.001) and organizational commitment (r = .18, p <.01) four weeks after the company conducted their performance evaluation exercise. In this study Jawahar had also established the usefulness of feedback satisfaction with work attitudes such that satisfaction with appraisal feedback explain and additional 5% variance in organizational commitment (ΔR2 = .05, F = 12.34, p <.001) and an additional 38% of the variance in job satisfaction (ΔR2 = .38, F = 156.28, p<.001) thus providing evidence of discriminant validity on the important of appraisal feedback satisfaction.
Appraisal feedback, affective state and work attitude
While satisfaction with appraisal feedback was shown to be linked with subsequent employees’ work attitudes; there is also an indication that one’s affective state plays an intermediary role in shaping his/her work attitudes. Jawahar (2006a), while building up the hypothesis on appraisal feedback satisfaction and the corresponding job satisfaction, Jawahar cited that satisfaction with appraisal feedback is likely to enhance employees' feelings of self-worth and their feelings of positive standing within the organization. Consequently, employees' overall attitude toward their work and job situation should improve resulting in higher levels of job satisfaction. This statement correspond to affectivity (or emotion) of a person as a result of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the performance appraisal feedback that subsequently shape his/her work attitudes. According to Judge, Scott and Ilies (2006) through the affective event theory (AET), work environment in general and work events in particular lead to affective reactions (e.g., anger, joy) experienced at work, which then lead to work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction). According to Ilies, De Pater, & Judge, (2007) appraisal feedback can be considered as an affective event that influences individuals’ behaviors through its influences on their emotions. These assertions of Judge et al. and Ilies et al. are substantiated in the following research empirical results.
Keeping and Levy (2000) defined affectivity to have positive and negative dimensions. Positive affectivity can be described through 6 adjectives namely happy, optimistic, good, confident, proud, and pleased with myself while negative affectivity as agitated, angry, annoyed, bothered, disgusted, and irritated. In the research conducted on over 208 respondents in a large international organization, it was found that satisfaction with appraisal feedback correlate significantly with positive affect (r = .29, p <.01) and negative affect (r = - .27, p <.01). Ilies et al., (2007), finding also supported that of Keeping and Levy, using regression analysis the pooled slope for predicting positive affect with feedback was positive and significant (λ10 = .07, p <.01) and the pooled slope for predicting negative affect was negative and also significant (λ10 = - .04, p <.01) allowing Ilies et al., to conclude that a positive feedback increases the positive affect and at the same time decreases the negative affect. While the above two studies linked appraisal feedback to affective state, we have not managed to obtain a specific empirical paper that provide a complete linkage between appraisal feedback, affective state and work attitudes. However in the study conducted by Mignonac and Herrbach (2004) pooling together a number of affective events that include receiving negative performance evaluation; their findings indicated that the negative affective states is significantly linked with job satisfaction and organizational commitment attitudes.
The premise of AET is that affect mediates the effect of organizational variables on attitudinal and behaviour outcomes (as cited in Mignonac and Herrbach, 2004). Testing for this mediating role, a partial support to AET assertion was found such that only the effect of negative events on job satisfaction and affective commitment was no longer significant when the affective state was controlled.
Supervisor-subordinate relationship
Reference to earlier discussion on satisfaction with appraisal feedback, Jawahar (2006b) had indicated that satisfaction with supervisor as one of the main factor influencing employee feedback satisfaction with higher statistical result as compared to performance rating. In fact in a review by Fletcher (n.d.) on factors determining the effect of feedback, he quoted “Whatever happens in an appraisal has to be seen against the background of the existing relationship between the manager and the subordinate. One sometimes hears the opinion expressed on appraisal training courses that ‘if we had good managers, we would not need appraisal’”.
One of the popular theories describing the supervisor-subordinate relationship is the Leader Member Exchange Theory or simply knows as LMX. Burton, Sablynski and Sekiguchi (2008) cited that the theory of LMX appeared about 30 years ago described as a dyadic relationships and work roles are developed and negotiated over time through a series of exchanges between leader and member. Bhal, Gulati and Ansari (2008) cited that different subordinates will have a different kind of work relationship with his/her supervisor and that high LMX members enjoy high exchange quality relationships as characterized by liking, loyalty, professional respect, and contributory behaviors. This quality of work relationship between the supervisor and subordinate in turn influence a variety of individual and organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, goal commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, career satisfaction and salary progression and turnover (as cited in Burton et al., 2008).
Studies of work event or work situation that include supervisor-subordinate relationship in the equation mainly revealed a mediating or a moderating role of LMX in determining the effect on work outcomes. Burton et al. (2008) study for example, revealed the mediating role of LMX on interactional justice and the outcome on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior and the moderating role of LMX on procedural and distributive justice and the outcome on organizational citizenship behavior. It is interesting to note that justice in general which refers to an individual’s perception or evaluation of the appropriateness of some process or outcome (as cited in Burton et al., 2008) are affected in a different manner by LMX. Burton et al. explained that interactional justice which is within one’s spherical of control, involved social exchange between the supervisor and subordinate and therefore LMX play a mediating role in determining subordinate work outcomes. Procedural and distributive justice on the other hand are more structural in nature involving the relationship between employees and their organization and therefore LMX play the moderating role in determining work outcomes. In the context of satisfaction with appraisal rating, affective state and the implication on work outcomes such as one’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment outcomes, therefore it can be argued that supervisor-subordinate relationship shall have a mediating role in governing the relationships as the appraisal feedback is within the direct control of one’s supervisor.
This study
In the context of our study we will only be focusing on job satisfaction attitude and its relationship with appraisal rating satisfaction, affective state and supervisor-subordinate relationship in the interest of simplicity as well as to control the number of variables therefore the number of questionnaires that our respondent will be subjected into. It is worth to note that, if organizational commitment is to be included, three distinct dimensions of commitment namely the affective, normative and continuance commitments need to be tested therefore increasing the number of variables.
The study adopted a cross sectional approach in the interest of timing as it has been shown to produce result based on the findings of Jawahar (2006b). However in term of timing between the last appraisal feedback and this study, the period of lapses was between 4-6 months as compared to Jawahar, which is 4 weeks after the respondents’ last performance appraisal feedback. The Affective Event Theory (AET) was adopted as the framework in linking our variables of interest. In the AET framework developed by Weiss and Cropanzano (as cited in Mignonac and Herrbach, 2004), the work environment features influence positive or negative affective events that shape individual affective state that may in turn lead to proximal affect-driven behaviours and contribute to the formation of work attitudes, the later also being influenced by a stable work environment features. Finally work attitudes influence judgement-driven behavior. Figure 1 illustrated the complete AET framework.
Figure 1: Affective Event Theory Framework
In the context of our study, based on the literature as presented in the earlier section of this paper, we modified the AET framework as depicted in Figure 2 therefore answering our first research question on ‘how these variables are related to each other’. Through the studies that have been conducted, satisfaction with appraisal feedback is related to employee job satisfaction attitudes, however the introduction of affective states and supervisor-subordinate relationship variables have been shown or partly shown to play a mediating role in explaining the relationship between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude. Therefore in our model we captured the supervisor-subordinate relationship and affective state as an intermediary between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude therefore potentially answering our second research question on ‘what types of relationships that exist between them’.
Figure 2: Satisfaction with appraisal rating, affective state, supervisor-subordinate relationship and job satisfaction
From this relationship we hypothesises that;
H1: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual job satisfaction attitude.
H2a: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual affective state (PA, NA) and with the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationship.
H2b: Satisfaction with appraisal rating increases positive affectivity while decreasing negative affectivity and dissatisfaction with appraisal rating create the opposite on one affective state.
H3: Affective (PA, NA) state and Supervisor-subordinate relationship mediate the relationship between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude
2. Method
Participants
Participants for the study were selected from two organizations involving 65 potential respondents from two organisations in the Klang Valley, Kuala Lumpur and Kuantan, Pahang.
Measurement
Four measurement instruments were adopted in this study, all of the instruments include an option for a neutral kind of response and therefore for this study, all scales have been reduced by one option to avoid unnecessary undecided response from the participants.
Satisfaction with performance appraisal rating
The scale was a combination of three (3) Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) Procedural Justice in Performance Appraisal and Sweeney and two (2) McFarlin (1997) Distributive and Procedural Justice instruments measuring items that relate to satisfaction with appraisal rating. For the purpose of this study the respond scale consists of 4-point Likert scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. Total scores larger than 10 shall indicate employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal rating. Examples of items from this scale are “The supervisor rated you on how well you did your job, not on his/her personal opinion of you” and “My performance rating presents a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance”
Job Satisfaction
The scale was adopted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951) 18-items Overall Job Satisfaction. For the purpose of this study the respond scale consists of 4-point Likert scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. Item 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18 are reverse score items and therefore shall be recoded before statistical analysis. Total scores of larger than 36 shall indicate employee does have job satisfaction. Coefficient alpha ranges from .88 to .91. Examples of items from this scale are “My job is like a hobby to me”, “I am often bored with my job” and “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work”.
Job Affect
The scale was adopted from the 20-items Job Scale Affect as cited in Brief (1998) of 10 positive affect items and 10 negative affect items. The scale consists of 7-point Likert scale of 1 = Extremely Slightly to 7 = Extremely Strongly. For the purpose of this study, 4-items of the scale have been dropped off from the questionnaire after discussion with research supervisor as it was not deem appropriate in our study context. The dropped items are “Peppy”, “At rest”, “Elated” and “Placid” however as the scale has an equal number positive and negative affective items another three negative and one positive item was also dropped to balance off the scale. Items 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are the negative affect items which will be recoded for the purpose of statistical analysis. Total scores of larger than 48 shall indicate employee positive affectivity towards performance appraisal feedback
Supervisor-subordinate relationship
The scale was adopted from Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987) 18 items Satisfaction with supervisor. For the purpose of this study the respond scale consists of 4-point Likert scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. Total scores of larger than 36 shall indicate subordinate satisfaction with his/her supervisor. Coefficient alpha ranges from .95 to .96. Examples of items from this scale are “The way my supervisor is consistent in his/her behaviour toward subordinates”, “The way my supervisor informs me about work changes ahead of time” and “The way my supervisor shows concern for my career progress”.
Procedures
Questionnaire used both English and Malay as a medium of communication as respondents are coming from various educational backgrounds. Translation of the four scales from English to Malay was conducted through internet translator and is cross check with a medical doctor and the research supervisor to determine appropriateness of the translation.
Respondents were presented with a booklet of questionnaire that contains the scales for the four variables. In the case of appraisal feedback satisfaction and affective states, instructions were given for them to answer by remembering the event that had occurred during the last appraisal feedback session. In the case of supervisor-subordinate relationship they have to answer by referring to the most recent supervisor with at least six months of working experience and finally for job satisfaction, the instruction was for them reflect their current experience at work.
Statistical procedures used to analyse the survey feedback are;
Descriptive statistic and one sample t-test to determine scores for variables and its significant against the test value,
correlation analysis to determine the general relationship between variables,
paired sample t-test to verify the significant differences between the increasing positive and decreasing negative affectivity or vice versa and
regression analysis to determine the mediating role of affective state and supervisor-subordinate relationship; 1) appraisal feedback satisfaction must affect the mediators, 2) the mediators must affect job satisfaction attitude, 3) appraisal feedback satisfaction must affect job satisfaction and 4) the effect of appraisal feedback satisfaction on job satisfaction reduces to zero when the mediators are control (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
3. Results
Demographics
A total of 54 participants return the questionnaire of which 2 have to be discarded as they did not provided the answer to two (2) or more items in the questionnaire. 28 (53.8%) of the participants are female, 23 (44.2%) are male and 1 (1.9%) did not classify his/her gender. 24 (46.2%) of the participants are with a degree qualification, 11 (21.2%) with SPM, 13 (25.0%) with STPM/Diploma and 3 (5.8%) with a Master Degree while the remaining 2 did not classify their qualification.
Descriptive Statistic
The mean score for performance rating was 14.77 (SD = 2.88). The value of t (51) = 12.00 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants performance rating total score against the test value of above 10.00 which signify respondents satisfaction with performance appraisal rating. The mean score for job satisfaction was 51.06 (SD = 7.33). The value of t (51) = 14.82 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants job satisfaction total score against the test value of above 36.00 which signify respondents job satisfaction. The mean score for affective state was 59.08 (SD = 10.73). The value of t (51) = 7.48 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants affective state total score against the test value of above 48.00 which signify positive affectivity. The mean score for supervisor-subordinate relationship was 48.00 (SD = 10.06). The value of t (51) = 8.60 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants total score against the test value of above 36.00 which signify respondents satisfaction with his/her supervisor. Table 1 describes the descriptive result for the four variables.
Table 1: Descriptive statistic for the four variables (n=52)
Variable Mean Std Deviation Test Value t Ρ
Performance Rating
14.77 2.88 >10 12.00 .01
Job Satisfaction
51.06 7.33 >36 14.82 .01
Affective State
59.08 10.73 48 7.48 .01
Supervisor-Subordinate
48.00 10.06 >36 8.60 .01
Correlation
Correlational analyses between the four variables are illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2: Correlation between the variables (n=52)
Variable 1 2 3 4
Performance rating
-
Job satisfaction
.03 -
Affective state
.36** .33** -
Supervisor-Subordinate
.60** -.01 .30* -
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Paired sample t-test
Paired sample t-test between the positive and negative affectivity is illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Paired sample t-test for positive-negative affectivity (n=52)
Item Mean Std. Deviation t Ρ
Positive-negative affectivity
11.83 10.71 7.66 .01
Regression
Regression analysis to test for mediation is illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Regression analysis to determine mediator effect on Job Satisfaction (n=52)
Independent Variable Affect Supervisor-subordinate Job satisfaction
Performance rating
.36** .59** .03
Affect state
- - .33*
Supervisor-subordinate
- - -.01
** Significant at the 0.01 level
* Significant at the 0.05 level
Coefficients are standardized betas
Hypotheses testing
H1: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual job satisfaction attitude.
Correlational analysis between satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback and job satisfaction yielded insignificant relationship between these two variables, therefore hypothesis 1 is not supported by this study
H2a: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual affective state (PA, NA) and with the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationship.
Correlational analysis between satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback and individual affect yielded significant relationship between these two variables (r = .36, ρ = .01). Correlational analysis between satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback and satisfaction with supervisor-subordinate relationship yielded significant relationship between these two variables (r = .60, ρ = .01). Therefore hypothesis 2a is supported by this study
H2b: Satisfaction with appraisal rating increases positive affectivity while decreasing negative affectivity and dissatisfaction with appraisal rating create the opposite on one affective state.
Paired sample t-test between positive and negative affectivity yielded significant differences between these two variables t (47) = 7.66 (ρ =.01), therefore hypothesis 2b is supported by this study
H3: Affective (PA, NA) state and Supervisor-subordinate relationship mediate the relationship between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude
Regression analysis was able to predict a significant relationship between appraisal feedback satisfaction with the two mediators, however only one mediator, the affective state predicts a significant relationship with job satisfaction and finally the appraisal feedback satisfaction itself does not predict a significant relation with the job satisfaction attitude. Reference to the steps listed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test for mediation, the finding from this study does not support the mediator role of supervisor-subordinate relationship and affective state as suggested by other researchers in explaining the relationship between appraisal feedback satisfaction and job satisfaction. Therefore Hypothesis 3 is not supported by this study.
4. Discussions
In this paper we have established the relationship between the appraisal feedback satisfactions, affective state, supervisor-subordinate relationship and job satisfaction as illustrated in Figure 2 in the ‘This study’ section therefore answering our first research question on ‘How these variables are related to each other?’. In general the respondents indicated that they are experiencing satisfaction with their appraisal feedback through performance rating received, positive affective state, satisfaction in their supervisor-subordinate relationship and job satisfaction. Most of these variables are significantly correlated between each other through correlation analysis except for the relationship between performance rating with job satisfaction and supervisor-subordinate relationship with job satisfaction.
Despite indication from other researchers that performance rating and supervisor-subordinate relationship are correlated with job satisfaction, our findings have not managed to obtain a similar results. These discrepancies could be attributed, first to our survey method such that it was conducted at a longer time lapses after the respondents’ last experience with appraisal feedback. We suggest that with this longer time period and that satisfaction with appraisal feedback correlation with job satisfaction is relatively not that strong, r = .32 (Jawahar, 2006a), other factors could have play an important roles that contribute towards one’s job satisfaction. Secondly since our numbers of respondents are quite small as compared to the number of items posted in the questionnaire, it might also have an impact to our study results. On the satisfaction with supervisor-subordinate relationship, the quality of relationship according to LMX should influence one’s job satisfaction (as cited in Burton et al., 2008). The discrepancies in our result could be attributed to one’s internal affectivity playing a more important role in determining job satisfaction as compared to the relationship with their supervisor. While supervisor-subordinate relationship plays an important role in determining satisfaction with appraisal feedback compared to affectivity, job satisfaction on the other hand is affected by other factors encounter in the job than the relationship alone similar to the effect of performance rating on job satisfaction. This is on line with Brief (1998) suggestions that facets associated with the job play an important role in determining the job satisfaction. However in the case of affectivity, it is something internal to a person that finally contributes in shaping one’s job satisfaction. Furthermore we also acknowledge the size of our respondents’ impact on the final result of our study. Since these two relationships (i.e. appraisal feedback satisfaction – job satisfaction and supervisor-subordinate relationship – job satisfaction) are not in line with the hypotheses, therefore the mediating role of supervisor-subordinate relationship and affective state could not be tested since the four steps as listed by Baron and Kenny (1986) have not been fulfilled.
Returning to our second research question on ‘What types of relationships that exist between them?’ in theory we have established the relationship however as our results have indicated otherwise as described in the previous paragraph, we have not managed to empirically answer this second question.
This paper is mainly limited in its methods, in the number of respondents in relation to items in our questionnaire and the timing, as the study was conducted after a lapse of about 4-6 months. Therefore in future research these considerations should be undertaken as in a cross sectional study, a lot of factors such as respondent state of mind, room temperature and understanding to instruction are not under the control of the researcher. A bigger number of respondents on the other hand would mean a better representation of a population and therefore could contribute to the final result accuracy. Appraisal feedback satisfaction is just one of the many facets one’ encounter in his/her job and a longer lapses of time between the actual appraisal feedback session and the study would mean many other factors would have taken its place in shaping individual job satisfaction.
References.
Aamodt, M. G. (2007). Industrial/organizational psychology: an applied approach (5th ed.). United States of America: Thomson & Wadsworth
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182
Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N., and Ansari, M. A., (2008). Leader member exchange and subordinate outcomes: test of mediation model. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 30(2), 106-125
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organization. London: Sage Publications
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., and Sekiguchi, T., (2008). Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via Leader–Member Exchange. Journal Business Psychology, 23, 51-61
Fletcher (n.d.). The effect of performance review in appraisal: evidence and implications. Journal of Management Development, 5(3), 3-12.
Ilies, R., De Pater, I. E., and Judge, T. (2007). Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 22(6), 590-609.
Jawahar, I. M. (2006a). An investigation of potential consequences of satisfaction with appraisal feedback. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 14-28.
Jawahar, I. M. (2006b). Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Labour Research, XXVII (2), 213-236.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., and Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126–138.
Keeping, L. M. and Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708-723.
Lam S. S. K., Yik M. S. M., and Schaubroeck J., (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: the role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 192–201
Mignonac and Herrbach, (2004). Linking work events, affective states and attitudes: an empirical study of managers’ emotions. Journal of Business Psychology, 19(2), 221-240.
Pearce, J. L. and Porter L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 211-218.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194.
Whiting, H. J., Kline T. J. B., Sulsky L. M., (2007). The performance appraisal congruency scale: an assessment of person-environment fit. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 223-236.
ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT AND CHANGE
DR HARIYATI SHAHRIMA ABDUL MAJID
NAZRIN
MOHD SAIFUDDIN MAT YUNUS
ZULHIJJAH 1430 HIJRIYAH
Performance appraisal rating, supervisor-subordinate relationship and their implication on employee job satisfaction attitude.
Performance appraisals are used widely in many organizations for administrative decisions, such as for promotions, pay raises, and termination of contracts, and also for developmental purposes. Whatever the use of the performance appraisal, the effectiveness of the appraisal system boils down with employee satisfaction of the system particularly during the performance feedback session in which employee were informed of their achievement by their immediate supervisor.
Keeping and Levy (2000) conceptualised appraisal satisfaction in three ways: (a) satisfaction with the appraisal interview or session, (b) satisfaction with the appraisal system, and (c) satisfaction with performance ratings. Probably the single most important information that employees have about the performance appraisal system is the actual ratings they receive, because these signify recognition, status, and future prospects within the organization. Moreover, when ratings fall short of ratees’ expectations; unfavorable attitudes often develop (Lam, Yik, & Schaubroeck, 2002). Performance appraisal feedback involved interaction between supervisor and their subordinate and from the study by Whiting, Kline and Sulsky (2007), satisfaction with performance appraisal is dependent on supervisor-subordinate relationship in which trust and supportiveness of a supervisor predict the level of employee satisfaction.
In this paper we investigated the effect of performance rating, affective state and supervisor subordinate relationships on employee’s job satisfaction attitude. Particularly we were interested to know;
How these variables are related to each other?
And what types of relationships that exist between them?
The study adopted the Affective Event Theory (AET) model developed by Weiss and Cropanzano with level of performance rating, individual affective state and supervisor-subordinate relationship as input variables and job satisfaction attitudes at the outcome.
Work attitudes and the consequences of appraisal feedback satisfaction.
Attitude according to the definition is a learned predisposition to respond positively or negatively to a specific object, situation, institution or a person and comprises of three components namely affective, behavioral and cognitive (Hariyati Sharima A Majid, 2009). “In the context of work psychology, many job-related attitudes have been studied by psychologist, but the two most commonly studied are job satisfaction and organizational commitment” (Aamodt, 2007, p. 335). The attribution of organizational commitment as an attitude has been widely acknowledge by many researches such that Meyer (as cited in Doyle, 2003) summarised organizational commitment comprises of three distinct components; desire to maintain membership (affect), belief in and acceptance of the values and goals of an organization (cognition), and willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization (behavior). On the other hand, job satisfaction has always been conceptually defined only as an affect (Brief, 1998). Building from the working definition of Locke in which job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences, Brief defined job satisfaction as an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor or disfavor. This definition in the essence captures the affective and cognitive components of an attitude but not the behavioral component, to this Brief explained that the exclusion of behavior responses was because they often are considered consequences of job satisfaction. In another perspective in defining job satisfaction as an attitude, Weiss (2002) asserted that the fundamental property on an attitude is the evaluation process. In operationalising attitude, basic attitude measures ask respondents to place the attitude object along a scale of evaluation and in the case of job satisfaction, although normally measurement is phrased in ways that make them seem like they are tapping affective states but make no mistake, evaluation is the essential construct being measured.
There are many factors that have been describe as the antecedents of organizational commitment and job satisfaction, Brief (1998) for example in his discussion on antecedents for job satisfaction argued that personalities and objective circumstances of one’s jobs influence their job satisfaction level. Brief added that the objective circumstances of job are the facets of the job that exist external to the mind of the job occupant whose job satisfaction is of interest. These facets might include for example pay level, hours worked and status attached to the job. Organizational commitment on the other hand also shares similar antecedents as job satisfaction. Van Dyne and Graham (as cited in Coetzee, 2005) described that various personal, situational and positional factors can affect one’s organizational commitment.
Bearing on the discussion by Brief (1998) and Van Dyne (as cited in Coetzee, 2005) we focus our study on appraisal feedback satisfaction as job facet or situational factor that will have an implication towards one work attitude outcomes. The study of appraisal feedback satisfaction and work attitudes has long been investigated by many researches. Satisfaction with appraisal feedback however can be attributed through many feedback related factors, according to Jawahar (2006b) they are four significant factors which have been commonly established by many researchers independently, these are satisfaction with performance appraisal rating, satisfaction with appraiser, satisfaction with appraisal system and participation during the performance appraisal feedback session. Using the hierarchical regression to test these four factors in one study, Jawahar established that there are a significant relationship between employees’ appraisal satisfaction with performance rating (ΔR2 = .167, β = .43, t = 3.583, ρ< .001), satisfaction with rater (ΔR2 = .144, F = 14.212, β = .42, t = 3.77, ρ< .001) and performance appraisal system (ΔR2 = .07, F = 5.962, β= .27, t = 2.45, ρ< .05), whilst employee participation during performance feedback session was only partially supported. Testing for unique variance of each predictor on appraisal satisfaction, Jawahar established that only satisfaction with rater (sR2 = .16, β = .473, t = 4.028, ρ< .001) and performance rating (sR2 = .06, β = .29, t = 2.472, ρ< .05) explained unique variance in satisfaction with appraisal feedback. The study of Jawahar had also indicated that gender, age, tenure and department do not explain any variance in satisfaction with appraisal feedback.
Focusing on the effect of performance rating on work attitude, a longitudinal study by Pearce and Porter (1986) on the effect of performance rating on organizational commitment, indicated that those who received relatively low performance rating register a significant dropped in organization commitment and remain significantly low a year later while the commitment of those who received high rating remain stable over the study period. Extending Pearce and Porter finding with the inclusion of individual dispositional factor over a study period of six months, Lam, Yik, and Schaubroeck, (2002) found that the immediate reaction of employees either with high or low negative affectivity trait revealed a similar results in which upon receiving a positive appraisal rating, the employee’s organizational commitment and job satisfaction at time 2 were significantly higher than their respective level at time 1 despite the return to normal on work attitudes for those with high negative affectivity at time 3 whilst the work attitudes of those with low negative affectivity trait remain relatively stable. However contrary to the significant finding of Perce and Porter on negative performance rating and organizational commitment, Lam et al., result do not revealed a significant relationship between negative performance rating, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
In a cross sectional study by Jawahar (2006a) on the consequences of feedback satisfaction toward organizational commitment and job satisfaction, conducted on 256 employees from a software development company in the US West Coast, results also indicated that satisfaction with appraisal feedback significantly correlate with employee job satisfaction (r = .32, p <.001) and organizational commitment (r = .18, p <.01) four weeks after the company conducted their performance evaluation exercise. In this study Jawahar had also established the usefulness of feedback satisfaction with work attitudes such that satisfaction with appraisal feedback explain and additional 5% variance in organizational commitment (ΔR2 = .05, F = 12.34, p <.001) and an additional 38% of the variance in job satisfaction (ΔR2 = .38, F = 156.28, p<.001) thus providing evidence of discriminant validity on the important of appraisal feedback satisfaction.
Appraisal feedback, affective state and work attitude
While satisfaction with appraisal feedback was shown to be linked with subsequent employees’ work attitudes; there is also an indication that one’s affective state plays an intermediary role in shaping his/her work attitudes. Jawahar (2006a), while building up the hypothesis on appraisal feedback satisfaction and the corresponding job satisfaction, Jawahar cited that satisfaction with appraisal feedback is likely to enhance employees' feelings of self-worth and their feelings of positive standing within the organization. Consequently, employees' overall attitude toward their work and job situation should improve resulting in higher levels of job satisfaction. This statement correspond to affectivity (or emotion) of a person as a result of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the performance appraisal feedback that subsequently shape his/her work attitudes. According to Judge, Scott and Ilies (2006) through the affective event theory (AET), work environment in general and work events in particular lead to affective reactions (e.g., anger, joy) experienced at work, which then lead to work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction). According to Ilies, De Pater, & Judge, (2007) appraisal feedback can be considered as an affective event that influences individuals’ behaviors through its influences on their emotions. These assertions of Judge et al. and Ilies et al. are substantiated in the following research empirical results.
Keeping and Levy (2000) defined affectivity to have positive and negative dimensions. Positive affectivity can be described through 6 adjectives namely happy, optimistic, good, confident, proud, and pleased with myself while negative affectivity as agitated, angry, annoyed, bothered, disgusted, and irritated. In the research conducted on over 208 respondents in a large international organization, it was found that satisfaction with appraisal feedback correlate significantly with positive affect (r = .29, p <.01) and negative affect (r = - .27, p <.01). Ilies et al., (2007), finding also supported that of Keeping and Levy, using regression analysis the pooled slope for predicting positive affect with feedback was positive and significant (λ10 = .07, p <.01) and the pooled slope for predicting negative affect was negative and also significant (λ10 = - .04, p <.01) allowing Ilies et al., to conclude that a positive feedback increases the positive affect and at the same time decreases the negative affect. While the above two studies linked appraisal feedback to affective state, we have not managed to obtain a specific empirical paper that provide a complete linkage between appraisal feedback, affective state and work attitudes. However in the study conducted by Mignonac and Herrbach (2004) pooling together a number of affective events that include receiving negative performance evaluation; their findings indicated that the negative affective states is significantly linked with job satisfaction and organizational commitment attitudes.
The premise of AET is that affect mediates the effect of organizational variables on attitudinal and behaviour outcomes (as cited in Mignonac and Herrbach, 2004). Testing for this mediating role, a partial support to AET assertion was found such that only the effect of negative events on job satisfaction and affective commitment was no longer significant when the affective state was controlled.
Supervisor-subordinate relationship
Reference to earlier discussion on satisfaction with appraisal feedback, Jawahar (2006b) had indicated that satisfaction with supervisor as one of the main factor influencing employee feedback satisfaction with higher statistical result as compared to performance rating. In fact in a review by Fletcher (n.d.) on factors determining the effect of feedback, he quoted “Whatever happens in an appraisal has to be seen against the background of the existing relationship between the manager and the subordinate. One sometimes hears the opinion expressed on appraisal training courses that ‘if we had good managers, we would not need appraisal’”.
One of the popular theories describing the supervisor-subordinate relationship is the Leader Member Exchange Theory or simply knows as LMX. Burton, Sablynski and Sekiguchi (2008) cited that the theory of LMX appeared about 30 years ago described as a dyadic relationships and work roles are developed and negotiated over time through a series of exchanges between leader and member. Bhal, Gulati and Ansari (2008) cited that different subordinates will have a different kind of work relationship with his/her supervisor and that high LMX members enjoy high exchange quality relationships as characterized by liking, loyalty, professional respect, and contributory behaviors. This quality of work relationship between the supervisor and subordinate in turn influence a variety of individual and organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, goal commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, career satisfaction and salary progression and turnover (as cited in Burton et al., 2008).
Studies of work event or work situation that include supervisor-subordinate relationship in the equation mainly revealed a mediating or a moderating role of LMX in determining the effect on work outcomes. Burton et al. (2008) study for example, revealed the mediating role of LMX on interactional justice and the outcome on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior and the moderating role of LMX on procedural and distributive justice and the outcome on organizational citizenship behavior. It is interesting to note that justice in general which refers to an individual’s perception or evaluation of the appropriateness of some process or outcome (as cited in Burton et al., 2008) are affected in a different manner by LMX. Burton et al. explained that interactional justice which is within one’s spherical of control, involved social exchange between the supervisor and subordinate and therefore LMX play a mediating role in determining subordinate work outcomes. Procedural and distributive justice on the other hand are more structural in nature involving the relationship between employees and their organization and therefore LMX play the moderating role in determining work outcomes. In the context of satisfaction with appraisal rating, affective state and the implication on work outcomes such as one’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment outcomes, therefore it can be argued that supervisor-subordinate relationship shall have a mediating role in governing the relationships as the appraisal feedback is within the direct control of one’s supervisor.
This study
In the context of our study we will only be focusing on job satisfaction attitude and its relationship with appraisal rating satisfaction, affective state and supervisor-subordinate relationship in the interest of simplicity as well as to control the number of variables therefore the number of questionnaires that our respondent will be subjected into. It is worth to note that, if organizational commitment is to be included, three distinct dimensions of commitment namely the affective, normative and continuance commitments need to be tested therefore increasing the number of variables.
The study adopted a cross sectional approach in the interest of timing as it has been shown to produce result based on the findings of Jawahar (2006b). However in term of timing between the last appraisal feedback and this study, the period of lapses was between 4-6 months as compared to Jawahar, which is 4 weeks after the respondents’ last performance appraisal feedback. The Affective Event Theory (AET) was adopted as the framework in linking our variables of interest. In the AET framework developed by Weiss and Cropanzano (as cited in Mignonac and Herrbach, 2004), the work environment features influence positive or negative affective events that shape individual affective state that may in turn lead to proximal affect-driven behaviours and contribute to the formation of work attitudes, the later also being influenced by a stable work environment features. Finally work attitudes influence judgement-driven behavior. Figure 1 illustrated the complete AET framework.
Figure 1: Affective Event Theory Framework
In the context of our study, based on the literature as presented in the earlier section of this paper, we modified the AET framework as depicted in Figure 2 therefore answering our first research question on ‘how these variables are related to each other’. Through the studies that have been conducted, satisfaction with appraisal feedback is related to employee job satisfaction attitudes, however the introduction of affective states and supervisor-subordinate relationship variables have been shown or partly shown to play a mediating role in explaining the relationship between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude. Therefore in our model we captured the supervisor-subordinate relationship and affective state as an intermediary between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude therefore potentially answering our second research question on ‘what types of relationships that exist between them’.
Figure 2: Satisfaction with appraisal rating, affective state, supervisor-subordinate relationship and job satisfaction
From this relationship we hypothesises that;
H1: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual job satisfaction attitude.
H2a: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual affective state (PA, NA) and with the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationship.
H2b: Satisfaction with appraisal rating increases positive affectivity while decreasing negative affectivity and dissatisfaction with appraisal rating create the opposite on one affective state.
H3: Affective (PA, NA) state and Supervisor-subordinate relationship mediate the relationship between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude
2. Method
Participants
Participants for the study were selected from two organizations involving 65 potential respondents from two organisations in the Klang Valley, Kuala Lumpur and Kuantan, Pahang.
Measurement
Four measurement instruments were adopted in this study, all of the instruments include an option for a neutral kind of response and therefore for this study, all scales have been reduced by one option to avoid unnecessary undecided response from the participants.
Satisfaction with performance appraisal rating
The scale was a combination of three (3) Dulebohn and Ferris (1999) Procedural Justice in Performance Appraisal and Sweeney and two (2) McFarlin (1997) Distributive and Procedural Justice instruments measuring items that relate to satisfaction with appraisal rating. For the purpose of this study the respond scale consists of 4-point Likert scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. Total scores larger than 10 shall indicate employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal rating. Examples of items from this scale are “The supervisor rated you on how well you did your job, not on his/her personal opinion of you” and “My performance rating presents a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance”
Job Satisfaction
The scale was adopted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951) 18-items Overall Job Satisfaction. For the purpose of this study the respond scale consists of 4-point Likert scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. Item 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18 are reverse score items and therefore shall be recoded before statistical analysis. Total scores of larger than 36 shall indicate employee does have job satisfaction. Coefficient alpha ranges from .88 to .91. Examples of items from this scale are “My job is like a hobby to me”, “I am often bored with my job” and “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work”.
Job Affect
The scale was adopted from the 20-items Job Scale Affect as cited in Brief (1998) of 10 positive affect items and 10 negative affect items. The scale consists of 7-point Likert scale of 1 = Extremely Slightly to 7 = Extremely Strongly. For the purpose of this study, 4-items of the scale have been dropped off from the questionnaire after discussion with research supervisor as it was not deem appropriate in our study context. The dropped items are “Peppy”, “At rest”, “Elated” and “Placid” however as the scale has an equal number positive and negative affective items another three negative and one positive item was also dropped to balance off the scale. Items 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are the negative affect items which will be recoded for the purpose of statistical analysis. Total scores of larger than 48 shall indicate employee positive affectivity towards performance appraisal feedback
Supervisor-subordinate relationship
The scale was adopted from Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987) 18 items Satisfaction with supervisor. For the purpose of this study the respond scale consists of 4-point Likert scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. Total scores of larger than 36 shall indicate subordinate satisfaction with his/her supervisor. Coefficient alpha ranges from .95 to .96. Examples of items from this scale are “The way my supervisor is consistent in his/her behaviour toward subordinates”, “The way my supervisor informs me about work changes ahead of time” and “The way my supervisor shows concern for my career progress”.
Procedures
Questionnaire used both English and Malay as a medium of communication as respondents are coming from various educational backgrounds. Translation of the four scales from English to Malay was conducted through internet translator and is cross check with a medical doctor and the research supervisor to determine appropriateness of the translation.
Respondents were presented with a booklet of questionnaire that contains the scales for the four variables. In the case of appraisal feedback satisfaction and affective states, instructions were given for them to answer by remembering the event that had occurred during the last appraisal feedback session. In the case of supervisor-subordinate relationship they have to answer by referring to the most recent supervisor with at least six months of working experience and finally for job satisfaction, the instruction was for them reflect their current experience at work.
Statistical procedures used to analyse the survey feedback are;
Descriptive statistic and one sample t-test to determine scores for variables and its significant against the test value,
correlation analysis to determine the general relationship between variables,
paired sample t-test to verify the significant differences between the increasing positive and decreasing negative affectivity or vice versa and
regression analysis to determine the mediating role of affective state and supervisor-subordinate relationship; 1) appraisal feedback satisfaction must affect the mediators, 2) the mediators must affect job satisfaction attitude, 3) appraisal feedback satisfaction must affect job satisfaction and 4) the effect of appraisal feedback satisfaction on job satisfaction reduces to zero when the mediators are control (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
3. Results
Demographics
A total of 54 participants return the questionnaire of which 2 have to be discarded as they did not provided the answer to two (2) or more items in the questionnaire. 28 (53.8%) of the participants are female, 23 (44.2%) are male and 1 (1.9%) did not classify his/her gender. 24 (46.2%) of the participants are with a degree qualification, 11 (21.2%) with SPM, 13 (25.0%) with STPM/Diploma and 3 (5.8%) with a Master Degree while the remaining 2 did not classify their qualification.
Descriptive Statistic
The mean score for performance rating was 14.77 (SD = 2.88). The value of t (51) = 12.00 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants performance rating total score against the test value of above 10.00 which signify respondents satisfaction with performance appraisal rating. The mean score for job satisfaction was 51.06 (SD = 7.33). The value of t (51) = 14.82 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants job satisfaction total score against the test value of above 36.00 which signify respondents job satisfaction. The mean score for affective state was 59.08 (SD = 10.73). The value of t (51) = 7.48 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants affective state total score against the test value of above 48.00 which signify positive affectivity. The mean score for supervisor-subordinate relationship was 48.00 (SD = 10.06). The value of t (51) = 8.60 (ρ = 0.01) indicate a significant different between participants total score against the test value of above 36.00 which signify respondents satisfaction with his/her supervisor. Table 1 describes the descriptive result for the four variables.
Table 1: Descriptive statistic for the four variables (n=52)
Variable Mean Std Deviation Test Value t Ρ
Performance Rating
14.77 2.88 >10 12.00 .01
Job Satisfaction
51.06 7.33 >36 14.82 .01
Affective State
59.08 10.73 48 7.48 .01
Supervisor-Subordinate
48.00 10.06 >36 8.60 .01
Correlation
Correlational analyses between the four variables are illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2: Correlation between the variables (n=52)
Variable 1 2 3 4
Performance rating
-
Job satisfaction
.03 -
Affective state
.36** .33** -
Supervisor-Subordinate
.60** -.01 .30* -
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Paired sample t-test
Paired sample t-test between the positive and negative affectivity is illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Paired sample t-test for positive-negative affectivity (n=52)
Item Mean Std. Deviation t Ρ
Positive-negative affectivity
11.83 10.71 7.66 .01
Regression
Regression analysis to test for mediation is illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Regression analysis to determine mediator effect on Job Satisfaction (n=52)
Independent Variable Affect Supervisor-subordinate Job satisfaction
Performance rating
.36** .59** .03
Affect state
- - .33*
Supervisor-subordinate
- - -.01
** Significant at the 0.01 level
* Significant at the 0.05 level
Coefficients are standardized betas
Hypotheses testing
H1: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual job satisfaction attitude.
Correlational analysis between satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback and job satisfaction yielded insignificant relationship between these two variables, therefore hypothesis 1 is not supported by this study
H2a: Level of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback through received performance rating is linked with individual affective state (PA, NA) and with the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationship.
Correlational analysis between satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback and individual affect yielded significant relationship between these two variables (r = .36, ρ = .01). Correlational analysis between satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback and satisfaction with supervisor-subordinate relationship yielded significant relationship between these two variables (r = .60, ρ = .01). Therefore hypothesis 2a is supported by this study
H2b: Satisfaction with appraisal rating increases positive affectivity while decreasing negative affectivity and dissatisfaction with appraisal rating create the opposite on one affective state.
Paired sample t-test between positive and negative affectivity yielded significant differences between these two variables t (47) = 7.66 (ρ =.01), therefore hypothesis 2b is supported by this study
H3: Affective (PA, NA) state and Supervisor-subordinate relationship mediate the relationship between satisfaction with appraisal feedback and job satisfaction attitude
Regression analysis was able to predict a significant relationship between appraisal feedback satisfaction with the two mediators, however only one mediator, the affective state predicts a significant relationship with job satisfaction and finally the appraisal feedback satisfaction itself does not predict a significant relation with the job satisfaction attitude. Reference to the steps listed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test for mediation, the finding from this study does not support the mediator role of supervisor-subordinate relationship and affective state as suggested by other researchers in explaining the relationship between appraisal feedback satisfaction and job satisfaction. Therefore Hypothesis 3 is not supported by this study.
4. Discussions
In this paper we have established the relationship between the appraisal feedback satisfactions, affective state, supervisor-subordinate relationship and job satisfaction as illustrated in Figure 2 in the ‘This study’ section therefore answering our first research question on ‘How these variables are related to each other?’. In general the respondents indicated that they are experiencing satisfaction with their appraisal feedback through performance rating received, positive affective state, satisfaction in their supervisor-subordinate relationship and job satisfaction. Most of these variables are significantly correlated between each other through correlation analysis except for the relationship between performance rating with job satisfaction and supervisor-subordinate relationship with job satisfaction.
Despite indication from other researchers that performance rating and supervisor-subordinate relationship are correlated with job satisfaction, our findings have not managed to obtain a similar results. These discrepancies could be attributed, first to our survey method such that it was conducted at a longer time lapses after the respondents’ last experience with appraisal feedback. We suggest that with this longer time period and that satisfaction with appraisal feedback correlation with job satisfaction is relatively not that strong, r = .32 (Jawahar, 2006a), other factors could have play an important roles that contribute towards one’s job satisfaction. Secondly since our numbers of respondents are quite small as compared to the number of items posted in the questionnaire, it might also have an impact to our study results. On the satisfaction with supervisor-subordinate relationship, the quality of relationship according to LMX should influence one’s job satisfaction (as cited in Burton et al., 2008). The discrepancies in our result could be attributed to one’s internal affectivity playing a more important role in determining job satisfaction as compared to the relationship with their supervisor. While supervisor-subordinate relationship plays an important role in determining satisfaction with appraisal feedback compared to affectivity, job satisfaction on the other hand is affected by other factors encounter in the job than the relationship alone similar to the effect of performance rating on job satisfaction. This is on line with Brief (1998) suggestions that facets associated with the job play an important role in determining the job satisfaction. However in the case of affectivity, it is something internal to a person that finally contributes in shaping one’s job satisfaction. Furthermore we also acknowledge the size of our respondents’ impact on the final result of our study. Since these two relationships (i.e. appraisal feedback satisfaction – job satisfaction and supervisor-subordinate relationship – job satisfaction) are not in line with the hypotheses, therefore the mediating role of supervisor-subordinate relationship and affective state could not be tested since the four steps as listed by Baron and Kenny (1986) have not been fulfilled.
Returning to our second research question on ‘What types of relationships that exist between them?’ in theory we have established the relationship however as our results have indicated otherwise as described in the previous paragraph, we have not managed to empirically answer this second question.
This paper is mainly limited in its methods, in the number of respondents in relation to items in our questionnaire and the timing, as the study was conducted after a lapse of about 4-6 months. Therefore in future research these considerations should be undertaken as in a cross sectional study, a lot of factors such as respondent state of mind, room temperature and understanding to instruction are not under the control of the researcher. A bigger number of respondents on the other hand would mean a better representation of a population and therefore could contribute to the final result accuracy. Appraisal feedback satisfaction is just one of the many facets one’ encounter in his/her job and a longer lapses of time between the actual appraisal feedback session and the study would mean many other factors would have taken its place in shaping individual job satisfaction.
References.
Aamodt, M. G. (2007). Industrial/organizational psychology: an applied approach (5th ed.). United States of America: Thomson & Wadsworth
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182
Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N., and Ansari, M. A., (2008). Leader member exchange and subordinate outcomes: test of mediation model. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 30(2), 106-125
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organization. London: Sage Publications
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., and Sekiguchi, T., (2008). Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via Leader–Member Exchange. Journal Business Psychology, 23, 51-61
Fletcher (n.d.). The effect of performance review in appraisal: evidence and implications. Journal of Management Development, 5(3), 3-12.
Ilies, R., De Pater, I. E., and Judge, T. (2007). Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 22(6), 590-609.
Jawahar, I. M. (2006a). An investigation of potential consequences of satisfaction with appraisal feedback. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 14-28.
Jawahar, I. M. (2006b). Correlates of satisfaction with performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Labour Research, XXVII (2), 213-236.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., and Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126–138.
Keeping, L. M. and Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708-723.
Lam S. S. K., Yik M. S. M., and Schaubroeck J., (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: the role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 192–201
Mignonac and Herrbach, (2004). Linking work events, affective states and attitudes: an empirical study of managers’ emotions. Journal of Business Psychology, 19(2), 221-240.
Pearce, J. L. and Porter L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 211-218.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194.
Whiting, H. J., Kline T. J. B., Sulsky L. M., (2007). The performance appraisal congruency scale: an assessment of person-environment fit. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 223-236.
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)