Status and Action: How Stratification Affects the Protest Participation of Young Adults

Author(s): Ronnelle Paulsen

Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 635-649
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389282
Accessed: 07-03-2018 14:34 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389282?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Perspectives

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Sociological Perspectives VoL 37, No. 4, pp. 635-649
Copyright @1994 Pacific Sociological Association ISSN 0731-1214

STATUS AND ACTION:

How Stratification Affects the
Protest Participation of Young Adults
RONNELLE PAULSEN*
The University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT: General patterns of stratification in protest participation are

examined in this article using longitudinal data from a national sample of young
adults. Weber's macrolevel conception of status is tied to a microlevel social
psychological explanation of participation that includes Goffman's work on
framing. The result of the macro-micro link is a comprehensive explanation
of protest participation. Logistic regression analyses demonstrate the utility of
the comprehensive model as a general explanation of status and action. Overall,
the findings show higher socioeconomic levels, being black being Jenish, or
having a family member who is in a union increased the propensity for protest
participation among young adults in the early 1970s. Gender differences in
protest participation are not statistically significant. Discussion of how a general
model must be altered to explain participation in specific movements is included

Case studies are generally the preferred methodology in investigating social

movement participation because of the importance of controlling for the context
in which participation takes place. The emphasis on context found in case studies
narrows the field of potential participants allowing the observer to predict why
individual participants are motivated toward involvement. There are times,
however, when generality is appropriate and broadly applicable patterns of
participation are of interest. Findings of a general nature are useful in teaching
students about social movement participation. Generality may also be of assistance
to the researcher investigating a new form of protest about which little is known.
Unfortunately, too much generality makes for an impossible research task. Hence,
asking "who participates in protests?" cannot be pursued in a completely
unbounded fashion. The research presented in this article considers protest
participation among young adults who attended high school in the United States
during the late 1960s. The research is an examination of the impact of status group
membership on participation in broadly defined protest activity.

* Direct all correspondence to: Ronnelle Paulsen, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin, Burdine
Hall 336, Austin, Texas 78712-1088.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
636 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4,1994

Particular status groups-in the Weberian sense of status-are expected to

dominate the characteristics of protest participants. Protest participation must be
consistent with the individual's lifestyle in order for the person to feel comfortable
with becoming involved. Research about participation in the student and civil
rights movements during the 1960s suggests that higher socioeconomic status, or
being male, African American, or Jewish, are precursors to participation (Bloom
1987; Gitlin 1987; McAdam 1988; Sale 1973). There is little reason to doubt that the
same groups would possess a propensity for protest participation in a broader
context, but the patterns need to be empirically tested.
This article uses longitudinal data from a national sample of young adults to
test for general patterns of status group participation in protest activities. A baseline
model is formulated using socialization and network factors. The model is sensitive
to the age of the respondents (approximately 17-25 years old) and the timing of
the administration of the survey (1965 and 1973). In addition to examining the
contribution of a variety of status groups, the findings also consider subgroup
analysis for college attendance versus nonattendance and how socioeconomic
status may interact with other status groups.

WHY SHOULD STATUS GROUP PAlTERNS EXIST

IN PROTEST PARTICIPATION?

In "Class, Status, and Party," Weber states that status groups "are stratified
according to the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special
'styles of life"' (quoted in Gerth and Mills 1946:193). He includes, as examples of
status groups, occupations and community groups that are segregated in terms
of honor. It would seem to logically follow that political activity and the ability
to challenge authority (i.e., protest) are also associated with certain lifestyles more
than others. To more clearly illustrate this relationship, the author wishes to argue
that there are two sides to Weber's depiction of lifestyle-the ascribed and the
acheived-and that both have an impact on protest participation.
Part of the propensity for protest participation is due to the ascribed qualities
associated with lifestyle. For example, Dalton (1982) found that the political
socialization of youth is influenced more by the environment created by parents
than by the direct socialization of parental attitudes. He states:

parents transmit certain social characteristics to their offspring and place them
in a social milieu which can influence attitudes independent of parental views.
Secondary groups such as social class, race, religion and regional attachments
can serve as important political reference points and sources of political learning
(Dalton 1983:140).

The social groups mentioned by Dalton are, in effect, status groups. Hence, the
combination of status group memberships that one experiences creates a social
milieu. Growing up within the context of that milieu can either increase or decrease

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 637

the individual's propensity for political participation. Paulsen (1991) found further
evidence for the importance of the social milieu in collective action participation
as the milieu relates to the institution of education and the development of an
individual's sense of political efficacy.
However, not all of the effect of lifestyle on protest participation is an ascribed
process-there are choices involved in the fulfillment of status group membership.
Individuals choose to consume one commodity over another and they choose to
participate in certain voluntary activities over others. Therefore, status group
membership allows particular individuals to choose participation in protests when
it is consistent with their lifestyle. This principle is illustrated in McAdam and
Paulsen's (1993) work examining networks of participation in the 1964 Mississippi
Freedom Summer civil rights campaign. They found that, in addition to having
ties to other persons participating in the campaign, potential recruits needed to
feel that participation was consistant with their personal sense of identity. For
example, students majoring in education justified participation as a way to gain
teaching experience and those coming from a religious background emphasized
that their participation was an important part of promoting a Christian
brotherhood. If the role of "Freedom Summer volunteer" was salient to the
potential recruit's existing identity (teacher, religious person, activist, etc.), they
were more likely to choose to participate in the campaign than those without a
salient network tie. Because choice is involved, this type of lifestyle contribution
could be described as a somewhat achieved process.
Both the acheived and ascribed qualities of lifestyle determine protest
participation by the effects they have on socialization and networks. For instance,
the social milieu relates status groups to socialization contexts and identity salience
relates status groups to networks of participation. The top half of Figure 1 illustrates
this relationship. Furthermore, there is a constant interaction between lifestyle,
networks and socialization. This is due to the dialectic between structure
(networks) and culture (socialization). The consequence of the relationship
between structural and cultural opportunities and hinderances is the individual's
prioritization of their own status group memberships. One of the things that
determines an individual's interests, values, and beliefs is the person's set of status
group memberships and his/her emphasis on certain memberships over others.
Yet, tieing lifestyle to networks and socialization does not completely clarify the
relationship between status and action. Goffman provides a complementary
explanation of the applicable social psychological process that links networks and
socialization to behavior. Matching status and lifestyle with appropriate activities
would be described by Goffman as frame alignment (see the bottom half of Figure
1). The frames described by Goffman (1974:21) are a psychological tool which
"allows its user to locate, perceive, identify and label a seemingly infinite number
of concrete occurrences defined in its terms." In short, framing helps people to
make sense out of the complex situations they encounter in everyday living by
structuring experience. One way that people structure their experiences and define
who they are is to describe themselves in terms of their status group membership.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
638 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4,1994

Status Groups

Ascribed Lifestyle o Achieved Lifestyle

Networks Socializaton

Individual /
Interests, Values, and Beliefs

Invitation to Frame Alignment

Participation H

Protest Participation

Figure 1
Model of the Relationship Between Status and Protest Participation

The framing manifests itself when an individual decides it is appropriate to

participate because it is consistent with his/her lifestyle.
Frame processes in social movement participation have been described by Snow
et. al. (1986). In their article, participation depends on the alignment of the
individual's interests, values, and beliefs with the social movement's activities,
goals, and ideology. Integrating status group membership with frame alignment
processes simply calls for an appreciation of how status has an impact on interests,
values, and beliefs. The intersection of several status groups refines the definition
of the individual's frame.

What Predicts Protest Participation?

The research presented in this article does not attempt to test the framing process
in particular. Instead, the work focuses on two factors that are assumed within
frame alignment. These factors include the socialization of interests, values, and
beliefs and the importance of network structures that facilitate the invitation to
participation.
There are well-established literatures on the effects of socialization and networks
in collective action participation (for examples on socialization, see Block, Haan,
and Smith 1969; Braungart 1972; DeMartini 1983; Fendrich and Kraus 1978; Flacks
1967; on networks, see Curtis and Zurcher 1973; Fernandez and McAdam 1988;
K1andermans and Oegema 1987; Marwell, Oliver and Prahl 1988; Rogers, Bultena,
and Barb 1975; Rosenthal et. al. 1985; Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland-Olsen 1980;
VonEschen, Kirk, and Pinard 1971), but rarely are the two used together in

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 639

explanations of the behavior (Paulsen 1990). Comprehensive models of activism

using socialization and networks can be linked to the frame alignment explanation
and status group membership in the following manner. As suggested earlier, an
individual's choice of frame is directed by socialization processes. The influence
of family, friends, and teachers (Block, Haan, and Smith 1%9; Braungart 1972;
DeMartini 1983; Lewis and Kraut 1972) and membership in particular status groups
(Campbell 1980; Fendrich and Krauss 1978; Orum et al. 1974; Zipp, Landerman,
and Luebke 1982; Paulsen 1991) provides experience that helps the individual
interpret everyday occurrences related to political participation. The frame
predisposes some individuals to be open to invitations to participate in protests.
However, if an invitation is never solicited, the propensity may never be
demonstrated. Therefore, networks that bring potential participants in contact w
current activists are essential (Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland-Olsen 1980). Networks
can also develop within combinations of status groups which further enhances
the probability of status group membership being a significant predictor of
participation.

METHOD AND DATA

Frequently in social movement research, deciding which status groups are

reasonable predictors of protest participation depends on the context of the protest.
Context becomes a central issue because the research starts with an event-the
protest-and the researcher samples the individuals associated with that event.!
When the research begins with a random sample of individuals and the researcher
asks them an open-ended question about their participation in protests, context
is less of an issue. Random selection of respondents allows for a general depiction
of which status groups in the population are likely to participate in any sort of
protest.
In this article, survey data are utilized in the empirical examination of the factors
that predict participation. The Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1965-1973,
conducted by Jennings and Niemi (1981), is a study of high school students and
their parents. In 1%5, the students were chosen from a national probability sample
of 97 secondary schools (including 11 nonpublic schools) that were selected with
a probability proportionate to their size. Within each school 15-21 randomly
chosen seniors were interviewed. Of the 1,669 students who completed the 1%5
interview, 1,348 were reinterviewed or completed mail-back questionnaires. Of the
original 1,562 parents, 1,179 were personally reinterviewed or completed mail-back
questionnaires. Because the two samples came from the same families, an eight-
year history of 1,%3 parent-offspring pairs resulted. Inclusion of the parent data
is especially important in the operationalization of a measure of family
socioeconomic status (SES) since youth tend to be inaccurate about the relative
economic standings of their families.
The dependent variable, protest participation, comes from a question asked of
the youth in 1973. About 16o, 165 of the 1,012 youths in the analysis, responded

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
640 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4,1994

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of All Independent Variables (n = 1012)

Standard
Variables Mean Deviation

Political efficacy (0 = else, 1 = strong feelings) .430 .495

Political discussion with friends (0 = none, 1 = once
or twice a year, 2 = a few times a month,
3 = several times a week) 1.841 1.042
College prep enrollment (0 = no, 1 = yes) .510 .500
Occupational club (0 = nonmember, 1 = member) .301 .459
Service club (0 = nonmember, 1 = member) .222 .416
Number of clubs (0-8 clubs) 2.577 1.590
Attended college in 1966 (0 = no, 1 = yes) .510 .500
Married in 1966 (0 = no, 1 = yes) .072 .259
Military in 1966 (0 = not enlisted, 1 = enlisted) .132 .339
Anticipates future activity in politics (0 = not/some-
what active, 1 = very active) .148 .355
Socioeconomic status [SES] (2 = lowest ..... 9
highest) 41.418 24.962
Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) 1.507 .500
Race (1 = else, 2 = black) 1.082 .275
Ethnicity (1 = else, 2 = Jewish) 1.037 .188
Family member in a labor union (1 = no, 2 = yes) 1.302 .460
Gender X SES (3 ... 192) 61.730 43.327
Race X SES (2 ... 156) 43.278 25.812
Ethnicity X SES (2 ... 192) 43.453 28.933
Union X SES (2 ... 186) 51.433 32.322

yes to the question "Have you ever taken part in a demonstration, protest march,
or sit-in?"2 The dichotomous variable is coded so that 1 equals "yes" and 0 equals
"no."/
Measures of socialization, organizational membership, and status are also
included in the Youth-Parent survey. The following items make up the baseline
model which reflects the socialization and networks that are important to the
framing process. The socialization process is represented by variables measuring
whether the individual discusses politics with friends; their enrollment in a college
preparatory curriculum; a strong sense of political efficacy in terms of feeling
comfortable with their understanding of how government works; and the
individual's prediction of how active s/he will be in politics in the future. The role
of networks is measured by how many high school clubs the student participates
in; if s/he is a member of a service club; and if s/he is a member of a club promoting
an occupation. The aforementioned variables are operationalized in various ways
(see Table 1), but all are taken from the 1965 survey. Three additional network

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 641

measures-college attendance, marital status, and service in the military, are based
on activity during 1966. In 1966, the respondents had just graduated from high
school and were establishing new patterns in their lives. Considering activity in
higher education, marriage, and military service beyond this initial year over-
complicates the present analysis. The applicable status groups include
socioeconomic status, gender, race, ethnicity in terms of a Jewish religious
background, and whether the respondent resided with someone who belonged
to a labor union (see Table 1 for coding details).
In the following analysis, logistic regression is used to discern which variables
increase the likelihood of participation in protest. A series of nested models examine
a baseline model the baseline plus status group measures; and the baseline, status
groups, and interaction of SES and the other status groups. An investigation of
college-going and no-college subgroups and what predicts an individual's
perception of future activity is also pursued.

WHAT GROUPS PARTICIPATE IN PROTESTS?

As mentioned previously, about 16.3% of those surveyed responded that they had
participated in a protest. Table 2 presents the findings for the regression analyses

TABLE 2
Baseline and General Logit Models Predicting Protest Participation (n = 1012)

Baseline Model General Model

Variables b s.e. b s.e.

Political efficacy .585** .183 .511** .189

Political discussion with friends .211** .096 .167* .097
College prep enrollment .497** .224 .463** .235
Occupational club -.583** .240 -.426* .252
Service club .384* .202 .393* .208
Number of clubs .089 .064 .079 .067
Attended college in 1966 .322 .227 .252 .243
Married in 1966 -1.33* .738 -1.183 .745
Military in 1966 -.257 .308 -.239 .328
Anticipates future activity in politics .675** .219 .717** .227
Socioeconomic status (SES) .014** .004
Gender (female) -.200 .198
Race (black) 1.302** .304
Ethnicity (Jewish) 1.493** .369
Family member in a labor union .571** .210
Constant -3.74** .366 -7.77** .878
Log Likelihood -403.490 -381.401
Notes: p <1S.
**p < .05.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
642 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4 1994

TABLE 3
Logit Model Predicting Anticipation of Future Activity
in Politics (n = 1012)

Variables b s.e.

Political efficacy .626** .187

Political discussion with friends .307** .100
College prep enrollment .057 .205
Occupational club -.095 .226
Service club .173 .214
Number of clubs .221** .066
Socioeconomic status (SES) -.002 .004
Gender (female) -.415** .188
Race (black) .125 .327
Ethnicity (Jewish) .232 .431
Family member in a labor union -.112 .209
Constant -2.862** .769
Log Likelihood -398.716

Notes. ** p <C05.

predicting protest participation. The left column shows the results of the baseline
model. Having a strong sense of political efficacy, discussing politics with friends,
anticipation of future activity in politics, and enrollment in a college preparatory
curriculum are significant factors in increasing the likelihood of protest participation.
Involvement in occupation-oriented clubs and being married in 1966 decrease the
propensity for protest, while involvement in service clubs increases the likelihood
of participation. Therefore, the findings thus far provide evidence for the notion that
protestors are socialized in a manner that is consistent with future political activity.
Also, the protestors' anticipation of political activity includes protest as an option.
Further, the networks that hinder protest include those focused on occupations and
marital ties, while service-oriented networks pull individuals into protest.
The right-hand column of Table 2 shows what happens when status groups are
added to the baseline model. The significance of the socialization variables remains
intact, while the magnitude of their contributions decreases slightly. Anticipation
of future political activity is the one exception to this pattern. When status group
variables are included, there is a greater likelihood that anticipating future activity
will increase the propensity for protest.
The contribution of the network variables is approximately the same when the
status variables are added, with the significance level of the relationship to
occupation clubs lowering and the relationship to marital status in 1966 dropping
below an acceptable significance level. It is interesting to note that college
attendance in 1966 has no direct effect on protest, which is contradictory to what
might be expected given common perceptions of protestors during that time.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 643

All of the status group measures are strong predictors of protest participation
with the exception of gender. Higher levels of socioeconomic status, being black,
being Jewish, and/or living in the same household as a labor union member are
all status positions that positively influence the tendency to participate in protest.
A background in Judaism is clearly the strongest predictor of protest participation.
The strength of the relationship between the status groups and protest
participation invokes some curiosity as to whether these groups knew at an early
age that they would participate. Table 3 presents the findings predicting what
groups anticipated future activity. The college, marriage, and military enlistment
variables are not included in this regression model because they are not applicable
to the anticipation of future activity which was reported in 1965.
Compared to the prediction of actual protest, there is a very different pattern
of factors that encourage anticipation of future activity in politics. Feeling politically
efficacious and discussing politics with friends are still strong forces of socialization,
yet taking college prep courses does not foster a sense of anticipation. It is also
the case that the type of club an individual belongs to does not matter as much
as how many clubs s/he joins. Finally, the only status group that is significant in
the prediction of anticipation is gender. Being female decreases the propensity for
an individual expecting to be active in politics irt the future.

College Attendance: What Happens When the Context is Refined?

A study of youth adults and protest participation in the late 1960s/early 1970s
must address the strong impact of student protest, no matter how general the
survey. Protest was much more prevalent on college campuses than in alternative
settings. In the sample used here, approximately 22.7% of those respondents who
went to college in 1966 protested, compared to 9.7% of those who did not attend
college in 1966. Yet, did college attendance change the patterns predicting who
was likely to participate? Table 4 shows the results of separate logits predicting
the propensity for protest among those who went to college in 1966 and those
who did not. The differences between the two groups lies in the significance of
the service club membership network measure, the family member in a labor union
status group measure, and anticipation of future activity. Apparently, none of the
measures directly related to high school matter in the prediction of protest for those
going to college. Yet, participation in service clubs is a significant predictor for those
not going to college. This suggests that service networks play an important role
in facilitating protest networks. It is also interesting to note that protestors who
did not go to college in 1966 also did not anticipate participating in politics. It seems
that protest participation for this group was much more spontaneous. Another
possibility is that the college students anticipated political involvement as a part
of going to college and that education and politics were somewhat intertwined
in their minds.
The final surprise in the Table 4 findings is the increased propensity for protest
held by college students who had a family member in a labor union. This suggests
that the potential college protestors were not from an elite status group. It also

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
644 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4,1994

TABLE 4
Logit Models Predicting Protest Participation Using College Attendance
in 1966 Subgroups (n = 1012)

Not Enrolled Enrolled in College

Variables b se. b s.e.

Political efficacy .728** .330 .432* .232

Political discussion with friends .234 .154 .126 .128
College prep enrollment .577 .355 .327 .312
Occupational club -.220 .224 -.201 .154
Service club .767** .381 .251 .255
Number of clubs .029 .120 .094 .082
Married in 1966 -.896 .763 -8.251 64.72
Military in 1966 -.061 .451 -.407 .526
Anticipates future activity in politics .547 .440 .815** .271
Socioeconomic status (SES) .018** .008 .014** .005
Gender (female) -.082 .380 -.249 .236
Race(black) 1.442** .430 1.193** .457
Ethnicity (Jewish) 1.800* 1.040 1.458** .400
Family member in a labor union .199 .341 .743** .271
Constant -8.32** 1.714 -7.56** 1.129
Log Likelihood -133.647 -245.010

Notes: *p .10.
** p S .05.

indicates that they may have experienced political socialization modified by

observing the activities of a union member who was part of their family.

How Much Does SES Interact with Other Status Groups?

Status groups are not completely independent of one another. Status group
membership interacts, producing different outcomes for persons with different
combinations of status. The most obvious interaction can be found in the stratification
of socioeconomic status within gender, race, ethnicity (in this case being Jewish), and
family labor union membership. The results reported in Table 5 show that the
relationship between the SES interactions and the other status group memberships
remains uncertain. When comparing Table 5 with Table 2, the independent
contribution of SES is no longer significant in the prediction of protest. This could
be due to statistical reasons rather than sociological phenomenon (ie., the inclusion
of the interactions pull down the z-ratio.) Therefore, we cannot conclude that the
independent effects of SES are nullified. Further, the interaction between SES and
being black shows that race is the main predictor of protest and that the importance
of race cuts across levels of SES. On the other hand, it is not the independent effect
of having a family member in a union, but the interaction of being in higher levels
of SES and having ties to union membership, that predicts protest participation.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 645

TABLE 5
General Logit Model Predicting Protest Participation
Including SES Interaction with Other Status
Group Membership (n = 1012)

Variables b s.e.

Political efficacy .514** .190

Political discussion with friends .174* .098
College prep enrollment .497** .235
Occupational club -.412 .253
Service club .378* .209
Number of clubs .079 .067
Attended college in 1966 .245 .243
Married in 1966 -1.192 .747
Military in 1966 -.223 .329
Anticipates future activity in politics .723** .228
Socioeconomic status (SES) -.009 .030
Gender (female) -.346 .414
Race (black) 1.564** .504
Ethnicity (Jewish) .936 1.111
Family member in a labor union -.043 .425
Gender X SES .003 .007
Race X SES -.009 .015
Ethnicity X SES .010 .019
Union X SES .015* .009
Constant -6.497** 1.647
Log Likelihood -379.516

Notes: *p <10.
** p < .05.

The equation presented in Table 5 provides a general depiction of the typical

protest participant in this data. Socialization in terms of strong feelings of political
efficacy, discussing politics with friends, and taking college prep classes increases
the propensity for protest. Service club membership in high school remains a
positive predictor of protest, which is also an indication of networks encouraging
protest participation. Also, high school students who anticipated political activity
in 1%5 frequently became protestors. It is quite possible that the student protestors
felt prepared for participation due to the socialization they experienced. They
probably anticipated an invitation to protest because the networks they were
involved in were already facilitating such invitations.

Status and Action

Three distinct findings are demonstrated by the analyses with regard to the
stratification of protest participation. First, the minority statuses of race and
ethnicity, in this case an African-American or Jewish background, encourage

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
646 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4,1994

individuals to participate in protests. These analyses do not distinguish whether

the protest is motivated by the status position (ie., the Black Power movement
of the 1970s) or if there is something about race and ethnic minority status that
makes individuals more sympathetic to movement appeals. Certainly, not all of
the black and Jewish protest participants in this sample were active in causes
directly related to their minority status. It seems likely that a subculture has
developed within these communities that includes values focused on political
efficacy and the importance of taking a stand in support of human, including civil,
rights. The result reported in Table 4 that race and ethnicity were strong predictors
of protest participation, regardless of whether the individual went to college or
not, further supports the subculture argument.
The second point demonstrated by the findings is that the role of women in
protest participation may have changed since the 1970s. Seeing that gender
differences in protest participation were not significant but that women did not
anticipate their future activity suggests that females were more likely to seize
opportunities that they had not known they had as youth. This finding may be
due, in part, to the growth of the women's movement in the 1970s. As a cohort,
these young women did not see political opportunities in their future. Protest was
seen as being too risky for female participation (McAdam 1992). Yet, when protest
opportunities were offered to females, they responded at rates similar to their male
counterparts. It seems that gender differences in perceptions of who should
participate were different from the general patterns of who actually followed
through in participation.
Research on gender differences in political participation in the 1970s showed that
females still had a lower sense of political efficacy (Travers 1982), which probably
indicates that they still did not anticipate being politically active. However, as
young women mature, they may learn about the importance of politics through
informal channels. It has been shown in the past that women use network ties
to pull other women into political participation (Freeman 1973). It is probable that
the network forces drawing women into participation are still quite strong today.
This explanation of gender differences calls for future research on the interaction
between age and gender in the prediction of protest participation.
The third and final point demonstrated by the findings involves the relationship
between upward mobility and protest participation. Upper levels of SES provide
individuals with resources that facilitate protest participation; thus, the significance
of SES in Table 2. SES can act as a safety net that reduces the risks of participation.
Yet, an upper SES background, in and of itself, is unlikely to motivate protest
participation. If anything, holding an elite status should hinder activity that
questions the status quo since that same status is supported by the status quo.
Therefore, an upper-level SES background puts individuals in an advantaged
structural position for participation, but it provides no catalyst for individual
motivation to participate. The logic behind the need for a catalyst provides an
explanation for the lack of significance of SES in Table 5 that is complementary
to the statistical explanation provided earlier.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 647

Recent upward mobility may be a factor that differentiates advantaged

participants from nonparticipants. For example, being upper SES and having a
family member in a union could be a proxy for recent upward social mobility
within the respondent's family (see Table 5). Upward mobility was experienced
by many families during this time and left many individuals feeling that they
had ties to two status groups: labor union, maybe even blue collar or working
class, and the middle class in terms of SES resources. Recent mobility would
predispose the individual toward sympathies for those who are disadvantaged
and also provide them with the resources to take action in support of their
feelings.

CONCLUSION

Most of the existing literature on protest participation has focused on either the
micro- or the macrolevel of analysis. After reviewing the literature in this field,
McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald concluded: "We come away convinced that the
real action in social movements takes place at some level intermediate between
macro and micro.... We remain convinced that it [the intermediate level] is the
level at which most movement action occurs and of which we know the least"
(1989:729). The significance of the research findings in this article support that
assertion. Including a combination of socialization and network factors is
important in any general model of protest participation because they reflect both
the micro-processes of frame alignment and the macro-processes of structural
opportunities. Status variables indicative of race/ethnicity, gender, class (e.g.,
union membership), and so forth, also need to be included because of the lifestyles
they impart. The relationship between the lifestyles concept and the notion of
frame alignment provides another micro-macro link in the explanation of protest
participation.
When the context in which participation takes place is narrowed-in a case
study, for example-some of the status variables will not be applicable. However,
other, more specific status groups may need to be considered. For instance, a study
of environmental activism should take into account occupation and possibly
education since the lifestyles associated with these variables include framing about
the relationship between humans and nature.
The intersection of status groups also provides increased specificity in case
studies. For example, age and gender need to be considered simultaneously in
many of the current groups mobilized around women's issues (i.e., abortion or
sexual harassment). Overall, future research needs to examine the role of status
and stratification in participation because of the social implications regarding the
dynamics of individual involvement in politics. The suggested research would
investigate whether certain status groups are systematically hindered from
demonstrating in support of their collective interests.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
648 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 4, 1994

Acknowledgments: The research in this article was supported in part by a

Spencer Dissertation Fellowship from the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. The
author wishes to thank Doug McAdam, Debra Friedman, and Art Sakamoto for
their suggestions on earlier drafts of this work.

NOTES

1. This happens because protest is relatively rare.

2. The reduced sample size is due to listwise deletion in the regression analysis.

REFERENCES

Block, J.H., N. Haan, and M.B. Smith. 1%9. "Socialization Correlates of Student Activism."
Journal of Social Issues 25(4): 143-177.
Bloom, J.M. 1987. Class, Race and the Civil Rights Movement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Braungart, RG. 1972. "Family Status, Socialization, and Student Politics: A Multivariate
Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 77(1): 108-130.
Campbell. B.A 1980. "The Interaction of Race and Socioeconomic Status in the Development
of Political Attitudes." Social Science Quarterly 60(4): 651-658.
Curtis, R.L., and L.A Zurcher. 1973. "Stable Resources of Protest Movements: The Multi-
Organizational Field." Social Forces 52(1): 53-60.
Dalton, R.J. 1982. ""The Pathways of Parental Socialization." American Politics Quarterly
10(2):139-157.
DeMartini J.R. 1983. "Social Movement Participation: Political Socialization, Generational
Consciousness, and Lasting Effects." Youth and Society 15: 195-233.
Fendrich, J.M., and M.N. Krauss. 1978. "Student Activism and Adult Left-Wing Politics: A
Causal Model of Political Socialization for Black, White and Japanese Students of the
1960's Generation." Pp. 231-256 in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, Vol. 1, edited
by L. Kriesberg. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fernandez, R.M. and D. McAdam. 1988. "Social Networks and Social Movements:
Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment to Mississippi Freedom Summer."
Sociological Forum 3: 357-382.
Flacks, R. 1973. "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student Protest."
Journal of Social Issues 23(3): 52-75.
Freeman, J. 1973. "The Origins of the Women's Liberation Movement." American Journal of
Sociology 78(4): 792-811.
Gerth, H.H., and C.W. Mills (eds.). 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gitlin, T. 1987. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York:
Doubleday.
Jennings, M.K., and R.G. Niemi. 1981. "The Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1%5-
1973." Conducted by the University of Michigan's Center for Political Studies and
Survey Research Center. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Status and Action 649

Kandermans, B., and D. Oegema. 1987. "Potentials, Networks, Motivations and Barriers:
Steps Toward Participation in Social Movements." American Sociological Reiew 52(4):
519-531.
Lewis, S.H., and R.E. Kraut. 1972. "Correlates of Student Political Activism and Ideology."
Journal of Social Issues 28: 131-149.
Marwell G., P. Oliver, and R. Prahl. 1988. "Social Networks and Collective Action: A Theory
of Critical Mass, III." American Journal of Sociology 94(3): 502-534.
McAdam, D. 1988. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press.
McAdam, D. 1992. "Gender as a Mediator of the Activist Experience: The Case of Freedom
Summer." Amencan Journal of Sociology 95(5): 1211-40.
McAdam, D., and R. Paulsen. 1993. "Social Ties and Activism: Towards a Specffication of
the Relationship." American Journal of Sociology 99(3): 640-667.
Orum, AM., R. Cohen, S. Grasmuck, and A. Orum. 1974. "Sex, Socialization, and Politics."
American Sociological Review 39: 197-209.
Paulsen, R. 1990. "Class and Collective Action: Variation in the Participation of Young Adults
in Noninstitutionalized Politics." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Arizona.
Paulsen, R. 1991. "Education, Social Class and Participation in Collective Action." Sociology
of Education 64(2): 96-110.
Rogers, D.L., G.L. Bultena, and K.H. Barb. 1975. "Voluntary Association Membership and
Political Participation: An Exploration of the Mobilization Hypothesis." Sociological
Quarterly 16: 305-318.
Rosenthal N., M. Fingrutd, M. Ethier, R. Karant, and D. McDonald. 1985. "Social Movements
and Network Analysis: A Case Study of Nineteenth-Century Women's Reform in New
York State." American Journal of Sociology 90: 1022-1055.
Sale, K. 1973. SDS. New York: Random House.
Snow, D.E., B. Rochford, S.K. Worden, and R.D. Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes,
Micromobilization, and Movement Participation." Amenrican Sociological Review 51: 464-
481.
Snow, D.E., LA Zurcher, and S. Ekland-Olson. 1980. "Social Networks and Social
Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment." Amenrican
Sociological Review 45: 787-801.
Travers, E.F. 1982. 'Ideology and Political Participation Among High School Students:
Changes from 1970 to 1979." Youth and Society 13(3): 327-352.
VonEschen, D., J. Kirk, and M. Pinard. 1971. "The Organizational Substructure of Disorderly
Politics." Social Forces 49: 529-544.
Zipp, J.F., R. Landerman, and P. Luebke. 1982. "Political Parties and Political Participation:
A Reexamination of the Standard Socioeconomic Model." Social Forces 60(4): 1140-1153.

This content downloaded from 202.92.128.114 on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:34:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms