Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest Participation

Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest ParticipationAuthor(s): Alan Schussman and Sarah A. SouleSource: Social Forces, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Dec., 2005), pp. 1083-1108Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598491 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 14:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.28 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:49:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598491?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest Participation

Alan Schussman, University ofArizona Sarah A. Soule, University ofArizona

Abstract Using American Citizen Participation Survey data (Verba et al. 1995a), we perform logistic regression analyses to adjudicate between three core explanations for individual protest: biographical availability, political engagement and structural availability. We calculate estimated probabilities to weigh the relative effects of these factors on the likelihood of protest participation, and we find that being asked to protest is the strongest predictor of participating in protest, but that numerous other individual characteristics such as political interest and organizational ties are important predictors of being asked to protest. Viewing protest as a multi-stage process and recognizing that certain factors predict being asked to protest while others predict actually protesting, we gain theoretical leverage over the ways in which individuals are prompted to take part in protest.

Introduction

Scholarly interest in American political participation (or lack thereof) was recently brought to broad attention by Robert Putnam's national bestseller, Bowling Alone. As Putnam (2000) argues, there is a crisis in American political participation, at least as far as electoral participation is concerned: voter turnout rates over the past century have declined substantially, but most sharply since the late 1960s (Putnam 2000, p. 32). But voting and other electoral- oriented activities certainly are not the only means of political participation in the United States (Dalton 2002; Putnam 2000; Verba et al. 1995; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). What about forms of political participation other than electoral-oriented activities? What about less conventional (and higher risk) forms of participation such as protesting or demonstrating?

Many scholars have argued that activities of social movements are part of the normal political process; for example, Putnam (2000) notes that protesting has become standard operating procedure in the United States. Similarly, scholars associated with the "movement society" argument (e.g., Tarrow 1998; Meyer and Tarrow 1998; Soule and Earl forthcoming) suggest that the activities associated with social movements in advanced democracies have become institutionalized; in other words, protest activities have become a taken-for-granted part of the repertoire of citizens' political activities. In this view, participation in social movements is inherently political, and not irrational, as early treatments of social movements argued. Thus, if we consider an individual's political repertory (Barnes and Kaase 1979) to be a toolkit of political skills, we should broaden our empirical treatment of political participation from standard treatments of voting behavior to include the activities associated with social movements. Indeed, as Putnam himself observes, while voting has decreased in the United States, participating in protest has

This research was supported in part by a National Science Foundation CAREER grant to Sarah A. Soule (SES-9874000). The authors would like to thank Sidney Tarrow for valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article. Direct correspondence to Alan Schussman, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail: [email protected].

Social Forces, Volume 84, Number 2, December 2005 ? The University of North Carolina Press



1084 * Social Forces Volume 84, Number 2 * December 2005

increased. Citing Roper data, Putnam (2000, p. 164) notes that in 1978, 7 percent of respondents indicated that they had participated in a protest event at least once in their lives. In 1994, this figure was 10 percent, indicating an increase in protest participation over the same period of a sharp decline in voter participation.' Based on these studies, it makes little sense to limit analyses of political participation to voting and electoral activities.

This general question of participation has been considered by Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) who study political participation, writ large. The forms of participation these scholars analyze are diverse and include voting behavior, serving on local community boards, contributing to campaigns, and attending protest demonstrations. In a series of articles and a book, these scholars examine the individual-level correlates of political participation, broadly defined, typically by employing an "Index of Political Participation," which includes the sum of all types of political activity. This research has greatly broadened our conception of political participation and its correlates, and has been of enormous importance to social scientists.

In this paper, we follow in the footsteps of Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995), Dalton (2002), and Putnam (2000). Specifically, in an effort to explain why individuals participate in protest, we examine the sociological literature that focuses explicitly on participation in protest alongside the literature from political science about participation in a broad range of political activities. In what follows, we attempt to synthesize these two literatures to understand the predictors of individual-level protest participation.

Our research departs from previous work in this area in three important ways. First, as we note above, Verba and his colleagues focus on civic and electoral political participation, writ large; that is, in most of their published work, they aggregate all forms of political participation into a single index, while we examine only protest participation. Second, our use of nationally representative survey data differentiates our approach from most of the sociological work on movement participation that focuses on a single movement or protest campaign and examines only participants, rather than comparing participants with non-participants.2 Finally and most importantly, our work departs from much of the previous work in this area by focusing on the processual nature of protest participation. (See Klandermans 2004 for a review of exceptions.) That is, rather than focusing solely on the final act of participating in protest, we attempt to uncover the dynamics by which individuals come to participate in protest. By considering the links between individual characteristics and collective action, our work begins to answer a call issued by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001) for research that takes seriously the mechanisms of social movement activity and points to a more complicated set of paths to activism than those typically explored in the social movement literature.

Explaining Individual Participation in Protests: Past Literature and Hypotheses

Why do some individuals participate in protest? Sociologists interested in this question use the term "differential recruitment" (Jenkins 1983; Zurcher and Snow 1981; McAdam 1986) to refer to the factors that influence variation in participation in social movement activity. In recent years, political scientists have begun to examine this question as well, usually by identifying the set of factors that lead individuals to participate in a variety of different activities, including (but not necessarily limited to) protesting (Dalton 2002; Dalton and van Sickle 2004; Putnam 2000; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). While the methods of inquiry and terminology vary considerably, explanations from both the sociological and political science literatures for protest participation fall into three broad categories: biographical availability, political engagement and structural availability.3



Accounting for Individual Protest Participation * 1085

Biographical Availability

Biographical availability is defined as the "absence of personal constraints that may increase the costs and risks of movement participation, such as full-time employment, marriage and family responsibilities." (McAdam 1986, p. 70) Sociologists studying participation in protest usually include measures of individuals' marital, family and employment statuses, along with measures of income and age, all of which have been found in some studies to affect propensity to participate.

The literature on biographical availability suggests that younger individuals are less invested in careers and more likely to be willing to undertake risks involved in protest (Wiltfang and McAdam 1991). Younger people are also more likely to be in school, unmarried and free from obligations imposed by careers and families. In other words, age is linked to a number of important characteristics that are expected to affect propensity to protest. Thus, we hypothesize that younger people will be more likely to report having protested.4

Related to this, it is also possible that those who are married are less likely to participate in protest because marriage "implies a set of commitments that may supersede loyalties to the movement, especially if only one spouse is involved with activism." (Wiltfang and McAdam 1991, p. 997) Further, marriage is often correlated with other life events that may decrease chances of protest, such as careers and families.5 Thus, we expect that married respondents will be less likely to report having protested.

Similarly, people with children are less likely to participate in protest because responsibilities to family decrease the amount of free time available for protest and may decrease one's willingness to take the risks associated with protest (e.g., arrest).6

The biographical availability literature further suggests that individuals who are employed are less likely to participate in protest because they have less free time and because they may be unwilling to risk their jobs should they be arrested for their participation (McCarthy and Zald 1973; McAdam 1986). However, it is important to note that the empirical findings on this question have, by and large, shown the opposite of what is predicted. McAdam (1986) and Nepstad and Smith (1999) find that people employed and employed fulltime in inflexible types of occupations were more, not less, likely to participate in social movements. How can we reconcile the fact that the effect of employment status in the previous literature is exactly opposite of what is predicted? Brady, Verba and Schlozman (1995) provide some insight by arguing that resources (which are often correlated with employment status) increase participation. Thus, the literature on employment status leads to two opposing predictions. Being employed could constrain protest because those working may have less time and more to lose if arrested, or it could facilitate protest by providing a level of reliable resources.

Related to employment, students can reasonably be expected to have more free time and face relatively lighter consequences of protest than those with rigid time commitments (McAdam 1986). Thus we hypothesize that students will be more likely to report protesting than non-students.

Political Engagement

Scholars have also pointed out that political engagement influences individuals' propensity to participate in social movement activities. There are several dimensions of political engagement that have been addressed in the literature. First, some scholars point to the primacy of political interest (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995); without some level of interest in politics, individuals probably will not participate. Second, some have pointed to the information dimension of political engagement (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995);




individuals who are not informed about politics will probably not choose to participate in political activities of any type, including protest. Putnam (2000, p. 35) notes, for example, that political knowledge and interest are both "critical preconditions for active forms of participation." Political scientists typically measure engagement with questions about interest in national and local-level politics, amount of time spent reading newspapers, participating in political discussion, and overall knowledge of political matters. (For a review, see Verba, Burns and Schlozman 1997.) Third, in the sociology literature, political engagement is usually captured by the level of perceived political efficacy, the sense that one's actions can make a difference (Paulsen 1991; Ennis and Schreur 1987; Tyler and McGraw 1983), and/or receptive political attitudes (McAdam 1986, 1988).7

Related to political engagement, both sociologists and political scientists typically also include measures of how liberal an individual is when trying to explain participation in social movement activities (Verba, Burns and Schlozman 1997). As Dalton (2002, p. 67) notes, protest "is often seen as a tool for liberals and progressives who want to challenge the political establishment and who feel the need to go beyond conventional politics to have their views heard." And, both Dalton (2002) and Hirsch (1990) report that liberals in the United States are more likely to report participating in protest.

To summarize, the political engagement literature suggests the following hypotheses: Political interest, access to information, sense of efficacy and being liberal should increase individuals' likelihood of protesting.

Structural Availability

The final category of explanation, structural availability, is sometimes called the "microstructural account of recruitment" (McAdam 1986; see review in Passy 2001) and simply refers to the presence of interpersonal networks which facilitate recruitment to activism. Related to this is the observation that individuals rarely participate in social movement activities (such as protest) unless they are asked to do so, presumably by those already engaged in movement activity (Klandermans 1997; Verba, Scholzman, and Brady 1995).8 Because organizations are presumed to forge ties between individuals, membership in organizations (both movement-related and non-movement related) is almost always found to facilitate recruitment into protest (McAdam 1986; McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Oberschall 1973; Paulsen 1991; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995).9

It is important to note that there are at least two different kinds of explanations suggested in the literature for this robust finding. Sociologists who have found a relationship between organizational membership and protest have generally argued that ties to other individuals that are forged in organizations may be activated for the purposes of mobilizing people to protest (Gerlach and Hine 1970, p. 79; Klandermans 1997, p. 67; McAdam 1982, p. 44; Snow et al. 1980, p. 789). Related to this is the observation that individuals rarely participate in protest and other political activities unless they are explicitly asked to do so (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995; Klandermans 1997). The extant empirical literature is fairly consistent; the presence of a network tie to someone already engaged in a movement is one of the strongest predictors of individual participation in the movement.10 Indeed, the functions of such ties are a key aspect of this paper.

Because organizational membership in this literature is not limited to social movement organizational membership, this argument rests on the assumption that, for the most part, people who hold similar ideologies and/or who are similar in some other dimension will join common organizations (McPherson and Smith-Lovin 1987). This baseline affinity makes it more likely that ties formed within organizations can be activated for protest. For example,




members of the same church may be mobilized by other parishioners to participate in a protest event, even if the issue of the event is not directly related to the goals of the church itself. Because common membership in the church makes it more likely that the members will agree on issues, the ties formed within the church may be avenues of mobilization.1 Thus, we hypothesize that individuals belonging to more organizations will have a greater probability of reporting protest. Similarly, we also hypothesize that individuals who are asked to protest will be more likely to protest than are those who are not asked.

While recognizing the important role of recruitment networks that may be forged via organizations, Brady and colleagues also advocate a second role of organizations, specifically that organizations are where people obtain civic skills, a predictor of political participation (Brady, Verba and Schlozman 1995; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). Civic skills are generally conceptualized as organizational and communications skills which can be used for political participation of any type, including protest. For Verba et al. (1995), civic skills - frequently learned at work, church or in voluntary organizations, including participation in meetings and public speaking - are a key component of political participation. Although participating in protest is a different kind of political activity from the electoral participation expressly studied by Verba et al., civic skills are likely to affect protest similarly. Consequently, we also include in the structural availability models a measure of respondents' civic skills, and we hypothesize that the greater degree of civic skills, the more likely a respondent is to take part in protest activity.

Research Design, Data Sources and Methods

We seek to evaluate the broad categories of explanation of individual-level participation in movement activity, and we begin by noting that the sociological literature on this question has almost exclusively relied on the case study approach. (For a notable exception, see Paulsen 1991.) This approach has been useful for generating testable hypotheses, but as is common with the case study approach, the main findings have varied from case to case, making it difficult to make general statements about the causes of participation in protest. When the political science literature has examined participation in social movement activities, it has favored nationally representative surveys (Verba et al. 1995; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995; Dalton 2002).12 This literature, however, has typically focused on political participation more broadly, not separating out activities of movement organizations from indices of overall participation. (See Dalton 2002 and Norris 2002 for notable exceptions.) We avoid these pitfalls by combining theory and questions from both disciplines in an effort to focus only on participation in movement activities, specifically in protest,

Data Source: The American Civic Participation Study (ACPS)

Our data come from the American Citizen Participation Study (Verba et al. 1995a), a clustered, stratified survey of 15,053 adults over age 18 in the United States conducted in the last six months of 1989. In the spring of 1990, in-depth follow-up interviews were conducted with 2,517 respondents.13 These detailed follow-up interviews include questions on political attitudes, political behavior, experiences in political and protest activities, organizational affiliations and perspective on social issues, in addition to extensive demographic information. African American, Latino and activist survey respondents were over sampled in the 1990 follow-up survey; all analyses herein are performed on the resulting set of weighted data.



1088 * Social Forces Volume 84, Number 2 ? December 2005

Dependent Variable

We constructed a dummy variable measuring whether or not the respondent reported participation in protest activity directed at either a local or a national problem. The ACPS asked respondents if they have taken part in a "protest, march or demonstration" related to either a local or national issue in the prior 12 months (PT1YR). From this variable, we constructed a dummy variable that is coded 1 if respondents answered affirmatively, and coded 0 otherwise. In the ACPS, 5.7 percent of respondents reported that they had participated in a protest. Measurement details for each of our variables are described in the Appendix.

Independent Variables

Control Variables Included in All Models In all models, we include two control variables indicating whether the respondent was African American or male. The first of these is included because prior research has found that African Americans are more likely than whites to protest (Paulsen 1991; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995, p. 484). Many scholars note that those who are outside of the institutional political system (i.e., subordinate ethnic/racial groups) often have lower rates of voting and voter registration than do groups who are inside of the political system (i.e., dominant groups). While this has led some scholars to conclude that marginal groups do not participate in the political process, we argue that focusing solely on voting behavior overlooks the possibility that participation in social movement activity may be an important part of the political repertoire for subordinate ethnic/racial groups. To control for this possible effect in our models, we include a dummy variable coded 1 when the respondent self-identified as African American.

We include gender as a control because research has shown that women are less likely than men to participate in protest (Paulsen 1991; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995; Taylor and Raeburn 1995; Dalton 2002; McAdam 1992; 1982), Explaining this finding, Schlozman, Burns and Verba (1994) and Verba et al. (1997) argue that women are less politically informed and engaged, and therefore are less likely to participate in politics. McAdam (1992) suggests that the barriers to movement participation are higher for women than for men, and that women are not expected to engage in protest. Finally, Dalton (2002, p. 47) notes that women are often socialized to believe that participation in politics (broadly defined) is "inappropriate for the female role." Therefore, in the analysis presented below, we include a dummy variable coded 1 for male respondents.

Biographical Availability Previous empirical work examining the effect of various measures of biographical availability has reported somewhat mixed results depending on which movement or issue area is being studied (Nepstad and Smith 1999) and depending on how risky and costly the participation is (McAdam 1988). Because our analysis uses survey data that cut across issue areas and risk/cost levels, we hope to adjudicate between the conflicting results regarding the various dimensions of biographical availability. Thus, our first model presented is designed to test arguments about the effect of biographical availability on protest. We include the respondent's age, education, marital status, presence of children, family income, student status and employment status.

Political Engagement Our second model adds measures of the respondent's level of political engagement. As noted earlier, political engagement is typically operationalized as political interest, political knowledge and political efficacy. Thus, we include two measures of political knowledge




(reading a daily newspaper, watching news on television daily), three measures of political interest (interest in politics, voter registration status and enjoyment of political discussion), and one measure of the respondent's level of political efficacy (respondent's belief that s/he can influence the local or national government). Finally, we also include a dummy variable coded 1 when the respondent self-identified as a liberal.

Structural Availability We include three different measures of structural availability in the final model. First, we include a measure of the respondent's total number of organizational affiliations to test the hypothesis that an individual's organizational memberships increase his/her probability of protesting. Second, we include a dummy variable coded 1 when a respondent indicated that s/he was asked to participate in protest. Finally, we include a measure of the respondent's level of civic skills (e.g., writing political letters, planning meetings, attending meetings, public speaking) obtained in church, organizations and/or work settings.

Analysis and Results

Our analysis consists of several rounds of logistic regressions, the first of which is presented in Table 1. These first three models test each of the main arguments outlined above (biographical and structural availability and political engagement). Because our dependent variable is dichotomous, representing participation or lack thereof, we perform our analyses using logistic regression models, in which coefficients are estimated using maximum likelihood methods, and are interpreted as the change in log odds resulting from a one-unit change in the independent variable. Models are estimated using the "logit" command in Stata, Verson 7.0 (StataCorp 2001). To account for oversampling, estimations are weighted according to proportion weights included in ACPS data.

First, contrary to previous research, we find no significant effect of gender on propensity to protest; men and women are equally likely to report having protested in 1990. While our analysis can only speak to the lack of a significant gender effect in 1990, we are encouraged by the implication of this finding, given that earlier studies had found a clear link between gender and protest, with women far less likely to report protesting. That is, we interpret this finding as evidence of a diminishing gender gap in this particular form of political participation, hinting at the possibility that women in the United States no longer feel that protest and political participation are inappropriate or inconsistent with their gender roles. This finding also resonates with findings regarding women's voter turnout; by the mid-1980s, women represented a greater proportion of the electorate than men (Miller 1988).

Second, the first model in Table 1 also shows that African Americans are more likely to report protesting. This finding indicates that despite lower rates of voter turnout (Conway 2000), African Americans may, in fact, be politically active in other ways. However, as subsequent models in Table 1 show, when we include measures of political engagement and structural availability, the effect disappears, suggesting that any apparent effect of race on protest likelihood is better explained by these characteristics.1

Turning now to our results concerning arguments related to biographical availability, across all models in Table 1, younger people are more likely to report protesting, as we expected based on findings reported by Dalton (2002), Verba, Schlozman and Burns (1995), and McAdam (1992). In most models in Table 1, marital status and having children are not significant. The exception is the third model, in which having children decreases the probability that a respondent participated in protest, as the biographical availability argument predicts.




Table 1: Participation in Protest, American Civic Participation Survey

Independent Variable

Male

African American

Age (log)

Married

Children

Education

Employed Fulltime

Family Income (log)

Student

Reads Daily Newspaper

Watches TV News Daily

Interested in Politics

Enjoys Political Discussion

Registered to Vote

Efficacy

Liberal

Civic Skills

Number of Organizational affiliations

Asked to Participate

Constant

Biographical Availability

-.09 (.22) .82**

(.27) -.95*** (.27) -.03 (.23) -.39 (.21) .22***

(.05) -.03 (.25) .24*

(.15) .93

(.48)

-5.17

N 2309 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors; p p<.05 **p <.1l ***p < 001

Political Engagement

-.20 (.23) .52 (.29)

-1.49***

(.34) -.004 (.26) -.37 (.24) .12*

(.06) -.20 (.30) -.03 (.19) 1.36* (.54) .64**

(.25) .38

(.27) .63*

(.27) .54*

(.26) .80*

(.33) .37

(.21) 1.12*** (.23)

-2.78 2078

Structural Availability

-.19 (.26) .52

(.30) -1.32*** (.35) .35

(.28) -.71* (.24) .08

(.06) -.02 (.31) -.17 (.19) .36

(.76) .64*

(.28) .27

(.27) .27

(.27) .39

(.25) 1.37** (.46) .34

(.23) 1.12*** (.25) .10*

(.05) -.01

(.03) 2.40***

.28 -1.90

1877

i i i i i i i iii




The coefficient on years of education is positive and significant in the first two models, indicating support for the argument that more educated people may be more politically sophisticated and better able to draw on resources garnered through education (Dalton 2002). However, when measures of structural availability are included in the third model in Table 1, the effect of education disappears.

The final biographical availability measures we include concern the relationship between employment, income and protest. While much of the sociological literature hypothesizes that employed people will be less likely to participate in protest, we find no effect of full-time employment on probability of protest. In our first model, however, we do find that people with higher incomes are more likely to protest, but in models that include measures of political engagement and structural availability, this effect of income loses significance, suggesting only limited support for the Brady, Verba and Schlozman (1995) resource model of political participation.15 Last, our results indicate that students may be more likely to report protesting, as we expected. However, student status is only significant in Model 2 and loses significance once indicators of structural availability are included.

In sum, then, when we consider the biographical availability argument as an explanation for participation in protest, there are two factors that seem important to protest, net of political engagement and structural availability, which are included in Models 2 and 3 in Table 1: youth and having no children.

Turning to our measures of political engagement, which are added in Model 2 of Table 1, we find mixed support for the argument that political knowledge, the first dimension of political engagement, increases the probability of protest. Respondents who report that they read a newspaper daily were more likely to engage in protest, but watching television news daily did not significantly affect the likelihood of protest.

With respect to political interest, the second dimension of engagement, we find that respondents who report that they are interested in politics and enjoy political discussion are much more likely to report participating in protest, as we expected. These findings are consistent with those of Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) regarding voter turnout. In this case, however, we emphasize their importance for involvement in protest, although we note that the significance of these measures diminishes when we include structural availability measures in the final model of Table 1.

Finally, departing from the findings of Norris (2002, p. 205), we find that being registered to vote has a positive and significant effect on protest likelihood. This suggests that voting and protest are complementary forms of political expression, rather than conflicting or alternative forms.

With respect to political efficacy, the third dimension of political engagement, our findings indicate that respondents who perceive themselves as able to gain the attention of and influence decision-makers - in other words, express a "voice" in local or national issues - were no more likely to engage in protest than their less efficacious counterparts. This finding (alongside that of being registered to vote) suggests that protest is not a last resort to be explored only after other, more conventional, forms of participation (e.g., voting) have been used.16

Finally, it is important to note that, with respect to ideological leanings, individuals who self-identified as "liberal" are more likely to report protesting.17 While this is consistent with past research (Dalton 2002), it is inconsistent with the movement society argument (Meyer and Tarrow 1998) which holds that the use of protest is no longer solely associated with left- leaning liberals, but is part of the political repertory of conservatives as well.18

The last model in Table 1 reports the results of our test of arguments about how structural availability affects probability of protest. First, we find that having civic skills increases the




probability of protesting. More intriguing is our finding that being asked to protest is a particularly strong predictor of doing so, but, contrary to past research, active organizational affiliation does not affect the probability of protesting. The former of these findings is consistent with previous work that has emphasized the importance of being asked to participate (Klandermans 1997; Verba et al. 1995), but the latter result is surprising, given the common argument that people embedded in organizations are more likely to participate in protest activities.

In an attempt to resolve this unexpected finding, we ran additional logistic regression models, hypothesizing that while protesting appears to be linked to being asked to protest, the elements of availability, political engagement and organizational affiliations may lay the groundwork for such a request. That is, we suggest that the process of generating protest participation begins long before the appeal or invitation, in organizations, attitudes and personal characteristics that make individuals likely to receive requests for participation. To disentangle the act of protest from the preceding processes, we ran a logistic model testing the factors that predict the probability of being asked to protest.

When we compare the findings presented in the model in Table 2 with the final model (Model 3) in Table 1, we find evidence for several indirect relationships. First, those who are politically interested and enjoy political discussion are more likely to be asked to protest, which in turn increases the probability of protesting. Second, better educated people and students are more likely to be asked to protest. And finally, an indirect relationship appears to exist between organizational affiliations, civic skills and protest; that is, membership in organizations and the accompanying civic experience obtained therein, increase the probability of being asked to protest, which consequently increases the probability of protesting.

This final finding is important because it speaks directly to the question of why organizational membership matters to protest participation. While some have hypothesized that membership matters because organizations are where civic skills are obtained or where cognitive liberation happens, we argue that they are also important because they facilitate appeals to protest.

That those who are asked to protest are significantly different from those not asked supports the idea expressed by Klandermans (2004): that breaking down protest into a process consisting of at least two stages - being asked to protest and then actually protesting - is a useful way to make sense of protest participation. To make our analysis sharper, we ran a final set of logistic regression models in which we separate the population of those people asked to protest from those not asked and repeat our full model of protest (Model 3, Table 1). Table 3 describes the results of this model.

Only two variables, youth and liberal ideology, increase the probability of protesting for both groups. However, more interesting than these two similarities are the differences between these subgroups with respect to participation in protest. First, it appears that political interest, engagement and civic skills are more important predictors of protest for those who were not asked to protest than for those who were. Meanwhile, among those who were asked to protest, having children significantly decreases the odds of participating, while being registered to vote has a strong and significant positive effect.

Protest as Process

Logistic regression allows us to estimate the effects of our independent variables on the actual probability of a given outcome - in this case, the probability of being asked and ultimately participating in a protest event. To explore the actual effects of variations in




Table 2: Being Asked to Participate in Protest, American Citizen Participation Survey

Independent variable

Male

African American

Age (log)

Married

Children

Education

Employed Fulltime

Family Income (log)

Student





Registered to Vote

Efficacy

-.22 (.19) .08

(.23) -1.03*** (.29) -.26 (.22) .20

(.20) .13**

(.05) -.27 (.23) -.14 (.14) 1.04* (.51) .04

(.20) .26

(.20) .53**

(.21) .58**

(.20) .05

(.25) -.19 .16

Liberal .27 (.18)

Civic Skills .09** (.03)

Number of Organizational Affiliations .07*** (.02)

Constant .71

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors; N = 1,877; *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001




Table 3: Comparison of Protest Participation: Asked vs. Unasked Participants, American Citizen

Participation Survey II I I I I I I I I I I I II

Independent variable

Male

African American

Age (log)

Married

Children

Education

Employed Fulltime

Family Income (log)

Student





Registered to Vote

Efficacy

Liberal

Civic Skills

Number of Organizational affiliations

Constant

Individuals not asked to protest (N = 1515)

-.42 (.38) .38

(.46) -1.63*** (.43) -.28 (.36) -.38 (.30) .12

(.09) .28

(.45) -.06 (.31) 1.52 (.79) .49

(.35) .91*

(.38) .77*

(.36) .79**

(.31) .70

(.52) .27

(.33) 1.46*** (.33) .12*

(.06) -.01 (.04)

-2.68

Individuals asked to protest (N = 362)

.02 (.31) .27

(.41) -1.28* (.57) .81

(.42) -1.03** (.36) .04

(.08) .12

(.39) -.21 (.23) -.32

(1.11) .77

(.41) -.13 (.36) -.02 (.37) -.10 (.36) 1.71**

(.60) -.38 (.30) .96**

(.36) .06

(.07) .01

(.03) 1.61

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors; *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001




individual characteristics on this protest process, we generated estimated probabilities using a variety of values for each of the significant sets of variables in our logistic regression models presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3.19 These estimated probabilities are displayed in Table 4.20

The first set of probabilities demonstrates that being asked to protest is preceded by a number of significant variables. While the base probability of being asked to participate is reasonable (.120), the probability increases dramatically as respondents become increasingly available (in this model, youth, education and student status are significant independent variables), engage in politics (interested in national politics and expressing enjoyment of political discussion), and organize (having both high numbers of organizational memberships and high levels of civic skills). When all three of these measures are high, the estimated probability of being asked to protest is an extraordinary .728. The estimated probabilities listed also demonstrate how strongly these characteristics can inhibit being asked to protest. Individuals who are marked by biographical unavailability, distance from politics and minimal organizational ties and civic skills are highly unlikely to be asked to protest, with a probability of just .020. Likewise, lacking biographical availability substantially reduces the likelihood of being asked to participate even in the face of high political engagement and organizational connections. Indeed, a comparison of estimated probabilities suggests that biographical availability most strongly influences the likelihood of being asked to protest, while political engagement and organizational ties have comparable effects on the likelihood.

These estimated probabilities provide evidence that protest participation is influenced at different stages by distinct individual and structural factors; those factors that are important for one stage may not be important for another stage. For example, it is clear that one's student status, level of education, political interest and enjoyment of discussion are influential in the process of being asked to participate; low measures of all these variables substantially reduce the likelihood of being asked. However, none of these variables are significant when modeling the likelihood of actually protesting among those who were asked to do so. Similarly, while organizational affiliations make it more likely for individuals to be asked to protest, individuals' organizational involvement plays little role in their following through and taking part in a protest. That different components of particular theoretical constructs matter more or less at different stages ("availability" is characterized partly by level of education when it comes to being asked to participate, but education is unimportant in other models) is a significant insight yielded by this finely-grained approach.

Additional evidence for this approach is found when we consider the estimated probabilities for actual protest participation. Unless asked to protest, the likelihood of protesting is very low, with a probability of .020. Separately, not availability, engagement nor skills (aspects of all of which are significant variables in the logistic regression) raise the likelihood of protest very far. When all of these characteristics are met (i.e., when individuals are young, lack children, consume print news, are registered voters, are liberal and have high levels of civic skills), protest likelihood does increase substantially. However, this constellation of variables puts a rather high threshold on protest participation, making it a fairly unlikely event for most individuals who are not specifically asked to take part.

Conversely, when those individuals who were asked to participate are considered, availability (again measured by youth and the lack of children, the variables significant in our model of protest among those asked) increases the likelihood of protest from .210 to .400. Not only is the base probability high, but the same two variables have an effect nearly five times as strong as when being asked to participate is not considered. Individuals who are both biographically available and politically engaged (here measured by being liberal and registered to vote, neither of which affect the likelihood of actually being asked) have a very high likelihood of protest participation: .569. As in previous estimations, the lack of engagement and/or availability is a heavy drag on protest.




Table 4: Estimated Probabilities of Being Asked and of Participating in Protest

Model and Conditions

Being asked to participate

Available

Engaged

Organized

Available & Engaged & Organized

Not available & Engaged & Organized

Available & Not Engaged & Not Organized

Available & Engaged & Not Organized

Available & Not Engaged & Organized

Not available & Engaged & Not Organized

Not available & Not Engaged & Organized

Not Available & Not Engaged & Not Organized

Estimated Probability

.120

.438

.214

.196

.728

.173

.210

.445

.470

.059

.065

.020

Protest

Available

Engaged

Skilled

Available & Engaged & Skilled

Protest, among those asked

Available

Engaged

Available & Engaged

Not Available

Not Available & Engaged

Not Engaged

.020

.045

.065

.026

.175

.210

.400

.345

.569

.084

.154

.035




Table 4: continued

Model and Conditions Estimated Probability

Available & Not Engaged .084

Not Available & Not Engaged .013

Protest, among those not asked .008

Available .015

Engaged .082

Skilled .011

Available & Engaged & Skilled .193

Not available & Engaged & Skilled .067

Available & Not Engaged & Not Skilled .002

Available & Engaged & Not Skilled .108

Available & Not Engaged & Skilled .001

By comparison, among individuals not asked to protest, biographical availability is relatively unimportant, at least in terms of sheer magnitude of effect. Being young and having civic skills do increase the likelihood of protest, but only in the presence of substantial political engagement. This finding has a reasonable interpretation: those not asked or pulled to protest must push themselves, and such a push is far more likely to come from political interest and enjoyment of political engagement than from a lack of constraints related to biographical factors.

Summary of Key Findings

We began this research with the goal of adjudicating between three core arguments, proffered by the literatures in political science and sociology, for individuals' participation in protest: biographical availability, political engagement and structural availability. To this end, our most important finding is that, net of all other factors, individuals who are asked to protest are far more likely to protest than are those who are not targeted. This finding resonates with those of Klandermans and his colleagues (Klandermans 2004), and it confirms the important suggestion by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001, p. 51) that contentious political activity (such as protest) must be understood as developing through social interaction.

We view protest as a multi-stage process much as Klandermans (2004) and McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001) have suggested. Thus, beyond our adjudication of the explanatory power of the core arguments, we also attempt to understand what leads people to be asked to protest (which in turn leads to protest participation). We find that younger, better educated individuals who are interested in politics and enjoy political debate and discussion are more




likely to be asked to protest, as are students. But, on top of these findings, we find that individuals belonging to organizations and who possess a certain type of human capital, civic skills, are more likely to be asked to protest. These first two sets of findings suggest a process by which individuals come to protest and suggest a profile of individuals likely to engage in protest. The process of participating in protest is structured by the appeal to do so. But, appeals are not issued to all people equally; certain types of people are far more likely to be asked to protest than are others.

Finally, our results suggest that while individuals who are asked to protest are far more likely to participate in such activities, there are some individuals who participate without ever being asked to do so. Politically liberal individuals who possess civic skills and are "hyper engaged" in politics (i.e., are interested, knowledgeable and otherwise politically engaged) participate in protest despite never being asked to do so. In other words, while being asked to protest is clearly the most common pathway to protest, there are individuals who participate in protest without ever being targeted directly by another person. One possible implication of this finding is that impersonal and indirect means such as tabling and direct mail (used, for example, by the animal rights activists studied by Jasper and Poulson 1995) may be particularly effective means to mobilize participation, but only for particular individuals.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our research yields interesting results for both the character of contemporary protest as well as for the process that facilitates protest. Regarding the first of these areas, we believe that two of our findings present an optimistic picture to movement scholars. First, we are encouraged by the lack of support for the argument that women are less likely to protest because they are not politically interested or engaged and/or feel that protest is not appropriate for the female role. While such arguments may have been supported in the past, our own finding regarding gender suggests that this is not the case in 1990. This finding, coupled with Miller's (1988) finding that women now represent a greater proportion of voters than men, suggests that the one possible outcome of the women's movement is that women now participate in the political arena and do so in a variety of ways. Second, we highlight the finding that in 1990, people who reported protesting were registered to vote and did not report a lack of political efficacy. Unlike earlier analyses of activism that suggested protest was linked to apathy and inefficacy (Dalton 2002, p. 59), we find that protest may be part of a general toolkit of activities employed by those active and engaged in the political process. Protest, then, may be conceived not as a last recourse for the desperate or alienated, but as an important piece of a broad repertoire, as Tarrow (1998) and Putnam (2000) suggest.

Our more important theoretical findings come from our breaking the process of protest into stages of, first, being asked and, second, participating. First, contrary to case-based research on movement participation, our findings offer only mixed support to the broad concept of biographical availability. This suggests an important revision to the biographical availability model, namely that day-to-day constraints play a less significant role than does age. Further, we find that particular aspects of biographical availability matter at different stages in the process of generating protest: having children affects protest, but only among those not asked to participate, and it has no effect on being asked to take part. Conversely, being a student or having a high level of education affect one's chances of being asked to protest, but not actually participating in protest, suggesting an indirect relationship between these aspects of biographical availability and protest. By showing that background characteristics matter in different ways at different stages of the mobilization process, these findings offer an important corrective to the more static approaches to political participation.2




Second, the utility of predicting protest using the resource-based approach to political participation (Brady, Verba and Schlozman 1995; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995) is brought into question by our findings; education and income both increase the probability of protesting in some of our initial models, but when we include measures of political engagement and structural availability, these variables lose significance. These findings suggest that protest is importantly shaped by social interaction much like other forms of contentious politics (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001). We suggest that future research is needed to identify the precise relationship between resources and protest and the mediating effects of political engagement and structural availability thereon.

Third, we have raised interesting questions about the relationship between ideological leaning and participation in both protest and more institutionalized political activity. We find that despite contrary claims made by proponents of the movement society arguments (Meyer and Tarrow 1998), liberals are more likely to protest than are non-liberals. The connections between liberal politics, conservative politics and protest are likely to have important implications beyond identifying likely protesters, however. In particular, they impart strength to the argument that repertoires of contention are bound in complex ways to existing political ties and ideologies of appropriate modes for making political claims. The nature of the relationship between ideology and tactical decisions is an important one, and additional work in this area is likely to be insightful.

Finally, and most critically, our findings suggest that people who protest were likely to have been asked to do so, and that those individuals asked to protest tend to belong to organizations, have more education, lack constraints on participation, and are politically engaged. We suggest that this finding is important not only at the substantive level - understanding who protests- but as a contribution to conceptualizing protest as a dynamic process in which different factors influence outcomes at different stages.

Our findings add weight to the arguments made by Klandermans and his colleagues (Klandermans 2004) that participating in protest is not a one-step phenomenon, but rather is constituted by stages, each of which is shaped by different individual and social factors. By separating protest into two stages, we are able to distinguish the effects of, for example, organizational involvement and political engagement. Research in both sociology and political science consistently shows that individuals embedded in organizations are more likely to participate in political activity, including protest, but the mechanism behind this consistent empirical finding has not always been specified clearly. Some argue that organizations are where cognitive liberation occurs and collective identities are formed, others argue that organizations are where civic skills are obtained, and still others argue that organizations are an extension of interpersonal ties and that these ties pull people into protest. Our results suggest that organizational affiliation facilitates being asked to protest, likely through the generation of interpersonal ties, but that that process is quite distinct from actual participation. That is, organizations are likely to create the opportunity to protest, but our research indicates that individual characteristics, such as political engagement, are important in creating the inclination to participate.

Considering the body of literature on protest participation in sociology and political science, our findings point to the value of integrating work from these two disciplines and also suggest avenues for further - and particularly sociological - work. First, we argue that the dynamic process by which protest is mobilized underscores the idea that protest should be understood as a social event that emerges partly from relationships between individuals. Our work suggests a framework for understanding some of the mechanisms that, largely through organizational and network ties, link individuals to protest. However, the data with which we work leaves some important questions wanting. What are the roles of collective and oppositional identity, grievances and the perception of political opportunity (and threats) in the process we have found?




These subjective factors are unmeasured by the survey data used here, but they are identified by many scholars as key elements of social movement involvement. (See Notes 3 and 11.) To borrow language from McAdam, Tilly and Tarrow (2001), subjective and perceptual elements may be understood as mechanisms that connect individuals to opportunities to engage in contentious politics. We propose that, when measured, these factors will fit well within the process we have articulated by contributing first to the likelihood of individuals' receiving requests to participate, and second, by affecting the odds of their agreeing to do so. The second broad suggestion that comes from our findings, then, is that future work should pay attention to grievances and collective identity as factors in a multi-stage mobilization process. Such research will augment the early work of scholars such as Cable, Walsh and Warland (1988), who suggest as we do that social networks, individual characteristics and subjective factors correspond with different mobilization outcomes.

Third and finally, integrating elements of political opportunity with our process that ties organizational embeddedness to individual characteristics suggests the value of new methodological approaches. Multi-level modeling that can connect the individual level to contexts of the city, state, legal environments and broader political regimes will provide more insights into the process of taking part in social movements. (See Martinez 2004 for an example of this approach.)

To conclude, we argue that the kind of national, cross-movement survey data that has long been a standard tool of political science research will continue to be a valuable tool for sociologists who have tended to focus on case study data. At the same time, we suggest that participation in protest genuinely is a different phenomenon, complete with different mechanisms, from voting and other more conventional politics. This implies the need for research that combines attention to biographical, social and cognitive factors while being attentive to the ways in which these elements both generate and are influenced by the contexts in which protest takes place. By so doing, sociologists and political scientists will be able to put the "process" back in political process models of participation.

Notes

1. Using data from the World Values Survey (1995-1998), Dalton (2002, p. 62) reports substantially higher rates of protest participation (25 percent). Note that World Values Survey definition is somewhat broader and includes lawful demonstrations, boycotts, unofficial strikes and building occupations. Also using the World Values Survey, Norris (2002, p. 200) reports that in the early 1990s, 15 percent of respondents reported attending lawful demonstrations.

2. In contrast, data from the American Citizen Participation Survey allow us to analyze individual-level protest across a wide range of issues, campaigns and movements, as well as to differentiate protesters from non-protesters. But see McAdam (1988) and Nepstad and Smith (1999) who both compare participants to non-participants.

3. Note that these three categories of explanation roughly correspond to the "personal characteristics," "group effects" and "political attitude components" of the "civic voluntarism model" of participation (Verba et al. 1995a). On top of these three categories of explanation, which are common to both political science and sociology, sociologists have also considered the importance of collective identity, collective action frames, and the perception of a favorable opportunity structure and/or threats to individual-level movement participation. For example, on the role of collective identity, see Hunt and




Benford (2004), Snow and McAdam (2000), Polletta and Jasper (2001), Taylor and Whittier (1992), and Snow (2001). On the role of frames and framing processes, see Snow (2004), Benford and Snow (2000), and McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001). Finally, on the role that perceived changes in opportunity and/or threat play in individual decisions to participate, see McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001) and Meyer and Minkoff (2004). We recognize that these factors are likely important influences on individual-level decisions to take part in protest, however the data that we use in this paper do not allow for analysis of these. We take this point up in our Discussion and Conclusion section, echoing McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly's (2001, pp. 43-44) call for research on exactly these processes.

4. While the reasoning for the importance of age as a predictor of participation in protest makes intuitive sense, the empirical findings have been mixed. Wiltfang and McAdam (1991), Dalton (2002) and Verba Schlozman and Brady (1995) all find support for the argument that youth is a predictor of protest, while Nepstad and Smith (1999) and McAdam and Paulsen (1993) find the opposite.

5. With respect to empirical findings on marriage, neither McAdam (1986) nor Wiltfang and McAdam (1991) find that marriage decreases the probability of protesting.

6. However, the empirical findings about the effect of children on participation have been somewhat mixed and, for the most part, do not support the arguments set forth by the biographical availability literature. For example, Wright and Hyman (1958) and Wiltfang and McAdam (1991) find that having children actually increases the chances of participation. Oliver (1984), however, finds that having children hinders activism. We hope to gain some purchase on this question using a nationally representative dataset that is not sensitive to the type of movement involved.

7. Political scientists recognize that political efficacy and political interest probably both influence political participation (Rochon 1998), but also note that this relationship is probably recursive (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995, pp. 276-277).

8. Of course, social networks are also formed by participation in protest (Putnam 2000; McAdam 1988), but examination of this relationship is beyond the scope of this paper.

9. But, note that while Nepstad and Smith (1999) find that relational ties to activists in a movement campaign predict an individual's participation in the campaign, they report no effect of organizational membership on participation in the campaign.

10. See for example Gerlach and Hine (1970); Bibby and Brinkerhoff (1974); Von Eschen, Kirk, and Pinard (1971); Snow et al. (1980); Fernandez and McAdam (1988); Gould (1990); Marwell et al. (1988); McAdam (1986); McAdam and Paulsen (1993); Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995); Nepstad and Smith (1999); and Passy (2001).

11. Some sociologists also argue that organizational membership predicts participation in social movement activities because organizations provide a space for "cognitive liberation" and/or the formation of collective identity (McAdam 1988). People who belong to organizations are more likely to develop a sense of efficacy (McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Neal and Seeman 1964) and to see how others are affected by the same national or local problems that affect themselves (McAdam 1988). This, it is argued, facilitates a




sense of collective purpose and shared grievances that are necessary for collective action (Klandermans 1997; McAdam 1982).

12. This discussion is not meant to imply that sociologists studying social movement activity do not use survey methodology. On the contrary, many case studies do so. (See comprehensive review in Klandermans and Smith 2002.) However, it is worth underscoring the point that few sociologists use nationally representative surveys to examine protest participation. (See Paulsen 1991 for an exception.) And, this discussion is not meant to imply that Verba et al. (1995a) are the only political scientists to examine protest using surveys. (See also Dalton 2002; Harris 1999; Rochon 1998; and Norris 2002.)

13. Note that missing data on some variables reduces the sample size of logit models, as indicated in model presentations.

14. Tests were also conducted using dummy variables for other minority ethnic groups, but no significant patterns were uncovered.

15. We also tested an alternative specification of income, using personal income instead of family income. Personal income was not significant in any of the models run. Family income is likely a better measure for biographical availability because it captures the ability of students, people who work from home, or other workers whose individual income may be low, to draw on a larger pool of family resources.

16. This finding hints at issues surrounding the role of collective action frames and framing in the mobilization of individuals to protest. If the individual's sense of efficacy is at all influenced by framing processes, then its lack of significance here implies that framing processes (in so much as they influence efficacy) do not necessarily translate into mobilization. We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this to our attention.

17. We also tested, in models not shown, interaction terms for our income measure and our liberal dummy variable. While not significant in all models, we did find that an interaction between personal income and self-identifying as liberal increases the probability of protesting; in other words, people with more money who self-identify as liberal are more likely to report protesting. Note that the main effects of personal income and liberal ideology were both negative and significant in these models, indicating that liberals with no income and non-liberals with high incomes are both less likely to protest.

18. In additional results not shown, we examined whether self-identified conservatives were less likely to report protesting: the coefficient is negative and significant, lending support to the argument that protest remains the domain of liberals, not conservatives, contrary to the 'movement society' prediction.

19. These are computed using the SPost suite of tools from Long and Freese (2001).

20. Table 4 is not an exhaustive list of all estimated probabilities. Rather, it lists those results that aid or complicate the interpretation of theoretical explanations for being asked to protest and actual protest participation. The full list of estimated probabilities is available from the authors.

21. Note that the case studies upon which expectations of biographical availability are based are studies of high risk and high cost movement participation involving substantial




monetary sacrifice and potential loss of life (e.g., Freedom Summer Campaign, Sanctuary Movement or the Nicaragua Exchange). Arguably, attending a protest demonstration in the United in the 1988-1990 is less costly and risky. Perhaps biographical availability arguments are better suited to high risk/high cost forms of participation.

22. Ninety percent of respondents report involvement with fewer than 20 organizations. We recoded all sums higher than this amount with a value of 20. While this recoding reduces the skewed nature of the involvement count, it does not substantially change the results of the model. Organizational affiliation was also tested with a dummy variable; these results are consistent with our other findings, and are available from the authors.

References

Barnes, Samuel H., and Max Kaase. 1979. PoliticalAction. Sage Publications.

Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. "Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-39.

Bibby, Reginald W, and Merlin B. Brinkerhoff. 1974. "When Proselytizing Fails: An Organizational Analysis." SociologicalAnalysis 35: 189-200.

Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. "Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation." American Political Science Review, 89 (2): 271- 294.

Cable, Sherry, Edward J. Walsh and Rex H. Warland. 1988. "Differential Paths to Political Activism: Comparisons of Four Mobilization Processes After the Three Mile Island Accident." Social Forces 66(4): 951-69.

Conway, M. Margaret. 2000. Political Participation in the United States, Third Edition. Congressional Quarterly Press.

Dalton, Russell. 2002. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Third Edition. Chatham House Publishers.

Dalton, Russell, and Alix van Sickle. 2004. "Why People Protest? The Resource, Structural, and Cultural Bases of Protest." Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, III.

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.

Fernandez, Roberto, and Doug McAdam. 1988. "Social Networks and Social Movements: Multi- Organizational Fields and Recruitment to Mississippi Freedom Summer." Sociological Forum 3: 357- 382.

Gould, Roger V 1990. Social Structure and Insurgency in the Paris Commune, 1871. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Department of Sociology.

Harris, Frederick. 1999. Something Within: Religion in African-American PoliticalActivism." Oxford University Press.

Hirsch, Eric L. 1990. "Sacrifice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment, and Commitment in a Student Social Movement." American Sociological Review. 55 (2): 243-254.

Hunt, Scott A., and Robert D. Benford. 2004. "Collective Identity, Solidarity, and Commitment." Pp. 431-457. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi, editors. Blackwell Publishing.




Jasper, James M., and Jane Poulson. 1995. "Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social Networks in Animal Rights and Animal Protest." Social Problems 42: 493-512.

Jenkins, J. Craig. 1983. "Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements." Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-53.

Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Blackwell.

Klandermans, Bert, and Jackie Smith. 2002. "Survey Research: A Case for Comparative Designs". Pp. 3 - 31. Methods of Social Movement Research. Bert Klandermans and Suzanne Staggenborg, editors. University of Minnesota Press.

Klandermans, Bert. 2004. "The Demand and Supply of Participation: Social Psychological Correlates of Participation in Social Movements." Pp. 360-379. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi, editors. Blackwell.

Long, J. Scott, and Jeremy Freese. 2001. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. Stata Press.

Martinez, Lisa. 2004. "Latino Political Participation: Internal Diversity and External Constraints." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Department of Sociology.

Marwell, Gerald, Pamela E. Oliver and Ralph Prahl. 1988. "Social Networks and Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass." American Journal of Sociology 94 (3): 502-534.

McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970. University of Chicago Press.

1986. "Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer." American Joural of Sociology 92: 64-90.

1988. "Micromobilization Contexts and Recruitment to Activism." International Social Movement Research (Supplement to Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change). 1: 125-154.

.1992. "Gender as a Mediator of the Activist Experience: The Case of Freedom Summer." American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1211-1240.

McAdam, Doug, and Ronnelle Paulsen. 1993. "Specifying the Relationship Between Social Ties and Activism." American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 640-667.

McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, John, and Zald, Mayer. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. General Learning Press.

McPherson, J. Miller, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1987. "Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups." American Sociological Review 52 (3): 370-379.

Miller, Arthur. 1988. "Gender and the Vote: 1984." Pp. 258-282. The Politics of the Gender Gap. Carol M. Mueller, editor. Sage.

Meyer, David S., and Debra Minkoff. 2004. "Conceptualizing Political Opportunity." Social Forces 82 (4): 1457- 1492.

Meyer, David S., and Sidney Tarrow. 1998. 'A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century." Pp. 1-28. The Social Movement Society. David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow, editors. Rowman and Littlefield.

Neal, Arthur J., and Melvin Seeman. 1964. "Organization and Powerlessness: A Test of the Mediation Hypothesis." American Sociological Review. 29: 216-26.




Nepstad, Sharon Erickson, and Christian Smith. 1999. "Rethinking Recruitment to High-Risk/Cost Activism: The Case of the Nicaragua Exchange." Mobilization 4(1): 25-40.

Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing PoliticalActivism. Cambridge University Press.

Oberschall, Anthony. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Prentice-Hall.

Oliver, Pamela. 1984. "If You Don't Do It, Nobody Will: Active and Token Contributors to Local collective Action." American Sociological Review 49: 601-10.

Passy, Florence. 2001. "Socialization, Connection, and the Structure/Agency Gap: A Specification of the Impact of Networks on Participation in Social Movements." Mobilization: An International Journal 6(2): 173-192.

Paulsen, Ronnelle. 1991. "Education, Social Class, and Participation in Collective Action." Sociology of Education 64: 96-110.

Polletta, Francesca, and James M. Jasper. 2001. "Collective Identity in Social Movements." Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283-305.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Touchstone.

Rochon, Thomas. 1998. Cultural Moves. Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values. Princeton University Press.

Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Nancy Burns and Sidney Verba. 1994. "Gender and the Pathways to Participation: The Role of Resources." The Journal of Politics 56(4): 963-990.

Snow, David A. 2001. "Collective Identity and Expressive Forms." Pp. 380-412. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. N.J. Smelser and PB. Baltes, editors. Elsevier Science.

2004. "Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields. Pp. 431457. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi, editors. Blackwell Publishing.

Snow, David A., and Doug McAdam. 2000. "Identity Work Processes in the context of Social Movements: Clarifying the Identity/Movement Nexus. Pp. 41-67. Self Identity and Social Movements. Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W White, editors. University of Minnesota Press.

Snow, D.A., L.A. Zurcher, Jr. and S. Eckland-Olson. 1980. "Social Networks and Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment." American Sociological Review 45: 787-801.

Soule, Sarah A., and Jennifer Earl. Forthcoming. "A Movement Society Evaluated: Collective Protest in the U.S., 1960-1986. Mobilization, 2005.

StataCorp. 2001. Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. Stata Corp.

Stimson, James A., Michael B. MacKuen and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. "Dynamic Representation." American Political Science Review 89: 543-565.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Verta, and Nicole Raeburn. 1995. "Identity Politics as High Risk Activism: Career Consequences for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Sociologists." Social Problems 42: 252-273.

Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier. 1992. "Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization". Pp. 104-129. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Aldon D. Morris and Carol Mclurg Mueller, editors. Yale University Press.

Tyler, T., and K. McGraw. 1983. "The Threat of Nuclear War: Risk Interpretation and Behavioral Response." Journal of Social Issues 39: 25-40.




Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, Henry E. Brady and Norman Nie. 1995. American Citizen Participation Study, 1990. ICPSR.

Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard University Press.

Verba, Sidney, Nancy Burns, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1997. "Knowing and Caring About Politics: Gender and Political Engagement." The Journal of Politics 59(4): 1051-1072.

Von Eschen, Donald, Jerome Kirk and Maurice Pinard. 1971. "The Organizational Substructure of Disorderly Politics." Social Forces 49: 529-44.

Wiltfang, Gregory, and Doug McAdam. 1991. "Distinguishing Cost and Risk in Sanctuary Activism." Social Forces 69: 987-1010.

Wright, Charles R., and Herbert H. Hyman. 1958. "Voluntary Association Memberships of American Adults: Evidence from National Sample Surveys." American Sociological Review. 23: 284-94.

Zurcher, Louis A., and David A. Snow 1981. "Collective Behavior: Social Movements." Pp. 447-82. Social Psychology.' Sociological Perspectives. M. Rosenberg and R. Turner, editors. Basic.




Appendix: Descriptions of Independent Variables from ACPS

1. African American: This variable is coded 1 if respondents identified themselves as "Black" (variable RACE; 19 percent).

2. Male: This variable is coded 1 if respondents identified themselves as male (GENDER; 46.9 percent).

3. Age: This variables is the respondent's reported age in years (logged, calculated by subtracting YEARBORN from 1990); mean age before logging is 42.4 years.

4. Married: This variable is coded 1 if respondents identified themselves as married or in a marriage-like relationship (MARITAL; 59.5 percent).

5. Children: This variable is coded 1 if respondents identified themselves as having any children (KIDS; 49.3 percent).

6. Employed Fulltime: These variables are coded 1 if respondents identified themselves as being employed fulltime within the last week (JBLSTWK; 57.8 percent).

7. Family Income: Mid-points of categories of income from categorical family income variables are used and then logged to obtain estimate of dollar value of family income. Variable FAMINC (mean income $42,207).

8. Education. This variable is the respondent's number of years of education (0-16) with a valued of 17 given for "17 or more years." Variable EDGRADE from ACPS (mean is 13.27 years).

9. Student. This variable is coded 1 if the respondent reported being a student within the last week (JBLSTWK; 3.2 percent).

10. Reads Daily Newspaper. This variable is coded 1 if respondents reported reading daily newspaper(s) (NEWSDAILY; 59 percent).

11. Watches TV News Daily: This variable is coded 1 if respondents reported watching national television news broadcasts daily (TVNEWS; 58.7 percent).

12. Interested in Politics: This variable is coded 1 if respondents report themselves to be "very interested" in national politics (NATINT; 38.3 percent).

13. Registered to vote: This variable is coded 1 if respondents report themselves to be currently registered to vote (VTREG; 80 percent).

14. Political Efficacy: Efficacy is given a value of 0, 1, or 2 by summing up two dummy variables for an individual's efficacy with respect to the local and national government. We code the two dummy variables equal to 1 when respondents report the perception of having voice in either local or national issues (VOICELOC and VOICENAT, respectively; 13.12 percent of respondents scored 0, while 17.46 percent scored 1, and 69.41 scored 2).

15. Liberal: This variable is coded 1 if respondents identified themselves as "extremely liberal," "liberal" or "somewhat liberal" (LIBCONR; 31.17 percent).

16. Enjoyment of political discussion: This dummy variable is coded 1 when respondent answer affirmatively that they enjoy discussing politics (DISCLIKE; 35.4 percent).




Appendix: continued

17. Civic skills: The set of tasks - writing a political letter, planning a meeting, attending a meeting, and giving a speech - composing civic skills is measured in three settings: In organizations, in church and at work. Civic skills, then, varies from 1 to 12, with a mean of 3.38.

18. Number of Organizations: This variable includes data on the number of organizations in which respondents identify they are involved. The dataset codes this value for each of 20 types of organizations (OGNUMA through OGNUMT) and we sum these values for a total number of reported memberships.' Mean involvement is 4.6 organizations.

19. Asked to protest: ACPS asks respondents if they have been asked to "take part in a protest, march or demonstration" within the previous 12 months. We code a dummy variable equal to 1 if respondents answer affirmatively (MPT; 17 percent).



Documents

Process and Protest: Accounting for Individual Protest Participation