Cole, Elizabeth

8/12/2019 Cole, Elizabeth

1/24

Political Participation and Feminist Consciousness among Women Activists of the 1960sAuthor(s): Elizabeth R. Cole, Alyssa N. Zucker and Joan M. OstroveSource: Political Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 349-371Published by: International Society of Political Psychology

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792052.Accessed: 09/04/2014 14:54

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Society of Political Psychologyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.54.168.42 on Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:54:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3792052?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3792052?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp


2/24

Politicalsychology,ol. 9,No.2,1998

Political articipationnd FeministonsciousnessAmongWomenActivistsf he1960sElizabethR. ColeDepartmentfPsychology,ortheasternniversityAlyssaN. ZuckerDepartmentfPsychology,niversityfMichiganJoanM. OstroveProgramnHealth sychology,niversityfCalifornia,anFrancisco

This aperexaminedhehypothesishatwomen ho ook art n tudent ovementsf he1960swouldbe distinguishablerom heirontemporariesn termsfpolitical deology,political ehavior,ndfeminismnmiddlege.Women hohadbeen dentifieds studentactivistsnpublic ecordsuringhe ate1960s ndearly 970swere omparedo sampleofnonactivisteers.Althoughhe wo roups cored imilarlyn variables elatedoworkandfamilyrrangements,ormerctivists coredhigher n measures f eftistoliticalorientationndpolitical fficacy,eportedreaterolitical alience ndcollectivism,ndreportedreaterurrentolitical articipation.lthoughoth roups eported ighevelsoffeministonsciousnessnd dentity,ctivistscored ignificantlyigher. hedifficultyfpoliticallymobilizing omen o combat ender iscriminations discussed n ight fthediscrepancyetween onsciousnessnd activismnthe omparisonroup.KEY WORDS: studentctivism,eminism,oliticalttitudes,oliticalarticipation

In the 960s nd1970s, heUniversityfMichigan asknown or ts tudents'idealism,ctivism,ndcommitmentosocialchange.t wasthere,n the teps fthe tudent nion, hat resident ohn . Kennedyelivered speech nnouncingthe ormationfthePeaceCorps n1961.Bythe ate1960s, gainsthebackdropof arger ationaltruggleso resist heVietnamwar ndto iberate omen,heschoolwas a siteoffrequenttudentolitical emonstrationsoncerningssuesbothglobal nd ocal inscope.Forexample, tudentsor Democraticociety(SDS), amajor nti-Vietnamarprotestrganization,as foundedttheUniver-

3490162-895X 1998 nternationalociety f Political sychologyPublished yBlackwell ublishers,50 MainStreet, alden,MA 02148, USA, and108CowleyRoad,Oxford, X4 1JF, K.

This content downloaded from 200.54.168.42 on Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:54:04 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24


4/24

WomenActivists fthe1960s 351on studentctivists.n otherways,womenwho werepoliticallyctivemaybedistinguishedrom oththeir emalecontemporariesnd male activists:Weexpected hem o havea pronouncednd lasting ommitmento thewomen'smovementndto feministdeology.nthenext ections, e review he iteratureaddressingachofthese esearchuestions.

GeneralCohort ffectsf heWomen'sMovementBoththe ctivist ndnonactivist omenn this ample remembers fanimportantohort ecauseof their evelopmentalositionwithrespect o thewomen'smovement.hese womenwereraised n working-ndmiddle-class

families uringhe1950s, fairlyonservativeeriodntheUnited tateswithrespectogenderole xpectations.ythe ime hey raduatedromollegenthelate1960s andearly 970s, hese xpectationsereundergoingmajor evisionas the econdwave oftheU.S. women'smovement asgainingmomentum.Largely s a result f thewomen'smovement,omen's oles nhomes ndworkplaces ere ransformednthe 1970s.Klein 1984),whostudiedhedemo-graphicndpoliticalhangesnthe ives fwomen ver he 0th entury,eportedthat y1980manywomenwere eadingives hatwerewidely iscrepantromhenormf generationarlier. his rasawdelayedmarriage,ecreased irthates,and a greaterate fparticipationfwomennthe abor orce. dditionally,ntheyearshat ollowed he eightf hewomen' movementnthe arly 970s,womennarrowedhegapbetweenheirarningsndmen's;by1993, hefemale-to-maleearningsatiowas0.72,not ignificantlyifferentrom he ll-timeigh ttainedin1990 Masumura,996).Ultimately,hewomen'smovement as nstrumentalinpassing egislationofight ender iscriminationn schools ndworkplaces,therebyncreasingomen's ccesstoeducationalndoccupationalpportunities.There an be little oubt hatmanywomen's iveswere ouchedythe ocialchanges reated y thewomen'smovementCarroll, 989); college-educatedwomenwereparticularlyellsituated oreapmany f these enefits.hus,weexpected hat ikemanywomen ftheir ohort,ctivists nd nonactivistsothwouldhave aken imilardvantagef he ewopportunitiesor areer,ducation,andfamilyrrangementshatweremadepossible y hewomen'smovement. ehypothesizedhat herewouldbe fewdifferencesetween he hoicesmadebyactivistsndthe omparisonample oncerningork ndfamily.

Midlife utcomesfCollege tudent ctivism:PoliticalAttitudesnd BehaviorResearch xploringhe ater ifeoutcomes f studentctivists f the1960spaints fairlyoherenticturef tudentctivists'oliticalttitudesndbehaviorlatern ife.Consistently,indingsndicate hat he ctivistsmaintaineddistinctset ofpolitical ttitudeshat reideologicallyo the eft ftheir ormereers,



5/24

352 Cole t l.includinghose egardingree nterprise,ssessmentfthe hreatresentedycommunism,ivilrights, omen's ights,ffirmativection,ndpolitical arti-sanship.Most of the tudies howed hat heformerctivistsmaintainedhighlevel ofpoliticalnvolvementelative o othersnthe ohort s well Fendrich,1974;Fendrich Tarleau, 973;Fendrich Turner,989;Hoge& Ankney,982;Jennings,987;Marwell, iken, Demerath,987;Nassi,1981).On the asisof hisiterature,epredictedhat tmidlifehewomen ctivistsinour amplewouldbe more oliticallynvolved han onactivists,s evidencedbytheirttitudesndbehavior.pecifically,e expectedhat he ctivists ouldfeelmore oliticallyfficacious,oulddescribe heir olitical ositions moreliberal,ndwouldratehistoricalvents s moremeaningfulothemhanwouldtheir onactivisteers.Additionally,e expectedhat he ctivists ould corehighern collectivismecauseofthe mportancef collectivedentityo socialmovementarticipationGamson,1992; Gurin& Townsend, 986).We alsoanticipatedindingn overall atternf ncreasedoliticalnvolvementmongheformerctivists,ncluding igherevelsofparticipationna varietyfpoliticalbehaviors,uch s contactingocalofficialsn social ssues ndattendingrotestmeetings.Additionally,e expectedo discern ifferencesnthedomains fpoliticalinvolvementseported ywomenwithdifferentistories f socialmovementparticipation.pecifically,eexpectedhe ormerctivistsobe morenvolvedna range fpoliticalctivities,ncludinglectoralolitics,onpartyolitical roups(e.g.,unions,pecial-interestroups),ndpolitical emonstrationsndprotests.Wealsoexpectedhat ecause f heir istoryf nvolvement,he ormerctivistsmighte moreikelyochoose he olitical ealm s a vocation r s an avocation.That s,we hypothesizedhat heywouldbe more ikely o choosea politicaloccupation,nd hatheywould e moreikelyousetheir kills or ocial hangeoutside fprofessionalctivities.It snotoriouslyifficulto differentiateoliticalctivitiesrom henonpoli-tical. or xample,rganizationalctivitieshat renot xplicitlyolitical,uch srunningPTA fund rive rmanagingchurchoupkitchen,anhelp ndividualstodevelop kills hat re transferableopolitics,ndpoliticalmobilization ayoccur hroughonpoliticalnstitutionsSchlozman,urns, Verba, 994).How-ever,wewanted orule ut hehypothesishat he ctivists ere imply joinerswho ended oparticipatenmore rganizationsngeneral;hus, ecomparedheirparticipationo that f thenonactivistsn a numberfdomains hatwerenotexplicitlyolitical.We didnot xpect o find ifferencesetween he wogroups'level ofparticipationnsocial,professional,ndrecreationalrganizations;on-politicalhumanitarianork e.g., volunteeringt a foodpantry); r work norganizationsssociatedwith ne's children.



6/24

Women ctivistsf he 960s 353Gender-SpecificonsequencesfStudent ctivism

Althoughhe social andpolitical hangesbroughtboutbythewomen'smovementreated ewpossibilitiesorwomennthepublicsphere enerally,researchuggestshat hemovementid not ffectll women qually Beck&Jennings,982).Not urprisingly,esearchuggestshathanges asedon move-ment ctivismnd deologyweremost ronouncedn the ives of thosewomenwhoreportedhat hey ound he movementobe subjectivelyonsequential.Stewart ndHealy (1989) found hatwomenwho indicatedhat hewomen'smovement asquite sychologicallyeaningfulnd mportanto hem eremorelikely opursue ontraditionalccupationsnd ocombineworkndfamilyoles.Duncan ndAgronick1995) similarlyound hat hepsychological eaningful-ness attributedo thewomen'smovement ascorrelatedith igherducationaland career ttainmentnd income ntwosamples fcollege-educatedomen.Moreover,espondentshorated hewomen'smovementspersonally eaning-fulhadmore ssertive,onfident,nd ocially oisedpersonalityharacteristicstmidlife.Several ines fresearchoint o thehypothesishat he ivesofwomenwhowerepoliticallyctiveduringhe 1960swouldbe particularlyffectedytheideology ndpractice fthewomen'smovement,hetherr nottheir ctivismfocused n the women'smovementerse (e.g.,Franz & McClelland, 994;McAdam, 992).First,heres some vidence hat oliticalnvolvementaybeassociated ithonsciousnessaising ith espectogender,ven n ases nwhichthat ctivitysnot xplicitlyocused nwomen's ssues.Forexample,tudies fwomenncoalminingtrikesKingsolver,989;Maggard, 990)demonstratedthat articipationna localprotest aslikely o ead tobroader enderndclassconsciousness.n addition,Marwell tal. (1987) found hat ormerivilrightsactivists eremoreikelyo ndorse omen's ightsatern ife. his uggestshatpoliticalttitudeshatweredevelopedhrougharticipationn activistausesmaytransferoother,otentiallyelated omains.Similarly,he ew tudies hat ave pecificallyddressed omen's articipa-tion npoliticalmovementsf the 1960serasuggesthatwomen's xperienceswere ssociatedwithncreasedenderonsciousness.tudies asedon nterviewswithwomenwhowere ctive nthecivilrightsmovementCole, 1994;Evans,1979)and nthe raftesistance ovementThorne, 975)havefound hatwomenoften elt heywere elegatedo second-classtatusy hemostlymale eadership,whoassigned he women omenial, ehind-the-scenesasks.The paradoxicalexperiencesfgenderegregationnddiscriminatoryreatmentithinrganiza-tionsworkingoward quality nd social usticehas beencredited ith aisingwomen'sgenderdentityndconsciousness;heiregregationelped odeveloptheir enseoftheir exas a distinctroup,ndthe deology f thesemovementsheightenedheirwareness f njusticerdiscontent.uchgenderonsciousnessultimatelyas nstrumentalngiving ise o hewomen'smovementEvans, 979;



7/24

354 Cole t l.Thorne,975).Thishistoricalrgumentssupportedy ongitudinalesearchhatfollowed tudentctivists f thisperiod ntoadulthood,which uggests hatparticipationnthemovementsf his rahad long-termmpactnboth he aterpolitical articipationnd he ersonalevelopmentf hewomenctivists,espitethediscriminationheyncountered.Forexample, ranz ndMcClelland1994) argued hat hewomen'smove-mentnhanced omenctivists'areer aths; omparedo male ctivists,omenin theirample eportedigherccupationaltatus nd essstrainarlynmiddleage.McAdam1992)found hatlthougharticipationnthe Freedomummerprogramf 1964 was predictiveflater ctivism ormenbutnotforwomen,womenwhoparticipatedn the rogramescribedhe xperiences more erson-ally significanthandid men.McAdamargued hat hesubsequent omen'smovementerved o increase heparticipants'ense ofthemselvess politicalactors,husoloringheirater ssessmentf he ignificancefFreedomummer.Finally,nthebasis of nterviews ithwomenwhohadbeen itheronservativeor iberal ctivistsuringhe1960s,BraungartndBraungart1991) arguedhatformany,uch ctivismed to long-standingoliticalommitmenthatncludedpoliticalwork n behalf fwomen. hese tudiesuggesthat orwomen, artici-patingnanyofthe ocial movementsfthe1960sfacilitatedhe ikelihoodfbecomingnvolvedpecificallynactivitieselated owomen's iberation.Becauseof he iteraturehatuggestshatctivismnother ocialmovementsis related o women'smovementctivism,nd because of thedemonstratedpsychologicalffectsffindinghewomen'smovementnfluential,960s ctivismshould nhancewomen's onsciousnessbout endernd exism. owever,oourknowledge,oone hasexploredhe elationshipetween eministonsciousnessand studentctivism fthe1960s.To understandhis elationship,t snecessaryo articulatetheorybout hedevelopmentffeministonsciousness;owever,onceptionsnd definitionsfthis onstructave been varied ndcomplexBuschman Lenart, 996).Twosuch onceptionsrerelevanto our urrentroject. necommonrameworkorunderstandingeministonsciousnesss throughocial dentityheoryr modelsofgroup onsciousnessGriffin,989;Gurin,Miller, Gurin, 980;Henderson-King& Stewart,994).Group onsciousnesss thebelief hat neshares imilarinterestsith thersnthe ocialgroup,nd tmay nclude tendencyo actonthegroup'sbehalf.Gurin t al. (1980) argued hatgroup onsciousnesslsoincludeshe eliefhatne'sgroupsrelativelyisempoweredecause f tructuralconstraintsatherhan ecauseofdeficienciesf the tratum's embers,setofbeliefsometimesalled ystemlame.Building n theoryndresearchddressinghedevelopmentfa positiveracial dentityn BlackAmericans, second ommonpproachreats eministconsciousnesss a developmentalrocess Downing& Roush,1985; see alsoBargad& Hyde,1991;Henderson-King,993;Rickard, 989).Thestage-basedtheoryssumes hatwomen egin heprocess f feministdentityevelopment



8/24

Women ctivistsf he 960s 355from state fpassive acceptance f sexism nd sex roles. n thenext tage,revelation,ometypeof crisisencounterrompts omen o recognize existinequality.nce women aveworkedhroughhe esultingngertmen ndguilttowardhemselves,heymay eek ostrengthenheir ondswith therwomennorderodevelopheir ewdentity;hishirdtages called mbeddedness-emanation.After his tage,womenmaybecomepreparedoemerge romhesafetyfawomen-centerednvironment.t stagefour, heyhave synthesizedhenewidentityufficientlyo evaluatemen as individuals. owning nd Roush alsotheorizedfifthtage, ctive ommitment,nwhichwomen ake artnactivismon behalf ffeministeliefs; owever,or his ample f activist omenwe seemeritnRickard's1989) argumenthat his tage epresentsbehavioralmani-festationf the ynthesistageratherhan n additionalevelopmentaltage fidentity.Becausepreviousesearchndicates hat hewomen'smovementowerfullyshaped he aterpolitical ctivities f womenwhowere activistsn the 1960s(Braungart Braungart,991; McAdam, 992),wepredictedhat t midlife heformertudentctivists ould eport aving eenmore nvolvednthewomen'smovementndwould corehighern variousmeasures ffeministonsciousness.

METHODParticipants

Thestudywas based onresponsesomailed uestionnairesdministeredotwosamples fwomenwho were lumnae ftheUniversityfMichigan. hemeasures iscussed erewere mbeddedna larger uestionnairehatncludeditems ertainingorespondents'ccupationalndfamily istory,ealth,nd ifesatisfaction;hus,he uestionnaireasnot bviouslyocused npoliticalttitudesandbehavior.To samplewomenwhowere oliticallyctive uringhe ate1960s nd arly1970s,wereviewedrchival ocumentselatingostudentrotestetween 966and1973 at theUniversityfMichiganndrecorded henames fwomenwhohadtaken art n suchactivity.hree rchival ourcesweretapped o identifynames f ctivists.irst, e examinedssues f he niversity'studentewspaper,theMichigan aily,between 966 and1973, earchingor ames fwomenwhowere articipantsnpoliticalctivities. ostoften, omenwerementionedhentheir hotographsppearednstories elated ostudentrotest, hen heywerequoted s spokespersonsepresentingolitical roups,nd when heywere nter-viewed y eportersecause hey ere articipatingt he cene f politicalvent.Second,we consultedapershoused t theBentley ibraryttheUniversityfMichigan hatwerecollected yBretEynon, ndwhichweredescribednthecatalogue s relatingohis nterestnthe adical ausesand ssuesofthe1960s



9/24

356 Cole t l.and 1970s. This rchiveontains varietyfprimaryources elatingopoliticalgroups panningheperiod etween 966and1977, ncludingostersor omepoliticalrganizationsnd ocalpolitical ublications. omen's ames ppearinginthematerialsn this rchivewere ecordedor ossiblenclusionnthe ample.Third, omen's ameswere aken rommailingist or 1987reunionfpeoplewhohadparticipatednstudent ovementsn AnnArbor uringhe1960s.Records ept ytheuniversity'slumni ssociation ere onsultedoverifythat llwomen ocated hroughhe rchival earchwere lumnae f heClassesof1967to1973, ndtoobtain urrentddressesor hesewomen. fthe riginal6questionnairesailed ogood ddresses,9women espondedoour nvitationoparticipatenthe tudy, ielding response ate f 41%. Theresponse atewassimilar orparticipantshosenames were ocatedthroughach of the threearchivalources. f thewomenwhoparticipated,1% were ocated hroughhenewspaperecords,3%were rawn romhe ynon rchive,nd26% were romthe1960s movementeunionist.Participantsocatedfrom hethree rchivalsources idnotdifferignificantlyntheircores nany fthemeasureseportedbelow, ncludingelf-reportedevelsof nvolvementn studentctivism; ence,despite hevariedways nwhich heir ameswere ocated, heformerctivistssubsampleppears obe a relativelyomogeneousroup.

Theresponseate or he ctivistamples best iewednthe ontextfotherresearchttemptingo followup studentctivists rom his ra. Longitudinalstudies,nwhich ctivists'ttitudesere irst easuredsstudentsnd gain ometime fterraduation,aveshown oodresponseatesFendrich Lovoy,1988(80%); Hoge& Ankney,982 74%); Jennings,987 82%)]. However,tudieslike his ne, nwhichhe irstontact ithhe ctivists asmade ometimeftergraduation, ave reportedubstantiallyower rates [Abramowitz Nassi,1981/Nassi,981 29%); Fendrich,977 two amples: 1% and37%);McAdam,1992 51%)].The sample fnonactivistomenwas drawn romhefourth aveoftheWomen's ifePaths tudy, longitudinaltudyfwomen rom heUniversityfMichigan lass of1967, nitiatedn 1967bySandraTangriTangri& Jenkins,1986).As hadbeendonefor he ctivistample,urrentddressesor he lumnaewereobtainedwith ssistance romheuniversity'slumni ssociation. f theoriginal00womennthe ample, 07participatednthiswave nd ompletedherelevantmeasures. hree fthe riginal amplemembersaddied, nd 48 werenot ocatable; hus,he esponseate rommonghosewhoreceivedhe uestion-nairewas72%.Follow-up espondentsnthiswavedidnot ifferromonrespon-dents romhe nitialample nsixdemographicariables vailable rom he 967wave (level of mother's nd father'sducation, umber f siblings, arents'income,mother'smployment,ndfamilyeligion).All ofthewomennboth he ctivistample ndthenonactivistomparisonsamplewereWhite. he ctivists ere orn ignificantlyater hanhe omparisonsample; owever,he ifferenceas notargeonyear fbirth,ctivists, = 1948,



10/24

Women ctivistsf he 960s 357SD = 3.02; comparisonroup,M = 1945,SD = .43; t(142)= 10.85,p < .001].Because of thediscrepancyetween he two sampleson age, analyseswereperformedo determinehetherherewere ignificantgedifferencesithinheactivistample nthe ariables f nterest. hen he amplewas dividednto lderandyoungerctivistsmedian plit), tests evealed osignificantifferencesntheirmeanscores on demographicariables nd on the variablesmeasuringpoliticalttitudesndbehaviors, ith neexception:oungerctivistsegan heircareers t an earlierge [youngerctivists, = 25.3,SD = 3.3; older ctivists,= 29.1,SD = 6.6; t(34)= 2.14,p < .05].Consequently,he ctivistamplewastreateds a single ohort.

MeasuresPersonal ndProfessionalharacteristics

Respondentseportedhe geat which hey irstmarriedndfirstavebirth(if pplicable);whetherhey adraised hildren,nd f o,howmany;heirmaritalhistory;ndthehours erweek pent aring or ome nddependents.imilarly,they eportedheir istoryfworkndeducation,ncludinghe geatwhich heybegan heirareers;heir ighestompleted egreeratedsfollows: ,bachelor'slevel; 2, somegraduate ork; ,master'sevel; 4, doctoralevel);thehours erweek pentt heirobs;and hemportanceithwhichheyegardeddvancementin their ields, ated n a scalefrom (very nimportant)o 5 (very mportant).Additionally,hoseworkingull imewere sked oreportheirnnual alaries na scale from (under 20,000) o 11 $140,000 ndup).

PoliticalAttitudesRespondentsompletedhe ollowingourmeasures fpoliticalttitudes:Right-leftrientation as ratedby respondentsn a scale from1 (veryconservative)o 5 (radical).Internalolitical fficacy,he ense hat hendividualansuccessfullyffectthepolitical ystem elative o theability f otherndividualso do so, wasmeasured sing scaledeveloped y Craig ndMaggiotto1982).Respondentsrated ive tems,uch as I feel ike have a pretty oodunderstandingftheimportantoliticalssueswhich onfrontur ociety, na 7-pointcalefrom

(stronglyisagree) o 6 (stronglygree). nternalonsistencyased onthe om-bined ampleswasacceptablea = .79).Politicalsalience was assessed with measure dapted rom tewart ndHealy 1989) nwhich espondentsere sked oudgehowpersonally eaningfulthey ound ach of 14 historicalvents f the20th entury,uchas theGreatDepression,he Vietnamwar,and thefreeingfNelsonMandela a = .84).Respondentsated ach event n a scalefrom not t allpersonally eaningful)



11/24

358 Cole t l.to 3 (very ersonally eaningful).esponseswere ummednd divided ythenumberf tems.CollectivismLykes, 985;Ryan, ykes, Bertner,983)wasassessedwithnine temsa = .68)thatwereworded ithersproverbse.g., 'Paddleyour wncanoe' s a goodprincipleo iveby )oras generalizeddeasabouthuman atureand xistencee.g., Ifyou hinkboutife, ou ealize hat achpersons a separateindividual,eading is orher wn ife ).Therespondentsere sked oendorsetheirgreementna 7-pointcale, cored o thatower cores ndicatendividual-ism ndhighercoresndicateollectivism.

Political articipationThreemeasures fretrospectivendcurrentoliticalparticipation ereadministered:Studentctivism as measureds a continuousariable, sing variationfa measure eveloped yFendrichndLovoy 1988).Respondentsere skedhowoftenuringheirollegeyears hey ad ngagedneachofnine ehaviorshat recharacteristicf studentctivism,ncludingroteste.g., attendedrotest eet-ings ) nd ommunityctivisme.g., formedgroupowork n ocalproblems ).

They ndicated heir esponsesn a scalefrom (never) o 3 (often);nternalconsistencyasacceptablea = .89).Responseswere ummednddivided y henumberf tems; cores hereforeanged rom to3.Currentolitical nvolvementas measured n the basis ofrespondents'reportsf a widerange fpolitical ehaviorFendrich Lovoy,1988).Thisvariablewas importantecauseprevious esearch as shown hat verthe ifecourse, atternsfpoliticalnvolvementhange nresponse o thedemands fdifferentifestages Jennings,979).The currentolitical articipationndexincluded 7 itemsmeasuringhefollowing ypes finvolvement:roteste.g.,joinedn a protest arch ),ommunityctivisme.g., contactedocalofficialsonsocial ssues ), artynd ampaign orke.g., took n active artn politicalcampaign ),ndpoliticalommunicatione.g., informedthersnmy ommunityabout olitics ). espondentsere sked o ndicate owoftenhey adengagedineachtype fbehaviorver he ast years na scalefrom (never) o3 (often);internalonsistencyas cceptablea = .88).Responses ere ummednddividedbythenumberf tems; cores hereforeanged rom to 3.Politicalndorganizationalehavior as assessedwith nopen-ended eas-

ure.Respondents ere asked to describe heir ctivities or ach oftheyearsbetween 981 nd 1992.For achyear,heywere iven pproximately.25 nchesofopen pacetorecord heiresponseso the rompt:Pleaseindicate s fully s possible heplacesyouhave ived and theactivitieshat aveoccupiedyour ime achyearfor he ast 12years.Someexamplesmighte: Gotdivorcedndwent owork orMarch f



12/24

Women ctivistsf he 960s 359Dimesworkingn legislationorfunding ;Tooka course nmodemdanceat the Y' while ivingnCalifornia-alsodecided oapplyforteachingobs ; andso on.We know hatn somecases youwill havedifficultyecallingourctivities;owever, e would ppreciates muchdetail s is possible.Onewayofrecallingmight e to locate pivotalevent hatyoudo recall, nd thenwork ackwardnd forwardn timefromt.

Theexamples idnot uggesthat espondentshould ithermphasize r imitthemselvesodescriptionsfpoliticalctivities;ence, hismay e a lessreactivemeasure fpoliticalndorganizationalnvolvementhan hose hatxplicitlyskrespondentso elf-reportpecificehaviors. ecause onstraintsf ime nd pacedelimitedhenumber f activitiesromachyear hatouldbereported,tcanbearguedhathe ctivities entionedy he espondentsre hose hat old articularmeaningor hem.In keepingwith heargument adeby Schlozman t al. (1994) thatnoempiricallylear inecanbe drawn etween ctivitieshat repoliticalnd thosethat renot,we defined broad ange fcontent-codingategoriesocapturehepolitical ndorganizationalnvolvementeportedytheparticipants.oreover,becauseother cholars aveargued hatwomen ften eeknontraditionalutletsfor heir olitical articipation,articularlyuringheirhild-raisingearsJen-nings, 979;Randall, 987), t s appropriateobegin rom broaddefinitionfpoliticalndorganizationalnvolvement.Responseswerecontent-codedor hefollowingategoriesfpolitical ndorganizationalehavior: raditionalolitical ctivitye.g.,votingndcampaignwork);membershipnpolitical roups therhan olitical arties e.g.,unions,special nterestroups); aking art n demonstrationse.g., labor strikes ndpro-choice allies);holding job with political ocus;using killsfor ocialchange utside fanorganizatione.g.,writingn editorial rcreatingpieceofartwith politicalmessage);nonpoliticalumanitarianorke.g.,fund aisingrworkingor heRed Cross);social,recreational,rprofessionalrganizationalinvolvement;nd nvolvementithhildren's r school rganizationse.g.,PTA,GirlScouts).The first our elevantctivitiesmentionedachyearwere oded.Codingwasperformedy nadvanced ndergraduatehowas unaware fgroupmembershipnd was checked orreliabilitygainst odingbythefirstuthor.Interratereliabilityanged rom8to 97%. Four ategories-traditionalolitics,demonstrations,aving politicalob, andusing kills or ocialchange-wereeach reportedy fewer han 10% of therespondents;hus, cores for thesecategories ere ummednto compositeariable,other olitical ctivity.



13/24

360 Cole et al.ParticipationntheWomen'sMovement

Participationnthewomen'smovementasassessed n the asisofa singleitemhat sked espondentshetherhey ad aken artn hewomen'smovement;ifso,theywere sked o ndicaten which fthefollowingevenways hey adparticipated:archingnddemonstrating,inancialupport, oralupport,rgan-izationalwork, upportingolitical andidates, leadershipole, rsomeotherway.These ypesfparticipationere ummedocreate measuref ngagementthat anged rom (noninvolvement)o 7 (involvementnthe ntirepectrumfactivities).Feministonsciousness

Threemeasuresffeministonsciousness ere dministered:Systemlame Gurin t al., 1980)gauged heextent owhich espondentslocated he auseof nequalitiesxperiencedywomenwithinocial ndpoliticalsystems,atherhanwithinndividuals.espondentsated even tems,uch s Ifwomen on't dvancentheirjobs,t sbecause here rebarriers hich eep hemfrom ettinghead, na 5-pointcale from (stronglyisagree) o4 (stronglyagree); nternalonsistencyasacceptablea = .73).Effectf hewomen'smovementonsistedfone tem hat sked espondentsto udgethemovement'sffect ntheirwn ives,using 5-pointcale from(veryittle)o 5 (verymuch).Feministdentitycale (FIS) itemsssessed he xtento which espondents'attitudesorrespondedo the evelation,mbeddedness-emanation,ndsynthesisstages ffeministdentityevelopmentescribedyDowningndRoush 1985).Respondentsompleted2 items romheFIS (Rickard, 989; see Henderson-King,1993,forustificationf thismeasure). ach of the subscales chievedacceptableevels f nternalonsistencyfor evelation,= .82;formbeddedness-emanation, = .76;for ynthesis,= .78).Respondents' ean cores n eachofthe ubscales eflectedhe xtent o which heir ttitudesorrespondedothosecharacteristicfeachstage,ndranged rom to4.

Reflectionsn thempact f heMovementsParticipantsere lsoasked orespondo the pen-endedrompt:Looking

backoveryourife odate,whatmpact ave he tudentrotest ovementsf he'60s and70s had nyou?Were heymportantoyou atern ife? omeresponsesto this uestionrequoted elow toillustratehe uantitativeindingsrom heentireample.



14/24

Women ctivistsf he 960s 361RESULTS

As a validityheck n our amplingrocedure,articipantsocated hroughthe archival earchwerecomparedo the ongitudinalampleon retrospectiveaccounts f their tudentolitical articipation.articipantsocated hroughhearchival earch id ndeed eportmuchhigherevelsofstudentctivism han idthe omparisonroupactivists, = 1.56, D = .53;comparisonroup,M = .34,SD = .32;t(139)= 16.61, < .001].Moreover,t ppearedhat ewwomen n thelongitudinalample ouldbe consideredtudentctivists:herespondentscoringhighestn studentolitical articipationnthe ongitudinalubsamplecored tonly he 6th ercentileor he rchivalubsample.Family nd CareerRoles

Atmidlife,he ormerctivists erevery imilarotheiress active ounter-partsnterms ffamilynd career atternsTable ). The womennboth roupswere qually ikely obecurrentlyarried; owever,he ctivists arriedlightlylatern ife.Bothgroupswere verwhelminglyeterosexual;nly nerespondentfrom he ctivistample nd wo romhe omparisonample eportedheirexualorientations lesbian rbisexual.)About ne-thirdfthe ctivists ad everbeendivorced,s comparedoabout ne-fourthfthe omparisonroup; owever,hisdifferenceas not ignificant.dditionally,here erenodifferencesetweenhetwogroups nanyvariables elated o motherhood.ostof thewomen n bothgroupsweremothers,irstavebirth round he ameage,and were aising,naverage,wo hildren.With espectoeducationndcareer,he roupswere gain trikinglyimilar.Women nboth roupswere qually ikely o becurrentlyorkingor ay 87%of theformerctivistsnd 85% of the omparisonroupwere mployed). om-pared o their ormerlassmates,he ctivists ad attainedomparableevelsofeducation,egantheir areers t the ameage,and,for hose urrentlyorkingfull-time,arned imilaralaries.Although orking omenn both roups penta comparable umber f hours t work ach week,the activists ated areeradvancements significantlyore mportanto them handid thecomparisonsample.

PoliticalAttitudesndBehaviorAs wehypothesized,he ctivists'esponsesnthe calesmeasuringoliticalattitudesndicated patternfpoliticizationhatdistinguishedhem rom hewomenwhohadbeen heirlassmates. multivariatenalysisfvariancessessedgroup ifferencesnpolitical ttitudes.llofthehypothesizedroup ifferencesinpolitical ttitudesmergedTable I). On the cale ofright-leftolitical rien-tation,ctivists'mean scores orresponded,n average, o liberal,whereas he



15/24

362 Cole et al.Table I. MeanDifferencesetweenActivistsndComparisonroup nPersonal ndProfessionalCharacteristics

Activists Comparisonroup SignificancefCharacteristic (n= 39) (n= 106) differencesMarriagendfamily

Currentlyasspouse rpartner 72% 83% x2= .15,nsAgeat first arriage 26.38 5.45) 24.17 4.09) t(128)= 2.42*aEverdivorced 33% 28% X2= .95,nsIs a mother 92% 86% -2= .30,nsAgeat birth ffirsthild 29.80 5.86) 29.11 4.93) t(117) .63,nsNumber fchildren 1.76 1.27) 1.82 1.16) t(143)= .23,ns

OccupationalleducationalPersonal alaryfull-timeorkers) 3.82 2.23) 4.29 2.99)b t(120)= .83,nsHighest egree 3.24 1.44) 2.96 1.38) c t(142)= 1.04,nsHours/weekt ob 39.64 15.93) 38.99 14.59) t(120)= 2.0,nsAgeat which irstareer egan 26.97 5.34) 26.20 6.14) t(133)= .67,nsImportancefadvancementnfield 3.83 .88) 2.99 1.50) t(140)= 3.19**(1-5)

Note.Values nparenthesesreSDs; ns,not ignificant.'s mayvary lightlyneachanalysis uetomissingata.aVariancesre ignificantlyifferent;owever, t test alculated sing nalgorithmor nequalvariance ieldedhe ameresults.bScaleranged rom under 20,000) o 11 $140,000 ndup);4 correspondso$40,000-50,000.cScaleranged rom B.A. orB.S.) to4 (M.D.,J.D., rPh.D.);3 correspondsoM.A.*p < .05,**p< .01.comparisonroupharacterizedheir wnpositions closer omoderate.lthoughbothgroups eported igh evelsof nternalolitical fficacy,he scores ftheactivists ere ignificantlyigher,pproachinghe eiling f the cale.Activistsscoredhighern political alience,ndicatinghat hey ound widerange fhistoricalvents ignificantlyorepersonally eaningfulhan id their ormerclassmates.hiseffect as evenmoremarkedfonly he vents rom he1960serawere onsideredactivists, = 2.58,SD = .33;comparisonroup,M = 2.18,SD = .33; t(142)= 5.8,p < .001].Finally,ctivistsndorsed more ollectivistviewofhuman elationshan idtheirounterparts.Next, ctivists ere omparedo heiress active ormerlassmatesncurrentpolitical ctivity. smentionedbove, he ctivists ecalled ngagingnsignifi-cantlymorecollegeprotestctivities han he nonactivists.he activistslsoreported igherevels of midlife articipationn themeasure daptedfromFendrichndLovoy1988),but y his ime he ifferenceadnarrowedrom hatitwas ncollege activists, = 1.45, D = .52;comparisonroup,M = 0.92,SD= .49; t(138) = 5.57,p < .001].



16/24

WomenActivistsfthe 1960s 363Table II. Multivariatenalyses fVariance n PoliticalAttitudes

ComparisonActivists group F pCharacteristicpossible ange) (n= 33) (n= 102)Right-leftrientation1-5)a 4.27 .67) 3.23 .95) 14.80 .000Internalolitical fficacy0-35) 25.12 5.13) 21.57 5.40) 4.36 .039Political alience9-27) 2.25 .31) 1.95 .38) 10.03 .002Collective rientation0-54) 31.33 7.93) 26.01 7.05) 6.52 .012Total 4.89 .001Note.n llanalyses,gewas ncludedn hemodels a covariate.aluesnparenthesesre Ds.aHighcoresorrespondomoreiberalositions.'smay arylightlyn ach nalysisue omiss-ing ata.Wethen omparedhe wogroups n thebasisofthepoliticalndorganiza-tional articipationoded ntheir ear-by-yearctivities. ecausethefrequencydistributionor ach ofthe ypes fparticipationas skewed oward onpartici-pation, nonparametrictatistic asused o est he ypothesishatormerctivistsarecurrentlyore nvolvednpolitical ndorganizationalctivitiesTableIII).As hypothesized,heMann-Whitney-test ndicated hat ctivistseportedig-nificantlyreaterarticipationngroupmembershipss wellas other oliticalactivitiesincludingraditionalolitics, aking artndemonstrations,oldingpoliticalob, andusing kills or ocialchange).However, s hypothesized,hegroups eported omparableevelsofparticipationn activities hat ould bedescribed s nonpolitical umanitarianork, nd in social,professional,ndrecreationalrganizations.inally,hecomparisonroup eportedmarginallyhigherate fparticipationnorganizedctivitieselated o school rchildren.

TheWomen'sMovementndFeminist onsciousnessAs wepredicted,heformerctivistseportedsignificantlyigherevelofinvolvementnthewomen'smovementactivists,= 4.89,SD = 1.67; omparisongroup, = 2.39,SD = 2.20;t(142)= 6.39, < .001].Thetwo roupswere imilarlydivergentntheir cores nmeasures ffeministonsciousness. multivariateanalysis f varianceTableIV) revealed roup ifferencesnthe ystemlamemeasure,ndicatinghat heactivists ere ignificantlyore ikely o attributewomen's ccupationalndeducationalifficultiesosystemicarriersatherhanto the hortcomingsf ndividual omen.Theactivistslso rated hewomen'smovements having ad a significantlyore owerfulffect n theirives.Theactivistscored ighern the wohighest-stageubscalesf he IS,embeddedness-emanationndsynthesis.hecontentfthe temsmeasuringhe evelationtagemainlyoncernsngertmen or iscrimination;he roupseceivedimilarcoresonthis ubscale.



17/24

364 Cole et al.Table III. MeanRankDifferencesetween ctivistsndComparison roup n PoliticalandOrganizationalehavior ariables

Mean rankComparison SignificancefVariable Activists group differencesPolitical ehavior

Groupmemberships 91.58 69.85 p < .001Other oliticalctivities 86.42 68.79 p < .01Organizationalehavior

Nonpoliticalumanitarian 78.99 74.27 nsSocial,professional,rrecreational 73.81 76.09 nsRelated o school r children 66.54 78.65 p < .10Note.N's mayvary lightlyn eachanalysis uetomissingata.DISCUSSION

Theseactivists,ocated hrough ublicrecords ocumentingheir oliticalparticipationome25 years arlier,ook n activepart n theuniquehistoricalmomentfthe1960sera.Like thewomenwhowere heirlassmates,hey acedanarrayfnew pportunitiesorworkchievementndfamilyife hatweremadepossiblenpart y hewomen'smovement.ike hemenwhowere heirolleaguesinactivism,heyxperiencedpoliticalbaptism hatwaspredictivef heiraterpoliticalnvolvement.et notherways heywere istinctiveromach ofthesegroups f their eers.Their xperiencess activeparticipantsn socialchangemovementsnbehalff heir wn ndothers' roups ere elatedotheirersonalidentifications feminists;ormany herewas a lastingommitmento feministideology nd action.As one formerctivistn oursamplewrote,[Thestudentprotest ovementsf he1960s nd1970s] re hemajor hapingvent fmy ife.

Table IV. MultivariatenalysesfVariance n FeministonsciousnessComparisonActivists groupVariablepossible ange) (n= 33) (n= 102) F p

Systemlame:gender0-28) 23.19 2.41) 20.26 4.25) 10.42 .002Effectfwomen'smovement1-5) 4.68 .70) 3.43 1.33) 14.85 .000FIS: revelation0-4) 2.17 .66) 1.98 .69) .65 nsFIS: embeddedness-emanation0-4) 2.52 .78) 2.10 .77) 9.31 .003FIS: synthesis0-4) 3.23 .55) 2.98 .54) 6.33 .013Total 5.17 .000Note. n allanalyses, gewas ncludedn themodel s a covariate. alues nparenthesesreSDs.N's mayvary lightlyn eachanalysis uetomissingata.



18/24

WomenActivistsfthe 1960s 365They hapedmypersonality,ygoals,myvision.t was a thrillingime o comeof age, to be a female, o findout it was okayto be bright,uccessfulndindependent.foundmy onfidencehrough yparticipationn themovement.Ofcourse, ecause of thecross-sectionalesign f this tudy, e cannot nowwhetherhe ctivists'midlifettitudesndpolitical ehavior ere ausedbytheirstudentctivism: arlier xperiences,uch as childhood olitical ocialization,mayhave ed to both heir ctivismnd the ttitudesnd continuedarticipationwe observedt midlife. owever,heresults o suggesthatwomenwhowerestudentctivistsnthe1960shavemaintaineddistinctdeologicalndparticipa-tory utlookntomidlife;nMannheim's1952) language, heymayrepresentdistinctiveenerationalnit.

Womenfrom heactivistndcomparisonamplesweremore imilar handifferentnthe amilyndwork ariables. othgroups ppearedohave ifestylesthat eflectedhe hanges roughtbout y hewomen'smovementwith elativelylate hildbearing,ew hildren,ndhigh ates fworkforcearticipation),uggest-ingthat he ohort ffectn thework ndfamilyomainmayhave overwhelmedany ctivismffectsee,e.g.,Stewart Ostrove, 993,for descriptionfcohortdifferencesnwork ndfamilyhatwere n effect fthewomen'smovement).The twogroups lso did notdiffermuchwithrespect o education ndoccupation. lthoughomeprevious esearcheportedhat ater nlife, ormerstudentctivists ere essfinanciallyrosperoushan heir onactivisteers e.g.,McAdam, 989;Nassi,1981), ikeFranz ndMcClelland1994)we found o suchdifferencenpersonalncomemonghewomen nour amples.Wedid,however,find hat ormerctivists laceda higher alue on advancementntheir areersthandid nonactivists.erhaps heincomediscrepancyetween ctivists ndnonactivistss more rue fmenwhowere ctive han fwomen,ndopportunityfor advancementepresents concernwithoccupationalchievementmongwomen hat s notnecessarilyeflectedn ncreasedalary. his sconsistent ithFranz ndMcClelland's1994)findinghatwomenwhoparticipatednthe ocialmovementsf he 960sweremarginallyighernoccupationalchievementhanthosewhodidnot,whereas he eversewas truemongmen.The mportanceheactivistsnthis ample laced nworkchievementouldbe related otheir igherleveloffeministonsciousness,iscussed elow.Strikingifferencesetween hetwogroups mergedn the domains fpolitical ttitudesndpolitical ehaviors. he activistseportedolitical aluesandbeliefs hat onsistentlyistinguishedhem rom he omparison roup. hisgeneral atternfpoliticizationas wellcapturedyoneactivistespondenthowrote,[Student ovements]hapedmy ttitudesowarduthoritynd raditionalmiddle-classalues.... I learned hemportancef ommunity,trengthforgan-ized groups, heglorious erenityfmaking commitmento somethingoubelieve n,decidingoaccept he onsequencesndfollowhrough. hisrespon-dent elt ot nly hat erparticipationhapedherpolitical ttitudesndorienta-tions, ut hat he ffect f themovementsnduredn her ife.Althought s not



19/24

366 Cole t l.possible o knowwhetherhese ttitudesredatedheirctivism,t sneverthelesscompellinghatuch ttitudes,onsistentith heirtudentctivism,ersistedver25years.Activistslsoreportedpatternf levated olitical articipation.tmidlife,relative o their ormerlassmates,heformerctivistscoredhigher othonspontaneouspen-endedescriptionsfpoliticalctivitiesver hepast12yearsand nstandardlosed-ended easures f urrentoliticalctivity.ormertudentactivists eremoreikelyomentioneingmembersfpoliticalrganizationsndengagingnother olitical ctivities,uch s traditionalarty olitics ndusingskills or ocialchange. he twogroups idnotdiffernthe xtentowhich heyengagednnonpoliticalumanitarianctivitiesr nsocial,professional,rrec-reationalctivities. omenwhowerenot ctivistsuringollegeweremarginallymoreikelyhan he ctivistsomentionctivitieselatedo chool r heirhildren.This uggestshathe ctivists' reaternvolvementnpoliticalctivities as notsimplyttributableo a predispositiono take artngroup ctivitiesf alltypes;thesewomen, hofor hemost artweremothersndwere mployednfull-timejobs, also found hetime oparticipaten a widevarietyfpolitical ctivities.Moreover, edetectedhese ifferentialatternsfparticipationnboth tradi-tional uestionnairenda contentnalysis fspontaneouslyeportedctivity.This study uggestshat he activists' olitical ehavior nd attitudesrerelativelyimilar o those ftheirmalecounterparts,s described yother e-searchersFendrich,974;Fendrich Tarleau, 973;Fendrich Turner, 989;Hoge & Ankney, 982; Jennings,987; Marwellet al., 1987; Nassi, 1981).However,urfindings ith espectofeministdeologynd ctivismuggesthatthe ctivists ere n somewaysdifferentrom oth heir emale lassmates ndpotentiallyrom heirmale ctivisteers. heactivistsn our amplewere denti-fied hroughrchival ecordsocumentingtudentrotestntheMichiganampusduring he ate 1960s andearly1970s;the records howed hatwomenwhorespondedo our olicitationor esearcharticipantsadtaken artna varietyfpolitical auses,many f whichwerenotexplicitlyeministnnature. et theactivistseportedetrospectivelyhat hey lso tookpartn thewomen'smove-ment-through arching,rganizing,onatingmoney,nd n otherways-to agreaterxtent han idthosen the omparisonample.Ofcourse,hedesign four tudymakes t mpossibleoknowwhetherheir eministctivisms aprecursoror noutgrowthf heir ider oliticalnvolvement,rwhetherheirarticipationin both olitical omainsook laceconcurrently.

In addition, e found hat tudentctivism as associated or hesewomenwith eministdeologytmidlife.ormertudentctivistscored igherhan hecomparisonroup na numberfdifferenteasuresffeministonsciousness:Theyweremoreikelyo ttributeomen's ccupationalnd ducationaltrugglesto exism han o he hortcomingsf ndividual omen;heyelt greaterersonaleffectf hewomen'smovementn theirives; ndtheycored ighern both heembeddednessnd ynthesisubscalesf he IS,suggestinggreaternvolvement



20/24

WomenActivists fthe 1960s 367inwomen's ulturalctivitiesnd a greaterikelihoodfevaluatingllpeople sindividuals.nterestingly,he wogroups idnotdiffernthe evelationubscaleof theFIS,whichmplies hat hewomen n both roups adequivalentevelsofnoticingndbeing ngered ysexism.Althoughhe ctivistsenerallycored ighernthesemeasuresffeministconsciousness,hemeans fboth roupswere lose tothehigh nds f the calesonsystemlame nd hehigherevels ffeministdentityevelopment;hus,oththe ctivistsndnonactivistsn our ample xpressed highlyeveloped eministconsciousness. et the ctivists'atternfpolitical ehavior asstrikinglyiffer-ent fromhat fthecomparison roup. hisrecalls he lassic observationhatideology lone s rarely nough o motivatectiveparticipationnthepoliticalprocessOlson,1965).Sigel's 1996)research ay hedightnthis eemingaradox. er nterviewsandsurveyesearchindingsndicatedhat merican omenngeneralrehighlyaware fdiscriminationndexpress great ealof ngerbout hediscriminationtheyncounter.owever,ew f hewomennher ample itherdvocated r ookpartnpoliticalction o redress hese roblemssee alsoCrosby,ufall, nyder,O'Connell,& Whalen,1989).Sigeltheorizedeveral ossible xplanationsormostwomen'sreluctanceo becomepoliticallyctive.First,women's ex rolesocializationraditionallyasworkedgainstheirolitical articipation;owever,the ctivist omen nour ample eceived oliticalocializationnyoung dult-hoodthatmayhave overriddenheir arlier exrole ocializationnddevelopedinthem he kills or heirontinuednvolvement.econd,womenmaygenerallyfeelpowerlessocreatehange; gain, hissnot rue f he ctivistsnour ample,who cored ighnpolitical fficacy.hird,heAmericanmphasisn ndividu-alism does notpromote aking ollective ctionon behalf fgroup nterests,whereas he ctivistseportedigherevelsofcollectivismhan heir eers.Thus, hepolitical ocializationndgeneral olitical onsciousnesshat heformertudentctivistsring o their enseoffeministonsciousnessmaybe aresource hat uels heir ontinuednvolvement.hesefindingsuggesthat ctiv-ismcan be understoods a set of resources-particularttitudes,kills, ndbehaviors-thatre earnednyoungdulthoodndcanpersistven nthe aceofthedemands f dult ife. n thisway, he ormerctiviststill ppear orepresenta coherentenerationalnitwithnenduringet fpoliticalttitudesnd ommit-ments,work[ing]pthematerialf heirommonxperiencesndifferentpecificways Mannheim,952,p. 304).

In someways, urfindinghat tudentctivistscorehighernmeasures ffeministonsciousnessaises smany uestionss t nswers. hefindingonfirmsthat ctivismndfeministonsciousnessrerelated,ut tdoesnot uggest clearmechanismor owtheyrerelated. uch relationshiphould otbe surprising,for number freasons utlinedarlier, utourdatado notallow us topositdefinitivelyheroute ywhich his onnectionccurred,ndthis s an arearipefor utureesearch.



21/24

368 Cole t l.This s one of the irsttudiesoexaminehe ong-termsychologicalorre-latesofstudentctivismmongwomen,nd t s unusualncomparingollegestudentctivistsndnonactivistsrom he ameuniversity.owever,his tudy,like ny ther,as severalimitationselatedo amplingnddesign. irst,he owresponseate monghe ctivistamples of ome oncern.endrichndLovejoy(1988) offeromediscussionf this henomenon:hey peculatedhat ctivistswhowereessalienatedromhe niversityeremoreikelyoparticipatentheirstudy f male activists. lsewhere, endrich lso offeredatasuggestinghatstudentrotesteaderswere ctuallyess ikelyotake artnhis tudyFendrich,1977).Thus, endrichndLovejoy rguedhat heirample,fbiased,was biasedagainsthehypothesisffindinghathe ctivistsonstitutedistinctiveenera-

tional nit. he same canbe saidof oursample.To furthernvestigatehis,weanalyzedhe espondents'atingsfhow hey elt bout he niversity,othwhentheywere tudentshere nd nretrospect,na 5-pointcale.Althoughctivistshadbeenmarginallyesspositivebout heuniversitys studentsactivists, =4.11,SD = .86; comparison roup,M = 4.37,SD = .67; t(142)= 1.92,p = .06],therewasnodifferenceetween hegroups' urrentatingsactivists, = 4.21,SD = .93;comparison roup,M = 4.29,SD = .79; t(142)= .51,not ignificant].Thesehigh atingsuggesthathe ctivists ho ook artnour tudyreperhapsnot hemost lienatedrom heuniversity;hus,nybias n our ample elatedoresponseate ouldbeexpectedomitigategainstonfirmationf urhypotheses.Second, t s unclear ow these esultsmight eneralizeo women t otheruniversitiesnother arts fthe ountry,rto womenwhodidnot ttendollege.Further,his ample ells snothingbout he xperiencesfwomenfother acialorethnic roupswhose xperience as ikely ery ifferentseeCole& Stewart,1996,for discussion f a contemporaneousampleofmiddle-aged,ollege-educatedAfrican mericanwomen).Third,we havehadto rely n women'sretrospectiveeportsftheir oliticalnvolvement,hichmaybe subject otheinaccuraciesfmemory.owever, espite urrelativelymall ample,wewereableto show learlyhat venatmidlife, omenwhowere ndependentlyocu-mentednpublic ecordss activistsncollegewere ery ifferentntheiroliticalattitudesndcurrentolitical ehaviorsrom omenwhohadnotbeen ctivists.Theconsistencyndmagnitudefthedifferencesuggesthat utureesearchnthis rea s warranted.Inconclusion,urresultsmplyhat lthough anywomenwerepersonallyaffectedy socialprotest uringhis ra (indeed, he effectsf the women'smovementn shaping ender olesandexpectations ereevidentven n ournonactivistample), hemovementsad thegreatestong-termmpact n theidentities,deologies,ndpolitical ehaviorf thosewhowerepoliticallyctiveduringhe ime.Women's xperiencesn the tudent ovementsf he ate1960sand arly 970s haped hem ersonallynenduringays, ndwere nfluentialswell n theirontinuingolitical articipation.e argue hat atherhan selling



22/24

Women ctivistsf he 960s 369out, spopular pinion olds,womenwhowere ctivistsn the1960smaintaincommitmento the deals ndpracticesftheir oung dulthood,ven tmidlife.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMuchofthis aperwascompleted hile he irstuthor as a visitingcholarat theHenryA. Murray esearchCenter t Radcliffe ollege,Boston,MA. Aversion f this articlewas presentedt the 104thAnnualConventionf theAmericansychological ssociation, oronto, anada,August 996.Thispaperbenefitedreatlyrom bigail tewart's ndM. KentJennings'nsightfulom-mentsnan earlier raft.We thankhe taffftheWomen's ifePaths tudy,swell as LaurenDuncan, orhelp ncollectingndcoding hedatafor his tudy;BetsyWeller,AdinaLipsitz, nd KariTervofor heir ble researchssistance;SandraTangri or llowing s toparticipaten thefollow-upfthe ongitudinalstudyf heClassof1967;CarolHollensheadndJeanManisof heCenteror heEducation fWomen ttheUniversityfMichiganor heir elp nconductinghefollow-up;ndCarolHollenshead, ebeccaHead,BarbaraMurphy,ndBarbaraRobinson or heir elp nlocatingheformerctivists.he ongitudinalampledata ollectionnd he nalyseswere upportedy researchrantromheHenry

A. Murray esearchCenter t Radcliffe ollege whichhas archived reviouswavesofthe tudy)ndgrant O1-MH47408-01A1rom heNationalnstitutefMentalHealth. ollection fdatafor he ctivistamplewassupportedy grantsto thefirstuthor nd JillAllenfromheCenter orAfro-Americannd AfricanStudies nd Women'sStudies rogramttheUniversityfMichigan,heFordFoundation,nd theGrants-in-Aidrogramf theSociety or hePsychologicalStudy f Social Issues, nd toAbigail tewartromheUniversityfMichiganJulia ockwood rize. endrequestsor eprintsrfurthernformationoElizabethR. Cole,Psychology epartment25-NI,Northeasternniversity,oston,MA02115. E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESAbramowitz,. I., & Nassi,A. J. 1981). Keeping hefaith:Psychosocialorrelatesf activismpersistencentomiddledulthood.ournalfYouth ndAdolescence,0,507-523.Bargad, .,& Hyde, . . (1991).Women's tudies: studyffeministdentityevelopmentnwomen.PsychologyfWomen uarterly,5,181-201.Beck,P.A.,& Jennings,. K. (1982).Pathwaysoparticipation.merican olitical cienceReview,76,94-108.Braungart,. M.,& Braungart,. G. (1991).The effectsfthe1960spolitical enerationnformerleft-ndright-wingouthctivisteaders. ocialProblems, 8,297-315.Brune, . (1984). Conflictnd conciliation: review f theBlack ActionMovementtrikettheUniversityfMichigan.Michigan ournalfPolitical cience, ,39-66.



23/24

370 Cole t l.Buschman, .K.,& Lenart,. (1996). I am not feminist,ut . . : Collegewomen, eminism,ndnegativexperiences.olitical sychology,7,59-75.Carroll, . J. 1989).Gender oliticsnd the ocializingmpact f thewomen'smovement.nR. S.Sigel Ed.),Political earningn dulthoodpp.306-339).Chicago:UniversityfChicago ress.Cole,E. R. (1994).A strugglehat ontinues: lackwomen ommunityndresistance.nC. Franz&A. J.StewartEds.),Womenreatingives: dentities,esilience,ndresistancepp.309-324).Boulder, O: Westview.Cole,E.R.,& Stewart,.J. 1996).Meaningsfpolitical articipationmong lack ndWhitewomen:Politicaldentitynd socialresponsibility.ournal fPersonalitynd Social Psychology,1,130-140.Craig, .C.,& Maggiotto, . A. 1982).Measuringoliticalfficacy.oliticalMethodology,,85-109.Crosby, . J., ufall,A.,Snyder, . C., O'Connell,M.,& Whalen, . (1989).The denial fpersonaldisadvantagemongyou,me, nd all the ther striches.n M. Crawford M. GentryEds.),Gender ndthoughtpp.79-99).NewYork: pringer-Verlag.Downing, . E.,& Roush,K. L. (1985).From assive cceptanceo active ommitment:model ffeministdentityevelopmentorwomen. ounselingsychologist,3,695-709.Duncan, . E., & Agronick, . S. (1995).The ntersectionf ife tage nd ocialevents: ersonalityand ife utcomes. ournalfPersonalitynd SocialPsychology,9,558-568.Evans, . (1979).Personal olitics.New York:Knopf.Fendrich,.M. (1974).Activistsenyearsater: test fgenerationalnit ontinuity.ournalf ocialIssues, 0,95-118.Fendrich,.M. (1977). Keeping he aithrpursuinghegood ife:A studyf the onsequencesfparticipationn the ivil ightsmovement.mericanociologicalReview,2, 144-157.Fendrich,.M.,& Lovoy,K. L. (1988).Back tothe uture: dult olitical ehavior fformertudentactivists.mericanociological eview,3,780-784.Fendrich,.M., & Tarleau,A. (1973).Marchingo a differentrummer:ccupationalndpoliticalcorrelatesfformertudentctivists.ocialForces, 2,245-253.Fendrich,.M.,& Turner, . W. (1989).The transitionrom tudento adult olitics. ocialForces,67, 1049-1057.Franz, . E.,& McClelland, . C. (1994).Livesofwomen ndmen ctive nthe ocialprotestsfthe1960s:A longitudinaltudy. ournalfPersonalityndSocialPsychology,6,196-205.Gamson,W. 1992).The ocialpsychologyf ollectivection.n A. D. Morris C. M. MuellerEds.),Frontiersn ocial movementheorypp.53-76).New Haven,CT: Yale Universityress.Griffin,. (1989). I'm not a women's ibber ut . .: Feminism,onsciousnessnd identity.nS. Skevington D. BakerEds.),The ocial dentityfwomenpp.173-193).London: age.Gurin, .,Miller, .,& Gurin, . (1980).Stratumdentificationnd onsciousness.ocialPsychologyQuarterly,3,30-47.Gurin, ., & Townsend, . (1986). Propertiesfgenderdentitynd theirmplicationsorgenderconsciousness.ritish ournalfSocialPsychology,5, 139-148.Henderson-King,. H. (1993). Thedevelopmentffeministonsciousness:ffects f exposure ofeminismnd emotionaltance.Unpublishedoctoral issertation,niversityfMichigan, nnArbor.Henderson-King,. H., & Stewart, . J. 1994). Women r feminists?ssessingwomen'sgroupconsciousness.ex Roles, 1, 505-516.Hoge,D. R.,& Ankney,. L. (1982).Occupationsndattitudesf formertudentctivistsenyearslater. ournalfYouth ndAdolescence, 1,355-371.Jennings,. K. (1979).Anotherook t the ife ycle ndpolitical articipation.merican ournalfPolitical cience, 3,755-771.



24/24

WomenActivistsfthe1960s 371Jennings, . K. (1987). Residuesof a movement: he agingof theAmerican rotest eneration.Americanolitical cienceReview,1,365-382.Kingsolver,. (1989).Holding he ine: Womennthe reatArizonamine trikef1983. thaca,NY:

ILR Press.Klein,E. (1984). Gender olitics:Fromconsciousnesso masspolitics.Cambridge, A: HarvardUniversityress.Lykes,M. B. (1985).Gendernd ndividualistics.collectivistasesfor otionsbout he elf.JournalofPersonality,3, 356-383.Maggard, . W. (1990). Gender ontested:Women'sparticipationn theBrookside oal strike.nG. West& R. L. BlumbergEds.),Womennsocialprotestpp. 75-98). NewYork:OxfordUniversityress.Mannheim,. (1952).Essayson the ociologyfknowledge.ew York:Oxford niversityress.Marwell, ., Aiken,M.,& Demerath, . J. 1987).Thepersistencefpoliticalttitudesmong 960s

civilrightsctivists.ublicOpinion uarterly,1,359-375.Masumura,W. T. (1996). Money income. U.S. Census Bureau [Online].Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/moninc.html.McAdam, . (1989).Thebiographicalonsequencesf activism. mericanociologicalReview, 4,744-760.McAdam,D. (1992).Gender s a mediatorf the ctivistxperience:he case of Freedom ummer.American ournalf ociology,7,1211-1240.Nassi,A. J. 1981). Survivorsf the 1960s:Comparativesychosocialndpolitical evelopmentfformererkeleytudentctivists. mericansychologist,6,753-761.Olson,M. (1965). The ogicofcollective ction:Publicgoods nd the heoryfgroups. ambridge,MA: Harvard niversityress.Randall, . (1987).Womenndpolitics:An nternationalerspective.hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.Rickard, . M. (1989).Therelationshipf elf-monitoredating ehaviorso eveloffeministdentityonthe eministdentitycale.SexRoles, 0,213-226.Ryan,W.,Lykes,M.B.,& Bertner,. (1983).Assessingdeology: he nfluenceffundamentaleliefsystemsn social andpublic pinions.aper resentedtthe 4thAnnualMeetingf he asternPsychological ssociation,hiladelphia.Schlozman, . L., Burns, .,& Verba, . (1994).Gender ndthepathwaysoparticipation:herole

ofresources. ournalfPolitics, 6,963-990.Sigel,R. S. (1996). Ambitionnd accommodation:ow women iewgender elations. hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.Stewart, . J.,& Healy,J.M. (1989).Linkingndividualevelopmentnd ocialchanges. mericanPsychologist,4,30-42.Stewart, .J.,& Ostrove, .M. (1993).Socialclass, ocial hange,ndgender:Working-classomenat Radcliffend fter.sychologyfWomen uarterly,7,475-497.Tangri, . S.,& Jenkins,. R. (1986).Stabilitynd hangenrole nnovationnd ife lans. exRoles,14,647-662.Thorne, . (1975). Women n thedraftesistancemovement: case study f sexroles ndsocialmovements.exRoles,1, 179-195.

Cole, Elizabeth

Documents

Transcript of Cole, Elizabeth