The Political Development of Sixties' Activists:

Identifying the Influence of Class, Gender,

and Socialization on Protest Participation*

DARKEN E. SHERKAT, Vanderbilt University

T. JEAN BLOCKER, University of Tulsa

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Abstract

This article traces the development of student activists among members of the high
school class of 1965. We explore how political and religious socialization, social
psychological orientations, and class origins affect the likelihood that an individual will
become involved in the antiwar, student, and civil rights protests of the 1960s. We also
systematically examine the interrelationships between social class, gender, social
psychological orientations, and political and religious socialization to discern their effects
on social movement participation. Using data from the Youth-Parent Socialization Panel
Study, 1965-73, we find that socialization processes and social psychological dispositions
are strongly linked to participation in the protests and that social class spurs protest
both directly and through its effects on these factors. We also find that gender differences
in social movement participation are largely a function of socialization, social
psychological differences, and women's lower rates of college attendance.

Studies of social movement participation have generally viewed participation in

terms of recruitment processes that draw individuals into a voluntary as-
sociation, be it a religious sect, political movement, or fraternal organization.
Few studies have examined the class and socialization processes that: (1) place
people in a position where they might have or develop ideological affinities for
movements' interpretations of reality; (2) link individuals to movements through
network ties; or (3) transmit or allow the development of resources that might
be desirable for mobilization. The focus on recruitment processes ignores the
developmental processes that channel the microstructural interactions that
facilitate recruitment and mobilization.

*The authors thank Daniel Cornfield, Holly McCammon, Pamela Oliver, and two anonymous
reviewers for helpful comments. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1992
annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Data were made available through
the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Direct correspondence to
Darren E. Sherkat, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Box 1811 Station B,
Nashville, TN 37235.

© The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 1994, 72(3):821-842
822 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

Researchers have tried to develop empirical linkages between protest and

the following factors: class position, childhood political and religious socializa-
tion, and social psychological orientations. However, few theorists have fully
examined the theoretical implications of any of these processes. Why did the
privileged classes protest in the sixties? Did the movements of the 1960s reflect
a generation gap, or a continuity of political orientations? Why were women
less active in these protests? While some studies have addressed these questions
(notably, Braungart 1972, DeMartini 1985, Merelman & King 1986, and Paulsen
1991), only Paulsen (1990) and Braungart (1972) have attempted to establish the
interrelationships among these developmental factors. Research has. virtually

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
ignored the very important impact of religious socialization on participation in
the protests of this era. Further, gender differences in socialization and social
psychological orientations have gone largely unexplored as an explanation for
women's lower rates of participation in protest movements.
In order to examine the development of student protesters in the 1960s we
use data from the Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study. These data contain
information on the high school class of 1965 and their parents, collected in 1965
and 1973. The study is an excellent source for these purposes not only because
it provides information on the parents of the future protesters, but also because
it gives a more accurate portrait of the activists of this period than some
previous studies have provided. Whereas many studies have focused on high-
risk activists from particular social movements and/or use nonrandom samples
of college populations (e.g., Braungart 1972; McAdam 1986), these data provide
information about the development of the "average activists" of this period.

Theories of Popular Protest

The political turmoil that characterized the latter half of the 1960s gave rise to
a number of theories that sought to explain the rise of numerous social
movements and incidents of social conflict. Most perplexing for social scientists
of the time was the prospect of explaining widespread protest among youth
from the most privileged classes. To counter this anomaly, theorists posited that
the sixties' generation acquired values, beliefs, and identifications by virtue of
their historical experiences, rather than from traditional socialization agents such
as parents, schools, and churches. Importantly, the values, beliefs, and iden-
tifications that they acquired were seen as a sharp disjuncture from those of
their parents. Despite the attractiveness of these generational theories, studies
have shown that participants in the social movements of the 1960s were well
socialized and followed the political — and presumably religious — philo-
sophies of their parents (Acock & Bengtson 1978; Bengtson 1975; DeMartini
1983,1985; Jennings & Niemi 1981a; Merelman & King 1986; Wood & Ng 1980).
Though social conditions may distinguish activists from nonactivists, these
conditions tend not to occur independently of the influence of the parental
generation. Further, these generational theories do not take into account social
psychological explanations for participation in social movements, and they
explicitly minimize the importance of class background. A focus on these factors
brings intragenerational cleavages to the forefront.
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 823
SOCIALIZATION AND PROTEST

Socialization may influence the likelihood of activism in two ways: (1) by giving
individuals a normative orientation toward political participation; and (2) by
providing an ideological orientation that is supportive of, or opposed to, protest
movements. Political scientists have shown that parents who participate in party
politics are more likely to produce children who are inclined toward such
activity (Jennings & Niemi 1981a; Wood & Ng 1980). Parents' political activity
may also promote extrainstitutional political activism in their children. This may
work directly, or through the promotion of a general predisposition for

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
participation in voluntary or political organizations. Socialization processes may
also foster ideological affinities for activism. Those who are less trusting of
existing political institutions, or who hold more intense political views may be
more likely to engage in protest. Specifically, we expect that the parents of
participants in social movements will be less trusting of government institutions,
processes, and employees, and will have passed this distrust on to their
children.
Religious values have frequently been associated with conservative beliefs
and participation in conservative movements (Brady & Tedin 1976; Luker 1984;
Page & Clelland 1978; Tedin 1978). A number of Protestant fundamentalists
opposed integration and the civil rights movement, and some publicly allied
themselves with anticommunist movements supportive of the war in Vietnam
(Campbell & Pettigrew 1959; Wilcox 1992). Given the liberal ideological
orientation of the student movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, it seems
unlikely that people with conservative religious perspectives or who identified
with conservative denominations would become aligned with these movements.
Biblical literalism, reenforced and interpreted within conservative Protestant
religious communities, emphasizes obedience to family, school, and secular
authorities. Recent studies have shown that, even controlling for social status,
conservative Protestant affiliation and biblical literalism have a positive impact
on the value placed on obedience in children (Ellison & Sherkat 1993b). Rather
than arising entirely from class position, submission to authority is also
conditioned by religious institutions and doctrines that advocate harsh child-
rearing practices to ensure that children comply with the dictates of moral and
secular authorities (Ellison & Sherkat 1993a, 1993b).
Unlike their conservative Protestant counterparts, the historical experiences
and ethnic origins of Catholics and Jews may have drawn them into par-
ticipation in the protests of the 1960s (Snow & Oliver 1993). Members of both
religious groups are likely to have relatively recent ancestors from southern and
eastern Europe, which makes it likely that relatives (perhaps even parents) were
involved in left wing politics either in Europe or in the U.S. (The biographies
presented in Braungart & Braungart 1990 suggest this connection.) The history
of violence and political repression against these groups might also influence
their rates of participation in civil liberties and antiwar movements.
824 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AND PROTEST

Social psychological orientations, particularly feelings of personal efficacy, have

been cited as a prerequisite for political activity (Ennis & Schreuer 1987; Finkel
1985; Klandermans 1984; Pollock 1983; Snow & Oliver 1993; Verba & Nie 1972;
Werner 1978). Without feelings of efficacy, participation in political action is
irrational, since individuals would have no expectation that change would take
place as a result of their actions. Whatever the value of grievances or even an
injustice framework in facilitating social movement participation, collective
action will not result unless those aggrieved and subjectively wronged feel that

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
their participation makes a difference. In a sense, social psychological orien-
tations toward efficacy can be seen as a solution to the free-rider problem by
defining the actor's role as consequential for the provision of some public good.
If actor believes they have a substantial effect on provision, the good may not
be provided if they withhold their participation. Essentially, efficacy is a
subjective state that orients actors as if they are members of a privileged group,
regardless of the size or advantage of the group.
Other social psychological orientations should also be linked to par-
ticipation in social movements. Particularly, collective action requires not only
a belief that one's own contribution matters, but also a coordination of actions
with other actors. One must be confident that a sufficient number will par-
ticipate to ensure the provision of some collective good (Klandermans 1984). In
more general terms, a participant must believe that others are also willing to
help, willing to give their fair share, and can be trusted to perform in diverse
and potentially trying circumstances. Further, we think that general orientations
such as strength of convictions and self-confidence can be seen as ideological
and motivational factors that could stimulate activism.
SOCIAL CLASS AND PROTEST

In the late 1960s, the class composition of the student movements was abun-
dantly clear: participation was concentrated in the upper-middle classes.
Movement activists have been shown to come predominantly from upper-
middle-class backgrounds and to have higher levels of education than non-
participants (Braungart 1972; Fendrich & Krauss 1978; Flacks 1967; Leahy &
Mazur 1978). Indeed, those who did not go to college tended to be very
different in their social origins and their political orientations towards these
movements. While the privileged students protested the war, the working
classes fought the war abroad and the protesters at home. One interest-based
reason for this finding is that the upper classes may have had more to lose by
going to war. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of military service was
higher for the upper classes than it was for the working and lower classes. It is
also possible, however, that class facilitated recruitment in an indirect fashion.
It is well known that the antiwar, student, civil rights (at least in the late 1960s
and early 1970s), and women's movements of this period were concentrated on
college campuses. Upper-middle-class youths attended college, and these
institutions provided an activist context, supporting an expansive range and
dense infrastructure of activist networks that facilitated recruitment (Fernandez
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 825

& McAdam 1988, 1989). While there is certainly some validity in both of these
explanations, neither seems to capture the many ways in which social class
influenced participation in the movements of this period.
CLASS, SOCIALIZATION, AND PROTEST

In most previous studies, social class is considered one of many competing

factors that might hinder or facilitate protest. Few studies have examined ways
in which social class might structure participatory behavior through its influence
on values, orientations, and social psychological dispositions. This lack of

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
research is somewhat surprising, given the fairly extensive body of research
linking social class with various ideological orientations, participatory behaviors,
and social psychological qualities.
Theories of the relationship between class and value orientations have
noted that upper- and middle-class families tend to encourage children to be
autonomous, which allows them to develop a sense of efficacy (Kohn 1969,
1983). In contrast, working-class families are seen to emphasize conformity and
acceptance of authority (Kohn 1969, 1983; Miller, Kohn & Schooler 1985;
Pateman 1970).1 Further, class-based educational tracking may reenforce
autonomy in middle- and upper-class children and submission to authority in
the working and lower classes (Litt 1963; Paulsen 1991). Together with research
showing that social psychological orientations such as efficacy are related to
political participation, this finding suggests that children from privileged
backgrounds will be more likely to participate in social movements because of
their heightened confidence in their ability to produce change. Further, if upper-
middle-class children tend not to give deference to authority, they may be more
prone to participate in antisystemic movements that question the authority of
the state or other political actors.
Not only does social class promote social psychological orientations that
may be conducive to social protest, it also engenders ideological orientations
that may lead to activism. While rejection of authority may be considered a
social psychological disposition, it is corollary to more ideological orientations
like political trust. Rejection of authority may undermine political trust, which
may, in turn, facilitate political protest. Further, the relationship between social
class and conservative religiosity may make protest more likely among the
upper classes. Conservative religious ideology has long been associated with the
lower classes in the U.S. (Marsden 1980; Niebuhr 1929; Stark & Glock 1968;
Weber 1968), and this Bible-based conservatism is likely to promote other-
worldly orientations that are incompatible with the type of left-wing activism
that characterized the late 1960s.
Social class may also influence protest through socialization toward
participatory norms. Not only are the privileged classes taught that they can
have an impact in the political world, they are reared in an environment where
political participation is exercised and expected. Orientations toward par-
ticipation are rooted in conceptions of citizenship that vary significantly by
social class. Though the lower classes view good citizenship as a passive
allegiance to the political system, the more advantaged believe that a good
citizen must actively engage in the workings of government through political
 826 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

participation (Jennings & Niemi 1981a; Pateman 1970). Continuities across

generations in higher participation rates among the upper classes suggest that
these participatory norms are passed on from parent to child. We expect that
socialization experiences that emphasize participation in sanctioned political
activities may also give rise to participation in extrasystemic social movements.
Predominantly nonwhite

Gender differences in participation have been systematically addressed only in

a handful of studies (Cable 1992; Lawson & Barton 1980; McAdam 1988, 1992;

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Rochford 1985). Empirical research has found women to be less involved in the
social movements of the sixties (McAdam 1986, 1988). Speculation on this
finding has focused on the nature of collective action, how the movements dealt
with the women, and gender differences in grievances. However, little attention
has been paid to how gender differences in socialization might affect social
movement participation.
McAdam (1992) suggests that women may have been more fearful of
participation in the high-risk Freedom Summer crusade, or were not encouraged
or may have even been denied participation because of movement leaders' fears
about the women's safety or propriety in the movement. Further, there is strong
evidence that women were commonly asked to perform the menial tasks of the
movement, which may have made them less inclined to participate (Cable 1992;
McAdam 1992; Thorne 1975). While women may feel more of a stake in some
concerns, such as environmental issues (Blocker & Eckberg 1989; Cable 1992;
Hamilton 1985), or certainly the women's movement, their level of grievance on
the dominating issues of this period may well be lower than that of their male
counterparts. The bulk of the protests in the late sixties focused on the war in
Vietnam and student issues on college campuses (see Table 1 below). Women
may not have been as interested in the antiwar movement because they were
not at risk for the draft. Because the threat of the draft fell entirely on males, it
may have primarily increased men's sense of urgency to act. Similarly, gender
differences in rates of college attendance would have made fewer women than
men aggrieved because of college administrators' or institutional policies. It
should also be noted that women's lower rates of college attendance gave them
less exposure to activist networks and contexts.
What has gone largely unexplored in previous studies is how gender
differences in socialization and social psychological factors might influence
participation in the protests. Women generally have lower levels of political
efficacy than men (Acock & Clarke 1990; Jennings & Niemi 1981a) and may see
political action as less rational because of that. Women have also consistently
been found to have higher levels of religiosity (cf. De Vaus & McAllister 1987;
Iannaccone 1990), which may make them less inclined to subvert traditional
authorities by engaging in extrasystemic collective action.
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 827

Data
The data for this study come from the Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study
(YPSPS), collected by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan
(Jennings & Niemi 1981b). Students were randomly selected from 97 schools
chosen from a national probability sample of schools. The sample is represen-
tative of high school graduates of this period, though it is biased against high
school dropouts (about 26% of this age cohort) (Jennings & Niemi 1981b). The
first wave of the study was completed in the spring of 1965 and yielded
interviews with 1,669 high school seniors, 99% of those targeted by the study.

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
A randomly selected parent of each child was also interviewed, resulting in
1,562 interviews with parents (93% of those contacted). The second wave of the
study was completed in 1973, and retained 1,348 (80.8%) of the students from
the original panel. The current study will not use data from the parents in the
second wave, nor any data from the third wave of the study. 2 Since the students
were high school seniors in 1965, they were likely to be college seniors in 1969
if they went to college. Males were eligible for the draft, and some 400 of the
students in the sample served in the military, with nearly 200 serving in
Vietnam. 3 The study is ideal because it taps beliefs, behaviors, and background
prior to the vast majority of the social movement activity of this period. Further,
it contains data from both activists and nonactivists and from college students
and those who did not attend college. Finally, this study is especially useful
because it provides information about the "average activists" of this period from
a random sample of students who graduated from high school prior to the
height of mobilization.
THE ACTIVISTS

We will distinguish respondents who participated in the protests of the 1960s

from respondents who were not active. For conceptual clarity, we exclude
respondents who participated in problem-solving environmental activism,
including movements concerning land protection, zoning, pollution problems,
or general environmental issues from the analyses. (For an examination of these
issues, see Sherkat & Blocker 1993). The YPSPS does not allow us to distinguish
"high-risk" or "high-involvement" activists from "token" participants. We also
note that though the "protest activists" were not necessarily engaging in high-
risk activism, their level of involvement will range between high risk and
relatively low risk and should better represent the range of protest activity that
took place in this period than did studies of single movements. In our study we
compare 181 protesters with 1,111 nonactivists.
Table 1 shows the type of movements in which the respondents to the
YPSPS participated between 1965 and 1973. It is evident that the vast majority
of protesters in the social movements of the late 1960s participated in the
antiwar and student movements which characterized the period. About 93% of
the activists participated in the antiwar or student movements, with 73% of
these claiming activity in the antiwar protests. Despite the tendency of popular
and scholarly accounts of the social movements of the 1960s to focus on more
encompassing radical groups (such as Students for a Democratic Society [SOS]),
828 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

TABLE 1: Percentage of Activists by Type of Protest

First Second Overall

Protest Protest
Antiwar movement 64.1 82.6 72.9
Student movement 18.2 5.8 20.4
Civil rights 10.5 5.8 11.1
Other' 7.2 5.8 9.4

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Total N 181 69 181

Includes 11 labor movement participants, two environmental activists, and four

women's movement supporters.

or on civil rights activism (such as Congress of Racial Equality [CORE] and

SNCC), the vast majority of people who protested took part in the antiwar
protests, or in the often war-related student movements. There may be
differences in racial and gender interests across these different movements. As
mentioned, women might have had less of an interest in the antiwar movement,
since they were not at risk for the draft. Further, blacks may be dispropor-
tionately involved only in the civil rights movement and may have little interest
in other movements. To test for variations across types of activism, we analyze
participants in the antiwar movement separately in some of the multivariate
analyses 4.

Measures
POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION

We examine the influence of political trust in 1965. The item measures whether
or not the respondent thought that the government wastes money, is run by
dishonest people, "can be trusted to do what is right," is "run by a few big
interests looking out for themselves," or "is run by people who don't know
what they are doing." Each item runs from (0) for the least trusting response to
(2) for most trusting response. The number of political activities of the student's
parent is also considered, yielding an index of parental political activity. Parents
are classified from (4) if they voted and performed two or more other political
activities to (0) if they did not vote.
RELIGIOUS SOCIALIZATION

Church attendance in 1965 is measured from (4) almost every week to (1) never.
Participation in religious organizations is also gauged, ranging from (1) for no
participation to (4) for very active. The two items are highly correlated and form
a reliable scale for religious participation. Bible beliefs are examined using
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 829

responses to the following question: "I'd like you to tell me which is closest to
your own view: (4) The Bible is God's word and all it says is true; (3) The Bible
was written by men inspired by God, but it contains some human error; (2) The
Bible is a good book because it was written by wise men, but God had nothing
to do with it; and (1) The Bible was written by men who lived so long ago that
it is worth very little today." Twenty-one youths who professed a non Judeo-
Christian faith were not asked to respond and are assigned the mean for the
item. We use dummy indicators to identify youths who were raised in conser-
vative Protestant groups (Baptists, Assembly of God, Nazarenes, Holiness, and
the like), Catholicism, and Judaism. In the multivariate analyses we group

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Catholics and Jews because of their similar rates of participation in the protests
and because of the small number of Jews (Sherkat & Blocker 1992). Our analyses
(not shown) found that eliminating Jewish respondents from the models does
not alter the results, even in the structural equation models. For clarity, we have
eliminated 23 youths who professed no religious preference in 1965.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPOSITIONS

Internal political efficacy is measured in every wave of the study through a

scale based on the following two questions: "Voting is the only way that people
like me (or my mother and father for the youths in 1965) have any say about
how the government runs things," and "sometimes politics and government
seem so complicated that a person like me can't understand." High efficacy
indicates disagreement with both statements, yielding a score of 3; low efficacy
is agreement with both, giving a score of 1. Additionally, we tap opinion
strength (whether or not respondents reported that their minds were easily
changed, that they had strong opinions, or that they usually got their way in
arguments), and self confidence (feeling sure that your life will work out the
way you want, feeling lucky, and generally finishing plans). Personal trust is
also assessed using an additive scale which taps whether or not respondents
agreed that people could generally be trusted, were helpful, and were fair.
CLASS ORIGINS AND EDUCATION

We examine the effects of mothers' and fathers' educational levels on activism

and use the average educational level of the parents in the analyses (children
from single-parent households are given the value for the one parent). In
addition, we assess the impact of household income in 1965 on the likelihood of
participation. Income is measured from (1) less than $1,000 to (9) more than
$15,000. We also assess the effect of students' grade point averages (on a four-
point scale) and the effect of college preparatory coursework (a dummy
indicator for college track). Additionally, we distinguish college attenders from
other respondents with a dummy variable, since the activist contexts of college
campuses were important facilitators of recruitment.
830 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994
DEMOGRAPHICS

Females, blacks, residents of large metropolitan areas, and southerners are

distinguished from other respondents using dummy variables.

Methods
First, we examine the mean values on the factors that were hypothesized to
predict activism. Next, we use logistic regression to identify the factors that
distinguish activists from nonactivists controlling for the confounding effects of

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
other predictors (Aldrich & Nelson 1984; Maddala 1983). Third, we build a
structural equation model that provides a more systematic description of the
development of protest activists. Since activism and college attendance are
discrete response variables, we first use PRELIS to estimate a matrix of product
moment, polyserial, and tetrachoric correlations for the data. This removes some
of the bias and error that results from the exclusive use of product moment
correlations on indicators that have limited dispersion (Homer & O'Brian 1988;
Jagodzinski & Kuhnel 1987; Joreskog & Sorbom 1989; O'Brian & Homer 1987).
We then estimate the model derived from theory and empirical analyses using
LISREL VII.

Results
Initially, we investigate the differences between the activists and nonactivists on
a number of variables that we hypothesize to be related to activism. Looking
first at the demographic factors we find that females, southerners, and youths
from nonmetropolitan areas were more likely to be nonactivists. Blacks,
however, were disproportionately represented among the protesters.
Youths with educated and well-off parents were the most likely to become
involved in the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Further, youths who
had higher grades, and those who were in the college track were more likely to
join in the protests. While 58% of nonprotesters attended college, the figure for
protesters is a staggering 92%.6 Clearly, college attendance played a key role in
protest involvement.
Though we do not find any differences in level of religious activity, we do
find that youths with more fundamentalist views of the Bible and members of
conservative - Protestant denominations are underrepresented among the
protesters. As we expected, Catholics and Jews are more likely than Protestants
to have participated in sixties' activism.
Youths whose parents were politically active in 1965 were more likely to
become protesters in their early adulthood. As expected, we found that youths
with higher efficacy scores were more likely to become activists. However, self
confidence, opinion strength, and trust in others were unrelated to participation.
Interestingly, political trust is not only unrelated to participation, what
difference there is in this trust works in the opposite direction: protesters were
more likely to have been trusting of the workings of politics when they were
adolescents .7
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 831
TABLE 2: Mean Values for Nonactivists and Protesters Activists

Nonactivists Protesters
Demographic factors
Female .526 .426*
Black .070 .131**
Southern .225 .114***
Urban .584 .766***

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Class factors
Parents' income 6.138 6.903***
Parents' education 2.809 3.249***
High school GPA 2.561 2.800***
College prep courses .447 .731***
College attendance .577 .917***

Religious factors
Church participation 6.033 5.923
Bible beliefs 3.444 3.137***
Conservative Protestant .309 .160***
Catholic .229 •337**
Jewish .028 .134***
Political socialization factors
Parent's political participation 1.795 2.337***
Political trust 4.576 4.712
Social psychological factors
Self-confidence 4.829 5.045
Personal trust 5.052 5.176
Opinion strength 4.486 4.754
Internal efficacy 2.047 2.389***

* Difference from nonactivists is significant at the .05 level.

*• Difference from nonactivists is significant at the .01 level.
*** Difference from nonactivists is significant at the .001 level.

While the descriptive results are revealing, it is much more interesting to

know whether the bivariate relationships hold up in the presence of statistical
controls. Table 3 presents the results of the logistic regression on participation
in the protest movements. Our discussion will initially focus on the first four
models, which examine the entire sample. In model 5, we separate the antiwar
protesters to see how participation may differ across types of protests from the
1960s. Finally, we limit the analyses to college attenders, to examine whether
socialization factors influence protest differently for those who attended college.
332 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

TABLE 3: Logistic Regression Predicting Protest Activism

Antiwar College
Only
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Female -.563** -.494** -.441* -.372+ -.353 -.298

Black 1.408*** 1.411*** 1.795*** 1.706*** .179 1.801***
Southern -.633* -.557* -.222 -.280 -.405 -.384

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Urban .468* .439* .222 .193 .385 .166
Parents' education .218*** .201** .189** .175* .278*** .144+
Parents' income .153** .115* .101+ .069 .074 .086
Grade point average •553*** .482*** •533*** •468** .289+ .462**
College prep. courses .858*** •737*** .631** .270 .331 .234

Internal efficacy .391** .329* .272+ .476** .303*

Parent's participation .168* .182* .174* .163+ .197*

Conservative Protestant -.443 -.371 -.488 -.194

Catholic/Jewish .818*** .813*** .773*** .872***
Bible beliefs -.494*** -.470** -.514** -.554***

College attendance 1.199*** 1.184*** -

Intercept -6.700 -7.048 -5.529 -5.469 -5.939 4.354

Model x2 137.913 152.222 189.859 206.408 192.232 111.327
Degrees of freedom 8 10 13 14 14 13
Rz .097 .107 .130 .139 .136 .122
No. of protesters 181 178 178 178 132 163
N 1,282 1,274 1,274 1,274 1,226 800

+ p < .05 (one-tailed) * p < .05 (two-tailed) ** p < .01 (two-tailed) *** p < .001 (two-tailed)

In the first four models we find that females are less likely to have become
involved in the protests than were males, even controlling for other characteris-
tics. However, the magnitude of the gender effect (and its statistical significance)
dwindles with the inclusion of social psychological disposition, religious
socialization, and college attendance. This suggests that the bulk of the gender
differences are mediated by these factors, with females likely having lower
efficacy, stronger beliefs in the Bible, and lower rates of college attendance.
Controlling for all other factors, the odds that a black youth would become a
protester were found to be more than five times as high as the odds for a white
counterpart (exp[1.706] =5.507). Urban residency significantly increases the odds
of protest, until controls for religious socialization are introduced in model 3.
Turning to the status factors, we find that parents' education and income
each significantly increase the odds of participation in the protests. The
influence of both of these factors seems to be mediated by social psychological
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 833

and religious factors (as evidenced by the declining magnitude and significance
of their effects). Indeed, the effect of income falls to nonsignificance once college
attendance is controlled. College preparatory courses and high school grades
also have a substantial impact on the odds of being an activist, however the
effect of college tracking becomes statistically insignificant when college
attendance is controlled.
Efficacy has a significant positive impact on the likelihood of becoming a
protester. The significance of this effect declines when religious factors and
college attendance are included in the model. Later we investigate how efficacy
may be related to college attendance. We also find that parents' political

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
participation has a significant positive effect on protest participation, even when
all other factors are controlled.
Youths who were strong believers in the Bible as the word of God were
less likely to have become involved in protest activities, even when class,
gender, and regional factors are controlled. Catholics and Jews were more likely
to become involved in the political activism of the sixties. In the multivariate
models, conservative Protestants were no less likely to be protesters than
members of other Protestant groups. Of course, conservative Protestants' strong
beliefs in the Bible may indirectly make them less likely to join in the protests.
Finally, we find that college attendance strongly increases the odds of
participation in protest. The odds that a collegian participated in a protest were
more than three times as great as the odds for a nonattender (exp[1.199] -
3.317), controlling for other factors. Importantly, the inclusion of college
attendance in the model does not eliminate the effects of most of the other
factors considered.
Model 5 presents a logistic regression on antiwar protesters compared to
nonprotesters (56 protesters who did not participate in an antiwar demonstra-
tion are excluded from the analysis). Interestingly, these results largely mirror
those found in model 4. The only substantial difference is that black respon-
dents are not more likely than white respondents to have become involved in
the antiwar protests. Ancillary analyses (available on request) show that black
respondents were disproportionately involved in both the student and the civil
rights movement. Other deviations from the full sample of protesters are that
parents' education and internal efficacy seem to have stronger positive impacts
on antiwar protest, while the influence of grade point average is slightly
weaker. The remaining differences are marginal, and likely result from
variations in the sample size.
The final model in Table 3 limits the sample to respondents who attended
college. The same patterns of effects found in the full sample are clearly evident
among the college attenders. Indeed, there are no substantial deviations between
the two models. Among college attenders the same status and socialization
factors that predict protest in the general sample remain influential. Even within
the activist context of college campuses of this period, what individuals took
with them to college strongly influenced their political activism.
While these results are revealing, a more systematic analysis is needed to
disentangle the important interrelationships among the predictors. In order to
tease out these relationships, we present a structural equation model in Table 4
along with the indirect and total effects on activism in Table 5• 8 For brevity, we
834 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

TABLE 4: Structural Equation Model of Protest Activism, College Attendance,

Efficacy, and Bible Beliefs

Protest College Efficacy Bible

Attendance Beliefs
College attendance .498*** — — —

Internal efficacy .052* .118*** — —

Bible beliefs -.120*** -.055** — —

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Parents' education .086*** .072*** .069* -.101***
Parents' income — .136*** .085** -.068*
College prep. courses -.140*** .564*** .153*** -.093***
Grade point average .076** .163*** .177*** —

Parent's participation .069** .063***

Conservative Protestant -.047* — .156***
Catholic/ Jewish .175*** .079* -

Female -.044+ -.128*** -.085** .101***

Black .157*** .087*** -.043 -

Southern -.077** .079*** -.071* .084**

Urban .042+ .020 — -.076**

R2 .411 .632 .138 .134

Model x2 18.91
Degrees of freedom 11
Goodness of fit .998
Adjusted GFI .978
N 1,274

+ p - .05 (one-tailed) * p - .05 (two-tailed) ** p - .01 (two-tailed) *** p - .001 (two-tailed)

will focus primarily on the direct effects that differ from the findings of the
logistic regression models, and then proceed to the indirect effects on protest
participation.
Clearly, college attendance is the strongest predictor of becoming involved
in the protests. Efficacy has a significant positive direct effect on participation in
the protests, and Table 5 shows that the influence of efficacy on the likelihood
of college attendance bolsters its total effect with a significant indirect effect.
Beliefs in the Bible have a significant negative direct effect on protest par-
ticipation. These beliefs are also found to decrease the likelihood of college
attendance, thus adding a significant negative indirect effect.
Looking at status background, we find that parents' education has a
positive direct effect on protest participation. Parents' education and income
each produce strong positive indirect effects on protest participation by
devaluing beliefs in the Bible, increasing feelings of efficacy, and raising the
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 835

TABLE 5: Total and Indirect Effects on Protest Activism

Total Indirect
Effect Effect
College attendance .498*** —

Internal efficacy .111*** .059***

Bible beliefs -.148*** -.029**

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Parents' education .145*** .059* **
Parents' income .087*** .087* **
College prep. courses .171*** .312***
Grade point average .177*** .101***
Parent's participation .101*** .025
Conservative Protestant -.047*** -.047***
Catholic/Jewish .183*** .009*

Female -.132*** -.088***

Black .195*** .038***
Southern -.058* .019
Urban .063* .021*

* p - .05 (two- tailed) ** p - . 01 (two-tailed) *** p - . 001 (two-tailed)

likelihood of college attendance. College preparatory tracking has strong

significant positive total and indirect effects on protest participation. Indirect
effects come largely through tracking's positive impact on college attendance,
though it also has a positive effect on efficacy and an inverse effect on beliefs in
the Bible. Yet, college preparatory tracking has a significant negative direct
effect on protest net of other factors. It seems that the college track curriculum
promotes passivity and conformity, and this effect is masked in the single
equation models. Nonetheless, the total effect of college tracking is strongly
positive, as Table 5 shows. Further, high school grade point average has
significant positive direct and indirect effects on protest, with indirect effects
working through positive influences on college attendance and efficacy.
The influence of socialization factors also becomes more clear. Parent's
political participation increases the probability of a youth participating in the
protests. The direct effect of parents' political activity is enhanced by an indirect
positive effect through political participation's influence on the likelihood that
their child will go to college. Conservative Protestants belief in Biblical
inerrancy, along with their disaffection for higher education, gives conservative
Protestant affiliation a negative indirect effect on protest participation. In
contrast, the non-Protestant groups are more likely to participate in protests and
836 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

have a higher level of political efficacy, which gives non-Protestant group

affiliation a small but statistically significant positive indirect effect on protest.
Our direct effects show that females are somewhat less likely than males to
have participated in the protests; however, the indirect effects add substantially
to this. Women are more likely to hold strong views of the Bible, have lower
scores on the efficacy scale, and are less likely to attend college. This results in
a significant negative indirect effect that is twice as large as the direct effect of
gender on protest participation. It seems clear that differential socialization,
social psychological differences (which most likely result from socialization
differences), and gender differences in college attendance are primarily

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
responsible for women's low rates of protest participation.
Black respondents are found to have been more likely to protest, and being
black also gives a positive indirect effect through college attendance. This seems
counterintuitive, but actually results from the sample bias in the YPSPS. It is
likely that those blacks who finish high school are the most motivated toward
educational goals, and since the YPSPS is biased against high school dropouts,
it yields a group of black students who are very likely to attend college. A
similar explanation also applies to the positive indirect effect of southern
residence which works through college attendance and offsets southerners'
indirect effects through lower efficacy and stronger beliefs in the Bible. The
significant negative total effect of southern residence on protest results primarily
from its negative direct effect. Urban residents are more likely to become
involved in the protests, and their weaker beliefs in the Bible add a significant
positive indirect effect to the modest direct effect.

Summary and Conclusions

In this article we have sought to illuminate the developmental differences

between youths who participated in the protests of the 1960s and those who did
not. While previous studies have focused largely on the microstructural
involvements that facilitate recruitment to particular movements, we have
examined the factors that direct these microstructural ties and place people at
risk for mobilization. While we have, admittedly, neglected the micromobiliza-
tion processes that directly tie individuals to social movements, we have
identified a number of previously neglected relationships that are crucial for
predicting who protested during this period. Specifically, we show how
socialization factors, social psychological dispositions, and social class are
related to participation in the protests that characterized this political period.
More importantly, we point out the interrelationships between class, social
psychological orientations, and socialization. We have done this using data from
a longitudinal national sample with information from both parents and children.
These data allow us to examine participation across a range of movements and
levels of participation and risk, rather than focusing on a particular type of
activism in a specific movement.
Our results suggest that socialization influenced participation in the
protests primarily in two ways: (1) by passing on religious beliefs that may
hinder protest; and, (2) by imbuing children with norms favoring political
participation. We found that those who believed strongly in the Bible were
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 837

unlikely to become involved in civil disobedience. Bible-based conservative

Protestantism emphasizes obedience to authority (Ellison & Sherkat 1993a,
1993b), and such beliefs will undermine the propriety of collective action.
Further, conservative Protestant religious communities may have imbued their
young members with a strongly felt anticommunism (Wilcox 1992), which
would make protest against the Vietnam war unlikely.
Most researchers have assumed that religious values and institutions were
affected by the social movements of the period, rather than having influenced
participation in these movements. In contrast, we show that conservative
religious beliefs, fostered by conservative Protestant denominations, hindered

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
participation in these movements. At the other end of the religious spectrum,
the concerns for social justice that are found in the non-Protestant groups seem
to have made members of these groups more likely to have participated in the
protests. The higher participation rates among Catholics and Jews does not
necessarily reflect institutional support for the antiwar and civil rights move-
ments, though there was a good deal of support for these movements from the
Catholic Church and from various Jewish groups. It may well reflect an
unmeasured aspect of ethnic socialization toward leftist politics, as is apparent
in the biographies of leftist activists reported in Braungart and Braungart (1990).
It is notable that our finding of Catholic activism contrasts with assertions about
Catholic political conservatism (e.g., Flacks 1990).
Above and beyond other influences, having politically active parents makes
children more likely to engage in nonmainstream political activity. Our results
suggest that the influence of parents' political activity works both directly and
indirectly: (1) active parents directly enhance the likelihood of their children
becoming protesters by passing on participatory norms; and (2) active parents
indirectly influence participation through their influence on children's academic
careers. Children seem to learn from their parents participation in politics that
political action, and not simply obedient patriotism, is a part of citizenship. It is
possible that other, unmeasured ideological factors that are passed on from
parent to child would also predict the likelihood of being an activist.
We found that social class helps drive participation through its influence on
participatory and religious socialization. Parents with high social status are the
most likely to be politically active, and they likely encourage their children to
do likewise. Secondly, social class has a negative impact on the variety of
religious orthodoxy which hinders participation in the types of social protest
that were popular in the sixties and early seventies. Upper-middle-class parents
simply do not instill their children with an unwavering faith in the inerrancy of
scriptures, and this may prevent their children from developing the fatalistic,
otherworldly worldview that supports submission to authority and hinders
participation in movements for social change.
Political efficacy is an important determinant of who becomes a movement
activist. If one has no hope of influencing the political system, there is no reason
to protest. The activists in the antiwar, student, and civil rights movements of
the 1960s differed early on in their subjective evaluations of their own influence
from those who sat out the protests. While network ties may bring individuals
into contact with social movements, they will only foster participation among
those who are inclined to be confident of the success of the movement. These
838 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

subjective assessments "privilege" large groups by making individual contribu-

tions seem important.
Social class facilitates activism through its influence on political efficacy.
The upper classes rarely succumb to the political fatalism which ensnares the
less fortunate, and this belief in political agency makes the upper classes more
likely to engage in political activism both within and outside of institutional
politics. Unfortunately, we cannot tie this relationship to differences in child-
rearing styles or family decision making using these data. However, other
studies of class differences in social psychological dispositions tend to suggest
that differences in child-rearing practices, with the higher classes favoring

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
autonomy over obedience, lead to differences in efficacy (e.g., Kohn 1969).
Future investigations should try to directly explore the relationship between
child-rearing practices and participation in social protest.
One unique contribution of our study is that we are able to identify social
psychological, socialization, and gender stratification differences that account for
most of the gender differences in protest participation. Initially, our findings are
similar to those of McAdam (1986), with women being less likely to participate
then men. If this were a result of general perceptions of the risk of participation,
sexism within movements, or differences in the level of grievance, the effect of
gender should be primarily direct. However, this is not the case. Most of the
effect of gender on the likelihood of protest is mediated by women's lower
levels of efficacy, stronger religious beliefs, and lower rates of college attend-
ance. Indeed, we find that these indirect negative effects are twice as influential
on women's decisions to protest than residual gender differences not accounted
for by these factors. Other gender differences in socialization that go un-
measured in our study may further account for women's relative political
passivity. Since our study focuses on the "average activists" of this period
(in contrast to the high-risk activists studied by McAdam), it is unlikely that
women would have much cause to fear protest. The treatment of women within
movements is less important for distinguishing who participates in an action
than it is for identifying the impact of the movement experience. Women who
participated in the social movements experienced the drudgery of being assigned
to perform menial tasks. Hence, many of them may have left in disgust or
disillusionment, but their initial participation was already established. Since our
study focuses on participation and not commitment, such hostile movement
environments may be less relevant to this study.
While we have not considered microstructural recruitment processes in this
article, future research should examine the relationship between socialization
and social ties that facilitate recruitment. We may follow our friends and
acquaintances into all types of social movements, but how did we wind up with
those friends and acquaintances in the first place? It seems unlikely that studies
of the social movements of the 1960s will be able to bridge this data gap
(recognized with the benefit of hindsight) in any systematic fashion. However,
we hope that researchers embarking on longitudinal studies will collect data on
both early and later socialization experiences and social involvements. Such data
would allow a much more thorough evaluation of the development and
recruitment of social activists when the next round of social unrest occurs.
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 839

Notes

1. It is possible that the relationship between class and conformity is not generalizable across
cultures. Working class children may be socialized to resist authority in nations with long
traditions of working-class militancy.
2. See Jennings (1987) and Sherkat and Blocker (1992) for an examination of the long-term
differences between activists and nonactivists using the third wave of the YPSPS.
3. One reviewer pointed out that military service may have influenced participation in the
social movements of the 1960s. However, we found that the proportion of protesters who were
in the military between 1965 and 1973 (.304) was roughly equal to the proportion of non-
protesters with military service (.294). Further analyses, available on request, show that this

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
nonfinding holds up under multivariate controls. Alienation from the military during Vietnam
was particularly high, making it somewhat likely that former servicemen would later protest
the war they fought, and the actions of those who volunteered or went willingly may be offset
by those of unwilling participants in the war.
4. Because of sample size limitations, we cannot examine participants in each of the types of
movements separately. However, in ancillary analyses (available on request) we found that
respondents who participated only in the civil rights movement, or who participated only in
the student movements looked very much like participants in the antiwar movement. The only
major exception was that in both the student and civil rights movements, blacks were
disproportionately active.
5. Our decisions about leaving out the nonreligious and keeping in the small numbers of non-
Judeo-Christians allows us to compare conservative Protestants and Catholics and Jews with
individuals raised in other religious traditions (the vast majority of whom are mainline
Protestants). Since the number of nonreligious and non Judeo-Christian individuals is far too
small to allow them to be identified by dummy variables, there are two remaining alternatives:
(1) leaving the nonreligious in the omitted category along with the mainline Protestants and
non-Judeo-Christians; and, (2) eliminating the non-Judeo-Christians along with the non-
religious. Our decision was driven by our desire to to examine the influence of religious
socialization differences on protest participation. We note, however, that ancillary analyses
(available on request) using both alternative analytic schemes described above produced results
congruent with those presented here.
6. It is obvious that this is a high rate of college attendance for the overall sample. This is a
result of a bias of the YPSPS, which selects against high school dropouts, who were 26% of the
birth cohorts of the youths of this high school class.
7.Merelman and King (1986) have suggested that it was a loss of trust which helped spur the
protest movements of the 1960s. While their hypothesis is enticing, we have chosen to limit our
examination to factors measured prior to political mobilization, in order to make clear
statements about what may have fomented protest participation.
8. A number of different specifications of the model were investigated in our preliminary
examinations. Several insignificant paths were deleted to improve the overall fit of the model.
In order to try to ensure that the model which we present is the best specification, we cross-
validated our results with a random subsample of half the data (Berk 1991; Hayduk 1987;
Picard & Berk 1990). We also caution that while we refer the our results as "effects" and often
use a language of causality in discussing the results, our results are only estimates of effects
which may be biased by possible specification errors or measurement error. In the struggle
between writing style and technical accuracy (see Glenn 1989) we have chosen to write clearly,
and to rely upon the readers to understand that statistical models are stochastic.
840 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

References
Acock, Alan C., and Vern L. Bengtson. 1978. "On the Relative Influence of Mothers and
Fathers: A Covariance Analysis of Political and Religious Socialization." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 40:519-30.
Acock, Alan C., and Harold D. Clarke. 1990. "Alternative Measures of Political Efficacy: Models
and Means." Quality and Quantity 24:87-105.
Bengtson, Vern L. 1975. "Generation and Family Effects in Value Socialization." American
Sociological Review 40:358-71.
Berk, Richard A. 1991. "Toward a Methodology for Mere Mortals." Sociological Methodology.

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
21:315-24.
Blocker, T. Jean, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1989. "Environmental Issues as Women's Issues:
General Concerns and Local Hazards." Social Science Quarterly 70:586-93.
Brady, David W., and Kent L. Tedin. 1976. "Ladies in Pink: Religion and Political Ideology in
the Anti-ERA Movement." Social Science Quarterly 56:564-75.
Braungart, Margaret M., and Richard G. Braungart. 1990. "The Life-Course Development of
Left- and Right-Wing Youth Activist Leaders from the 1960s." Political Psychology 11:243-
82.
Braungart, Richard G. 1972. "Family Status, Socialization and Student Politics: A Multivariate
Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 77:108-30.
Cable, Sherry. 1992. "Women's Social Movement Involvement: The Role of Structural
Availability in Recruitment and Participation Processes." Sociological Quarterly 33:35-50.
Campbell, Ernest Q., and Thomas F. Pettigrew. 1959. "Racial and Moral Crisis: The Role of
Little Rock Ministers." American Journal of Sociology 64:509-16.
DeMartini, Joseph R. 1985. "Change Agents and Generational Relationships: A Reevaluation of
Mannheim's Problem of Generations." Social Forces 64:1-16.
1983. "Social Movement Participation, Political Socialization, Generational Consciousness,
and Lasting Effects." Youth and Society 15:195-223.
De Vaus, David, and Ian McAllister. 1987. "Gender Differences in Religion." American
Sociological Review 52:472-81.
Ellison, Christopher G., and Darren E. Sherkat. 1993a. "Conservative Protestantism and
Support for Corporal Punishment." American Sociological Review 58:131-44.
_. 1993b. "Obedience and Autonomy: Religion and Parental Values Reconsidered." Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:313-29.
Ennis, James G., and Richard Schreuer. 1987. "Mobilizing Weak Support for Social Movements:
The Role of Grievance, Efficacy, and Cost." Social Forces 66:390-409.
Fendrich, James Max, and Elis Krauss. 1978. "Student Activism and Adult Left-Wing Politics:
A Causal Model of Political Socialization for Black, White and Japanese Students of the
1960s Generation." Pp. 231-55 in Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Grange. Vol. 1,
edited by Louis Kriesberg.
Fernandez, Roberto, and Doug McAdam. 1988. "Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment
Contexts." Sociological Forum 3:327-82.
_. 1989. "Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment to Social Movements." In Organizing
for Change: Social Movement Organizations in Europe and the United States, edited by Bert
Klandermans.
Finkel, Steven E. 1985. "Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel
Analysis." American Journal of Political Science 29:891-913.
Flacks, Richard. 1967. "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student
Protest." Journal of Social Issues 23:52-75.
 Political Development of Sixties' Activists / 841

1990. "Social Bases of Activist Identity: Comment on Braungart Article." Political

Psychology 11:283-92.
Glenn, Norval. 1989. "What We Know, What We Say We Know: Discrepancies between
Warranted and Unwarranted Conclusions." Pp. 119-40 in Crossroads of Social Science, edited
by Heinz Eulau. Agathon Press.
Hayduk, Leslie. 1987. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances.
Baltimore. Johns Hopkins.
Homer, Pamela, and Robert M. O'Brian. 1988. "Using LISREL Models with Crude Rank
Category Measures." Quality and Quantity 22:191-201.
Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1990. "Religious Practice: A Human Capital Approach." Journal for the

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Scientific Study of Religion 29:297-314.
Jagodzinski, Wolfgang, and Steffen Kuhnel. 1987. "Estimation of Reliability and Stability in
Single-Indicator Multiple-Wave Models." Sociological Methods and Research 15:219-58.
Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard Niemi. 1981a. Generations and Politics. Princeton University
Press.
_.1981b. The Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1965-1973. Ann Arbor. ICPSR.
Jennings, M. Kent. 1987. "Residues of a Movement: The Aging of the American Protest
Generation." American Political Science Review 81:367-82.
Joreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sorbom. 1989. LISREL 7 User's Reference Guide. Mooresville, Indiana:
Statistical Software.
Klandermans, Bert. 1984. "Mobilization and Participation: Social Psychological Expansions of
Resource Mobilization Theory." American Sociological Review 49:583-600.
Kohn, Melvin L. 1969. Class and Conformity: A Study of Values. Dorsey.
_.1983. "On the Transmission of Values in the Family: A Preliminary Formulation." Pp. 54-
73 in Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, edited by Alan Kerckhoff.
Lawson, Ronald, and Stephen E. Barton. 1980. "Sex Roles in Social Movements: A Case Study
of the Tenant Movement in New York City." Signs 6:230-47.
Leahy, P., and Alan Mazur. 1978. "A Comparison of Movements Opposed to Nuclear Power,
Fluoridation and Abortion." Pp. 143-54 in Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and
Change. Vol 1., edited by Louis Kriesberg. JAI Press.
Litt, E. 1963. "Civic Education, Community Norms, and Political Indoctrination." American
Sociological Review 28:69-75.
Luker, Kristen. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. University of California Press.
Marsden, George. 1980. Fundamentalism and American Culture. Oxford University Press.
McAdam, Doug. 1988. Freedom Summer. Oxford.
_. 1986. "Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer." American
Journal of Sociology 92:64-90.
_. 1992. "Gender and the Activist Experience: The Case of Freedom Summer." American
Journal of Sociology 97:1211-40.
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge
University Press.
Merelman, Richard M., and Gary King. 1986. "The Development of Political Activists: Toward
a Model of Early Learning." Social Science Quarterly 67:473-90.
Miller, Karen A., Melvin L. Kohn, and Carmi Schooler. 1985. "Educational Self-Direction and
the Cognitive Functioning of Students." Social Forces 63:923-44.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1929. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. Living Age Books.
O'Brian, Robert M., and Pamela Homer. 1987. "Corrections for Coarsely Categorized Measures:
LISREL's Polyserial and Polychoric Correlations." Quality and Quantity. 21:349-60.
842 / Social Forces 72:3, March 1994

Page, Ann L., and Donald A. Clelland. 1978. "The Kanawha County Textbook Controversy: A
Study of the Politics of Life Style Concern." Social Forces 57:265-81.
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Paulsen, Ronnelle. 1991. "Education, Social Class, and Participation in Collective Action."
Sociology of Education 64:96-110.
Picard, Richard R., and Kenneth N. Berk. 1990. "Data Splitting." American Statistician 44:140-47.
Pollock, Philip H. 1983. The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political
Efficacy: A Research Note." Western Political Quarterly 36:400-409.
Rochford, E. Burke. 1985. Hare Krishna in America. Rutgers University Press.
Sherkat, Darren E., and T. Jean Blocker. 1992. "Short and Long-Term Consequences of

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 8, 2016
Movement Participation: A Comparison of 'Student' and Environmental Activists." Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society.
_. 1993. "Environmental Activism in the Protest Generation: Differentiating Sixties
Activists." Youth and Society 25:140-61.
Snow, David A., and Pamela E. Oliver. 1993. "Social Movements and Collective Behavior:
Social Psychological Dimensions and Considerations." In Sociological Perspectives on Social
Psychology, edited by Karen Cook, Gary Fine, and James House. Allyn & Bacon.
Stark, Rodney, and Charles Y. Glock. 1968. American Piety. University of California Press.
Tedin, Kent L. 1978. "Religious Preference and Pro/Anti Activism on the Equal Rights
Amendment Issue." Pacific Sociological Review 21:55-66.
Thorne, Barrie. 1975. "Women in the Draft Resistance Movement: A Case Study of Sex Roles
and Social Movements." Sex Roles 1:179-95.
Verba, Sidney, and N.H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America. Harper & Row.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. University of California Press.
Werner, Paul. 1978. "Personality and Attitude-Activism Correspondence." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 36:1375-90.
Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. God's Warriors: The Christian Right in Twentieth Century America. Johns
Hopkins Press.
Wood, James L., and Wing-Cheung Ng. 1980. "Socialization and Student Activism: Examination
of a Relationship." Pp. 21-44 in Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change. Vol. 3,
edited by Louis Kriesberg. JAI Press.