Trends in Voluntary Group Membership: Comments on Baumgartner and Walker

Tom w. Smith

NORC University of Chicago

GSS Methodological Report No. 60

February, 1989

This research was done for the General Social survey project directed by James A. Davis and Tom W. Smith. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation Grant SES-8745227. I would like to thank Jane Junn for data runs from the 1967 Verba­ Nie study, Mary E. Morris and P. Luevano for questionnaires from the 1952 and 1985 American National Election studies (ANES) , Santa Traugott for an ANES memo, and the Roper Center for the 1952 AIPO study. I would also like to thank Jane Junn, David Knoke, James A. Davis, Richard Niemi, Christopher Walsh, and Roger Tourangeau for comments on an earlier draft on this paper. Baumgartner and Walker ( 1988) argue that participation in voluntary associations has increased since the 1950s and that flaws in what they refer to as the Standard Question on group membership distort the time series and prevent the true expansion of group membership from being detected. This note examines the evidence on trends in voluntary group memberships and evaluates their critique of the standard Question. Baumgartner and Walker present three pieces of evidence in support of the notion that voluntary group membership has increased: 1) many new groups have formed and grown rapidly during recent decades, 2) national surveys of group membership show a rise in memberships from 1952 to 1974, and 3) inadequacies in the Standard Question mask further rises in membership since 1974. Case Studies of Group Membership First, they argue that monographic studies of membership growth indicate "the rise and development during the past half century of movements promoting new political causes (p. 909)." These studies include "numerous stories of explosive growth not only in the numbers of organizations, but also in the number of people participating in group activities (p. 909) . 11 They conclude that "the published studies of group development constitute strong circumstantial evidence of growth in the membership of interest groups ·in the years since World War II (p. 909). 11 The problem with this analysis is that both individual memberships in groups and groups themselves have high turnover (Babchuk and Booth, 1969; Hannan and Freeman, 1988). The formation and growth of certain groups is always to a greater or lesser extent off-set by the decline and demise of other groups. Baumgartner and Walker acknowledge this fact ( 11 it is possible that there were declines in membership in other areas that went unreported (p. 909; see alsop. 912)"), but dismiss this factor to reach their conclusion of notable increases in group membership. However, many declines in group memberships have actually been widely reported. To cite only two counter examples, membership in the International Ladies Garment Workers Union declined from 363,000 in 1971 to 173,000 in 1987 and the United Methodist Church adherents dropped from 11,100,000 in 1965 to 9,400, 000 in 1982. These trends have been widely reported in numerous discussions of the decline of the American labor movement (Cornfield, 1986; Lipset, J,986; Gifford, 1984) and of mainline Protestant churches (Roof and McKinney, 1987; Smith, 1988b; Hoge and Roozen, 1979) . Such notable declines seriously question the presumption that group memberships in general have been rising. Of course the decline of these particular groups tells us no more about changes in overall voluntary association membership than the rise of the groups cited by Baumgartner and Walker. Ultimately if we want to know whether group membership in general has been increasing, we have to study group membership in

1 general. National Surveys of Group Membership Next, Baumgartner and Walker do exactly that, they turn to national surveys of voluntary group membership. In their Figures 1 and 2 they examine respectively the percent reporting one or more group memberships and the mean number of memberships in "comparable national surveys (pp. 910, 911)." The basic problem with their analysis is that these surveys donot actually contain comparable measures of group membership. As the Appendix indicates, until the 1974 General Social Survey (GSS) no two observations are the same and the various questions differ in numerous notable ways .1 Table 1 indicates some of the major differences between these questions. Perhaps the most important difference is how one inquires about group memberships. Both the survey research and cognitive psychology literatures on recognition and recall (Crowder, 1976; Tourangeau, 1984) indicate that the number of events reported will vary directly with the specificity and directness of the question. The number reported will be lowest when only a single general inquiry is used with no examples and no prompts; medium when examples are verbally mentioned and/or listed on a show card; and highest when each type of event is inquired about separately. 2 The research on group memberships indicates that this general pattern applies specifically in the case of membership in voluntary associations (Hyman and Wright, 1971; Taylor, 1975; · 1976; Smith, 1988b; Nelson, Baker, and Nelson, 1977; Babchuk and ·Booth, 1969; Knoke and Thomson, 1977; Thomson

1 The appendix and Table 1 include both the questions used by Baumgartner and Walker and similar national survey questions.

2 It also appears that a question that solely focuses on one event/feature will record more mentions than a question that asks about the event as part of series of related events even when the event is asked about separately in both cases. For example, the GSS and the 1972 ANES ask about union membership both as part of their general membership question anci. as a separate question.- Union membership is 5-6% higher on the stand-alone question than on the general question. The literature on labor union membership is also very instructive about alternative definitions of memberships and the differences that occur when different measurement procedures and definitions are used (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975; Adams,l985; Gifford, 1984).

2 and Knoke, 1980) .3 Other notable differences in question wordings occur in 1) the area referred to (community vs. all groups), 2) the use of probes to encourage more mentions, 3) references to personal vs. family memberships, 4) miscellaneous other factors such as restrictive definitions of groups and limited space for recording the name of groups. One example of the problem is the differences between the NORC studies in 1953 and 1958. These studies were first analyzed by Hyman and Wright (1971; Wright and Hyman, 1959) and it is thus not surprising that Baumgartner and Walker would include them as comparable. In fact, however, the two questions differ notably. The 1953 question refers to "anyone in the family," while in 1958 the reference is to "adults in the family." Also, the 1953 question consists on a single, general group question, while the 1958 item combines together a specific question on unions with a follow-up question on "other organizations." Finally, on the 1958 study 8% of the respondents were excluded from analysis apparently because they didnot answer the follow-up question, while few missing cases occurred in 1953. Hyman and Wright argue (1971, p. 196) that these non-respondents probably did not differ in their group membership level from the respondents, but offer no evidence in support of this assumption. Give:t:1 these, as well. as other differences, any direct comparison of membership levels ·seems j,mprudent. . · A second example is the comparison between the I967.Verba­ Nie study of political participation and. the 1974-1988 GSS questions. Baumgartner and Walker compare these questions witnout making important adjustments for wording and possible context effects. While the GSS question was modelled after·the Verba=Nie item and these questions are probably more . similar than any others in BaumgartnerjWalker time series, they differ iri several notable ways. First, as previous researchers have noted, the GSS records significantly more members of Church-Affiliated Groups, because the GSS added this group to its set of specific inquiries. For overtime comparisons the standard adjustment for this difference has been to exclude church groups from both

3 One might try a personal experiment to illustrate this point. Ask yourself, "What voluntary groups/organizations do I belong to?," and give yourself two minutes to answer (more time than the average survey respondent would have to answer) . Then go through any of the longer lists such as on the 1972 ANES or GSS questions. You will probably come up with more memberships. Finally, think about the issue of memberships for a day or two, check your CV, review what newsletters and magazines you receive, and talk to your spouse (if appropriate). You should come up with even more memberships. Instantaneous and unaided recall of group memberships is a difficult and fallible task.

3 surveys (Knoke and Thomson, 1977; Nelson, Baker, and nelsom, 1978; Nelson, Nelson, and Baker, 1979; Thomson and Knoke, 1980; Nie, 1988). When either this standard adjustment is made or an alternative adjustment which also takes into consideration differences in the indicators of political groups, we see that the apparent increase in group memberships between 1967 and 1974- 1988 disappears (Table 2) .4 Besides these differences in question wordings there is the real possibility that context effects may also distort the BaumgartnerjWalker time series. Early investigators of voluntary membership have noted possible variation in the level of group membership due to context effects (Hausknecht, 1962; Hyman and Wright, 1971) . While context effects can come in many forms (Schuman and Presser, 1981; Smith, 1986; Tourangeau, 1984), the most likely in the case of group membership would be a priming effect by which prior questions related to group membership would facilitate recall and increase the number of groups mentioned. It is also likely that prior questions about particular topics would stimulate more group mentions related to those areas (e.g" that prior political/election questions would increase mentions of political groups). A review o'f the general and immediate content of prior questions in the %roup membership time series reveals several such possibilities. For example, as Hausknecht (1962) noted in the 1954 AIPO study, the group membership question was immediately preceded by questions on voluntary public service and community giving which probably stimulated the recall of groups. Likewise, the 1952 and 1972 election studies and 1967 Verba-Nie

4 When the GSS adopted the group membership question from the 1967 Verba-Nie study, it copied the item as shown in their book (Verba and Nie, 1972; p. 354). Unfortunately that rendition of the item didnot match the question as actually administered in their study. The main differences were 1) that on Verba-Nie "Church-Affiliated Groups" were coded from the miscellaneous question ("Any other organizations not listed?") while the GSS added "Church­ Affiliated Groups" to the specific probes and 2) that "Political Groups" on Verba-Nie was "Political Clubs" on the GSS. For other differences compare the questions in the Appendix. On Verba-Nie 8.2% report membership in a political group, while on the GSS 4.3% report membership in a political club. The lower numbers are probably due to both the narrower term used on the GSS and to the prior political content of the Verba-Nie study stimula­ ting mentions of political memberships.

5 A summary of the prior context on each survey is available from the author. For complete details one should consult each questionnaire.

4 study preceded the group membership questions with a large number of questions on political action. Similarly, there is tentative evidence of a context effect on church membership in the GSS. 6 While no context effects can be definitely established, it is quite possible that such effects combine with the well-documented wording differences to further distort the trend in group memberships. In addition to the non-comparability between surveys, the BaumgartnerjWalker time series is compromis~d by one serious data error. For the 1952 survey they used the % belonging to groups and active in them rather than simple membersr1ip as in the other surveys. Active membership in 1 or more groups was 41.7% in 1952 (the number they used) , but simple membership was 65.5% (the number consistent with their other observations) .7 To the extent that the diverse pre-GSS questions can be compared (and we have questioned that assumption above), the insertion of the correct 65.5% figure for 1952 essentially eliminates the increasing trend they detected prior to 1974 (Table 3). In brief, from existing survey data it is probably impossible to know what have been the trends in group membership since the 1950s. The incomparable wordings, differences in context, and an error in some of the data presented large'+y negate what seemed to be a trend towards more group memberships in Baumgartner and Walker's figures.8

6 There is suggestive, but not definitive, evidence that context related to the rotation of items on the GSS influenced reports of membership in church groups. Fewer memberships are reported in years when the membership question comes near the end of the survey following shortly after the section on religious behaviors and beliefs (31.7% vs. 38.3%). A similar difference is found on the 1988 GSS ballotjcontext experiments (31.7% vs. 37.8%), but it is not significant at the .05 level. The 1989 replication of the ballotjcontext experiment should determine if the suspected context effect is real. There is no present evidence of similar context effects on the GSS involving other groups. For details see Smith, 1988a; 1988c. 7 The difference between active and simple memberships on the 1952 American National Election study of 23% is about the same magnitude as somewhat similar comparisons on the 1967 Verba/Nie study (22%) and the 1987 GSS (17%). See Appendix for details of question wordings.

8 One factor that Baumgartner and Walker did not consider that actually works in favor of their increasing membership hypothesis is the change between 1967 and 1972 of the definition of the sample universe from 21+

5 Group Memberships Since 1974: The Standard Question and the 1985 ANES Pilot Question Finally, Baumgartner and Walker claim that an upward trend in memberships since 1974 has been undetected because the Standard Question fails a) to count multiple memberships within the same category of groups, b) to cover new groups, and c) to include giving money to groups as part of group membership. On each of these points they are partly right and partly wrong. First, they are correct that the GSS question does not count memberships in more than one group within each of its 16 categories. The GSS measures how many types of groups people belong to and the ANES pilot question measures how many groups people belong to. The GSS, for example, finds out if you belonged to a veteran's group such as the VFW and the ANES pilot would disclose if you belonged to both the VFW and American Legion. Both are reasonable, but different, approaches to measuring group memberships and each might be appropriate given the research issue under investigation. In theory, the ANES pilot question should garner more total memberships than the GSS question and Baumgartner and Walker conduct a simulation with the ANES pilot data to demonstrate just that (their Tables 3 and 4). , However, the gain in extra-mentions from the ANES pilot method largely depends on the number of types of groups separately enumerated and their use of only 9-11 groups in Tables 4 and 5 somewhat exaggerates the gain ..· For example, using all 16 types on the GSS across all years (1974-1988) gives an average of 1.78 memberships per respondent, using 10 types that roughly match the groups Baumgartner and Walker employed shows only 1. 57 memberships, while using only four different types shows only 1.38 memberships. The ANES pilot shows a mean of 1.895 groups per respondent. This is .325 memberships more than the 10 category GSS, but only ~ 115 memberships greater than the full GSS. When the GSS is adjusted to approximate the 1985 ANES pilot's heavy over-representation of better-educated respondents, the mean number of group memberships on the GSS increases to 2.18, putting the ANES .285 memberships below the GSS.9 Thus the

to 18+. Since 18-20 year olds tend to belong to fewer groups than older adults, the addition of this age group reduces overall membership levels after 1967. Based on the GSS the% belonging-on 1+ groups is reduced by 0.5% by the inclusion of 18-20 year olds. 9 The ANES panel heavily overrepresents the better educated who are much more likely to belong to groups. This is due to a combination of restricting the sample to telephone households and panel attrition over the four waves of the 1984 ANES and 1985 ANES pilot (Brehm and Traugott, 1986; Shanks, et al., 1983; Groves and Kahn,

6 multiple-type question actually did not pick-up any more memberships than the one-membership per type GSS question. Besides the fact that it appears that the ANES multiple­ membership question actually fails to count more memberships, there is no evidence that counting multiple-memberships would indicate an increase in total group memberships over time. The ANES pilot captures only a single point in time and we have no data on whether multiple memberships within group types have changed since the 1950s. _ Second, Baumgartner and Walker contend that membership is underreported because the GSS fails to explicitly include certain important new groups, specifically political action groups like Moral Majority and charities like the United Way. Baumgartner and Walker are correct (as we noted above in the discussion of the impact of question wordings) that the number and type of groups mentioned by respondents will depend to a significant degree on what groups are either cited as examples or enumerated in separate inquiries. Groups that are not explicitly covered will 'be caught only by the backup inquiry, 11 Any ot.her?" and this will not elicit as many enumerations as · a direct inquiry.lO As a result, both the GSS question and the ANES pilot question will tend to capture certain groups better than other groups. For example, the GSS does not emphasiz·e political aetions groups and the ANES pilot ignores church groups. 11 On balance

1979). In addition, since group membership is positively related to telephone ownership even when the effects of education and other factors are taken into account (Smith, 1987), the above adjustment for education doesnot fully correct for all known differences in sample population between the 1985 ANES pilot and the GSS that would lead to increased estimates of group membership on the ANES pilot. 10 As the 1967 Verba-Nie vs. GSS experience on Church­ Affiliated Groups demonstrates. ll Baumgartner and Walker acknowledge that they should have covered church groups and do so in a revised version of the question. Their initial decision to omit explicit mentions of church groups was based on the suspicion that "the Standard Q1.1,estion probe about church-affiliated groups actually was picking up a great many conventional church memberships ... (p. 918, n. 5) 11 They are correct in this assumption. Analysis on the 1987 GSS indicated that 54% of those saying they belonged to church-affiliated groups belonged only to the church/congregation as a whole. However, the GSS question does not merely enumerate general church memberships since the 1988 GSS showed that 61% of respondents were members of a church while

7 there is some evidence that the 16 groups on the GSS cover the universe of possible groups better than the 10 examples used on the ANES pilot. They find.that 70.3% belong to one or more group. This is lower than most years on the GSS (Table 2, first column) and much lower than the 1974-1988 average of 76.7% when education is adjusted to match the ANES sample.l2 Of course neither the GSS nor the ANES is complete in their coverage and both underenumerate the total number of groups and both could improve their coverage if more groups were explicitly covered and separately listed. on the 1989 GSS we are keeping a list of all groups mentioned in response to the "Any Other Group?" question to see what types of groups might merit their own inquiry. Regardless of the inability of both approaches to maximize the count of group memberships, there is no empirical evidence that coverage has varied over time. The fact that the percentage mentioning a group in the "Other" category on the GSS has not significantly changed from 1974 to 1988 suggests that little increase may have been occurring in the unspecified types and supports the idea that coverage has not significant changed over the last decade and a half.l3 Third, Baumgartner and Walker want to expand the concept of group membership to cover giving money to groups in addition to the traditional notion of personal membership. Financial ties to groups are an important topic and clearly worthy of

only 35% reported being members of church-affiliated groups. The GSS question appears to capture whose who are members of church related groups (e.g. Bible study, Youth Fellowship, Ladies' Aid, etc.) and congregational members who are active in their church (e.g. attending services) . Since general congregational membership is one of the most important and active types of group memberships (including both a higher level of involvement and a higher level of financial contributions than any other type of group) , such affiliations should be fully enumerated rather than excluded from membership questions (Smith, 1983). 12 Baumgartner and Walker cite the percent with 1+ member­ ships as 77.7%. This appears to be an error. It apparently inadvertently ..dropped from the analysis 51 (weighted) cases who neither gave money to nor belonged to any groups. 13 Membership in Other groups shows no trend, starting at 10.4% in 1974 and ending at 10.9% in 1988. When sample clustering is adjusted for, membership in Other groups doesnot significantly vary over time.

8 in.vestigation.l4 It is hardly the same thing as studying group memberships however. Political actions such as voting and petitioning government officials (Verba and Nie, 1972; Nie, 1988), volunteering and giving time to public service (ACTION, 1974; Sills, 1957; Smith, 1975; 1972; u.s. Dept. of Labor 1969), charitable giving and financial contributions (Bremer, 1960; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Gallup Organization, 1980; Greeley and McManus, 1987; Morgan, et al., 1979), and voluntary group membership are all important forms of participation, but each is to a notable degree a distinct phenomena. Each has a long research tradition and clearly remain vital areas for social science investigation. The GSS question on voluntary group membership can not be fairly faulted for not covering the topic of financial giving any more than it (or the ANES pilot question) should be faulted for not covering either the volunteering of one ' s time or political actions. One question neither can nor should try to do all things. In addition, Baumgartner and Walker overlook some well=known problems with measuring charitable giving. Mostl5 of the gain that they record from including financial giving is charitable in nature, probably largely the typical, small donations many people make to charities like the United Way, Red Cross, etc. The Denver Validation Study (Perry and Crossley, .1950; see also Morgan, et al., 1.979) found that charitable giving was the most frequently over reported activity (34% reported giving when a records check indicated they hadnot and another 8% were deemed as prob.able over reports). As a result, one must suspect that the reports of giving on the ANES pilot are similarly exaggerated. Finally, as in the case of multiple-memberships, the ANES study measures only the situation in 1985. Baumgartner and Walker conjecture that financial giving is higher in 1985 than in earlier years, but offer no evidence of this. It is entirely possible that the number of groups one gives to has been constant or even declining over time and that including giving with group memberships would not show any increase across time, only equally

14 The GSS, for example, has been measuring giving to churches for the last three years. 15 Charities account for 71.4% of the increase in total affiliations due to financial giving. In addition, veteran groups represent another 11.5% of the gaine It is likely that most of the veteran gain also refers to charitable giving. Other charitable giving probably occurs under many of the other categories (e.g. to the Salvation Army at Christmas under Church) . It is likely that well over 80% of the gain from including financial giving is charitable in nature.

9 elevated levels of participation at all periods.16

Summary Overall, we find little reason from the arguments and evidence offered by Baumgartner and Wa.lker to accept their conclusion that there has been a long-term and continuing increase in group memberships. The monographic studies do not address the issue of general change, the survey studies are largely incomparable and if anything hint --at a stable level of memberships, and the new ANES pilot question neither provides any over time data, nor is it clearly superior to the Standard Question. Neither question is optimal for measuring total group membership, although both do a respectable job. While the increasing education of adult Americans should have pushed membership up over the last four decades, there is little solid evidence that it did.17 studies of membership in churches show that overall membership levels have been stable (Smith, 1988a) and research in labor union membership shows a steady decline (Gifford, 1984; Adams, 1985; u.s, Bureau of the Census, 1975; 1987). Evidence from studies of general membership are highly questionable due to the methodological problems delinlkted above, but those over time comparisons that are. least problematic generally show constant me~~ership levels.18 In sum, the claim that the general level of group membership has been steadily increasing since the 1950s is not well-supported by existing data, nor is the notion that an increase since the mid- 1970s has been masked by the use of the Standard Question on voluntary memberships persuasive.

16 There does not seem to be any reliable time series on the proportion of Americans making charitable contributions over time. The limited and indirect evidence suggests little and somewhat mixed change. For example, tax records show that the % of disposable income deducted for giving fell from 3.0% in 1970 to 2.9% in 1984. Greeley and McManus (1987) found that the % of income given to religion has been steady at 2% for Protestants from 1963 to 1983, while it fell from 2% in 1963 for Catholics to 1% in 1983. Gallup (1982) reported that the % giving some m~ney was 84% in 1978 and 86% in 1981. 17 Just as it should have, but did not, increase voter turnout. 18 The adjusted VerbajNie-GSS comparisons in Table 3 show no trend. Looking at the 16 groups on the GSS we find no significant variation in 13 cases and significant declines in memberships in fraternal, school service, and union groups from 1974 to 1988. 10 Table 1

A Summary of Differences in Question Wordings on Group Membership

(Studies Used by BaumgartnerjWalker marked by *)

Date; study Features of Questions

Who Area Prompts/Examples Probes Other

1952/ANES* Resp. Not Spec. Three examplesjNP Yes 1953/NORC* Fam. Not Spec. Four examplesjNP Yes 1 1954/AIPO* Resp. Not Spec. Three examples/NP No 1955/NORC Resp. Community No examplesjNP Yes 2 1957/SRC Resp. Not Spec. Three examplesjNP No 1958/NORC* Fam. Not Spec. Four examplesjNP No 3 1960/NORC* Resp. Not Spec. 13 examplesjNP Yes 1960/AIPO Resp. Community 5 examplesjNP DK 1962/NORC Resp. Community No examplesjNP Yes 1964/NORC Resp. Not Spec. 5 examples NP No 1967/NORC* Resp. Not Spec. 15 groupsjiP/Card 1972/ANES* Resp. Not Spec. 17 groupsjiPjCard No 1974+/GSS* Resp. Not Spec. 16 groupsjiP/Card 1985/ANES* Resp. Not Spec. 10 groups/IF 4

Who: Resp.=Respondent Fam.=Family

Area: Not Spec.=Not specified, presumed to refer to all groups Community=Localjcommunity groups only

Prompts/Examples: "N" examples=number of groups mentioned in question "N" groups=number of groups asked about NP=No Prompt, no separate questions used to ask about specific groups IP=Individual prompt, separate question asked about specific groups card=Card, respondent shown card that lists the specified groupsjexamples Probes: Yes=Interviewer explicitly told to probe for additional groups No=No instructions in questionnaire to probe --=Not applicable, question asks specifically about each type of group Other: l=groups must have 10 or more members 2=union membership excluded 3=groups must have 10 or more members; minimal space given for recording groups 4=telephone survey

11 Table 2

A Comparison of VerbajNie and GSS

(% with one + memberships) Year/Study No Adjustments Church Excluded Church+Political Excluded

1967/VerbajNie 61.8% 60.4% 59.3% 1974/GSS 74.7 63.9 60.4 1975/GSS 72.4 60.7 60.4 1977/GSS 71.7 61.9 61.6 1978/GSS 72.2 62.2 62.0 1980/GSS 65.9 57.2 57.0 1983/GSS 72.8 63.2 63.1 1984/GSS 67.6 59.6 59.4 1986/GSS 72.2 63.4 62.8 1987/GSS 67.7 59.8 59.4 1988/GSS 69.5 60.2 60.1

12 Table 3

Trends in Group Memberships

(% 1+ memberships)

Year;study BaumgartnerjWalker Series Correction Others

1952/ANES 42.7% 65.5% 1953/NORC 53 1954/AIPO 55 1955/NORC 36% 1957/SRC 50.7 1958/NORC 62 1960/NORC 57.4 1960/AIPO 56.5 1962/NORC 42.8 1964/NORC 62.1 1967/Verba-Nie 61.8 1972/ANES 74.3 1974/GSS 74.5 1975/GSS 72.4. 1977/GSS 71.7 1978/GSS 72.2 1980/GSS 65.9 1983/GSS 72.8 1984/GSS 67.6 1985/ANES Pilot 77.7 70.3 1986/GSS 72.2 1987/GSS 67.7 1988/GSS 70.5

Notes: The Baumgartner/Walker series is depicted in their Figure 1. No precise values are given, but their points appear consistent with the above figures which were calculated from the original studies. The 1985 ANES figure comes from their Table 3.

13 Appendix: Question Wordings 1. 1952 American National Election Study I have a list here of different kinds of clubs and organizations that people belong to. I would like you to go over this list with me and tell me if you belong to any organizations like a labor union, a lodge, a veterans' organization and so on. (LIST NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH R BELONGS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE) We want to be sure we have all of the organizations you belong to. Are there any others that are not on the list? (ADD ANY MENTIONED TO LIST BELOW) (FOR EACH GROUP MENTIONED WHICH IS NOT A WELL-KNOWN NATIONAL ORGANIZATION) Just what does this organization do? I mean what is its main activity? (FOR ALL GROUPS) Now I would like to ask you how active you are in this (these) organization(s). First, let's take the group. would you say you are an active member of this group or not very active? (repeat for each group) · 2. 1953 NORC335 Organizations-Does any one in the family belong to any sort of club, lodge, fraternal order, or union with ten or more members in it? What organization? Any other? 3. 1954 National Health survey (Gallup) What organizations or clubs, like church organizations, service clubs, fraternal clubs, do you belong to? 4. 1955 NORC367 Do you happen to belong to any groups or organizations in the community here? IF "YES": Which ones? (Any others?) Are you very active in these groups (that group)? 5. 1957 Study of Modern Living (Survey Research Center) Are you a member of any (other) clubs and organizations--like a lodge, PTA, a community group, or any other kind of group? IF "YES": What are they?

6. 1958 NORC409 Does anyone in the family belong to a labor union? If YES:

14 Who belongs to a union? What union(s) does he belong to? (Which particular union of the C.I.O.?) (Which particular union of the A.F.L.?) (Record full name of union NOT initials) What other organizations-- like clubs, fraternal orders, professional associations, or c1v1c groups--with ten or more people in them, do adults in the family belong to? What are the names (of the different organizations)? 7. 1960 citizenship Survey (NORC 427) Are you a member of any organizations--trade or labor unions, business organizations, social groups, professional or farm organizations, cooperatives, fraternal or veteran's groups, athletic clubs, political, charitable, c1v1c or religious organizations-- or any other organized group? (Which ones?) (Any others?)

8. 1960 AIP0625 (Gallup Poll) What community organizations or groups, if any, do you belong to -- that is, .fraternal, social, business, civic, or religious groups? 9. 1962 NORC447

Do you belong to any groups or organizations here in the community? Which ones? (Any others?) During the past year have you been active in that group, or not too active? 10. 1964 SRS760 (NORC) Do you belong to any organizations or clubs, such as a union, lodge, church group, political organization, or social club? IF YES: Could you tell me what these are? (PROBE FOR FULL DESCRIPTION OF ANY LOCAL ORGANIZATION OR GROUP WHICH IS NOT GENERALLY KNOWN) 11. 1967 NORC4018 (Verba and Nie, Political Participation in America) Now we would like to know something about the groups and organizations to which individuals belong. Here is a list of various kinds of organizations. A. Could you tell me if you belong to any of these kinds? Do you belong to any ... CODE YES OR NO FOR EACH

Fraternal groups? Service clubs? Any veterans groups? Any political groups? Any labor unions? Any sports groups? 15 Any youth groups? Any school service groups? Any hobby or garden clubs? Any school fraternities or sororities? Any nationality groups? Any farm organizations? Any literary, art, discussion, or study clubs? Any professional or academic societies? Any organization not listed? (Please__ WRITE IN) c. Have you ever done any active work for (each Yes to A)-­ I mean been a leader, helped organize meetings, been an officer, given time or money? CODE YES OR NO FOR EACH 12. 1972 American National Election Study Here is a list of some kinds of organizations to which people may belong. Just tell me the letter on the card of any type of organization that you belong to. If you belong to any that are not on this list, tell me about those too. (AFTER CHECKING ORGANIZATIONS R BELONGS TO, SAY:) Also, select the statement at the bottom of the card that best tells how active you are in each of the organizations you belong to. (READ EACH CHECKED TYPE OF ORGANIZATION.) 13. 1974-1988 GSS We would like to know something about the groups and organizations to which individuals belong. Here is a list of various kinds of organizations. Could you tell me whether or not you are member of each type? (READ EACH ITEM. CODE ONE FOR EACH.) Fraternal groups Service clubs Veterans' groups Political clubs Labor unions Sports groups Youth groups School service groups Hobby or garden clubs School fraternities or sororities Nationality groups Farm organizations Literary, art, discussion or study groups Professional or academic societies Church-affiliated groups Any other group? (1987 only) c. Have you ever done any active work for (EACH "YES" GIVEN IN A)? I mean, been a leader, helped organize meetings, been an officer, or given time or money?

16 References

ACTION Agency. 1974. Americans volunteers 1974. Washington, D.C.: ACTION Agency.

Adams, Larry T. 1985. Changing employment patterns of organized workers. Monthly Labor Review, 108:25-31.

Babchuk, Nicholas, and Alan Booth. 1969. Voluntary association membership: A longitudinal analysis. American Sociological Review, 34:31-45.

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jack L. Walker. 1988. Survey Research and membership in voluntary associations. American Journal of Political Science, 32:908-927.

Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. 1986. similarity and representiveness of 1985 pilot half-samples. Report to NES 1985 Pilot Study Committee .

.Bremner, Robert H. 1960. American philanthrony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cornfield, Daniel B. 1986. Declining union membership in the post-World War II Era: The United Furniture Workers of America, 1939-1982. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 1112-1153.

Crowder, Robert G. 1976. Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gallup Organization. 1982. Survey of the public's recollection of 1981 charitable donations. Princeton: Gallup.

Gifford, Courtney D. 1984. Directory of u.s. labor organizations 1984-85 edition. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.

Greeley, Andrew and William McManus. 1987. Catholic contributions: Sociology and policy. Chicago: st. Thomas More Press.

Groves, Robert M. and Robert L. Kahn. 1979. Surveys by telephone: A national comparison with personal interviews. New ¥ork: Academic Press.

Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman. 1988. The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94:25-52.

Hausknecht, Murray. 1962. The joiners: A sociological descrip­ tion of voluntary association membership in the United

18 States. New York: Bedminster Press.

Hoge, Dean R. and David A. Roozen, eds. 1979. Understanding church growth and decline. New York: Pilgrim Press. Hodgkinson, Virginia Ann and Murray s. Weitzman. 1986. The charitable behavior of Americans: A national survey. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector.

Hyman, Herbert H. and Charles R. Wright. 1971. Trends in voluntary association memberships of American adults: Replication based on secondary analysis of national sample surveys. American Sociological Review, 36:191-206.

Knoke, David and Randall Thomson. 1977. Voluntary association membership trends and the family life cycle. Social Forces, 56:48-65.

Lipset, Seymour Martin, ed. 1986. Unions in transition: Entering the second century. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Morgan, James N., Richard F, Dye, and Judith H. Hybels. 1979. Results from two national surveys of philanthropic activity. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

Nelson, Edward E., Donald R. Baker, and Elizabeth Ness Nelson. 1978. Voluntary association membership: A cohort analysis. Paper presented to the Pacific Sociological Association, Spokane.

Nelson, Edward E., Elizabeth Ness Nelson, and Donald R. Baker. 1979. Male and female differences in voluntary association membership: 1967-1977. Paper presented to the Western Social Science Meeting, Lake Tahoe.

Nie, Norman. Political participation then and now: Comparative surveys of 1967 and 1987. 1988. Paper presented in the NORC Seminar Series, Chicago.

Perry, Hugh J. and Helen M. Crossley. 1950. Validity of response to surveys questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 14:61-80.

Roof, Wade Clark and William McKinney. 1987. American mainline religion: It's changing shape and future. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press.

Shanks, J. Merrill, Maria Sanchez, and Betsey Morton. 1983. Alternative approaches to survey data collection for the

19 national election studies: A report on the 1982 NES method comparison project.

Sills, David. 1957. The volunteers. Glencoe, IL.: The Free Press.

Smith, David Horton. 1983. Churches are generally ignored in contemporary voluntary action research: causes and Conse­ quences. Review of Religious Research, 24: 295-303.

Smith, David Horton. 1975. Voluntary action-and voluntary groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 1:247-270.

Smith, David Horton, et al., eds. 1972. Voluntary action research. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.

Smith, Tom W. 1988a. Ballot position: An analysis of context effects related to rotation design. GSS Methodological Report No. 56. Chicago: NORC. ·Smith, Tom w. 1988b. Counting flocks and lost sheep: Trends in religious preference since World War II. GSS Social Change Report No. 26. Chicago: NORC.

Smith, Tom W. 1986. Ordering context effects. Paper presented to Context Effects in Surveys Conference, Chicago.

Smith, Tom W. 1987. Phone home? An analysis of household telephone ownership. Paper presented to the International Conference on Telephone Survey Methodology, Charlotte, November.

Smith, Tom W. 1988c. Timely artifacts: A review of measurement variation in the 1972-1988 GSS. GSS Methodological Report No. 56. Chicago: NORC.

Taylor, D. Garth. 1975. Voluntary organizational membership. Social Change Report. Chicago: NORC.

Taylor, D. Garth. 1976. Voluntary organizational membership. in studies of social chanqe since 1948. Vol 2. James A. Davis, ed. Chicago: NORC.

Thomson, Randall and David Knoke. 1980. Voluntary associations and voting turneut of American ethnoreligious groups. Ethnicity, 7:56-69.

Tourangeau, Roger. 1984. Cognitive science and survey methods. Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines. Thomas B. Jabine, et al., ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Historical statistics of the

20 United States, colonial times to 1970, bicentennial edition, Part 2. Washington, D.c.: Government Printing Office. u.s. Bureau of the Census~ 1987. Statistical abstract of the United States, 1988. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. u.s. Department of Labor. 1969. Americans volunteers. Washington, D.C.: Manpower Administration. Verba, Sidney and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row. Wright, Charles R. and Herbert H. Hyman. 1958. Voluntary associa­ tion memberships of American adults: Evidence from national sample surveys. American Sociological Review, 23:284-294.

21