Choice and political participation.

This dissertation develops and tests a choice theory based model of non-electoral political participation that addresses three deficiencies of previous research. First, previous research has assumed that the decision to participate is indistinguishable from that of how to participate. Second, past research has assumed, implausibly, that the evaluations of different participatory options are unrelated to each other. Finally, it has focused mostly on activists and has failed to consider insights that can be provided from listening to non-participators. In this work I relax these assumptions by testing two key hypotheses. First, the selection of any particular participatory option (or combination thereof) is not only conditioned by the preferences and characteristics of the decision-maker and of the alternative itself (e.g. instrumentality, costs and mobilization), but also by the availability of other options. Second, the factors that determine the choice of one option over others will not necessarily have the same effect on whether an individual will participate at all. Among these factors, I emphasize resources, time, mobilization, instrumentality, individual values and attitudes towards politics and the personal stakes of the decision-maker in the issue. I evaluate these hypotheses both qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative test is based on in-depth interviews with seven residents of the Ann Arbor, Michigan area. These include both activists and non-participators. The quantitative test consists of a conditional logit model which permits direct testing of the hypotheses. The data used were from the 1989 Detroit Area Study. The results confirm both main hypotheses. Considering particular variables we find that: (1) The availability of options makes a difference, for example, being mobilized to perform an act of participation can have a negative effect on performing others. (2) We must distinguish between the decision of whether participate and that of how to participate. For example, efficacy has an effect on the latter decision, but not on the former; mobilization is related to both; and education mainly to the first. (3) Individual values and stakes are important for participatory decisions to the extent that they may be more important than resources, such as free time.Ph.D.Political scienceSocial SciencesUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/131190/2/9840523.pd