|3.||In both countries, the strongest incentives to group membership are policy-relevant information, direct interest in a particular environmental issue, and general political goals. However, viewed cross- nationally, each of those three incentives is more important to the American group members than to the Canadian counterparts.|
|4.||In both countries, information, interest in specific issues, and political goals load on the same primary incentive factor, while social activities and specialized goals and services load on a separate factor. However, viewed cross-nationally, on that factor primary political goals are more important in the Michigan setting than in the Ontario context.|
|5.||In both countries, information and political goals represent the most predominate combination of active incentives to environmental organization membership. But, information is more likely to stand alone as an incentive among Ontario group members than among their Michigan equivalents, while it is more likely to be accompanied by political goals in Michigan than in Ontario.|
|6.||As noted above, politicos and purists are more likely to differ on environmental issue positions in Michigan than in Ontario. In Ontario, the purists appear just as political as the politicos.|
|7.||Politicos and purists differ in their trust of certain information sources in both Canada and the United States. But, those differences are more frequent in Michigan than in Ontario. In addition, Michigan group members are more likely to discriminate among potential information sources than are Ontario group members.|
Chapters 5 and 6 move from the individual level of analysis of publics and group members to the level of the groups themselves. We have seen that the rudiments of group linkage around information are present, but that those linkages differ to some extent in Michigan and Ontario. At this point, we shall begin to find out if environmental organizations in these American and Canadian settings respond differently to the demands posed by the technical information quandary.