Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

VALUES THEORY AND RESEARCH

that is, be relevant to real-world situations. Bem and Lord (1979) created a three-part strategy: First, they had experts list the personality characteristics of cooperators, competitors, and individualists. Second, they used decomposed games to measure the subjects’ values. Third, they had the subjects’ dormitory roommates describe the personality of the subjects. The personal descriptions of specific individuals correlated with both the personality templates created by the experts and subjects’ social values as measured by the games. McClintock and Allison (1989) assessed the social values of subjects and, after several months, mailed them a request to donate their time to a charitable cause. Cooperators were more willing to donate time than were competitors and individualists.

Social values research describes differing motivational preferences and behaviors in social dilemmas. This line of research is fascinating because it has adopted the methodology (experimental games) of ‘‘rational choice’’ theorists, who argue that prosocial values always will be trumped by considerations of self-interest. Although the experimental paradigm is clearly artificial and perhaps contrived, it has fostered an accumulation of controlled evidence that supports the basic thesis of values research: Values are important determinants of behavioral choice.

INGLEHART’S POSTMODERN THESIS

Values research as it is described in this article has followed two distinct strands represented by several schools of theory and research. The first is the micro-level strand. Values research at the microlevel has focused on individual values: what they are, how they are measured, how they vary, and how they affect behavior. The various methodologies for measuring values, from Rokeach’s value survey, to the Schwartz scale, to Messick and McClintock’s decomposed games, represent this strand. The second strand operates at the macro level, the level of cultures or societies. In this strand, one question concerns the distinct cultural variations in values priorities, such as Triandis’s individualism versus collectivism. Another question follows from

Weber’s work drawing a link between cultural values (Protestantism) and socioeconomic change (the emergence of capitalism). The contemporary work of Inglehart is concerned with the association of values and economic development and with how changes in economic conditions are reflected in very different value priorities. Important works in this tradition include Inglehart (1990) and Abramson and Inglehart (1995). A good summary is found in Inglehart (1995).

The starting point for this line of research is Weber’s ([1905] 1958) classic association between Protestantism and the rise of capitalism in the West. Protestant Europe created a new value system that replaced several dogmatic restraints on the development of medieval European society. Weber was principally interested in the shift from traditional authority, best represented by the church, to what he called ‘‘rational-legal’’ authority, which endorsed individual achievement over ascriptive status and the preeminence of the impersonal state as an arbiter of conflicts. Crucial to modernization was secularization, which was reflected in an emerging scientific worldview, and bureaucratization, which was reflected in the rise of organizations driven by attempts at efficiency and explicit goal setting.

Inglehart argues that modernization has followed a fairly straightforward trajectory with economic growth and security at its epicenter. Correlated with modernization has been a coherent set of values such as industriousness, equity, thrift, and security. However, the achievement of economic security in the last twenty-five years in many countries around the world is fostering a change in the dominant values paradigm. Inglehart suggests that people may be experiencing a turn toward postmodern values that emphasize individualistic concerns such as friendship, leisure, self-expres- sion, and the desire for meaningful, not just wealthcreating, work. In key ways, postmodern values follow a path similar to that of modernization values, especially in regard to secularization and individuation. However, they branch in other directions on several points. In societies in which major proportions of the members are economically secure, individuals seek to fulfill postmaterialistic

3222

VALUES THEORY AND RESEARCH

aims such as environmental protection and relational satisfaction. Individuals reject large institutions, whether religious or state-based, focusing instead on more private concerns. They seek new outlets for self-expression and political participation, particularly through local activism.

Some evidence for the postmodern shift comes from Inglehart and Abramson’s (1994) analyses of the Euro-Barometer Surveys, which have measured values at frequent intervals since 1970 in all the European Community nations. These surveys have shown a general increase in postmaterialistic values.

Other evidence regarding the postmodern thesis is drawn from the 1990–1991 World Values Survey, which included data from representative samples from forty-three countries and more than 56,000 respondents. Using multiple indicators for the identification of modern and postmodern values, Inglehart tabulated mean scores for each country for forty-seven values. Those scores were employed in a factor analysis that disclosed two important dimensions. The first dimension contrasts traditional authority with rational-legal authority, and the second contrasts values guided by scarcity conditions with those guided by postmodern or security conditions. The distribution of these values in a two-dimensional space is illustrated in Figure 3. These distributions of values also correspond to countries, and so they can be plotted in a two-dimensional space (Inglehart 1995). For example, Inglehart places the United States, Great Britain, and Canada as well as the Scandinavian countries in the postmodern end of this dimension. China, Russia, and Germany ranked highest in the rational-legal domain. Nigeria stood out in its emphasis on traditional authority, while India, South Africa, and Poland fell between an emphasis on traditional authority and an emphasis on scarcity values.

These data do not suggest that once a country achieves a certain level of economic security, a sweeping change in values follows. The process is gradual, with segments of the population shifting from generation to generation. Hence, even in ‘‘postmodern’’ societies, many, if not most, of the members are likely to emphasize ‘‘modernist’’ val-

ues (Kidd and Lee 1997). These data do not suggest that those who adopt postmodern values score higher on various indicators of subjective wellbeing (Inglehart 1995). What changes is not their level of happiness per se but the criteria by which they evaluate their happiness.

Two issues will continue to receive attention in this line of research. First, there has been some debate about the role of environmentalism as a postmodern value. Does it indicate postmodern commitments, suggesting that it will be valued only by economically secure societies, or is it a more inclusive phenomenon? For a discussion of this issue, see Kidd and Lee (1997) and Brechin and Kempton (1997) along with other articles in that issue of Social Science Quarterly. More generally, the postmodern thesis must be tested with cross-national time-series data to identify values changes over time. These data also will provide insight into questions of causality (Granato et al. 1996): Do values affect economic development, or vice versa?

CONCLUSION

Values research has been of interest to sociologists throughout the history of the discipline. Recently, the study of values has produced novel empirical research programs that carefully address core questions in this field of inquiry. Most fundamentally, values researchers ask what motivates behavior: Is it self-interest alone, self-interest and external coercion, or a combination of self-interest, coercion, and internalized values? A central issue in this line of questioning is the role of values in adjudicating conflicts between individual and collective pursuits.

Values researchers begin with the task of values measurement. What values to people hold? Which ones do they prioritize? How do values differ between members of society and between different cultures? Rokeach supplied the most common measure of values, and Schwartz expanded that measure. Messick and McClintock supplied a very different and innovative measure of social values within the paradigm of game theory research. Schwartz, Triandis, and Inglehart have

3223

VALUES THEORY AND RESEARCH

RATIONAL-LEGAL

AUTHORITY

–1.00

–.80

–.60

–.40

–.20

0

+.20

+.40

+.60

+.80

+1.00

+1.00

+1.00

Abortion

+.80

OK

+.80

Thrift

Determination

+.60

Discuss

Interested

Responsibility

+.60

politics

in politics

Divorce

OK

Politics

+.40

important

Change

Trust people

+.40

Not

State/employee

Independence

Homosexual

happy

management

OK

POSTMODERNVALUES

SCARCITY VALUES

+.20

+.20

Imagination

Woman

Hard

RATIONAL-LEGAL

Tolerance

work

Affect

needs

Child

Money

POST-

Ecology

balance

SCARCITY

0

0

children

needs

Women's

Post-

MODERN

both parents

movement

Friends materialist

Reject

Technology

State

important

values

ownership

TRADITIONAL

Life

out-groups

State

Have

Leisure

satisfaction

–.20

–.20

responsible

Trust science

Freedom

free

important

equality

choice

In good

Jobs to own

health

nationality

–.40

–.40

Respect

Good and evil

parents

are clear

Want

many

–.60

Respect

children

–.60

authority

Work

Family important

important

Obedience

–.80

National pride

–.80

R. is religious

God is important

–1.00

Religion important

–1.00

–1.00

–.80

–.60

–.40

–.20

0

+.20

+.40

+.60

+.80

+1.00

TRADITIONAL

AUTHORITY

Figure 3. Variation in the values emphasized by different societies: traditional authority versus rational-legal authority and scarcity values versus postmodern values

SOURCE: Source: Inglehart (1995), p. 389.

made valuable contributions to the understanding of values cross-culturally. Of particular note is the apparent universality in the conceptual organization of values worldwide, while much variation in the cultural commitment to particular values has been observed.

Beyond measurement, values researchers have been concerned with the role of values in social

interaction. Do values motivate behavior? How are values related to other motivators of behavior? How do individuals increase or decrease their commitment to particular values? How do societies undergo values changes? How are conflicts between values adjudicated between individuals, between individuals and their communities, and between different cultures? Each of the research

3224

VALUES THEORY AND RESEARCH

traditions described in this article has made a contribution to an understanding of the complex values–behavior relationship. Rarely, however, has the question of values acquisition and retention been addressed. Given the enormous progress in cross-cultural values research, it is likely that this domain will garner a great deal of research attention in the next few years.

REFERENCES

Abramson, Paul R., and Ronald Inglehart 1995 Value Change in Global Perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Allport, G. W., P. E. Vernon, and G. Lindsey 1960 A Study of Values. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J., and William E. Loges 1992 ‘‘Value Theory and Research.’’ In E. F. Borgatta and M. L. Borgatta, eds., Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. 1. New York: MacMillan

Bem, Daryl J., and Charles G. Lord 1979 ‘‘Template Matching: A Proposal for Probing the Ecological Validity of Experimental Settings in Social Psychology.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

37:833–846.

Blake, Judith, and Kingsley Davis 1964 ‘‘Norms, Values, and Sanctions.’’ In R. E. L. Faris, ed., Handbook of Modern Sociology, Boston: Rand McNally.

Brechin, Steven R., and Willett Kempton 1997 ‘‘Beyond Postmaterialist Values: National versus Individual Explanations of Global Environmentalism.’’ Social Science Quarterly 78:16–20.

Feather, Norman T. 1975 Values in Education and Society. New York: Free Press.

Granato, Jim, Ronald Inglehart, and David Leblang 1996 ‘‘The Effect of Cultural Values on Economic Development: Theory, Hypotheses, and Some Empirical Tests.’’ American Journal of Political Science

40:607–631.

Grube, Joel W., Daniel M. Mayton, and Sandra J. BallRokeach 1994 ‘‘Inducing Change in Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors: Belief System Theory and the Method of Value Self-Confrontation.’’ Journal of Social Issues 50:153–174.

Hechter, Michael 1992 ‘‘Should Values Be Written Out of the Social Scientist’s Lexicon?’’ Sociological Theory 10:214–230.

——— 1993 ‘‘Values Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.’’ In M. Hechter, L. Nadel, and R. E.

Michod, ed., The Origin of Values. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hofstede, G. 1980 Culture’s Consequences: International

Differences in Work-Related Values. Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage.

Inglehart, Ronald 1990 Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

———1995 ‘‘Changing Values, Economic Development, and Political Change.’’ International Social Science Journal 145:379–403.

———and Paul R. Abramson 1994 ‘‘Economic Security and Value Change.’’ American Political Science Review

88:336–354.

Kagitcibasi, Cigdem 1997 ‘‘Individualism and Collectivism.’’ In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, and C. Kagitcibasi, eds. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 3. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kelley, Harold H., and A. J. Stahelski 1970 ‘‘Social Interaction Basis of Cooperators’ and Competitors’ Beliefs about Others.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16:66–91.

Kidd, Quentin, and Aie-Rie Lee 1997 ‘‘Postmaterialist Values and the Environment: A Critique and Reappraisal.’’ Social Science Quarterly 78:1–15.

Kim, Uichol, Harry C. Triandis, Cigdem Kagitcibasi, Sang-Chin Choi, and Gene Yoon 1994. ‘‘Introduction.’’ In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi S.-C. Choi, and G. Yoon, eds., Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Kluckhohn, Clyde 1951 ‘‘Values and Value Orientation in the Theory of Action.’’ In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils, eds., Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kluckhohn, Florence R., and Fred L. Strodtbeck 1961

Variations in Value Orientations. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Kohn, Melvin L. 1969 Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.

Kristiansen, Connie M., and Alan M. Hotte 1996 ‘‘Morality and the Self: Implications for the When and How of Value-Attitude-Behavior Relations.’’ In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, and M. P. Zanna, eds., The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 8. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

———, and Mark P. Zanna 1994 ‘‘The Rhetorical Use of Values to Justify Social and Intergroup Attitudes.’’

Journal of Social Issues 50:47–66.

Kuhlman, D. Michael, Clifford Brown, and Paul Teta 1993 ‘‘Judgments of Cooperation and Defection in

3225

VALUES THEORY AND RESEARCH

Social Dilemmas: The Moderating Role of Judges’ Social Orientation.’’ In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, and H. A. M. Wilke, eds., Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings. New York: Pergamon.

———, Curt R. Camac, and Denise A. Cunha 1986 ‘‘Individual Differences in Social Orientation.’’ In H. A. M. Wilke, D. M. Messick, and C. G. Rutte, eds.,

Experimental Social Dilemmas. Franfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.

———, and Alfred F. J. Marshello 1975 ‘‘Individual Differences in Game Motivation as Moderators of Preprogrammed Strategy Effects in Prisoner’s Dilemma.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

32:922–931.

Kuhn, M. H., and R. McPartland 1954 ‘‘An Empirical Investigation of Self Attitudes.’’ American Sociological Review 19:68–76.

Liebrand, Wim B. G. 1986 ‘‘The Ubiquity of Social Values in Social Dilemmas.’’ In H. A. M. Wilke, D. M. Messick, and C. G. Rutte, eds., Experimental Social Dilemmas. Franfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.

———, Ronald W. T. L. Jansen, Victor M. Rijken, and Cor J. M. Suhre 1986 ‘‘Might Over Morality: Social Values and the Perception of Other Players in Experimental Games.’’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22:203–215.

Mayton, Daniel M., Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach, and William E. Loges 1994 ‘‘Human Values and Social Issues: An Introduction.’’ Journal of Social Issues 50:1–8.

McClintock, Charles G., and Scott T. Allison 1989 ‘‘Social Value Orientation and Helping Behavior.’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19:353–362.

———, and Wim B. G. Liebrand 1988 ‘‘Role of Interdependence Structure, Individual Value Orientation, and Another’s Strategy in Social Decision Making: A Transformational Analysis.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:396–409.

Messick, David M., and Charles G. McClintock 1968 ‘‘Motivational Bases of Choice in Experimental Games.’’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4:1–25.

Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils 1951 ‘‘Values, Motives, and Systems of Action.’’ In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils, eds., Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Peterson, Randall S. 1994 ‘‘The Role of Values in Predicting Fairness Judgments and Support of Affirmative Action.’’ Journal of Social Issues 50:95–116.

Rokeach, Milton 1973 The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

———, and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach 1980 ‘‘Stability and Change in American Value Priorities, 1968–1981.’’

American Psychologist 44:775–784.

Schwartz, Shalom H. 1990 ‘‘Individualism-Collectivism: Critique and Proposed Refinements.’’ Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 21:139–157.

———, 1992 ‘‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.’’ Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:1–65.

———1994 ‘‘Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values.’’ In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, and G. Yoon, eds., Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage.

———1996 ‘‘Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems.’’ In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, and M. P. Zanna, eds., The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 8. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Scott, W. A. 1965 Values and Organizations. Chicago:

Rand McNally.

Singelis, T. M, H. C. Triandis, D. S. Bhawuk, and M. Gelfand 1995 ‘‘Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement.’’ Cross-Cultural Research 29:240–275.

Smith, M. Brewster 1969 Social Psychology and Human Values: Selected Essays. Chicago: Aldine.

Smith, Peter B., and Shalom Schwartz 1997 ‘‘Values.’’ In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, and C. Kagitcibasi, eds.,

Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 3. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Spates, James L. 1983 ‘‘The Sociology of Values.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 9:27–49.

Stigler, George J. 1950 ‘‘The Development of Utility Theory (I).’’ Journal of Political Economy 58:307–327.

Tetlock, Philip E. 1986. ‘‘A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:819–827.

Triandis, Harry C. 1989 ‘‘Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism.’’ In J. J. Berman, ed.,

Nebraska Symposium of Motivation: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

——— 1995 Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, C Col.: Westview.

———, Christopher McCusker, and C. Harry Hui 1990 ‘‘Multimethod Probes of Individualism and Collectivism.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

59:1006–1020.

3226

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

Van Lange, Paul A. M. 1993 ‘‘Rationality and Morality in Social Dilemmas: The Influence of Social Value Orientations.’’ In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, and H. A. M. Wilke, eds., Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings. New York: Pergamon.

———, B. G. Liebrand, and D. Michael Kuhlman 1990 ‘‘Causal Attribution of Choice Behavior in Three N- Person Prisoners Dilemmas.’’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 26:34–48.

Weber, Max 1958 [1905] The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner’s.

Williams, Robin M. 1960 American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Knopf.

——— 1968 ‘‘The Concept of Values.’’ In D. L. Shils, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 16. New York: Free Press.

Yamagishi, Toshio 1994 ‘‘Social Dilemmas.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Zavalloni, M. 1980 ‘‘Values.’’ In H. C. Triandis and R. W. Brishan, eds., Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 5. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

DAVID R. KARP

VIOLENCE

See Crime Rates; Criminology; Crowds and

Riots; Family Violence; Sexual Violence and

Exploitation; Terrorism.

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF VOLUNTARY

ASSOCIATIONS

It is generally acknowledged that the origins of voluntary associations are in the writings of early Reformation leaders such as Martin Luther and John Calvin (Hooker 1997). Calvin taught that all believers should participate equally in church decisions. The way to accomplish this equality was to see the church as a free and voluntary association of members; at the same time, to become a member, an individual had to be approved by the congregation. An early expression of this democratic church model developed in New England towns, with the local Congregationalist church as the prototypical voluntary association.

When Alexis de Tocqueville based Democracy in America on his tour of the United States in the 1830s, he took particular note of the degree to which Americans formed groups to serve personal interests and solve problems from the mundane to the profound. Tocqueville (1956) was particularly impressed by New England small towns with their autonomous local church congregations, whose citizens gathered in ‘‘town meetings’’ and voted on projects, from building schools and roads to caring for the poor. Current American nostalgia for local control to preserve the moral order may owe much to the almost sacred aura given to the reading of Tocqueville’s description of early American society.

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES OF

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

The 1990s saw renewed interest in and concerns about voluntary associations and their roles in society. On the international level, countries that had been part of the Soviet Union and its power bloc continued to form and experiment with what they called ‘‘informal groups,’’ which had the essential characteristics of voluntary associations. That is, those groups were independent of control from outside sources, people were free to join or leave them, and members established their own objectives and goals and developed means that might achieve them. Among the most important developments arising from these informal groups was the emergence of political parties as part of the struggle to establish democratic governments.

Research on voluntary associations was limited until recently, with most people accepting their importance to a free society and concentrating on questions of demographic characteristics and the contributions they made to local communities (Irwin et al. 1997).

One of the most consistent findings about voluntary associations (Cutler 1976) was that individuals with higher socioeconomic status (SES) were more likely to participate in voluntary associations. Age, race, and gender (while influenced strongly by SES) also were identified as important factors in membership, with middle-aged persons, whites, and males more likely to be members.

3227

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

Gender differences in voluntary association membership have been studied in terms of rates of participation as well as differences in the types of organizations to which each sex belongs. Historically, women’s participation rates in voluntary associations (McPherson and Smith-Lowin 1986) were lower than men’s. Furthermore, the groups to which women belonged tended to be smaller, single-sex, and expressive rather than instrumental. Still, in the 1980s, Knoke (1986) reported that the gender gap was narrowing as more women entered the professional ranks.

Studies of the effect of race on voluntary association membership provided inconsistent findings. For example, Hyman and Wright (1971) documented a sharp increase in membership among blacks between 1955 and 1962 (sharper than that among whites). However, blacks continued to be less likely to belong to a voluntary association other than the local church congregation and its Bible study groups. Knoke (1986, p.4) summarized more recent research with the statement that ‘‘researchers generally found that blacks’ participation rates fell below whites’ but disagreed on whether the gap could be traced to black SES disadvantages.’’

Researchers interested in the way nonpolitical voluntary associations influence political participation have found that individuals who are members of such organizations are more likely to vote and participate in politics (Sigelman et al. 1985; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Rogers et al. 1975).

Voluntary associations range in size from groups of four or five persons to those with hundreds of thousands of members worldwide; structures vary from very informal with little leadership and few norms or guiding rules to highly structured with formal leadership, codes of conduct, and elected and appointed offices. These differences reflect different goals and the ability to influence civic and political affairs.

Some associations, such as the American Medical Association, labor unions, and churches that are hierarchic in structure or practice infant baptism, may have some of the characteristics of voluntary associations, but they are not seen as such in the definition adopted here.

CURRENT RESEARCH

In the United States, Putnam (1996) developed the hypothesis that voluntary associations might well have run their course as he recounted the tale of ‘‘Bowling Alone,’’ suggesting that the decline of voluntary associations was bringing with it a decline in the country’s civic health. His hypothesis sparked renewed interest in voluntary associations and their place in American society.

While Putnam was suggesting the decline of voluntary associations, Wuthnow (1994) was reporting on the large and apparently growing number of Americans who were joining small groups that seemed to have the characteristics of voluntary associations. Wuthnow’s national survey of American adults found that ‘‘exactly forty percent of the adult population of the United States claims to be involved in a small group that meets regularly and provides caring and support for those who participate in it‘‘(1994, p. 45). Assuming that an American adult belonged only to one small group, Wuthnow estimated that at the time of his study, there were at least three million small groups active in the United States, with approximately one group for every eighty people, assuming group size averages of close to twenty-five. Drawing on a variety of sources, Wuthnow subdivided these small groups as follows:

Bible study and related religious groups: 1.7 million

Self-help groups: 500,000

Special-interest groups (political, sports, book and/or discussion): 750,000 (1994, p.76)

These figures contrast sharply with earlier attempts to estimate the number of voluntary associations active in American society. Rose (1967) estimated that there were over 100,000 such associations in the United States, and Hyman and Wright (1971) reported that 57 percent of the American adult population did not belong to a voluntary association. However, local and regional studies found higher participation rates. For example, Babchuk and Booth’s Nebraska study (1969) found that 80 percent of the adult population belonged to at least one voluntary association. More recently, Knoke observed that ‘‘perhaps one third of U.S. adults belong to no formal voluntary organizations and only a third hold membership

3228

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

in more than one (not including churches)’’ (1986, p. 3). Excluding churches may help account for much of the discrepancy in the figures provided by various scholars.

The highest figure provided for membership in voluntary associations among adult Americans came from the 1990–1991 World Values survey. Galston and Levine (1997, p. 2) reported that that survey showed that ‘‘82 percent of Americans belonged to at least one voluntary association, a rate exceeded only by Iceland, Sweden and the Netherlands.’’ This survey was carried out as Wuthnow was doing his study of small groups and Putnam was bemoaning the decline of at least some kinds of voluntary associations.

Evidence of concerns about growth and decline in voluntary associations can be found in events such as the agreement between Lions Clubs International and the Junior Chamber International ( JCs) to form a global partnership to boost membership and encourage lifelong service to the community. Lions International (1998) reported 1.4 million members representing 43,700 clubs in 185 countries, while the Junior Chamber reported 322,000 members in 9,000 chapters in 123 nations. The members of JCs typically have been in the under-40 age bracket; the intent of the new collaboration is to have them join Lions Clubs as they move up the age ladder. Both groups would be encouraged to work more closely together in community service. In this way, they hope to stem the age creep that has brought stagnation and decline to many voluntary associations.

Skocpol and her colleagues in the Harvard Civic Engagement Project have begun to document the local, state, and national linkages of voluntary associations, in the process challenging the assumption that the strength of American civic life ever lay in the local focus of voluntary associations. In her historical overview, Skocpol (1997) identified events such as the Revolutionary War and the subsequent electoral politics, along with the development of an extraordinarily extensive and efficient national postal system, as key factors encouraging the activities of thousands of local and extralocal voluntary associations. Major growth spurts occurred between 1820 and 1840, from after the Civil War to the end of the century, and in the 1930s. These growth spurts seem to be related

to the great issues of the time: slavery and its moral dilemmas, industrialization, and economic crisis.

The Harvard group has so far tracked detailed life histories of some fifty-five voluntary associations that have enrolled 1 percent or more of American adults at some point in their history. Four-fifths of these associations still exist, with most of them paralleling the three-tiered government structure with local, state, and national branches. Although many groups have come and gone at the local level, a more balanced historical view sees voluntary associations as vital links between local and national civil life. The social historian Alexander Hoffman was cited as stating that ‘‘local institutions and organizations may best be understood as branch offices and local chapters

. . . the building blocks of a ‘nation of joiners.’. . .

Americans enlisted in local church groups, fraternal lodges, clubs, and other organizations that belonged to nationwide networks’’ (Skocpol 1997, p. 3).

There is evidence of a decline in some types of voluntary associations even as new small groups emerge. For example, Skocpol (1996) noted that since the 1960s, the Christian Coalition has been one of the few cases of local to national federations growing, while some, such as the Lions, Rotary, and the Junior Chamber, have found themselves with an aging population and in a process of slow decline or even death. Thus, the new alliance between the Lions and the Junior Chambers mentioned above may be seen as an effort at revitalization.

Current research about voluntary associations has revealed a decline of same-sex organizations, growing numbers of college-educated and professional women members, and the replacement of family-oriented by professional associations. As Skocpol put it, ‘‘the best educated people are still participating in more groups overall, but not in the same groups as their less well-educated fellow citizens’’ (1997, p. 5).

At least in the short run, the educational gap, which is reflected in the occupational and income gaps, seems more of a threat to the well-being of civil society than does the so-called loss of the local group. Indeed, Wuthnow’s data, supported by recent research on small faith communities in the U.S. Catholic Church (D’Antonio 1997), suggests the opposite: Small associations are alive and booming at the local level, with more than a little sup-

3229

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

port from national organizations that provide regional gatherings, bring together diverse racial and ethnic groups, and provide a wide range of literature that urges outreach as a part of their mission. Their members may be spending more time working in soup kitchens and other service activities. Meanwhile, other small groups are supporting local teenage sports clubs rather than participating in union-style bowling leagues.

Among Wuthnow’s findings was that social support in these small groups tends to focus on the individual; the groups themselves revealed tendencies to see political and social issues in a conservative vein. Outreach seldom got beyond the soup kitchen state of concern for others.

To the extent that these new groups cut across class, gender, and age lines, they may be fulfilling the hope expressed by Skocpol (1997, p. 5) that Americans will find new ways to work together, ‘‘not just on ‘helping the poor’ but ‘doing with’ rather than ‘doing for’ if we want to revitalize the best traditions of American voluntarism.’’

NEW DIRECTIONS

Among the new directions in voluntary association activity is the development of an interdisciplinary relationship between social work and veterinary medicine. Built on the premise that ‘‘democracies are based on the value of the worth and dignity of each person, and the empowering of persons to take action in their own lives’’ (Granger and Granger 1998), Colorado State University has established a Human-Animal Bond Center (HABIC). Its goal is to provide animal-assisted therapy and activities in partnership with community health, mental health, education, and human service programs. The founders of this program extend the respect for humans to animals and to the environment as a crucial element in the survival of a democratic society. The essential factor in their vision is the linkage of voluntary associations with formal groups such as social work agencies and veterinary medicine societies.

At the international level, scholars in Finland are going beyond studying the functional role of voluntary associations in the stability and growth of democratic societies. They propose that ‘‘from the point of view of social constructionism voluntary associations can be seen as forums for the

production and transmitting of social meanings. This is an intersubjective process which may yield objectivated and taken-for-granted meanings. If internalized, these meanings become the source of personal identity and goal-formation of the association. Thus voluntary associations can be seen not only as part of the western culture heritage but also as cultures in themselves’’ (Raivio and Heikkala 1998, p. 1).

CONCLUSION

Voluntary associations generally are seen as central ingredients of a pluralist democratic society. Millions of Americans belong to hundreds of thousands of these associations, as do growing numbers of people worldwide. Among the more important research findings has been the multifaceted nature of voluntary associations’ growth and impact: Some associations have remained strictly local; some have grown from local to state, national, and international levels; and not a few have grown from the top down, such as the American Legion and the PTA. Their influence on local, state, and national governments has led to much important legislation, such as the GI Bill fostered by the American Legion.

A review of the literature and current research challenges the nostalgic view that what is needed to restore vitality to American democracy is a return to localism and a shrinking national government. Instead, these findings suggest that the current trend toward the growth of a variety of types of voluntary associations, within and across national boundaries and working with rather than apart from governments, is the best formula for the revitalization of American political democracy. The limited evidence from other societies suggests that that same formula applies to all societies seeking to model Western democracies.

REFERENCES

1998 ‘‘Joining Forces to Promote Volunteerism, Membership Growth.’’ Association Management 50:24.

Babchuk, Nicholas, and Alan Booth 1969 ‘‘Voluntary Association Membership: A Longitudinal Analysis.’’

American Sociological Review 34:31–45.

Cutler, Stephen J. 1976 ‘‘Age Differences in Voluntary Association Membership.’’ Social Forces 55:43–58.

3230

VOTING BEHAVIOR

D’Antonio, William V. 1997 ‘‘Small Christian Communities in the Catholic Church: A Study in Progress’’ In Robert S. Pelton, ed., Small Christian Communities: Imagining Future Church. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Galston, William A., and Peter Levine 1997 ‘‘America’s Civic Condition: A Glance at the Evidence.’’ Brookings Review. 15:23–26.

Granger, Ben P., and Georgia V. Granger 1998 ‘‘Voluntary Association Development and the Human-Ani- mal Bond.’’ http://www/friends-partners.org/friends/ audem/audem93/granger.htmlopt-other-unix-english.

Hooker, Richard 1997 ‘‘Voluntary Associations.’’ World Cultures Home Page: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/ dee/GLOSSARY/VOLUNTA.HTM.

Tocqueville, Alexis de [1836] 1956 Democracy in America, ed. and abridged by Richard D. Heffner. New York: Mentor.

Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Steven J. Rosenstone 1980 Who Votes? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Wuthnow, Robert (ed.) 1991 Between States and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective. Princeton, N. J: Princeton, University Press.

———, 1994 Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America’s New Quest for Community. New York: Free Press.

WILLIAM V. D’ANTONIO

Hyman, Herbert H., and Charles R. Wright 1971 ‘‘American Adults: Replication Based on Secondary Analyses of National Sample Surveys.’’ American Sociological Review 36:191–206.

Irwin, Michael, Charles Tolbert, and Thomas Lyson 1997 ‘‘How to Build Strong Home Towns.’’ American Demographics N.Y. Vol 19:42–47.

Knoke, David 1986 ‘‘Associations and Interest Groups.’’

Annual Review of Sociology 12:1–21.

McPherson, J. Miller, and Lynn Smith-Lowin 1986 ‘‘Sex Segregation in Voluntary Associations.’’ American Sociological Review 51:61–79.

Milbrath, Lester W., and M. L. Goel 1977 Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Morgan, Patrick 1997 ‘‘Renovating Civil Society.’’ IPA Review, March, pp. 29–30.

Putnam, Robert D. 1996 ‘‘The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.’’ American Prospect 24:34–49.

Raivio, Risto, and Juha Heikkala 1998 ‘‘Voluntary Associations as Cultures.’’ http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/ sosio/culture/firstassociat.htm.

Rogers, David L., Gordon L. Bultena, and Ken H. Barb 1975 ‘‘Voluntary Association Membership and Political Participation: An Exploration of the Mobilization Hypothesis.’’ Sociological Quarterly 16:305–318.

Rose, Arnold M. 1967 The Power Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sigelman, Lee, Philip W. Roeder, Malcolm E. Jewell, and Michael A. Baer 1985 ‘‘Voting and Nonvoting’’: A Multi-Election Perspective.’’ American Journal of Political Science 29:749–765.

Skocpol, Theda 1996 ‘‘Unravelling from Above.’’ American Prospect. 25:20–25.

——— 1997 ‘‘Building Community Top-Down or Bot- tom-Up? America’s Voluntary Groups Thrive in a National Network.’’ Brookings Review 15:16–19.

VOTING BEHAVIOR

In addition to sociologists, scholars from many different fields, including history, political science, psychology, and geography, have studied elections and voting behavior. In current American sociology, however, these topics are largely neglected. Major advances have been made in related disciplines, yet as of one of the pioneers, the sociologist Rice (1928, p. p.vii) stated: ‘‘The phenomena of politics are functions of group life. The study of group life per se is a task of sociology.’’ In general terms, despite variations in emphasis between different approaches, the sociological study of voting behavior is concerned with the way individuals obtain, select, and process information related to the political arena; the various forces that shape this process; the relevance individuals attribute to the political sphere; and how they decide to participate in or refrain from specific political actions. Elections provide a convenient focus, a point where the often elusive and latent processing of political information manifests behavioral correlates such as voting or abstaining and supporting one candidate or the other. In contrast, forecasting election returns is not a primary goal of the sociological study of voting behavior, although the general public, parties, and politicians are interested mostly in this aspect. Much applied research served these immediate needs and interests in the past and continues to do so. Still, in the field of voting behavior, pure (academic) and applied research peacefully coexist; cross-fertilization rather than mutual irreverence characterizes their relationship.

The study of voting behavior began in the late eighteenth century ( Jensen 1969), although most of the very early work does not meet strict schol-

3231