Geller and Howard

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 2, pp.
114-137
Some Sociopsychological Characteristics of Student

Political Activists
JESSE D. GELLEK' AND GARYH O W A R D ~

Yale University
A variety of hypotheses regarding the motives, values, attitudes, intelligence,

and sociological backgrounds of leftist student activists were tested by comparing
Yale undergraduate signers of a pledge t o resist induction into the Armed
Services, with a representative sample of nonsigners. Contrary t o previous
findings, the signers neither were better students nor more sociologically
privileged than their nonsigning peers. The decision t o sign the pledge appeared to
be a single manifestation of an anti-institutional, yet nonfatalistic and
nonauthoritarian life style which is highlighted by a marked concern with
developing helpful, protective, intimate relationships and a devaluation of
achievement, deference t o authority, and self-restraint. The implications of these
and other findings for the student protest movement are discussed.
The present study attempted t o delineate some of the sociological and

psychological correlates of student sociopolitical activism. To this end, a
naturalistic criterion was used t o identify possible members of the student
protest movement on the Yale University Campus. During October of 1967, a
Yale anti-war group circulated t o every male university resident a draft refusal
pledge that read:
We are men of draft age who believe that the United States is waging an unjust war
in Vietnam. We cannot in conscience participate in this war. We therefore declare our
determination t o refuse induction as long as the United States is fighting in Vietnam.
The distribution of the pledge created a considerable amount of excitement

and conflict over several months on the Yale campus. It catalyzed numerous
mass meetings t o discuss the personal and legal implications ( 5 years in prison
'Requests for reprints should be sent t o Dr. Jesse D. Geller, Department of Psychiatry,
Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park Street, New Haven, Connecticut 065 11.
*Currently at the Yale Divinity School.
114
Copyright @ 1972 by Scripta Publishing Corporation.

15591816, 1972, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1972.tb01267.x by University Of California, Wiley Online Library on [09/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVISTS 115
and a $10,000 fine) of refusing to be inducted into the Armed Services. In all,
300 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students (or approximately 4% of
the Yale student body) fulfilled the behavioral criterion of activism for this
study by signing the draft refusal pledge. The decision by a single individual to
sign the pledge was obviously determined by the interaction of a number of
psychosocial variables: his place in the social structure, his motives, his attitudes,
the information he possessed, his self-concept, and his values. These and other
possible predispositional variables have been dealt with in the growing body of
literature on student activism.
Previous Studies and Experimental Questions

The accumulating evidence indicates that campus radicals come
predominantly from urban, highly educated, professional, affluent, Jewish or
irreligious, liberal and politically involved family backgrounds (See reviews by
Block, Haan, & Smith, 1968; Lipset, 1968a). On the basis of his comprehensive
survey of the empirical literature, Keniston (1968), moreover, concluded that
compared to his classmates, the typical activist tends to be a better than average
student, well adjusted, a dedicated intellectual, ethically oriented, and selectively
recruited from the most talented and committed students in the humanities and
social sciences. Many influential speculative analyses of the origins of the student
protest movement, on the other hand, have emphasized the role of generational
conflicts, authoritarianism, alien political ideologies, nihilism, and unhealthy
psychological motives (Barzun, 1968; Bettelheim, 1969; Feuer, 1969; Glazer,
1965; Hook, 1970; Kennan, 1968). Therefore, besides attempting to replicate
the aforementioned sociodemographic findings, this study addresses itself t o
some of the more clinically and journalistically derived hypotheses about
student radicals.
Generalized Activism
Most investigators seem to assume that student activism represents a relatively
enduring personality disposition rather than an intermittent and transitory
response to specific external circumstances. If this assumption is to be accepted,
it must be demonstrated that activists engage in a variety of functionally related
activities over an extended period of time. This is particularly important since
student demonstrations are usually composed of ad hoc forces termporarily
3While this figure is consistent with Peterson’s (1968a) estimate that “members” of the
student left amount to approximately 2% of the national student population, it should be
noted that Yale does not have a tradition of student radicalism. In fact, Leventhal, Jacobs,
and Kudirka (1964) concluded from their study of voting preferences at Yale, that during
the early 1960’s a norm favoring conservatism and the Republican party existed among
students at the University.
116 GELLER AND HOWARD
united around a concrete issue. Yet, to date, most of the studies in the area have
employed only a single, highly topical, behavioral event as their inductive base.
Therefore, one of the objectives of this study is to determine whether the signing
of the draft refusal pledge represented a single manifestation of a sustained
commitment to political dissent.
In tensity of Opinions
Another commonly shared assumption is that students who are actively
involved in a particular sociopolitical issue actually have more intense or extreme
issue-related opinions and beliefs than nonparticipants. Given the essentially
untested nature of this assumption, a second objective of this study is to
compare the intensity and direction of activists versus nonactivists’ opinions on
issues relevant to the behavioral criterion, i.e., the degree to which they criticize
and reject U.S. policies and military strategies in Vietnam.
Political Knowledge and Sophistication

Various studies conducted at Berkeley suggest that students who show a
concern for ideas, an appreciation of theory and knowledge, and broad
intellectual concerns are prone to be on the left, and favorable to activism
(Heist, 1966; Somers, 1965; Watts & Whittaker, 1966). On the other hand,
Sidney Hook (1968) has characterized the dominant mood of the Columbia
University protestors as one of “irrationalism”; Jacques Barzun (1968) has
accused militant activists of showing a “distrust and neglect of reasoning,” and
George Kennan (1968) maintains that despite the sincerity and idealism of
student activists, a “strong streak of hysteria and exaggeration” colors their view
of many problems. Even enthusiastic supporters of student radicals such as
Draper (1965) and Newfield (1966) have acknowledged that segments of the
student movement take an anti-intellectual or a-historical approach toward
political issues. These arguments suggest that activists, as a group, may be
ignorant of the “facts” relevant to their defiance or given to, as Farnsworth
(1969) put it: “. . . .acting on immediate emotional response rather than
reasoned action (p. 6).” In contrast to this view, Keniston (1967) believes that
student activists not only feel a deep concern about societal issues but also tend
to have greater sensitivity to and knowledge of historical trends and events than
nonactivists. In response to this controversy, it was decided to assess whether the
signers of the draft refusal pledge were better informed as to the history and
nature of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam than the general student
population.
Authoritarianism of the Left
A related point of debate in the literature, which we have also attempted to
clarify, concerns the relationship between radicalism and authoritarianism.
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF A C T I V I S T S 117
Studies (Heist, 1966; Trent & Craise, 1967; Watts & Whittaker, 1966) bearing
upon the cognitive functioning of the “new” leftists suggest that they are neither
rigid in their beliefs, opposed to the subjective, nor intolerant of
ambiguity-characteristics which are central to the description of the
authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford,
1950). In order t o lend further support to the argument that today’s
left-oriented activists are nonauthoritarian, various authors have pointed out that
unlike the Communist inspired radicals of the Thirties, today’s radicals are
decentralized, leaderiess, committed to collective decision-making in small
groups, pluralistic, antiideological, and pragmatic in their focus on specific issues
and tactics, and characterized by an anti-elitist point of view that advocates
change originating on the grass roots level (Draper, 1965; Flacks, 1967;
Keniston, 1966; Newfield, 1966).
Despite the anti-authoritarian rhetoric of the student protest movement,
Hook (1970) regards campus radicals as “fanatical young totalitarians” and
Farnsworth (1969) has characterized intensely radical protestors as: “obsessed,
rigid, dogmatic, lacking in sense of humor and perspective, intolerant and overly
suspicious in their modes of thinking (p. 6).” Similarly, although they do not
engage in “party line thnlung” the uncompromising, self-righteous moral tone
of many student radicals might be construed as resembling the closed-minded
cognitive style that Rokeach (1960) regards as the essential ingredient in general
authoritarianism. According to Rokeach, general authoritarianism or Dogmatism,
as contrasted to right-wing authoritarianism, is best conceived of as a mode of
thought or cognitive style rather than as a set of beliefs. The dogmatic
personality, from this point of view, can therefore hold any specific beliefs; what
is crucial is the tenacity with w h c h beliefs are held, not the beliefs themselves.
Internal Versus External Locus of Control

The student activists’ commitment to direct sociopolitical action and their
attachment t o participatory democracy seems to bespeak a repudiation of the
fatalistic view that citizens cannot exert control over political and world affairs.
The Vietnamese War, however, as Sampson (1967) points out: “. . . .produces a
setting in which almost every day those opposed to it are confronted with the
frustrating realization of their own personal ineffectuality in influencing current
policy, or in shaping the future of a nation and a world (p. 27).” This dilemma
parallels the two world views contained in Rotter’s (1966) notions regarding
internal versus external locus of control. The concept refers t o the degree t o
which individuals see events in their lives as being determined by their own
efforts and skills (i.e., internal control), or as stemming from such forces as luck,
change, fate, or the influence of powerful others (i.e., external control). When
Strikland (1965) compared Negroes active in the Civil Rights Movement with
nonactive Negroes who were matched for education and socioeconomic status
118 GELLER A N D HOWARD
on a measure of this generalized expectancy, she found activists t o be

significantly more internal. Gore and Rotter (1963) obtained similar results at a
southern Negro college. These data would seem to support the hypothesis that
activists are characterized by greater internality than the general student
population. Yet, there may be a danger in generalizing findings derived from
studies of black activists to white activists. Black activism tends to be
instrumental, that is, directed toward securing attainable goals and reforms. The
tactics of white activists, on the other hand, tend more often, to be expressive,
that is, primarily oriented toward dramatizing feelings toward governmental
policies. In keeping with this, Block et al., (1968) have suggested that the efforts
of white activists to confront society are based on a concern for personal
integrity and authenticity rather than on the expectation that their efforts will
change society. Hence, we decided to explore whether the activists in our sample
are more dedicated to the belief that a person can control his own destiny than
the student population from which they are drawn.
VaZues, Life Style, and Motives

Although contemporary activists do not share a unifying, comprehensive
political ideology, most investigators (Bay, 1967; Flacks, 1967; Keniston, 1965;
Sampson, 1967; Solomon & Fishman, 1964) believe that student activists can be
distinguished from their less politically involved peers by their adherence to the
following complex of values: romanticism, anti-institutionalism, intellectualism,
humanitarianism, a strong sense of community, as well as a tendency to
de-emphasize or positively devalue personal achievement, conventional morality,
and conventional religiosity. Irving Howe (1967) has criticized this ostensibly
nonpolitical emphasis on “personal style” among many of the new left political
activists suggesting that style has in many instances taken precedence over the
content of the revolt, i.e., that the existential act of rebellion, whatever its form,
has come to be enough. Keniston (1968) has broadened the discussion of this
issue by introducing the concept of “post modern style” to describe an approach
to the world that student activists seem to be evolving. Characteristics that
Keniston ascribes to this emergent life style include a self-conscious effort to
remain open and responsive to change, an abhorrence of exploitative and
artificial relationships, interracialism, internationalism, an ambivalence toward
technology, and a psychological commitment to nonviolence. Keniston would
seem to be agreeing with Richard Schaull’s hypothesis (1967) that the ultimate
goal of the radical activist is to discover “a new form of personal existence for
hmself and for others (p. 194).”
Psychodynamic formulations of the underlying causes of the student protest
movement revolve around two related themes: the adolescent’s personal struggle
to move from dependence to independence and the question of whether his
politically defiant behavior is rooted primarily in an identification with or

rebellion against parental values. The viewpoint that has received the most
widespread publicity asserts that radicalism is symptomatic of a violent rebellion
against paternal authority, largely dominated by unconscious drives, and that the
student activist is displacing the conflicts of his family onto society and the
world. Feuer (1969) maintains that such unresolved Oedipal conflicts are the
underlying force in all student revolts. Solomon and Fishman (1964) and Flacks
(1967) take the opposite point of view. They believe that activists are living out
expressed but unimplemented parental values rather than “acting out”
intrapsychic conflicts in their external behavior. Keniston (1967) has offered yet
another formulation of this issue. Activists as a group, he has suggested:
“. . . seem to possess an unusual capacity for nurturant identification, that is, for
empathy and sympathy with the underdog, the oppressed and the needy” and
that the most likely origin of this capacity in upper-middle class professional
families: “. . . is identification with an active mother whose own work embodies
nurturant concern for others (p. 120).” Given the highly speculative and
polemical nature of these formulations, the final goal of this study is to
determine whether there are systematic differences in the values and motives
that characterize the signers and nonsigners of the draft refusal pledge.
METHOD
Subjects
From a pool of 150 undergraduate signers of the draft refusal pledge, 38
participated as subjects in this study! Their names were randomly drawn from a
list that was regularly published, along with the text of the pledge, in local
newspapers. The control sample consisted of 39 nonsigners drawn randomly
from the general undergraduate population. The students were recruited by a
standardized telephone call that outlined in very general terms the nature of the
research and that led the signers to believe that they had been randomly selected
from the college population. Of the 51 signers contacted, 94% (48) agreed to
take part in the study, and of the 59 control subjects contacted, 95% (55) agreed
to participate, Seventy-nine percent of the activists and 71% of the controls
actually attended the testing sessions. Because of the similarity in attrition rates,
it was assumed that lack of attendance was primarily a function of the
recruitment technique rather than evidence of systematic biases in the sampling
of either group.
4The decision to restrict the sample t o undergraduates was guided by the finding that
older activists seem to form a separate psychosocial population (Solomon & Fishman, 1964;
Keniston, 1968).
Measures
The following biographical information was provided by self-report: class in
college, age, birth order, religion, military status, major field of academic study,
perceived academic standing, nature of secondary school training, prospective
occupation, marital status, dating habits, urban-rural residency, mother and
father’s political affiliations, education, occupation, and social class
(Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958). The following data were obtained from the files
of the University’s Registrar’s office: Verbal and Mathematical college board
scores, rank in high school class, predicted cumulative grade point average, actual
grade point average (GPA), geographical origin, and extent and kind of
organizational affiliations. Information bearing upon extent of participation in
campus organizations was sought in order to test Lipset’s hypothesis (1968b)
that characteristics which have been attributed to leftist activists may
also characterize those who are involved in nonpolitical forms of campus
activity.
An “Activism Index” (AI) was developed to determine whether signing of the
draft refusal pledge covaries with a relatively enduring, stable commitment to
political and social activism. The A1 includes 16 different activities typically
engaged in by activist students e g , peace marches, sit-ins, community service
projects, and community organizing. Subjects checked items that depict an
activity in which they have participated and their score represents a sum of the
total number of positive responses. In the absence of an exact criterion for
weighing activities, the scale attributes equal importance t o all 16 items. In the
present study, odd-even split-half reliability of the AI, corrected by the
Spearman-Brown formula, was found to be.70. As a corollary to the AI, subjects
were asked to rate their political self-image on a 6-point scale ranging from “very
conservative” t o “radical.”
A “Vietnam Opinion Survey” (VOS) was constructed by the present authors
to determine whether activists are characterized by more intense and vehement
anti-war and anti-administration opinions than nonactivist students. The VOS
consists of 34 statements cast in a 7-poht Likert forced choice continuum which
were unanimously placed by 10 independent judges in either a pro- or
anti-administration category. Approximately half of the items are reversed to
control for acquiescent responding, and the scale is keyed so that the higher the
score the greater the anti-administration sentiment. Cross validational, item and
factor analytic studies (Cowdry, Keniston, & Cabin, 1970) have convincingly
5 A student’s predicted cumulative grade point average is computed from a formula that
takes into account his high school achievements, college board scores, as well as the
university’s knowledge about the performance at Yale of students who have previously
conic from his particular high school.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A C T I V I S T S 121
established the reliability, coherence, and unidimensionality of the V 0 S 6

Sample items are: 1. The United States is fighting to prevent the violent
overthrow of the legitimate government in South Vietnam; 2. The U.S.
government has repeatedly engaged in historical and legal distortions in order t o
justify its presence in Vietnam.
A “Vietnam Information Survey” (VIS) was developed t o examine whether
activists have greater knowledge of a broad range of issues relating to the
Vietnam War than nonactivists. The 30 multiple choice questions that comprise
the VIS were selected to represent neutral factual knowledge as independent as
possible from opinion-related biases. Item clarity and relevance were evaluated
by independent judges, and on the basis of pretest results, items with poor
discriminatory power were eliminated prior t o this study. A sample item
follows: President Johnson has utilized the resolution
to legitimize escalation of the war in Vietnam. 1. Geneva Accords, 2. Guam
conference, 3. Tonkin Bay, 4. Internal Control Commission.
Rokeach’s (1960) 40-item Dogmatism scale (Form E) is believed to be
politically neutral along major conventional right-left dimensions and therefore
capable of assessing the relationship between general authoritarianism and
activism. The scale is keyed so that the higher the score the greater the
closed-mindedness (dogmatism), the lower the score the greater the
open-mindedness. The range of possible scores on the test was from 40 to 280.
Sample items are: 1. There are a number of people I have come to hate because
of what they stand for; 2. A man who does not believe in some great cause has
not really lived.
The Internal versus External Control (I-E) Scale (Rotter, 1966) is a forced
choice test consisting of 23 critical and six buffer items with one statement
endorsing the inevitability of events (external control) and one endorsing the
view that events can be controlled by personal action (internal control). In each
case, the individual chooses the statement he more strongly believes. The scale is
scored in terms of the total number of external choices made by the subject; a
high score therefore indicates a fatalistic orientation. A sample item follows: I
more strongly agree that: (1) the average citizen can have an influence in
government decisions; (2) this world is run by the few people in power, and
there is not much the little guy can do about it.
A slightly expanded version of Derrer’s (1967) “Importance of Activities”
scale and Stein’s (1966) Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) were selected to
compare the values, life styles, and motivational patterns of the two groups.
Derrer’s measure requires subjects to evaluate, using a 6-point scale ranging from
“I am opposed to this” to “very important” their preferences for each of 21
Copies of all instruments used in this study and a more extensive discussion of the
procedures used to construct the newly devised measures may be obtained from the senior
author on request.
activities of general interest to college students. The SDQ consists of 20

paragraphs, each of which describes one of Henry Murray’s (1938) manifest
needs. The essential content of each of these scales appears in Tables 5 and 6. In
responding to the SDQ, the subject is asked to rank the paragraphs from the one
which is most descriptive of himself (rank of 1) to the one which is least
descriptive of himself (rank of 20). The descriptive paragraph for need
achievement, as an example, is: “1 accomplish difficult things, I try t o overcome
obstacles and t o achieve a high standard. I compete with others and try to
surpass them. I am ambitious and aspiring.”
Bocedure
The test battery was group administered in eight sessions over a 3-week
period just prior to and after the Spring vacation of 1968. Hence, nearly a
5-month interval separated the events that led to the “creation” of the groups
and the collection of the data. Each session was attended by approximately 10
students and included both activists and control subjects so as t o further mask
the selection criterion for activists. Preservation of the anonymity of the
students was stressed and guaranteed at the beginning of the session, and the
students then fdled out in fixed succession the demographic variables inventory,
Dogmatism Scale, SDQ, Activism Index, Importance of activities Questionnaire,
I-E scale, VOS, and VIS. The VOS preceded the VIS so that the subject’s
perceived level of confidence in his performance on the VIS would not affect his
opinion responses.
RESULTS
The results of the sociodemographic analyses are presented in Tables 1 to 4,
where, for the sake of brevity, nonsignificant findings concerning geographical
origin, urban-rural residency, birth order, secondary school training, mother’s
educational level and parents’ occupational status are omitted. Because of the
exploratory nature of this study, all significance levels are based on two-tailed
tests.
Academic Variables
Whereas Lipset (1968b) has reported that student activists tend t o be
concentrated in the freshman and sophomore years, the signers of the draft
refusal pledge were slightly older (M = 20.3, SD = 1.6) but not at a higher year
level in the university than the nonsigners ( M = 19.6, SD = 1.1). Although the
absolute difference in age is small, the obtained t value of 2.23 is significant at
beyond the .05 level.
Almost two-thirds of the students in both groups had attended public high
schools, and in light of the highly selective admissions policies at Yale, it is not
TABLE1
CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Signers Nonsigners
( N = 38) ( N = 39) XZ
Class in college
Freshmen 4 9 2.54
Sophomore 12 10
Junior 10 11
Senior 12 9
Major field
Social sciences 13 6 14.26 ***
Economics, business 0 2
Natural sciences 0 9
Humanities 24 20
Undecided 1 2
Prospective occupationa
Humanitarian 15 7 17.1 4 * * * *
Expressive 20 10
Other 3 20
Religion
Roman catholic 3 5 13.83**
Protestant 6 16
Jewish 15 7
Other 5 6
None 9 5
Father’s educational level
Graduate or professional 17 16 7.69*
School degree
College degree 10 3
Partial college training 6 9
High school diploma or less 5 11
Socioeconomic statusb
High (class I) 18 11 5.13*
Medium (classes I1 and 111) 18 24
Low (classes IV and V) - 2 4
aThe occupational categories were combined because more

than half of the cells in a contingency table based on the raw data
would have had expected frequencies of less than five (Siege], 1954).
Two nonsigners reported that they were undecided about their future
occupations.
bComputed by Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social
Position.
* p < .lo. * * * p < .01.
* * p < .02. ****p < .0001.
TABLE2
ANALYSES O F THE ACADEMIC, BEHAVIORAL, ATTITUDINAL, AND
PERSONALITY VARIABLES
Signers Nonsigners
( N = 38) (N=39) bis
__-
SD M SD
-
12.08 7.26 11.13 .94

57.53 69 6 .OO 43.94 .35
SAT-Mathemetical 709.23 68.21 709.9 7 67.52 .07
Predicted GPA 81.05 5.48 83.43 7.00 1.68*
Yale GPAa 81.48 5.46 8 1.72 5.14 .80
Extracurricular
activities 2.76 2.17 2.92 2.31 .61
Activism index 8.86 2.86 4.7 1 3.21 5.93** .86
vos 203.15 25.45 168.08 33.05 16.23*** .74
VIS 23.55 2.83 19.00 .65
Dogmatism Scale 129.76 22.68 132.21 .07
I-E Scale 8.86 3.94 8.76 .o 1
__.
"Due to a change from a numerical to a descriptive grading system

during the academic year 1967-68, no quantifiable information is available
for freshmen, or for the academic year 1967-68 at each of the other semester
levels. Hence, Signers: N = 34, Nonsigners: N = 30.
*p <.lo.
**p < .001.
***p<.OOOl.
surprising to find that both groups came to the university with superior
academic credentials. Table 2 shows that whether measured by standardized
verbal and mathematical aptitude tests or rank in high school class, both groups
seem to be practically identical in terms of their intellectual potential. As can be
further seen in Table 2, a significant mean difference was not obtained when the
overall grade point averages of the groups were c o ~ n p a r e d .Given
~ these findings,
it is noteworthy that whereas the nonsigners were predicted to achieve a
somewhat higher 0, < . l o ) cumulative grade point average during their college
careers, there is a tendency, albeit nonsignificant = 1.49, p < .20), for the
(x'
activists to perceive themselves as better students. Eighty-one percent of the
7Heist (1966) and Watts and Whittakcr (1966) are the only other investigators to have
used grade point averages in their comparisons. Both studies were conducted at Berkeley.
Whereas Watts and Whittaker reported n o significant differences between left activists and a
representative sample of undergraduates, Heist found that the cumulative grade point
averages of the FSM participants exceeded the all university grade point average.
signers report that they are in the top half of their class, while 67% of the
nonsigners so regarded themselves, suggesting that Yale activists are imbued with
the “sense of specialness” w h c h Keniston (1968) ascribed to the young radicals
he studied. An important methodological implication can also be drawn from
this finding. Such data highlight the inadvisability of using subjective reports
(Somers, 1964) or indices of outlooks like “intellectualism” or “intellectual
disposition” (Trent & Craise, 1967) as the bases for inferences about actual
differences in level of intellectual functioning between activists and nonactivists.
As has been found in previous research, the Yale activists are
disproportionately concentrated in the humanities and social sciences,
underrepresented in the natural sciences and preprofessional programs
(x2 = 14.26, p < .Ol), and appear to have opted for different career goals than
the general student population (x’ = 1 7 . 1 4 , ~< .001). Whereas, the activists are
inclined to favor college teaching or careers in the arts, public service, and
mental health professions, the nonactivist’s preferences run to the fields of
business, law, and ‘the natural or applied sciences.
Organizational Affiliation
Tables 2 and 3 indicate that the signers have not affiliated with significantly
more campus organizations than the nonsigners, and that both groups have
extensively participated in athletic, artistic-intellectual, and officially recognized
Yale political organizations? (Possible members of such leftist organizations as
Students for a Democratic Society are not revealed through the university’s
records.) Only one member of the nonsigner group was in ROTC and none of
the students in either group were veterans. There are, however, pivotal
differences between the groups. The signers are significantly more involved in
social service and religious organizations, suggesting that they have not devoted
themselves exclusively to disruptive and confrontational activities.
Family Background Variables

Only one of the replicatory family background variables differentiated
significantly (p < .02) between the two groups: a disproportionate number of
the signers reported that they were either Jewish (39%) or nonreligious (24%)
while 41% of the nonsigners came from Protestant families. The patterning of
differences on two additional variables, father’s educational level and
socioeconomic status, were also in accord with previous findings but did not
‘That there are no overall differences in extent of membership within political
organizations can be accounted for by the fact that a majority of the students in both
groups (and of Yale undergraduates in general) join the Yale Political Union as freshmen and
thereafter usually terminate their affiliation. Membership in the Political Union does not
necessarily reflect commitment to activism since it primarily serves as a forum for debates
between noted political figures.
TABLE3
DISTRIBUTION OF SIGNERS AND NONSIGNERS BY ORGANIZATIONAL
AFFILIATION AND HETEROSEXUAL INVOLVEMENT
Signers Nonsigners x2
Type of organization
Political 21 17 1.05
Artistic-Intellectual 17 13 1.05
Athletic 20 24 .62
Social service 15 7 4.37**
Religious 5 0 5.49***
Fraternity 0 3
Heterosexual involvement
Married 4 3 11.27****
Engaged or going steady 13 2
None of the abovea 21 34
Type of dating
One girl quite a bit 20 14 8.01 *
Several girls quite a bit 2 7
Not dating much 12 10
Not dating at all 0 4
None of the above 4 4
aDivorced = one nonsigner

<
* p .lo.
<
* * p .05.
***p < .02.
****p <.01.
attain statistical significance. The signers’ fathers are somewhat more likely to
have completed both college and graduate or professional school (.05 p < .lo)
and nearly half of the activist sample comes from an upper class socioeconomic
background. The nonsigner group was also skewed in favor of upper
socioeconomic status, however, and consequently both a chi-square analysis
(x2 = 5.13, p < .lo) as well as a t test ( t = 1.49, p < .20) failed to discriminate
significantly between the groups. Again, in contrast to earlier studies, the
student activists were not selectively recruited from residents of large urban
areas, or from Western or Northeastern states. Rather, like the nonsigners they
tended to have lived during most of their childhoods in affluent surburban
settings that are located in the East. Moreover, contrary t o Flack’s findings
(1967), there was no evidence of a greater rate of employment among the
mothers of the activists; they were not overrepresented in professional or social
service roles, nor were specific kinds of occupations particularly characteristic of
the fathers of activists.
TABLE4
POLITICAL SELF-IMAGE AND PARENTS’ POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS
Mother Fathers
Political affiliation
Signers 1 Nonsigners I Signers 1 Nonsigners
Democratic
Republican
Independent
No formal affiliation
Political self -image

Very conservative 0 0 33.46*
Conservative 0 3
Moderate 0 16
Very liberal 16 15
Radical 22 3
Reported differences in parental political party affiliations also did not bear a
systematic relationship to signing of the draft refusal pledge. Table 4 indicates
that a disproportionate number of activists’ parents were not members of either
the Democratic or more liberal-independent political parties. Thus, although this
relatively crude index may obscure the more subtle dimensions of parental
conservatism versus liberalism, our findings do not support Flack’s hypothesis
(1967) that activists are attempting to fulfill and renew the liberal political
traditions of their families.
Activism, Attitude, Information, and Personality Variables

In order t o assess the degree of association between the AI, VIS, VOS, IE,
and Dogmatism scales and the dichotomized criterion variable, biserial
correlations were c a l ~ u l a t e d . ~In addition, t tests for the significance of
differences between means of independent groups were performed. The results
of these analyses appear in Table 2.
Generalized Activism
It was reasoned that if the act of signing the draft refusal pledge constituted a
meaningful basis for identifying activists, significant differences would be
’Biserial correlations were considered appropriate since the scores from the individual
difference measures appear to fall along a normal continuum, and although the student
activism ratings fall into discrete categories (i.e., signing versus nonsigning of the draft
refusal pledge) it is reasonable to assume that degree of sociopolitical involvement also
conforms to an underlying continuous distribution.
obtained between the two groups on the Activism Index. As indicated, the
results are convincingly supportive of this hypothesis ( t = 5.93, d f = 75,
p < .001), and the biserial correlation coefficient of .84 lends support to the
view that the activists' commitment to direct sociopolitical action is sustained
and transituational. Table 4 , moreover, shows that despite the relative absence of
politically conservative students among the nonsigners, overall differences in
degree of perceived radicalism were highly significant (x2 = 33.46, p < .001).
Whereas, the nonsigner group is predominantly composed of students who
defined themselves as moderates (43%) the signers are represented exclusively by
the very liberal and radical categories.'
Intensity of Issue-Related Opinion

Degree of anti-war, anti-administration sentiment, as measured by the VOS,
also bore a very strong positive relationship (rbis = .74) to the behavioral
criterion. The mean difference between the signers and nonsigners yielded a
value of 16.23 (df= 75) which is significant beyond the .001 level. In terms of
the content of the questionnaire, it is clear that, as a group, the signers are
vehemently opposed to the war, and highly critical of the U.S. government's
policy statements regarding the war-be they political, moral, or strategic.
Degree of Issue-Related Knowledge

The Yale activists, furthermore, tend to be extremely knowledgeable about
the people and issues involved in the war in Vietnam (rbjs = .65). Their VIS
mean of 23.55 (SO = 2.83) significantly ( t = 4.41, p < .001) exceeds the
nonsigners' mean of 19.00 (SO = 5.57) and is, in fact, the highest heretofore
obtained with any student group (Cowdry, Keniston, &Cabin, 1970).
Dogmatism and Locus of' Control

The signers and nonsigners are virtually indistinguishable on the Dogmatism
and I-E scales. The range of Dogmatism scores for signers was from 70 to 182,
with a mean of 129.76 and a standard deviation of 22.68. The nonsigner range
was from 97 to 169 with a mean of 132.21 and a standard deviation of 18.80.
Thus, despite their militancy on the VOS, the Yale activists are neither more
authoritatian nor less nonauthoritatian than a representative sample of the
general student population. The means of both groups, moreover, are well within
"Due to a potentially serious clerical oversight, the Liberal choice was omitted from the
scale. This significantly truncated the scale and forced a choice between moderate and very
liberal. The effects of this error may either have attentuated or spuriously elevated the
obtained differences.
the range of scores considered by Rokeach (1960) as indicative of

“open-minded” cognitive functioning. Similarly, the activists do not feel more
fatalistic nor do they share a greater sense of personal efficacy than their
nonactivist peers. The range of I-E scores for the signers was from 1 to 16 with a
mean of 8.86 and a standard deviation of 3.94. The nonsigner range was from 1
to 18 with a mean of 8.76 and a standard deviation of 4.42. These scores are
highly comparable to those previously obtained in large Eastern university
populations (Rotter, 1966).
Values, Life Style, and Motives

Table 5 reveals that 13 of 21 “Importance of Activities” items differentiated
significantly between the groups. On the one hand, activists placed less
TABLE5
MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SIGNERS ( N = 38) AND NONSIGNERS
( N = 39) O N IMPORTANCE O F ACTIVITIES ITEMS
-
Signers Nonsigners
t P
M SD M SD
More important for signers:
Having close friends 4.82 .5 6 4.31 .97 2.80 .o 1
Love relationships with
one girl 4.26 .92 3.35 1.41 3.37 .oo 1
Having sexual relationships 1.02 .28 3.38 1.04 2.90 .o 1
Engaging in political activities 3.92 1.03 2.77 1.22 4.50 ,001
Providing community service 3.42 1.16 2.85 1 .oo 2.28 .05
Less important for signers:
Joining a fraternity .05 .89 1.07 .86 5.10 ,001
Dressing in Yale manner 1.oo .76 1.54 .67 3.35 .o 1
Playing sports 1.68 .95 2.20 1.28 2.43 .02
Entering specific occupation 2.65 1.22 3.26 1.26 2.17 .05
Making high grades 2.80 1.14 3.5 1 .95 3.10 .o 1
Achienng high status 3.13 1.30 3.67 .86 2.57 .02
Continue in good academic
standing 3.81 1.03 4.66 .75 4.05 ,001
Pursuing extracurricular
activities 3.26 1.51 4.30 1.41 3.24 .01
No difference:
Having own standards 3.76 .35 4.69 .5 2 .80 NS
Acquiring knowledge 4.03 1.07 4.26 .59 1.10 NS
Dating attractive girls 3.76 1.13 3.95 .84 .85 NS
Making life-long friends 3.53 1.01 3.67 .9 2 .63 NS
Going to graduate school 3.31 1.37 3.77 1.19 1.44 NS
Drinking I .97 .64 1.82 1.12 .60 NS
Observing religious practices 1.87 1.30 1.77 1.26 .03 NS
Smoking I .50 31 .99 1.15 1.77 NS
_ _ _ ~
importance on (1) staying in good standing at Yale, (2) making good grades, (3)
being in a fraternity, (4) dressing in the “Yale manner,” (5) achieving high status
in a particular occupation, (6) pursuing typical extracurricular college activities,
(7) the role of sports in college life, and (8) entering a particular occupation or
profession. On the other hand, the Yale activists placed more value than their
peers on (1) engaging in political activities, ( 2 ) engaging in community service
projects, (3) having close friends, (4) developing an intense love relationship with
one girl, and (5) having sexual relations. As can be seen in Table 3, the activists
not only attributed more importance to developing intimate relationships, they
actually appear t o be more involved in such relationships than their peers. Both
groups attributed considerable importance to going to graduate school, having
their own standards and values, acquiring a depth of knowledge at college, and in
dating interesting and attractive girls. Moreover, both groups attributed minimal
importance to drinking, smoking, and to observing religious practices.
The data relevant to the need hierarchies presented by the two groups on the
SDQ can be found in Table 6 . While inspecting the table it should be borne in
mind that the mean ranking of a need is inversely related to the intensity of the
need for the group; that is, the lower the mean, the more the group says the
need is descriptive of itself.” It will be noted that whereas the signers ranked
sentience, nurturance, and succorance as significantly more important than did
the nonsigners, the nonsigners were significantly higher on the following needs:
achievement, play, and deference. The nonsigners also tended to be more
counteractive (p < .lo).
In brief, the SDQ findings are consistent with the previous analyses in that
they suggest that the signers, as compared to the nonsigners, are more concerned
with developing intimate relationships than with personal achievement. They are
more inclined to assist helpless people, and support, comfort, and protect
others. At the same time, they are more likely to seek out others who will
provide them with sympathetic understanding and guidance. Yet, they are less
given to admiring or conforming to the wishes of people who are “superior” to
themselves, and are possibly less concerned with making up for felt inadequacies
than are the nonsigners. Finally, although they are more interested in pursuing
aesthetic and sensuous experiences than the nonsigners, they seem to be less
strongly motivated by the wish to “play,” i.e., have purely relaxing,
light-hearted, frivolous experiences.
’ Besides assessing the significance of differences in the two groups’ hierarchy of needs,
their profiles were submitted to a typological analysis using a computerized procedure
developed by Stein (1963). A detailed presentation of the procedure used in typing the
subjects, the results and implications of the findings can be obtained by writing to the senior
author.
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF A C T I V I S T S 131
TABLE6
t-TEST COMPARISONS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
SIGNERS AND NONSIGNERS ON THE SDQ
Signers Nonsigners
Need ( N = 38) ( N = 39) 1
-- -
M SD
---- M SD
Abasement 15.1 5.4 15.6 6 .O .35

Achievement 10.9 4.4 6.5 5.4 3.49 ** * *
Affiliation 5 .O 3.9 5.7 5.1 .7 1
Aggression 16.2 4.4 14.9 5.4 1.16
Autonomy 7.3 4.1 8.7 5 .O 1.38
Blameavoidance 10.8 5.3 11.1 5.1 .22
Counteraction 10.1 5 .O 8.2 5.1 1.67*
Defendance 13.8 4.5 13.1 5.3 .46
Deference 15.4 4.2 13.2 4.6 2.19**
Dominance 11.1 4.6 10.3 6 .O .60
Exhibition 10.9 5 .O 10.1 5.5 .63
Harmavoidance 1.30 4.1 12.0 5 .O .87
Infaavoidance 12.2 4.7 11.6 5.4 .47
Nuturance 5.8 4.6 9.1 4.2 3.19***
Order 11.9 4.9 12.0 5.6 .11
Play 11.3 4.8 9 .O 4.7 2.13**
Rejection 12.3 6.6 14.1 5.5 1.26
Sentience 4.9 3.2 8 .O 5.3 3.04* * *
Sex 5.7 4.1 6.3 3.8 .67
Succorance 6.7 4.3 10.4 4.6 3.54****
----
*p <.lo.
**p <.05.
***p <.005.
****p <.001.
DISCUSSION
A composite portrait of the signer of the draft refusal pledge derived from the
evidence provided by this study strongly confirms the efficacy of the behavioral
criterion as a basis for identifying student activists. In addition t o dramatizing
their opposition to the war in Vietnam, the signers are pursuing numerous
instrumental political activities that directly challenge the legitimacy of
prevailing institutions. They are not, however, solely engaged in assaults upon
the government. A large segment of the group are participating as members of
social service organizations in such prosocial activities as tutoring underprivileged
children, urban renewal, and the promotion of civil liberties. The amount of
information that they have acquired about Vietnam and other war-related facts
can also be regarded as evidence of extensive involvement with contemporary

issues. Although the political self-image question did not provide for all possible
reponses, they defined themselves without exception as either politically very
liberal or radical rather than as moderate, conservative, or very conservative (a
liberal choice was not available). Finally, their search for an alternative to a
traditional middle-class life style confirms that their signing of the draft refusal
pledge was not an isolated, random, or situationally-determined gesture, but
rather a single manifestation of a commitment to sociopolitical activism.
Relationship to Previous Research

In accord with expectations based on prior research, Yale activists tend to
come from socially, educationally, and economically advantaged backgrounds.
However, only one of the replicatory family background variables (i.e ., religion)
clearly differentiated between the two groups at an acceptable level of statistical
significance. Intelligence, as measured by high school and college academic
performance, also seems to be similarly distributed among the activists and the
rest of the Yale undergraduate population. In other words, contrary to previous
findings, Yale activists do not represent an intellectual or sociological “elite”
when compared to the undergraduate population from which they are drawn.
Several important methodological implications can be drawn from these
findings. Many of the frequently cited demographic correlates of student
activism are based on studies that have drawn activist subjects from the total
population involved in any specific political or protest activity. This sampling
procedure brings in undergraduates, graduate and professional students, as well
as “nonstudents,” thereby increasing the heterogeneity of the sample and the
likelihood of obtaining significant differences. It is also possible that when
subjects are aware that they are being questioned as members or representatives
of a particular group, they may attempt to present themselves in a manner that
they view as consistent with the public image of that group. The problems of
subject contamination and sample heterogeneity were partially overcome, in the
present study, by masking the selection criterion and by choosing only
undergraduates as subjects. As in the case of the control subjects, the signers of
the draft refusal pledge were led to believe that they had been randomly selected
from the undergraduate student body. Since Yale recruits students from only
the top 10% of high school graduates, this study also provided an especially
rigorous test of the hypothesis that activists are both more intellectually
oriented and are better students than are control populations. More broadly, our
findings lend support to Peterson’s (1 968b) hypothesis that different activism
“profiles” may exist at different institutions. The hazards involved in
generalizing across studies or universities are also underscored by these findings.
On the other hand, the relative homogeneity of the Yale undergraduate
population insures that sociodemographic and psychological effects are not
confounded in this study as they have been in all but a few of the previous
investigations of the attitudinal and motivational correlates of student activism.
It should also be noted that the absence of differences in absolute extent of
organizational participation between the groups, fortuitously enables us to
implement Lipset’s (1 968a) suggestion that leftist activists should be compared
to nonpolitically active students, if we are to extricate the correlates of
“involvement” per se from those of leftist sociopolitical activism.
Emerging Correlates of Activism

The signers of the draft refusal pledge are extremely intolerant and suspicious
of our government’s Vietnam policy, possibly extremist in their political
self-definition, given to extreme likes and dislikes, and involved in numerous
sociopolitical activities requiring intense commitment and opinions. Why, then,
are these students not significantly more dogmatic than their peers? Keniston
(1968) and Peterson (1968b) have reasoned that campus radicals are not likely
to be especially authoritarian or dogmatic because contemporary activism is
issue-related, pragmatic, unprogrammatic, and nonideological. While they may
be politically nonideological, the evidence provided by t h s and other studies
(Block et al., 1968; Flacks, 1967) would seem to warrant the conclusion that
activists, nevertheless, embrace a more or less coherent world view, or value
system, that in itself is really quite a powerful ideology. Moreover, since the data
for this study was collected, Marxist and neo-Marxist ideas have become
increasingly influential among segments of the radical left. An alternative
approach to this question is suggested by Brown’s (1965) hypothesis that it is
most heuristic to conceive of authoritarianism in terms of the kind of
information that is sufficient to induce a change in attitudes. According to
Brown, “The authoritarian will reverse his evaluations on the simple say-so of an
authority figure (p. 543).” In view of the extensive issue-related knowledge
evidenced by the Yale activists, it seems reasonable to conclude that their
decision to actively resist the war, and their extreme issue-related opinions are
derived from an awareness of hstorical events rather than the pronouncements
of authority figures. Similarly, it might be argued that they cannot be regarded
as dogmatic (i.e., closed-minded) in the sense that they defend themselves
against information that might call their opinions into question. It could be also
argued, of course, that they have merely been active in gathering information to
support their previously and perhaps irrationally formulated opinions.
Ultimately, postdictive studies such as the present one cannot unequivocally
determine whether rebellion breeds awareness as Camus (1958) maintained, or
whether in fact awareness breeds rebellion.
The absence of a systematic relationship between the I-E scale and the signing
of the draft refusal pledge suggests, in light of the other evidence provided by
this study, that both groups have developed some confidence in their ability to
control their lives and influence others. Clearly, neither group is predominantly
composed of defeated fatalists with strong feelings of subjective powerlessness.
The nonsigners need not defensively resort t o the argument that the future is
determined by chance or fate since they are obviously energetic, productive,
goal-directed, competitive individuals whose ego ideal seems to be either that of
the “Professionalist” (Keniston, 1966) or the “Technocrat” (Schaull & Ogelsby,
1967). The members of the activist group also seem to be capable of making the
required intellectual and social adjustments t o our complex society. However,
the anti-institutional life style that they seem to be evolving is based, in large
part, on a repudiation of the roles and values that give direction to the lives of
their nonactivist peers. For example, their choice of major, career goals, and
reported interests, indicate that they reject the view that the purpose of an
education is to master the scientific-technological and administrative techniques
upon which the governance of our corporations and institutions depend. Unlike
the nonactivists, they do not seem to distinguish sharply between achievement
and play. Their self-descriptions, moreover, clearly de-emphasize such
established middle-class values as self-restraint, deference to authority, status
achievement, privatism, careerism, and conventionality. Such an anti-institu-
tional orientation alone, however, does not automatically lead to active
resistance to the war in Vietnam, to the acquisition of knowledge about the war
in Vietnam, or to extensive participation in the pro-social efforts of community
service organizations. That the activists in our sample are pursuing these goals,
offers support for the generalization that the student radicals’ disillusionment
with traditional roles and institutions has not seriously encroached upon their
own sense of personal efficacy. In other words, it is reasoned that if the activists
truly lost faith in their own sense of personal efficacy a more probable response
to their anti-institutionalism would be complete alienation from the mainstream
of the dominant culture. Rather than accepting this alternative, the activists in
our sample follow a style of life opposite to that ascribed by Keniston (1965) to
alienated youth:
On every level the alienated refuse conventional commitments, seeing them as
unprofitable, dangerous, futile, or merely uncertain and unpredictable. Not only d o
they repudiate those institutions they see as characteristic of our society, but the
belief in goodness of human nature, the usefulness of group activities, and the
possibility or utility of political and civic activities, closeness and intimacy with
others, or even a resolute commitment t o action or responsibility (p. 60).
Given his alienation from the mainstream of institutionalized American life,

what motivates and sustains the activist in his persistent efforts to work for
change? Our findings suggest that the sustaining motivational energy for activists
is related to the intensity and closeness of their interpersonal involvements.
Activists consistently placed more emphasis on establishing intense, intimate
interpersonal relationships, and to a greater extent reported themselves as

actually being involved in such relationshps. These findings provide support for
the conclusion that activists are institutionally alienated but not interpersonally
alienated, and furthermore suggest that the ideals that activists are attempting to
introduce into the mainstream of the culture are perhaps those that they value
so highly in relating with one another. Such an explanation appears fairly
consistent with some of the major characteristics that have been ascribed to
student radicals, e.g., their strongly humanistic and romantic vision, their
repudiation of anything that resembles paternalism, their reluctance to affiliate
with adult sponsored, centrally administered organizations, and their distrust of
organized authority and power. The hypothesis that activists are attempting to
translate their high regard for interpersonal responsiveness and self-expressive-
ness into a political ethic might also help to clarify why they have been
committed to collective decision-making in small groups, to the drama and
excitement of such confrontational, yet nonviolent, group-oriented tactics as
sit-ins and protest demonstrations, as well as to their disinclination to propose
explicit, bureaucraticized programs for restructuring the social order. Similarly,
although the student activist’s efforts are directed mainly against the authority
structures of society, there is little evidence to support the view that their
activities represent an attempt to find ways to sustain and give concrete
expression to a “hatred of all male, parental, and societal authority.” Rather, the
findings are suggestive of Keniston’s hypotheses regarding the “feminine” or
materal identification of leftist activists and their psychological commitment to
nonviolence. We find the strongest support for these hypotheses in the fact that
the activists ranked nurturance (i.e., the desire to support, protect, and avoid
hurting others) significantly higher in their need for hierarchy than did the
nonactivists. Interestingly, cross-cultural application (Stein & Neulinger, 1968)
of the SDQ indicates that compared to other cultures, sampled American men are
typically lowest in nurturance. The very low rankings by the activists of the
following needs on the SDQ: aggression, defendance, rejection, and
harmavoidance, is also consistent with this interpretation. Concurrently, the
activists in this study are accepting of their own needs for guidance and
emotional support and are not preoccupied with compensating for felt
inadequacies. Consequently, it is unlikely that their concern with giving and
responsiveness to others represents a displacement or substitute for the guidance
they feel they are lacking.
REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. The
authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
Barzun, J. The American university. New York: Harper, 1968.
Bay, C. Political and apolitical students: Facts in search of theory. Journal of
Social Issues, 1967, 23, 76-9 1 .
Bettelheim, B. Student revolt: The hard core. Vital Speeches o f the Day. 1969,
35, 405-410.
Block, J., Haan, N., & Smith, M. Activism and apathy in contemporary
adolescents. In J. F. Adams (Ed.), Understanding adolescence: Current
developments in adolescent psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1968.
Brown, R. Social psychology, New York: Free Press, 1965.
Camus, A. The rebel: A n essay on man in revolt. New York: Vintage, 1958.
Cowdry, R., Keniston, K., & Cabin, S. The war and military obligation:
Attitudes, actions, and their “consistency.” Unpublished manuscript, Yale
University, 1970.
Derrer, D. Academic stresses and personality development. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Yale University, 1967.
Draper, H. Berkeley, the new student revolt. New York: Grove, 1965.
Farnsworth, D. A university psychiatrist looks at campus protest. Psychiatric
Opinion, 1969, 6 , 6-1 1.
Feuer, L. S. The conflict of generations. New York: Basic Books, 1969.
Flacks, R. E. The liberated generation: An exploration of the roots of student
protest. Journal of SocialZssues, 1967, 23, 52-75.
Glazer, N. What happened at Berkeley. In S . Lipset and S. Wolin (Eds.), The
Berkeley student revolt. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.
Gore, P. M., & Rotter, J. B. A personality correlate of social action. Journal o f
Personality, 1963, 31, 58-64.
Heist, P. The dynamics of student discontent and protest. Paper read at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, August,
1966.
Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. Two factor index of social position. New
Haven: Yale University, 1958. (Mimeographed)
Hook, S. The prospects of academe. Encounter, August, 1968.
Hook, S. Academic freedom and academic anarchy. New York: Cowles, 1970.
Howe, I. New styles in “leftism.” In I. Howe (Ed.), The radical imagination. New
York: New American Library, 1967.
Keniston, K. The uncommitted: Alienated youth in American society. New
York: Harcourt, Brace &World, 1965.
Keniston, K. The faces in the lecture room. In R. S. Morison (Ed.), The
American university. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
Keniston, K. The sources of student protest. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23,
108-137.
Keniston, K. Young radicals: Notes on committed youth. New York: Harcourt,
Brace &World, 1968.
Kennan, G. Rebels without a program. New York Times Magazine. January,
1968.
Leventhal, H., Jacobs, R., & Kudirka, N. Authoritarianism, ideology, and
political candidate choice. Journal of A bnormal and Social Psychology, 1964,
69,539-549.
Lipset, S. M. The activists: A profile. The Public Znferest, Fall, 1968, 39-5 1. (a)
Lipset, S. M. Students and politics in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 1968,
97, 1-21. (b)
Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press,

1938.
Newfield, J. A prophetic minority. New York: New American Library, 1966.
Peterson, R. E. The scope of organized student protest in 1967-68. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service, 1968. (a)
Peterson, R. E. The student left in American higher education. Daedafus, 1968,
97, 293-317. (b)
Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960,
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, (1, Whole No. 609).
Sampson, E. E. Student activism and the decade of protest. Journal of Social
h u e s , 1967, 23, 1-33.
Schaull, R., & Ogelsby, C. Containment and change. New York: Macmillan,
1967.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1956.
Solomon, F., & Fishman, J . R. Youth and peace: A psycho-social study of
student demonstrators in Washington, D.C. The Journal o f Social Issues,
1964, 20, 54-73.
Somers, R. H. The mainsprings of rebellion: A survey of Berkeley students in
November, 1964. In S. Lipset and S. Wolin (Eds.), The Berkeley student
revolt. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.
Stein, M. I., & Neulinger, J. A typology of self-descriptions. In M. M. Katz, J. 0.
Cole, and W. E. Barton (Eds.), The role and methodology of classification in
psychiatry and psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, Public Health Service Publication No. 1584, 1968.
Stein, M. I. Volunteers for peace. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Strickland, B. R. The prediction of social action from a dimension of
internal-external control. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 66,353-358.
Trent, W., & Craise, J. L. Commitment and conformity in the American college.
Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23, 34-5 I .
Watts, W. A., & Whittaker, D. Some sociopsychological characteristics of
members of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the student population
at Berkeley. Applied Behavioral Science, 1966, 2,41-62.

Geller and Howard

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geller and Howard

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 2, pp.

Some Sociopsychological Characteristics of Student

JESSE D. GELLEK' AND GARYH O W A R D ~

A variety of hypotheses regarding the motives, values, attitudes, intelligence,

The present study attempted t o delineate some of the sociological and

The distribution of the pledge created a considerable amount of excitement

Copyright @ 1972 by Scripta Publishing Corporation.

Previous Studies and Experimental Questions

Political Knowledge and Sophistication

Internal Versus External Locus of Control

on a measure of this generalized expectancy, she found activists t o be

VaZues, Life Style, and Motives

politically defiant behavior is rooted primarily in an identification with or

established the reliability, coherence, and unidimensionality of the V 0 S 6

activities of general interest to college students. The SDQ consists of 20

aThe occupational categories were combined because more

12.08 7.26 11.13 .94

"Due to a change from a numerical to a descriptive grading system

Family Background Variables

aDivorced = one nonsigner

Political self -image

Activism, Attitude, Information, and Personality Variables

Intensity of Issue-Related Opinion

Degree of Issue-Related Knowledge

Dogmatism and Locus of' Control

the range of scores considered by Rokeach (1960) as indicative of

Values, Life Style, and Motives

Abasement 15.1 5.4 15.6 6 .O .35

can also be regarded as evidence of extensive involvement with contemporary

Relationship to Previous Research

Emerging Correlates of Activism

Given his alienation from the mainstream of institutionalized American life,

interpersonal relationships, and to a greater extent reported themselves as

Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press,

You might also like