Political Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 455–484

The First Time is the Hardest? A Cross-National and Cross-Issue Comparison of First-Time Protest Participants

Original Paper

Abstract

The study aims to extend the existing knowledge about the dynamics of first-time participation in protest events. To tackle that puzzle we rely on extensive and innovative protest survey evidence covering 18 separate demonstrations in eight countries across nine different issues. On the individual level, age, motivation, and non-organizational mobilization appear to be consistent and robust predictors of first-timership. On the aggregate level, demonstrations staged just after or during a protest wave, large demonstrations, and demonstrations of old or new emotional movements are attended by a relatively larger share of first-timers. We conclude that it is thus the interplay of individual- and aggregate-level determinants that produces first-time participation.

Keywords

Protest participation Political participation First time participants 

References

  1. Aminzade, R., & McAdam, D. (2001). Emotions and contentious politics. In R. R. Aminzade, J. A. Goldstone, D. McAdam, E. J. Perry, W. H. Sewell, S. Tarrow, & C. Tilly (Eds.), Silence and voice in the study of contentious politics (pp. 14–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, M. (2002). Identities and politics: Toward a historical understanding of the lesbian and gay movement. Social Science History, 26(3), 531–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18, 53–75. doi:10.1017/S0143814X98000038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. (Eds.). (2001). Parties without partisans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. della Porta, D., & Rucht, D. (1991). Left-libertarian movements in context: A comparison of Italy and West Germany, 1965–1990. Unpublished Manuscript, Wissenschaftzentrum Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys. The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Downton, J., & Wehr, P. (1998). Persistent pacifism. How activist commitment is developed and sustained. Journal of Peace Research, 35(5), 531–550. doi:10.1177/0022343398035005001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Downton, J., & Wehr, P. (1997). The persistent activist: How peace commitment develops and survives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Etzioni, A. (1970). Demonstration democracy. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, J. (1975). The politics of women’s liberation. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Gamson, W. A. (1990). The strategy of social protest. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  12. Goodwin, J., Jasper, J. M., & Polletta, F. (2001). Passionate politics. Emotions and social movements. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goss, K. A. (2001). The smoking gun: How focusing events transform politics. Cambridge: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  14. Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1420–1443. doi:10.1086/226707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasper, J. M. (1998). The emotions of protest: Affective and reactive emotions in and around social movements. Sociological Forum, 13(3), 397–424. doi:10.1023/A:1022175308081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jasper, J. M., & Poulsen, J. (1995). Recruiting strangers and friends: Moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests. Social Problems, 42, 493–512. doi:10.1525/sp.1995.42.4.03x0129y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennings, M. K. (1999). Political responses to pain and loss. The American Political Science Review, 93, 1–13. doi:10.2307/2585757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennings, M. K., & Andersen, E. A. (2003). The importance of social and political context: The case of AIDS activism. Political Behavior, 25, 177–199. doi:10.1023/A:1023851930080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, 583–600. doi:10.2307/2095417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Klandermans, B. (2004). The demand and supply of participation: Social psychological correlates of participation in social movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 360–379). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klandermans, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations and barriers: Steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review, 52, 519–531. doi:10.2307/2095297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klandermans, B., & Tarrow, S. (1988). Mobilization into social movements: Synthesizing European and American approaches. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures. Greenwich/London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J.-W., & Giugni, M. (Eds.). (1995). New social movements in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mair, P., Müller, W. C., & Plasser, F. (Eds.). (2004). Political parties and electoral change party responses to electoral markets. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Martinez, L. M. (2008). The individual and contextual determinants of protest among latinos. Mobilization, 13, 180–204.Google Scholar
  27. Marwell, G., Aiken, M. T., & Demerath, N. J, I. I. I. (1987). The persistense of political attitudes of among 1960s civil rights activists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(3), 359–375. doi:10.1086/269041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64–90. doi:10.1086/228463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McAdam, D. (1988). Micromobilization contexts and the recruitment to activism. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action (pp. 125–154). Greenwich: JAI-Press.Google Scholar
  30. McAdam, D. (1989). The biographical consequences of activism. American Sociological Review, 54, 744–760. doi:10.2307/2117751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, D. S., & Tarrow, S. (1998). A movement society: Contentious politics for a new century. In D. S. Meyer & S. Tarrow (Eds.), The social movement society (pp. 1–28). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  33. Morris, A. D., & Braine, N. (2001). Social movements and oppositional consciousness. In J. Mansbridge & A. Morris (Eds.), Oppositional consciousness: The subjective roots of social protest (pp. 20–37). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Morris, A. D., & Staggenborg, S. (2004). Leadership in social movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Norris, P., Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2005). Who demonstrates? Anti-state rebels or conventional participants? Or everyone? Comparative Politics, 2, 251–275.Google Scholar
  37. Oegema, D., & Klandermans, B. (1994). Why social movement sympathizers don’t participate: Erosion and nonconversion of support. American Sociological Review, 59, 703–722. doi:10.2307/2096444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Passy, F. (2002). Social networks matter, but how? In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pharr, S. J. (2000). Officials’ misconduct and public distrust: Japan and the trilateral countries. In S. J. Pharr & R. D. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies. What is troubling the trilateral countries?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. (Eds.). (2000). Disaffected Democracies. What is troubling the trilateral countries?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.283.
  43. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Schussman, A., & Soule, S. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84, 1083–1108. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tarrow, S. (1991). Struggle, politics, and reform: Collective action, social movements and cycles of protest. Ithaca, NY: Center for International Studies, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  46. Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1987 [1993]). Collective behavior (pp. 1–14, 16). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. reprinted in Curtis, R. L., & Aguirre, B. E. (1993). Collective behavior and social movements (pp. 5–20). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  47. Van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2001). Who is that (wo)man in the street? From the normalisation of protest to the normalisation of the protester. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 461–486. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Verhulst, J. (2009). February 15: The World says no to war. In S. Walgrave & D. Rucht (Eds.), Protest politics antiwar mobilization in advanced industrial democracies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  50. Verhulst, J., & Van Laer, J. (2009). Demonstration Diehards and Passer-by Protesters. Predicting protest sustainment using comparative paneled protest survey evidence (under review).Google Scholar
  51. Walgrave, S., & Klandermans, B. (2009). Patterns of mobilization. In S. Walgrave & D. Rucht (Eds.), Protest politics antiwar mobilization in advanced industrial democracies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  52. Walgrave, S., & Manssens, J. (2000). The making of the white march: The mass media as a mobilizing alternative to movement organisations. Mobilization, 5, 217–239.Google Scholar
  53. Walgrave, S., & Rucht, D. (Eds.). (2009). Protest politics antiwar mobilization in advanced industrial democracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  54. Walgrave, S., & Verhulst, J. (2006). Towards ‘new emotional movements’? A comparative exploration into a specific movement type. Social Movement Studies, 5, 275–304. doi:10.1080/14742830600991651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walgrave, S., & Verhulst, J. (2009a). Government stance and internal diversity of protest. A comparative study of anti-Iraqi-war protest. Social Forces, 87. Google Scholar
  56. Walgrave, S., & Verhulst, J. (2009b). Protest surveying. Testing the feasibility and reliability of an innovative methodological approach to political protest (under review).Google Scholar
  57. Walgrave, S., & Wagemann, C. (2009). Protest surveys in eight countries. In S. Walgrave & D. Rucht (Eds.), Protest politics. Antiwar mobilizations in advanced industrial democracies. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Walsh, E. J. (1981). Resource mobilization and citizen protest in communities around three mile island. Social Problems, 29, 1–21. doi:10.1525/sp.1981.29.1.03a00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whittier, N. (1997). Political generations, micro-cohorts, and the transformation of social movements. American Sociological Review, 62, 760–778. doi:10.2307/2657359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Research Group Media, Movements and Politics (m2p)University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations