Environmentalism, New Social Movements, and the NewClass: A Cross-National Investigation *
Angela G. MertigMichigan State University
Riley E. DunlapWashington State University
Abstract The environmental movement is one of the most successfulsocial movements in recent decades, garnering substantial public supportthroughout western Europe and the United States. Environmentalism isalso considered a key “new social movement” (NSM), assumed to sharefundamental characteristics with other NSMs such as the women’s, anti-nuclear, and peace movements. Using the results of a 1990 cross-nationalsurvey of western Europe and the United States, we examine three broadsuppositions regarding public support for the environmental movementand other NSMs. We first examine the idea that the general public distin-guishes between two branches of contemporary environmentalism—themore traditional one of nature conservation and the newer, broader oneof general environmental protection—and find that the general publics in18 nations make little distinction between them. We next examine the de-gree to which public support for environmental protection is related tosupport for other NSMs, and find a strong relationship between thetwo–thereby validating a widely assumed but seldom-tested tenet found inthe NSM literature. Finally, we examine the presumed bases of support forenvironmental protection and other NSMs, particularly the notion thatNSM supporters are drawn heavily from the “new class.” We find that de-mographic variables, including membership in the new class, are poorpredictors of support for the goals of NSMs in general and of support forenvironmentalism in particular.
The environmental movement is commonly regarded as one of themore successful social movements of the last half of the twentiethcentury, in the United States as well as Europe (Dalton 1994; Dun-lap and Mertig 1992). Although it can be argued that environmen-talism has enjoyed only limited success in halting ecological deteri-
*This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meetings of the RuralSociological Society, held in Washington, DC in August 1995. The survey data re-ported herein were collected for the Reader’s Digest Association Inc. The survey wascoordinated by Social Surveys (Gallup Poll) Limited, now the Gallup OrganizationLtd., and we thank Malcolm Mather and Alec Gallup for making the data availableto us. We would also like to thank Bob Brulle for comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper. Address all correspondence to: Angela G. Mertig, Department of Sociol-ogy, 316 Berkey Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
oration (Dowie 1995), very few social movements fully achieve theirgoals and most fail to survive for more than a few years (Mauss1975). In addition to the impressive staying power and large orga-nizational base of environmentalism, the movement has clearly hadsignificant institutional and cultural effects within most industrial-ized nations and beyond (Buttel 1992; Dalton 1994).
A key reason for the success of environmentalism, relative to thatof most social movements, is that its goal of environmental protec-tion is widely supported by the general public (Hofrichter and Reif1990). Public support is a crucial resource for any social movement(Giugni 1998:379–80), and the largely consensual nature of envi-ronmental protection has given the environmental movement anadvantage over movements that pursue more divisive goals (Dunlap1995; Mertig and Dunlap 1995a; Mitchell 1990). Indeed, of all thecontemporary social movements, environmentalism is oftendeemed the one with the greatest level of actual and potential pub-lic support (Scott 1990).
The environmental movement is further considered to be a cru-cial component in the wave of “new social movements” (NSMs) thathas swept industrialized societies in recent decades (Scott 1990).NSMs are thought to possess characteristics that distinguish themnot only from their own historical precursors but also from manyother movements. It is argued that they represent significant ideo-logical challenges to the status quo, especially the growing incur-sion of the economic and government sectors into civil society andeveryday life, and that they are associated tangentially (at best) witheconomic and class interests, stem from causes endemic to ad-vanced capitalism, reflect “postmaterial” values as well as “identitypolitics,” and entail unconventional organizational forms and tac-tics (Buechler 1995; Buttel 1997; Dalton, Kuechler, and Bürklin1990; Johnston, Laraña, and Gusfield 1994; Klandermans 1991;Kriesi et al. 1995; Pichardo 1997; Scott 1990). Despite extensivecontroversy about the accuracy and utility of these claims, the termNSM has become a convenient label for an entire set of modern,liberal movements that share some important common elements(Kriesi et al. 1995).1
In this paper we examine three widely assumed but seldom-testednotions about public support for goals of the environmental move-
114 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
1 A major criticism of the NSM perspective is that numerous other movements(historical as well as modern) that are not commonly identified as NSMs—especiallyconservative, right-wing movements (Pichardo 1997)—exhibit many of these char-acteristics. Similarly, NSMs themselves do not uniformly exhibit such characteristics,especially given that most movements consist of several ideological and organizational“branches.” It is not our purpose here, however, to debate the utility of the NSM con-cept; rather, we are interested in using it as a convenient heuristic for examining someof the tenets proposed by NSM and environmental movement scholars.
ment and how this support informs our understanding of environ-mentalism as a key NSM: (1) that public support for the more tradi-tional goals of the environmental movement (i.e., conservationism)differs from public support for its more contemporary (and moreNSM-like) concerns; (2) that public support for the goals of the en-vironmental movement is strongly related to that for the goals ofother NSMs; and (3) that the sources of public support for thegoals of the environmental movement are similar to those allegedfor other NSMs.
Environmentalism and ConservationismLike many NSMs, the environmental movement encompasses tradi-tional as well as newer, typically more radical (and more NSM-like)elements. Analysts usually distinguish between at least two broadwings of contemporary environmentalism found in the UnitedStates and especially in western Europe: conservationism and envi-ronmentalism (see, e.g., Cotgrove 1982; Dalton 1994; Rohrschnei-der 1991). Conservationism, which has roots going back a centuryor more, is often depicted as being primarily interested in thepreservation of wildlife and aesthetic environments, and, particu-larly in the United States, the conservation and efficient use of re-sources (Hays 1987).2 Its challenge to the status quo is seen as verylimited and its long history makes it difficult to label it a “new” so-cial movement. Environmentalism, on the other hand, is seen asencompassing the broader goal of environmental protection andentailing a more exacting critique of the status quo (Dalton 1994;Dunlap and Mertig 1994; Rohrschneider 1991). Because of this dis-tinction, NSM scholars have readily accepted the latter as a trueNSM and have been more skeptical of the conservationist elementsof contemporary environmentalism (Dalton 1994). New social move-ments are seen as representing a fundamental challenge to indus-trial societies, a challenge that is explicitly encompassed by environ-mentalism but not by conservationism.
Because of their more limited critique, conservation-orientedgroups have often tended to garner greater support from the pub-lic than have environment-oriented groups, although the latterhave still received high levels of support (Dalton 1994; Rohrschnei-der 1991). Rohrschneider’s (1991:264) analysis, however, indicatesthat “while nature conservation supporters hold more centrist atti-tudes . . . they do tend to support culturally liberal issue positions”(see also Dalton 1994). Such positions (e.g., support for abortionor homosexuality) are advocated by several NSMs, suggesting that
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 115
2 Neither of these strands of conservationism should be confused with the con-temporary “wise-use” movement; the latter represents a primarily conservative back-lash against environmental protection efforts (Switzer 1997).
contemporary conservationism may not be as divorced from thebroader critique encompassed by NSMs as is sometimes thought.Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that conservationism haslargely been incorporated into the ideological framework of mod-ern environmentalism—so much so that nowadays the publicmakes little distinction between the two. The degree to which West-ern publics support both conservationist and environmentalist con-cerns is therefore indicative of the extent to which at least one“older” concern has been assimilated into the “newer” concernsrepresented by NSMs.
The first aim of this paper is to examine the relationship betweenpublic support for both the traditional and the contemporarystrands of the movement, to determine whether the two should betreated as distinct goals or whether they appear to be inherently in-terrelated aspects of contemporary environmentalism—as is com-monly assumed, at least implicitly, in research on environmentalism(e.g., Fortmann 1988; Fortmann and Kusel 1990). It is especiallyimportant to do this with cross-national data because the twobranches of environmentalism may be more distinct in Europethan in the United States.
Environmentalism and Other NSMsNew social movements, as a group, are widely assumed to constitute“a coherent social force” (Scott 1990:15) representing one larger,overarching movement or “general movement” (Turner 1994:80).Despite inter- and intramovement variations, NSMs are thought torepresent a “movement family” sharing several important elements(Della Porta and Rucht 1991; Kriesi et al. 1995). The environmentalmovement is further assumed to be the NSM with the greatest po-tential to bring all of the NSMs together under one umbrella, pro-viding the ideological “glue” or “master frame” to hold them all to-gether (Buttel 1992; Olofsson 1988; Scott 1990; Snow and Benford1992). Indeed, Scott (1990:29) states that many scholars have fo-cused on “the ecology movement as the one . . . most likely to syn-thesize the disparate concerns of the NSMs into a coherent opposi-tional force,” and Lowe and Rüdig (1986:537) argue that “theecological movement represents a totally new political cleavagewhich in turn can integrate the others [NSMs].” Similarly, Dalton(1988:110) observes that “environmental groups have often spear-headed the New Politics [i.e., NSMs’] challenge to the traditionalpolitical values of industrialized societies.”
In short, the environmental movement is frequently viewed asconstituting the vanguard of the NSMs, embracing and encompass-ing other contemporary movement goals in addition to environ-mental protection. This tendency is particularly evident among the“Greens,” who have developed political parties and have earned fol-
116 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
lowers throughout western Europe and, to a lesser degree, in theUnited States, by advocating an amalgamation of concerns includ-ing social equality, human rights, and world peace as well as envi-ronmental protection (Dalton 1994). It is also reflected by theemergence of numerous streams of contemporary environmental-ism, such as ecofeminism, deep ecology, social ecology, and envi-ronmental justice (Dowie 1995; Dunlap and Mertig 1992).
Although environmental protection may be the most popular ofNSM goals (Mertig and Dunlap 1995a), the argument that environ-mentalism is the most encompassing of the NSMs implies that sup-port for this movement is strongly tied to support for the otherNSMs. While there has been a great deal of research (primarily atthe national level) documenting the relatively high levels of publicsupport for environmental protection in general, and a fair amountexamining support for the environmental movement in itself (Dal-ton 1994; Dunlap 1995; Hofrichter and Reif 1990), the assumed re-lationship between public support for environmentalism and forother NSMs has received only scant attention. Even so, severalscholars have noted a tendency for NSM supporters and activists tobe concerned about numerous NSM issues, prominent amongwhich is environmental protection (see, e.g., Dalton 1994; Kaase1990; Klandermans 1990; Milbrath 1984; Rohrschneider 1991). Thesecond aim of this paper is to examine cross-nationally the widelyposited but seldom tested idea that public support for environ-mental protection is strongly related to support for the goals ofother NSMs. Although NSMs have arisen throughout the western,industrialized world, some scholars have speculated that NSMs maybe perceived differently cross-nationally, particularly between theUnited States and Europe. This possibility, however, has never beenexamined empirically (Dalton et al. 1990; Walsh 1988).
Social Bases of Support for Environmentalism and Other NSMsSupport for environmentalism and for other NSMs is not only as-sumed to be strongly interrelated, reflecting a relatively coherentideological stance shared by all NSMs, but also to be drawn fromsimilar constituencies. A third aim of this paper is to examine cross-nationally the assumption that environmental protection tends todraw its support from the same sectors of society that allegedly pro-vide support for the other NSMs. We examine three possible corre-lates of support for environmentalism and other NSMs: member-ship in the “new class,” age, and gender.
The new class. NSMs are thought to attract a relatively novel set ofsupporters. Although some scholars maintain that NSMs are “class-less,” drawing support from a broader cross-section of society thanwas often true of older movements (see, e.g., Dalton et al. 1990;Johnston et al. 1994; Steinmetz 1994), others believe that NSMs
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 117
draw the bulk of their supporters from the “new class” sector of so-ciety (Klandermans 1991; Kriesi et al. 1995; Offe 1987). Althoughdebate continues as to the precise composition of the new class, itsmembers are typically distinguished by their high levels of educa-tion and by white-collar occupations in the nonmarket, service sec-tor of the economy (see Brint 1984; Bruce-Briggs 1979; Cotgrove1982; Eckersley 1989; Kriesi 1989; Phelan and Phelan 1991). Thetypes of people most commonly placed in this category, and thosewho could be considered the core of the new class, are social scien-tists, teachers, social workers, journalists, and artists (see, e.g., Kriesi1989), although more extensive boundaries are commonly used inempirical research (e.g., including all white-collar workers—seeEckersley 1989; Phelan and Phelan 1991).
Members of the new class are portrayed as strongly predisposedto support NSMs and their goals (Kriesi 1989); this has especiallybeen noted for the goals of the environmental movement (see, e.g.,Cotgrove 1982; Eckersley 1989). Eckersley explains this connection:
Their relative independence from the vagaries of the mar-ket sector explains why the new class (especially public sec-tor employees) are more inclined than the working class tobe critical of the industrial system and actively involved inseeking reform. Indeed . . . structural autonomy is a neces-sary condition for critical inquiry. Moreover, their occupa-tional experience (especially in areas of health, social work,teaching, higher education, administration and the media)is such that they are often well placed to observe the casu-alties of industrialization. (1989:222)
Furthermore, the new class is considered the vanguard of the shiftfrom materialist to “post-materialist” values (Inglehart 1990), makingmembers of the new class more “sensitive” to the problems caused byvarious modernization processes and more sympathetic to the solu-tions proposed by NSMs (Klandermans 1991; Kriesi et al. 1995).
Some empirical studies find a broad base of support for NSMs ingeneral and for environmental protection in particular (see, e.g.,Dalton 1994; Kriesi 1989; Rohrschneider 1990), but others havefound that NSMs, including environmentalism, draw heavily fromthe new class, especially in terms of activists but occasionally interms of general supporters as well (see, e.g., Cotgrove 1982; Jenkinsand Wallace 1996; Kriesi 1989; Milbrath 1984). Pichardo (1997) ar-gues that these relatively inconsistent results are due to extreme vari-ations in the empirical measurement of new class membership(many of the measures used do not clearly match theoretical con-ceptualizations of the new class). Yet high levels of education, a keyingredient in new class membership, are quite frequently and con-sistently associated with activism and/or support for environmen-talism as well as for other NSMs (see, e.g., Inglehart 1990; Kriesi
118 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
1989; Müller-Rommel 1990). Several studies have further found thatincome, a traditional class variable that is not considered distinctivefor the new class (and hence is not part of the definition), is a rel-atively poor (or inconsistent) predictor of support for and/or ac-tivity in NSMs, including environmentalism (see, e.g., Inglehart1990; Rohrschneider 1990). (Due to its traditional usage, we exam-ine the effect of income as well as new class membership on NSMsupport.)3
Age. Relative youth is often associated with greater acceptance ofideas critical toward the status quo; therefore young people shouldbe particularly predisposed to accept the goals embodied in envi-ronmentalism and other NSMs. Members of the new class are alsocurrently concentrated in the younger (adult) cohorts of society. Inaddition, it has been argued that support for NSMs stems from anew generation, currently in the young adult cohorts, raised in rel-ative affluence and exposed to greater levels of education—a keycorrelate of NSM support—at a time when information about theworld was expanding rapidly (Eckersley 1989; Inglehart 1990).Studies of various NSMs, including environmentalism, in differentcountries have typically found that both supporters and activiststend to be younger than nonsupporters (Dalton 1994; Inglehart1990; Kriesi 1989; Müller-Rommel 1990).
Gender. A few scholars have further speculated that NSMs mayhave a distinctive gender composition (see, e.g., Anderson 1990;Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993). Women, it is argued, are more likelyto have value systems consistent with the goals of NSMs. Supportingthis notion, Chodorow (1978) has argued that women develop amore empathetic sense of self than do men because of early female-dominated maternal relationships. This, coupled with socializationinto largely nurturant, protective roles, is thought to make womenmore concerned about the well-being of others and about the en-tire planet—values that form the central ideological matrix of theNSMs. Furthermore, because men are more likely to be in positionsthat depend directly on continued economic growth and techno-logical advance, men are often thought to be less willing to alignthemselves against the modernization processes resisted by NSMs(Mohai 1992).
Although women are logically expected to be more supportive ofthe women’s movement than are men, studies of support for other
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 119
3Although public support for a movement’s goals does not readily translate intoactual activism on behalf of those goals, it is logically a prerequisite for the latter aswell as a major resource for a movement (Giugni 1998). Support for a movement’sgoals is always distributed more broadly than activism because activism requiresmore commitment by individuals. Even so, if it is the nature of the new class andtheir values, rather than their privileged incomes or positions in society, that moti-vate them to become disproportionately active in NSMs, then this should similarlycause them to disproportionately indicate support for NSM goals as well.
NSMs also find greater support among women than among men(see, e.g., Kaase 1990; Solomon, Tomaskovic-Devey, and Risman1989; Togeby 1994). Studies of support for environmental protec-tion, however, have generally produced mixed results (Fortmannand Kusel 1990; Mohai 1992) and one study of combined supportfor five NSMs in the Netherlands found no relationship with gen-der (Kriesi 1989). Traditionally, men have been more heavily in-volved than women in most forms of political activity (Dalton1988). Yet Kriesi (1989:1087) observes that this “is much less ap-plicable to [the] new, unconventional forms of politics” embodiedby NSMs. Studies of the animal rights movement, in particular,have found higher participation levels among women than amongmen ( Jasper and Nelkin 1992). While this has not been consistentlyfound for other (nonfeminist) movements, even in studies thathave found no relationship between gender and NSM support andespecially activism indicate a greater level of involvement by womenthan has historically been the case for most social movements.
DataThe data come from a 1990 survey conducted by the Gallup Orga-nization for Reader’s Digest, using nationally representative samplesin the United States and 17 western European nations (Gallup Poll1990). All surveys were administered using face-to-face interviewsand care was taken to ensure that language translations were accu-rate and comparable across countries. Table 1 lists sample sizes foreach country.4 Analyses are presented for a pooled sample (en-compassing all 18 nations) as well as for individual countries.
Measurement of VariablesApproval of new social movement goals. Responses to the followingquestion are used to assess public approval of the NSMs:
For each of the following statements, can you tell mewhether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, some-what disapprove or strongly disapprove?
a) Protection of wildlifeb) Protection of the environmentc) Abolition of nuclear power stations5
d) Destruction of nuclear weaponse) More rights for women
120 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
4While Gallup provided weights to ensure that the samples were representative ofeach nation’s population by age, gender, and region, we do not use the weights inthe bulk of our analyses (except in Table 1) because we are interested in testingvariable relationships, not in providing descriptive statistics of national populations.This is a standard practice since weighting can lead to inflated standard errors andmisleading tests of significance (Winship and Radbill 1994).
5For the United States the item was phrased “Getting rid of nuclear power plants.”
f) The human rights movement6
g) Animal rights
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 121
Table 1. Approval Ratings for Environmental and Wildlife Protec-tion, by Country
% Strongly % % Approve% or Some- Approve Environ-
% Strongly what Wildlife, ment,Same Approve Approve Not Envi- Not
Notes: Question wording: “For each of the following statements, can you tell mewhether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or stronglydisapprove? a) Protection of wildlife, b) Protection of the environment.” Percent-ages utilize sample weights; pooled sample percentages are weighted according toeach country’s population.
a All correlations are significantly different from zero at p < .0001 (two-tailed test).b Less than 1%.
6The contemporary human rights and animal rights movements receive less atten-tion in the NSM literature, but nonetheless they appear to qualify as NSMs. While thehuman rights movement ultimately stems from the aftermath of World War II, andthus preceded the student movement of the 1960s, which is often considered to be thefirst NSM, its concerns overlap substantially with the issues of other NSMs, especiallythose of peace and women’s rights (Holleman 1987). Furthermore, Holleman’s(1987:1) characterization of the contemporary human rights movement as a “distinc-tively new type of human rights movement . . . a movement for universal rights” indi-cates that it, like other NSMs, represents a historically unique quest for fundamentalchange. Similarly, the goals of the animal rights movement reflect a more fundamen-tal desire for change than is present in the older, traditional animal welfare groups. Inaddition, Jasper and Nelkin (1992:21–22) place the development of the animal rightsmovement (at least in the United States) amidst the same “growing political disaffec-tion” that led to other movements identified as NSMs. A recent critique of the NSMperspective (Pichardo 1997) also lists the animal rights movement as an NSM.
Respondents were allowed to volunteer responses of “neither ap-prove nor disapprove” or “don’t know,” and rather than delete suchresponses as “missing data,” we have assigned them to a middle cat-egory. The result is a five-point scale for each NSM goal: stronglyapprove = 5, somewhat approve = 4, neither or don’t know = 3,somewhat disapprove = 2, and strongly disapprove = 1. Recoding“neither” and “don’t know” responses in this manner preservessample sizes while being statistically conservative.
Protection of wildlife and protection of the environment are usedhere as measures of support for environmentalism. In previousanalyses we found that approval ratings for all of the NSM goals(excluding wildlife protection) are strongly interrelated, with asummated composite reflecting considerable internal consistencyand apparent ideological coherence in public support (Mertig andDunlap 1995b). For the purposes of this paper, we constructed anew composite measure of support for NSM goals (other than en-vironmental or wildlife protection) by summing individual re-sponses across the other five items.7 We recognize that this measureconstitutes a relatively weak indicator of support for NSM goals.Very few studies, however, have attempted to measure support forseveral NSMs or their goals cross-nationally, despite growing recog-nition of the importance of such support (Giugni 1998). TheGallup item thus represents a unique indicator that possesses bothcontent validity (covering several contemporary NSM goals) andface validity in terms of measuring generalized public endorsementof the goals of NSMs. Given that data on public support for a widerange of NSMs are quite rare, especially cross-national data basedon large representative samples of the general public, the Gallupdata utilized here fill an important niche. Such cross-national dataprovide an important benchmark for future studies that investigatepublic support for and involvement in NSMs in more depth.
Demographic variables. We measure new class membership with acomposite of the three separate variables widely viewed as charac-terizing this class: education, occupation, and occupational sector.Education is measured by whether the respondent has received auniversity degree. Occupation and occupational sector are mea-sured by using the current or most recent position (if unemployed)of the household’s chief wage earner. We code occupation into twocategories: nonwhite-collar and white-collar (including profession-als; managers and administrators; and clerical and sales workers).We code occupational sector into two categories: market-related orprivate-sector employment and nonmarket employment (e.g., pub-lic administration, services, media, arts, education). If a respondent
122 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
7 For more information on the distribution of public support for each goal, seeMertig and Dunlap (1995a).
has a university degree and if the household’s chief wage earner isa white-collar worker in the nonmarket sector, he or she is consid-ered a member of the new class (coded 1); otherwise, they are not(coded 0).
Although analysts have provided even more precise definitions ofthe new class (see, e.g., Brint 1984; Eckersley 1989; Jenkins and Wal-lace 1996; Kriesi 1989), our variable operationalizes new class mem-bership as it is widely described in the literature. Indeed, this pro-cedure represents a more stringent measure of new classmembership than has typically been used, as such membership isoften equated with only one of the three elements of which thenew class is theoretically composed. For instance, some researchersdefine the new class as all persons with high levels of education orall persons with white-collar occupations (e.g., Mitchell 1979; Phe-lan and Phelan 1991; Rohrschneider 1990; see also the discussionin Eckersley 1989), but these definitions are overly loose usages ofthe new class concept. Hence, we employ a measure of new classmembership that improves upon existing measures that have oftenled to inconsistent results (Pichardo 1997).
Income is measured by a standard question on total householdincome before deductions, which Gallup recoded into Britishpound equivalents for 1990. The variable includes 17 categoriesranging from “under £1,000 per year” to “£125,000+ per year.” Be-cause a pooled analysis (combining respondents from all nations)is conducted and because median household income varies sub-stantially across countries, income is standardized around the sam-ple mean and standard deviation for each country. Age is measuredin a straightforward manner and coded in equivalent five-year cate-gories except in the first (18–20), second (21–24), and last (80+)categories. Finally, gender was noted by the interviewer and iscoded 0 for males and 1 for females.
Results and DiscussionEnvironmentalism and ConservationismTable 1 summarizes in a variety of ways respondents’ combined re-sponses to the environmental and wildlife protection items.8 Sup-port for environmental protection is used here to represent sup-
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 123
8In all nations, responses are heavily skewed toward approval of both goals, rais-ing concerns about the utility of these items. However, we cannot dismiss these fig-ures on the basis that they may only represent “social acceptability.” Not only arethese findings consistent with other studies, but one could argue that a similar pres-sure of social acceptability should exist for other NSM items that do not receive sucha highly supportive response. For instance, support for the human rights movementis lower (by more than 10 percent in several cases) than support for environmentalprotection in all but one of the countries (Mertig and Dunlap 1995a).
port for the “newer” goals of the contemporary environmentalmovement; support for wildlife protection is used to indicate sup-port for a key goal of the more traditional conservationist strand ofthe environmental movement. Wildlife protection has been andcontinues to be a primary concern of many of the older, more tra-ditional organizations of the movement. (In the United States, forexample, these include the National Wildlife Federation, Defendersof Wildlife, and the National Audubon Society.) Measuring supportfor wildlife protection is especially appropriate for comparing sup-port for the more traditional elements of conservationism/envi-ronmentalism across Europe and the United States because it is anunambiguous conservationist goal in both Europe and NorthAmerica.
The first three columns of Table 1 show the percentages ofpeople who rate both goals the same, strongly approve of both, andapprove (strongly or somewhat) of both. The great majority of re-spondents in most countries and in the pooled sample not onlygive the same ratings for both goals, but do so in a strongly orsomewhat approving way. The next two columns of Table 1 reportthe percentages of people who express some approval for one ofthe goals but not for the other: that is, they approve of one goal buteither disapprove of the other or are indecisive. Overall, very fewpeople approve of one goal but not the other. In three countries—Greece (10 percent), Sweden (9 percent), and Norway (19 per-cent)—comparatively high proportions of people register approvalof environmental protection but not of wildlife protection. At leastin the case of Norway, the relatively high discrepancy in support forthese two goals may be related to the country’s long history ofwhaling and Norwegians’ sensitivity to international pressure tohalt this practice.
The correlation between the items, presented in the next-to-lastcolumn of Table 1, corroborates the preceding findings. These co-efficients are substantial, especially considering the limited variabil-ity in both variables (which attenuates the correlations). In two-thirds of the cases, the correlation coefficients are strong (above.6); in all cases they are statistically significant and at least moderatein magnitude. Overall, despite a few relatively modest correlations,there appears to be a strong to very strong relationship between ap-proval of environmental protection and that of wildlife protectionacross the 18 nations.
Prior studies have typically found greater public support for theconservationist elements of contemporary environmentalism thanfor its newer elements (Dalton 1994; Rohrschneider 1991). That isnot the case here: public support for wildlife protection (a conser-vationist concern) not only tends to parallel support for general en-vironmental protection, but is typically slightly lower than that for
124 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
environmental protection. Furthermore, the percentage approvingof environmental protection but not of wildlife protection, whilegenerally low, tends to be greater than the reverse. This finding isthe opposite of what others have reported, but a possible reasonmay be the difference in meaning between the indicator utilizedhere and those used in past research. For instance, Rohrschneider(1991) and Dalton (1994) both used the Eurobarometer item thatassesses public approval of “nature protection associations.” This in-dicator, although focused on approval of organizations per se, isclearly a broader measure of support for the conservationist ele-ments of contemporary environmentalism.
Although the indicator of conservationism used here has its lim-itations, the public makes a strong connection between the twothemes of environmentalism, and they are likely inseparable moti-vations for protest (Fortmann 1988; Fortmann and Kusel 1990).Contrary to some scholars’ suggestions (see, e.g., Cotgrove 1982),the general public, both in the United States and in western Eu-rope, does not seem to differentiate strongly between older conser-vationist and contemporary environmental concerns. Our resultssupport the notion that NSMs are often able to encompass and ac-commodate traditional concerns, and successfully incorporatethem into their public appeals.
Environmentalism and Other NSMsWe now turn to an examination of the presumed congruity be-tween support for environmentalism and support for the goals ofother NSMs. As noted above, we combined support for the fiveNSM goals of abolishing nuclear power plants, nuclear disarma-ment, women’s rights, human rights, and animal rights into a com-posite of “support for other NSMs.” As shown in the first twocolumns of Table 2, these five goals can be considered relativelyideologically consistent, even without the addition of either of thetwo environmental goals (see also Mertig and Dunlap 1995b).Given that the composite includes only five items, it achieves re-spectable levels of internal consistency across the 18 nations and inthe pooled sample.
The effects of adding the environmental protection item to thefive NSM goals are shown in the third and fourth columns of Table2; the effects of adding the wildlife protection item are shown inthe final two columns. Item-total correlations between either envi-ronmental protection or wildlife protection and the sum of theNSM composite are substantial, indicating that public support forenvironmental protection as well as for wildlife protection, despitetheir limited variability, is positively related to support for the otherNSMs. The alphas for the new six-item composite combining eitherenvironmental protection or wildlife protection with the other
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 125
NSM goals are substantial, and in almost all countries are largerthan the composite of the other five NSM goals by themselves.9 Al-though the increases in alpha are very modest, this is due in partto the low variability in the environmental protection and wildlifeprotection items. Since large majorities in each country approve ofenvironmental as well as wildlife protection, the lack of variation inthese items tends to “dampen” observed correlations between theseitems and others. While one might expect the item-total correla-tions for environmental protection (and wildlife protection) with
126 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
Table 2. Item-Total Correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha, SelectedNSM Groupings
r it: Alpha:Environ- Environ- r it: Alpha:mental mental Wildlife Wildlife
Average Protection Protection Protection Protectionr it: Alpha: with with with with
Other Other Other Other Other OtherNSMs NSMs NSMs NSMs NSMs NSMs
Notes: Question wording: “For each of the following statements, can you tell mewhether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or stronglydisapprove? . . . a) Protection of wildlife, b) Protection of the environment, c) Abo-lition of nuclear-power stations, d) Destruction of nuclear weapons, e) More rightsfor women, f) The human rights movement, g) Animal rights.” r it = item-total corre-lation; Cronbach’s Alpha and item-total correlations are calculated for unstandard-ized variables. All item-total correlations are significant at p < .0001 (two-tailed test).
9 Adding both items—“protection of the environment” and “protection ofwildlife”—to the other NSM goals obviously improves Cronbach’s alpha. The result-ing alpha is .73 for the pooled sample, and ranges from .60 (Sweden) to .85(Greece) for the individual countries.
NSMs to be higher than those for the other NSMs, given that envi-ronmentalism is supposed to be the most encompassing of theNSMs, the relatively limited variability on this item makes this out-come empirically implausible in this study.
Whether support for the goals of the environmental movement ismeasured using environmental protection or wildlife protection,such support is positively related to support for other NSM goals.Furthermore, public support for both aspects of environmentalismappears to fit into a pattern of ideological coherence with supportfor other NSMs, lending credence to the assumption that NSMsrepresent an ideologically interrelated set of concerns. Of particu-lar importance is that such coherence in public support occurs inall 18 nations, and is not noticeably different in the United Statesthan in Europe. The latter observation is crucial because the lim-ited number of prior studies examining overlapping support forNSMs are all confined to European nations.
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 127
Table 3. Summary of Dependent and Independent Variables, byCountry
Environ-mental
andWildlife Class:Protec- Other % Income: Age: Gender:tiona NSMsb New Median Median %
(All nations) 9.5 21.2 6 £12,500–£14,999 40–44 50 8,637a Range: 2–10.b Range: 5–25.c Switzerland was originally coded into only four categories: under £1,000,
£1,000–£8,499, £8,500–£19,999, over £20,000.
128 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
If (as has been posited) environmentalism has the potential tobecome an all-encompassing movement, embracing various NSMgoals, then, at a minimum, public support for environmental pro-tection should be congruous with support for other NSMs. Whilemeasurement limitations (specifically, limited variance in the indi-cators of support for environmentalism) do not permit a meaning-ful test of the possibility that environmentalism is the most encom-passing of the NSMs, the results do indicate that public support forenvironmental protection is strongly related to support for thegoals of other NSMs. Thus our results clearly support the notionthat environmentalism and other NSMs are ideologically compati-ble and appear to represent an underlying current of change, or atleast a desire for such change, in the modern, industrialized world.
Social Bases of Support for Environmentalism and Other NSMs: TheNew Class, Age, and GenderWe examine social bases of support for environmentalism andother NSMs using multiple regression analysis. Table 3 provides de-scriptive information on the variables used in the regression analy-ses, as well as the resulting sample sizes based on deletion of caseslacking complete information on all of the variables (listwise dele-tion).10 Since the previous analyses revealed that the two indicatorsof environmentalism are strongly related, we combined them tocreate a more reliable composite of support for environmental-ism—and one with somewhat more variance. As before, we use acomposite of support for the “other NSMs” (anti-nuclear power, nu-clear disarmament, women’s rights, human rights, and animalrights) to facilitate comparison with support for environmentalism.Country means for these two composites are presented in the firsttwo columns of Table 3.
Table 4 presents the results of multiple regression analyses pre-dicting first the environmental/wildlife protection composite andthen the composite of the remaining NSMs, with the independentvariables of new class membership, income, age, and gender. As hasbeen suggested for cross-sample research, we report unstandard-ized regression coefficients because their comparative magnitudesacross countries are less sensitive to differences in variable variancesacross countries (Kim and Ferree 1981).
In all but one country, new class membership fails to achieve astatistically significant effect on either support for environmental-ism or support for other NSMs. Only in Norway (and for thepooled sample) do we find a significant effect of new class mem-bership on support for environmentalism; this finding may reflect
10Because the data have not been weighted, the information in Table 3 may notbe representative of each country’s population.
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 129
greater variation in both the new class and the environmentalismvariables for Norway, as well as the much larger sample size for thepooled sample. Although the regression coefficients are mostly pos-itive, as expected, their lack of significance casts doubt on the as-sumption that NSMs (and environmentalism) draw their supportprimarily from the new class. This finding lends indirect support toPichardo’s (1997) argument that the notion of “middle class radi-calism” as the primary source of NSMs, as well as of environmen-talism, lacks empirical support—although Pichardo refers to ac-tivism rather than to public support. (NSMs, of course, may drawmore heavily from the new class in terms of activism, but we cannotexamine that proposition with these data.) Of course, the lack ofsignificance may stem in part from the generally low variation inthe new class variable (see Table 3).11 However, we also ran regres-sions using education, occupation, and occupational sector as sepa-rate variables and the results tend to be consistent with those ob-tained with the new class variable.
We have included income as an independent variable because itis typically used as a class variable. However, it is not considered im-portant in predicting support for environmentalism or for NSMs ingeneral since members of the new class are believed to have lowerincomes than expected given their high levels of education. Yet, in-come does have a statistically significant effect in several nationsand has a significant negative effect on NSM support in the pooledsample. Conversely, in two cases (Britain and Portugal) income isfound to have a significantly positive effect on support for environ-mentalism. Although significant relationships do not emerge in allor even most of the countries, it appears that income is more likelyto have an effect (a negative one) on support for other NSMs thanon support for environmentalism. Perhaps income is a more im-portant variable for predicting NSM support than is typicallythought, but it influences NSM support in the opposite direction ofwhat is normally assumed. Income is more apt to be significantly re-lated (albeit negatively) to support for environmentalism and otherNSMs than is new class membership.
Age has one of the most frequently documented negative effectson support for social movements, and our results are somewhatconsistent with prior findings. In 10 of the 18 countries and in thepooled sample, age has a statistically significant, negative effect onsupport for other NSMs. However, only in five countries (and in thepooled sample, although the effect appears incredibly small) doesage have a negative effect on support for environmentalism, and
11Also, if larger sample sizes had been used (as in the pooled sample), new classmembership (as well as other demographic variables) might have had statistically sig-nificant effects in a larger number of countries.
130 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
Tab
le 4
.M
ult
iple
Reg
ress
ion
s fo
r T
wo
Dep
end
ent
Var
iab
les:
Un
stan
dar
diz
ed C
oef
fici
ents
Ind
epen
den
t V
aria
ble
s
Cla
ss:
Gen
der
:A
dju
sted
Dep
end
ent
Var
iab
leN
ew C
lass
Inco
me
Age
Fem
ale
Inte
rcep
tR
2
Au
stri
aE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
na
.41
–.06
–.02
.36*
**9.
59.0
5O
ther
NSM
sb1.
09–.
38*
–.07
1.80
***
21.8
7.1
1B
elgi
um
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
–.07
–.10
–.00
.17
9.37
.00
Oth
er N
SMs
.81
–.49
**–.
03.8
8**
20.8
0.0
3B
rita
inE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.0
9.1
1***
.03*
**–.
039.
45.0
2O
ther
NSM
s.7
7–.
36**
–.17
***
.40
21.2
0.0
3D
enm
ark
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
–.03
–.02
–.03
*.0
29.
91.0
0O
ther
NSM
s–.
66–.
24–.
051.
05**
*22
.12
.04
Fin
lan
dE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.0
4–.
00.0
3.3
3*8.
95.0
1O
ther
NSM
s.2
3–.
45**
–.00
1.27
***
20.2
5.0
6Fr
ance
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
–.04
.06
–.00
.12
9.63
.00
Oth
er N
SMs
.12
–.31
*–.
17**
*.2
221
.35
.04
Ger
man
yE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.0
5–.
00.0
1–.
009.
35.0
0O
ther
NSM
s.8
7–.
19–.
08*
.92*
**21
.01
.03
Gre
ece
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
.29
.08
–.06
***
–.05
9.78
.05
Oth
er N
SMs
.87
.10
–.14
**.3
923
.46
.03
Irel
and
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
.07
–.02
–.01
–.18
9.86
.00
Oth
er N
SMs
.75
.13
–.16
*.0
424
.06
.04
Ital
yE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.1
7–.
03–.
01.0
89.
75.0
0O
ther
NSM
s.3
5–.
22*
–.12
***
1.09
***
22.6
7.0
6
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 131
Tab
le 4
.C
on
tin
ued
Ind
epen
den
t V
aria
ble
s
Cla
ss:
Gen
der
:A
dju
sted
Dep
end
ent
Var
iab
leN
ew C
lass
Inco
me
Age
Fem
ale
Inte
rcep
tR
2
Lu
xem
bo
urg
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
.62
–.03
–.02
.47*
*9.
02.0
2O
ther
NSM
s–.
03.0
0.0
11.
07**
21.2
2.0
1N
eth
erla
nd
sE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.0
9.0
4–.
00.0
09.
81.0
0O
ther
NSM
s–.
35.0
2.0
1.2
921
.58
.00
No
rway
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
.58*
**–.
00–.
05**
.06
9.28
.04
Oth
er N
SMs
.62
–.11
.02
.85*
**21
.47
.03
Po
rtu
gal
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
–.13
.14*
–.03
–.06
9.71
.02
Oth
er N
SMs
.55
.23
–.11
*–.
1423
.39
.03
Spai
nE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.1
3–.
03–.
05**
.02
9.78
.02
Oth
er N
SMs
.21
–.16
–.22
***
.26
23.5
3.0
5Sw
eden
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
.14
–.05
.00
.17
9.25
.00
Oth
er N
SMs
.42
–.18
–.05
1.79
***
20.7
2.1
1Sw
itze
rlan
dE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.1
5.0
3.0
2*.2
2**
9.35
.02
Oth
er N
SMs
.59
–.34
*–.
11**
.96*
**20
.68
.04
Un
ited
Sta
tes
En
viro
nm
enta
l an
d w
ild
life
pro
tect
ion
.25
.04
–.04
**.0
19.
42.0
1O
ther
NSM
s.6
5.0
3–.
22**
*1.
04**
*19
.44
.06
Po
ole
d s
amp
leE
nvi
ron
men
tal
and
wil
dli
fe p
rote
ctio
n.1
2*.0
2–.
01**
.09*
**9.
51.0
0(A
ll n
atio
ns)
Oth
er N
SMs
.15
–.18
***
–.12
***
.69*
**21
.60
.03
Not
e: F
or
du
mm
y va
riab
les,
th
e ca
tego
ry s
core
d a
s 1
is l
iste
d.
a R
ange
: 2–
10.
b R
ange
: 5
–25
* p
< .0
5; *
* p
< .0
1; *
** p
< .
001
(tw
o-t
aile
d t
ests
).
surprisingly in two countries (Britain and Switzerland), age has asignificantly positive effect on support for environmentalism. De-spite these inconsistencies, the effect of age tends to be negativeoverall, as expected. Even so, its effects tend to be more pro-nounced on support for other NSMs than on support for environ-mentalism.
Finally, the results for gender indicate that women tend to bemore supportive of NSMs in general than are men. In 11 countriesand in the pooled sample, being female has a statistically significanteffect on support for other NSMs. Again, while being female has asignificant effect on support for environmentalism in the pooledsample, this is found in only four countries. As in the results for ageand income, gender appears to make more of a difference in termsof support for other NSMs than in support for environmentalism,although in each case this finding could also reflect greater varia-tion in the NSM composite.
Looking at the adjusted coefficients of determination (R 2 ad-justed for degrees of freedom), we find that overall these demo-graphic variables do a poor job in explaining public support for ei-ther environmentalism or other NSMs. Although coefficients aresomewhat higher (.11) in Austria and Sweden than in other coun-tries, and then only for predicting support for other NSMs, mostcoefficients are less than .05. In several cases these demographicvariables appear to explain virtually nothing about support forNSMs, including environmentalism. However, this is not entirelysurprising since all of these movements tend to receive broad pub-lic support (see Mertig and Dunlap 1995a). Other studies have sim-ilarly found that demographic variables are poor predictors of sup-port for environmental protection (see, e.g., Jones and Dunlap1992) and support for various NSMs (see, e.g., Kriesi 1989).
Interestingly, in 14 of the countries and in the pooled sample,the R 2 for predicting other NSMs is higher than that for predictingenvironmentalism. This appears to corroborate our previous obser-vations that these demographic variables have a greater impact onsupport for other NSMs than on environmentalism. While the lowR 2s indicate that public support for NSMs is widely dispersed, ourresults suggest that the bases of support for environmentalism areeven more broadly distributed throughout various sectors of society.
Neither new class membership nor any of the other demographicvariables prove very useful in predicting support for either envi-ronmentalism or other NSMs. These findings suggest that supportfor NSMs (although not necessarily active involvement in them) isvery broadly diffused throughout society, corroborating Kriesi’s(1989) results for the Netherlands. As observed by Kriesi et al.(1995:xx), “[T]he appeal of new social movements has gone far be-yond the narrow circle of the social and cultural professionals . . .
132 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
[NSMs] have struck a responsive chord within the populations ofthe Western European countries.” This is especially true in the caseof environmentalism. Future research thus must turn to other vari-ables (e.g., situational and psychological factors and social net-works) in order to explain variation in support for environmental-ism (Fortmann 1988) or other NSMs.
ConclusionWe have attempted to determine how environmentalism “fits in”with other NSMs in the eyes of the public. While we acknowledgelimitations in the measurement of our variables (i.e., skewness),which should be improved in future research, our analysis of cross-national data on public support for environmental protection andother NSMs helps to fill several gaps in the literature on environ-mentalism and on NSMs in general. Few studies have analyzed theextent to which public support for environmental protection is con-sistent with support for the goals of other NSMs. Even fewer studieshave done so cross-nationally, and none have employed data fromthe United States as well as Europe.
While we found some cross-national differences, our results arerelatively consistent across countries. This is especially significantgiven the frequent assertion that environmentalism and otherNSMs are perceived differently in the United States than in westernEurope (e.g., Dalton et al. 1990; Walsh 1988). New social move-ments, of which environmentalism is a central element, have arisenthroughout the industrialized world and our results corroboratethe notion that there are striking parallels in public reactions toNSMs across Europe and in the United States, despite some na-tional differences.
We found support for one major tenet of the NSM concept, butnot for another. Public support for NSMs appears to be ideologi-cally consistent, but such support is not disproportionately drawnfrom the new class nor from any other sector we examined. New so-cial movements are widely portrayed as representing a fundamen-tal challenge to contemporary industrialized society. The signifi-cance of this challenge appears to stem in part from the fact thatlarge numbers of people in the industrialized world—not only spe-cific sectors or narrowly interested enclaves—support NSM goalsand view them as part of an interrelated effort to reform advancedcapitalist societies. As noted earlier, environmentalism, with its asso-ciated Green parties, may already be leading the way in this regard.
While public support certainly does not readily translate into ac-tivism nor political victories, a supportive public clearly enhancesthe likelihood that social movements will achieve desired socialchanges (Dunlap 1995; Fortmann and Kusel 1990; Giugni 1998).Analyses of public support for the goals of NSMs can yield infor-
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 133
mation about the degree to which these social movements have suc-cessfully penetrated the worldview of the general public or if sup-port for their goals remains locked within specialized segments ofsociety. Examining the nature and sources of public support for en-vironmentalism and other NSMs, as well as active participation inthese movements, therefore warrants the continued attention of so-cial scientists.
ReferencesAnderson, J.G. 1990. “‘Environmentalism,’ ‘New Politics’ and Industrialism: Some
Theoretical Perspectives.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13:101–18.Brint, S. 1984. “‘New-Class’ and Cumulative Trend Explanations of the Liberal Po-
litical Attitudes of Professionals.” American Journal of Sociology 90:30–71.Bruce-Briggs, B., ed. 1979. The New Class? New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Buechler, S.M. 1995. “New Social Movement Theories.” Sociological Quarterly
36:441–64.Buttel, F.H. 1992. “Environmentalization: Origins, Processes, and Implications for
Rural Social Change.” Rural Sociology 57:1–27.———. 1997. “Is the Environmental Movement a ‘New Social Movement’?” Pre-
sented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, August,Toronto.
Chodorow, N. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology ofGender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cotgrove, S. 1982. Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and the Future.New York: Wiley.
Dalton, R.J. 1988. Citizen Politics in Western Democracies: Public Opinion and PoliticalParties in the United States, Great Britain, West Germany and France. Chatham, NJ:Chatham House.
———. 1994. The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Dalton, R.J., M. Kuechler, and W. Bürklin. 1990. “The Challenge of New Move-ments.” Pp. 3–20 in Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Move-ments in Western Democracies, edited by R.J. Dalton and M. Kuechler. New York:Oxford University Press.
Della Porta, D. and D. Rucht. 1991. Left-Libertarian Movements in Context: A Compari-son of Italy and West Germany, 1965–1990. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum.
Dowie, M. 1995. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the TwentiethCentury. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunlap, R.E. 1995. “Public Opinion and Environmental Policy.” Pp. 63–114 in Envi-ronmental Politics and Policy, 2nd ed., edited by J.P. Lester. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.
Dunlap, R.E. and A.G. Mertig, eds. 1992. American Environmentalism: The U.S. Envi-ronmental Movement, 1970–1990. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Dunlap, R.E. and A.G. Mertig. 1994. “Environmental Movement.” Pp. 211–14 in TheEncyclopedia of the Environment, edited by R.A. Eblen and W.R. Eblen. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Eckersley, R. 1989. “Green Politics and the New Class: Selfishness or Virtue?” Politi-cal Studies 37:205–23.
Fortmann, L. 1988. “Predicting Natural Resource Micro-Protest.” Rural Sociology53:357–67.
Fortmann, L. and J. Kusel. 1990. “New Voices, Old Beliefs: Forest EnvironmentalismAmong New and Long-Standing Rural Residents.” Rural Sociology 55:214–32.
Gallup Poll. 1990. Europe 1990, A Survey of Seventeen European Countries: Technical De-scription. London: Social Surveys (Gallup Poll) Limited.
134 Rural Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, March 2001
Giugni, M.G. 1998. “Was It Worth the Effort? The Outcomes and Consequences ofSocial Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 98:371–93.
Hays, S.P. 1987. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the UnitedStates, 1955–1985. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hofrichter, J. and K. Reif. 1990. “Evolution of Environmental Attitudes in the Eu-ropean Community.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13:119–46.
Holleman, W.L. 1987. The Human Rights Movement: Western Values and Theological Per-spectives. New York: Praeger.
Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Jasper, J.M. and D. Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a MoralProtest. New York: Free Press.
Jenkins, J.C. and M. Wallace. 1996. “The Generalized Action Potential of ProtestMovements: The New Class, Social Trends and Political Exclusion Explana-tions.” Sociological Forum 11:183–207.
Johnston, H., E. Laraña, and J.R. Gusfield. 1994. “Identities, Grievances, and NewSocial Movements.” Pp. 3–35 in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity,edited by E. Laraña, H. Johnston, and J.R. Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-versity Press.
Jones, R.E. and R.E. Dunlap. 1992. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern:Have They Changed Over Time?” Rural Sociology 57:28–47.
Kaase, M. 1990. “Social Movements and Political Innovation.” Pp. 84–101 in Chal-lenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies,edited by R.J. Dalton and M. Kuechler. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kim, J. and G.D. Ferree Jr. 1981. “Standardization in Causal Analysis.” SociologicalMethods and Research 10:187–210.
Klandermans, B. 1990. “Linking the ‘Old’ and ‘New’: Movement Networks in theNetherlands.” Pp. 122–36 in Challenging the Political Order: New Social and PoliticalMovements in Western Democracies, edited by R.J. Dalton and M. Kuechler. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
———. 1991. “New Social Movements and Resource Mobilization: The Europeanand the American Approach Revisited.” Pp. 17–44 in Research on Social Move-ments: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA, edited by D. Rucht. Boul-der: Westview.
Kriesi, H. 1989. “New Social Movements and the New Class in the Netherlands.”American Journal of Sociology 94:1078–1116.
Kriesi, H., R. Koopmans, J.W. Duyvendak, and M.G. Giugni. 1995. New Social Move-ments in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. London: UCL Press.
Lowe, P.D. and W. Rüdig. 1986. “Political Ecology and the Social Sciences: TheState of the Art.” British Journal of Political Science 16:513–50.
Mauss, A.L. 1975. Social Problems as Social Movements. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Mertig, A.G. and R.E. Dunlap. 1995a. “Public Approval of Environmental Protec-
tion and Other New Social Movement Goals in Western Europe and the UnitedStates.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 7(2):145–56.
———. 1995b. “Public Support for New Social Movement Goals: A Cross-NationalExamination.” Presented at the annual meetings of the American SociologicalAssociation, August, Washington, DC.
Milbrath, L.W. 1984. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. Albany: SUNYPress.
Mitchell, R.C. 1979. “Silent Spring/Solid Majorities.” Public Opinion 2(4):16–20, 55.———. 1990. “Public Opinion and the Green Lobby.” Pp. 81–99 in Environmental
Policy in the 1990s, edited by N.J. Vig and M.E. Kraft. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Mohai, P. 1992. “Men, Women, and the Environment: An Examination of the Gen-
der Gap in Environmental Concern and Activism.” Society and Natural Resources5:1–19.
Müller-Rommel, F. 1990. “New Political Movements and ‘New Politics’ Parties in
Environmentalism, Social Movements, and Class — Mertig and Dunlap 135
Western Europe.” Pp. 209–31 in Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Po-litical Movements in Western Democracies, edited by R.J. Dalton and M. Kuechler.New York: Oxford University Press.
Offe, C. 1987. “Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics: Social Move-ments since the 1960s.” Pp. 63–105 in Changing Boundaries of the Political: Essayson the Evolving Balance Between the State and Society, Public and Private in Europe,edited by C.S. Maier. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Olofsson, G. 1988. “After the Working-Class Movement? An Essay on What’s ‘New’and What’s ‘Social’ in the New Social Movements.” Acta Sociologica 31:15–34.
Phelan, T.J. and J. Phelan. 1991. “In Search of the New Class: Evidence from Aus-tralia.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 19:181–94.
Pichardo, N.A. 1997. “New Social Movements: A Critical Review.” Annual Review ofSociology 23:411–30.
Rohrschneider, R. 1990. “The Roots of Public Opinion Toward New Social Move-ments: An Empirical Test of Competing Explanations.” American Journal of Polit-ical Science 34:1–30.
———. 1991. “Public Opinion Toward Environmental Groups in Western Europe:One Movement or Two?” Social Science Quarterly 72:251–66.
Scott, A. 1990. Ideology and the New Social Movements. London: Unwin Hyman.Snow, D.A. and R.D. Benford. 1992. “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest.” Pp.
133–55 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by A.D. Morris and C.M.Mueller. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Solomon, L.S., D. Tomaskovic-Devey, and B.J. Risman. 1989. “The Gender Gap andNuclear Power: Attitudes in a Politicized Environment.” Sex Roles 21:401–14.
Steinmetz, G. 1994. “Regulation Theory, Post-Marxism, and the New Social Move-ments.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 36:176–212.
Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environ-mental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25:322–48.
Switzer, J.V. 1997. Green Backlash: The History and Politics of Environmental Oppositionin the United States. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Togeby, L. 1994. “The Gender Gap in Foreign Policy Attitudes.” Journal of Peace Re-search 31:375–92.
Turner, R.H. 1994. “Ideology and Utopia after Socialism.” Pp. 79–100 in New SocialMovements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by E. Laraña, H. Johnston, and J.R.Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Walsh, E.J. 1988. “New Dimensions of Social Movements: The High-Level Waste-Sit-ing Controversy.” Sociological Forum 3:586–605.
Winship, C. and L. Radbill. 1994. “Sampling Weights and Regression Analysis.” So-ciological Methods and Research 23:230–57.
