¹ New York 1959.

² Ibid., 9.

³ I do not wish to imply here that Hyman popularized political socialization research; this role was actually performed by Gabriel Almond. However, Hyman was the “founding father,” and his work served as a stimulus to Almond.

⁴ Wengert, Norman, “One Swallow Does Not Make a Spring … ,” Political Science, II (Summer 1969), 355Google Scholar.

⁵ In the recent conventions of the American Political Science Association, political socialization has been one of the general subject areas for panel meetings. This suggests that, at least in the near future, more and more political socialization studies are likely to be published.

⁶ Three recent books on political socialization in different world regions are: Douglas, Stephan A., Political Socialization and Student Activism in Indonesia (Urbana 1970)Google Scholar; Prewitt, Kenneth, ed., Education and Political Values: Essays about East Africa (Nairobi 1970)Google Scholar; and Roig, Charles and Billon-Grand, Françoise, La Socialization politique des enfants: Contribution à l'étude de la formation des attitudes politiques en Francs (Paris 1968)Google Scholar.

⁷ Some of the notions presented in this, as well as in the preceding, section overlap with an interpretation made by Greenstein, Fred I., in “A Note on the Ambiguity of ‘Political Socialization’: Definitions, Criticisms and Strategies of Inquiry,” Journal of Politics, XXXII (November 1970)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, Greenstein's article was not published, or read by me, until after this review article was written.

⁸ It is interesting to note that psychologists and sociologists who have studied socialization have examined children's behavior as well as their attitudes. In fact, their inquiries have often been behaviorally centered. See, for instance, Bronfenbrenner, Urie, Two Worlds of Childhood: US. and U.S.S.R. (New York 1970)Google Scholar.

⁹ For examples of empirical political socialization studies done with university students, see, for instance, the following three papers presented at the Sixty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 1969: Sheldon Appleton, “The Political Socialization of College Students on Taiwan”; Joel D. Barkan, “The Political Socialization of University Students in Ghana, Tanzania, and Uganda”; and Larry Stern, Monte Palmer, and Nafhat Nasr, “Political Socialization and Student Political Attitudes in Latin America, the United States, and the Middle East.”

¹⁰ In fact, Langton's study is not solely “his.” Of the seven chapters in Political Socialization, three are previously published articles, two of which he wrote with M. Kent Jennings and one with David A. Karns.

¹¹ Almond, Gabriel and Coleman, James S., eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton 1960), 28Google Scholar.

¹² Politics, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma's Search for Identity (New Haven 1962), 45Google Scholar.

¹³ “Personality and Political Socialization,” Journal of Politics, xxiii (May 1961), 343Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Political Socialization (Boston 1969), 13Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Ibid., 27.

¹⁶ Ibid., 13.

¹⁷ “Assumptions About the Learning of Political Attitudes,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCLXI (September 1965), 2Google Scholar.

¹⁸ “Political Socialization and Culture Change,” in Geertz, Clifford, ed., Old Societies and New States (New York 1963), 280Google Scholar.

¹⁹ (New York 1968), xiv, 551.

²⁰ “Political Socialization: Some Reactions on Current Approaches and Conceptualizations,” paper presented at the Sixty-second Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (New York 1966), 3-4. This paper is an exceptionally good examination of the methodology and theory associated with political socialization. Sigel brilliantly discusses problems and weaknesses of completed research, including her own, and analyzes many issues beyond the scope of this review article.

²¹ Looking at an aspect of the political behavior of American youth that is not completely analyzed by Easton and Dennis emphasizes the value of specifying these explanatory factors. It has, of course, always been clear that the overt challenge to the system was being made only by particular sub-segments of the youthful population—i.e., blacks and middle- and upper-class college students. It is also clear, especially in the reaction against those who opposed the involvement of United States troops in Cambodia beginning in May, 1970, that other sub-segments—e.g., construction workers and members of the National Guard—do give strong support to the political authority-structure. One criterion that distinguishes between these two groups is the extent to which they have (or think they have) familial and vocational responsibility and a stake in life as it is. We might, I think, plausibly argue that many young blacks do not see themselves as having a stake in life as it is and that many of the more affluent college students do not have responsibilities; it is from these segments that the protesters tend to come. On the other hand, employed youth do seem to have both responsibilities and, apparently, a stake in life as it is; in this sub-section of the population, there are very few protesters but many strong supporters of the present political authority-structure. Thus, the explanatory variables that Easton and Dennis developed, on an intuitive basis, for understanding the “trough” phenomenon, also seem helpful in explaining which sub-segments of the youth will be strongly affected by the trough.

²² Philip E. Converse, “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue,” revised version of a paper read at the Seventeenth International Congress of Psychology in Washington, D.C., August 1963. Reprinted in Tufte, Edward R., ed. The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (Reading, Mass. 1970)Google Scholar. See also Converse, Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David E., ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York 1964)Google Scholar.

²³ “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes,” 176.

²⁴ Ibid., 175.

²⁵ Ibid., 177.

²⁶ Ibid., 178.

²⁷ This problem of children's approaching the questionnaire as if it were a test is discussed by Roberta Sigel, “Political Socialization,” 6-7.

²⁸ My conception of authority derives from my membership in the Workshop in Comparative Politics, directed by Harry Eckstein and Ted Gurr. The discussion of authority in this article is an oversimplified summary of the Workshop's conception.

²⁹ The following discussion on the relation between strain and social and political authority-patterns is drawn partly from Harry Eckstein, “A Theory of Stable Democracy” (Center of International Studies, Research Monograph No. 10, Princeton 1961), reprinted in Eckstein, Harry, Division and Cohesion: A Study of Norway (Princeton 1966), 253–62Google Scholar.

³⁰ This second possibility follows from one of Converse's arguments in “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes,” pp. 180 ff. He argues that cognitive dissonance is low if in the conflict between roles an individual is expected to play, one role is central to him but the other is not.

³¹ There is, of course, one general type of exception—the individual who has not learned how to live with or manage strain. We can assume, on an intuitive basis, that a fairly small percentage of the general population falls into this category.

³² The relation between attitudes and behavior is an important question, which we have not raised in this article. For insights into this issue, as well as a survey of the sociopsychological literature on how children learn, see the brilliant study of Justin , Aronfreed, Conduct and Conscience: The Socialization of Internalized Control over Behavior (New York 1968)Google Scholar.

³³ For an example of the politically heuristic use of a study of children's authority practices and norms, see Schonfeld, William R., Authority in France: A Model of Political Behavior Drawn from Case Studies in Education (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1970)Google Scholar.