¹ Some important exceptions to this include Dawson, Richard and Prewitt, Kenneth, Political Socialization (Boston, 1969)Google Scholar, chap. 8; Riecken, Henry W., “Primary Groups and Political Party Choice,” in Burdick, E. and Brodbeck, A.J., eds., American Voting Behaviour (New York, 1959), 162–83Google Scholar; Kassof, A., The Soviet Youth Program (Cambridge, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 3 discusses conditions of effective peer-group influence in the Soviet Union; Langton, Kenneth, Political Socialization (New York, 1969)Google Scholar, has provided one of the rare inquiries into the effects of peer-group variables on specifically political attitudes. He considers the effects of those peer groups which are homogeneous with respect to social class as opposed to those which are heterogeneous. He finds that the former reinforce class values while the latter have a resocializing effect. Langton does not, however, examine the question of peer-group involvement, as is done here, pp. 120–39, 171–3.

² Bandura, Albert, “Social Learning Theory of Identificatory Processes,” in Goslin, David A., ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (Chicago, 1969), 247Google Scholar; Bronfenbrenner, Urie, “Soviet Methods of Character Education: Some Implications for Research,” American Psychologist, 17 (1962), 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ These data were made available through the cooperation of the Zentralarchiv fur empirische and Socialforschung of the University of Cologne. The study, entitled Student and Hochschulpolitik, makes use of numerous dimensions of political attitudes and participation. Most importantly for this research, it is one of the very few surveys that provides systematic data on peer-group experiences.

⁴ Greenstein, Fred, Children and Politics (New Haven, 1965), 78Google Scholar; Davies, James C., “The Family's Role in Political Socialization,” The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 10–19Google Scholar; Easton, David and Hess, Robert D., “The Child's Political World,” in Crotty, William, Freedman, Donald M., and Gatlin, Douglas, eds., Political Parties and Political Behaviour (Boston, 1966), 126–7Google Scholar, originally published in Midwest Journal of Political Science, vi, 229–46. General treatments of political socialization include: Hyman, Herbert, Political Socialization (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Sigel, Roberta, “Assumptions about the Learning of Political Values,” The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 1–9Google Scholar; Dawson and Prewitt, Political Socialization; Dennis, Jack, “Major Problems of Political Socialization Research,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, XII (February, 1968), 85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; David Easton and Jack Dennis, Children in the Political System (New York, 199); Pinner, Frank A., “Parental Overprotection and Political Distrust,” The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 58–70.Google Scholar

⁵ Much of the confirmatory evidence for the early, familial socialization thesis emerged from voting studies. See Campbell, Angus et al., The American Voter (New York, 1960), 146–67.Google Scholar It also likely that the emphasis on electoral choice and socialization evident in many American works created an initial cultural bias in the direction of early socialization. The comparison with available French data suggests this. See Roig, Charles and Billon-Grand, Françoise, La socialization politique des enfants (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar, and Converse, Philip and Dupeux, Georges, “Politicization of the Electorate in France and the United States,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (Spring, 1962), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Although Converse and Dupeux assume a socialization model in which family effects are critical, their evidence indirectly suggests the importance of non-familial factors. On this point see, Cameron, David R. and Summers, Laura, “Non-Family Agents of Political Socialization: A Reassessment of Converse and Dupeux,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, V, 3 (September, 1972), 418–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Of related interest are the comparative findings of Abramson, Paul R. and Inglehart, Ronald, “The Development of Systemic Support in Four Western Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies, II, 4 (January, 1970), 419–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ The Development of Political Attitudes in Children, (Garden City, N.Y., 1967), 247–8. Of related interest are the Italian-based findings reported by Hennessey, Timothy M., “Democratic Attitudinal Configurations among Italian Youth,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, XIII, 2 (May, 1969), 167–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Political Socialization, 16–17.

⁸ “Patterns of Political Learning,” Harvard Educational Review, XXXVIII, 443–67; and “The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to Child,” American Political Science Review, LXII, 1 (March, 1968), 169–84.

⁹ Pitts, Jesse R., “The Family and Peer Groups,” in Goode, William J., ed., The Dynamics of Modern Society (New York, 1966), 34.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The commonly used alternatives are simple index construction and scaling. For many types of variables, for example degree of political participation or strength of partisan preference, either of these may be preferable. Two recent analyses which illustrate such alternative operational solutions are Inkeles, Alex, “Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries,” American Political Science Review, LXIII, 4 (December, 1969), 1120–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Nie, Norman H., Powell, G. Bingham, and Prewitt, Kenneth, “Social Structure and Political Participation: Development Relationship, I,” American Political Science Review, LXIII, 2 (June, 1969), 361–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Rummel, R.J., “Understanding Factor Analysis,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, XI, 4 (1967), 444–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides a succinct but comprehensive statement on the utility of and basis for factor analysis which is directly applicable to this study. For further elaboration see also, Rummel, R.J., Applied Factor Analysis (Evanston, 1970)Google Scholar; Palumbo, Dennis J., Statistics in Political and Behavioral Science (New York, 1969), 271–306Google Scholar; Rozeboom, William W., Foundations of the Theory of Prediction (Homewood, Ill., 1966), 210–91Google Scholar; Cattell, Raymond B., Factor Analysis (New York, 1952)Google Scholar; Fruchter, B., Introduction to Factor Analysis (New York, 1954).Google Scholar

¹² In order to avoid unnecessary complications in the later analysis, a constant was added to all factor scores to remove all negative values. This in no way affects the meaning of the scores. On factor scores, see Rummel, “Understanding Factor Analysis,” 450. A recent illustration of the utility of factor scores is Muller, Edward N., “Cross-national Dimensions of Political Competence,” American Political Science Review, LXIV, 3 (September, 1970), 792–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Given the upsurge of student activism and radicalism in the late 1960s, the study of the sources of student political attitudes and political action became a matter of prime interest and immediacy. The data on which this analysis is based were collected in 1968. Although the object here is not primarily to understand the origins or nature of German student radicalism, any study of socialization patterns among students is likely to have considerable significance for such issues. For a systematic treatment of student radicalism, see the doctoral dissertation of Allerbeck, Klaus R., Soziale Bedingungen für studentischen Radikalismus (University of Cologne, 1971).Google Scholar Other important works on German student radicalism include Habermas, Jurgen, Student und Politik (Neuwied, 1961)Google Scholar; Hurwitz, Harold, “Germany's Student Revolt,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol. 395 (May, 1971), 90–9Google Scholar; and Merritt, Richard L., “The Student Protest Movement in West Berlin,” Comparative Politics I (July, 1969), 516–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Useful sources on student politics in general include Lipset, S.M., “Students and Politics in Comparative Perspective,” in Stammer, Otto, ed., Party Systems, Party Organizations and the Politics of New Masses (Berlin, 1969), 409–37.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Society and Democracy in Germany (New York, 1967), 204–5. See also Meinecke, Friedrich, The German Catastrophe (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar; Ritter, Gerhard, The German Problem, Basic Questions of German Political Life, Past and Present (Columbus, 1966).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Converse, Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David E., ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York, 1964), 214–19.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For a discussion of some cross-cultural variations in peer group activity see Pitts, “Family and Peer Groups.”

¹⁷ Lawrence Kohlberg, “Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization,” in Goslin, Handbook, 400.

¹⁸ “A Theory of Stable Democracy,” in Division and Cohesion in Democracy (Princeton, 1966), 239–40.

¹⁹ “Although, as with so many of the existing socialization findings, the evidence pertains primarily to party preference and voting, several studies have shown that involvement in and homogeneity of peer groups are correlated with the impact of such groups. See Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N., Voting (Chicago, 1954), 94Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus et al., The American Voter (New York, 1960), 259–332.Google Scholar

²⁰ Robert A. Levine, “Culture, Personality and Socialization: An Evolutionary View,” in Goslin, Handbook, 535.

²¹ Dawson and Prewitt, Political Socialization, 127–8. See also, Eisenstadt, S.N., From Generation to Generation (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Goslin, “Introduction,” Handbook, 12.

²² On the interaction of peer group and schooling see Ernest Q. Campbell, “Adolescent Socialization,” in Goslin, Handbook, 847–9.

²³ Douvan, Elizabeth and Gold, Martin, “Modal Patterns in American Adolescence,” in Hoffman, L.W. and Hoffman, M.L., eds., Review of Child Development Research, 2 (New York, 1966), 492–3, 510.Google Scholar

²⁴ On the role of religion in German politics see Edinger, Lewis J., Politics in Germany (Boston, 1968), 40–5Google Scholar; Heidenheimer, Arnold J., The Governments of Germany (New York, 1966), 35–6, 110–11Google Scholar; Grosser, Alfred, Germany in Our Time (New York, 1971), 227–41.Google Scholar

²⁵ Dawson and Prewitt, Political Socialization, 132.

²⁶ Another possible alternative hypothesis might be that those least influenced by family socialization will be least influenced by peers as well. Campbell, John, “Peer Relations in Childhood,” in Hoffman, and Hoffman, , Review, 1 (1964) 300Google Scholar, suggests that unsatisfactory home life can lead to unsatisfactory peer relations – individuals who do not get along and are not influenced by parents may not develop any better relations with peers.

²⁷ Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Chicago, 1965), 130–1Google Scholar; Lane, Robert, Political Life (New York, 1959), 187–203.Google Scholar

²⁸ Milbrath, Political Participation, 132. Ziblatt, David, “High School Extracurricular Activities and Political Socialization,” Annals, v. 361 (1965), 26–7Google Scholar, finds a variable comparable to peer-group and associational involvement. What he calls integration (perception of being on the inside of the status system) is a crucial intervening variable in his model and a significant determinant of positive orientations toward politics. His primary independent variable, high school extra-curricular activity, is not, however, directly related to political attitudes. Extra-curricular activity is suggested to be analogous to associational membership rather than informal peer-group involvement.

²⁹ Jennings and Niemi, in “The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to Child,” have also demonstrated the need for this type of comparison.

³⁰ Langton, Political Socialization, 35–9; Litt, Edgar, “Civic Education Norms and Political Indoctrination,” American Sociological Review, 28 (February, 1963), 69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Campbell et al., American Voter, chap. 13; Jackson, John S., “The Political Behavior and Socio-economic Backgrounds of Black Students: The Antecedents of Protest,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, XV, 4 (November, 1971), 661–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar