Katie adamson - Campus Activism



THE SEARCH FOR THE METAMOTIVATED ACTIVIST:

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ACTIVISM AT WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY

katie adamson

The following study examines the nature of student activism at Wittenberg University during the 2000-2001 academic year. Results are based on a statistical quantitative analysis of the responses of 115 students to a survey created by the researcher. Students were asked to report their willingness to participate in some form of social action (write a letter, attend a protest, plan a protest, risk arrest) for 14 different issues. Based on past research and the results of the study, the thesis suggests that students are often willing to take action on issues that do not directly affect them. An examination of social movement theories of motivation reveals that traditional social movement theories fail to address activists not motivated by personal grievances. The thesis presents the concept of metamotivation from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a possible solution.

Recent protests in Seattle and Washington, D.C. testify that many people are willing to make personal sacrifices for abstract causes that seem to have little direct impact on the lives of those individuals. However, this group of people is a minority within the population of the United States. It seems that the majority of people in society would never consider attending a protest, especially not for something that does not directly affect them.

Under what circumstances are people willing to take an active role in social change? What groups of people are most willing to participate? Theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy imply that the upper class has the luxury to examine broad issues of justice and the economic freedom to devote time and money to social action (Goble 1970). Other theories tout a common experience of exploitation as a force that will unite the oppressed groups of people in social revolution (Marx and Engels 1888).

Young people, and particularly college students, make up a large portion of people participating in many recent protests (Muchhala 2000). Student activists are of particular interest not only because of their presence as a distinct group in the recent protests, but also because they have yet to settle into a permanent role in society, meaning they can “approach society without the biases of vested interests or social constraints” (Altbach 1974). On this note, Stalin observed, “Until they have plunged into the sea of life and have occupied a definite social position, the students, being young intellectuals, are more inclined than any other category to strive for ideals which call them to fight for freedom” (quoted in Feuer 1969).

Wittenberg University provides an interesting strata of students for a study of social activism. A small, private, liberal arts college in Springfield, Ohio, Wittenberg attracts upper class students who can afford full tuition, as well as students who come to the school for its wealth of financial assistance.

Do students at Wittenberg demonstrate a willingness to participate in social activism? Which issues do they identify as important to them? How willing are Wittenberg students to make sacrifices for issues beyond their own obvious self-interest? Which demographic groups of students claim what causes as worthy of what level of social action? Specifically, which students are willing to take what action for what causes? WHY? Are female students willing to take more extreme action for gender equality than for environmental sustainability? Are students of color more likely to commit to minority issues than white students are? Are students from upper class families willing to fight for low-income housing? Is there a common sense of justice among Wittenberg students?

This thesis will explore these questions in an attempt to understand the nature of student activism, specifically at Wittenberg University. Several hypotheses will be tested through quantitative statistical analysis of collected data. First, it is anticipated that students from a high-income background will be more likely to demonstrate a willingness to participate in social action than students from a low-income background. Second, it is expected that minority students (in terms of gender or ethnic background) will be more willing to participate in social action than other students with similar economic backgrounds. Additionally, it is assumed that students in general are not apathetic and are willing to be involved at some level of activism, but on average that level will be relatively low on the proposed spectrum of possible action. Finally, it is predicted that there will be students who demonstrate a willingness to take action on issues that do not directly affect them.

LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL REVIEW

Studies on the nature of student protest in the United States revolve largely around the antiwar and Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1960s. Nearly all assumed knowledge of the American student activist has been compiled from studies of that decade because very little student activism has occurred since then. Even in the 60’s, however, it was estimated that politically active students only made up anywhere from 5 to 15% of the student population (Altbach 1974, Keniston 1970, Trent 1970).

Within the last year, America has been host to a renewed surge of student activism (Muchhala 2000). Few studies have been published regarding the nature of these new student movements because of how recently they have begun to grow. It will be of interest to future researchers to address any significant differences between student activism of the 1960s and today.

Student Activists

Studies of the student movement in the 1960s have developed a profile of typical student activists. For the most part, active students in the ‘60s did not adhere to conventional religion, yet a disproportionate number of student activists were found to be Jewish (Sutherland 1981, Astin et al 1975, Glazer 1970). First-born children had a higher tendency to participate in social action, presumably because of child-rearing practices specific to first-born children (Sutherland 1981). Student activists were also high academic achievers; Keniston found that “the higher a student’s grade point average and the more outstanding his academic achievement, the more likely he is to become involved in any particular political demonstration” (1970: 168, Astin et al 1975). In addition, activists were more individualistic and politically liberal than non-activists, and were most likely to major in the Social Sciences, Arts, or Humanities rather than in pre-professional programs (Astin et al 1975).

Another major distinction that nearly all sources have noted about student activists is a middle class background. Regarding why a student from the middle class would choose to protest, Flacks hypothesized that “being born into affluence can foster impulses to be experimental, risk taking, open to immediate experience, unrepressed. For some at least, growing up with economic securities in families of secure status can mean a weakening of the normal incentives of the system and can render one relatively immune to the established means of social control” (1970:131). Sutherland (1981) offers another reason: parents’ methods of punishment. According to Sutherland, psychological methods of punishment like the withdrawal of privileges or parental attention are more prominent in the middle class than methods of physical punishment. Research suggests that while physical punishment leads a child to fear authority, psychological punishment leads to a highly developed conscience and “self-policing” ability.

While the majority of activists included in the above studies were white (as most activist in the 1960’s were), a great number of black students also participated in activism. Specific studies have been conducted to look exclusively at the nature of black student activists (Jackson 1971, Jewell 1985, Orbell 1967, Willie and Cunnigen 1981).

Student Movements

Many sources discuss the nature of student movements in the 1960s and address how both the university setting and the attributes of the students themselves affected the general tendencies of the movements, as well as the choice of specific issues on which the movements were focused.

According to Altbach (1974), the middle class nature of student activism was reflected in the issue choice of student movements. Student movements addressed issues of foreign policy and culture because “the liberal American middle class, from which most students emerge, has not been very much concerned with labor unions, working conditions, or similar matters” (215). Indeed, most sources identify the major issues of student movements to be war, university reform, and civil rights – including both race and gender concerns (Glazer 1970, Ericson 1975, Altbach 1974). Altbach notes that student movements tended to make the distinction between issues and ideologies (such as Socialism or Marxism), and usually focused more on specific issues. Generally, student movements sought to identify with an oppressed class, that is, to “seek out an exploited group on whose behalf sacrifices will be made” (Feuer 1969: 20).

Theories

Social Movement theories seek to explain all modes of activism, student and otherwise. Generally, these theories can be divided into two categories: “WHYs” and “HOWs” (see fig. 1). Maheu (1995) uses these labels specifically to distinguish between New Social Movement Theory and Resource Mobilization, but it seems to apply to other prominent social movement theories as well. “WHYs” describe motivation, or why people decide to participate in a social movement; “HOWs account for how some people become involved as opposed to others who do not.

fig. 1

WHYs

Conflict Theory

New Social Movements

Relative Deprivation

Rational Choice

Attitudinal Characteristics

HOWs

Structural Availability

Resource Mobilization

Resource Model

Mass Society

WHY theories

Most of the theories within the WHY group focus on collective identity based upon what Eder (1995) calls “social cleavages”: cultural divisions between groups of people. These theories point to inequalities based on these cleavages and identify intent to reduce or remove inequalities as motivation for social action (Geschwender 1971, Ferree 1992).

These theories address certain participants in certain movements – those with a direct connection to self-interest. They explain why African Americans became involved in the Civil Rights movement (Geschwender 1971), and why lesbians participated in the feminist movement (Taylor and Wittier 1992). However, they do not account for a white person involved in the Civil Rights movement, a male in the feminist movement, or anyone involved in the animal rights movement. These examples involve no trace of the personal grievances that are the basis for collective identity and that these theories assume to drive social action.

Another group of WHY theories addresses the psychological nature of motivation (Cryns and Finn 1973, Gamson 1992). Most social-psychological social movement theories point to alienation – separation from traditional sources of social power – as motivation for participation in social action (Bramson 1961, Ransford 1968, Gurr 1970, Abcarian 1971).

Although many studies have been conducted concerning an attitudinal basis for social action, there have been distinctly conflicting results. Seeman notes that “many have contended that the sense of powerlessness was one of the key elements in the civil disturbances of the late 1960s” (1975: 96). However, Gore and Rotter (1963) as well as Strickland (1965) have found that activism is actually correlated with low levels of powerlessness and high perceptions of efficacy.

HOW theories

The HOW theories identify the means by which an individual comes to participate in a social movement. Many focus on what McAdam (1986) calls “biographical availability,” the combination of circumstances that affect one’s ability to participate in social action. These include factors that have a direct impact on one’s ability to devote time, money, and energy to a social movement, such as employment status and family commitments. Other HOW theories address “structural proximity” as a reason why people might become involved in a social movement (Friedman and McAdam 1992). Theories focusing on this idea assert that people are more likely to be involved if they have some contact with the movement (receiving a flyer, hearing about it from a friend, etc.). These theories suggest that some people have more structural proximity to social movements than others, based on where they live, where they work, and the people with whom they interact. Other theories, such as the Resource Model theory, expand on structural proximity by addressing the specific civic skills cultivated in certain social environments (Brady et al 1995, Jackson 1971). Paulsen (1991) examines this idea of political socialization in relation specifically to education, noting that “civic education in the working class school deemphasizes the importance of political participation and conveys a predominantly passive, harmonistic view of politics. In the upper-middle-class community, the schools present a view of politics as a process involving political action and the use of power as a means of resolving group conflict” (97).

In a 1987 study, Klandermans and Oegema acknowledge the validity of the factors examined by HOW theories and their effect on participation in social action. However, they assert that these factors in people’s lives are secondary to whether or not individuals are part of a movement’s “mobilization potential.” According to Klandermans and Oegema, the mobilization potential of a movement is the group of people in society who take a positive stand toward the issue in question. People outside of this mobilization potential “will not consider participating in (protest) activities, even if they are reached by attempts at mobilization” (519). Here, the necessary WHY of motivation must be in place for the HOW of mobilization to accomplish participation. According to Klandermans and Oegema, actual participation in a movement based on cost/benefit analysis, resource assessment, or exposure to a network structure will only happen after being a part of the initial mobilization potential.

While WHY theories address the reasons that a person might take a positive stance towards a specific issue, they do not go beyond motives of self-interest (which has already been discussed). Klandermans and Oegema acknowledge that “the mobilization potential of a social movement is not identical to the social categories who will benefit by achievement of the goods of the movement,” but they do not discuss further why people outside of those social categories would choose to participate. They merely state that mobilization potential consists of “people who take a positive stand toward a particular movement” (519).

Another combination of WHY and HOW theories is provided by Maslow’s theory of the Hierarchy of Needs. This theory of human motivation assumes that “the human being is motivated by a number of basic needs which are species-wide, apparently unchanging, and genetic or instinctual in origin” (Goble 1970: 38). The HOW theories listed above are based on the same structural and resource concerns by which Maslow defines basic needs. These needs include basic physiological needs (air, water, food, shelter, sleep and sex), as well as safety needs, love and belongingness needs, and growth needs (see fig. 2). Maslow contends:

A person who is lacking food, self-esteem, and love will demand food first and, until this need is satisfied, will ignore or push all other needs into the background. ‘For the man who is extremely and dangerously hungry, no other interest exists but food. … But what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is full? … At once other (and higher) needs emerge, and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so needs are organized in to a hierarchy of relative prepotency.’ (quoted in Goble 1970: 38-9)

Goble asserts that “Maslow’s theory of human motivation can be applied to almost every aspect of individual and social life” (37). In terms of social action participation, nearly all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy correlate with motivation theories (WHY theories) promoted by traditional social movement theory (see fig. 3). With the exception of basic physiological needs, each level of need can be addressed by participating in social action, according to WHY social movement theories.[1] The specific level of needs social action participants fulfill can be directly correlated with their motivation for participation in the action. The one level that does not seem to correlate with traditional social movement theories of motivation is the “growth needs” level. It has already been demonstrated that social movement theories lack an explanation of motivation beyond basic self-interest; here, Maslow’s hierarchy provides the possibility of “fulfillment of growth needs” as motivation. Maslow refers to this possibility as “metamotivation”: motivation by something beyond the fulfillment of basic needs. This study seeks to discover whether there are students at Wittenberg who seem to be “metamotivated” to participate in social action.

fig. 3

Maslow’s Levels of Needs Motivation to Participate in Social Action

Physiological Needs No participation

Safety and Security Needs Oppression-based Theories

Love and Belongingness Needs Alienation Theories

Self Esteem Needs and Esteem by Others

Growth Needs Metamotivation

Among other goals, this study seeks to acknowledge significant groups of students at Wittenberg University who demonstrate a willingness to participate in activism for issues that are not directly associate with their self-interest. This thesis proposes that inconsistencies in social movement theory related to these groups of people can be reconciled by Maslow’s concept of metamotivation.

METHODS

Sample

Surveys sent to 565 Wittenberg students yielded data for the following study. The Office of the Registrar at Wittenberg University provided a list of 400 randomly selected students, tailored for the study by the inclusion of 100 students from each class year (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior) and an equal number of males and females. At the request of the researcher, a disproportionate number of minority students were included in order to have a broad basis for comparison of data based on ethnicity. Of the 400 surveys that were sent to student mailboxes, 72 were completed and returned. In order to have access to more data, an additional 165 surveys were sent to ‘probable respondents.’ These people were selected by the researcher from the Wittenberg student directory, targeting people who were familiar to the researcher in some way (classmates, co-workers, cast members, etc.) and who would recognize the researcher’s name on the survey, making them more likely to respond. Although great care was taken to cover a broad spectrum of students, this method of sampling brings up obvious concerns about its likelihood of skewing the collected data. However, Wittenberg statistician Doug Andrews contends that these additional respondents do not significantly affect data in this case. The original 72 responses were most likely skewed to begin with because they are from a small group of people (18% of the original random sample) who personally chose to respond to the survey. Because the study involved no way to encourage a higher response rate and therefore a broader, more random response pool, the respondents to the first batch of surveys include their own skew based on their willingness to respond voluntarily. However, the skew is undetectable without a basis for comparison.

Instrument

The survey used for the collection of data included questions referring both to demographics of respondents and the respondents’ willingness to participate in social action. Demographic information was collected for two purposes: to identify the basic self-interests of respondents, and to enable speculations based on socioeconomic factors. Respondents were asked to identify their gender, age, year in school, race, sexual orientation, and class (based on self-identification, family income, and parents’ occupations and level of completed education).

Willingness to participate in social action was determined by a social action scale created specifically for the study by the researcher. The social action scale consisted of five levels of social action:

Social Action Scale

0 – do nothing

1 – sign a petition, write a letter, donate money, vote, etc.

2 – attend a protest, volunteer time (hand out flyers, do office work, etc.)

3 – organize a protest

4 – risk arrest

Respondents were asked to use the social action scale to indicate the highest level of action they would be willing to take on each of fourteen social issues ranging from opposing abortion rights to legalizing marijuana (for complete list of issues and a copy of the survey, see Appendix A). The issue list was created specifically to represent a wide variety of interests and political views. The survey consisted of two each of gender-based, ethnicity-based, and class-based issues, along with general interest issues like environmentalism and animal rights.

The survey also included questions about respondents’ participation in political and social action, measured by whether or not they were registered to vote and if they planned to (or did) vote in the national election on November 7, 2000. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate any affiliation with campus organizations from a list of groups that are focused on social issues, such as Concerned Black Students (CBS), the Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA), and Students Taking Action Now Dammit (STAND).

Additionally, respondents were asked to give a free response about what issues they thought Wittenberg students would most likely protest, and the reasons why students would choose to participate or not participate in social action. These questions were asked with the intent to draw answers that would indicate the respondents’ perceptions of motivation for social action.

FINDINGS

Respondents

Of 565 surveys distributed, 115 responses were returned. Of these, 76 (66.1%) were female, 39 (33.9%) male. The responses included 19 (16.7%) freshmen, 27 (23.7%) sophomores, 30 (26.3%) juniors, and 38 (33.3%) seniors. The ethnic composition of the sample was 77 (67.5%) Caucasian and 26 (22.8%) African American. The additional 11 (9.7%) included respondents who identified themselves as Hispanic, Asian, or as international students (not American citizens). 105 (94.6%) respondents identified themselves as heterosexual; 6 (5.4%) were homosexual or bisexual, and 4 surveys did not include this information. Additionally, 80.9% of respondents were registered to vote in the United States (a number skewed by the international students who were a part of the sample), and 69.3% planned to or did vote in the Presidential Election of 2000. [2]

Class

While other variables were simply determined by a single question on the survey (i.e. gender, class year, ethnicity, and sexual orientation), the social class of respondents was determined by a more complicated process (see Methods). Because self-reported social class is often inaccurate, the respondents’ answers to the four class-based questions were compiled to determine a more reliable assessment. This variable was divided into three levels of class: low, middle, and high. The calculated social class distribution was: low (16.5%), middle (36.5%) and high (47.0%). This provides a clearer basis for comparison than the respondents’ self-reported class: working class (11.6%), middle class (42%), upper middle class (43.8%) and upper class (2.7%).

Willingness to Participate in Social Action

A respondent’s average willingness to participate in social action (hereafter referred to as “AWP”) was determined by adding all of the individual’s responses to the issue questions, and dividing by 12 (14 issues, minus 2 because of the two dichotomous issues of abortion and gun control). The individual’s AWP was then ranked either low, medium, or high based on which third of the spectrum it fell. The mean AWP for any social action was 1.3750 (on the Social Action Scale of 0-4).

Social class: A high AWP is significantly correlated with low social class and against high social class. 26.3% of respondents identified as members of the low class level were labeled as having a high AWP, compared to only 9.6% of those at the high social level. Similarly, 34.6% of the high social class and only 10.5% of the low social class demonstrated a low AWP. (Chi Square significance = .183, Cramer’s V value = .522, see Appendix B, table 1)

Gender: In general, females were identified as being more likely than males to have a high AWP (20.5% and 8.1%, respectively). Although 21.9% of females had a low average willingness, this is put into perspective by the 37.8% of males with a low AWP. (Chi Square significance = .097, Cramer’s V value = .504, see Appendix B, table 2)

Race: Among Caucasian respondents, 12.2% had a high AWP and 32.4% had a low AWP. These numbers are significantly lower than those for African American respondents: 26.9% had a high AWP compared to 11.5% with a low AWP. (Chi Square significance = .193, Cramer’s V value = .534, see Appendix B, table 3)

Issues

For the sake of data analysis, the 5 possible responses from the Social Action Scale (see Methods) were re-coded into three categories of willingness to participate in social action: low (do nothing OR write a letter, sign a petition, donate money, vote, etc.), medium (attend a protest, volunteer time), and high (organize a protest OR risk arrest).

Re-Coded Social Action Scale

0 – do nothing

1 – sign a petition, write a letter, donate money, vote, etc.

2 – attend a protest, volunteer time

3 – organize a protest

4 – risk arrest

It is important to note that this scale is not meant to determine support versus opposition to an issue, but willingness to sacrifice time, energy, resources, and possibly personal freedom. Therefore, a low level of willingness to participate in social action does not indicate opposition to an issue, but lack of committed support.

Relationships

Many of these variables are not mutually exclusive, and therefore any comparisons of variables will be affected by connections between the variables. For instance, a cross-tabulation of race and social class shows a disproportionate number (50.0%) of African Americans in the lowest level of social class, compared with 6.5% of Caucasians at the same level. Similarly, only 23.1% of African Americans fell into the highest level of social class, in comparison to 54.5% of Caucasians (Chi Square significance = .000, see Appendix C, table 1). This suggests that the African American respondents generally have more of a direct interest in class issues than the Caucasian respondents do. Comparable disproportion can be found in a cross-tabulation of gender and race (Chi Square significance = .092, see Appendix C, table 3); among African Americans, a significantly greater number of females (80.8%) than males (19.2%) responded to the survey, hypothetically skewing that racial group towards women’s issues. This disparity is especially punctuated when compared to the gender distribution among Caucasian respondents: 63.6% female, 36.4% male.

Even with these connections taken into account, many important correlations exist between the variables examined in this study. The relationships examined here are those in which some correlation was demonstrated.

The Issues

Increase Minimum Wage: Largely unsupported by respondents, increasing the minimum wage inspired only 1.8% to a high willingness to participate in social action. While 21.1% indicated a medium level of willingness, 77.2% of respondents indicated the lowest level. (Appendix B, table 4)

Relationships

ETHNICITY: Whereas 85.5% of Caucasians demonstrated a low commitment, 14.5% a medium, and 0% a high level of commitment, only 65.4% of African American respondents had a low level, 30.8% a medium level, and 3.8% a high commitment to action towards increasing the minimum wage. These numbers are highlighted through an examination of the combined data for medium and high levels of commitment: 34.6% of African American respondents compared to 14.5% of Caucasians. (Chi Square significance = .008, see Appendix B, table 16) This most likely relates to the correlation between race and social class discussed above. (see Appendix C, tables 1 and 2)

Abortion Rights: Another highly unsupported issue is what typically is called the “Right to Life” movement: opposition to abortion rights. 81.6% of respondents indicated that they would do little or nothing for the cause; 14.0% were willing to participate on a medium level of action, and only 4.4% suggested a willingness to participate on a high level of action. This was the lowest percentage of people willing to take a high level of action. At the same time, 9.7% indicated that they would be willing to take a high level of action to support abortion rights, along with 22.1% who would be willing to participate at a medium level for the same cause. People at the lowest level of action to support abortion rights made up 68.1% of all respondents. It is clear that while abortion rights have more supporters than objectors at Wittenberg University, neither side of the issue garners a large number of people willing to take a high level of action. (Appendix B, table 5)

Relationships

GENDER: Female respondents demonstrated a greater willingness than male respondents to take social action in support of abortion rights. 37.4% of females indicated a medium or high level of willingness, compared to 21.1% of males. (Chi Square significance = .196, see Appendix B, table 21)

Provide More Low-Income Housing: Participants expressed slight interest in providing more low-income housing, indicated by 7.0% being willing to take a high level of action and 28.1% suggesting commitment to a medium level of action. (Appendix B, table 6)

Relationships

CLASS: A clear difference exists between the willingness of people in the low social class level and those in the high social class level on the issue of providing low income housing. 15.8% of people in the low level of social class were willing to take a high level of action, compared to only 5.7% of the high social class. However, there still seems to be a significant group of people in the high social class level (24.6%) who demonstrated a willingness to take a medium or high level of action. (Chi Square significance = .111, see Appendix B, table 26)

ETHNICITY: 50.0% of African American respondents indicated a willingness to take a medium or high level of action to provide more low-income housing, compared to 27.3% of Caucasian respondents. (Chi Square significance = .101, see Appendix B, table 16) As with increasing the minimum wage, this most likely relates to the correlation between race and social class. (see Appendix C, tables 1 and 2)

Support Animal Rights: 13.2% of respondents signified that they would be willing to take a high level of action to support animal rights. Bolstered by 22.8% being willing to take a medium level of action, it seems that animal rights is an issue that many Wittenberg students are interested in addressing. (Appendix B, table 7)

Relationships

GENDER: While 42.1% of women indicated a medium or high level of willingness to take action to support animal rights, only 21.1% of men indicated the same. (Chi Square significance = .093, see Appendix B, table 22)

End Racial Profiling: The concern of racial profiling drew more willingness to take high levels of action than any other issue. 28.3% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to organize a protest or risk arrest for the purpose of ending racial profiling, and an additional 28.3% indicated a willingness to participate at mid-level. 43.4% suggested they would do little or nothing – the lowest percentage among all issues for the low level of action. This issue had the highest overall average of respondents’ willingness to participate: 1.8496 on the 5 level (0-4) social action scale (see fig. 4). (Appendix B, table 8)

Relationships

ETHNICITY: There was a distinct difference between African American and Caucasian respondents and their willingness to take action against racial profiling. 69.2% of African Americans were willing to take a high level of action, compared to 14.5% of whites. 55.3% of Caucasians versus 11.5% of African Americans indicated a low level of willingness to take social action. However, there was a distinct group of Caucasian respondents (30.3%) who were willing to take a medium level of action to end racial profiling. (Chi square significance = .000, see Appendix B, table 17)

CLASS: 57.9% of respondents within the lowest level of social class were willing to take a high level of action to end racial profiling. This issue drew the highest percentage of low-level social class respondents of all issues examined by the study. Comparatively, 28.6% of mid-level class respondents and 17.3% of high-level class respondents were also willing to participate in a high level of social action. In addition, 15.8% of the low-level class, 52.4% of the mid-level class, and 46.2% of the high-level class suggested little to no willingness to participate in social action for this issue. (Chi Square significance = .005, see Appendix B, table 27) The distinct class differences on this issue of race are most likely directly related to the disproportionate percentage (68.4%) of the low social class consisting of African Americans. (see Appendix C, table 1)

Environmental Conservation: The second highest average willingness (1.713) was given to environmental conservation. 20.9% of respondents suggested that they would take action at the highest level, 33.9% at the middle level, and 45.2 at the lowest level. (Appendix B, table 9)

Relationships

GENDER: 61.9% of female respondents suggested that they would be willing to take a medium or high level of action for the purpose of environmental conservation, compared to 41.0% of men. (Chi Square significance = .093, see Appendix B, table 22)

Affirmative Action for Ethnic Minorities: Another issue drawing a large amount of support was affirmative action for ethnic minorities. A high level of support was indicated by 20.2% of respondents, with the same amount reporting a medium level of support. 59.6% indicated little or no action. (Appendix B, table 10)

Relationships

ETHNICITY: Willingness to take action for affirmative action for ethnic minorities drew one of the biggest disparities in responses with regard to race. While 76.9% of African Americans indicated a willingness to participate in a medium or high level of action, only 23.7% of Caucasian respondents demonstrated the same. (Chi Square significance = .000, see Appendix B, table 18)

CLASS: Of all low class level respondents, 52.6% demonstrated a willingness to participate in a high level of action to support affirmative action for ethnic minorities, compared to 17.1% of the mid-level class and 11.1% of the high-level class. While only 26.3% of the low-level class implied little or no willingness to take social action for the issue, 63.4% of the mid-level class and 68.5% of the high-level class demonstrated low willingness for activism in support of affirmative action for ethnic minorities. (Chi Square = .002, see Appendix B, table 28) As with the class distinctions in ending racial profiling, the differences by social class are probably largely related to the disproportionate racial composition of the lower level of social class. (see Appendix C, table 1)

Legalize Marijuana: The legalization of marijuana was one of the most polarized issues of the survey. Only 10.7% were willing to take a medium level of action, leaving the rest to be concentrated at either end. The issue drew more high level support (8.0%) than some issues (increasing the minimum wage, opposing abortion rights, providing more low income housing, and opposing gun control) and more low level participation (81.3) than most other issues. (Appendix B, table 11)

Relationships

ETHNICITY: African American respondents indicated a greater willingness to take a high level of action towards the legalization of marijuana (19.2%) than Caucasian respondents (3.9%). (Chi Square significance = .093, see Appendix B, table 19)

Oppose Sweatshop Labor: Although it did not draw a relatively large percentage of people willing to take a high level of action (11.5%), opposition to sweatshop labor ranked third highest on average willingness to participate in social action at a level of 1.4336. This is largely due to the 31.9% of respondents who indicated that they would be willing to take a medium level of action. (Appendix B, table 12)

Relationships

CLASS: 36.8% of the respondents in the low social class level demonstrated a high willingness to take action in opposition to sweatshop labor, compared with 7.3% of the middle class level and 5.7% of the high class level. It is significant to note, though, that all three class levels demonstrated similar tendencies to take action at the medium level (31.6%, 29.3%, and 34.0%, low to high, respectively). (Chi Square = .004, see Appendix B, table 29)

GENDER: Among female respondents, 50.6% indicated that they would be willing to take a medium or high level of action in opposition to sweatshop labor. Among males, only 29.0% were willing to do so. It is important to note that sweatshop labor could be construed as a gender issue, because most of the workers in sweatshops are women and female children. (Chi Square significance = .089, see Appendix B, table 23)

Support Gay/Lesbian Rights: The average support for gay and lesbian rights (level of 1.3628) nearly matches the average willingness to participate for all issues (1.3750). Generally, support indicated for gay and lesbian rights is not extreme on either end; 14.2% of respondents implied a high level of commitment, 28.3% a medium level, and 57.5% a low level. (Appendix B, table 13)

Relationships

CLASS: Of all issues examined by this study, support for gay and lesbian rights is the only issue that drew a higher level of support from respondents in the high social class level than those in the low class level. 18.5% of those in the high-level social class indicated a willingness to participate in a high level of action for gay and lesbian rights, versus 5.3% for those in the low-level social class. However, the medium level of social action returns to the established pattern, with 42.1% of the low-level social class, 32.5% of the mid-level class, and 20.4% of the high-level class. (see Appendix B, table 30)

Affirmative Action for Women: 15.0% of respondents demonstrated a high willingness to participate in social action in support of affirmative action for women. An additional 30.1% indicated that they would participate at a medium level. (Appendix B, table 14)

Relationships

GENDER: 22.4% of female respondents were willing to take a high level of action to promote affirmative action for women, and 38.2% were willing to take a medium level of action. In comparison, no males were willing to participate in a high level of action, and only 13.5% were willing to take action at the medium level. While this is the issue that garners the highest level support from women, it also is the one that draws the least support from men. (Chi Square significance = .000, see Appendix B, table 24)

ETHNICITY: 38.5% of African American respondents indicated a high level of commitment to action towards affirmative action for women, compared to 9.2% of Caucasian respondents (Chi Square significance = .002, see Appendix B, table 20). Although this could seemingly be skewed by a disproportionate amount of females among African American respondents, a look at a cross-tabulation divided by gender shows that 47.6% of African American women were willing to take high action, compared to 14.3% of Caucasian women (see Appendix C, tables 3 and 4).

CLASS: 73.6% of the low-level social class established a willingness to take a medium or high level of action to support affirmative action for women, compared to 32.5% of the mid-level class and 44.5% of the high-level class. Although the low-level class was clearly the leader in percentage of people willing to take high levels of action (36.8% versus 12.5% mid-level and 9.3% low-level), there was a distribution similar to gay/lesbian rights at the medium level of social action (36.8%, 20.0%, and 35.2%, low to high, respectively). (Chi Square = .009, see Appendix B, table 31) In regards to this issue, it is important to note the disproportionate percentage of women (68.4%) in the low-level social class (see Appendix C, table 5).

Gun Control: Respondents were more willing to take social action to support gun control than to oppose it. 8.8% indicated high commitment to action in support of gun control, and 26.3% indicated a medium commitment. In opposing gun control, only 6.1% demonstrated a high commitment. As with legalizing marijuana, opposition to gun control was extremely polarized, with only 7.9% indicating a medium level of commitment to action, the lowest percentage of medium action among all issues. 86.0% of respondents demonstrated a low level of commitment to action opposing gun control, the highest percentage of low commitment among all issues. With these numbers in mind, it is not surprising that opposition to gun control drew the lowest average willingness participate in social action compared to all other issues in the study. (Appendix B, table 15)

Relationships

GENDER: A distinction is obvious between women and men on the issue of supporting gun control. 40.8% of female respondents were willing to take a medium or high level of action, compared to 23.7% of men. (Chi Square significance = .078, see Appendix B, table 25)

fig. 4

Rank of Issues by Average Willingness of Respondents to Participate in Social Action

1. end racial profiling 1.8496

2. environmental conservation 1.7130

3. oppose sweatshop labor 1.4336

4. affirmative action for women 1.4159

5. affirmative action for ethnic minorities 1.4123

MEAN Average Willingness to Participate in Social Action 1.3750

6. support gay/lesbian rights 1.3628

7. support animal rights 1.2895

8. provide more low-income housing 1.2632

9. increase minimum wage 1.0965

10. support gun control 1.0877

11. support abortion rights 1.0708

12. legalize marijuana .6518

13. oppose abortion rights .4912

14. oppose gun control .4386

Metamotivation

Levels of metamotivation were determined by an examination of responses to specific issues by individuals without direct self-interest in those issues. For example, metamotivation for race-based issues was determined by the willingness of Caucasian respondents to take action on those issues. A code of “1” was given for high willingness, “.5” for medium willingness, and “0” for low willingness. If the average for all related issues is .5 or above, the respondent is classified as having some level of metamotivation.

Race: “End Racial Profiling” and “Affirmative Action for Ethnic Minorities” were considered race-based issues. Among Caucasian respondents, 24% had a metamotivation level of .5 or above, and 13.4% were at .75 or above (see Appendix D, table 1)

Gender: “Affirmative Action for Women” was the issue examined for gender-based metamotivation. Of the 37 male respondents, 13.5% had a metamotivation level of .5, reflecting the 13.5% willing to take a medium level of action on the issue (see above). No men were willing to take a high level of action, meaning that none had a metamotivation level above .5 (see Appendix D, table 2).

Class: “Provide More Low-Income Housing” and “Increase Minimum Wage” were considered class-based issues. For class-based metamotivation, the middle and high levels of class were examined separately. Of respondents in the middle level of class, 19.5% had a metamotivation level of .5 or above, and 4.9% had a level of .75 (see Appendix D, table 3). In the high level of class, 17% had a level of .5 or above, while 1.9% had a level of .75 (see Appendix D, table 4).

Sexual Orientation: “Support Gay/Lesbian Rights” was the issue considered for metamotivation on GLTB issues. Of the 103 respondents who identified themselves as heterosexual, 39.8% had a metamotivation level of .5 or above, and 12.6% had a level of 1. This issue drew the highest levels of metamotivation of all issues examined (see Appendix D, table 5).

DISCUSSION

Though not absolutely generalizable, the results can offer insight about the nature of student activism both at Wittenberg University and on a broader level. Several interesting conclusions can be made based on the statistics derived from the data.

Overall, the mean AWP of all respondents for all issues was 1.375. This means that on average, Wittenberg students are willing to do a little more than write a letter, sign a petition, or donate money to support a cause. They are possibly willing to attend a protest, but not likely to do so.

Black respondents, respondents those from the lower third of social class, and female respondents all had higher averages for willingness to participate than other demographic groups. This is to be expected, based on traditional social movement theories of motivation grounded in personal grievances (conflict theory, new social movement theory, etc.), because many of the issues in the survey are based on gender, race, and social class concerns. However, these groups of people also demonstrated high levels of willingness to participate in social action even for issues not directly tied to their self-interest. For example, women had a higher willingness to participate in social action for the environmental issues of conservation and animal rights. This seems to be typical of female activists. According to Finsen and Finsen (1994), women constitute 70% of all environmental activists (in this study it was 70.8% and 73.3% for environmental conservation and animal rights, respectively). Finsen and Finsen assert that in order to understand the relationship implied here, “we must understand the important parallels between what is done to animals in order to turn them into the consumables labeled ‘meat’ and what is done to women when they are used as sexual objects in pornography, when they are raped, when they are dominated” (248). On a broader level, the same connection can be made for the way all of nature is collectively exploited in Western society.

Generally, the respondents who indicated the highest average level of willingness to participate in social action were female, black, and in the lowest third of the respondent pool with regard to social class. Why do these groups have more mobilization potential than others do? In the above example, the willingness to participate in social action seems to be motivated by a common experience of oppression.

Marxist standpoint theory offers an explanation for the greater mobilization potential of oppressed groups. Going even beyond traditional Marxist conflict theory and ideas of “class consciousness” (even beyond New Social Movement theories of “collective identities”), standpoint theory asserts that people in oppressed groups have a distinctly different way of viewing reality because of their position in society. Because of their experience of oppression, they are better able to recognize oppression and understand the experience of all oppressed groups. Allport (1982) reflects on this idea, specifically regarding Jews. “Enlightened Jews say that compassion is the natural response of their group toward the plight of all sufferers from oppression. Their own trials and suffering… make for understanding and sympathy (154-5). He recounts the reflections of a Jewish student in South Africa:

I sympathize easily with the Negro who is even more likely to have people against him than the Jew. I know what it is like to be discriminated against. How could I be prejudiced? (154)

Based on the results of this study and the above comments regarding “ecofeminism,”[3] and the sympathy of Jews, it is apparent that the common experience of oppression could serve as a motivation to participate in social action. HOW social movement theories, along with Maslow’s hierarchy, explain why many people in oppressed groups still refrain from participating in social action (Klandermans and Oegema 1987). Even though the motivation to participate exists, the necessary resources (time, money, structural proximity, etc.) are often unavailable because of the unequal (and oppressively stratified) distribution of resources. On Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, many members of oppressed groups are focused on fulfilling their most basic physiological needs (see fig. 2), and can not fulfill those needs through participation in social action. However, members of oppressed groups who are also college students occupy a unique realm. Though they have the experience of oppression, they also have their basic needs met as well as additional resources due to the nature of the university setting (see below).

Why Students?

Studies on student movements and student activists demonstrate that students fall into ideal categories of both “WHYs” and “HOWs.” Their combination of structural availability and disposable resources are certainly unique; according to Altbach, “student days are one of the few times in the life of an individual when he is not burdened by financial or social responsibilities or subject to outside control” (1974: 227). According to Feuer (1969), “a student audience is the easiest one in the world to assemble. They are not dispersed over distances as peasants are, and their studies are rarely so demanding that they do not have time on their hands. They are not bound and exhausted by work schedules as workers are, and they usually have no families to support” (14). The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest (1970) reported that students are not only subject to fewer competing commitments to family and job, but that existing job commitments can be set aside at relatively little cost. Additionally, the Commission reported that “students can commit themselves to action in the almost certain knowledge that there will be no significant personal ramifications” (80).

The unique circumstances of college students place them at a high level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (see fig. 2). Nearly all college students have their basic physiological needs fulfilled, as well as safety and security needs. Many, though admittedly not all, have love and belongingness needs as well as self-esteem needs at least partially met. These circumstances allow college students to focus on their growth needs: truth, justice, goodness, beauty, order, aliveness, etc. This makes them likely candidates for participation in social action sparked by metamotivation. In fact, most research on student activists shows that student movements “have been characterized by the highest degree of selflessness, generosity, compassion, and readiness for self sacrifice” (Feuer 1969: 3). An overwhelming majority of research emphasizes that student movements deal with broad issues of justice, rather than personal grievances (Altbach 1974, Feuer 1969, Report of the President’s Commission, Keniston 1970). According to Spender (1968):

Students take seriously the ideals taught in schools and churches… and then they see a system that denies its ideals in its actual life. … So the young Americans who hold revolutionary views visualize a struggle between everything that is inhuman in the American system and everything which they recognize as human in themselves. Those who govern, and whose interests influence government, those who conform in education and public relations, seem to them simply inhuman, dehumanized. They raise their voices hysterically in opposition to those who in the time and place of war calculate human lives and deaths with computers, in the time and place of peace deal with people by the methods of public relations and advertising. (129-136)

Based on these descriptions of student activists, it is obvious that many are motivated by their growth needs as described by Maslow. Based on research from the 1960’s, student activists have demonstrated intense levels of metamotivation in the past. It is not surprising to find that students at Wittenberg University demonstrate similar tendencies.

Suggestions for Future Research

Because student activism is just beginning to re-emerge in the United States, there is exciting potential for new research concerning student movements and student activists. The prominence of protests concerning broad issues of justice (IMF/World Bank/WTO, School of the Americas, the Prison Industrial Complex) allows for a deeper investigation of metamotivation as a viable motivation for participation in social action. Some specific questions to investigate: In what ways do present student movements differ from the student movements of the 1960’s? How do levels of metamotivation in student activists differ from levels of metamotivation in non-student activists? What effect do metamotivated activists have on a movement? To what extent are they welcomed or encouraged to participate? How do movements based on broad issues of justice (and presumably driven by metamotivation) differ from movements driven by concrete personal grievances (like the civil rights movement, women’s movement, etc.)? Why are “gay and lesbian rights” strictly an upper class issue? Why are heterosexuals more willing to take action for gay and lesbian rights than Caucasians are for racial equality? How do levels of metamotivation differ in conventional politics versus protest activities?

Of course, more exhaustive research is needed regarding student activists and student movements of the 21st century. Is the activism at Wittenberg University typical for a small liberal arts college? How different is activism at large state universities? Ivy League schools?

Additionally, more extensive research about the connection between Maslow’s Hierarchy and traditional social movement theories of motivation would highlight the interaction of WHY and HOW theories of social movement mobilization discussed in this thesis and by Klandermans and Oegeama (1987).

CONCLUSION

A statistical examination of the data collected in the study shows many correlations between different variables. Generally, there is a trend for those with a distinct self-interest in a particular issue (specifically by ethnicity, gender, or class) to be more willing to take high levels of action for those issues than those without self-interest in the issue. However, there are still distinct groups of people without self-interest who are willing to participate in high levels of action. Although they may not be in the majority, their presence demands attention, especially because traditional social movement theories fail to address or account for their participation in social movements.

Despite the lack of attention traditional social movement theories pay to non-self-interested activists, it is clear that some college students are willing to take action and make sacrifices for issues based on justice instead of self-interest. Because no accepted social movement theory adequately addresses this group, this thesis proposes that the idea of metamotivation offered by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs be considered as a potential motivation for participation in social action.

Appendix A

CONGRATULATIONS! You have been carefully (and very randomly) selected to participate in my Sociology senior thesis. Please take a few minutes to answer the questions as thoroughly and honestly as possible. When you have completed the survey, return it to box 1016.

Thank you for participating!

katie adamson

Any questions may be directed to me at s01.kadamson@wittenberg.edu.

BASIC INFORMATION

Gender:

_______Female

_______Male

Age: _______

Year in School:

______ Freshman

______ Sophomore

______ Junior

______ Senior

Race:

_______Caucasian

_______African American

_______Hispanic

_______Asian

_______Other____________________

Sexual Orientation:

_______Homosexual

_______Heterosexual

_______Bisexual

_______Other

Parents’ Occupations

(please specify which parent):

( ) _____________________

( ) _____________________

Parents’ Level of Completed Education

(please specify which parent):

( )

____less than high school ____ high school ____2 yr. college ____4 yr. college

____ Masters ____PhD ____don’t know

____other (please specify) ______________

( )

____less than high school ____high school ____2 yr. college ____4 yr. college

____ Masters ____PhD ____don’t know

____other (please specify) _________________

Total Family Annual Income:

______ less than $30,000

______ $30,000 - $60,000

______ $60,000 - $90,000

______ $90,000 - $120,000

______ $120,000 - $150,000

______ more than $150,000

______ don’t know

Which social class do you identify with?

______ working class

______ middle class

______ upper middle class

______ upper class

SOCIAL ACTION INFORMATION

Please mark the answers that apply to you:

Are you registered to vote? _____yes _____no

Do you plan to vote in the election on November 7, 2000? _____yes _____no

Do you belong to any of the following campus organizations? _____CBS _____VOICES _____GSA _____STAND _____AIA _____Conservation Club _____Amnesty _____Habitat for Humanity

Social Action Scale

0 – do nothing

1 – sign a petition, write a letter, donate money, vote, etc.

2 – attend a protest, volunteer time (hand out flyers, do office work, etc.)

3 – organize a protest

4 – risk arrest

Please use this scale to indicate the highest level of social action you would be willing to participate in concerning the following issues:

____increase minimum wage ____support abortion rights ____oppose abortion rights

____provide more low-income housing ____support animal rights ____end racial profiling

____environmental conservation ____affirmative action for ethnic minorities

____legalize marijuana ____oppose sweatshop labor ____support gay/lesbian rights

____affirmative action for women ____support gun control ____oppose gun control

Please respond with your opinion:

What issues, if any, do you think would result in Witt students protesting on campus? (not limited to the issues listed above)______________________________________________________________________

What do you think are reasons that Wittenberg students do or do not participate in political or social action? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* THANK YOU * Please return this survey to box 1016 * THANK YOU *

WORKS CITED

Abcarian, G. 1971. “Romantics and Renegades: Political Defection and the Radical Left.” Journal of Social Issues 27(1):123-139.

Altbach, Philip G. 1974. Student Politics in America: A Historical Analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Allport, G.W. 1982. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Astin, Alexander W., Helen S. Astin, Alan E. Bayer, and Ann S. Bisconti. 1975. The Power of Protest. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

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

Bramson, L. 1961. The Political Context of Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cryns, Arthur G. and Jeremy D. Finn. 1973. “Multivariate Analysis of Correlates of Student Activism.” Sociology of Education 46(1):127-142.

Eder, Klaus. 1995. “Does Social Class Matter in the Study of Social Movements? A Theory of Middle class Radicalism.” Pp. 21-54 in Social Movements and Social Classes: The Future of Collective Action, edited by Louis Maheu. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Ericson, Edward E. Jr. 1975. Radicals in the University. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press.

Ferree, Myra Marx. 1992. “The Political Context of Rationality: Rational Choice Theory and Resource Mobilization.” Pp. 29-52 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Feuer, Lewis S. 1969. The Conflict of Generations. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Finsen, Lawrence and Susan Finsen. 1994. The Animal Rights Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect. New York, NY: Twayne Publishers.

Flacks, Richard. 1970. “Social and Cultural Meanings of Student Revolt.” Pp. 117-141 in Student Activism and Protest, edited by Edward E. Sampson and Harold A. Korn. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Friedman, Debra and Doug McAdam. 1992. “Collective Identity and Activism: Networks, Choices, and the Life of a Social Movement.” Pp. 156-173 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gamson, William A. 1992. “The Social Psychology of Collective Action.” Pp. 53-76 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Geschwender, H. 1971. “Social Structure and Negro Revolt: An Examination of Some Hypothses.” Pp. 158-61 in Racial Conflict, edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.

Glazer, Nathan. 1970. Remembering the Answers. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Goble, Frank G. 1970. The Third Force: The Psychology of Abraham Maslow. New York, NY: Grossman Publishers, Inc.

Gore, Pearl Mayo and Julian B. Rotter. 1962. “A Personality Correlate of Social Action.” Journal of Personality 31:58-64.

Gurr, T. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jackson, John S. 1971. “Political Behavior and Socio-Economic Backgrounds of Black Students: The Antecedents of Protest.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15(4):661-686.

Jewell, K. Sue. 1985. “Will the Real Black, Afro-American, Mixed, Colored, Negro Please Stand Up?: Impact of the Black Social Movement, Twenty Years Later.” Journal of Black Studies 16(1): 57-75.

Keniston, Kenneth. 1970. “Sources of Student Dissent.” Pp. 158-190 in Student Activism and Protest, edited by Edward E. Sampson and Harold A. Korn. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema. 1987. “Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and Barriers: Steps Towards Participation in Social Movements.” American Sociological Review 52(4):519-531.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1888. The Communist Manifesto. New York, NY: Bantham Books.

Maheu, Louis. 1995. Social Movements and Social Classes: The Future of Collective Action. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

McAdam, Doug. 1986. “Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer.” American Journal of Sociology 92(1):64-90.

Muchala, Bhumika. 2000. Student Voices: One Year After Seattle. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies.

Orbell, John M. 1967. “Protest Participation among Southern Negro College Students.” The American Political Science Review 61(2): 446-456.

Paulsen, Ronnelle. 1991. “Education, Social Class, and Participation in Collective Action.” Sociology of Education 64(2): 96-110.

Ransford, H. Edward. 1968. “Isolation, Powerlessness, and Violence: A Study of Attitudes and Participation in the Watts Riot.” American Journal of Sociology 73(5):581-591.

Spender, Stephen. 1968. Year of the Young Rebels. New York, NY: Random House.

Strickland, Bonnie Ruth. 1965. “The Prediction of Social Action from a Dimension of Internal-External Control.” Journal of Social Psychology 66: 353-358.

Sutherland, S.L. 1981. Patterns of Belief and Action. Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.

Taylor, Verta and Nancy E. Wittier. 1992. “Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization.” Pp. 104-130 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Trent, James W. 1970. “Revolution, Reformation, and Reevaluation.” Pp. 23-59 in Student Activism and Protest, edited by Edward E. Sampson and Harold A. Korn. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

United States. 1970. The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest.

Willie, Charles V. and Donald Cunnigen. 1981. “Black Students in Higher Education: A Review of Studies, 1965-1980.” Annual Review of Sociology 7: 177-198.

-----------------------

[1] Maslow’s theory suggests that people at the level of physiological needs would not participate in a social movement because it does not fulfill their level of need. Therefore, they have no motivation to participate.

[2] Obviously, most of these numbers are not representative of the University as a whole. Rather, the data is based on those students who were willing to take time to fill out and send back the survey.

[3] The term used by Finsen and Finsen (1994: 248).

-----------------------

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

[pic]

Growth Needs

Basic Needs

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download