Next: General and Specific Relationships Up: Exposure, Networks, and Mobilization: Town Previous: Defining the Boundaries for
A straightforward way to test for the relation between the degree of exposure and the amount of political involvement is a correlation measure. Table 2 reports these correlations. There is a very high correlation of r = 0,62 for the first period in time. This correlation drops to r = 0,27 at time 2 and slightly rises again to r = 0.33 at the end of period 3. These correlations demonstrate that the extend to which a person is in contact with activists is an adequate explanation for his behavior: Structure matters. Much of the mobilization process took place within the existing social fabric of the city.
Though the correlations are all positive and highly significant, they vary in strength for the three phases. There are two alternative explanations for the weaker statistical relation during period two and three. On the one hand the amount of exposure could have risen in general without influencing people to become involved; alternatively people could have become active for reasons other than contacts to activists.
Let us briefly summarize the picture that has emerged so far before we move on to address these two alternative explanations: There is a general relationship between exposure and involvement into the revolution. Nevertheless the varying strength of the correlations asks for a more detailed analysis. It looks as if not all activity can be explained within this general model. Common interests, experiences or an equivalent position within society at large, all factors that can not be not identified through the structure of the city have to be taken into account as well. This argument reflects the more general logic of social structures that we have outlined above: They do not only describe who gets in contact with whom, but also who does not.