This document summarizes a study on the 2011 Israeli social protests. The study surveyed 3,393 respondents and analyzed: 1. Support for the protests was higher among older generations, not the young. Income predicted support for younger respondents but not older ones. 2. Younger generations diverged less in their views from parents, showing parental influence. 3. Younger respondents participated more, except in signing petitions. Five clusters of participation were identified - from most active "die-hards" to least active "refrainers". Younger age predicted more active clusters.

1. The Young Generation and the 2011 Israeli Social Protests:
How Age and Deprivation Influenced Support, Rebellion, and Participation
Ira Lyan and Keith Goldstein, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
14th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Justice Research (ISJR)

2. Theories of Protest Participation
Social Learning/ Social Differentation Theories: Social and political
activism take place as a result of transmission from 1) family, friends, and
other significant others (Jennings and Niemi 1968), 2) environment and
temporal climate (Jennings and Niemi 1974)
Disaffected Radicalism: Social protest is symbolized by groups who are
upset with their alienation from or lack of trust for the system. Relative
deprivation drives protest (Gurr 1970).
Social Class/Social Psychological Theories: Youth from higher socio-
economic backgrounds are more likely to engage in protests and develop
ideological temperaments that motivate activism (Sherkat and Blocker 1994)
Other Theories: Contextual, Modes of Convention, Demographic
Subgroups, Subcultures (Neo-Marxist Resistance Theory-CCCS, Hebdige 1981,
etc.), Social Class, Religiosity, Gender, Mob Mentality, and many more.
Many theories grew from studies of the Civil Rights and Anti-War Protests in
the USA in the 1960s

3. History of the Israel Social Justice Protests and Our Study
July 14th: Daphne Leef puts up a tent on Tel Aviv’s Rothchild Boulevard
July 23rd: First major street rally in Tel Aviv attended by thousands
August 11th: The Hebrew University Sociology Department issues a call for a special research
group to investigate the social justice protests.
August 14th-September 1st: Survey is formatted in Hebrew by our subgroup of four.
September 3rd, Morning: First respondents answer the survey.
September 3rd, Night: “Million Man March”
September 11th: Russian version is released
September 14th: Arabic Version is released
September 25th: English version is released
October 3rd: Rothchild tent compound in Tel Aviv is dismantled and our survey is closed.

4. The Study
• Electronic (internet) survey was filled out by 3,393 respondents.
• Survey was available in 4 languages (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, and English)
• Advertising was done through on-site flyers, emails, and Facebook referrals.
• The data set and codebook are available to the public at the following website:
http://eshkol.huji.ac.il/
• Sampling bias towards those who participated and higher socio-economic classes.
• Study was part of a larger investigation, which included qualitative analysis

5. Hypotheses
The younger and poorer will support the protests more, be more rebellious,
and participate in the protests more.
Independent Variables
1. Age <Generation/Younger and Older>
2. Income <Poorer, Average, Richer>
Dependent Variables
1. Support
2. Rebelliousness <Divergence of support with parents>
3. Participation Type < Clusters, The Die-Hards>

6. The Age of Our Sample
About 50% of the
sample is aged N: 3341, Missing: 52
Age was made into an ordinal
between 25 and 35 variable of 5 Year Increments
Mean Age: 42
Few
young
people at
army age
(<25)
Few elderly at retired
age (>70)

7. Income by Age

8. Support for the Protest Among Our Sample
Question: “To what extent do you agree with each of the
following statements:”
“I support the social protest.”
Not Sure was removed. Not Sure: 101, No-Yes N: 3240,
Mean Support: 3.5 (Probably-Definitely Yes)

9. Hypothesis #1: The younger and poorer supported the protests more than
the older generation.
Findings:
• While more young people participated in the survey, the older generation
was more supportive.
• The youngest (under 25) and the oldest (over 80) were the least supportive.
• There was a dip in support among 40 year olds.
• This appears to indicate that among those active in the protests, the
younger generation was more critical, especially those who earn more.
• Income was a significant predictor for younger respondents but not older.
• There was a significant positive interaction between age and income.

10. Support for the Protests by Generation: Twin Peaks
The Hill at 25 The Mountain at 70

11. Support for the protests by income (total population)

12. Support for the protest by age (groups) and income
We found significant effects of earnings on support for the 20 and 30 year
olds, but not for those over 40.
Red-40 and Over
Green-30-39
Blue- Under 30

13. The Positive Interaction of Age and Income:
We ran a multivariate regression (SLS) to see if there is an
interaction between earnings and age that would predict protest.
Due to the
Younger
positive
respondents
interaction, the
show a clear
effect of income
significant
becomes positive
correlation
for older income
between
respondents
and support
Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|
Intercept 3.40137390 0.06 60.69 <.0001*
ageactual 0.00622280 0.00 4.57 <.0001*
WorkpayActual -0.00002400 0.00 -6.66 <.0001*
Interaction 0.00000115 0.00 5.17 <.0001*

14. Hypothesis #2: The younger and poorer diverged more with parents
Findings:
• Parents support for the protests was a very significant indicator of personal
support for all ages.
• Parental transmission was more likely to occur among detractors, who had
similar low levels of support for the protests as their parents.
• The younger generation diverged significantly less with their parents.
• There is no correlation between income and divergence with parents.

15. Parents’ Support for the Protest Among Our Sample
Question: “To what extent do you agree with each of the
following statements:”
“My parents support (or would support) the social protest.”
Not Sure was removed. Not Sure: 309, No-Yes N: 2800,
Mean Support: 3.16 (Probably Yes)

16. Divergence with Parents
“I support the social protest.”
Minus
“My parents support (or would support) the social protest.”

17. Divergence with parents by age

18. Hypothesis #3: The younger and poorer participated more
Findings:
• Younger respondents participated more in all forms of protests except
signing petitions.
• 5 distinct types of protest participation were isolated
• Participation types were significantly correlated with age and income.
•

19. 10 Types of Participation:
“Please check if you've already done this”
1. Send information about the social protest to others via email, Facebook, etc. 52%
2. Write a talkback on an internet site. 31%
3. Give a favorable opinion about the protest during a personal conversation. 80%
4. Sign a petition that supports the goals of the protest. 49%
5. Visit a tent site. 58%
6. Participate in a non-violent protest. 59%
7. Participate in a violent protest (burning tires, clashing with police, etc. 2%
8. Become involved as an activist or leader. 13%
9. Set up a tent. 5%
10. Sleep in a tent. 4%

20. Hypothesis: Younger participants will participate more.
Participation type by Age and Age Group (Young <36)
Highlighted results significant at p<.01
Logistic Est. Young Old
1. Sendinfo .003 54% 51%
2. Talkback -.008 34% 28%
3. Sayopinion .004 82% 78%
4. Signpetition .019 46% 53%
5. Visittent -.011 64% 53%
6. Noviolent -.011 65% 55%
7. Violent -.019 3% 2%
8. Leader -.020 16% 10%
9. Tentup -.062 8% 2%
10. Sleeptent -.085 7% 1%

21. Clustered Types of Participation:
Latent Class Analysis
• Lazarsfeld and Henry (1968)
• Empirical measures are indicators of invisible latent variables.
• As opposed to traditional factor analyses, unobserved variables may be
ordinal.
• Each latent class may be distinct with a unique profile of characteristics.
• Individuals are classified by their probable membership in a cluster of other
individuals with similar characteristics.
• The model is estimated using probability relations and latent parameters
• We used a MIMIC procedure to isolate individuals into clusters and then
calculated probabilities and regressions from those predictions.

22. The 5 Ways Of Participating In The Protest
1.The Die-Hards: Most active in all types of protest, except sending info,
signing petitions, and saying opinion. Occasionally violent. Often Leaders.
Most set up and sleep in tents.
2.The Supporters: Highly active. Send information, sign petitions, and say
opinions most. Occasionally leaders. Do not set up or sleep in tents.
3.The Talkers: Often send info, sign petitions, and say opinion. Occasionally
engage in talk backs. Rarely engage in non-violent protests. Do not visit tent
sites.
4.The Watchers: Often say opinion, visit tent sites, and engage in non-violent
protests. Rarely engage in talk backs.
5.The Refrainers: Occasionally say opinion. Rarely visit tent sites.

23. MIMIC Distribution of Participation Types by Protest Cluster
Die Hard distribution percentages are shown.
1.00 0.92 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.89
0.90 0.86
0.75 0.77
0.80 0.69
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30 0.20
0.20
0.10
0.00
Dvisittent
Dnoviolent
Dleader
Dsleeptent
Dsendinfo
Dtalkback
Dsayopinion
Dviolent
Dtentup
Dsignpetition
DieHards Supporters Talkers Watchers Refrainers

24. ageactual
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
DieHards Supporters Talkers Watchers Refrainers
10000
100% Income
% of Income Spent on Housing
8000
80%
6000
60%
4000
40%
2000
20%
0%0
Die Hards Supporters
Die Hards Supporters Talkers
Talkers Watchers
Watchers Refrainers
Refrainers

25. Support the Protest
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
DieHards Supporters Talkers Watchers Refrainers
0.50 Divergence with Parents (Reversed)
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10 Die Hards Supporters Talkers Watchers Refrainers

26. Summary of Findings
Younger respondents are less rebellious. Transference of parental support
(Jennings and Niemi)

27. Future Research