‘IIIII

I‘ll!

 

.=*-n

{sf-5‘ N‘k‘:

'Jf’fim

:gtn:

lizeoawsvwmkkwa

‘I
nu-

 

 

 

. , ~
J3. .
f" '
RU“):
‘ . g, .h

1"
l‘

#53;
.1,
h-é
: l

193;
3- .-

1

.2 ._ L“ ‘35;
.'. La "HZ-f: ‘2‘.
9;
.577

u i
41‘“
”1"“:
.. ,
,L
L

. MS- -:
0 l "’ ”"’4?~;.‘
mun»??- .»
FM". 4 '5’ 4;" r“
’t

4

I, '
b'vql:‘v‘f', *1 v ‘3
. I§.'t,-.Y:‘/_ 4 .'

w. v":.‘
m 13’: J.”-

7“. .
I' 1‘! 1'

1' J ‘1
1.3»;sz5 I,‘
‘31. v .
. .

‘9“‘hfl
.{tfit‘wi

. 31-1.“;

v ~.I _
Win, .13,"
.3, lss'fi

cav

,.

5‘7”“.

2*;

9:.

«a;

I 'r.
$52 tan

.
rig!
...

in

n [g fir
3': 5-1"

I" -.,

9

I .
3%}. 44%;.3‘
"* £513.

H...“
F up"
an”

{'1 if!

,- 'f 1,
$3.15“.—
“:3?
Ivrlét
I. ’3"

. 'l
’r In

mg;
:zqifi’nt
*1

mg; 9»

4 .hi- uh.

wear-1

vm'fi.
1- 321a! Jr
1:21;}?-
.. ,J' _ ...

S

,. ... A
1, (,4

5

‘ :fifimfi “.1

Mi;

. «via. n
fl‘art’n
e ,o-‘fiflkgzult'
‘ an 0...! ' ' «a L‘.€‘.r§“é)’
$.35!) n ,r v' ..
- 1.1, =3}?!
r 1:5“

fifi‘"

.g
.41

:49!"
m

I
I‘
'5}; 9334?”) #2";
n . '4
\

 

HIGANSTETA

IIIIIIIIIIIIZIIII

 

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

301055 4388

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Acitivism in the Peace Movement

Individual and Organizational Predictors

presented by

Madeline Hordes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. A. degree in Psychology

<fimw4€oM

Major professor

Date 2/25/92

0-7539 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

n.— 7 v .77 . 7, — .— —- -- — o——-

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU to An Affirmetlve ActionlEquel Opportunity Institution
cmmr

ACHVISM IN THE PEACE MOVEMENT:

INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PREDICTORS

By

Madeline Wordes

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
1992

/f/

r)
J

"I
/-

/

“2”

J

ABSTRACT
ACTIVISM IN THE PEACE MOVEMENT:
INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PREDICTORS
By

Madeline Wordes

The purpose of this research was to aid the peace movement in better
mobilizing human resources and to add to the empirical knowledge of social
movement participation. Sixteen peace organization leaders were interviewed and
163 individuals from peace organization mailing lists responded to a mailed
survey. Results using multiple regression techniques indicated 7 variables as
predictors of peace movement activity level: number of peace organization
memberships, household income, participation in other progressive social
movements, motives of solidarity and altruistic goals, and external and internal
political efficacy. Multivariate analysis of variance procedures indicated
relationships between organizational variables (size, social change tactics
employed, network affiliation, and type of population) and individual variables
(peace activism level, ideology, motives, efficacy, and other activist involvement.
The results suggest areas for further research and possible strategies for more

effective peace movement mobilization.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Finally.

There are a lot of people I have to thank for continually supporting,
nudging, and helping me through this process. First, my greatest appreciation
goes to Tom Reischl. He was there helping me, and giving me encouragement
through every step. Deb Bybee has been an incredible source of expertise and
kindness. Much thanks, of course, to Bill Davidson who kept telling me "just do
it", and it finally sunk in.

I’d like to thank all my friends from ecological psychology for their
inspiration. Cris Sullivan gave me a never-ending source of positive vibes, my
T.A.C. was always supportive, and especially Maureen Rumptz who knows her day
to day support, was at times, a lifeline to me. Susie Putman, you were always
there for me, you kept me sane (and everybody thanks you for that!). Sheri
Congdon, your caring, and support helped me immeasurably.

Behind the scenes are usually those peOple that don’t get the real
acknowledgement. Debrah Volturno, you believed in and nurtured me always.
Barbara and Irv (Mom and D.O.D.), Smitty, and Rich, your love and support
make me feel like the luckiest woman alive.

I’d like to thank the leaders of the peace organizations and all who
participated for generously offering their time and support. Most of all, it is
important to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the peace and justice

community in working to bring about a peaceful world.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Overview of Proposed Study and Research Aims
Literature Review
Sociology
Material Incentives
Solidarity Incentives
Purposive Incentives
Organizational Characteristics
Sociological Literature Summary
Political Science
Microtheory of Political Action
Instrumental Perspective-Rational Actors
Developmental Perspective-Reciprocity
Feminist Approach
Political Science Literature Summary
Psychology
Attitude-Behavior Consistency in Nuclear
Issues
General Attitude-Behavior Consistency
Mobilization as a Process
Psychological Literature Summary
Justification for the Present Study
Documenting Findings
Filling Gaps and Exploring New Paths
Research Questions
Methods
Organizational Sample
Participant Sample
Pilot Study
Procedure
Sampling Strategy
Final Sample
Power
Design
Measures
Peace Activism Questionnaire (PAQ)
Demographic Characteristics
Ideology
Efficacy
Other Participation
Motives
Barriers
Level of Involvement

iv

Organizational Characteristics
Organizational Structure
Organizational Philosophy

Results

Data Analysis Strategy
Demographic and Background Characteristics of Peace
Organization Adherents, Supporters, Members,
and Leaders
Most Prevalent Peace Related Activities Among Local
Peace Activists
Perceived Barriers to Greater Participation in the
Peace Movement
Predicting Level of Involvement in the Peace Movement
Prediction of Level of Peace Activities
Prediction of Amount of Money Contributed to
the Peace Movement
Relationships Between Membership Status and
Demographics, Background, and Other Participant
Characteristics
Demographics and Membership Status
Participant Characteristics and Membership
Status
Types of Activism and Membership Status
Reported Barriers and Membership Status
Relationships Between Participant Characteristics
and Organizational Affiliation
Relationships Between Size of the Organization
and Participant Characteristics
Relationships Between Organizational Tactics
and Participant Characteristics
Relationships Between Membership in
National/International or Local Only
Organizations and Participant
Characteristics
Relationships Between Diversity in Organizational
Population and Participant Characteristics
Relationships Between Consensus vs. Majority
Decision Making and Participant
Characteristics
Relationships Between Other Organizational
Variables and Participant Characteristics
Follow-Up Analysis to Explore Relationship
Between Size and Other Organizational
Variables

49
49
50
53
53
54
55
56
56
57
58
59
59
59
61
61
62
63

65

66

66

67

67

68

Discussion

Summary of Results

Factors Associated with Higher Levels of Peace
Activities

Factors Associated with Contributing More Money to
the Peace Movement

Relationships Between Individual Characteristics
and Type of Organization

Relationship Between Organizational and Participant
Characteristics

Methodological Considerations

Suggestions for Future Research

List of References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F

vi

69
7O

7 1
74
75

78
81
82

85

132
138
142
144
146
148

LIST OF TABLES

10

11

12

13

14

15

Original Sampling Strategy (N =390)

Number of Respondents by Size of Priority
Organization (N = 163)

Rotated Factor Matrix of Motives Items

Description of Organizations (N = 16)

Respondent Demographics

Frequency of Activities Participated in by Peace Activists

The Number of Persons Reporting Barriers to Greater
Participation in the Peace Movement

Correlation Matrix of Background and Participant
Characteristic Variables

Multiple Regression of Participant Characteristics on Level of
Peace Activities and Contributions to the
Peace Movement

Demographic Comparisons Between Members and Non-Members

Conceptual Grouping of 4 Sets of Variables Used in MANOVA

Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of Individual
Characteristics for Peace Organization Members

and Non-Members

Comparisons Between Members and Non-Members on Amount
and Type of Peace Activism

Comparison Between Members and Non-Members on Reported
Barriers

Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Characteristic

Variables for Members of Small, Medium, and
Large Organizations

vii

94

95
96
97
98

101

103

104

110

112

114

115

117

119

121

Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Characteristic
Variables for Members of Organizations Using
Community Education, Political Lobbying, and Direct Action
Social Change Tactics 123

Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Characteristic
Variables for Members of Local and National/
International Organizations 125

Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Characteristic
Variables for Members of Varied and Singular Population
Organizations 127

Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Characteristic
Variables for Members of Majority or Consensus
Decision Making Organizations 129

Number of Organizations Stratified on Each Variable by
Size of Organization 131

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

2

Microtheory of Political Action

Klandermans Mobilization Model

ix

92

93

Introduction

The accomplishments of the various national peace movements around the
world cannot be denied. While there is debate over the most prominent causes of
peaceful changes occurring in Eastern Europe, there is little debate that social
movements had an impact on change.

Currently there are ongoing talks between the United States and the Soviet
Union to reduce the proliferation of nuclear arms. Many people believe that the
peace movement of the 1980’s paved the way for such talks. Activists in the
peace movement worked to make the average citizen aware of the tremendous
amounts of money spent on nuclear forces and nuclear weapons development.

For instance, activists published that in 1989, 36% of US. federal budget was
directly funneled into the military (War Resisters League, 1989; Jobs With Peace,
1989). Many Americans began to believe that there were not enough resources to
deal with pressing 'SOCial problems because of the tremendous budgetary overload
due to military spending. Even those individuals who believed in the
contemporary conservative zeitgeist, promoting deterrence through strength, would
acknowledge that the enormous amount of military spending was weakening the
world economy.

Peace activists also worked to portray the Soviet peoples as friends, not
enemies. They worked to dispel the notion that people in communist countries

had a desire to take over the world. The democratization of Eastern Europe

2

brought acknowledgment, on the part of even the most conservative individuals in
the US, that freedom from tyranny was a goal of all the world’s peoples.

The 1991 war in the Persian Gulf is an example of the failure of the
United States peace movement to mobilize. While tensions were building with
Iraq, most of the citizens in the United States expressed a desire for a peaceful
solution to the conflict. As the tensions grew, however, the majority of the
American public was behind the decision of President Bush to begin a war. The
Peace Movement was unable to mobilize support before, during, and after the
violent destruction of Iraq and Kuwait.

There are several possible influences on the peace movements’ failure to
mobilize, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper. The
overarching political themes, economic reasons, and possible psychological
consequences of the loss of the war in Vietnam, were all likely influences. Also
influential may have been the inability of peace movement organizations to
effectively mobilize their constituents to action. The peace movement will
continue to struggle for the reasons behind the lack of public support for finding a
peaceful solution to the conflict with Iraq.

Implicit in this thesis is the belief that social scientists can and should work
with the peace movement to help engender activism. The concept of ivory tower
sociology, political science, and psychology is becoming obsolete as researchers
are involving themselves as activists and facilitators of social movements. The

facade of value free research is being questioned and research is admittedly being

3

used with implicit social values for progressive social gains (Fairweather &
Davidson, 1986).

What follows is an attempt to understand some of the individual and
organizational factors involved in mobilizing support in the peace movement. The
exploration of these factors is accomplished in two ways. First, the literature
review brings together multi-disciplinary perspectives on the factors integral to
peace movement activism and mobilization. Second, the study was designed to
explore the most influential factors in mobilization and those factors most
amenable to change.

Initially it is important to state the values and assumptions of this research.
The empowerment paradigm as set forth by Rappaport (1987) is integral to this
study. He states "empowerment conveys both a psychological sense of personal
control or influence and a concern with actual social influence, political power,
and legal rights. It is a multi-level construct applicable to individual citizens as
well as to organizations and neighborhoods; it suggests the study of people in
context" (Rappaport, 1987, p.121). Hence, the study of social movements or more
specifically peace movement mobilization embodies the empowerment paradigm.
This study also utilized collaborative processes in the development and
dissemination of the project. Collaborating with peace movement organization
leaders was integral under the empowerment paradigm. This research was thus
an attempt to help peace movement organizations be more efficient at

empowering themselves.

’ w f b

On the basis of the above stated values and perspective, this study
employed the tools of social science to aid in the mobilization of human resources
for peace activism. There were two main purposes of this research. The first was
to be of practical utility to the peace movement, and more specifically to peace
groups in Lansing, Michigan. Information gained in this study may be used by
peace organizations to engender greater participation from their constituents.
The second is to add to the academic literature on social movement mobilization
as it explores some areas not previously documented. This study used mailed
surveys and interviews to garner information from community members who were
differentially involved in the peace movement.

The primary research aim was to provide an empirical knowledge base
containing information including: 1) a demographic description of the adherents,
supporters, members, and leaders of the peace organizations, 2) an exploration
into types of activist behavior, 3) a prediction of level of involvement from
individual characteristics, and 4) an exploration of the relationship between
organizational and individual characteristics.

mm

This review of the literature is structured so that a comprehensive
examination of studies related to peace activism can take place. Finally, the pool
of information will be reduced to directly justify the variables measured in this

research.

5

The literature reviewed for this study is multi-level and multi-disciplinary.
Each discipline brings a somewhat unique perspective to the study of social
movement participation, yet many of the findings are similar and highly related.
Once the jargon of each field is deciphered, a fairly comprehensive picture of the
various ecological levels in the mobilization process emerges. To adequately
address the uniqueness and similarities of the social scientists’ perspectives, the
literature will be categorized by affiliated discipline: sociology, political science,
and psychology. To best describe the research stemming from each discipline one
main theory or model from each will serve as the starting point for review: _
Resource Mobilization Theory, Microtheory of Political Action, and Klandermans’
Mobilization Model.
Man

The foreparent of the sociological and political science perspectives on
social movement mobilization was an economist, Mancur Olson. Olson’s original
work was based on a utilitarian perspective of participation. He argued, "Only a
separate and selective incentive will stimulate a rational individual in a large
group to act in a group-oriented way" (Olson, 1965, p. 51). In other words, people
would not act for the collective good unless they made a rational decision that the
action would be to their personal benefit. Olson believed that "selective
incentives" (or incentives to participate that people value) are necessary for a
person to become active otherwise they will "free-ride" (benefit from the work of

others). Also, most people could be termed "free-riders" (peeple who benefit

6

from other’s collective action but do not participate themselves) because it would
not be rational, in the utilitarian cost/benefit sense, to participate (Olson, 1965).

The main outgrowth of this pragmatic approach was Resource Mobilization
Theory. Promulgated by McCarthy and Zald (1987,1979), Resource Mobilization
Theory is the most widely accepted view of social movement participation in
sociology. The basic premise was that the failures and successes of social
movements and social movement organizations depend on mobilizing human and
economic resources. These resources provide the infrastructure from which
movements grow. Some of the factors they stressed in this socio-structural
approach were: availability of resources, rationality of individual actors, social
networks with other participants, and organizational dynamics.

Empirical studies stemming from Resource Mobilization Theory are few,
but nonetheless enlightening. The research can be broken down into studies
focusing on hard (material) and soft (solidarity and purposive) selective incentives
(Clark & Wilson, 1961) and various organizational components. These terms and
the concordant studies will be explicated in the remainder of this section.

MateriaLhrgenfiyfi. Some research concerning social movement
mobilization highlights the role of material incentives. Zald & McCarthy (1987)
cited the recently emerging professional status of social movement organization
staff people as an example of a material incentive. They purported that some

activists participate because they receive career benefits from theirhparticipa’tion.

\

Klandermans (1984) found’that participation in a labor union strike was a direct

 

7
result of making a rational choice given the ability (perceived) to obtain a

material reward. Thus, if an individual union member felt that striking would be
individually and materially beneficial then he or she would participate.
Most research in the field of social movement mobilization, however, ’ \

L

discounted the role of material incentives. One reason being the costs of <>

h

participating usually far outweigh the materialbenefits (Hirsh, 1986). As HirsTr I.
succinctly stated, V’Self-interest models - particularly those stressing material
incentives - cannot explain why ideologically committed movement participants
may be willing to sacrifice their time, their welfare, sometimes even their lives, to
a cause" (Hirsh, 1986, p.1). Knoke (1988) found, in his study of the various
incentives leading to collective action, material incentives ”are often unrelated to
involvement or actually attract members unwilling to participate” (Knoke, p.326).
Thus, material incentives attracted people that were apathetic about the particular
organization’s goals.

Solidarig Incentives, Fireman & Gamson (1979) suggested that solidarity
with members of a group is one of the most important incentives to participation
in a social movement. They state that solidarity within a group is built through
five different avenues: 1) friends and relatives that are participants, 2) prior
participatory behavior, 3) similar design of their lives and values to other group
members, 4) similar status relations with outsiders, and 5) difficulty in exiting the
group because of identification and treatment as a group member. They stated,

”A person whose life is intertwined with the group in these ways has a big stake in

8
the group’s fate. Our argument, then, is that the relationships characterized above

generate solidarity and that this solidarity becomes an important basis for
mobilization" (Fireman & Gamson, 1979, p.22).

Empirical research has shown that friendship networks or social networks
play an integral role as solidarity incentives in the mobilization process (McAdam,
1986; Walsh & Warland, 1983; Snow, Zurcher & Ekland-Olson, 1980). McAdam
(1986) collected archival data from very detailed applications of participants,
withdrawals, and rejects to the Mississippi Freedom Summer Project in 1964. He
found that participants were more highly embedded in the activist network than
were withdrawals (non-participants). In other words, people who actually
participated in this highly risky social action (advocating for civil rights amidst the
violence occurring daily in the South against activists) had more friends that were
participants than the people that agreed with the action but did not participate.
The number of organizations an individual belonged to was also a statistically
significant predictor of participation (McAdam, 1986).

Similarly, studies of differential recruitment have shown pre-existing social
networks to be an integral factor. Snow, Zurcher, & Ekland-Olson (1980) used
three sets of data to study the recruitment process. The data consisted of case
studies, participant observations, and questionnaires from people who were part of
the American Buddhist movement. They concluded that there was a higher
probability of recruitment if there was a pre-existing tie to the organization or if

there was an absence of countervailing social networks (Snow et.al., 1980).

9
Another field study focused on activists and ”free riders” after the disaster

at Three Mile Island (Walsh & Warland, 1983). They compared activists and
"free riders" on a variety of dimensions, one of which was that activists had higher
pre-accident solidarity with political organizations than "free riders". "Free riders",
on the other hand, seemed to have greater neighborhood solidarity than activists.
In a study of neighborhood organizations, however, Oliver (1984) found that
active members had closer ties in the neighborhood than token members. The
disparity in the results of neighborhood solidarity of the Oliver (1984) and Walsh
and Warland (1983) studies illustrates that solidarity with the concomitant activist
group plays an important role. Together the Walsh & Warland (1983) and the
Oliver (1984) results supported the notion that solidarity and prevailing social
networks with people in organizations with similar beliefs is an important factor in
the mobilization process.

firmesive Incentives. Fireman and Gamson (1979) have expanded on
Clark and Wilson’s (1961) term, purposive incentive. Purposive in this context
refers to having a purpose or utilitarian design to one’s actions. Fireman &
Gamson stressed that individuals participate in social activism because they
believe in the purpose and goals of the movement. They used the term ”self-
sacrifice" to describe that some people will do whatever they feel is necessary
when working for a truly heartfelt political cause.

Opp (1985) conducted a survey in West Germany of opponents of nuclear

power. He found participation in the peace and anti-nuclear movements could be

10

partially explained by purposive incentives. He coined the term "subjective
expected utility" or SEU. The definition of an SEU is the sum of the subjective
probability of the desired outcome or consequence multiplied by the perceived
utility of that consequence. Using multiple regression analyses, he found that
people’s feeling that they were participating for the ”collective good” or against
the cost of a "collective bad" (nuclear power) was the single most important
incentive (Opp, 1985).

Building on his previous research on reasons for participating in actions
against nuclear power Opp (1988) explored the role of grievances in participation.
In a panel study conducted in 1982 and 1987 he found that grievances or
discontent had a causal effect on activism against nuclear power. This finding,
that ideological grievances were motives for participation, was in conflict with
traditional Resource Mobilization theorists, who believed that grievances were of
little importance (McCarthy & Zald, 1979).

Similarly, altruism can also be categorized as a purposive incentive.
Fleishman (1980) in a laboratory study using a prisoner’s dilemma game found
that perceived responsibility was an important mediator of helping behavior.
People were more likely to contribute to the collective good in this contrived
situation if they thought that there were many needy members as opposed to
people that did not need the payoff. He concluded, "Any factors that inhibit
responsibility diffusion should increase voluntary contributions to the public good"

(Fleishman, 1980, p.9).

11
WW There is much theory and speculation

regarding the characteristics of social movement structures and social movement
organizations that play a role in the mobilization process. There is very little
empirical research, however, at this soda-structural level of study. The two main
areas which comprise the literature on the social movement organizations are
structure and size.

Very few studies focusing on the relationship between activism and
‘ organizational structure have been completed. Zald and McCarthy (1987)
suggested that resources are best mobilized through professionalization of an
organization. They stated that there is a new trend in social movement
organizations towards employing professional organizers. Pearce’s (1980)
empirical research supported this notion by comparing organizations that paid
staff members to organizations that relied on voluntary staff. She found that
there was much more competition and enthusiasm for paid staff jobs than
volunteer jobs for which it was difficult to find people to work (Pearce, 1980).
Thus, it was easier to mobilize people with paid staff positions.

As few empirical studies directly assessed the impact of organizational
structure on level of activism, articles related to the structure of the social
movement were reviewed. The ideas discussed below are related to
organizational structure, yet not definitive.

Some theorists believed that differential levels of participation have much

to do with the infrastructure of a social movement (Mushaben, 1986; Wehr, 1986;

12

Freeman, 1979). The structure can be centralized or decentralized, exclusive or
inclusive, and contain various types of leadership and decision making structures
(Freeman, 1979). Freeman stated that a major source of problems in many social
movements was the failure to put forth strategies that were appropriate to the
structure. The most viable movement seems to be one that contained different
types of organizations and structures, and thus utilized different strategies of
mobilization (Zald & McCarthy, 1979).

The feminist movement was one example of a combination of structures.
There is a "younger branch" which can be thought of as decentralized and
autonomous and the "older branch" consisting of more formal organizational
structures of local chapters and national governing bodies (Freeman, 1979).
Freeman argued that differential structures of the branches have produced
different strategies and varied results. She saw the feminist movement as
benefiting greatly from both branches and viewed the successes of the movement
as coming from a combination of strategies and structures.

The structure of the West German peace movement was another example
of a combination of structures. In 1986, Mushaben conducted an informal review
of the contemporary strategies, status, and structures of the peace movement and
placed this in a historical context. She purported that there were many grassroots,
decentralized organizations working alongside a more formalized coordinating

committee for local peace initiatives (Mushaben, 1986). The fact that

l3

organizational structures were so diverse, according to Mushaben, aided in the
success of the movement.

Conversely, Wehr (1986) in a discussion of the United States peace
movement, linked structural and organizational characteristics to the failure of the
movement to mobilize more people. He suggested several reasons behind the
peace movement failures: large size of the movement, poorly defined leadership,
unidentified common goals, and unidentified means of achieving those goals
(Wehr, 1986).

From this presentation of the literature on structure of social movements,
it is clear that there is conflicting evidence on the effect of different types of
structure. There is little data to support any definitive conclusion at this time.

In addition to structure of an organization, size may also play a role in the
mobilization process. Olson (1965) believed that small sized organizations were
more effective than large sized organizations. He stated, "The rational individual
in a large group in a socio-political context will not be willing to make any
sacrifices to achieve the objectives he shares with others. Only when groups are
small, or when they are fortunate enough to have an independent source of
selective incentives, will they organize or act to achieve their objectives" (Olson,
1965, p.166).

Other research disputed Olson’s arguments by pointing to factors that he
did not acknowledge. Others stressed factors such as ”jointness of suppl " and

"critical mass" (Oliver & Marwell, 1988). "Jointness of supply" referred to costs

14

being the same no matter how many people enjoy the benefits. Participating in
peace activism would have high "jointness of supply” because the number of
people benefiting from peace activist’s work does not influence the cost of that
work. Oliver & Marwell (1988) purported that a ”critical mass" of highly
involved people is necessary for action. Using substantive mathematical analysis
they showed that a paradox is created because the critical mass is easier to
achieve in a large group as there are more people and more resources. They
found that group size is irrelevant when there is high "jointness of supply".

Seeielegieel Literature Summaty. The Resource Mobilization perspective
has been the mainstay of the sociological literature and is the connecting point of
most of the empirical studies. The variables that were found to play an integral
role in social movement activism were solidarity and social networks with
members of the group, grievances, and purposive incentives. Material incentives,
for the most part, seemed not to play a pivotal role in social movement
participation. Delineation of how incentives or motives effect type of activism or
level of participation has not been well documented.

Sociologists have focused on structural characteristics of social movements
and social movement organizations more so than any other discipline. The
research on the influences of structure and size is inconclusive at this time,
however. Social movement organizational characteristics are still in the
exploratory stage of study. Factors that may be associated with higher levels of

activism are small size and a high degree of professionalization.

15
21"15'

Political science approaches the study of mobilization from a slightly
different perspective than sociology. Many of the variables studied are very
similar, yet the change in jargon effects the focus. Some of the dialectical
junctions include: 1) social movement participation was termed political action or
participatory behavior, 2) social values were discussed as political values, and 3)
the focus was often on "within system" change as opposed to ”outside the system"
change.

To adequately review the political science literature, this discussion will
follow along the lines of Kaase and Marsh’s (1979) Microtheory of Political
Action. After a review of this fairly comprehensive theory, the discussion will
center on empirical support, additions, and challenges to the theory. The political
science literature will be discussed within three main perspectives: instrumental,
developmental, and feminist.

WWW. Noninstitutionalized and unconventional
political participation is comparable to the sociological study of social movement
participation. Kaase and Marsh ( 1979) took an instrumental approach to the
understanding of political action, akin to the utilitarian approach taken by the
sociologists Mayer Zald and John McCarthy. The main assumption in this theory
of political action was that peOple make rational choices to participate in a

specific action to achieve certain ends.

16
The heuristic model used by Kaase & Marsh (1979) is presented in Figure

1. This model guided their research and encompasses much of the literature in
political science concerning both conventional and unconventional political

behaviors.

---------- Insert Figure 1 About Here-----—----

Within this model the independent variables were broken down into
operational constructs. Socio-structural location of the actor was comprised of
social status, social networks, and age. The second independent variable was
composed Of socio-political values, motivations, and political sophistication. The
intervening variables include feelings of efficacy and trust in the political system.
The dependent variables were operationalized as conventional (e.g., voting,
campaigning) and unconventional (e.g., direct action, protest) forms of political
action (Kaase & Marsh, 1979).

The Microtheory of Political Action model guided a large cross national
study undertaken by researchers in five countries led by Barnes & Kaase (1979).
Researchers in each of the five countries (The Netherlands, Britain, United
States, Germany, and Austria) were responsible for collecting data using
standardized interviews on a stratified random sample of each national
population. The sample size in each country varied from approximately .1200 to

2300. The importance of the results in this context was the substantiation of each

17

variable in the heuristic model as a significant predictor of the type of political
action undertaken.

This study provided an interesting model from which to view activist
behavior because it took into account individual, organizational, and
societal/ governmental variables. A major drawback of this theory was that it
offered no practical intervention strategies. The implicit purpose of the model
was to better understand the phenomena of political action, but not to spell out
concrete points at which interventions are possible. Another drawback was the
model’s inability to specify the organizational dynamics that impact the individual.
The societal level effects can be thought to affect everyone, but the differential
organizational effects can be profound (Zald & McCarthy, 1987).

Instntmentel Perspeetive - Ratienel Aeters. Following the same
instrumental or utilitarian perspective as the Microtheory of Political Action,
Muller & Opp (1986) focused on the rationality of rebellious collective action.
They tested Olson’s (1965) private interest theory against their theory of public
goods. Personal interviews were conducted with a random sample of adult
residents of New York City (1:1= 778) and a written questionnaire version of the
interview was administered to a random sample of students and faculty at New
York University and Columbia University (N= 240). Similarly, a random sample
of residents of Hamburg, West Germany was interviewed (N: 398). Muller and
Opp predicted that striving for the public good was an important variable in

participation in rebellious collective action, and predicted that material selective

18

incentives would be less important. Their results empirically supported the notion
that a rational actor in certain situations is motivated by the good of the public
and not private self—interest. These findings add credence to the Microtheory of
Political Action in that values and ideology toward public goods were significant
predictors of participation.

Rational actor models have also been contemplated in the arena of
conventional political participation. Uhlaner ( 1986) viewed political participation
(i.e., voting, donating money, campaigning) as instrumental phenomena, yet added
the notion that participation is instrumental in attaining social desires. She
purported that motives such as affiliation and inclusion would be strongly related
to participatory behavior and that political participation was instrumental in
bringing about those social desires. Uhlaner’s insights focused on conventional
participation, not social movement activism, and her ideas were not substantiated
with an empirical study. Other researchers also recognized the importance of
social motives and used the term social networks or the construct "socio-structural
location of the actor" (Kaase & Marsh, 1979). Similarly, the sociological literature
on social networks discussed earlier sheds much light on social networks and
affiliation variables related to participation (McAdam, 1986).

The notion of utility in participation was expanded further in the work on
diffuse political support. One study in particular, Muller, Jukam & Seligson, 1982,
focused on the anti-system political behavior and ideology of the actors. Political

support and government trust were the two main independent variables measured

19

in a study examining the relationship between the most widely established
measures of these variables and anti-system political behavior (Muller, Jukam &
Seligson, 1982). With a large sample of New York residents and Costa Rican
residents, Muller et.al. (1982) found that the often used Trust in Government
scale was unreliable and the Political Support-Alienation scale was reliable.
Although the Trust in Government items and the Political Support-Alienation
items showed a fairly high correlation, their relationship to anti-system political
behavior differed considerably. The Political Support-Alienation scale was highly
correlated with behaviors, yet the Trust in Government scale’s correlation with
behaviors was negligible. Evidence from this sample suggests that the Trust in
Government scale is not a good predictor of anti-system political participation
(Muller, Jukam & Seligson, 1982). The measures of system trust and government
trust in the Microtheory of Political Action are derived from the Trust in
Government scale. In light of this newer information by Muller, et.al. (1982) it
might be appropriate to use items from the Political Support-Alienation scale
instead of the scale Kaase & Marsh (1979) used.

Developmental Perspeetive - Reg’preeity. The instrumental perspective is
different from the developmental perspective mainly because the focus of the
former is on how participation effects an outcome and the focus of the latter is on
how participation effects an individual. Finkel (1987) stated, "Participation is not

only instrumental in nature, but also developmental, furthering certain desirable

20

individual qualities and attitudes quite apart from achieving any concrete political
objective" (p. 441).

Finkel’s (1987) research was a re-analysis of the data collected in a West
German panel study in 1974 and 1976. He studied both conventional and
unconventional forms of political behaviors. Using a LISREL approach he was
able to trace the reciprocal effects between political efficacy, political support, and
participation. He found that not only did political efficacy and support influence
the type of participation, but participation influenced efficacy and support
differentially dependent on type of participation.

The challenge set forth by Finkel (1987,1985) is to not view participation as
static or one-way, but to view participation as developing over time.

Unfortunately most studies are single time period surveys which do not easily lend
themselves to causal research.

Eeminist Appreeeh. Van der Ros (1987) introduced a new approach to the
field in arguing for gender specific models in studies of political behavior. In
interviews with 581 randomly sampled women, data was gathered on home and
work conditions, attitudes and values, and three main types of participation:
political activity, protest activity, and voluntary activity. She developed a model
specific to women measuring various dimensions: partnership, motherhood and
motherwork (defined by age of children, income, etc...), household income,

occupational position, leadership status at work, education, and age.

21
Van der Ros (1987) found the three strongest predictors of political activity

were age, education, and women’s occupational position. For protest activity, the
strongest predictors were again education and age, along with household income.
Partner’s occupational position was the overwhelming strongest predictor of
voluntary activity. These results indicate that further research including these
variables may prove enlightening. Van der Ros (1987) concluded, "Including sex
as an independent variable in traditional behavioral studies is not sufficient.
Characteristics specific for women’s life and work must be introduced" (p. 118).
Barnes and Kaase (1979), like most other researchers, did not use indicators that
may be specific to women’s participatory behavior.

Eelitieel Sg’enee Literature Summary. The Microtheory of Political Action
was used as an umbrella under which to discuss the wide array of political science
research. The instrumental perspective was dominant in both the political science
and the sociological literature and stressed the importance of the utilitarian
nature of participation. Also, the multi-level theoretical focus of both disciplines
sheds light on the individual, organizational, and societal dynamics involved in
collective social action. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of empirical literature
exploring the multi-level dynamics.

Another addition of political science is the notion that participation is a
developmental process in which an individual will gain from participation and thus

participates again and adds to the outcome. Feminists have also introduced

22

processes that had not previously been studied such as the importance of
measuring variables that are influencing participation of women specifically.

Many of the studies reviewed in the political science section focused on the
correlation between various attitudes and behaviors. Finkel (1985) used the term
attitudes to describe the variables political efficacy and political support that he
found were correlated with political participation. Similarly, Muller, et.al. (1982)
used the attitudinal variable of diffuse political support as a predictor of political
behavior. Exploring the correlation between attitudes and behavior and the
moderator variables involved is one of the main contributions of psychology to the
area of mobilization.

Esxshclm

Most current psychological research in the area of the peace and anti-
nuclear movement has focused on citizen’s attitudes, conflict resolution strategies,
and the psychological consequences of living with the threat of nuclear war
(Newcomb, 1986; Kramer, Kalick & Milburn, 1983; Escalona, 1982).

Undoubtedly these types of studies are important for understanding the impact of
the nuclear threat and promoting peaceful solutions to conflict. Considerably less
research has accumulated on reducing the nuclear threat or promoting peace
through collective social action. Psychological studies on the peace movement,
and social movements in general, are few and many are not empirically based.

One question psychology attempted to answer concerning anti-nuclear

mobilization is: If 86% of the American public support a nuclear freeze, why are

23
so few people actually participating in bringing it about (White & F eshbach,

1987)? To best answer this question the literature concerning attitude-behavior
consistency and the process of mobilization will be reviewed in this section.

WW5 A pioneering field study
by Tyler & McGraw (1983) explored the antecedents to a behavioral response to
the nuclear threat. Three sample groups were studied: anti-nuclear activists,
survivalists, and the general public. They found that individuals with a strong
internal locus of control will respond behaviorally to the threat (i.e., survivalists
and activists). Individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy and political efficacy
will take an anti-nuclear stance. People who do not respond behaviorally feel that
they do not have any options or have little control. Efficacy is then a key variable
along with the idea of preventability. Also, anti-nuclear activists tended to be
activists in other social movement arenas as well. Although this study is plagued
by methodological problems (e.g., non-random and small sample, possible biases
in the questionnaire, and measures of behavioral intention not actual behaviors),
it is one of the few examples of field research on activism in psychology.

Along with the correlation of self-efficacy and political efficacy in
producing a behavioral response was the concreteness of a person’s image of
nuclear war. In a random sample telephone survey Fiske, Pratto & Pavelchak
(1983) found that the concreteness of the image of the destruction of nuclear war
was the best predictor of activism. The belief in the plausibility or inevitability of

nuclear war produced inaction. Also, the activist was not more fearful or

24

emotional about nuclear war than the non-activist; almost everybody reported
being afraid of the threat of nuclear war.

A methodologically sound study conducted by Watanabe & Milburn (1988)
assessed many of the same variables as F iske, et.al., (1983). Random digit dialing
was used to sample 372 residents in Massachusetts. They found that the strongest
predictor of anti-nuclear activism was general political activism. Issue specific
efficacy and general political efficacy also predicted anti-nuclear activism.
Watanabe and Milburn challenge the Fiske, et.al. (1983) research in commenting
"past studies that have found a relationship between image content, likelihood
estimates of nuclear war, attitudes toward nuclear war and nuclear-related
political activity may have done so simply because they failed to control for
education" (p. 468). Hence, they suggested that mobilization efforts should focus
on promoting beliefs that activism will be efficacious in reducing the nuclear
threat, and that organizations should direct their efforts at people who are already
activists either in politics or other social movements (Watanabe & Milburn, 1988).

General Attitude-Behevier Censisteney. Much research in psychology
focused on the general area of attitude-behavior consistency rather than the more
specific area of social movement involvement or anti-nuclear involvement. The
general studies listed below may help explain the reasons behind attitude-behavior
inconsistencies.

Ajzen & Fishbein (1977) believed that studies that find little or no attitude-

behavior relationships are working from the faulty assumption that general

25

attitudes can predict specific behaviors. They argued that an unsuccessful finding
of no correlation between attitudes and behavior is due to poor experimental
design. They concluded that only high correspondence in the entities will produce
significant results. Actually, Ajzen & Fishbein’s review showed that attitude-
behavior consistency designs are useful only in very limited settings.

Many empirical studies, however, focused on the moderating factors that
influence attitude-behavior consistency. The amount of information available was
found to be an important moderating factor (Davidson, Yantis, Norwood &
Montano, 1985). An alternative explanation to the Davidson, et.al. findings could
be that behavior influences the amount of information available and that the
process isn’t necessarily unidirectional.

Vested interest was another moderator variable according to Sivacek &
Crano (1980). If a consequence of an attitude actually effected a person’s life,
there was high attitude-behavior consistency. People were much more willing to
participate in a social action if they had a vested interest in the outcome (Sivacek
& Crano, 1980). This finding was probably influenced by the fact that the
attitudes measured and the behaviors measured had a high correspondence. The
attitudinal variable used was raising the drinking age and the behavioral variable
was working for a referendum to raise the drinking age. The specificity and
immediate rewards of participation are difficult to generalize to activism in the

peace movement since rewards are usually less tangible and not immediate.

26

Direct experience is another purported salient factor in determining
attitude-behavior consistency (Borgida & Campbell, 1982; Zanna, Olson & Fazio,
1980). Bordiga & Campbell (1982) suggested that ”the key to which global
attitudes and their behavioral implications are cognitively accessible may be the
determinant of attitude-behavior consistency.” They used the term ”cognitively
accessible" to indicate having an attitude along with direct experience to support
that attitude. This study is relevant to the process of peace movement
mobilization in that a social action taken by an activist group (e.g., painting
shadows on the ground portraying people that would be destroyed if a nuclear
bomb exploded) may provoke a behavioral response within someone that already
has an anti-nuclear attitude.

Mebilizatien as a Preeess. Another approach to studying attitude-behavior
consistency is to view mobilization as a process. Klandermans and Oegema
(1987) conducted an impressive longitudinal study of the 1983 Dutch peace
demonstration on The Hague. From their pioneering work, they developed a
sequential model of the steps in the mobilization process. The four steps outlined
were: 1) being part of the mobilization potential (having concordant attitudes
with the movement), 2) being a target of a mobilization attempt, 3) being
motivated to participate in an action, and 4) overcoming barriers (Klandermans &
Oegema, 1987). In a pictorial representation, presented in Figure 2, they showed
a progression from mobilization potential, to recruitment, to intentions, to actual

participation.

27
----------Insert Figure 2 About Here ----------

There are two constructs that underlie these steps: persuasion and
activation. Persuasion underlies the first 2 steps. It entails changing or
reinforcing attitudes in the process of forming the mobilization potential, and
targeting an individual with a persuasive technique. The second construct is
activation which underlies the third and fourth steps. The third step, part of the
activation construct, is transforming attitudes into concrete behaviors.
Overcoming barriers is the last step in the mobilization process.

Klandermans & Oegema (1987) found that at each stage in the
mobilization process many people dropped out. They suggested that non-
participation resulted from one of a few reasons: not sympathizing with
movement goals, not being mobilized, and the presence of barriers. There is
virtually no research into the nature of those barriers. Klandermans & Oegema
offered only that the barriers are such that 60% of the motivated and mobilized
people did not participate. They speculated that the barriers may be concrete,
such as family emergencies or having to work. In other words, mobilized people
(adherents and supporters of the movement) did not participate a large
percentage of the time for reasons that had little or nothing to do with their
attitudes or the social movement organization itself.

One other researcher, a sociologist, studied barriers and used the term

"biographical availability" to describe a person’s ability or access to resources to

28
overcome barriers (McAdam, 1986). He defined this 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" (p. 70). McAdam’s
data suggested that many individuals had concrete personal life situations that
inhibited participatory behavior and highly risky or costly types of activism.

WM Klandermans’ mobilization model
provided a framework for much of the psychological literature. Attitude-behavior
consistency was an integral process in the mobilization model proposed by
Klandermans. Researchers in psychology have documented many factors involved
in attitude-behavior consistency including: self-efficacy, political efficacy,
concreteness of images, amount of information, vested interest in the outcome,
and direct experience to support the attitude. Unfortunately there is a dearth of
empirical studies exploring the process of social movement mobilization.

Another main contribution of Klandermans’ mobilization model was the
introduction of the concept of barriers to participation. Klandermans (1987)
along with McAdam ( 1986) both recognized the importance of concrete barriers
in individuals lives that influenced levels of activism.

ifi i f r h

Apparent in the plethora of literature reviewed were some overriding
themes. Although each discipline may use different terms when describing a
variable or bring a different perspective to bear on an issue, there were some

factors that were consistent throughout the literature. The following issues

29

surface across disciplines: self and political efficacy, attitudes and ideology,
selective incentives or motives, barriers, and organizational dynamics.

Each of the main theories from each discipline was used as starting points
to guide this research. Resource Mobilization Theory from sociology was the
guiding perspective of the present study. This utilitarian perspective is the most
widely held and best empirically documented paradigm in the social sciences. The
Microtheory of Political Action from political science (see Figure 1) was the
guiding theoretical model because it is multi-level and comprehensive. The
Microtheory of Political Action contains most of the factors thought to be
important in collective social action throughout the social sciences. From
psychology, Klandermans’ mobilization model (see Figure 2) provided the
important groundwork to view mobilization as a process from having an attitude,
to being mobilized, to encountering barriers, to actually participating in collective
social action.

Each of the studies presented in this review filled a part of a coherent
whole that attempted to describe the factors involved in social activism. The
present study was designed to further document certain findings in the literature,
fill some gaps not adequately addressed, and suggest a new path of study.
Demmenting Findings

Using the Microtheory of Political Action as a guide, each individual level
variable was explored further. Several additional variables deemed important in

the literature were also measured. Additions included other demographic

30

variables found in the literature to be integral to women’s lives. The role of
grievances was incorporated into the ideological variables to further document the
relationship between grievances and participation. Also self-efficacy was
measured along with political efficacy because many studies have shown both
variables to be a strong predictors of activism.
Filling Gaps and Explering New Paths

The present research added new dimensions to the literature of peace
movement activism. First, it brought together multi-disciplinary perspectives.
Second, the focus was on persons who had expressed an interest in peace
organizations rather than the general population. The sample population in this
study was people who were already involved in the movement either directly or
indirectly. Many other studies have focused on mobilizing the general public
(Fiske, Pratto & Pavelchak, 1983; Opp, 1985; Tyler & McGraw, 1983; Walsh &
Warland, 1983). Third, participatory behavior was delineated by the level of
involvement of the movement adherents. Most, if not all, previous research had
concentrated on either a specific type of participatory behavior or had defined
participation as a general concept. Most research had focused on a single event
(Klandermans & Oegema, 1987; McAdam, 1986; Walsh & Warland, 1983).
Fourth, this study empirically addressed the previously unsupported notion of
barriers to participation. Barriers and "biographical availability" are the least
documented part of the previous research (Klandermans & Oegema, 1987;

McAdam, 1986). In fact, no studies were found that empirically focused on

31

barriers to greater participation. Barriers seem to play a major role in the level
of activism of an individual; Defining them may be the first step in taking action
to overcome them. Finally, collaborative methodology was used throughout the

process of study development and dissemination of information garnered.

Rcmhmestions
1. . -.‘ “Q'mhlo'u 10.01.20,“ radii! i 0_0'
erganizatidn adherents, suppettets, members, add leaders? This is a

preliminary question that assesses the demographic composition of peace
community members and their general background characteristics. Most
studies have sampled from the general population, thus it is important to
document the demographics of those people who are interested and active
in peace issues for comparative and explanatory purposes.

2. Wh .r- h mo r-rvaln - - .. -r‘.l ‘9. ivi i ., on: . - -. - .urvr ?
This question assesses which activities people are participating in within the
Lansing area. This information is important to document for local peace
organizations so they can be informed of the amount and type of activism
in the community.

3. What are the pereeived barriers tQ gteater pagieipatien in the peaee
mavement? This area is previously unexplored empirically and will provide
information to organizations concerning what individuals perceive as

barriers.

32

u. .‘ h or" Hriiv I‘I-JOL !_0 u‘ "! 01-15201: h..- 191". i
W? Most of the participant
characteristic variables have been explored previously in the literature and
were found to be predictors of activism or collective social action. These
variables include: demographics and background, efficacy, ideology, and
motives. Most of these characteristics, however, have not been explored
specifically for the peace movement. Additionally, an individual’s
perception of barriers to participation is explored empirically in this
question.

Importantly, the predictors chosen in this question, except for
demographic and background characteristics are variables that can change.
Although some variables are more difficult to change than others, it is
likely that the results will focus the mobilization process in specific
directions.

Whtiherlinhi nmmri asmm rv n-
W? This question addresses
differences between members of organizations and non-members on the
following individual characteristics: demographic and background
information, motives for participation, efficacy, ideology, and level of

activism.

33

Wh i ° r110: hi rt “110-.-1- O... I-. ger'rl ' 0... cun'r‘n
typesefmaaizatigas? This is an exploratory question examining which

types of people belong to what types of organizations. The findings may
have implications towards identifying certain types of participants for

mobilization for different types of organizations.

Methods
r ' ' n 1

All 16 of the anti-nuclear and multi-focus peace organizations in the
Greater Lansing Area were targeted to participate in this study. The specific
population chosen was defined as single-focus anti-nuclear organizations and
multi-focus organizations working for peace and justice. Single-focus
organizations, concentrating solely on justice issues in places such as Central
America or South Africa, were not included.

P i i l

The participants were individuals who are adherents, supporters, and
members in these organizations. The sample was drawn from mailing lists of 10
cooperating organizations. There were 1,984 names on the mailing lists. Some of
these names were duplicates from other lists as many people belonged to more
than one organization. There were 1,578 unique names. The leaders separated
the lists into members (65%) and non-members (35%). All non-members on
these lists had at one time shown an interest in the organization by signing a
mailing list, attending an event, or asking for information.

Pilot 5319!

For the pilot study, the questionnaire was sent to 40 people who were
randomly selected from various organizations’ mailing lists. The cover letter
asked for comments regarding the survey, input on any unclear questions, and

completion of the questionnaire. Data from the 15 respondents was analyzed. If

34

35

there was no variance on an item, it was deleted and a few new items were added
from the respondents’ suggestions. In addition, 10 peace organization leaders
provided verbal and written feedback on the questionnaire. The comments were
taken into consideration and the questionnaire was slightly revised.

Procedure

First, a joint decision between the researcher and three key peace
organization leaders was made concerning the focus, content, and need for this
study. Then a letter briefly outlining the purpose of the study was sent to the
director/spokesperson of the remaining 13 organizations. The letter asked for any
input the leaders had concerning the direction and implementation of the research
and for a return phone call indicating acceptance to participate.

The next phase of the project began with a phone call to the peace
organization leaders to set up an appointment for an on-site interview. The
director/spokesperson was informed that the interview would last approximately
one-half hour. Ten face-to-face interviews were completed. Six telephone
interviews were conducted due to meeting and time constraints of the leaders.

Once the organization leaders were interviewed, questionnaires were sent
out. A cover letter endorsed by all the participating organizations was attached to
the questionnaire to help increase the response rate. Since some of the mailing
lists were outdated, potential participants were contacted by telephone to confirm

their addresses.

36

Respondents were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. To ensure
anonymity, a pre-addressed stamped envelope was provided to return the
questionnaire along with a coded postcard that was to be returned separately.

The postcard allowed for identification of non-respondents. Two weeks later non-
respondents were called by telephone asking for their prompt response.
Questionnaires were re-sent when necessary.

Wren

The population consisted of 1,578 people. The sample was taken randomly
after stratifying on organizational size and membership status. The organizations
were stratified by size because there were many more people on the mailing lists
of large organizations and thus a straight random sample would most likely
produce too few small organization participants for analysis. There were also
more members on the mailing lists than non-members, so membership status was
also stratified. It was assumed that non-members were less likely to answer the
questionnaire and it was important to sample enough individuals for analyses.

If individuals were members of more than one organization, they were
assigned to the smallest of those organizations so that individuals in small
organizations would be fully represented. The target sample was 390 individuals
chosen randomly from the six categories listed in Table 1. Forty-eight people
were targeted in the member subsample of the small organization group because

this was the total population.

37
---------- Insert Table 1 About Here----------

To insure confidentiality of their members many organizations would not
release addresses and phone numbers on the mailing lists and some did not give
first names, only first initials or last names only. Out of the 390 names, correct _
and connected telephone numbers for 241 people were found. The other 149
people either moved, had unlisted telephone numbers, or there was insufficient
information to locate them (e.g., common name, no first name).

Members unique to 2 of the organizations were not contacted. The person
in charge of the mailing lists for both organizations would not let the researcher
call or send the questionnaire to people on those lists for confidentiality reasons.
Due to coordination and logistical problems, this leader was not able to call
potential respondents or send out questionnaires in a timely manner.

Questionnaires were not sent to individuals unique to those organizations
due to the fact that too much time had passed between the initial mailing of
questionnaires to individuals unique to other organizations. Adding respondents
at this later date may have biased the data. The political climate had dramatically
changed in the fall of 1990 and there was a great likelihood of a military
confrontation with Iraq. The responses to the Peace Activism Questionnaire
might have been different based on the impending conflict in Kuwait and Iraq.
People may be less likely to think about peace when there was a direct threat (the

popular media depicted Saddam Hussein as another Hitler) and may respond

38

differently when war is in the abstract. On the other hand, people may also
become more active when there is a tangible threat. This issue would have biased
the data by adding an uninterpretable historical confound.

Fortunately, to account for some of these people in the 2 organizations,
several individuals that were on multiple lists including one of these two
organizations and had telephone numbers were contacted. The organizations
were thus still represented in the sample.

Fin am 1

After identifying correct addresses and contacting 241 out of the 390 in the
original sample, 163 surveys were returned. Of the 241 individuals who received
the questionnaire, 163 responses represents a 68% return rate. From the original
sampling goal of 390 the response rate was 42%. The stratified samme is

depicted in Table 2.
---------- Insert Table 2 About Here----------

11cm
This research was expected to have sufficient power to detect effects when
they are present. A power analysis was conducted estimating multiple R to be .30
with a significance level of .05 and power of .80. With these estimates, and based
on the 23 variables that were in the regression equations, a sample size of 94 was

necessary.

39
Design

This study explored the relationships among individual and organizational
constructs. The intent was to determine the factors that were related to activist
involvement and develop an equation to predict level of involvement. The
variables measured can be categorized into 7 underlying conceptual groups: 1)
demographics and background information, 2) ideology, 3) incentives or motives
for participating, 4) political efficacy, 5) perceived concrete barriers to greater
participation, 6) characteristics of the organization, and 7) level of involvement.

This research used two methods of investigation: 1) a written questionnaire
was mailed to a stratified random sample of adherents, supporters, and members
to assess the demographic and background variables, ideology, incentives, efficacy,
barriers, and their current level of involvement, and 2) an interview with the
spokesperson/director of each organization provided the organizational data
which included structure and philosophy/goals.

A mailed questionnaire was chosen as the appropriate method of data
collection for the individual variables. Importantly, the anonymity allowed by a
mailed survey could conceivably produce more candor and honesty than other
methods of data collection from the respondents because some of the questions

referred to illegal activities.

40
Measures

The Peace Activism Questionnaire (see Appendix A) garnered data
through self-report. To reduce the risk of response bias with socially desirable
answers, direct behavioral questions were asked whenever possible and anonymity
was ensured. The PAQ elicited responses from 6 of the 7 main conceptual
groupings of variables. Organizational characteristics were measured in an
interview. Specific items making up each scale on the PAQ are listed in
Appendix B. As explained below, some of the scales were taken from previous
research, and some were developed specifically for this study. The scales were
constructed rationally and then empirically reviewed for internal consistency.
When the correlations between scales measuring similar constructs was high, the
scales were combined. Also, if single item indices were not normally distributed
the responses were categorized both rationally and by percentile.

Demographic Characteristies. Twelve demographic variables described the
sample: 1) age, 2) race/ethnicity, 3) sex, 4) years of formal education, 5) marital
status, 6) number of children, 7) ages of children, 8) hours employed per week, 9)
hours worked in the home/week, 10) occupation, 11) personal income, and 12)

household income.

41
ldeplpgy. The general concept of ideology was assessed with 3 variables:

1) peace and justice ideolog, 2) political support-alienation (Muller, Jukam &
Seligson, 1982), 3) political classification.

The peace and justice ideoloy scale was a compilation of 2 subscales
originally developed for this study. The 2 subscales, radical peace ideology and
radical action attitudes, were correlated at .56 and are described below.

The first subscale, radical peace ideology, measures the extent to which
people hold politically and socially radical views concerning peace and justice
issues. This issue-specific attitude subscale was developed for this study. Previous
research used fairly conservative baseline measures of attitudinal affinity with
peace and justice issues which would not be appropriate for this sample. The ten
items measured beliefs about the use of nuclear weapons, about the use of
conventional forces, and about US. foreign policy. All items were statements
rated on a 4 point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

The second subscale, radical action attitudes, contained items measuring
which actions a person believed were justifiable to promote peace and justice.
The radical action attitudes sub-scale contained 8 items which ranged from
declaring a nuclear free zone and attending legal demonstrations to destroying
military property and not paying one’s income tax. The more radical the
respondent’s beliefs, the higher their score. All items were rated with a 4 point

response format from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Every respondent

42

agreed that signing petitions and letter writing campaigns were justified actions.
Therefore these items were taken out of the scale due to no variance.

The peace & justice ideologr scale contained 16 items. The item-total
correlations were sufficiently strong to show a cohesive scale although 2 items
regarding providing enough for the poor and the justifiability of legal
demonstrations had low item-total correlations. Because these items did not
effect the internal consistency of the scale very much they were kept for later
analyses. The alpha was .86.

The political support-alienation scale developed by Muller, Jukam &
Seligson (1982) measured the extent to which a person supports or feels alienated
from the political system. A previous study with 4 different sample populations
noted internal consistency alphas, for this 8 item scale, ranging from .83 to .90
(Muller, Jukam, Seligson, 1982). With the present sample the political support-
alienation scale had item-total correlations from .38 to .75 with an alpha of .87.

The third measure of ideology was one item called political classification.
This ideology item assessed where an individual puts her/himself on a continuum
from conservative, moderate, liberal, to radical.

Effieag. Three scales comprise the efficacy construct: 1) internal political
efficacy, 2) external political efficacy, 3) peace & justice efficacy.

Internal political efficacy was measured by 5 items taken from Craig &
Magiotto (1982). They reported an alpha of .72. This scale measured the extent

to which people feel that they as individuals can have an impact on the political

43

system. Each item was rated on a 4 point scale from "not at all" to "a great deal".
The item-total correlations ranged from .44 to .66. The alpha coefficient was .78
for the current sample.

External political efficacy refers to the extent to which an individual feels
that political institutions can be influenced by the public. For the purposes of this
study, three items were chosen to represent the scale of external political efficacy
developed by Craig & Magiotto (1982). The original scale contained 8 items with
an alpha of .82. With the current sample, the item-total correlations were .52 to
.6 with an alpha of .74.

Peace and justice efficacy was the final scale in the efficacy construct. This
scale is a combination of 2 subscales, one measuring self efficacy and the other
collective efficacy in peace and justice matters. The 5 self-efficacy items measure
the amount of personal influence an individual feels towards achieving peace and
justice goals. The 4 collective efficacy items refer to the extent which an
individual feels that people collectively can achieve peace and justice goals.

The original subscales were highly correlated, .66, and thus seemed to be
measuring the more general concept of peace and justice efficacy. The internal
consistency of the 9 item peace and justice efficacy scale was good, with an alpha
of .83 and item total correlations from 0.40 to .65.

cher Partieipatipn. Three types of participation were measured within the
Other Participation set of variables: voluntary organizations, political

organizations, and other social movements.

44

To measure voluntary organization participation, respondents answered
yes or no to whether they belonged to 3 types of organizations: neighborhood,
social, or service. Originally, the voluntary organization participation scale
contained 5 types of organizational participation. From the reliability analysis it
was apparent that two items, religious and professional organizations did not fit in
the scale. On further review, the three types of organizations, neighborhood,
social, and service all reflect a social commitment whereas the former two do not.
Also, religious involvement is assessed elsewhere in the PAQ. Thus religious and
professional organizations were deleted. The item-total correlations were .43 to
.53 and the alpha was .63.

Political organization participation was assessed with one item measuring
the amount of participation in other types of political organizations (non peace
organizations).

Other social movement participation was assessed with 9 items.
Respondents were asked whether they agreed with or belonged to the various
other progressive social movements listed here: economic justice, environmental,
feminist, gay and lesbian civil rights, advancement of people of color, third world
liberation, human rights, pro-choice, and the world hunger movement. Two
movements listed were controversial and not included in the mean score: animal
rights and pro-life (abortion issue) had much missing data, low item-total

correlations, or was negatively correlated with the other items in the scale.

45

A mean score was computed for each item. A score of 1 indicated
disagreeing with the goals of the progressive movement, 2 indicated supporting it
ideologically, and 3 indicated belonging to the social movement organization. For
the 9 item scale, the reliability coefficient was .76 and most item-total correlations
ranged from .34 to .60 with one low item-total correlation (.19), for "World
Hunger Movement".

Mptives. An individual’s motives for participating in the peace movement
were computed in two ways. First respondents rank ordered six motives from
most important to least important. Then they were asked how important each of
those motives was, on a 4 item response set, from "not important at all" to "very
important". Since the rank order data is ipsative in nature, it was only used
descriptively. The likert scale data was used normatively.

The items assessing motives or incentives taken from other measures and
created specifically for this instrument. Some items were modeled on Opp’s
(1983) measure of grievances (or personal discontent) and measure of altruism.
Opp (1983) reported an alpha of .71 for the 7 item grievance against nuclear
power scale. He did not, however, report reliability data on the 8 item altruism
scale. Four items from the grievances and altruism scales were chosen as relevant
to the population in this study. Other items measuring social motives for
participating or the extent to which an individual feels socially embedded in the

peace movement were developed for this research.

46

Since the motives construct seemed to be multi-dimensional, the data was
factor analyzed using a varimax rotation with a minimum eigen value of 1.00 (see
Table 3). Ten items were factor analyzed into 3 types of motives which can be
classified as purposive, solidarity, and religious. Purposive motives are concern
for self, others, society, and guilt. Solidarity motives refer to number of friends
and acquaintances in the peace movement, social life around the movement, and
indicating that friends’ participation is an important reason for participating.
Religious motives include being motivated to participate because of religious

beliefs and being involved in religious activities.

---------- Insert Table 3 About Here----------

Three scales Were developed from the factor analysis. The purposive
motives scale contains the 4 items with the highest factor loadings. It reliability
coefficient was .64 and item total correlations range from .30 to .58. Solidarity
motives has 4 items taken from the factor loading matrix and has an alpha of .65.
Item total correlations range from .37 to .51. The religious motives scale has only
2 items with an alpha of .81.

,B_a_rr_igs. The variable of perceived barriers refers to the number of
barriers people perceive as preventing them from greater participation in the
peace movement. A 15 item barrier checklist assessed the number of barriers a

person has encountered in the past year. The preliminary list of possible barriers

47

was generated by the peace organization leaders. There was also space for open-
ended responses that were later content analyzed and coded into categories. The
barriers included items such as job demands, unavailable child care, and risks too
high (e.g., jail). Each item is listed on the questionnaire found in Appendix A.

Level pf lnvplvement Measures. There were 2 variables that measured the
construct of level of involvement: peace activities and amount of money
contributed to the peace movement.

The first scale, peace activities, measured by the peace activity index,
assesses participation in peace related activities. The peace activity index was
calculated using a series of maximum likelihood estimates using Rasch modeling
techniques (Andrich, 1988). Rasch modeling allows for the assessment of a latent
variable. In this case the latent variable was level of involvement in the peace
movement (measured through types of peace activities participated in). Each
person was thus assigned a magnitude score, representing level of peace activities.

Each item representing a particular action was coded dichotomously as
"action taken at least once" and "action not taken". The scores were then scaled
from least difficult to most difficult, representing the frequency of endorsement of
each item. Thus, the items were ranked on difficulty with "not paying taxes" and
"civil disobedience" at the high end of the scale and "talking to others about the
peace movement" on the low end. A person receiving a high score would be
someone who had participated in most of the peace activities including those that

are not often done (e.g, not paying taxes, civil disobedience). An individual would

48

be assigned a peace activity score in the medium range if they had participated in
about half the activities, none of which were extremely difficult (not often done)
and a low score would be assigned to a person who only participated in talking to
others about peace or signing a petition.

Similar to Guttman Scaling, this method assumes that respondents have
completed all the other actions prior to participating in a more difficult action.
Rasch modeling, however, is somewhat different in that the model is probabilistic
rather than deterministic. In other words, it takes into account any discrepancies
that may appear instead of counting all scores that do not fit as error (as in the
Guttman model).

Both the Rasch and Guttman models were created from this data.
Although they were very similar, they were not exact duplicates due to the nature
of the Guttman deterministic model. The Rasch model intuitively seemed better
suited to the nature of peace activism and human behavior in general;
discrepancies in any model will occur and must be taken into account rather than
counted purely as error in the model.

To assess reliability of the Peace Activity Index, a Chi Square was
calculated for the Rasch model. It was non-significant, indicating the data did not
significantly differ from the model. The Guttman reproducibility index was .84
and the Chi Square using the Guttman was also non-significant.

Money contributed was measured by one open-ended item asking for the

dollar amount contributed to the peace movement in the past year. The level of

49

income of the respondent was not controlled for because the number of people
responding to both items was too small for use in the analysis.
r ' ' n h ' i

The characteristics of each organization was quantified from the responses
of the organization leader/spokesperson. The interview protocol can be found in
Appendix C. From the responses to the open-ended questions, general categories
emerged. Each organization was then assigned a score for each open-ended item
which represented the category the responses best fit.

The organizations varied on several dimensions. These dimensions have
been grouped into 2 main categories, structure and philosophy. The various
typologies of organizations are delineated in Table 4.

Organizational fitmetare. The number of members of the organizations,
organizational size, varied from 5 people to 365 people. Small organizations were
defined as having less than 20 members, medium size was 20 to 75 members, and
large had more than 75.

Some organizations have specific target populations whereas others have
inclusive target populations. The specific populations include groups such as
women only or Christians only. Inclusive organizations have members from
diverse populations. This variable was termed organizational population.

‘ Organizational network affiliation is another structural variable. The
categories represent the affiliation with a superseding or larger organization and is

classified as part of a local only, statewide, national, or international network.

50

The organizational staff variable ascertained whether staff was paid to run
the organization or whether it was completely run by volunteers.

Organizational decision making was categorized into 2 groups: majority
and consensus. While both majority and consensus decision making involve every
member having an equal say in the decision, consensus decisions are not made
until every person involved agrees with the decision. In a majority situation, only
51% must agree with the decision.

Organizational Philpsophy. One philosophical difference of the groups was
the organizational focus of the group. Organizations were categorized into single
focus or multi-focus groups. The single focus anti-nuclear organizations all
worked toward controlling the development and deployment of nuclear weapons
or nuclear technology. Some supported unilateral disarmament while others
worked toward a mutual and verifiable nuclear freeze. The multi-focus
organizations, not only concentrated on nuclear issues, but directed attention to
various areas including: non-violent conflict resolution, third world liberation
struggles, world hunger, and social justice.

The organizations primary goals and philosophies were categorized into
three main areas, for a variable called organizational goals. Although, one of
these categories was represented as primary, most organizations encompassed a
variety of goals. One primary goal was organizational development. This
included attracting more members, defining their goals, or finding their niche in

the peace community. The second category, community activism included using

51

methods for social change such as demonstrating, political lobbying, and
community education. The third primary goal was self-education. This included
reading relevant material, forming discussion groups, and bringing in speakers to
educate the groups’ members.

Another indicator of phiIOSOphy was organizational social change tactics.
The organizations’ leaders endorsed several tactics falling into three main
categories. Again, the groups used many of these tactics, but directed their
attention towards one of them primarily. Community education was one main
tactic for bringing about their goals. This included sending out speakers, bulk
mailings, or working with the school systems. Groups endorsing political lobbying
as their main tactic used techniques such as letter writing campaigns to politicians
and supporting candidates. Direct action tactics was the third category and
included social change techniques such as blocking entrances to nuclear weapons’
factories, demonstrating, and tax and draft resisting.

For this study a procedure was developed for assigning organizational
characteristics to each case. Each respondent was asked to list a priority
organization. Scores were assigned to that individual based upon the
organization’s characteristics. For instance, if a person listed a small, consensus
decision making organization as his/her priority organization than they were
assigned the score for both small size and consensus decisions. For those people
who did not list a priority organization yet belonged to one or more, they were

randomly assigned to one organization. There were 30 people who were not

52

members of any organization and 2 that indicated priority to two different
organizations (church based groups) that were not included in this study. Thus for
the non-member subsample (n=32), no organizational characteristics were

assigned.

Results
Wren

There were two sets of data analyses conducted for this study. The first set
of analyses examined the relationship between individual characteristics and
activism. The second set of analyses explored the association between participant
characteristics and organizational variables. The significance levels of p < .05
(denoted by ‘) was adopted for all multivariate and univariate analyses.

For the first set of the analyses, the focus was on who are the persons
interested in the peace movement, what do they do, what barriers to greater
participation do they face, and what factors predict their level of involvement in
the peace movement. The first three research questions, therefore, focused on
demographic and background descriptions of the peace community. These
questions were addressed by examining the frequency distributions and measures
of central tendency.

To describe the predictive relationships between participant characteristic
variables and level of involvement in the peace movement, hierarchical multiple
regression techniques were employed. Two regression equations were used to
predict two level of involvement variables (peace activity level and money
contributed to the movement).

The second set of analyses explored the relationships between
organizational membership, characteristics of the organizations, and characteristics

of the participants (organizational members). The first issue investigated was the

53

54

differences between members of organizations and non-members (interested
others on the mailing lists). For this endeavor, analyses to detect differences
between the groups were used, including Chi Square tests and t-tests.

To study the association between individual characteristics and
organizational types, a series of one-way multivariate analyses of variance tests
was conducted with organizational characteristics as independent variables and
participant characteristics as dependent variables. Post hoc univariate analysis of
variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests allowed for an exploration of the

source of significant between group differences.

Demographic and Background Charaeteristics pf Peace Organizatipn Adherents,
Spppopers, Members, and Leaders

Almost two-thirds (63%) of the sample were women. Of the respondents
who indicated race/ethnicity, 96% were European-American, and 4% were Asian-
Arnerican, Hispanic, or of mixed ancestry. Noticeably absent were African
Americans. The age of respondents ranged from 14 to 84 with a mean of 45
years. A detailed description of the demographic variables can be found in Table

5.

---------- Insert Table 5 About Here----—-----

Most respondents were highly educated. Over one-half (55%) reported a

post graduate degree and 80% earned at least a bachelors degree. Seventeen

55

percent were not employed outside the home. The modal hours worked outside
the home per week was 40, with 29% working more than 40 hours. The modal
personal income was $40,000 for 1989 and the modal household income was
$60,000 ranging from $1300 to $180,000.

Seventy-one percent of the respondents were married or cohabitating with.
a significant other. Two-thirds (68%) had a least one child. Of those people with
children, the mean number was 2.6. Thirty-nine percent of the sample had
children living with them. The hours spent doing household chores ranged from
0 to 60 with a median of 10 hours per week.

One-fourth (26%) of respondents reported no religion or atheism, 65%
reported ascribing to some form of Christianity (e.g., Catholicism, Baptist,
Unitarian, and Quaker). One-third (32%) reported being very involved in their
religion in a formal sense. For political classification, 22% were self described
radicals, 61% liberals, 16% moderates, and 1% conservatives.

The number of years involved in peace movement activities ranged from 0
(5%) to 55 with a median of 10 years. Eighteen percent reported they were not
members of any peace movement organizations, 30% were members of one and
about 52% were members of more than one peace movement organization.

The Mpst Prevalent Peace Related Aetivities Ampng Latcal Peace Aetivists

The majority of respondents participated in the following activities at least

once during the year: talking to others about peace issues, signing petitions,

boycotting products of companies, demonstrating publicly, writing letters to

56

government officials, and going to peace organization meetings. For
approximately 2/3 of the activities listed, respondents participated more than one
time. Of these activities, participation ranged from 10.5 times/month to 2.8
times/year.

Participating in acts of protests such as civil resistance and not paying
income or telephone taxes was a fairly rare occurrence. Table 6 depicts the

incidence and prevalence of all the activities queried.

---------- Insert Table 6 About Here-~--~-----

Perceived Barriers tp Greater Partieipatipn in the Peace Mpvement

The majority of respondents cited job and school time commitments as a
barrier to their greater participation. Other hindrances included not enough time
because of all the activist work already done, familial responsibilities, and not

having extra money to give. Specific barriers are listed in Table 7.

---------- Insert Table 7 About Here----------

Ptedietipg Qvel pf Invplvement in the Peaee Mpvement

To explore the predictive association between participant characteristic
variables and two outcome variables indicating level of involvement, multiple

regression techniques were used. The first block of variables entered was the

 

57

demographic and background variables which were relatively stable and less apt
to change. Next, the block of individual characteristics was entered.

Prior to reporting the regression results, it is important to describe the
simple correlations between variables (see Table 8). Eleven of the 22 predictor
variables were significantly correlated with the two outcome variables. Only one
variable, political support, was negatively related to peace activities. As would be
expected, groups of variables measuring a construct were significantly related.

For example, the 3 efficacy variables were all significantly related to each other as
were the variables measuring other types of political /voluntary involvement. One
variable political support, was related positively to some variables, and negatively
to others. Political support was positively related to those indices that may point
to a more conservative individual (i.e., external political efficacy, voluntary
organization participation, religious motives, age, income, and marrital status).
The negative relationships to political support and other predictors were internal
political efficacy, purposive and solidarity motives, which you will see in the next

section predicted level of involvement.

---------- Insert Table 8 About Here----------

Prediction of level of peace activities. Demographic and background

variables accounted for a statistically significant amount (38%) of the variance in

the number of peace activities. The individual participant characteristics

58

accounted for a statistically significant additional 24% of the variance. Table 9
lists the standardized beta coefficients which estimate the independent

relationships between individual predictors and the level of peace activity.

---------- Insert Table 9 About Here----------

The statistically significant regression coefficients indicate that higher levels
of activism are associated with membership in many peace organizations, lower
household income, participation in other progressive social movements, feeling a
greater sense of external political efficacy to make political change, and scoring
higher on the motives of solidarity and purposive or altruistic goals.

Predietipn pf ampant pf mpney epntriputed tp the peaee mpvemept.
Demographic and background variables accounted for almost half of the variance
(45%) in money contributed. Higher number of peace organization memberships
and greater household income were the only two significant demographic and
background predictors. One individual participant characteristic added to the
prediction of amount of money given, internal political efficacy. Surprisingly, a
lower sense of internal efficacy as a political actor was associated with greater
contributions; people who felt a sense of individual power in making change were
less likely to give money to organizations. Since the beta weight for internal
efficacy was negative and the zero order correlation was positive, a simple

suppressor effect was explored. Following the methodology of Tabachnick &

 

59

Fidel] (1989) variables were eliminated one at a time from the equation. If the
beta weight in question changed from negative to positive, then a suppressor
effect would have been indicated by the variable eliminated. This procedure
revealed no simple suppressor effects.
' ‘1. i hit B ”n Mmr h' .1. tin D'nv hi i. kao .,I_' 1.].
cher Panieipant Charageristig

Demographies and Membership States. The data indicate no significant
relationships between demographic and background characteristics and
membership status. Thus the populations of members and non-members were
similar on all demographic and background variables queried. The specific results

are listed in Table 10.

---------- Insert Table 10 About Here----------

Panieipant Charaeteristies and Membetship States, To explore the

relationship between being a member of a peace organization and individual
characteristics, 4 MANOVA’s were performed. The four analyses were a product
of a conceptual distinction between the variables reviewed in the literature and
are listed in Table 11. Each test explored the multivariate and univariate

relationships for the following sets of variables: Idedlbgy, Mptives, Effieaey, and
cher Participation.

60
---------- Insert Table 11 About Here----------

The data indicated several significant relationships between individual
characteristics of the participants and their membership status. Table 12 details
these relationships.

There was a significant multivariate effect between the Ideptpgy of
members and non-members. Accounting for this difference were the variables of
peace & justice ideolog' and political classification. Members scored significantly
higher on peace and justice ideology, indicating they held more radical beliefs
than non-members concerning peace issues. Members also classified themselves

as more politically radical than non-members on the four point scale.

---------- Insert Table 12 About Here----------

Multivariate analysis indicated that Motives were also significantly different
for members and non-members. This result was primarily influenced by
members scoring significantly higher than non-members on solidarity motives.
Thus, members of peace organizations felt more socially embedded in a friendship
network with other peace activists and were more motivated to activism by their
friends than non-members.

The third multivariate analysis in this section indicated a significant

relationship between membership status and Effieag. This effect was explained

 

61

primarily by the variables of peace issue efficacy and internal political efficacy.
Members indicated feeling significantly more efficacious than non-members in
peace and justice matters and more efficacious as individuals in political affairs.

The significant multivariate relationship between mm and
peace organization membership status was evident in the univariate tests of all
three indices of Other Panig'patipn. Members participated in more political
organizations (not including peace groups) and other progressive social movement
organizations than non-members. Non-members, however, participate in more
volunteer service organization than members.

Types pf agivism and membership status. Ten out of the 14 indices of
activism level revealed a significant difference between members and non-
members (see Table 13). Organization members signed more petitions, attended
more organizational and educational meetings, contributed more money to the
peace movement, attended more demonstrations, held a greater number of
leadership positions in events, wrote more letters to the government and the
media, participated in more company boycotts, and talked to more people about

peace and justice issues.

---------- Insert Table 13 About Here----------

Reperted barriers and membership states. Chi Square tests identified only

two barriers as showing a significant difference between members and non-

62

members (see Table 14). The cross tabulation tables indicated that non-members
reported "not having extra money" as a barrier to greater participation more often
than members. Earlier analyses, however, showed a lack of demographic
differences between members and non-members. Income level was not
significantly different between groups. The second barrier that was significantly
different was "having no more energy" because of concurrent activist work.
Members indicated this barrier more often than non-members. Other results
from this data supported this finding because members were more active in the
peace movement than non-members and were more involved in other social

movements.

---------- Insert Table 14 About Here----------

 

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) procedures were used to

explore the series of relationships between individual and organizational variables.
Five separate MANOVA’s were conducted for each of the eight organizational
variables. Four of the five conceptual sets of variables used in these analyses
have been referred to earlier in Table 11. The fifth conceptual set explored in
this analysis, was termed Peace Mpvement Invplvement. The MANOVA with

Eeaee Mpvement Invplvement as the dependent variable included money

contributed to the peace movement and peace. activities (measured by the Peace

63

Activity Index). To reiterate, the organizational variables (independent variables)
were assigned to participants based on which organization each individual chose
as a primary affiliation.

linhiB nhizf r 'in i'
W Each multivariate analysis in this set produced a significant effect
at the multivariate level. The results are summarized in Table 15. First I_de_o_lbgy
showed a significant multivariate relationship with organizational size. Each of

the 3 indicators of Ideplpgy produced significant results with the univariate tests.

---------- Insert Table 15 About Here----------

Post hoc tests revealed that participants in small and large organizations
scored significantly higher in peace and justice ideology than people in medium
size organizations and participants in large organizations scored significantly
higher than those in small ones. In other words, persons belonging to large
organizations were more politically radical in their ideology regarding peace and
justice issues than both small and medium size organization, and small
organization members adopted a more radical ideology than medium size
organization members.

The second post hoc test showed that members of medium size
organizations scored significantly higher on political support than members of

large or small groups. Thus, members of medium sized organizations felt more

64

supported by the political system, whereas large and small organization members
felt more alienated from the system.

The univariate test for between group differences based on political
classification was significant. Although the Student-Newman-Keuls test wasn’t
powerful enough to detect a significant between group difference, the pattern of
means indicated that people belonging to large organizations classified themselves
as more politically radical than those belonging to medium or small organizations.

The significant multivariate effect of size on Mptives was explained by the
difference in scores on religious motives. Post hoc tests revealed that participants
in small organizations were more religious and cited religion as a motive for
peace movement participation significantly more often than members of large and
medium size organizations.

The significant multivariate effect found in the analysis with Effieaey as the
dependent variable appears to be primarily influenced by differences in the peace
issue efficacy variable. People belonging to small organizations indicated a higher
sense of individual and collective efficacy in peace and justice issues than
members of medium size organizations.

There were two variables that accounted for the significant multivariate
relationship between cher Panieipatipn and organizational size. Members of
large and medium size organizations had higher participation levels in other social
movements and belonged to a greater number of political organizations than

persons who indicated a small organization as their primary affiliation.

65
The final MANOVA based on size showed a multivariate relationship with

Peaee Mbvement Implvement. Post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls tests showed
that members of large and medium size organization gave more money to the
movement than members of small organizations.
WWW
Chgacteristies. There were two significant multivariate relationships for
organization tactics: Mbtives and Effieagy. Table 16 describes the findings in
detail. Post hoc tests in the Mptives analysis indicated that participants in
organizations using direct action tactics and political lobbying tactics scored higher
on religious motives than those in organizations that use community education as
their primary tactic. Although the univariate statistic was significant, the
Student-Newman-Keuls test did not reveal between group differences on
solidarity motives. Review of the mean differences indicated a similar result to
the findings for religious motivation; members of groups using direct action
techniques scored higher on solidarity motives than those people in organizations
that use community education or political lobbying as their primary tactics.
Solidarity motives refers to being socially embedded in the peace community
(having friends and acquaintances in the movement) and being motivated by a

sense of solidarity with other peace movement activists.

---------- Insert Table 16 About Here----------

66

The relationship between organization tactics and MWas also
significant at the multivariate level. Post hoc tests revealed that members of
direct action organizations scored higher on peace issue efficacy than people in
community education oriented organizations.

le. io hi B -n Mm. r hi .. .. i u l I ~rn. ion a u l-
iny Qrganizatien apd Panieipant Charaeteristics. In analyzing the relationship
between organizational network affiliation and the sets of individual variables, one
multivariate F was significant (see Table 17). Participant Idealpgywas related to
organizational network. Univariate tests indicated that people belonging to an
organization within a national or international network scored higher on political
support than those belonging to a local network. Conversely, those people
belonging to a local organization reported feeling more politically alienated than

the national/international participants.

---------- Insert Table 17 About Here ----------

Relationships Between Diversity in Organizatipnal Pppplatipn apd
Partieipant Characteristies. With organizational population as an independent

variable, two sets of variables had multivariate F’s that were significant: Motives
and Other Participation. The results from these analyses are reported in Table
18.

---------- Insert Table 18 About Here----------

67
In exploring the relationship between Matiles and diversity of the

population in the organization, the univariate test showed that people belonging
to singular population organizations were higher on religious motives. Many
singular population organizations in this sample were church or religion based.
The significant multivariate effect between cher Pm’eipatipn and organizational
population was primarily influenced by the finding that persons in varied
population organizations had higher participation levels in other progressive social
movements.

Relationships Bemeen gpnsensus vs, Majpp'ty Deg'sipn Making and
Partieipant Characteristies. There was a multivariate significant relationship
between m and type of decision making in the organization. There were no
significant univariate effects. These analyses are summarized in Table 19. One
variable, external political efi‘rcacy approached significance and may in
conjunction with internal political efficacy account for the effect. People in
groups that made decisions by majority had slightly higher mean scores on the two

efficacy variables.

---------- Insert Table 19 About Here----------

Relationships Between cher Qrganigtibnal Variables and Pattiet'pant

Charageristics. No multivariate significant differences were found between any

sets of participant characteristics and volunteer/paid staff, single /multi-focus, and

68

different types of organizational goals. Three tables detailing these results can be
found in Appendices D, E, and F, respectively.

o ow». _‘ l i o .m-lor- ,!_’ - 11.1-1-0 =- -- .- no 0 I?
W. Crosstabulation of the size variable with other
organizational variables indicated a series of trends. Significance of these results
could not be tested due to small cell sizes. From the results listed in Table 20, it
is apparent that small organizations tend to be local only, have a singular type
population, make decisions by consensus, be run by volunteers, focus on a single

issue, and have community activism as their primary goal.

---------- Insert Table 20 About Here----------

There were not enough medium size organizations to explore substantive
differentiation based on size. However, all medium size organizations focused on
a single issue. Large organizations showed slight trends toward using political
lobbying tactics, being a chapter of a national association, and focusing on

multiple peace and justice issues.

Discussion

There were two guiding purposes of this study: to uncover information that
will be useful for local peace movement organizations in their struggle to mobilize
activists, and to add to the knowledge base of social scientists working to better
understand peace activism. This discussion will, therefore, address both of those
goals.

The first purpose was to be of utilitarian value to the peace movement.
Specifically, the results were meant to be useful for informing the organizational
planning process for peace organizations in the Lansing area. With utility as the
premise, the interpretation of findings will center around providing useful
information to peace movement organizations. The guiding questions were: 1)
who is the population that is most affected by current mobilization techniques, 2)
which characteristics are most predictive of the most active people, 3) what are
the differences between members and non-members, and 4) what can be learned
from the association between the types of organizations and the characteristics of
their members.

In general, literature from each of the disciplines was supported with these
findings. Overall, the results give the most credence to Resource Mobilization
Theory in that most of the people comprising the peace movement in this locality
had the resources necessary to put time, energy, and money into the movement.
Concordantly, people indictated that social networks were important in their

participation and can thus be considered a resource. Both the Microtheory of

69

70

Political Action and most psychological studies were supported because external
political efficacy was a strong predictor of activism. As expected from some of
the psychological literature, attitudes and beliefs were not predictive.
Klandermans’ model was not supported, however, because barriers were not
related to activism level. It may be that overcoming barriers is the first step to
activism in the peace movement (e.g., having financial resources) rather than the
last as hypothesized in the Klandermans Mobilization model.

Summaty bf Results

Below is a brief summary of the findings. The first part of the results
section presented the current trends of peace movement participation and a
description of its adherents. The people on the mailing lists of peace movement
organizations in the Greater Lansing Area were comprised mostly of educated,
middle class, European-Americans. Participants reported several barriers to their
greater involvement in the movement, however, none were significantly related to
activism level. One reason for the lack of significant findngs may be that those
peOple most involved in activism may be more acutely aware of the barriers they
face than less involved individuals.

Several participant characteristics were strong predictors of peace activism.
Household income, participation in other social movements, higher number of
memberships in peace movement organizations, external and internal political
efficacy, and purposive and solidarity motives each contributed to the prediction

of amount of money given to the peace movement and peace activity level.

71

The second part of the results was a preliminary exploration into the effect
of organizational affiliation and participant characteristics. Differences between
members of organizations and non-members were investigated. The results
indicated no demographic differences, yet found significant differences on several
other dimensions which will be discussed later.

To continue exploring the effect of organizational membership, the
question of which types of people joined what type of organizations was analyzed.
The major findings indicated that organization size was significantly related to
each set of participant characteristic variables: Idedlbgy. Effieagt, Mbtives, Odie;
Participation, and Peaee Involvement. Tactics of the organization were related to
Mptives and Efficaey of the participants, while fledlbgywas associated with
organizational network affiliation. Motives and h r Pa i i ati n were
significantly related to organization population diversity.

The following sections will delve more deeply into these relationships. The
findings will be focused on in greater detail and some possible explanations will
be posed.

Faetprs flsociated with Higher Levels pf Peaee Aetivities

The background characteristics predicting level of participation in peace
movement activities were membership in a greater number of peace movement
organizations, and lower household income. It can be debated whether belonging
to one organization exclusively or several fosters greater participation. This

survey indicated that persons who belonged to the highest number of peace

72

organizations had the highest level of peace activity participation. Also, the
results indicate that the greater the levels of participation in general (especially in
other progressive social movements), the higher the level of peace movement
activism.

The findings also demonstrated that people with less money put more time
and effort into peace activities. There are several possible reasons for this
finding. One may think that people with less money work less and, therefore,
have more time to devote to peace activities. The data, however, does not
support this assumption because the number of hours employed is not a
significant predictor. Another explanation is that activists may take lower paying
jobs such as public or social service sector employment. To investigate this
assumption, chi square tests were conducted to explore differences based on
occupation. The results showed no significant differences between employees in
public or social service, business, or technical jobs. The somewhat crude estimate
of employment used in this analysis may be contributing to the lack of significant
differences and should be explored further in other research. When interpreting
these results, it is important to realize that the income level of the sample is
higher than the community at large.

After controlling for demographic characteristics, four individual
characteristics accounted for most of the variance in predicting level of
involvement. The individual characteristics were: participation in other social

movements, external political efficacy, solidarity motives, and purposive motives.

73

As stated earlier persons who agreed with the goals and joined more progressive
social movement organizations were higher on peace activity level. Watanabe and
Milburn (1988) found that general political activism was the strongest predictor of
anti-nuclear activism. Together these findings indicate that there are people who
can generally be called "activists" who do much of the work in the peace
movement.

Persons who felt a greater sense of external political efficacy scored higher
on the peace activity index. This result implies that people who felt that the
public can influence the political system have the highest activity level. This
finding lends support to the conclusions in other studies that the feeling of
political efficacy is of great importance in determining an activist’s behavior (Tyler
and McGraw, 1983).

Both solidarity and purposive motives were also strong predictors of peace
activities. Persons who were embedded in the social network and felt solidarity
with others in the peace movement were also the most active. Similarly, people
who were motivated by a grand purpose or altruistic goals for society were also
the very active.

These findings add further evidence for the importance of solidarity
already demonstrated in other research (McAdam, 1984; Oliver, 1984, Walsh &
Warland, 1983) and altruistic motives (Fleishman, 1980) for participation.
Although validation of findings of past studies was important, these results also

expanded the usefulness of promoting solidarity and sense of purpose. Whereas

74

previous studies indicated the difference in motives between activists and non-
activists, these findings indicated that these variables are predictors in
differentiating between level of participation for an activist population.

There are at least two plausible explanations for the relationship between
motives and peace activism. With survey methodology it is impossible to provide
causal information as to which came first, a person’s motives or higher levels of
participation. It could be that people who are embedded in a supportive social
network and already have purposive motives become the most active. It may also
be that people who become active for another reason feel a sense of solidarity
and purpose in their participation. In either case, persons who are motivated by
solidarity and purpose participate at the highest levels and therefore these
incentives should be emphasized either in recruitment or mobilization strategies.
Factors Associated with Contributing More Money to the Peace Mpvement

Similar to the prediction of peace activity level, the more peace
organizations persons belong to, the more money they are likely to give. This
makes intuitive sense because organizations ask for donations for their newsletters
or dues and thus the more organizations one is a member of the more money one
would give. The other Strong demographic predictor was higher household
income. The more money one makes the more one has to give.

The one individual characteristic that was associated with greater
contributions to the peace movement was lower internal political efficacy. While

this finding seems surprising, it is possible that people who contribute more

75

money may choose to pay organizations to do the activism work because they
don’t feel that they as individuals can make any changes.

On the whole, the data indicate certain participant characteristics that an
organization can emphasize and inculcate when striving for greater levels of
activism from its members. First organization leaders should target individuals
with a range of material resources. They can expect more money from people
that have more money, and more daily activist involvement from those that have
less money. Next organization leaders should target those people that are
involved in several peace movement organizations as well as other progressive
social movements. The data also suggests that organizations should work to
imbue a sense of external or collective efficacy in the political arena. One tactic
might be to demonstrate instances of past political change when people worked
together. Organizations should focus on promoting a sense of solidarity within the
peace movement and create an environment where people feel embedded in a
network of friends that are active. Another possibility to increase activism,
gleaned from the data, is to instill a sense of purpose towards achieving a peaceful
world. This includes reinforcing the feeling of altruism by focusing on creating a
better future for all peoples.

Relatibnships Between Individual Characteristics and Type Of Qrganizatipns

Exploring the characteristics of active people is one method of learning
which factors to stress when promoting activism. Another method is to focus on

the influence of organizations on the participants. The first exploratory question

76

addressed in this section involves defining the differences between people who are
members of organizations and people who are non-members (but who have
expressed some interest in peace issues).

Finding no demographic or background characteristic differences between
groups was quite interesting. The lack of differences illustrated that people on
the mailing lists basically come from the same demographic strata and have
similar background characteristics. Since peace organizations are not likely to be
able to effect change on demographic and background variables, the lack of
predictive power when differentiating between members and non-members is
positive for organization leaders.

The differentiation between the two groups then lies in individual
characteristics. As stated earlier, methodological constraints prevent the
researcher from determining whether the organization influences the individual’s
characteristics or whether the individual brings all these characteristics as a
prerequisite to joining. Nonetheless, individual characteristics did predict level of
activism, thus making it extremely important to induce people to join
organizations.

The relationship between membership in a peace organization and
participant characteristics was seen in each category of variables. Members felt
more efficacious, were more ideologically radical, were more motivated,

participated in other types of political or social movement activities, and were

77

more satisfied with their participation in the peace movement. These findings will
be explicated in the remainder of this section.

As would be expected, being a member of a peace organization is
significantly related to level of participation in the peace movement. Members of
peace organizations participate significantly more in peace related activities and _
give more money. The reason acts of civil resistance and number of speeches
given did not differentiate between members and non-members is the small
number of people participating in these actions. Members had higher means than
non-members on hours volunteered and asking other to participate in the
movement. The differences, however, were not powerful enough to reach
significance. It may be that hours volunteered per month is difficult to remember
over a year. It could be that individuals who do less volunteer work overestimate
the number of hours.

One barrier that non-members reported significantly more than members
was not having enough extra money to give to the movement. The lack of
demographic differences (especially income) does not support this claim. It may
be that non-members have other expenses (that were not measured) leaving them
with less money for the peace movement. Conversely, it might be that non-
members justify their non-participation in this manner. In either case, some
people may be more likely to join if there is no fee involved.

The fact that barriers were not established as a significant predictor of

level of activism points to two possible or coinciding explanations: 1) the

78

demographic composition of this population shows it to be one of much resources
and 2) activists are people who mobilize resources to overcome barriers. Since
the sample consisted of people who had the resources to overcome barriers;
Having resources may be the first step in linking people to the peace movement.
Taylor (1989) states that one of the main reasons African-Americans
traditionally have not been involved in the environmental movement is having less
economic resources and more immediate concerns due to socio—economic
conditions. The population in this study may be similar to that of the
environmental movement. In this sample 100% agreed with the goals of the
environmental movement and 44% belonged to environmental organizations.
Barriers might have been indicative of activism had the sample been wider

(including individuals not on the mailing lists of organizations) and included more

people of color.

 

Membership in an organization showed a strong relationship to activism
and factors predicting activism, hence it is important to further delineate the
typologies of organizations and the characteristics of members. The MANOVA
analyses revealed several prominent relationships between type of organization
and participant characteristics.

The difference between small, medium, and large size organization
members was apparent in all five sets of analyses. Small organizations had

populations that scored higher on religious motivation than medium or large

Oi

pa

79

organization members. This finding may be due to many small organizations
being church based, with singular populations.

Members in large organizations were more politically and ideologically
radical and expressed feeling more alienated from the political system. It may be
that the small organizations, many of which are church based, have members that
are generally more politically mainstream. Large organizations, being the varied
population organizations, may allow room for more left wing ideology. As an
example, the largest organization in the sample is a diverse population, multi-
focus, educational group working for peace and justice issues. From the
newsletter of this organization, it is apparent that many individuals within it
advocate the most radical ideology.

Members of small organizations also reported a greater sense of peace
issue efficacy than members of medium size organizations. This may be partially
explained because most small organizations have the goal of community activism,
make decisions by consensus, have a singular anti-nuclear focus, and promote
direct action and community education. Small organizations may be the groups
that get the most done, therefore the members feel the most efficacious. These
findings are in accordance with Olson’s (1965) view of the efficacy of actors in
small organizations to make change.

The results also indicate that people who claim as their priority
organization medium and large size organizations rather than small ones,

participated more in other social movements and other political organizations. It

80

may be that large organizations share their mailing lists with other progressive
social movement organizations and political organizations and thus target the
same population. Similarly, people in other progressive movements or political
organizations might be more exposed to the peace movement through mailings
and newsletters of large organizations with the resource base to carry out these
types of recruitment techniques.

Members of large and medium groups also gave more money to the peace
movement. One reason for this maybe that in this locality most small groups do
not have paid staff or newsletters, thus do not have dues. The larger groups tend
to have members who pay dues.

In sum, it appears that persons with varying individual characteristics are
members of different types of organizations. The trends in the data indicate that
individuals who feel'the most efficacious in peace and justice issues are members
of small organizations. Members of large organizations were more ideologically
radical, gave more money, and participated in other types of political and social
movement organizations. One possibility to induce a feeling of greater efficacy in
large organizations may be to break down into small groups with concrete single
focus tasks.

One caveat to the organizational data, is that most respondents were
members of more than one organization. They were asked to choose one

organization as their primary affiliation. The results are not indicative of all the

81
people in one type of organization, just those people who listed that type of

organization as primary.
I I l l l . l C . 1 .

Some methodological limitations must be taken into consideration when
attending to the implications for these findings. One methodological constraint
was the method of sampling. The population was stratified on size due to the
need to adequately represent small organizations in the sample. Thus the sample
is not completely random from the entire population on the mailing list.

The second sampling constraint was that respondents were comprised of
individuals with telephones. Due to the outdated lists acquired from peace
organizations, it was financially untenable to send questionnaires to everyone on
those lists (many people may have moved). If a person did not have a listed
telephone number, they were not contacted and sent a questionnaire.

Only 62% of individuals on the mailing lists were contacted by telephone.
People were not contacted by telephone for several reasons. First, many names
on the list were common and there was no first name. Second, some people had
unlisted telephone numbers, while others had moved. The final sample represents
those individuals with listed and connected telephones that are not transient.
Thus, the student population may have been underrepresented.

Another methodological concern was that the data from the Peace

Activism Questionnaire (PAQ) relied on entirely self—report procedures.

82

Individuals were asked to report on attitudes and behaviors. To mitigate strong
self-report biases, respondents were asked about specific behaviors in a specified
time frame.

It would be beneficial for future research to fully document the reliability
and validity of the PAQ. Reliability was assessed by measuring of internal
consistency of each scale. Leaders in the local peace movement reviewed the
PAQ for face and content validity. Test-retest reliability may have given useful
information, but was not tested. Also construct validity was not assessed in the
single instrument.

The final major methodolgical consideration to be aware of when
interpreting these results is the generalizability of the organizational findings.
Although all of the peace organizations in this locality took part in this study, the
population was only 16. Caution must be used when generalizing to organizations
outside of this population.

Suggestions fOr Futare Research

The findings demonstrate meaningful individual level differences as
predictors of level of participation of activists in the peace movement. The results
also point to specific attributes to target when organizations are recruiting and
mobilizing members. Although causal inferences are difficult to support from this
one assessment, retrospective study, the results do suggest areas for future

research. From the information gained in this study, other research might focus

83

on outlining how organizations can best increase feelings of efficacy and influence
individuals motives or incentives for participating.

Research into the process and outcome of coalition building may prove
fruitful to peace movement organization leaders. The results of this study indicate
that participation in other movements was a very strong predictor of activism
level. At the same time members indicated not having enough energy to do any
more activist work because of all the work they already did. It seems that the
resources of those involved in the peace movement are being stretched by various
other movements. It would be interesting to follow-up and determine whether
most members of other progressive movements are also active in the peace
movement. If solid coalitions were built, the resources could be pooled.

Another area for future study and mostly unexplored in the literature is the
impact of organizational influences on individual’s behavior in the peace
movement. There is speculation as to whether organizations are positive or
detrimental to a social movement (Rochon, 1988), but there is little empirical
evidence to support either claim. The present study determined that membership
in a peace organization was positively related to activism level, and individual
characteristics that predict activism.

This research also began an exploration into the relationship between
organizational factors and individuals characteristics. Longitudinal studies
examining the impact of joining and participating in various types of organizations

(especially typologies based on size, tactics, network affiliation, and variety in

84

population) are called for. Certain types of organizations may optimally influence
participation.

Importantly, this research continues along the tradition of social scientists
working with organizations to promote humanitarian aims. The data collected for
this study will give the local peace organizations a greater understanding of their
constituents and the factors that influence level of participation.

The future of peaceful solutions to conflict seems in some ways brighter
than when this data was collected (June to November, 1990). Since that time the
world has been witness to the immense power of the progressive social
movements in most eastern European countries. The reduction in the nuclear
arsenals of the Soviet Union and the United States is currently underway. Of
course, there are many factors involved in these dramatic changes around the
world, but there is little dispute that peace movements in various countries have
been a catalyst for change. With the accomplishments of peace movements
around the world, it is an exciting prospect for social scientists to continue to
explore and promote the process of peaceful change through activism in social

movements.

LIST OF REFERENCES

85

References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Meastapdiugattitudesaudpuediqmgjmt
behavipr. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Andrich, D. (1988). W Newbury Park: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. m
Psyehplegist, 31, 122-147.
Barnes, S.H. & Kaase, M. (1979). Pplitieal Agipn; Mass Paflieipatipn in Five

Western Demoeracies, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bolton, CD. (1972). Alienation and action: A study of peace group members.
Ameriean qurnal pf Sbciblogy, 7_7_, 537-561.

Borgida, E. & Campbell, B. (1982). Belief relevance and attitude-behavior
consistency: The moderating role of personal experience. lpurnal pf
Personalipt and SOeial Psychology, g, 239-247.

Clark, P.B., & Wilson, J .0. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations.
Administrative Sg’enee Quanerly, e. 129-166.

Cohen, J. (1983). Applied Multiple RegtessianCpEelatipn Qalysis fer
Behavipral Seienees. Hillsdale, NJ.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Craig, S. & Maggiotto, M. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. P_Ql_itical_
Methodology, 8, 85-110.

Davidson, A.R., S. Yantis, M. Norwood & D.E. Montano. (1985). Amount of

information about the attiude object and attitude-behavior consistency. ,lburnal

pf Perspnalig and §pcial Psyehplbgy, {12, 1184-1198.

86
Dillman, D.A., (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method,

N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.

Escalona, SK. (1982). Growing up with the threat of nuclear war: Some indirect
effects on personality development. flaeriean qumal pf thppsyehiatty, 52,
600-607.

Fairweather, G.W. & Davidson, W.S. (1986). Intrpduetipn tb Cpmmunity
Experimentation; Thebgy, Methpds, and Etaetiee, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fazio, R.H. & Zanna, MP (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior
consistency. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advanees in Experimental Social Psyehplpgy,
161-202.

Feshbach, S. & White, MI. (1986). Individual differences in attitudes towards
nuclear arms policies: Some psychological and social policy considerations.

Journal of Peace Researeh, 2;, 129-139.

Finkel, SE. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A
panel analysis. Ameriean Journal pf Pblitieal §eienee, 29, 891-913.

Finkel, SE. (1987). The effects of participation on political efficacy and political
support: Evidence from a West German panel. The Journal of Pplitig, fl,
441-464.

Fireman, B. & Gamson, WA. (1979). Utilitarian logic in resource mobilization

perspectives, In Zald & McCarthy, The meannes pf Social Movements.
Winthrop Publishers: Cambridge, MA. pp. 8-45.

 

87
Fleishman, J .A (1980). Collective action as helping behavior: Effects of

responsibility diffusion on contributions to a public good. JburnaJ pf Eerspnality
apd Speial Psyehplpgy, 38, 629-637.

Fiske, S.T., F. Pratto & M. Pavelchack (1983). Citizens images of nuclear war:
Content and consequences. MW 32, 41-65.

Freeman, J. (1979). Resource mobilization and strategy: A model for analyzing
social movement organization actions, In Zald & McCarthy (eds.), 1h_e

Dmamics of Speial Movements. Winthrop Publishers: Cambridge, MA.

Hirsh, EL. (1986). The creation of political solidarity in social movement
organizations. The Soeiplpgieal marterly, 2, 373-387.

Kaase, M. & Marsh, A. (1979). Political action: A theoretical perspective, In
Barnes & Kaase (eds), Political Action. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social psychological
expansions of resource mobilization theory. weriean Speiplpgieal Reyiew, 52,
583-600.

Klandermans, B. & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations, and
barriers: Steps toward participation in social movements. American Speiblpgieal
_Reyieuv, 5_2_, 519-531.

Klineberg, O. (1984). Public opinion and nuclear war. Ameriean Psyehplogist, 32,
1245-1253.

Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organizations. Ameriean

Sociological Review, it, 311-329.

88
Knoke, D. & Wood, LR. (1981). Organized for action: Commitment in voluntary

associations. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Kramer, B.M., S.M. Kalick & M.A. Milburn. (1983). Attitudes toward nuclear

weapons and nuclear war. JeruaLpffioeiaflssues, 39, 7-24.

McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom

summer. Ameriean qurnal pf Soeiplpgy, 12, 64-90.

McCarthy, J. & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A
partial theory. American Journal of Sbg'plpgy, Q, 1212-1241.

Muller, E.N., T.O. Jukam & M.A. Seligson. (1982). Diffuse political support and
antisystem political behavior: A comparative analysis. Ameriean qumal pf
Eplitical Scienee, _2_Q, 240-262.

Muller, E.N., Opp, KD. (1986). Rational choice and rebellious collective action.

American Political Science Review fl, 471-488.

 

Mushaben, J .M. (1986). Grassroots and gewaltfreie aktionen: A study of mass
mobilization strategies in the West German peace movement. Journal of Peace

Research, 23, 141-154.

Newcomb, MD. (1986). Nuclear attitudes and reactions: Associations with

depression, drug use, and quality of life. Jburnal bf Eersbnality apd Speial
Psyehplogy, SQ, 906-920.
Oliver, RE. (1984). "If you don’t do it, nobody else will": Active and token

contributors to local collective action. meriean Sbg'olpgical Review, 32, 601-
610.

89
Oliver, RE. & Marwell, G. (1988). The paradox of group size in collective action:

A theory of the critical mass. 11. WM 53, 1-8.
Olson, M. (1965). WWW Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Opp, K.D. (1988). Grievances and participation in social movements. Mad

Sbeiplpgical Review, 53, 856-864.

Opp, K.D. (1986). Soft incentives and collective action: participation in the anti-
nuclear movement. British Journal pf Pplities, 1b, 87-112.

Pearce, IL. (1980). Apathy or self interest? The volunteer’s avoidance of

leadership roles. Journal of Vpluntag Agipn Research. 2, 85-94.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a

theory for community psychology. American Journal pf ggpmmunity Esyehology,
1;, 121-144.

Rochon, TR. (1988). Mpbilizing fer Peaee; The Anti-Nuclear Mpvements in
Western Europe. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.

Saloman, K. (1986). The peace movement: An anti-establishment movement.
Journal of Peace Researeh, 23, 115-127.

Schell, J. (1982). The fate of the earth. New York: Knopf.

Sivacek, J. & Crano, W.D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-

behavior consistency. qurnal bf Perspnality and Speial Psyehplpgy, 13, 210-221.

90
Snow, D.A., LA. Zurcher & S. Ekland-Olson. (1980). Social networks and social

movements: A microstructural approach to differential recruitment. Amerm
Spciplpgical Review, 15, 787-801.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, LS. (1989). UsmgMulpyartatefitausttg, Harper &
Row: New York.

Taylor, D. (1989). Blacks and the environment: Toward and explanation of the
concern and action gap between Blacks and Whites. Envirpnment ad
Behavipr, 2_1_, 175-205.

Tilly, C. ( 1978). Frpm Mobilization to Revolutipn, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Toch, H. (1966). The Spcial Psychplpgy pf 8peial Mpvements. Metheun: London.
Tyler, T.R. & McGraw, KM. (1983). The threat of nuclear war: Risk

interpretation and behavioral response. qurnal pf 8pcial Issues, 82, 25-40.

Uhlaner, C.J. (1986). Political participation, rational actors, and rationality: A new
approach. Political Psychology, 1, 551-573.

Van der Ros, J. (1987). Class, gender, and participatory behavior: Presentation of
a new Model. Political Psychology, 8, 95-123.

Walsh, E.J. & Warland, RH. (1983). Social movement involvement in the wake
of a nuclear accident: Activists and free riders in the TMI Area. Eeriean
8oeiplbgical Review, 58, 764-780.

Watanabe, P.Y. & Milburn, M.A. (1988). Activism against armageddon: Some

predictors of nuclear-related political behavior. Belitieal Psyehplpgy, 2, 459-470.

91
Wehr, P. (1986). Nuclear pacifism as collective action. Journal pf Peaee Research,

Q 103-113.

White, MJ. & Feshbach, S. (1987). Who in middletown supports a nuclear freeze?
Pplitieal Psyehplpgy, 8, 201-209.

Wolf, S., W.L. Gregory & W.G. Stephan. (1986). Protection motivation theory:

Predictions of intentions to engage in anti-nuclear war behaviors. qumal pf

Applied 80cial Psyehplpgy,1_6_, 310-321.

Zald, M.N. & McCarthy, JD. (1979). The Mamies of 8pcial Movements.
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Zald, M.N. & McCarthy, JD. (1987). Spcial Movements in ngganizatipnal Society.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transactional, Inc.

Zanna, M.P., J.M. Olson & R.H. Fazio. (1980). Attitude-behavior consistency: An

individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 432-440.

92

 

9 g. .22 £95: a 2.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b.5330. .2... E05502... 5:00—0:00 .00....2.
5:033:33 5...: ...0... .22... 50.0.... £230.23» .300 .o 5:00...
.00....2. -029)... .00....2. $0850 30.5.... $9.30... 60:...) 35.03.9303
no... ..e> a0.L..a> 00... .3...
20.32.09 9.2.022... 20.32.09...
\

 

 

22.9. 45:39... no >18... $585.: 33526..

— 052...

93

FlgureZ
IS' I n HIT !. II II

Did not agree
with goals [26%]

Nuammum

 

 

mobilization attempt [15%]
Did a tee
With 9 I 4 — NOI intend
9” 3 [7 "I The go (439‘;
Target of mobilization
attempt [59"] —Did not go [6%]
‘ Intend to
_90110"I_

 

t—otd go [or]

Klandersrnan, 1987 , p . 524

Table 1

mist—WM (N =390)

94

Organizational Size

 

 

Small Medium Large
Member Member 48 65 65
Status Non- 82 65 65

member

95
Table 2

Nm

 

Organizational Size

N on-Members

 

Sarah Medium 1&2:

Number of 51 27 53

Respondents

32

96
Table 3

Rptated Factor Matrix pf Mptives Items

FACTORS (Motives)

ITEMS

 

Religious Purposive Solidarity
religious involvement .87 -.O7 -.04
religious beliefs .83 .24 .06
concern for others .22 .72 .04
nuclear threat -.15 .61 .10
concern for society .17 .54 .10
guilty feelings .00 .44 .20
participating friends -.02 .13 .82
partic. acquaintances -.12 .05 .60
social life .14 .36 .45
concern for friends .24 .13 .37

Final Statistics:
Eaetp; Eigen Value % pf Var. Cum_.%
1 2.3 23.0% 23.0%
2 1.5 15.1% 38.1%

3 .87 8.7% 46.8%

97

Av. eofiuoo poouwo

.m. acauoosoutuauu
.m. Hecofiuecuoucfl

.m. ovum.

.oH. mamcumcoo
.v. 0.09 oaom
.m. msoucouououon

.o. mucouuauasa

.m. mafianno. anowuaaom

.m. Emw>fiuoe anacSHEoo

.5. Hueoauac

.n. finance

.0. xufiuOnoE

.NH. aaco nooucoao>
.HH. meoocovoaon
.o.. osmmato.oc.m

.5.

:0wunoooo >uwesaaoo

.m. u:oamo~u>mc

Heeofiueuwcmmuo
.5. >Hco HoooH

.m. HHmam

 

 

«2 m L...

”mmoooum :ofimflooo

.uueum
":ofiunaanom

"mecca
"weapons aumaflum

nuance auoawum

"coaum.fl.uua
"onwm

mamMHHmN
ammmnmmmnmmmmm

.H mm

e manna

Table 5

R nean hi

98

 

 

 

 

yau'able Name Mean (8t Dev) Value 991L111. mm.
Gender Female 102 63%
Male 60 37%
Race Caucasian 149 96.1%
Asian 2 1.3%
Hispanic 2 1.3%
Mixed Race 2 1.3%
Age 45.3( 14.2) less than 30 20 12%
30 thru 39 38 24%
40 thru 49 52 32%
50 thru 59 22 14%
60 and over 29 17%
Education < Highschool 1 .6%
Highschool Graduate 4 2.5%
Some College 27 16.7%
Bachelors Degree 40 24.7%
Post-Graduate Degree 90 55.6%
Marital Status Married/Co-hab. 115 71.4%
Single 46 28.6%

 

99

Table 5 (continued)

 

 

 

Vag'able Name Me t D v Value meu REED;
Number of Children 2.6(1.7) O 51 31.3%
1 21 12.9%
2 47 28.8%
3 19 11.7%
4 or more 21 15.3%
Hours Employed 33(20) 0 27 17%
1-30 32 20%
31-40 55 34%
41-80 49 29%
Hours Worked in 13.7(11) 0-9 53 36%
the Home 10-20 72 49%

21-60 22 15%

Table 5 (continued)

100

 

 

Variable Name Mean (8t Dev) Value QQLnt hm
Personal Income 29,091 010,000 33 23%
(24,724) 10,001-20,000 29 21%
20,001-40,000 48 35%
40,001-180,000 32 22%
Household Income 49,559 020,000 30 21%
(31,298) 20,001-50,000 53 38%
50,001-180,000 57 41%
Religion Athiest/None 42 26%
Catholic 46 29%
Protestant 45 29%
Quaker 6 4%
Unitarian 6 4%
Jewish 5 3%
Spirituality/ 5 3%
Metaphysics
Buddhism 2 1%

101

Table 6

 

Activity % Taking Part Mean Standard Range

at Least Once Deviation

 

Activities During Last Month

 

Talking about 77% 10.5 10.7 0 to 99
peace times/mo

Asking others to 33% 3.0 times/mo 10.7 0 to 99
participate

Volunteering for 25% 3.8 hours/mo 12.8 0 to 99

an organization

 

Activities During the Last Year

 

Signing a 69% 3.0 times/yr 4.7 0 to 30
petition

# of companies 66% 2.9 companies 4.7 0 to 30
boycotted

Public 56% 2.8 times/yr 8.7 0 to 99
demo/rally

Writing a letter 53% 3.0 times/yr 11.6 0 to 99

to government

102

Table 6 (continued)

 

Activity % Taking Part Mean Standard Range
at Least Once Deviation

Going to org. meetings 51% 4.5 times/yr 10.8 0 to 99

Going to educ. 48% 3.3 times/yr 9.1 0 to 99

meeting/seminars

Being a leader for an 24% 0.5 times/yr 1.6 0 to 15

event

Writing a letter to the 20% 0.5 times/yr 2.2 0 to 25

media

Making speeches 19% 0.5 times/yr 1.2 O to 8

Not paying income or 14% "' ’ *

telephone taxes

Civil resist./ 4% 0.1 times/yr 0.8 0 to 10

disobed.

‘note: not applicable

103

 

Table 7
Th NummrfPr R-oo in B ' o r-.. mrPiiionin .g-
Mpvement
Perceived Barrier Count Percent
TOT) or school requires too much time 55%
No more time or energy due to activist work 39%
Family responsibilities 36%
No extra money to give 29%
Fear of jail or threat to personal safety 11%
Not informed of specific actions 9%
Child care is not available 8%
Might lose job if too radical 8%
Don’t know what useful actions to take 4%
Family tension over peace issues 4%
Others (open-ended responses):
Health issues 7%
Don’t like group dynamics of peace
organizations 4%
Other political issues more important 3%
Question the impact of activism 3%
Not a joiner 3%
Peace movement people too radical 2%
No friends that participate 1%

104

no.t

no.

dd.

amN.t

mo.

na.

OH

00. co. «HN.I 00. $0.! 00. «AN.I mo. vo.l .00: mwflmm.oa

and. «on. .o. mo.t mo.u mo. «n..- .o. no.1uoz .uoe..om.m.
mo. «ma. n..t «o. a..- n..: a..u ~.. o..t.0o: «accuse...
no. a..- o..- ma. .mm. mo. .NN. «an. no. unocaam .Hom.n.
«ma. «an. .o. mo.t o..- mo. a..- Ho.i No. mmnHO .Hom.~.
sew. «o4. .o. «o. mo.u mo. «o~.u .0. m..- .moHouuH he...
.ow.t no.t 4...: mo.u a..- no. .m~.u «m..- «o.1 mu0.uuom ..o..
«aw. «o.t a... .m.. «A. 5.. «we. .o.i 03>: uuao>.m
mo.t mo. co. co. mo.t «ma. oo. mono momma ..m
.0. oo. «mm. 4mm. «a..- no. aoaaam mu=.p
«an. H.. «en. «0.. mo. cmueflaeo.e
a... .54. 4mm. mo. emfiuuoz.m
«an. mo.t no. c.0auaem.v
«me. no. oaoocH.n
mo.t om<.~
uov:ou.~

m m b m m e n ~ .

 

o munch

105

HH.

nH.!

«0H.!

n0.!

#0.!

50.

000.!

H0.!

#0.
«mm.
«mm.
«am.
«On.

00.

Ha.

NH.

«mm.

chm.

«en.

00.

«mm.

«mm.

«0.!

«mm.

N0.

«0H.

v0.!

«hH.!

VH.!

00.!

«H.

m0.!

n0.

«H.!

HH.!

ma.
«hm.
«0n.
m0.
emm.
«mm.
00.

n0.

«m~.I

«0H.

«cm.

mo.

00.

H0.

n0.

«ma.

bo.l

«0m.

ca.

«NN.

aha.

MH.!

OH.

HO.

ho.t amfi>wuo<.e~
Ho. cu>wu hocoz.n~
oo.t mono u..om.-
mo.. 6000 0::Ho>..~
no.5m0e>: Hoaoom.o~
4.. .6.00m ucH.m.
NH. .o.0um 0x0...

no. annuauum nm.n.

106

evv. can. 0a. «an. ma. «mm. «mm. 0n.! «en. «mm. Buw>w#0<.¢m

5H4. mH. no. 5H. Ho.! «mm. 5H. 5a.! emu. ten. :0>Ho 50coz.n~
ao5. 55.. «H. 6H. .5H.! mo. HH. HH.! «an. «H5. mono uHHom.-
«05. 5o. 5H~. oH. mo. mo.t Ho.t .HN. mo. 5a.! mono ucsHo>.H~
sen. co. «H5. Ho.! .mH. .mH. 56.! 4H4. «em. m0e>x HaHoom.o~

«H. .H.. 5o. «on. 40H. .H~.n «cc. «55. .oHuum 0eH.mH

«ow. 55H. mo. oo. ten. mo.n «H.u .oHuum 0xm.mH

.55. «an. a... oH.u «mm. «mm. xoeuHuum nm.5H

NH. mo. 0H. 0H.t no.t .06: oHHom.oH

«NH. .H~.t 4H5. «an. 06: .uaeHHom.mH
.m~.u «mm. «He. .06: onoausm.vH

.5..- «Hm.nuuoaesm .Hom.nH

«5m. muoHu .Hom.~H

aooHooeH nm.HH

0N 0H 0H 5H 0H ma va ma Nd HH

107

.H.. «on. No. emH>Huo¢..~
«we. no. eo>Ho aoeox.n~

45H. mono 0HHom.-

mono ueaHo>.H~

MN NN .nN

Table 8 (continued)

1.Gender
2.Age
3.1ncome
4.Education
5.Married
6.Children

7.Hours Employed

8.Number Peace Orgs

9.Years Movement
10.Number Barriers
11.P & J Ideology
12.Political Class
13.Political Support
l4.Purpose Motives
15.Solidarity Motives
16.Religious Motives
17.P & J Efficacy
18.External Efficacy
l9.lnternal Efficacy
20.Social Movements

21.Voluntary Orgs

Mean
1.7
45.3
2.3
5.3
.71
.68

32.9

14.4

2.3

3.1

3.0

2.4

2.8

2.1

2.7

3.1

2.9

3.2

2.2

.68

108

St.Dev.
.48
14.3
1.0
1.0
.45
.46
20.0
1.1
12.4
1.3
.47
.65
.59
.59
.52
1.1
.42
.54
.52
.28

.34

22.Political Orgs
23.Money Given

24.Activism Level

1.6

1.6

-.07

109
1.1

1.0

1.1

110

 

 

 

Table 9
0. iv] 'n o '._.n"nqo._ a. .., - 5' ' 0! o ' a a;
WWW
Dependent Variable
Peace Activities Money
(n=115) (n=109)
Independent Variable beta R2 beta R2
Chg Chg
Block 1 - Background Variables .38‘ .45“
# of peace org. memberships .25* .44*
household income -.22* .24*
have children .15 .08
years in movement -.08 -.00
age -.10 .09
married/cohabitating .06 -.10
hrs employed .07 .08
total barriers .06 .00
gender -.05 -.02
education .09 .13
Block 2 - Participant Variables .24* .09
other social movements .33“ .15
solidarity motives .29“ -.05

11 1
Table 9 (continued)

 

 

Peace Activities Money
(n=115) (n=109)
Independent Variable beta R2 beta Rz
Chg Chg
purposive motives .23‘ .08
external political efficacy .29“ .11
internal political efficacy .10 -.20*
political organizations -.06 .11
political support -.15 -.09
other voluntary orgs .09 -.00
political classification -.02 -.O8
peace ideology -.O9 .19
peace issue efficacy -.08 -.05
religious motives .10 -.05

 

4%

Total R Square .62* .53“

Adjusted R Square .53* .42“

'p<.05

112

 

mu. .5.~H.H.¢H .o.oH.m.nH «w .-H 026: muse: .0 .
. co>oaneu
no.5 .5.oH.«.on .n.o~.m.nn aw .HHH muse: .0 .
. unclo>oz
m~.u .e.mH.0.nH .m.HH.o.vH 5H .HHH ounce eH «you»
«5.! .55..~.5 .H.H.e.~ «5 .mHH msooeH eHoeunaoz
4m.H! .nmm.mH.mo5.m~ .H55.m~.Hno.~H Hm .HHH oeoocH Hocomuum
5H.H! .«o..H.m .H.H.n.m mm .NnH coHuoosuw
0o.H! .o.nH.o.Hc .v.¢H.o.me mm .HHH cue
..u.e. wheeler ..U.u. uuonEuztcoz
o=He>ru !:02 no :00: muonaox no :00: .muoneu: 00 . canowue>

 

0a canoe

113

 

and 0N «mm mm cmuoawcu m>u=
and m ”No we cupcaflnu 02

Ho. :uuUHfino
«an mm «an no mcfiuouwnezroo
«0H 5 «we an «Hoch

mN. msueum Heufiuoz
and 0H who 0m wan!
”ma ma «#0 mm mamawm

«H. uoucou

mammumu. madam mammmmm wammw
muqmmququ ummmmmuqqm mumaun 6 an >

HomacHucoo.oH «Heme

114

Table 11
05-1., 0_0°04 .0vo_.I-.0' -‘tIu; 0 .5,

We: MariahlcsMcasurcd

Ideology peace 8: justice ideoloy
political classification
political support-alienation

Motives solidarity motives
purposive motives
religious motives

Efficacy internal political efficacy

Other Participation

external political efficacy

peace and justice efficacy

number of voluntary organization
number of political organizations

other social movement participation

1115

n0.vne

 

 

 

.5..oH .Hn..5.~ .Hn..~.n aoau.uuu HanuoueH
on. .no..5.~ .Hn..o.5 aoooHuuu Hacuouxu
.55.5 .5...5.~ .H...~.H 5on0...m asmm. cocoa
.nnH.n.
.5mH.H..u.0 .mnuc. .onHuc. .05.. noaoHuuu
on. .55..o.~ .H.H.5.~ no>Huox «no.0HHom
.Ho.5H .on..5.H .~n..~.~ mo>Huox auHuuu.Hom
5o. .No..5.~ .mn.vo.~ u0>uuoz 0>umoauoa
.onH.n.
.unH.H..0.o .m~nc. .NnHue. .5o.o uo>Huoz
co.ua:oHH<
55.5 .oo..o.~ .om..v.~ -uuouasm HouHuHHoa
.0n.oH .H5..5.~ .wm..H.H mmuHo HouHuHHom
.HH.~H .5...o.~ Hm...H.n 5uoHoueH ooHumsnxoouoa
.an.n.
.mmH.H..u.e .owuc. .muHuc. .m5.c nuoHoooH
.o.m\eao: .o.m\eoox moHno.ua> ..0.0.
h .22—D GHOAIOIICOZ whflnflflx H09UM>MUCH b .mUHS—a lunfinflc¢
«Huanuuuqauruaquuuummuu
_. _ . o . ..onu o:e.>.ea. .6 m 6.0. >-. . .... ... ..... . .. ....4

«A Omnah.

1116

 

.o.oH .om..n5. .H.H.5.H ac.unuHcomuo HauHuHHom
.5... .o.H.n5. .55..~o. mcoHuoNHcamuo >uaucsHo>
«55.. .H...o.~ .55..~.~ nucuaa>oz,HaHoom cacao
.50H.n. nouueu
.5.H.H..0.0 .owue. .m~Huc. .oo.5 5.0.00.5 unauo
.n.m\cao= .a.m\cooz mannHuo> ..0.0.
h . gr.“ CD IHOAIOEICOZ GHOQEO:

defina>chH h .«UHDZ

euehueet
.0ozeHueoo.~H eHnaa

117

 

ann.~t .5~.050. .v.~.~0. 5~ .5~H nuouueq 0.00: 00 ¢

«~n.~t .n.~.m.H .H.n.~.n ow .¢~H «0060500 06 .
9C0§FHO>OU

aou.~t .55..om. .o.~H.m.n 5m .qu 60 auouuoq no .
eucwuoez

coH.n! .o.~.m5. .o.H.m.5 ow .muH HoeoHuaoaum .0 .
euce>m ue

55H..- .55..HH. .5.H.Hm. 5~ .55H uoHom uHeauoeooq no .

«o5..- .o.H.5w. .o.5.n.n 55 .mNH acoHuouuueoeoo .6 .

.55..- .0H.5H .HH5.555 55 .H~H co>Hu 50:6: 06 unsoa<
noeuuoox

¢0~.v! .o.~.mm. .5.HH.n.m 5N .mmH cowueuueeouo no u

.mo.mt .H.H.mm. .o.m.m.n 5N .qNH 06:0.m acoHuHuum «6 .

..o.u. uuonaoe ..u.m. chooses!:oz

e=H0>tu !:oz 00 :00: mucosa: no new: .muonfioz no . nua>wuo< uo oaxh

.. > .0 o. .0 .:j .2. 0:30.. .o muonsuzwcoz on. m ..Eo~ ..-3 .u H.., a...

nu GHQQB

118

mo.vuc

 

munafio«uumm
#5.: Ac.mvm.a Ao.HHV~.n mN .>~H o» nunuo umxmt
~o.u Ao.H.on. An.vamc. >~ .mma musoaoum no .
cm.~u Am.~.q.a Ao.nflvm.v mm .FNH ouumwucaflo> «nae: no .
unequod
vo.au Aco.voo. Adm.vnu. mm .m- oocuuufiuom ad>fio uo ¢
.~H.~u AH.Ha.n.m Am.-vh.aa n~ .oma momma uaon< umxaua
A.o.mv mumnema ..c.mv mumnauarcoz
on~n>nu acoz no coo: mumnaw: no cum: .muwnfimz no u Imw>wuo< uo wn>s

.u0=:«u:oo. nu manna

119

 

«mm m «up On unuuuom
up" m~ «no awn hawuuon uoz
ceauunwoauuum
m~. 0» use non vague; uo hank
vow ad «on mv humuuam
and 5H «cm wo uuquuan uoz
mu. nauvuawnuuconuom anuflum
awn «a new nu umuuuum
won cu «an on houuuun uoz
non uo Hoozum
an. uo ousuomm alas sosocm uoz
«mm n «mu m uoquuom
aha mw «no de umwuuom uoz
mv. wuou cawnu uOu 0002
«OH m «cm mm hmwuuon
anN - «55 m5 uofiuuum #02
xuoz uuu>uuo¢ no unseat
‘v.v 0» one >ouocm one: 0:
$~ 3 «2 an ugh—om
«nu ma «he mm uwfiuuom uoz
«H.m u>m0 ou >ocoz :DQOCMIwmz
unmouwm unsou unmouum unsou
ouusvm «:0 uwnewzncoz uwnamz onaawuo>

 

vu OHQQB

120

 

vmw v «ms Na uoauuon
and em ”no mHH Moduuam uoz
Aswan .o.o. :ofiuonwofiuuum
so. no uuocusvoucou uo hath
«aw m nah m Houuuom
and ow wnm wNH howuuon uoz
nonumH
aw. «boom u0>o accumcoa aauaom
«FN v «ms Ha uoauuom
nun cw unm om” amuuuom uoz
em. 1:0«u04 no washoucn 90:
we” H van w uuwuucm
«ma hm ”mm mwn hot—Hum uoz
Hauoua
mo. on cane: 0023 3O:& u.:oo
unmoumm. acaoo ucmoumm unsou
ouonum «so nonamzwcoz awnem: u~n~«u~>

Acmchucouv v" «Haas

121

 

 

mo.vn.
uo>uuox
a.:Am .~H.o H.H\n.~ d.~\n.~ ma.\~.n «soaounom
uo>uuox
~o.~. vn.\~.~ H..\o.~ cm.\n.~ aufiuuoquom
00>«uo:
a“. no.\o.u on.\o.~ Hu.\a.~ o>fiuonu=m
.puu.~. .~m~.o.
.u.c .nmlc. Ah~lcv .onIcv «no.n uo>auoz
cofiuacoda<
nuuoansm
q.mnx .Nv.ou on.\n.~ av.\a.~ cm.\¢.~ Huuduadom
.nucno
.na.n om.\n.n .v.\c.n ou.\o.n Hauduqaom
auoflooun
xamaq cue.» on.\n.n .v.\m.~ ov.\H.n ouaunanxoua-m
.n-.~. .vv~.o.
.u.o Amman. An~u=V .wvncv .ma.v uuoaoocn
no.va .o.m\:oox ..a.m\:aox .o.m\coo: moanoguo> .u.ov
man u .>«:D mound Isaac: «Hoam unnaqu«uuum .m «vast nuuanoct
unaduuuqaumualuuuuqluau
. . - . .> ‘ou .qu ... . u.. a. . .. . .. .--.

nu Oanufi

‘122

cousnnuucou

 

 

 

max.q .os.ou op.\a.~ mm.\~.~ mm.\n.~ auco:
nowad>wu04
so. H.H\nn. ~o.\no. om.\vu. conga uno-
.nan.«. .on«.c. u.’~o»an
.u.c Acnlc. .nwucv Anvucv can.m couch
u:.uan«:ouuo
maz.q onv.n o.H\o.~ ~.a\o.~ o.H\n.H Hauquudom
n:.uou«:ouuo
vH.~ H.u\o.d o.~\~.~ om.\m.~ auaucndo>
. uu:0lo>o:
mnz.q onu.n o~.\n.~ on.\n.~ o~.\d.~ Hoaoom nonuo aofluan
.o~a.~. .onu.o. -«oauu-a
.u.c .ovuc. .o~uc. Am¢ucv .nm.~ nonuo
xuaouuum
co.” ov.\n.n hm.\~.n nm.\~.n Hacuoucu
acquauuu
p~. ~n.\o.n om.\o.n Hm.\m.~ amen-axe
aoaoauuu
ram .wo.n on.\H.n nn.\c.n vv.\n.n onuuH cocoa
.n-.~. .oqn.o.
.u.o Annuc. {.h~u:v onucv cm..~ macaquuu
mo.va .a.m\coox .o.m\coox .o.m\:uox aofinudua> .u.cv
xzw h .>«:= Gouda Isaac: Hanna ucaauoduuam .h «anal nuuaaoct
.ooacaucou. on «Haas

‘123

So {.9 .369.

 

 

 

uu>uuoz
noAam.<a cvo.o ~.H\o.n c.~\o.n ~.d\v.~ maodoauou
uo>wu01
omm.~ mn.\v.~ nm.\~.~ m..\d.~ auuuaouuom
oo>quoz
no.H om.\~.n nm.\h.~ oo.\o.~ o>duoaupm
.pnn.~. .~m~.o.
u~wm .cmucv .anucv .Npucv c-.n nopuuo:
co«uoco«~¢
luuonaam
on.” on.\~.~ nc.\m.~ ~w.\q.~ Hauuuqaom
.uaaaaao
.m. nh.\n.n oo.\H.n oo.\H.n gouauqaom
amoHoooH
ono.v c¢.\v.n o‘.\o.n ~v.\a.n oofiuusnxoooom
.n-.~v .v¢~.u.
.u.w .o~ucv .hnuc. Amoucv - \mo.fl aboaommm.
.o.m\:oo= .n.m\:ouz .a.m\cooz
no.vd acquo¢ unaunnoq newunoaum momnouuo> .u.uv
Ian M .>«:= uooufia avowuauom >uwcaaaou ucuauu«uuum .m «van: mauaauc¢
a y a..y. “ O. .o . .. 0cm . . 39.. “O 0. q. . .y .53;. u.
-_. . _v. . . -.u.‘ ,. no .0 n> u m; muun a U o.w.\u a. .o -q. u >u. v v...u r.“ h..¢.

on OHQGB

2124

1C..:£ v 1' #‘CL

 

 

 

 

“H.H. a.~\m.a o.~\b.a mm.\m.d aoco:
mufiuw>fiuu4
nu. ~.~\mn. mo.\No. o.H\oH. Oooom uBII
.nan.~. Acn~.¢. uo>~o>au
.u.c .mancv Aonuc. Anoucv -.~ cocoa
u:.uonw:ouuo
.mo.~ ~.H\n.H nm.\o.n H.~\m.a Hanuuquom
u:.uon«ca0uo
we.” n.H\o.fl ~.~\m.~ ~.~\¢.H auoucsno>
nu:0l0>o:
nu. m~.\~.~ an.\~.~ n~.\~.~ Hauoom uozuo coda-a
.o-.~. .on~.o. uuouuu-n
.u.o Aauuc. .mnuc. .nouc. nn.~ unauo
xuoofiuum
no. mo.\u.n mv.\~.n Hm.\n.n ”annoucn
aouuauum
.vn.~ mm.\o.~ nm.\a.n ac.\m.~ accuouxu
avenuuuu
mua<o con.n «v.\v.n nv.\~.n an.\~.n oauuu ouaom
Am-.~. Aoe~.o.
.u.w Aomuc. .hnucv Afihucv .mo.n mo-uuuum.
.o.m\:ooz .o.w\:uo: .o.m\:aox
:ofiuo¢ mafiaanoq :ofiuouaou uuflnaaua> .u.ov
h .>«== uuuuwo Hoofiuwaom >uaczalou ucoauo«uuom .m duds: ufimafiuc<

.uoscqucoo. ca o~noa

3125

mo.va.

 

 

O

u0>auox
we. ~.~\o.~ H.H\h.~ oaouofinom
uo>«uo:
mn. pv.\~.~ om.\fi.~ auauaoanom
ao>quoz
pm.” no.\m.~ nm.\m.~ o>duonusu
.oun.n. .o-.n.
.u.o Acoucv xmmwucv awn no>muox
cofiuocoqu¢
quoaasm
cnfl.o~ ~m.\s.~ mm.\~.~ Houfiuaaom
manna
~v.~ om.\o.n mo.\~.n Huoquwnom
xmoHouoH
mo.~ oq.\fl.n nq.\~.n uofiuasnxouoom
Acua.av .uma.n.
.u.w Ammucv Among. .mu.w muouoocw.
.o.m\:nux .o.m\:oox u¢Hnawuu> ..u.u.
m .>fi:= H.u:H\~.uaz aaco Hanan ucoafiuuuuom m .«unsx nama~o=<
mamAumuaaumualauqqauuauuunuuauqqquuu
. o l- n“ .> m. -uuoumzo jun. . -.. A . .. u. -. -.

hm GHQGB

.126

 

 

 

”Oufinuhucoo
~.H .o.\m.~ om.\n.~ zone:
mofiufi>duo¢
n.~ sa.\~oo. o.H\n~. ocean uno-
Aeuu.av .muu.~. u>~o>nu
”Mun .vmwcv .uncv o.H ooaom.
u:.un~wcmvuo
~.H a.H\>.H H.H\>.H Huudufiaoa
mcoduun«cumuo
n.” ..fl\o.a «m.\m.H >uoucsdo>
mucmao>oz
moo. a~.\~.~ s~.\~.~ Hafioom umcuo couuan
.H~H.a. Am~H.n. -«oquuum
.u.c .omucv Anwucv me. nonuo
>omufiuum
o.~ om.\~.n h¢.\n.n Hucum»:H
>umofiuuu
an. mm.\o.n ~¢.\a.~ Accumuxm
>Umowuum
ma. on.\d.n nv.\~.n osmmu momma
.oNH.H. Ac~u.n.
.u.o Aomucv Amoucv mn.H aoummmmmr
..u.c. .o.m\:oaz .o.m\:aox mmanmfiuo> ..u.c.
a .>H=a H.u:H\~.uoz adco ”coca unmaflofiuumm m .fiufizx mamaaac<

.umzcfiucou.hd canoe

127

#0

. “on. . ma . vac

 

 

uo>uuox
.e.- o.H\m.~ H.H\n.~ uaoauduum
uo>wuo:
pm. om.\~.~ «m.\~.~ aufiuuofidom
mo>wuox
u“. om.\o.~ om.\m.~ o>fiuoau=m
.o-.u. AwNH.n.
.u.o Achlcv .vmucv cud.v 00>«uoz
acquocouat
quonnam
~.H mm.\m.~ Hm.\n.~ Hmoqufidom
muuao
«no.» no.\o.n pm.\n.n Hooaudaom
>oo~ooon
ow. mq.\~.n on.\~.n mofiumanxuuumm
A-H.nv
.«-.H. .nhncv Amman. \bwn.~ muofiooon
.o.m\comz .o.m\comz mmdnnquo> A.u.uv
m .>w:= .Qom unasbcum .mom umwum> u:oa«0auumm m .«uasz mwmaauct
MD M O O
.. r- . - 14g”. .. --an. um> Ow» .uou m . U ucw.fiowuumm no m.o an >-. v a... v.“ m om‘

0H Odnofi

128

couanuucoo

 

 

 

n.u o.H\~.~ mo.\o.~ aucoz
nofiufi>fiuo<
a.” mo.\.o. H.~\n~. momma uno-
Aunu.«. Am-.~. uo>uo>uu
.u.u .wnuc. Aumucv me.H cocoa
o:.uon«cnmuo
nm.~ ~.~\o.d o.~\m.a Hanauwdom
m:.uuuwcovuo
do.“ ~.H\¢.fl ~.H\o.H aunucsdo>
nucwao>oz
can.» >~.\H.~ p~.\n.~ Hafioom Macao noun-n
.Hua.«. .mHH.n. -«ouuu-n
.u.o .nnnc. .omn:. .oa.q unnuo
uuoofiuuu
om. ~m.\~.n ~m.\n.n accumucu
>uuofiuum
mm. ~m.\m.~ ~m.\o.n Hacuouxm
aonofiuum
no.” nv.\~.n on.\~.n osmmH momma
Av~d.nv
.uuu.nv .vnuc. Acmucv no.a ao-oauun
.o.m\:uo: .a.m\cmoz nuanmfiun> ..u.ov
m .>«:a .nom uoaauc«m .Qom uufiun> ucuawoauumm m .auHax mwmxanct

.ooscfiucoo.oa manna

‘129

Sofa... .mo .vg.

 

 

u0>auox
an. ~.H\o.~ H.H\o.~ «sodofiaom
u0>uuox
as.“ ov.\~.~ em.\H.~ >uduooagom
a0>auoz
.oo.v vo.\m.~ ~m.\~.~ o>fimonusm
Auua.u. fio~a.n.
.u.u .Nmuc. .onucv do.a uc>auox
co~uoco«a<
uuuonnam
"a. flo.\v.~ om.\v.~ Huouufidom
.uMQHU
«a. mm.\H.n oo.\H.n auouuagom
aooHoouH
hm.” mv.\~.n oe.\H.n mofiun=n\uooom
A-H.n.
.c-.~. .mquc. .hsuc. on.“ anode-on
.o.w\:uw= .o.m\cuoz mmancfiuu> ..u.c.
m .>a:= usmcomcoo auAuOnnz ucoauoHuunm m .fiuasz nqm>noc<
o“ a

.> m -um umuumuo U ucm.fiofiu a. no ..0 u“ >UJ v ...“u

..... mil...

an manna

1130

 

 

 

vouanuuucou
nu.” a.u\h.d Ha.\a.~ acne:
mofiufi>fiuo¢
no. o.~\oa. mm.\¢~. «comm anon
.oua.~. .m-.~v uo>~opan
.u.e .vvucv .vnucv hm. cocoa
u:.unuucomuo
~..H ~.~\o.d o.~\m.~ Huowufiaom
m:.unn«:mmuo
«a. n.fl\w.d H.H\a.~ aunucaflo>
nucolm>ox
no.“ o~.\~.~ a~.\~.~ Hofioom nodu-n
.-~.H. .mHH.n. uuouuucm
.u.u .unu:. .Hsucv hm. unnuo
. xomowuum
an.” ~o.\~.n «v.\n.n documucu
aoaofiuuu
.flv.n hm.\o.~ mv.\o.n Hucuwuxm
aomowuum
aH.H nv.\~.n cv.\H.n osmmu momma
.m-.~. Av-.nv
.u.u .Hmuc. .hhucv .mo.n ao-oquun
.o.m\:aox .o.m\:omz mmdnafiuo> ..u.uv
m .>acp aauconcou xuauOnm: unnawuHuumm m .duasz mamaaoc¢

Aumscwucou.ma canoe

Table 20
m L 0 I . 1 0 I
Q , . . l I! . l I
Miss.
Community Education
Political Lobbying
Direct Action
111ml;
Local Only
National Affiliate
International Affiliate
Emulation
Singular
Varied
isi
Consensus .
Majority
Sufi
Volunteer Only
Some Paid
Ems
Single-Focus
Multi-Focus
fistula

131

Organizational Development
Community Activism
Sell-Education

Small

M

Size

Medium

01

o o
"I .o 01

Large

APPENDICES

132

Appendix A
MACHVISMW
MiG-WWW? WDWNMW
“mil kmuhwdmwy.§mflhm”nuwyl

m
mmdnyMMfidk madman-Ms.

I. mmnmwdmmmwummmtothhMJfinfi

I r-Yfl i_No
u a "Vishnu-my?—
b. IPNO. Mfipwml

. IMWIMMMQNWHyo-nawud.

u... _Comturl’aca _PuceBmhIC-Ic
.- _LusthruNuchaWQIum _mmmrum
_hglwnCotmyhnehluiaCuliuon _hysie'mslaiociflkwy
_MiehiGWFN _Stldmsfwetluiccm
_ Michigan Faith a Rain-Ice __ United Nations Minion
_ 51.8.0. Nucle- Wu SMyerp _Wonen's Ania- lor Nude-OM
PuCluiniMaon _Wmu'slu'ththm

:Ikuuanmmnmmmnmachnm; om»

 

namwmmlwmmmmwagmmrymmw

 

3. Howlongluveywbeaiinvolvcdinthepaoemovememunykindofhvolmnt)?

 

u» __yws month:
4. Which.ifony.uhcrsocialmdoyouwpponiuideologyagmls? Ofthose.whichonadoyouwoqto
0mm fonnalmembeuhipinnoruflmion‘l Muhamckukuutodtemmmaw

with. and the organizations to which you belong.

l
t

undo-un- undo-Lu
I

I.

Sammie luniodUSAM’ovaty Inna
asmm

Feminist/Women's Isaac:

Gay/labia: AWN! Rights
Adm! [a People at Color/Racial mun
Lit-mica for Owner! 3n! Wail Mb:
W Human Rights

World Hunger

Aniul Rights

Pro-lite (abortion but)

Pin-choice (m in)

(In
a ”WM

 

ll llllllllll [l

 

ll: lllllllllll fi‘

Ell lllllllllll

l

. s.mmumdwmm(
ummwomtqmmm.

l

W Gum)?

133

6. «wwwamwuwmmwmonmm

MWbWi-hmmuhwdm

_lbupflhhqdumdmm

_W (e... G's-e Wadi)
_Proleuicml (e4. Am in Mac.)
_Servhe W (e.;. M)
_Soeinl (n.3, Opa- Club)

_Ieliginus (:4. Chat! 0m)

rwqmku.mdmmmmwmduywumm.

l-NIIIAII “mu

7. Howwunmmmmwdmhhw
m?

I. TovhtmdoyubnmhhpdifldhahdmbflUSA?
9. Tomumbymmmummetfim

lO.TowheteuemdoyouteellhIthehaicrigluofeihe-snvellm
hyulpoliticalsyaem‘l

ILTowhuexmaeyoupoudtoliveuderoupliut-alm?

l2.TowhmatemdoywteelwsymofWinhehea
posihlesyaan?

33.Towhuextemdoymfeelyoushouldmwmmofm?

I4.Towhetextentdoyoufeelyoumdyowfriendsaewell-repreeenediam
poliucalsyaem? ~

ls.Tomleatentdoywleelthuyowmpoliiulubesdlflerhoathue
ofouarpoliualsystem‘l

”HA-u
h Alb AH
CAI B h
I 2 3

N
U

N
u

N”
UH

manna

A“
H

4

For questions 16 through 25, pie-5e circle the number that most closely corresponds to your

answer.
I-WONOLY AGREE ”CREE moan

16.DoyouteelmeU.S.mjuifiediluinmdarmlpimlqnb
\Vorlquu?

IIUndamyWMywleelMimflheWflhthS.
Damiano-sepia?

I8.Doyumuus.shouHMIyiuaetemfio-md
Waldemar-pom?

W.DoyoumnleUSJInuldnillallydiluflunyen
alas-alarm)?

mboymtclmmeUS.MUmdlmiflt-yectimhuh
mumhmmugcmmn

""1

MY m

tun--

“ll

134

2|.Underanyclmuamaaaea.dod|iattheus.vouldmhefiifiad
hmmllucum? I 2 3 4

noon—“nus.“mya—ubauw I 2 3 4
nmmlclMchS.W-ambmb~ah
“Mica?

24.nomheIMOeUSWabq-alypwlbbmmla

biscuit-y? I 2 3 4
2S.Doyouonnaidayuaadfapflh(maqputwnduuyumfl~fi I 2 3 4
26thwhatndayouqaethtiecdfitieaiudhabvmhfladndaubda“.flldqd

demuumuflWhfiea-n‘l Mmmwmum

vilhthiaanle: I-S'I‘ROMILYAGREE m m MYW

_Sianhavetifiou

__Lutervrlmgm

_Ith-ingaclauhaauna
_ugaldemaralliea
_Non-violenteivildiaahedieaceaelvdme
_Dmorinauiflmmww
_Notpaytngaueanetaamtuonlondevotadto-lmm
Napayingclephutemtpuumdevuedn-flmm

Please circle the numbered remorse that Is moat repreaentatlve at your answer tor m 21

 

through 45.
I-STRONGLY AGREE MORSE J-DISAOIIEE “TINY m
r - -- =2

27.5mdmeapoliticaandgovemmtaeanaomplicaadthaamllkeme

can'tteallytatdemandwhais going on. I 2 3 4
28.Penple Iikemeaegenerally well qualifoedtopcticipniapolitioal xdvity

um-Mginourm. I 2 3 4
29.Ileelfikelhaveapleuygoadudaratahdingolthainpamtpofluealianu

vhkhomlmntwanciety. I 2 3 4
mTwy'ama-emdfflcultllealleaaldaathovaaaqhbaamaq

vithltyideasthatmightaolvetheta. I 2 3 4
3I.I!aelllkeleaulddoaapodajabiapuhllcomeeamaudtham

”elect. I 2 3 4

uwymmmkcfiwbuflWWh-uml 2 3 4
33.Iheflevedutmycdvityinhepaaemndtyluv¢ylfltlehmn

vulduohlems. l 2 3 4
M.Acdviamkiptioahyhdivihdmwuuwnaxflw I 2 3 4
33.nlmumlcipaleuaectivelyiathepeaaemlwaldhelp

Il'Igahwtt-orldpece. I 2 3 4

nUImwmip-emcdvdyinum-dmbeam
mleauldhebtohriagvlu-aallnleaae'nlch-p. I 2 3 4

 

 

o . a O Q ' ‘

5

135

III-ab
4'- “- h-Ur
37.1Meueplcntyolvayslapoplelte-enbvca-yiavhou
who. I 2 3 4
nhM'tmmambuudthepliid-amuluakyvm.
ndiltheyha't'aatnlhnateyvoa't. I 2 3 4
”.Moatpahlicoflkialavoalh‘tlsluuuao-mervhulfld. ' 2 3
a
numuduu-mmcnhveammctoapbllc
whey. I 2 3 4
“Jimmievot'ktogethervcvilleveuullynakeapcaddmcicty. I 2 3 4
42.ndviascacondmtoprmdlfieymbatavoa'thveaayml
efloauthcm. t 2 3 4
43.Ilpooplauortodto¢ethcr.wccouldcloaadovatheaaclecmm
ialhiacouury. I 2 3 4
«.Ihavefiacdmylficndsduoughmymnuuiathcpccm I 2 3 4
45.Vuyfioleolrayaociallilercvolmaoudpememctiviiea I 2 3 4

For questions «SA-46F, please circle the number that most cloaely corresponds to your answer.
46.Tovtuteatentiseacholthemwmamhmmdamhumm?

I-NotatAIl 2-ALiIIeBit LAMA“ bAGIflDeal

2"... “‘"' 2!: 33"

A. lmldteelguiltyilldidnotnpponorpmicipate. l 2 3 4

3. Heel pasomllythreatcncdaboilmy safety. I 2 3 4

C. Inmdtauluxelpciallytlucdoxnbme I 2 3 4

D. Iv-ttohelpncleryaaavholc. - I 2 3 4

£.nahmmuumadnnmwuaowwumn I 2 3 4

Itiummapmwu-wu-wmunummm I 2 3 4

47.Pleaacmkord¢homlnGhMMUWMA-Hhmmdumbhm
m AfldtmummmdaudowuuMn-u

«mono;
i

HabSocieraaV/hola _
numeMu ——-
Please circle the recourse that best approximates you

ramer.
4|.Olallyoccloch-iendsndluilyJov-ayare All-oat Leash W Alcoa
hvolvadiadicpnce-tdanti-amearmovement‘l None the-halt an: All

 

833IIIOIII

3

I‘!

136

49.0lallyouwmhovmy-e A”
iavolved'mkpaoeadau-aclum‘l Nae “I an. Al
I.”

ammuedoa'tnticipateaaauch-kyaughtlh. belovueatnaeoaoauhriosao-anhbe
0mm M‘eaehectbyalthqplybyoa.

_ I-ayloaemyjobillmhmm
Itkat'thovvhatl

 

SLIlyoudm'tmkbanumhumoddhmufllymyumflumm

 

 

52.IathePASTYEAR.pkaceoinuedumberdtinayoubnpuudauediaulonovhgpecem
activities. Oldiexmuksthayoumkhedhmthemdtfithlwmlam

t-Nontsx I-ALmlust s-moaumvatsxv 4-VERYIISKY
asmm

Demonstrator-nutty

Orguiiutional Meetings

Educational Meetings

Civil Disobediencelllesime

Held Ladershtp Positions in Organizing
II Event

Made Speeches

Signed Petitions

Wrote Letten to Com Ollicials
Wrote mm lor Prat Media

33.IathePASTMQNrflmlaaemme-aouatolmyoaMhdhe-wmndIerlathvolvauoa
doaarnelto4xaleasabovc).

E
III! IIIIIE

E

_Talhedtohdividualsaboutyoubeliets
Medotaabpddouhhem

E

Voluntaeradlorahhlnratlvenh

ales
__ onoooedpoducudaeucomiee'politica

l

M

 

I:

me I).

III.

3-

137

ForquestionsS-IJiSSpleasemalteachecltnarltauttoyourauwer.

S-Lllaseyoueverupidyoarusefiorpmofyourmesflorualmm
poliucsadmiliwywd'atg? _Yes _No
ssrtsvcyoucveraotrumraaemmmr Jungian r—Y“ '._No
sallyouaooobaolalocalpeacemmndm flyoa-aohhadllywlhtpadeannuhatc
bwnachnoaayyoahaveeoaoibatadhlaa-ty-l “Moan“
cthlothtyardeohrargaoI-daaugrap‘l flmflhmfl.
Ihaveetaroibutcds thisyeu.

Sinasmmmmhwywmibudnummbmhhply-MM
mm. a lunlraisiag events. donations. no)? 8—

Wflnflmnninn - Please remember your responses are completely anonyunus.

38. Wharisyouraes? '__Fetoale ._Male

59. Wisyoiorte?

 

60. Whatisyourage?

 

6|. Wharlorrnallevelol'eduationhavcyouatta'ned?

'__I..ess Ill-l high school ‘_I-Iigb School ‘_Vocatiaral Train’atg
‘_2 yrs college ’_Bachelor's degree ._Post nodule deuce
62. What is your marital status? _.__MuriedICohabitating T__Slngle

63.Doyouhavcchildren7.__Yes :_No Il’yea.how“ny?_7_.\Vhatarsmeirages‘l _ _-
How many children orarerrtly live with you? T’
64.Howmnyhounpaweekdoyouwork(upaidemploymt)mmaverage?_lweek
65.Ibwmmyhanpaweekdoyoumurddoioghaneholdchaesoarhcavaagcl_fiaek
66.Whatisyouroccupatioa7
67.Whatwasyotuawoainlopenooalioootnclevel(poss)laI9097_hnr
«.mmmmwmwmnatm—m
69.What.ilny.reh'gioadoyouidentitywith‘l
For questions 70 8: 7I pleasedrcle the responsethatiscloaest toyour answer.
70.IIowwoaIdyouclassilyonmreligioushvolvemeat‘l

 

 

7t. Ilow would you claseily yowaell poliu'eally‘l
Mire Mod.“ Libs-l W

Thaahyouagalalarcamplethrgthequestlonaalre. Wehaaeysuhuadllhmlug. Puma-lbw
eavelapeyrovidedaadssodbachthcyostcard separatelytayratectya'aoaaymhy.

138
Appendix B
WWI:
W - Alpha= .76

Economic Justice (U .S.A.)/Poverty Issues .45
Environmental /Ecology .46
Feminist/Women’s Issues ‘ .60
Gay/Lesbian Acceptance/Civil Rights .33
Advancement of People of Color/Racial Minorities .55
Liberation for Oppressed 3rd World Peoples .38
International Human Rights .58
World Hunger .26
Pro-choice (Abortion Issue) .42
Mammalian - Alpha=39
Number of neighborhood organizations .25
Number of social organizations .28
Number of service organizations .15
WW - Alpha=-87
Respect for political institutions .52
Courts guarantee a fair trial .58
Citizens rights are well protected .58
Pride in our political system .75

Our system of government is best possible .73

 

5a"

139
Feel support for political system

You and friends are well represented in system

Your values differ from political system

WW - Alpha-=33

U.S. justified in using nuclear weapons in WWII (-)
Justifiable to use nuclear weapons again (-)

US. should unilaterally freeze nuclear weapons
U.S. should unilaterally disarm

U.S. should stop military actions in other countries
Justifiable to use conventional forces (-)

US. should completely dismantle military
Corporations justified in investing in South Africa (-)
U.S. provides for poor people (~)

I am a pacifist

Justified actions to take are:

Declaring nuclear free zones

Legal demonstrations or rallies

Non-violent civil disobedience/resistance
Destroying military property

Not paying income tax

Not paying telephone tax

.75
.63
.38

.54
.46
.50
.60
.48

.59
.30
-.28

.43

.40
.21
.56

.46

.72

.73

 

140

mm - Alpha=.78
Politics is too complicated for me .45
I am well qualified to make political decisions .61
I have a good understanding of issues .66
Problems are too dificult for me .59
I could do a good job in political office .49

WW - Alpha=-74
People have a say in government .53
Politicians do only what they want .60
Public officials won’t listen .60

Want ° AlPh3=-83
All activists have an impact ' .52
My activity has little impact on world (-) .51
Individuals can cause positive change .59
I can help bring about world peace .66
I can help small scale change .53
Peace movement can make impact on policy .40
Together we can make peace .57
Protest has no effect on the system (-) .55

Together we could close down nuclear industry .51

 

‘1

 

141
SolidanntMmim - Alpha=-64
Close friends and family are involved
Social life revolves around peace activities
My friends participate and / or support the movement
Acquaintances are involved in the movement
Wt - Alpha=-65
Concern for others close to me
Help society as a whole
Feel personally threatened
Feel guilty if not participating
Wm - Alpha=.81
Participate because of religious/spiritual beliefs

Religious involvement

.58
.40
.30
.43

.51
.41

.48

.36

.68

.68

142

 

This interview consists of 11 questions with both closed-ended and open-ended

responses.

1.

2.

3.

How do you define whether or not someone is a member of this
organization?
How many people pay dues?

How many peOple are on the mailing list?

This set of questions has to do with the structure of this organization.

4.

Does your membership generally consist of a single group of people, for
example, women or student?

Is this organization local only or is part of a statewide, national, or
international network?

Does this organization primarily work on a single issue, such as nuclear
disarmament, or are you actively involved in various types of social issues?
Do you have paid staff or volunteer staff?

How many volunteer staff do you have?

How many paid staff do you have?

Please describe for me how decisions are made? Does one person
basically make most of the decisions, or is it done by majority or

consensus?

 

 

 

143
This set of questions deals with the philosophy and goals of this organization.

9. Tell me about the long term goals of this organization. What is the overall
purpose?

10. Can you list for me the organization’s short term goals for this year?

11. Tell me how these long and short term goals can be met? I’d like to know

what the philosophy of making change is for this organization.

mo.vaa

 

144

 

no>uuoz
5H. H.H\o.~ ~.H\e.~ mzoamaaom
no>auoz
.vn.v om.\a.~ he.\~.~ aoauoouaom
no>uuo=
.oa.n m¢.\e.~ no.\m.~ o>hoooo=m
ao~a.av .o~u.n.
.o.o .Houc. Among. vv.~ nosuoox
noduocoqun
ruuoansm
o.a om.\v.~ am.\m.~ Hoohuaaom
.nnoau
«m. mo.\a.n om.\~.n Hooaoaaom
>00~ooon
eq.H mq.\~.n v¢.\~.m ooaomauxoooom
Av-.ae .Nma.nv
.o.o accuse .ooncv mm.a anode-on
on o o > o o o 3
. .. 8.. o> 9 who . ecu uco.flofluuom uo m.o no >0. . s... m 3.. .oo

o Xaoconn<

145

oouanuuucou

 

 

 

o”. nm.\o.a om.\o.a aoeoz
mohoa>aooc
ad. ma.\oo. o.a\o~. oouoo one:
.oan.~. .maa.~. resuoaon
.u.o .omr:. .worc. 4H. cocoa
no.uonacoouo
coo. H.~\p.~ H.~\e.a Huoaoaaoo
u:.uou«:omuo
an. o.a\o.a n.~\o.a sooucsao>
nucoao>oz
oo. o~.\~.~ -.\~.~ Hoaoom eouoao
.H~H.H. .oHH.n. ruoquuao
.o.o .omrev .noucv ma. nacho
sooonoum
an. ve.\n.n mm.\~.n Hocooocu
aoooaouu
«o. oq.\o.n mm.\o.n Hocuouxm
honouuum
up. ov.\a.n n..\~.n oaomH ooooa
.o-.a. Aq~a.n.
.o.o .oorcv Among. mm. monouuun
.a.m\eoox .o.m\coo= mohnoqom> ..o.o.
u .>«:= oooom chum uoouczao> ueooqoauuma a .aoasz nansuocc

Auoacwucoo. o .mm4

146

:9}? .39...

 

 

no>~uoz
on. H.H\o.~ ~.a\s.~ occamfiaom
no>uuoz
on. vm.\a.~ me.\~.~ soauooaaom
no>wuox
em.“ ~m.\>.~ no.\m.~ o>anoau=m
.m~a.nv Ao~a.nv
.u.o .nsrev Apmuc. FH.H nosaoox
:o«uo:o«~<
ruuoomam
.om.m ~m.\n.~ ~o.\o.~ Aconcagua
.nnono
oo. oo.\H.n hm.\a.n Hooauaaoo
>ooHoocH
.oc. ~4.\~.n ev.\a.n ooaomsnxooooo
.qna.a. .-H.nv
.o.o Amence .vmucv .vn.~ huoaoeou
..o.o. .o.m\cooz .o.m\:moz moanoqoo> ..u.o.
h .>«c= manomrquaaz nsoomtoHoCMm ucoadouuuom h .«uaax nwm>aoc4
mqmdmumqqumumrnmmmu
o - .330: ,o no on“ oouo.u uco.«omuuo. .. - 0 ..>0. 3 a... as. ..oo:

m xuoconn<

.147

ooosnaoocoo

 

 

 

oo. Hm.\o.a o.a\o.a socox
mohoa>aoo<
do. o.a\-. o.~\va. oouoo aces
.oau.u. .m-.~. roenosan
.o.o Anorc. .Hmuc. moo. coo-o
nc.uon“comuo
a”. H.H\5.H ~.~\b.~ Haohuaaoo
mc.uo~u:oouo
4H. ma.\>.~ v.a\a.a >ooue=~o>
oucoao>ox
oo. o~.\~.~ m~.\~.~ deacon oouuao
.Hau.av .oaa.n. ruououom
.u.o “pore. .omucv n”. nonoo
soooauom
Ho. nv.\n.n om.\~.n Hoeuoucm
somoaoou
no. Hm.\o.n «m.\m.~ Hoeoouxm
soooaoom
~n. ov.\~.n av.\~.n momma cocoa
.ona.a. .¢~H.n.
.o.o Amara. .omuev we. wooouuou
.a.m\cooz .o.m\eoox moaoohoo> A.o.o.
h .>H:D o=00hrwuasx manomroamcdm ucoauoauuom m .«udzz nanaaoct

.oo::qucoov m .nnd

IL48

FcoIonu .emOovgi

 

 

no>uuox
v.” o.a\~.n H.H\n.~ ~.a\p.~ handmade:
no>duox
n4. nn.\n.~ av.\a.~ nm.\~.~ auuuoofifiom
no>auoz
n.” mp.\u.n mn.\m.~ nm.\n.~ o>auooonn
Apn~.~. .~n~.o.
.m.o .areC Amman. Anoncv o.~ uo>mooa
coauocouu<
ruuooaam
n.~ on.\m.~ no.\..~ vm.\¢.~ Hooaoanom
.onoau
m.~ mo.\p.~ no.\a.n Ho.\~.n Aconcagua
huoHoooH
H~. an.\~.n ov.\a.n vv.\a.n ooauoanxoooom
.n-.~. Aee~.o.
.uuo .wme. Amman. Acorn. .om.~ huomoomm.
.o.m\eooz .n.m\:oo: .o.w\:ooz
noduoosom omu>auo¢ ucoaaodo>oo nonnoquo> .u.o.
h .>«ca uaom avacsauou .Uuo ucoofiowuuom .m moan: nunaaoot
.. ,.r .. ... u. a. . o.o .> on. a . .-s.. .>.. ..o .. ... . .u 3
. , ... . . - -.._. . m- .. u> _ -- . o.o o a. u .. o -.. >u. . ..., ... -....

m Xaocouma

IL49

 

nouonuuucoo

 

 

 

o“. o.~\s.H am.\o.a mm.\o.~ xocox
moaua>aoo<
on. nm.\n..i om.\«a. c.a\vfi. oooom one.
.n-w«. .cnu... to>~o>on
.oso .ore. .Hmrc. .Houev an. oo-mm.
n:.uo~qcomuo
nw. ~.H\m.d ~.~\s.~ o.H\o.H HooauaHom
nc.uonwcoouo
n3. vn.\m.n n.a\~.a H.a\h.a soonesao>
nucoao>oz
.oo.~ u~.\o.~ o~.\~.~ m~.\~.~ Huaoom uocoo coho-o
.ona.u. .on~.o. innuendo
.o.o .orcv .lmmre. .oou:. \«MH.H nacho
xooofiuum
ow.” o..\a.n oo.\~.n mv.\n.n Hocuoucn
soooaoum
~o.~ o¢.\o.n co.\o.~ mv.\a.n Hmeoouxm
aooofiuum
no. ~n.\~.n ~¢.\~.n Hv.\~.n osmmH ooooa
.n~d.~. on~.o.
.o.o Acre. .ommm. .couc. n.a aoaomuun
.a.o\:oox .o.m\eoox .o.m\coox
:OHuoosou Inq>uuo< unusao~o>oo moanofiuo> Au.o.
h .>«:= uaom auqczoaoo .muo ucoowauuom .m duds: nwnzaoc<

Acoscducoov h .mn<

"llllllllllllllllllll