¹ Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960), pp. 491–2.Google Scholar

² See, inter alia, Goot, Murray and Reid, Elizabeth, Women and Voting: Mindless Matrons or Sexist Scientists? (London: Sage Publications, 1975)Google Scholar; Bourque, Susan C. and Grossholtz, Jean, ‘Politics as an Unnatural Practice: Political Science Looks at Female Participation’, Politics and Society, IV (1974), 225–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jaquette, Jane S., ‘Introduction’, in Jaquette, Jane S., ed., Women in Politics (New York: Wiley, 1974).Google Scholar

³ One culmination of this theme is Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney and Petrocik, John R., The Changing American Voter (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976)Google Scholar, especially Chaps. 8 and 9.

⁴ Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E. and Marcus, George E., ‘Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings’Google Scholar, and Bishop, George F., Tuchfarber, Alfred J. and Oldenick, Robert W., ‘Change in the Structure of Political Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording’, American Journal of Political Science, XXII (1978), 223–49, and 250–69Google Scholar, respectively. See also Converse, Philip E., ‘Public Opinion and Voting Behavior’, in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 4 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975)Google Scholar; and Converse, Philip E. and Markus, Gregory B., ‘Plus Ça Change…: The New CPS Election Study Panel’, American Political Science Review, LXXIII (1979), 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Converse, Philip E., ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in Apter, David, ed., Ideology and Discontent (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1964).Google Scholar

⁶ Converse, , ‘Public Opinion and Voting Behavior’, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar

⁷ E.g. Nie, , Verba, and Petrocik, , The Changing American Voter, Chap. 7.Google Scholar

⁸ The nations, in order of fieldwork dates, are Great Britain, West Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, the United States, Finland, Italy and Switzerland; the first five are included in this paper. Field work was carried out in these five between late autumn, 1973 and summer, 1974. National probability samples of the population aged 16 and over were interviewed. (In Austria no one older than 70 years of age was interviewed.) Sixteen and seventeen year-olds have been dropped from the present analysis. A full report on the initial five-nation component of the study is Barnes, Samuel H., Kaase, Max et al. , Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1979).Google Scholar

⁹ See Converse, , ‘The Nature of Belief Systems’.Google Scholar

¹⁰ A full description of the various measures, social corollaries, and their relation to political participation appears in Klingemann, Chaps. 8–10, in Political Action. We have borrowed liberally from his presentation.

¹¹ Table 17–10, p. 491.

¹² Although the use of Left and Right as cueing symbols in the United States was not without perils, in practice these symbols appear to be nearly as well recognized and understood as the more common labels, liberal and conservative. In the 1976 election study respondents were asked to place themselves on both a left-right and a liberal-conservative scale. The proportion locating themselves on the left-right scale was 74 per cent, that on the liberal-conservative scale was 67 per cent. However, the latter figure is undoubtedly deflated by the availability of the ‘haven't thought much about it’ option, which was not available for the left-right scale. Despite these differences in format two-thirds of those locating themselves on the liberal-conservative continuum also located themselves on the left-right scale; and three-fourths of those selecting a left-right position also chose a liberal-conservative position.

¹³ Converse, , ‘The Nature of Belief Systems’, pp. 224–7.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Klingemann, Chaps. 9–10 in Political Action.

¹⁵ Converse, , ‘The Nature of Belief Systems’, p. 225.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Klingemann, , Chap. 9 in Political Action.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For a lucid account of these two theories, with illustrations from the political world, see Meyer, John W., ‘The Effects of Education as an Institution’, American Journal of Sociology, LXXXIII (1977), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ We use the term to refer to ‘all optional and prescribed attributes, attitudes, and behaviors defined appropriate for and expected of females and males within the culture. The gender role definition exists independently of the person's experiencing of, or performing, the role. Gender roles are defined by the culture.’ Vaughter, Reesa M., ‘Review Essay: Psychology’, Signs, II (1976), 120–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fn. 14, on p. 123. Sex roles, from this perspective, are limited to those associated with biological structures and functions.

¹⁹ In the European countries, especially those on the continent, both the type and the amount of schooling were taken into account in determining the respondent's level of education; in the United States years of formal schooling were used. Descriptions and marginals for the education variable will be found in Barnes, , Kaase, et al. , Political Action, Technical Appendix.Google Scholar

²⁰ The eta coefficients range from lows of ·21 (for women) and ·27 (for men) in Germany to highs of ·48 (for women) and ·47 (for men) in the Netherlands. The indicators of psychological involvement were responses to the following question: ‘How interested would you say you are in politics – are you very interested, somewhat interested, not much interested, or not at all interested?’

²¹ The MCA programme assumes additive effects and combines some features of both multiple regression and analysis of variance techniques. It allows predictor variables in the form of nominal as well as higher order scales and it does not assume or require linearity of regression. See Andrews, Frank, Morgan, James, Sonquist, John and Klem, Laura, Multiple Classification Analysis (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973).Google Scholar

²² For the United States, see Andersen, Kristi, ‘Working Women and Political Participation, 1952–1972’, American Journal of Political Science, XIX (1975), 439–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A less positive interpretation is that of Welch, Susan, ‘Women as Political Animals? A Test of Some Explanations for Male-Female Political Participation Differences’, American Journal of Political Science, XXI (1977), 711–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman H., Kim, Jae-on and Shabad, Goldie, ‘Men and Women: Sex Differences in Political Activity’, in Verba, , Nie, and Kim, , Participation and Political Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

²⁴ A full account of the background, construction, and corollaries of the participation variables used here is presented by Kaase and Marsh, Chap. 3, Political Action.

²⁵ See Chap. 3, Political Action (emphasis in the original).

²⁶ Specifically, the correspondence is, listing our own labels first: Non-actives = Inactives; Dissenters = Protestors; Conventionals = Conformists; Progressives = Reformists; Super-actives = Activists.