MOTIVATIONAL FRAMING A N D
EFFICACY MAINTENANCE:
Animal Rights Activists’ Use
Of Four Fortifying Strategies
Rachel L. Einwohner
Purdue University
Whilc a great deal of research has documented the role of perceived efficacy in the
decision to participate in collective action, less attention has been paid to these perceptions beyond the onset of protest activity. This article uses qualitative data from
fieldwork with members of an animal rights group engaged in four different protest
campaigns to examine activists’ sense of their accomplishments in the context of
ongoing activism. Despite feeling quite pessimistic about their chances for success in
some of the campaigns, these activists strove to evaluate their efforts positively, using
a number of “fortifying strategies” to identify and celebrate their successes-even in
the face of apparent defeat. These findings suggest that perceived efficacy is necessary not only for initial participation in protest but must also be maintained for longterm activism.
The animal rights movement occupies a somewhat contradictory position in American
society. In some ways, the movement’s goals have been accepted by the public; for
instance, polls show that Americans oppose the use of animal testing for cosmetic products (Groller 1990), and every state has enacted laws against animal cruelty (Crarnton
2000). In fact, between 1985 and 1994, over half of the members of the U.S. Congress
sponsored bills and/or resolutions dealing with animal protection and wildlife-related
issues (Garner 1998, p.122). At the same time, however, the American public has been
much slower to show support for the movement’s other goals; for example, a 1999 Gallup poll found that only 6 percent of Americans are vegetarians (Gallup Organization
2001), and studies have found majority support for animal experimentation (Groller
1990; Pifer, Shimizo, and Pifer 1994). Americans, therefore, are capable of multipleand somewhat competing-attitudes about animals (Kellert 1989). As James M. Jasper
and Dorothy L. Nelkin (1992, p. 174) note,
As long as they see a link between healthy children and vivisection, most Americans
will view animal rightists as essentially misanthropic, valuing humans over people.
While many see cosmetic testing as an abuse of animals for frivolous purposes, some
Direct all correspondence to Rachel L. Einwohner, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, 700 W.
State Street, West Iafayette, IN 47907-2059; e-mail: [email protected]
The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 43, Number 4, pages 509-5245.
Copyright @ u)oz by The Midwest Sociological Soaety.
All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press,
Journals Division, u)oo Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 947041223.
ISSN: 0038-0253;online ISSN 1533-8525
510
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
fear that this will shift the burden of risk on to conwmers. While many Americans are
giving up furs, relatively few are willing to give up chicken or meat.
Such dualistic attitudes create a political landscape that shapes the animal rights
movement’s ability to achieve its goals. For example, activists have been more successful
in their efforts against the buying and selling of fur garments-items generally seen as
luxuries and therefore unnecessary-than against animal experimentation, which is
regarded as central to medical reyearch and, therefore, to human welfare (Einwohner
1999). Further, in the few instances where animal rights activists have made advances
against experimentation, they have done so by framing particular experiments as frivolous and/or unnecessarily cruel and not by convincing the public of the inappropriateness or the immorality of animal research in general (Jasper and Poulsen 1993). More to
the point here, this variegated political climate also shapes activists’ sense of their own
effectiveness. The following analysis centers on those perceptions. To what extent do
animal rights activists feel that they have “succeeded’ or “failed”? How effective do they
expect to be in the future?
Although my inquiry focuses on the experiences of animal rights activists, it is intended
as a contribution to the study of social movements more generally. As other researchers
have shown (e.g., McAdam 1982; Klandermans 1984), social movement participants’ own
assessment of their endeavors is an important aspect of collective action that affects both
movement emergence and micromobilization. However, 1 argue that these perceptions
are worthy of study beyond the onset of protest activity as well. The animal rights movement provides a particularly useful setting for such a study, precisely bccause its members
work in an environment in which they are likely to experience both advances and setbacks. An analysis of animal rights activists’ perceived efficacy during the context of ongoing activism helps demonstrate how activists strive to maintain their efficacy throughout
their involvement in protest; given the dualistic public attitudes that render some of their
goals more easily attained than others, animal rights activists must work not only to
achieve objective results but also to sustain their sense of accomplishment over time.
This article, therefore, extends previous research on perceived efficacy and collective
action by exploring the strategic interpretive efforts that activists make to maintain their
sense of efficacy beyond their initial participation. In what follows, I use qualitative data
collected during nearly three years of fieldwork with a Seattle-area animal rights organization to describe four different strategies activists use to arrive at positive evaluations
of their work. 111 doing so, I draw on David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford’s (1988;
Benford 1993) discussion of the “vocabularies of motive” that compel activism, along with
the work of Kim Voss (1 996; 3 998), who argues that movement participants’ ability to use
“fortifying myths” to explain their defeats helps sustain movement activity over time.
I begin with a discussion of previous research on efficacy and its relationship to protest activity. Then, after a description of my research setting, I illustrate four strategies of
efficacy maintenance used by my respondents. I conclude by discussing the implications
of these findings for future social movement research.
PERCEIVED EFFICACY, MOTIVATIONAL FRAMING,
A N D COLLECTIVE ACTION
A rich literature exists on the relationship between perceived efficacy and participation
in collective action. Efficacy is a social psychological construct, a judgment of “how well
Motivational Framing and EfficacyMaintenance
511
one can execute courses of actions required to deal with prospective situations”
(Bandura 1982, p. 122). James G. Ennis and Richard Schreuer (1987. p. 395) describe
efficacy as protest “participants’ sense of being able to make a difference. . . . It requires
that tactical goals be plausibly winnable, and that tactical success be linked to achieving
a larger objective” (see also Archibald -19%). Such perceptions can refer to the abilities
of an individual (self-efficacy) or group (collective efficacy) (Bandura 1982; Guzzo, Yost,
Campbell, and Shea 1993).
Research on a variety of protest activities, including strikes (Klandermans 1984),
antinuclear activism (Edwards and Oskamp 1992), environmental activism (Glazer and
Glazer 1999), whistle-blowing (Glazer and Glazer 1Y99), antibusing protests (Begley
and Alker 1982), activism among high school students (Paulsen 1991), and riot participation (Paige 1971) has demonstrated that perceived efficacy is one factor that explains
participation in collective action. Theories of movement emergence also posit a causal
link between efficacy and action. For instance, Doug McAdam’s (1982) political process
theory argues that “cognitive liberation,” or potential protesters‘ belief that collective
action will succeed, is a necessary but insufficient factor in movement emergence (see
also Oliver 1989; Piven and Cloward 1977; Snow. Rochford, Worden, and Benford
1986). In a later book, McAdam (1988) also argues that one reason why affluent college
students participated in the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer Project was that they
were infused with a sense of “generational potency,” a product of youthful optimism as
well as class-based power and opportunity for success.
Because perceived efficacy is a subjective assessment, some theorists argue that it
stems from interpretive activities such as framing (Snow et al. 1986). indeed, scholars
drawing on the concepts of frames and framing processes to explain social movement
participation identify efficacy as a necessary component of the “vocabularies of motive”
(Benford 1993) that compel activism. For example, William A. Gamson (1992, p. 7)
argues that one of the core elements of collective action frames is what he calls
“agency,” or “the consciousness that it is possible to alter conditions or policies through
collective action.” Similarly, Bert Klandermans’s (1984: 1988) concepts of “consensus
mobilization” and “action mobilization,” or the framing processes by which movement
participants actively work first to create awareness of and support for their goals and
then to convince committed individuals to take action on the movement’s behalf, also
point to the importance of efficacy as a necessary part of these processes. Finally, Benford’s (1993) study of the US. nuclear disarmament movement in the early 1980s
identifies four specific types of motivational frames used by activists to convince others
to take action; one of these is a n “efficacy frame” that both constructs and maintains
beliefs about the efficacy of collective action.
The research cited above suggests two things about the relationship between perceived efficacy and collective action: first, that people participate in collective action at
least in part because they believe that their actions will be effective, and second, that
activists use framing techniques to create a sense of efficacy among potential participants (as part of a broader process of motivational framing intended to convince others
to take action). However, most empirical analyses of efficacy and efficacy-related framing activities have used these concepts to explain individuals’ initial decision to participate in protest. Much less attention has been paid to these perception$ and the frames
that create them, beyond the onset of protest activity. Further, those studies that do
examine perceived efficacy beyond the initial participation tend to focus on activists’
512
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
reflections back on their completed efforts, typically well after the action has ended (see
Meyer’s [2000] discussion of how movements claim credit for past successes and Smith’s
[1996] and Voss’s 11996; 19981 work on how Central American peace activists and U.S.
and British labor activists, respectively, described their failed efforts). In contrast, little
is known about activists’ perceived efficacy between the emergence and dissipation of
collective action. Yet it is in this period of movement activity that these perceptions may
vary the most, as activists move beyond the heady idealism characteristic of initial
participation and experience both successes and failures firsthand. The following analysis seeks to address this gap in the literature by examining activists’ day-to-day assessments of their actions. In particular, I focus on the strategic components of these
assessments, showing how they can be used as part of the motivational framing that can
help sustain participation in protest.
RESEARCH SETTING AND DATA
My data come from observations and interviews with members of an animal rights
group in Seattle, Washington. Between October 1992 and August 1995 I attended
monthly activist meetings as well as various protest events that were planned and staged
by the activists; the latter included marches and demonstrations as well as other events
(e.g., activists’ attendance at public hearings and meetings). The activists were aware of
my identity and research interests. In addition to my observations at these meetings and
events, I had numerous conversations with activists in these settings. I recorded all these
data by taking handwritten notes at the scene and then typing up field notes within
twenty-four hours. This process generated nearly ninety-five pages of single-spaced
notes. I also conducted in-depth interviews, ranging from one to three hours in length,
with fourteen activists. Although I interviewed each of these fourteen activists only
once, most of the interviewees were people with whom I had shorter conversations at
other times. In addition, 1 documented brief conversations with an additional fifteen
individuals who were not interviewed formally. Finally, I collected copies of the group’s
monthly newsletter, along with flyers and pamphlets that were distributed at meetings
and other events. I use pseudonyms when quoting or referring to individual respondents
During my discussions with the activists, including all of the formal interviews as well
as a number of the more informal conversations, I asked questions such as, “Do you
think your group has been successful?” or “Do you think your efforts have been effective?” I often used the terms “successful” and “effective” interchangeably, as did the
activists. Many activists also used the term “winnable,” a term that I later picked up and
began to use myself While it is possible that I biased the responses by using these terms
interchangeably, I believe that these terms were broad enough to allow respondents to
assess success in their own way, using whatever criteria they felt appropriate. Therefore,
I am fairly confident that the respondents spoke freely and truthfully in assessing their
activities.
I use these data because of what they can reveal about activists’ sense of efficacy
during ongoing protest activity. As I explain in more detail below, when I began my
fieldwork, the organization had been in existence for a little over two years and was
actively waging several different campaigns on various issues related to animal rights
and welfare. Each campaign was initiated before 1992 and, to the best of my knowledge,
each continued after my fieldwork period ended in 1995.Thus,I had the opportunity to
Motivational Framing and EfficacyMaintenance
513
observe, chat with, and interview activists during a time when the group as a whole had
been working on these issues long enough for individual activists to be able to reflect on
protest outcomes, but not long enough for any of the four campaigns to be declared
absolute victories and thus discontinued. These data therefore provide a view “from the
trenches” that shows how activists make sense of their actions before it is clear whether
those efforts are “successes” or “failures” and illustrate how such evaluations can be
used strategically to help sustain participation in protest.
In the following section 1 present a brief description of the four campaigns waged by
the activist group. 1 then turn to my main findings, which include a discussion of the
ways that the activists made sense of their accomplishments and how they worked
actively to see the positive in their efforts, even in the case of ostensibly negative results.
FOUR ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS
On September 6, 1990, nearly one hundred fifty people gathered for several hours in a
meeting room in Seattle’s University District neighborhood. They were brought together
by a common love for animals and a shared interest in taking action to protect and promote animals’ well-being. Some oi those on hand had participated in the National March
for Animals in Washington, D.C., several months previously and still felt the energy and
elation of marching with thirty thousand other people who shared their views. Indeed,
some of those marchers came back to Seattle determined to continue the fight to protect
animals on a local level. That meeting signaled the establishment of an activist group,
described in its newsletter as one devoted to “motivat[ing] and mobiliz[ing] individuals
who want to personally get involved in the fight for animal protection.”
At that first meeting, members of the audience were invited lo make suggestions
about different issues on which they wanted the group to act. The ideas generated from
that discussion eventually became nine “Issues Committees”; these included Animals
and Environmentalism; Animal Research; Companion Animals; Entertainment and
Sport; Farm Animals and Vegetarianism; Furs and Trapping; Hunting and Wildlife;
Product Testing; and Theology and Philosophy. Over time, some of these issues were
dropped, while others became sustained protest campaigns. My analysis makes reference to four of those campaigns, each of which were ongoing when I began my fieldwork
in 1992. These included a campaign against the retail fur trade in downtown Seattle, a
campaign against local circus performances featuring performing animals, a campaign
against hunting in western Washington state, and a campaign against the use of animals
in biomedical research at the University of Washington.
While the four campaigns differed in their substantive foci, each centered on local
issues dealing with animal use either in the immediate Seattle area or in western Washington state more generally. Further, each campaign featured the same types of protest
activities and events. For example, the activists routinely held demonstrations outside
circus performances in the Seattle area and also had a number of marches and directaction demonstrations against the other targeted practices. In April 1991, for instance,
activists held a twenty-four-hour “Vigil against Vivisection” at the University of Washington, as well as a silent protest at a talk by Dr. Frederick Goodwin, described in the
group’s newsletter as “one of the National Institutes of Health’s most outspoken advocates of animal research and most fervent critics of animal rights”
514
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
The activists also employed more conventional political tactics in pursuit of their
goals, including letter writing to various businesses, state officials, and members of the
public. For example, in February 1993, activists sent letters to 201 Seattle area elementary schools that had received frec tickets to an upcoming Shriners circus; these letters
described the group’s position against circuses and asked the schools’ staff not to distribute the tickets to students. The activists also staged many letter-writing campaigns
against hunting, including sending letters to state and federal wildlife officials urging
hunting bans as well as letters to companies and publications that support hunting. In
October 1993, when the Washington State Department of Wildlife began accepting public comment in preparation for reviewing hunting regulations, activists wrote hundreds
of letters and po\tcards asking that three types of hunting be banned: bear baiting (i.e.,
the practice of using bait, such as pastries and fresh meat, to attract bear for the purpose
of hunting them), hound hunting (i.e., the use of hounds to track game), and pursuit seasons (i.e., allowing hound hunters, during the off-season, to run their dogs and pursue
game without injuring or killing the prey). Many activists also testified at a public hearing held by the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission on March 12, 1994, in
order to demonstrate their opposition to the forms of hunting in question. Such activity
was also common in the experimentation campaign. For instance, activists routinely
wrote letters to state and university officials opposing specific experiments being conducted at the University ot Washington. In addition, they attended and made comments
at meetings of the university’s Animal Care Committee (a public meeting where protocols for animal experiments were discussed and reviewed).
Despite the use of similar strategies across the campaigns, the four campaigns did not
achieve the same amount of success. The campaigns against circuses and the fur trade
made the most progress toward the activists’ goals; for instance, circus attendance at
Seattle-area performances decreased during the campaign, as did the number of fur
salons operating in downtown Seattle. In contrast, the campaigns against hunting and
animal experimentation were less effective, with little noticeable decrease in either of
these practices (see Einwohner 1997 for more detail on the outcomes of these campaigns). Yet, while the different levels of success across the campaigns are notable. that
is not the focus of this article. Instead, T examine the activists’ assessment of their activities during the ongoing campaigns. I turn now to a discussion of the activists’ evaluations
of their successes and failures.
ACTIVISTS’ PERCEIVED EFFICACY
Perhaps not surprisingly, a group of activists working on four very different issues did
not talk to me about the overall effectiveness of their efforts. Instead, their evaluations
of their work-including what they had achieved to date as well as their hopes for future
advances-varied by campaign issue. In particular, many activists felt that they had
made great advances against the local fur retail business but evaluated the other campaigns much more negatively. As one activist, Marisa, explained,
Fur prolesting has been really effectivc, just based on the reports of all the stores that
have closed their fur salons . . [hut] animal experimentation, it will be a long time
before that i b over. And then things like circuses and rodeos, they’re a1 the bottom of
the list, it will be ycars and years before they’re gone.
Motivational Framing and EfficacyMaintenance
515
Similarly, Wendy. one of the group’s leaders, said,
Some issues seem more attainable than others. Fur ir a good example. We call this a
“safe” issue because we’ve come so L r and changed so much. It’s really likely that
some day there will be no u5c of animal fur. %is makes people feel more comfortable. And our fur march is one of our most popular events. But vivisection-it seems
less likely that we’ll ever get rid of it. so we get less people for it. Also, for vivisection
you really need to know more about the issues. We do get people involved, but not as
many as for fur.
Becky also felt most optimistic about the fur campaign, as compared with the other
campaigns:
Well, I’m pessimistic [about fur], but not as much. I think those things are much more
winnable, simply because fur is a status symbol for thc wealthy and not everybody
can afford that, therefore people don’t own furs. don’t have the money to buy them.
It’s not something that’s a part of their lifestyle, so it’s easier for them to be against it.
As these quotes show, although individual activists had different reasons for evaluating the fur campaign positively, they saw it as a success to date and felt that even more
advances-indeed, even the ultimate victory of the eradication of the fur trade-would
follow. Various organizational events and activities highlighted and reinforced these
positive evaluations. For example, in November 1992, the group staged a New Orleansstyle “Funeral for Fur” consisting of a festive march through downtown Seattle in order
to celebrate the demise and disappearance of many downtown fur salons Activists also
occasionally greeted passengers debarking from flights at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport with cards that read, “Welcome to Seattle, a Fur-Free City.”
Whereas many of the activists felt most efficacious about the fur campaign, they disagreed as to which of their four campaigns had been the least successful.Again, in making these assessments, the activists spoke of their work to date as well as their potential
for future success. For Emily, the experimentation campaign had the least chance for
success: she said, “Oh, I think definitely the animal research, biomedical thing, is going
to be the toughest. If it ever is winnablc.” In contrast, as noted above, Marisa placed circuses “at the bottom of the list.” Sean presented yet another view. While he was concerned that efforts against circuses would take a long time, he still felt more optimistic
about the circus campaign than the hunting campaign. As he said, “Circuses will stop
using animals before hunting stops, because hunting is a real powerhouse in our economy, and it’s supported by all the guns and the NRA.” Maggie was also particularly pessimistic about the hunting campaign:
Well. I think we’ve been pretty unproductive in doing any sort of antihunting outreach. . . . It‘s such a tradition, if the grandfather dies off the son’s ready to take, or
the grandson’s ready to take his place. It’s such a traditional thing that I can see that
it would just stay about the same. ‘There’s always someone new to buy the licenses
and everything else.
Thus, while the activists did not demonstrate a clear consensus in their ranking of each
campaign‘s “winnability,”the more important point is that they did not provide an overall assessment of their activities; instead, their scnse of efficacy varied by protest issue.
516
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
The fact that the activists were particularly pessimistic about some of their campaigns
is notable as well. In fact, some of the above quotes may seem somewhat surprising in
light of most research on efficacy and collective action, which suggests that protesters
engage in activism in part because of strong expectations for success. In the rest of this
article I argue that precisely because of their doubts about their abilities to prevail on
certain campaign issues, these activists had to develop a set of strategies for keeping
their morale high. Following Voss’s (1996; 1998) discussion of “fortifying myths,” I refer
to these as “fortifying strategies,” or ways of assessing protest outcomes that highlight
positive consequences (even for apparently negative or failed results). I use the term
“strategy” instead of Voss’s “myth” because I believe that the former provides a better
description of the ways that these assessments can be used purposefully, by individuals
as well as organizations, to maintain morale and legitimate further activism. I describe
four such strategies: seeing the positive, thinking cumulatively, celebrating victories, and
claiming credit.
EFFICACY MAINTENANCE: FOUR FORTIFYING STRATEGIES
Seeing the Positive
Interestingly, even though the activists evaluated some of their efforts negatively, they
also tended to “see the positive” in all their activities. That is, despite pessimism about
their abilities-especially with regard to the hunting, circus, and experimentation
campaigns-none of the group’s efforts were believed to have failed completely.
Instead, the activists were always able to find something positive to point to, even for
the least “winnable” issues.
1 saw many examples of this fortifying strategy throughout my fieldwork. As noted
above, at one stage of the hunting campaign the activists targeted state wildlife officials
with letters, phone calls, and testimony at a public hearing in an attempt to persuade
them to ban three specific types of hunting. These efforts did not achieve the activists’
goals; in March 1994, the nine-member Washington State Wildlife Commission voted
6-3 against the proposed ban. Despite this apparent failure, however, some activists
were able to find a silver lining in the outcome. For example, Wendy lauded the fact that
three of nine commissioners did vote for the ban. As she explained,
The Department of Wildlife really caters to the hunting community. It has really been
run by hunters, but that’s because up until now that’s the only group that has really
given them any input. This is the first time that this issue has ever arisen, and the only
reason that it was even brought up was because we wanted to bring it up. In the past
they’ve only really worked with hunters. That’s why it was so amazing that three of
the commissioners voted for the ban. That was a real milestone. . . . I feel successful, I don’t feel demoralized at all. I felt good simply because I was so taken aback
by the fact that three of the commissioners voted for the ban. That was completely
unexpected.
For Wendy, the group’s efforts against hunting were actually successful on two fronts: in
addition to convincing three commissioners to vote in their favor, the activists also SUCceeded in bringing the proposed ban to the attention of public officials in the first place.
Despite the fact that the activists’ goals were not met, Wendy felt that the group made
some gains, which she clearly saw as a success.
Motivational Framing and Efficacy Maintenance
517
The way that the activists talked about some of their campaign objectives also suggested the importance of “seeing the positive.” The circus campaign, for example. aimed
at convincing circus patrons to boycott shows featuring performing animals. When talking about this campaign, however, the activists explained that they really hoped to persuade patrons to boycott future performances, as few activists believed that patrons
would fail to attend performances for which they had already purchased tickets. As
Wendy said at one activist meeting,
We don’t do this [hold demonstrations outside circus pcrformances] with the hopes
that people turn around and leave, because they’re already there and with their kids.
That would be too much to expect. What we hope is that they read our literature, or
take it home and read it later, and think about things differently and decide not to go
again.
Lowering expectations in this manner also made it easier for the activists to feel hopeful about the circus campaign. In fact. some activists set the bar even lower by considering their efforts successful if they convinced even one circus patron to join the
boycott. As Emily once told me, “If that happens just once, it makes the whole thing
worthwhile.”
Activists’ interpretation of ostensibly negative reactions from their targets provides
even stronger evidence of their tendency to “see the positive” in their efforts. For
example, the activists often received catcalls and insults from passersby during marche4
and demonstrations. However, few activists were demoralized by these negative
responses; they saw them as advances rather than setbacks. For inytance, Sarah and I
once stood together during a circus demonstration where we witnessed a heated
exchange between an activist and a passerby. Talking about the incident, she said, “The
people that are most aggressive against us are annoyed because they have started to
think about the issues. ihey wouldn’t be angry otherwise.” Cathleen made a similar
comment during her interview, noting, “It seems like protesting . . . for the most part,
you get negative responses and it seems like it’s throwing, maybe just putting people on
the defensive. . . . [but] I mean, protests should still continue, because they get attention
. . . and it gets on the news, and somebody who sees something on the news may think
about something.”
Angry responses werc therefore preferred to no responses at all. As Kelli explained,
Anytime we have something about us on TV, the next day the phones are ringing like
crazy.
Are all the phone calls positive.?
No, some people are happy but some are angry. . . . But even if it makes some
people mad, at least it gets thcm thinking about the issue.
As a final example, an ilcm in the activists‘ June 1991 newsletter asked for letters to the
Seattle Times in response to a published letter to the editor that was critical of the group
and of animal rights activism in general. Although the initial letter could have been evaluated negatively, the activist newsletter editor put a much more positive spin on it, writing, “You know you’re a force to be reckoned with when someone feels the need to
write an opinion piece against you.”
51 8
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
Thinking Cumulatively
In order to be able to see an insult or negative response as a successful protest outcome,
the activists had to have some sense that “getting people to at least think about the
issues’’ was the first step in some multistage process of social change. Thc strategy of
“secing the positive” therefore depended on another fortifying strategy: “thinking
cumulatively,” o r interpreting all outcomes as evidcncc of progress (albeit incremental)
toward the group’s goals. Assessments like these helped the activists maintain their
sense of achievement; although they saw their tasks as huge, those tasks were less daunting when seen as achievable through the results of many smaller advances, or what
Marisa described as “baby steps.” As she explained, “The ultimate goal for me is to see
no animals exploited in any way. To get to that point, though, it will take a billion little
baby steps.”
By taking this perspective, the activists reinterpreted events in order to find evidence
of some kind of advance-and every advance, no matter how small, was seen as bringing
the group that much closer to its ultimate goals. As Marilyn explained, “It’s cumulative.
You just keep trying because it may take a hundred clicks of the tumbler, but maybe
you’ll do something that will turn one person.” Further, even reaching one person was
seen as an achievement, as one small step toward changing society as a whole. As Sarah
explained, even if the activists convinced only one or two people of the legitimacy and
urgency of their cause, “That’s two more people that might be out here with us next
year.”
The activists used this strategy to maintain their sense of accomplishment in even
the most difficult campaigns. For example, even though Becky felt pessimistic about the
experimentation campaign, she pointed to the advances made by having activists
present at Animal Care Committee meetings at the University of Washington:
And I think it’s just-I mean, we’re a thorn in their [committee members’] side, and
that’s good, and we should continue doing it. Because at the very least-I mean, I
really don’t think they’re paying much attention but at least it makes them uncomfortable. And they’re aware of our presence. I mean, that doesn’t do much to help the
animals, but it’s some sort of a start. I don’t think that-I’m really a pessimistic
person-I don’t think that animal experimentation will probably ever end. And I certainly don’t think that it will end in my lifetime. But I think that it’s an ideal to work
toward. And at least if it can be cut back, and some things can be done to alleviate
the suffering of these animals in any way, whether it’s cutting down the number of
experiments, or the repetition of the same experiments, or making bigger cages, or
whatever it is that makes life bctter for these animals and causes less suffering for
them is something worthwhile.
In her eyes, therefore, although being a “thorn in the committee’s side” was not a huge
advance, it was an important first step toward greater successes.
That is not to say that the activists overinflated their sense of accomplishment. Invariably, some people found protest too frustrating to continue and ended up leaving the
movement altogether. Yet at the same time, being able to identify progress in all situations, no matter how bleak, helped others stay involved. For example, after Sean told me
about his pessimism regarding the circus campaign, 1asked him why he bothered participating in circus demonstrations. He responded, “It’s just a little part, but I’d rather do
something than nothing.” And as Randy explained.
Motivational Framing and EfficacyMaintenance
519
I have my days when I’m really cynical. But I think if I didn’t have, deep down, some
hope that something could be done, then I would have ended my life a long time ago.
Because there’sjust too much cruelty in thc world, so why go on? . . .But I think a lot
of people use that as an excuse to not do anything. And 1 don’t care what it is that
they do. . . . But don’t do nothing! . . . At least by doing something,we may save some
[animals], somewhcre down thc line, and maybe feel good about ourselvcs too, to be
able to survive it.
Again, however, to “at least do something” requires that one see one’s tasks in terms of
incremental stages or “baby steps,” each of which represents an advance toward the
greater good. A combination of “seeing the positive” and “thinking cumulatively” therefore helped keep the activists motivated to continue their work.
CelebratingVictories
In addition to identifying what they saw as the positive outcomes of their work, thc
activists sought to share those successes with each other. A third fortifying strategy
therefore involved the public affirmation and celebration of positive outcomes. As
noted previously, some events (e.g., the November 1992 “Funeral for Fur”) explicitly
celebrated what were seen as campaign victories. Yet, the activists celebrated the
smaller advances as well. For example, the activists’ monthly meeting in May 1995 happened to fall a few days after the group had Ftaged several circus demonstrations. The
materials distributed at those demonstrations included a flyer, entitled “The Greatest
Creatures on Earth,” that described the activists’ position against the use of performing
animals in circuses. More importantly, each flyer included the activist group’s address
and phone number, along with an invitation for patrons to call or write the organization
with their reactions to the protest activity. As a result, the organization received the following letter from a circus patron:
I almost went to the Shrine Circus this weekend. Fate intervened. I’m glad your pamphlet on “The Greatest Creatures on Earth” was the deciding factor in boycotting
circus animal circuses.. . .Thank you for your continued education.
Since the letter was sent to the organization’s office, most of the activists would never
have known about it. However, Wendy publicized the letter by reading it aloud at the
end of the meeting. After reading it, she said, “For those who were there [at the demonstrations], thank you-we had an effect. Take heart, what we do works.Thanks for coming.” Her comments cnded the mecting and were met with a huge round of applause.
Cathleen told me later, “It’s nice when [Wendy] always has some kind of letter she’ll
read, or someone will say, ‘I saw you guys at the protest,’ and a couple of people will
change. . . . I mean, that was good, that makes you feel good.” Similarly,Brendan noted,
“I guess you really need to celebrate the really strong victories in order to keep people
motivated .”
In addition to lauding positive outcomes, the organization routinely planned certain
events as a way of rewarding the activists’ efforts and keeping them relaxed and happy.
Instead of celebrating particular campaign outcomcs, these activities helped celebrate
animal rights activism more generally. One such event was a “Cruelty Free Festival,” a
day-long event in July 1994 featuring musical entertainment as well as booths with
520
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/h’o. 4/2002
information about animal rights and vegetarianism. Although the festival was primarily
directed at the public, it also served to maintain activist morale. The musical acts created
a party-like atmosphere that was intended to lift spirits. As Emily described it, “It’s a
real up, happy thing.” Many of the activists who attended the festival appeared to enjoy
the sun and each other’s company as they staffed the tables; some danced to the music
and, at one point, a good-natured water fight even broke out. Further. while many activists felt that this particular event was successful in distributing educational materials to
the public, they also recognized its effects on the group itself Becky said of the festival,
“I’m still a pretty pessimistic person, but it’s to make people happy.” Marilyn added, “1
think it’s more for us than for the public. I don’t know if we’re really going to change
any minds.”
Other activities that were also expressly geared toward the activists themselves
included occasional social events and outings. For example, Kelli described an outing to
a Seattle Mariners baseball game:
One other thing we do which isn’t necessarily a [protest] tactic is to buy a block of
tickets to a Mariners game. This lets people with similar values and beliefs get
together in a situation where they’re not angry or depressed about something and
lets them rclax and enjoy each other’s company. Also, when you buy a big bunch of
tickets you get your name on the scoreboard, so when that happened we all got up
and cheered. This isn’t going to change others, but it might plant a seed in their
minds. If that’s the first timc they’ve heard about us, they might hear it again sometime, and then maybe they’ll call to get some information. Every little bit counts, and
even getting your name on the scoreboard is exposure. . . . In this movement, we
know that people are sad and depressed. Every once in awhile we need to stop and
have fun, like what we did with the Mariners gamc. You can only be angry for so
long, and then you just burn out.
Note, however, that Kelli did not describe the event as purely social; even celebratory
events had the potential to further the animal rights cause by gaining positive exposure
for the group that could lead to small yet useful advances. Thus, hcr comments illustrate
the strategies of “seeing the positive” and “thinking cumulatively” as well.
Claiming Credit
The animal rights activists’ use of the three strategies described above helped them both
boost and sustain their morale by highlighting the positive outcomes of their work.
Interpreting outcomes positively is not the same as taking credit for producing those
outcomes, however. Therefore, it is also instructive to look at how the activists
accounted for outcomes-that is, how they explained why certain outcomes occurred.
Here I am less interested in activists’ abilities to shape public perceptions of their movement as successful (although see Meyer 2000 for a discussion of the factors that shape
whether movements can bill themselves to the general public as “successes’’) than I am
in whether activists themselves believe that they are responsible for producing certain
outcomes. An examination of these accounts suggests that activists’ sense of causality
can also be used strategically as a motivational frame that can help maintain protest
activity.
Motivational Framing and EfficacyMaintenance
521
As noted above, during the course of my fieldwork, the fur and circus campaigns
appeared to achieve some objective successes; the number of fur salons in downtown
Seattle decreased from eleven in 1988 to only two in 1995, and attcndance at circus performances at the Seattle Center dropped off during the same period (Einwohner 1997).
Notably, the activists took credit for these outcomes, claiming that their protest activity
contributed to them in some way. Emily, for instance, felt that these changes were due
entirely to activist efforts:
Oh, I think it [the decline in circus attendance] is completely because of the activists.
I mean, just standing out there, you know. Every time a circus comes, they [the
patrons] see those people out there, either with signs or just handing them information. They’re finally understanding that there’s something else going on behind the
scenes, besides what they see. And I think probably the circus thing is really more
the activists than anything, more than PETA, more than the big groups, because it’s
really more of a one-on-one thing where you really need to talk to people and let
them know.. . .As far as the fur campaign goes? Yeah, I think it’s mostly activists out
there with signs. I think it really is more of the grassroots.
Maggie also felt that activists played a major role in educating the public about the fur
trade, thereby leading to its decline in Seattle:
In the beginning it was really worrying me, that that [the decline in fur] was just a
fashion trend. But now, seeing that it really hasn’t come back, it gives me some hope
that people are just acting on their morals. And I’m hoping that it’s just compassion
that has driven it away and not some whim of what‘s in and what’s out.
Do you think that compassion would have urisen whether or not the proresters were
doing their thing?
Well, just getting the information out-I mean, I hope that we had a big part of
that. I don’t see anybody elsc really doing that kind of thing.
Other activists were less sure that the group had played a major role, yet still felt that
they did something to contribute to the declining fur sales and circus attendance in Seattle.
As Brendan said,
I don’t think they [fur salons] went out of business because of [us]. . . . It seems to me
that generally there w l l be some other cause that is the downfall of the thing, and it’s
like the animal rights people kind of helped push it over the edge. . . . I mean, if you
consider that effective. then yeah, I guess [our group] has been effective on the issue,
but sort of helped push it along. I mean, if [we] went away, if they went out of business, then it’s not like these issues would start coming back, I mean it’s not like fur
salons would start opening or something like that. But it would just be, maybe,
maybe there would be people that just hadn’t thought about the other side, and if
[we] had been there maybe they might have got some information.
Activist reactions to an apparent upswing in fur sales nationwide in the mid-I 990s serve
as a final illustration of these self-serving attributions. The Fur Information Council of
America reported that fur retail figures rebounded from a low of $1 billion dollars in
sales in 1991 to $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion in 1992 and 1993, respectively (Pisik 1994).
These nationwide trends did not appear to affect downtown Seattle in the sense that no
522
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
new salons opened in the area; nonetheless, one would assume that activists would be
concerned about these trends. Rather than concern, however, many of the activists with
whom I had conversations about these reports dismissed them as propaganda on the
part of the fur industry. Becky summarized the feelings of many activists when she said,
Well, I can’t imagine why it’s going up again. I wonder even if it really is going back,
or if that’s some kind of propaganda that the fur industry has promulgated somehow.
Because it has become so politically incorrect to wear fur. I mean, even people that
are not really interested in animal rights per se. so many peoplc support antifur when
they have no other interest or connection with animal rights. So lhat really surprises
me, that it can really be true that fur sales are going back up. And if they are going
back up, I think it’s bccause the fur industry is really on a big campaign to bad-mouth
the animal rights activists and another big campaign to sell fur again. Because you
hear all this stuff about the European economic community and how they’re not
importing certain types of furs and stuff like that. And if these things are happening,
then how could they be selling more furs?
It is perhaps not surprising that the activists claimed some credit for poyitive outcomes. As social psychological research on attribution shows, individuals are more likely
to take credit for successes than they are to accept responsibility for failures (for a summary of this rescarch, see Fiske and Taylor 1991, pp. 80-81). This self-serving attributional bias extends to intergroup relations as well: a similar bias causes members of a
group to make internal attributions for positive in-group outcomes and external attributions for negative in-group outcomes (Hewstone 1989). In the context of activism, however, individuals might have even more of a need to convince themselves of the impact
of their efforts, given that their work can be so difficult. Emily, one of the group’s founding members, explained that seeing evidence of their effectiveness helped ward off frustration and burnout:
I’m getting a little burned out, and a lot of times I think we’re never going to win.
[But] then I see the fur thing going down, and then I get attendance records from the
Shrine circus, and I go, “Well, sorncthing’s working!” . . . I think it’s really important
for everyone to see the difference that we’re making. Otherwise you don’t even know
if it’s doing any good or not.
Activists’ claims that they contributed to what they saw as positive outcomes were
therefore one final interpretive strategy that helped maintain their sense of efficacy and
optimism for the future.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This article has explored the relationship between efficacy and collective action by
examining the strategic components of efficacy. Building on previous work on motivational framing and social movement participation, I have argued that activists’ assessments of the outcomes of their activities may be made purposefully and strategically, in
order to maintain those activities over time. Data from the animal rights movement are
particularly useful in support of this claim, as societal reactions to animal rights issues
present a number of obstacles to the achievement of the movement’s goals. Indeed, the
Motivational Framing and EfficacyMaintenance
523
animal rights activists that I studied for nearly three years expressed a variety of opinions regarding their chances for success, at times feeling capable of achieving great
change and at other times fceling frustrated and pessimistic. Their feelings of efficacy
therefore varied quite a bit, depending on the context and the specific protest issue.
More importantly, perhaps because of this variation they strived to maintain their sense
of accomplishment, using several framing techniques to identify and celebrate the positive aspects of all protest outcomes, even those that appeared to have been unsuccessful.
Activists also saw these beneficial outcomes as due, at least in part, to their own actions.
This “efficacy work” produced positive evaluations and self-serving attributions that
warded off frustration and helped these individuals sustain their involvement in animal
rights activism.
These findings have several implications for social movement research. First, they
suggest that expectations for success play a role in protest activity beyond initial participation. Scholars have already demonstrated that feelings of efficacy are important predictors of participation in collective action. Somewhat contrary to what previous
research suggests, however, my respondents did not always feel optimistic about their
chances for achieving their desired social change; in fact, many of the activists that I
studied were quite pessimistic about their abilities to change certain practices, such as
hunting and animal experimentation. That they continued to participate in protest activities directed against these practices is notable, given their pessimism. What is important
here is the strategic assessments these individuals made of their work: by purposefully
reevaluating their activities, they were able to maintain a seme of efficacy that helped
motivate them to stay active, despite their pessimism overall. Their use of various “fortifying strategies” therefore demonstrates kurthcr that perceptions of efficacy help inspire
participation in collective action, both initially and during the course of ongoing activism.
While perceptions of efficacy may motivate participation throughout the activist
experience, however, the amount of efficacy work necded to sustain activism may vary
over the activist life course. As Emily explained,
When I first started out I thought we could change everything, you know, right away.
And now I’m more into realism, realizing that it takes a long time to change people’s
minds about things.
The findings suggest that the longer one participates in collective action, the greater the
effort it may take to maintain perceptions of efficacy. Thus, whereas levels of efficacy
may be high at thc beginning of a campaign, these perceptions can change as activists
experience protest first-hand, come face to face with their opponents, and reflect on
what they are up against. Further, efficacy work may carry its own costs; the burden of
maintaining these perceptions over time may itself contribute to activist burnout and,
ultimately, demobilization. Mapping efficacy work ovcr time may therefore be a fruitful
way to account for both movement emergence and decline.
Just as the demands of efficacy work may vary for activists over time, they may vary
by movement as well. As noted earlier, because of the fractured support that the animal
rights movement receives from the general public, animal rights activists may face a particularly difficult burden of efficacy maintenance that members of other movements do
not.Yet while the amount of efficacy work that activists must do to maintain their mobilization may vary by movement, the general processes described here are not necessarily
524
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
unique to animal rights activism. For example, Benford’s (1993) study of the nuclear disarmament movement also acknowledges that efficacy must be maintained by activists
over time; further, he notes that his respondents “were observed redefining failures as
successes” (p. 208). The specifics o€ the animal rights case, therefore, need not detract
from the generalizability of these findings. In fact, similarities in the dynamics of the animal rights movement and other movements suggest the opposite; for example, just as
the “emotion work” done by animal rights activists to manage their emotional displays
during protest activity (Jasper and Poulsen 1995;Groves 1997;2001) is common to other
movements, including niovements against child sexual abuse (Whittier 2001) and breast
cancer (Montini 1996), it is reasonable to expect that strategies of efficacy maintenance
similar to those described here are used by members of a variety of different movements. Given different movement contexts, however, members of some movements may
use only a subset of these strategies or may use them less often. The empirical task now
is to identify whether members of other movements use such strategies and to what
ends. Future research comparing efficacy maintenance activities in different movements
can further enhance our understanding of the relationship between perceived efficacy
and participation in collective action.
Lastly, these findings suggest that activists’ assessments of their effectiveness are also
relevant to the broader study of social movement outcomes, a topic that has recently
received increased attention from social movement scholars (Burstein, Einwohner, and
Hollander 1995; Giugni, McAdam, and Tilly 1999; Earl 2000). This point should not be
overstated, as activists’ subjective assessments of their work are clearly distinct from
objective outcomes. As this analysis has demonstrated, activists may have an incentive
for evaluating their activities positively, whereas rcsearchers and othcr commentators
might not. Nonetheless, to the extent that collective action produces outcomes, the subjective assessments that help sustain that action over time also help produce those outcomes. The use of certain efficacy maintenance strategies may therefore be associated
with particular protest outcomes. In order to understand movement outcomes fully,
researchers should continue to study the link between the subjective and objective
aspects of movement outcomes in more detail.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A much earlier vcrsion of this article was presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August 2000. I thank David Meyer,
Gregory Sucharczuk, the TSQ editor, and several anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments.
REFERENCES
Archibald, Matthcw E. 1995.“Political Participation and Political Efficacy: Re-examining a Reciprocal Effects Model with Longitudinal Data.” Masters thesis, University of Washington.
Bandura, Albert. 1982. “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.” American Psyclzologist
44:122-147.
Begley, Thomas M., and Henry Alker. 1982. “Anti-Busing Protest: Attitudes and Actions.” Social
Psychology Quarterly 45:187-197.
Motivational Framing and Efficacy Maintenance
525
Benford, Robert D. 1993. ‘”You Could Be the Hundredth Monkey’: Collective Action Frames and
Vocabularies of Motive within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement.” The Sociological
Quarterly 34A9.5-216.
Burstein, Paul, Rachel L. Einwohner, and Jocelyn A. Hollander. 1995. “The Success of Political
Movements: A Bargaining Perspective.” Pp. 275-29.5 in The Politics of Social Protest, edited
by J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cramton, Brenda. 2000. “The Changing Face of Anti-Cruelty Statutes.” Animal Issues 31 (4).
Available on March 29,2002, at http://www.api4animaIs.org/doc.asp?ID
=35.
Earl, Jennifer. 2000. “Methods, Movements, and Outcomes: Methodological Difficulties in the
Study of Extra-Movement Outcomes.” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change
2213-25.
Edwards, Todd C., and Stuart Oskamp. 1992. “Components of Antinuclear War Activism.” Basic
and Applied Social Psychology 13:217-230.
Einwohner, Rachel L. 1997. “The Efficacy of Protest: Meaning and Social Movement Outcomes.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Univcrsity of Washington.
. 1999. “Practices, Opportunity, and Protest Effectiveness: Illustrations from Four Animal
Rights Campaigns.” Social Problems 46: 169-186.
Ennis, James G., and Richard Schreuer. 19x7. “Mobilizing Weak Support for Social Movements:
The Role of Grievance, Efficacy, and Cost.” Social Forces 66:390409.
Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor. 1991. Sociul Cognition. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gallup Organization. 2001. “Great American Meat-Out.” Available on May 20. 2002, at http://
pollbowl.gallup.com/th/03200
1 .asp.
Gamson, William A. 1990. The Strategy o,f Social Prorest. 2d ed. Bclmont, CA: Wadsworth.
,1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garner, Robert. 1998. Political Animals: Animal Protection Politics in Britain and the United Slates.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Giugni, Marco, Doug McAdam, and Charles ‘Tilly, eds. 1999. How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minncsota Press.
Glazer, Myron Peretz. and Peniiia Migdal Glazer. 1999. “On the Trail of Courageous Behavior.”
Sociological Inquiry 69:276-295.
Groller, I. 1990.“Do Animals Have Rights?” Parents. May, p. 33.
Groves, Julian McAllister. 1997. Hearts and Minds: The Controversy over Laboratory Animals.
Philadelpha, PA: Temple University Press.
,2001. “Animal Rights and the Politics of Emotion: Folk Constructions of Emotion in the
Animal Rights Movement.” Pp. 23 2-229 in Passionate Politics. edited by Jeff Goodwin,
James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta. Chicago: Ilniversity of Chicago Press.
Guzzo, Richard A., Paul R. Yost, Richard J. Campbell, and Gregory P. Shea. 1993. .‘Potency in
Groups: Articulating a Concept.” Brifish Journal of Social Psychology 32237-106.
Hewstone, Miles. 1989. Caicsal Attribution: From Cognitive Processes to Collective Beliefs. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Jasper, James M., and Dorothy Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth qf a Moral
Protest. New York: Free Press.
Jasper, James M., and Jane D. Poulsen. 1993. “Fighting Back: Vulnerabilities, Blunders and Countermobilization by the Targets in Three Animal Rights Campaigns.” Sociological Forum
8:h39457.
. 1995. “Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social Networks in Animal
Rights and Anti-nuclear Protests.” Social Problems 42:493-512.
Kellert. Stephen R. 1989. “Perceptions of Animals in America.” Pp. 5-24 in Perceptions ofAnimals
in American Culture, edited by R. J. Hoage. Washington, DC: Smithsonian lnstitution Press.
Klandermans, Bert. 1984. “Mobilization and Participation: Social Psychological Expansions of
Resource Mobilization Theory.” American Sociological Review 49583-600.
526
THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 43/No. 4/2002
. 1988. ‘The Formation and Mobilization of Consensus.” International Social Movement
Research 1:173-196.
McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process cmd the Development of Black Insurgency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. I 088. Freedom Summer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, David S. 2000. “Claiming Credit: The Social Construction of Movement Success.” Paper
presented at the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC.
Montini, Theresa. 1996. “Gender and Emotion in the Advocacy for Breast Cancer Informed Consent Legislation.” Gender & Society 10:9-23.
Oliver, Pamela E. 1989. ”Bringing the Crowd Rack Tn: The Non-Organizational Elements of
Social Movements.” Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 11:1-30.
Paige, Jeffrey M. 1971. “Political Orientation and Riot Participation.” American Sociologicul
Review 36:810-820.
Paulsen, Ronnelle. 1991. “Education, Social Class, and Participation in Collective Action.” Sociology o.f Education 64:96-110.
Pifer, Linda, Kinya Shimizu, and Ralph Pifer. 1994. “Public Attitudes toward Animal Research:
Some International Comparisons.” Society and Animals 2:95-113.
Pisik. Betsy. 1994. “Furriers Shed Their Gloomy Mantlc as Resurgent Sales Warm Industry.”
Washington Times, March 8. p. A3.
Piven, Francis Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. 1977. Poor People’s Movements: W h y They Succeed,
How They Fail.New York: Vintage.
Smith, Christian. 1996. Resisting Reagan: The US. Ceniral American Peace Movement. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Snow, David A,, and Robert Benford. 1988.“Ideology. Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” Pp. 197-218 in From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research
across Cultures, edited by Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow. Greenwich, CT. JAI Press.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame
Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 53 :464431.
Voss, Kim. 1996. “The Collapse of a Social Movement: The Interplay of Mobilizing Structure?
Framing, and Political Opportunities in the Knights of Labor.” Pp. 227-258 in Comparative
Perspeclives on Socid Movements, edited by Doug McAdam. John D. McCarthy. and Maycr
N. Zald. Carnbridgc: Cambridge University Press.
. 1998.“Claim Making and the Framing of Defeats: The Interpretation of Losses by American and British Labor Activists. 1886-1895.” Pp. 136-148 in Challenging Authority: The Zlistorical Study of Contentious Politics, edited by Michael P. Hanagan, Lcslie Page Moch, and
Wayne te Brake. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Whittier, Nancy. 2001. “Emotional Strategies: The Collective Reconstruction and Display of
Oppositional Emotions in the Movement against Child Sexual Abuse.” Pp. 233-250 in Passiorzate Politics, edited by Jeff Goodwin, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.