Handbook of

Community Psychology

Edited by

Julian Rappaport
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois

and

Edward Seidman
New York University
New York, New York

New York Boston Dordrecht London Moscow

 Robert D. Pelner et al.

Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S. (1987). I.Q. scores of 4-ye?-old children: Social-
environmental risk factors. Pediatrics, 79(3), 343-350.
Sarason, S. B. (1981). Psychology misdirected. New York: Free Press.
Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sarason, S. B., & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history: A broadenedperspective
on mental retardation. New York: Free Press.
Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday.
Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1988). The High/Scope Peny Preschool Program. In R. H. Price, E. L. Cowen, R.
P. Lorion, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.), Fourteen ounces ofprevention: A casebookforpractitioners (pp. 53-66).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Seidman, E. (1983). Unexarnined premises of social problem solving. In E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of Social
Intervention (pp. 48-67). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Seidman, E. (1987). Toward a framework for primary prevention research. In J. A. Steinberg and M. M. Silverman
(Eds.), Preventing mental disorders: A research perspective (pp. 2-19). DHHS Pub. No (ADM)87-1492.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3-24.
Seidman, E. (1990). Pursuing the meaning and utility of social regularities for community psychology. In P. Tolan, C.
Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching communitypsychology: Issues of theory and methods (pp. 91-
100). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Seidman, E., & Rappaport, J. (Eds.). (1986). Redefining social problems. New York: Basic Books.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1982). Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cognitive approach to
prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 341-356.
Silverman, M. M. (1989). Commentary: The integration of problem and prevention perspectives: Mental disorders
associated with alcohol and dmg use. In D. Schaffer, I. Pk&ps, N. B. Enzer, M. M. Silverman, & V. Anthony
(Eds.), Prevention of mental disorders alcohol and other drug use in children and adolescents: OSAP Prevention
Monograph-2 (pp. 7-22). DHHS Publication No. (ADW) 89-1646. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Goyernment Printing
Office.
Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55,17-29.
- ...- -- -
--Virm-Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation,and Substance Abuse. (1988). A comprehensive plan of
prevention.. Richmond, VA.
Weiss, H. B., & Jacobs, F. H. (1988). Introduction: Family support and education programs, challenges and
opportunities.In H. B. Weiss and E H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluatingfamily programs. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner-city, the underclass, & publicpolicy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
W. T. Grant Foundation. (1988). The forgotten half: Non-college youth in America. New York: W. T. Grant
Foundation.
Zigler, E. E (1989). Addressing the nation's child care crisis: The school of the 21st century. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 59, 485-491.
Zigler, E. F. (1990). Forward. In S. J. Meisels and J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp.
ix-xiv). New York: Cambridge University Press.
 CHAPTER 2

Empowerment Theory
Psychological, Organizational
and Community Levels of Analysis

Empowerment is both a value orientation for working in the community and a theoretical
model for understanding the process and consequences of efforts to exert control and influence
over decisions that affect one's life, organizational functioning, and the quality of community
life (Perkins & Zirnmerman, 1995; Rappaport, 1981; Zimmerman & Warschausky, 1998). A
distinction between the values that underlie an empowerment approach to social change and
empowerment theory is necessary. The value orientation of empowerment suggests goals,
aims, and strategies for implementing change. Empowerment theory provides principles and
a framework for organizing our knowledge. The development of empowerment theory also
helps advance the construct beyond a passing fad and political manipulation.
A theory of empowerment suggests ways to measure the construct in different contexts,
to study empowering processes, and to distinguish empowerment from other constructs, such
as self-esteem, self-efficacy,or locus of control. One definition of empowerment is useful, but
appears to be limited to the individual level of analysis:
Empowerment may be seen as a process where individuals learn to see a closer correspondence
between theu goals and a sense of how to achlevethem, and arelatlonshp between theu efforts and hfe
outcomes (Mechan~c,1991).

Another definition explicitly incorporates person-environment interaction:

Empowerment is an intenbonal, ongoing process centered m the local community, involving mutual
respect, cnhcal reflecbon, canng, and group partxipabon, through which people lackmg an equal
share of valued resources gnn greater access to and control over those resources (Cornell Empower-
ment Group, 1989)

A definition by Rappaport (1984) accounts for the fact that empowerment may occur at
multiple levels of analysis: "Empowerment is viewed as a process: the mechanism by which

MA^^ A. ZIMMERMAN Department of Health Behavior and Health Educabon, School of Pubhc Health, Umversity
OfMlchgan, Ann Arbor, Michlgan 48109.
Handbook of Communzty Psychology, edited by Juhan Rappaport and Edward Seidman. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York, 2000
 1
Marc A. Zimmerman

people, organizations, and communities gain mastery over their lives," but does not provide
details about the process across levels of analysis. These definitions suggest that empower-
ment is a process in which efforts to exert control are central. These conceptual definitions also
suggest that participation with others to achieve goals, efforts to gain access to resources, and
some critical understanding of the sociopolitical environment are basic components of the
construct. Applying this general framework to an organizational level of analysis suggests that
empowerment may include organizational processes and structures that enhance member
participation and improve organizational effectiveness for goal achievement. At the commu-
nity level of analysis, empowerment may refer to collective action to improve the quality of
life in a community and to the connections among community organizations and agencies.
Organizational and community empowerment,however, are not simply the aggregate of many
empowered individuals.
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the value orientation underlying an em-
powerment approach to social change. Next, I briefly describe empowerment as theory.
Finally, I examine the construct of empowerment at the individual, organizational, and com-
munity levels of analysis. These sections include a discussion of the parameters of empower-
ment, a brief review of relevant research, and suggestions for future research at each level of
analysis. The chapter emphasizes the individual level because most of the research to date has
been devoted to this level of analysis, but this focus is not intended to suggest its relative

EMPOWERMENT AS A VALUE ORIENTATION

. ~
~.. Empowerment suggests a distinct approachfor developing interventions and creating
social change. It directs attention toward health, adaptation, competence, and natural helping
systems. It includes the perspective that many social problems exist due to unequal distribu-
tion of, and access to, resources. Some individuals are best served by mutual help, helping
others, or working for their rights, rather than having their needs fulfilled by a benevolent
professional (Gallant, Cohen, & Wolff, 1985). An empowerment approach goes beyond
ameliorating the negative aspects of a situation by searching for those that are positive. Thus,
enhancing wellness instead of fixing problems (Cowen, Chapter 4, this volume), identifying
strengths instead of cataloging risk factors, and searching for environmental influences instead
of blaming victims characterizes an empowerment approach.
Empowerment calls for a distinct language for understanding lay efforts to cope with
stress, adapt to change, and influence our communities. Rappaport (1985) describes how an
empowerment-oriented language can help redefine our roles as professional helpers. He
suggests that the traditional language used to describe the helping process unwittingly encour-
ages dependence on professionals, creates the view that people are clients in need of help, and
maintains the idea that help is unidirectional. The language of professionals limits the
discovery of indigenous resources and reduces the likelihood of people helping each other.
An empowerment approach replaces terms such as "client" and "expert" with "participant"
and "collaborator."
An empowerment approach to intervention design, implementation, and evaluation
redefines the professional's role relationship with the target population. The professional's role
becomes one of collaborator and facilitator rather than expert and coyselor. As collaborators,
professionals learn about the participants through their cultures, their worldviews, and their
life struggles. The professional works with participants instead of advocating for them. The
 Theory

professional's skills, interests, or plans are not imposed on the community; rather, profes-
sionalsbecome a resource for a community. This role relationship suggests that what profes-
sionalsdo will depend on the particular place and people with whom they are working, rather
than on the technologies that are predetermined to be applied in all situations. While inter-
personalassessment and evaluation skills will be necessary, how, where, and with whom they
,, applied cannot be automatically assumed, as occurs in the role of a psychotherapist with
clients in a clinic. Fawcett et al. (1994) describe eight case studies that exemplify innovative
roles for professionals interested in promoting empowerment among those with whom they
are working. They provide a framework of empowering strategies that focus on capacity-
building for individuals and groups, and creating environments that support the development
of empowerment.
Kelly (1971) describes several qualities of a community psychologist that are consistent
with an empowerment approach. These include giving away the byline, tolerance for diversity,
coping effectivelywith varied resources, and creating an eco-identity (i.e., identifying with the
community).These qualities suggest a capability to learn about the context within which one
is working, and to accept and acknowledge the values of that context. Kelly (1970) also
identifies several strategies for training that would help prepare community psychologists for
applying an empowerment approach, including field-assessment skills, integrating theory and
practice, and identifying resources in the community.
An empowerment orientation also suggests that community participants have an active
role in the change process, not only for implementing a project, but also in setting the agenda.
The professional works hard to include members of a setting, neighborhood, or organization so
they have a central role in the process. Participants can heIp identify measurement issues and
help collect assessment and evaluation data. The evaluation process not only includes partici-
pants in its planning and implementation, but the results are also shared. Feeding back
information to the community and helping to use it for policy decisions is a primary goal. An
empowerment approach to evaluation focuses as much attention on how goals are achieved as
on outcomes. This approach suggests that both quantitative and qualitative methods are
necessary for evaluation (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Kelly (1988) describes a process for preven-
tion research that is consistent with an empowerment approach, and several investigators
describe a participatory approach to research (Brown, 1983; Chesler, 1991; Israel, Schulz,
Parker, & Becker, 1998; Pasmore & Friedlander, 1982; Peters & Robinson, 1984; Rappaport,
1990; Serrano-Garcia, 1984). Fetterman (1996) has also described empowerment evaluation as
a process that not only involves participants, but also helps them develop skills for self-
evaluation.

EMPOWERMENT AS THEORY

A theory of empowerment includes both processes and outcomes (Swift & Levine, 1987).
The theory suggests that actions, activities, or structures may be empowering, and that the
outcome of such processes result in a level of being empowered. Both empowerment pro-
cesses and outcomes vary in their outward form because no single standard can fully capture
its meaning for all people in all contexts (Rappaport, 1984; Zimmerman, 1995). The behaviors
necessary for a 16-year-old mother to become empowered are different from the behaviors for
a recently widowed middle-aged man. Similarly, what it means to be empowered for these two
individuals is not the same. Thus, empowerment is context and population specific. It takes on
different forms for different people in different contexts.
 Marc A. Zimmerman

A distinction between empowering processes and outcomes is critical in order to clearly

define empowerment theory. Empowering processes are ones in which attempts to gain con-
trol, obtain needed resources, and critically understand one's social environment are funda-
mental. The process is empowering if it helps people develop skills so they can become
independent problem-solvers and decision-makers. Empowering processes will vary across
levels of analysis. For example, empowering processes for individuals might include organiza-
tional or community involvement; empowering processes at the organizational level might
include shared leadership and decision-making; and empowering processes at the community
level might include accessible government, media, and other community resources.
Empowered outcomes refer to operationalization of empowerment so we can study the
consequences of citizens' attempts to gain greater control in their community, or the effects of
interventions designed to empower participants. Empowered outcomes also differ across
levels of analysis. When we are concerned with individuals, outcomes might include situation-
specific perceived control, skills, and proactive behaviors. When we are studying organiza-
tions, outcomes might include organizational networks, effective resource acquisition, and
policy leverage. When we are concerned with community-level empowerment, outcomes
might include evidence of pluralism, the existence of organizational coalitions, and accessible
community resources.
A thorough development of empowerment theory requires exploration and desc,riptionat
multiple levels of analysis. Citizens who unite to stop a chemical company from dumping
I
toxic waste near their children's school are trying to exert control in their environment. They
might create an organization to address the problem and educate their community. The
organization could join other similar organizations so they can increase their base of support.
Their community could then unite to elect officials that represent their concerns and allow
._them-mose..access to governmental decision-making.-Mechanismsof empowerment include-

individual competencies and proactive behaviors, natural helping systems and organizational
effectiveness, and community competence and access to resources.
Each level of analysis, although described separately, is inherently connected to the
others. Individual, organization, and community empowerment are mutually interdependent
and are both a cause and a consequence of each other. The extent to which elements at one
level of analysis are empowered is directly related to the empowering potential of other levels
i
of analysis. Similarly, empowering processes at one level of analysis contribute to empodwered
outcomes at other levels of analysis. Empowered persons are the basis for developing respon-
sible and participatory organizations and communities; it is difficult to imagine an empower-
ing community or organization devoid of empowered individuals. Efforts to understand
empowering processes and outcomes are not complete unless multiple levels of analysis are
studied and integrated. An examination of empowerment theory (i.e., empowering processes
and outcomes) at the individual, organizational, and community levels of analysis follows.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT

Empowerment at the individual level of analysis may be referred to as psychological

empowerment (Zimmerman, 1990a; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Psychological em-
powerment (PE) includes beliefs about one's competence, efforts to exert control, and an
understanding of the socio-political environment. The specific actioqs one takes to achieve

.
 BmpowermentTheory

malye and understand one's social and political situation. This includes an ability to identify
those with power, their resources, their connection to the issue of concern, and the factors that
influencetheir decision-making. Sue and Zane (1980) describe this process as understanding
causalagents. A critical awareness also includes knowing when to engage conflict and when to
avoid it, and the ability to identify and cultivate resources needed to achieve desired goals

One way individuals can develop these analytic skills is through participation in activities
and organizations. They may model others or gain experience by organizing people, identify-
ing resources, or developing strategies-for social change. Berger and Neuhaus (1977) suggest
that increased opportunities for people to become involved in community organizations (e.g.,
churches,neighborhood groups, service organizations) will help to decrease a sense of power-
lessness, alienation, and withdrawal from community living. These organizations, which they
call mediating structures (because they mediate between large impersonal organizations and
individual lives), provide opportunities for learning new skills, developing a sense of commu-
nity, building a sense of control and confidence, and improving community life.
Thus, an empowered person might be expected to exhibit a sense of personal control, a
critical awareness of one's environment, and the behaviors necessary to exert control. These
different dimensions of PE can be identified as intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral
components (Zimmerman, 1995). The intrapersonal component includes personality (e.g.,
locus of control), cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy), and motivational aspects of perceived control
(Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Perceived control may be specific to personal, inter-
personal, or sociopolitical life domains (Paulhus, 1983). The interactional component of PE

community organizations or activities.

E Empowering processes at the individual level of analysis include experiences to exert
1 control by participation in decision-making or problem-solving in one's immediate environ-
1i ment. This may be achieved through participation in community organizations or activities,
being involved in work-site management teams, or learning new skills. Processes such as
1 applying cognitive skills (e.g., decision-making),managing resources, or working with others
on a common goal may all have empowering potential. Table 1 summarizes empowering
processes and empowered outcomes for the individual, as well as the organizational and
I
community levels of analysis.
i

TABLE1. A Comparison of Empowering Processes

and Empowered Outcomes across Levels of Analysis
~ r o c e s s("empowering") Outcome ("empowered")

Learmng decision-mhg shlls Sense of control

Managng resources Critical awareness
Worhng with others Participatory behaviors
Orgmzauonal Opportumtles to participate in decision-making Effectively compete for resources
Shared responsibihties Networking with other orgamzauons
Shared leadership Pohcy influence
Access to resources Organizaaonal coahtions
Open government structure Plurahstic leadership
Tolerance for diversity Residents' participatory skills
 7
1

Marc A. Zimmerman

Research Related to Psychological Empowerment

Three areas of research-perceived control, citizen pa&cipation, and direct efforts to

develop empowerment theory-are reviewed briefly below as they pertain to psychological
empowerment.

Perceived Control
Perceived control is the belief that one can influence outcomes. The outcome can be
achieving a goal or avoiding an undesirable situation.Individuals react differently to situations
perceived as controllable versus those seen as uncontrollable (see Gatchel, 1980; Langer, 1983,
for reviews). Investigatorshave found perceived control to reduce psychological stress (Flem-
ing, Baum, & Weiss, 1987; Revicki & May, 1985; Vinokuv & Caplan, 1986) and predict
positive health behaviors (Labs & Wurtele, 1986; Sallis, Haskell, Fortrnan, Vranizan, Taylor,
& Soloman, 1986; Seeman & Seeman, 1983; Visher, 1986). Perceived control is also related to
social action and political involvement (Gurin, Gurin, Lao, & Beattie, 1969; Lefcourt, 1976;
Zimmerman, 1989). The research literature is saturated with distinct measures of perceived
control that can be categorized in personality, cognitive, and motivational domains (Zimrner-
man, 1986). The integration of personality, cognitive, and motivational domains of perceived
control provides a basis for studying the intrapersonal component of PE.
The personality domain-locus of control-refers to one's beliefs about the cause of
success and failure in one's life, and represents a disposition that includes a generalized
expectancy about the relationship between one's actions and outcomes (Lefcourt, 1976; Rotter,
1966). The cognitive domain-self-efficacy-refers to the judgments one makes concerning
- how well one can perform behaviors necessaq-toaehieve desired goals (Bandura, 1977). Self-
efficacy may help determine what activities people engage in, how much effort they will
expend to achieve goals, and how long they persevere in the face of adversity (Bandura, 1982).
A particularly relevant situation-specific aspect of self-efficacy for PE is political efficacy
(Craig & Maggiotto, 1982; Zimmerman, 1989).
The motivational domain of perceived control refers to the notion that mastery of the
environment satisfies an intrinsic need to influence the environment (De Charms, 1968; White,
1959). Several investigators have reported that motivational deficits are associated with a
perceived lack of control (Alloy, 1982; Glass & Singer, 1972; Sherrod, Hage, Halpern, &
Moore, 1977). PE, however, includes more than simply feelings of control; it also includes
behaviors to exert control.

Citizen Participation
Participation in community organizations (e.g., neighborhood associations, mutual help
groups, social change groups) is one way to exercise a sense of competence and control.
Participants in a variety of community organizations have reported an increase in activism and
involvement, greater perceived competence and control, and a decrease in alienation. This has
been found for individuals involved in welfare rights organizations (Levens, 1968; Zurcher,
1970), nursing-home residents (Langer & Rodin, 1976), members of neighborhood associa-
tions (Can; Dixon, & Ogles, 1976; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Florin & Wandersman,
1984), and union members (Denney, 1979). '\
Stone and Levine (1'985) compared activists and nonactivists in the Love Canal environ-
mental conflict-a crisis that affected a thousand families who lived next to an abandoned
 Empowerment Theory 49

toxic chemical site. Stone and Levine (1985) collected interview data from 39 individuals
during the early stages of the citizen movement, and again several months later. Twenty-four
of h e were activists. They were compared with their uninvolved neighbors on
of how the Love Canal crisis had affected them personally, and how it influenced
their social lives. These researchers found that activists felt better about themselves and
stronger feelings of political efficacy than non-activists. They also found that activists
lost some friends, but were more likely to have developed new friendships. Although research
describing naturally occurring events cannot include random selection of people to participa-
tion and non-participation groups and, therefore, cannot address the possibility that individuals
chose to participate may already feel more empowered than those who do not participate
(i.e., self-selectionbias), the longitudinal nature of Stone and Levine's research lends support
for the notion that efforts to exert control may have empowering potential.
Fawcett and his colleagues (1980, 1984; Balcazar, Seekins, Fawcett, & Hopkins, 1990)
have reported community interventions for increasing individual control over important
aspects of their lives. Their work illustrates how human-service professionals can help design
and implement what they call social technologies. They use principles of learning theory to
train individuals to either solve community problems or enhance community resources. The
training provides individuals with the skills and knowledge necessary to gain control in their
lives. Fawcett, Seekins, Whang, Muiu, and Suarez de Balcazar (1984) have trained leaders to
chair meetings effectively, educate neighbors about the impact of new roadways in their
neighborhood, and help handicapped individuals enhance the enforcement of parking regula-
tions and increase awareness of the disabled. Balcazar et al. (1990) describe the results of the
training for disabled persons.

Development of Psychological Empowerment Theory

Two studies suggest that psychological empowerment is a combination of personal
beliefs of control, involvement in activities to exert control, and a critical awareness of one's
environment. The studies provide converging evidence using different research methods.
Kieffer (1984) used a qualitative approach to describe the development of PE among commu-
nity leaders. He conducted in-depth interviews with 15 individuals, including migrant workers,
housewives, and miners who emerged as local leaders in grass-roots organizations. He
reported that individuals felt more powerful as a result of their involvement, even if they did
not actually gain more power. Kieffer (1984) concluded that empowerment encompasses the
development of participatory competence that is composed of a positive sense of competence
and self-concept, construction of an analytical understanding of the social and political
environment, and cultivation of personal and collective resources for social action.
Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) used a quantitative approach to examine the common
variance among several measures of perceived control in. student and community samples.
They examined the relationship among 11 measures representing personality, cognitive, and
motivational domains of perceived control, and participation. Participation was measured in
three ways: (1) as an analogue of participation; (2) the level of participation in community
organizations; and (3) the extent of involvement in community activities. The analogue
measure used responses to hypothetical scenarios in which respondents were asked to indicate
whether they would try to change the situations described. Level of involvement in community
organizations was a composite of the number of months involved, the number of hours
volunteered in a month, the number of leadership positions held, and attendance at organiza-
tional meetings for each organization in which respondents listed membership. Extent of
 Marc A. Zimmerman

involvement in community activities was measured by a 26-item activity checklist that

included voting, signing a petition, boycotting a product, organizing people, and writing a
letter to an editor. Groups of individuals defined by the participation measures were then
compared on the 11 indicators of empowerment.
Results of a &scriminant function analysis indicated that the combined variance of the 11
measures of perceived control formed one dimension that distinguished high-participation
groups from low- or no-participation groups. Similar results were found for students and
community samples across the participation measures. Group differences remained when age,
socioeconomic status, sociability, and social desirability were controlled statistically. The
dimension that distinguished groups was identified as one component of PE because it
represented three domains of perceived control. The results support the notion that PE includes
personal control, a sense of competence, a desire to exercise control, and participation. A study
using similar measures of participation, comparable measures of perceived control, and a
random sample of urban residents replicates these findings (Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, &
Checkoway, 1992).
These studies suggest that psychological empowerment includes intrapersonal, inter-
actional, and behavioral components (Zimmerman, 1995). The intrapersonal component refers
to perceived control or beliefs about competence to influence decisions that affect one's life.
The interactional component refers to the capability to analyze and understand one's social and
political environment (i.e., critical awareness). This includes an ability to understand causal
agents (those- with authoritative power), their cowection to the issue of concern, and the
factors that influence their decision-making.A critical awareness also includes knowing when
to engage conflict and when to avoid it, and the ability to identify and cultivate resources
needed to achieve desired goals. The behavioral component includes participation in collec-
-tiwe-action, involvement in voluntary-or-mutual help organizations, or solitary efforts to
influence the sociopolitical environment. The specific actions one takes to achieve goals are
not as important as attempting to exert control and being involved with others to do so.
Empowered individuals have some combination of a sense of control, critical awareness of
their sociopolitical environment, and involvement in their community. One component does
not necessarily lead to another, nor are they hierarchically ordered. Rather, these components
may be found in varying degrees in an individual. It is possible, for example, to participate in
collective actions but have little critical awareness or sense of control. Similarly, a person may
be astute about causal agents that affect one's life, but take no action to influence those agents.
All three of the components would be expected to a large degree in the most highly empowered
individuals, but some amount of any of them would suggest some level of PE.

Directions for Future Research

Although the perceived control literature, research on individual outcomes of participa-

tion, and comparative analyses of leaders and non-leaders or participants and non-participants
are useful starting points, research on PE requires attention to the development of a theoretical
framework that is particular to the construct. One research direction is to look at the interaction
between perceived control and the development of personal resources. Zimmerman (1990a)
has posited the idea of learned hopefulness, which addresses the positive psychological
consequences of control experiences. The model, a counterpart of l e v e d helplessness theoiy,
focuses on the positive consequences of efforts to control outcomes. Learned hopefulness is a
process by which individuals develop and use personal resources in an effort to exert control in
 Empowerment Theory

their lives. The resources one develops may include specific skills (e.g., leadership, problem-
solving), social support, or knowledge about causal agents. The final outcome in the learned
hopefulnes~model, consistent with an empowerment value orientation, is PE, rather than the
decrease in self-concept and motivation found in the learned helplessness literature.
A significant barrier for studying PE is the development of appropriate measurement
devices. The development of a universal global measure of PE, however, may not be feasible
or conceptually sound, given that the specific meaning of the construct is context- and
population-specific. This suggests that measures of PE need to be developed for each specific
population with which one is working. Similarly, measures of PE in one life domain may not
be appropriate to other settings of an individual's life. Measurement development must include
the research participants to help create measures and to test and refine them. The research may
also require intense observation and involvement with a particular population in a particular
context as a first step in the research process. In-depth study of the research setting and
population would not only add to our understanding of PE, but would also add insight into the
organizational and community settings in which it develops.
Zimrnerman and Zahniser (1991) describe the development of a socio-political control
scale, and suggest that it measures two aspects of the intrapersonal component of PE that may
be particularly relevant for members of voluntary organizations or individuals involved in
community organizing. Items from ten measures that represented personality, cognitive, and
motivational domains of perceived control were empirically selected and factor-analyzed. A
two-factor solution was replicated across two samples and validity analyses were consistent
across three samples. The factors were identified as policy control and leadership confidence;
however, the limits of self-report scales designed to measure the intrapersonal aspects of
empowerment are perhaps more instructive for future research than the scale itself.
Self-report measures can provide us with a convenient tool for data collection, but it is
important to keep in mind the limits of such measures. Research that simply labels individuals
based on their response to self-report items may not be the best way to develop the construct of
PE. Self-report scales tend to suggest a static level of competence, an idea that is antithetical to
the concept of empowerment. PE is not a trait that some of us are born with and others are not,
I nor is it a normally distributed individual difference variable; rather, it is earned, developed,
I
and ongoing (Zimmerman, 1990b). All people have the potential to empower themselves.
Measures must be population- and situation-specific and must include relevant aspects of
perceived control, knowledge of causal agents, and participation (Zimrnerman, 1995). Future
research could also begin to examine the relationship among the intrapersonal, interactional,
and behavioral components of PE for different populations and settings.

ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT

A distinction must be made between what the organization provides to members, and
what the organization achieves in the community. Organizations that provide opportunities for
People to gain control over their lives are empowering organizations. Organizations that
successfully develop, influence policy decisions, or offer effective alternatives for service
provision are empowered organizations. Although a distinction between empowering and
empowered organizations is made, organizations may have both characteristics.
An empowering organization may have little impact on policy, but may provide members
with opportunities to develop skills and a sense of control. Hobby clubs, for example, are
typically not interested in political issues or community decision-making, but they do require
 Marc A. Zimmerman

resource management, and coordination of activities. They also provide settings in

which people with similar interests share information and experiences and develop a sense of
identity with others. Organizations with shared responsibilities, a supportive atmosphere, and
social activities are expected to be more empowering than hierarchical organizations (Maton
& Rappaport, 1984; Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990). Several investiga-
tors suggest that formal organizational practices may play a central role in empowering
members (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Heil, 1991; Klein, this volume). Maton and Salem (1995)
examined three community organizations to identify common empowering themes. They
described four vital characteristics of an empowering organization: (1) a culture of growth and
community building; (2) opportunities for members to take on meaningful and multiple roles;
(3) a peer-based support system that helps members develop a social identity; and (4) shared
leadership with commitment to both members and the organization. Gruber and Trickett
(1987), however, point out that empowering organizational structures may also work to
undermine the act of empowerment if members do not share real decision-making power.
Empowered organizations are those that successfully thrive among competitors, meet
their goals, and develop in ways that enhance their effectiveness. Empowered organizations
may or may not provide opportunities for members to develop a sense of empowerment, but
they do become key brokers in the policy-decision process. Empowered organizations may
extend their influence to wider geographical areas and more diverse audiences. They are also
expected to effectively mobilize resources such as money, facilities, and members (Ferree &
Miller, 1985; Jenkins, 1983; McCarthy & Zald, 1978). One may to efficiently compete for
limited resources is to connect with other organizations to share information and resources,
and to create a strong base of support. Table 1 presents characteristics of empowering and
empowered organizations.
~ ~

.- --- ... - -

Research Related to Organizational Empowerment

Empowering Organizations
Research on the characteristics of an empowering organization can be found in studies of
organizational structure. Organizations with participatory decision-making structures may
enhance opportunities for members to develop a sense of PE. The voluminous literature on
participative decision-making in organizations suggests that participation leads to greater job
satisfaction and productivity (Miller & Monge, 1986). Jackson (1983), for example, used a
Solomon-four group design in a hospital setting to evaluate an intervention designed to
increase employee participation in decision-making. She found participation reduced role
conflict and role ambiguity, and increased perceived control and job satisfaction. Bartunek and
Keys (1982) found similar results for an intervention designed to increase teachers' roles in
school decision-making. An organization that provides opportunities for member participation
in decision-making could be considered an empowering organization.
Social climate may also be a factor in determining the empowering potential of comrnu-
nity organizations. Dougherty (1988) studied the relationships among social climate, participa-
tion, and personal and political efficacy for members of a neighborhood association. She found
high levels of task orientation increased members' perceived control over neighborhood and
local government policy. McMillan et al. (1995) also found that organizations that were task-
focused and included pluralistic decision-making structures were more empowering than less
 focused and inclusive settings. Maton (1988) examined the relationship between organiza-
tional Characteristics and members' self-esteem, psychological well-being, and group ap-
1

zOups
sisal 144 members from three different self-help groups. He found members from
wifi shared roles and responsibilities reported more well-being and self-esteem than
>embers in groups where control was concentrated in a single leader. He also found that
in which members perceived high levels of order and organization reported more
gr
benefitsfrom group involvement than members in less organized settings.

Empowered Organizations
Riger (1984) describes several factors that may influence the survival of feminist-
movement organizations. She examined ideology, goal orientation, and decision-making
procedures for several women's organizations. She found that unresolved conflict between
ideology and the decision-making process often led to the demise of the organization. For
exmple, strict adherence to collective decision-making was not always the most effective way
to solve organizational conflict, but other types of decision-making processes were not
with the organizations' ideology, so members did not use them. Riger (1984)
that understanding the development and resolution of ideological conflicts in
politically oriented organizations may help to insure their survival and enhance their em-
powering ~otential.Conflict-management issues may help distinguish between empowered
and those with less impact on policy.
Another approach to studying empowered organizations is to investigate how they
develop and influence social policy. Checkoway and his colleagues (1980, 1982) report the
development of a health-care consumer advocacy group. They describe how the consumers
gained control of a county health planning board and proceeded to insure that their health-care
needs were met. They included an analysis of the factors that contributed to the groups'
success: (a) planning step-by-step procedures for achieving goals; (b) choosing issues of a
broad concern that were also specific enough to appeal to many people; (c) collecting data to
support their point of view; and (d) holding public meetings to present their findings and rally
support. They also found that the group created alliances with other organizationsto help them
achieve their goals.
Zimmeman, Reischl, Seidman, Rappaport, Toro, and Salem (1991) describe the expan-
sion strategies used by a mutual help organization for individuals experiencing emotional
difficulties. The organization grew from 12 groups and a $30,000 per year budget to 100groups
1 and a $500,000per year budget in a little over five years. The organization mobilized resources
j from a variety of sources, delineated responsibility for obtaining different resources, and
targeted articular providers for specific resources. The organization also used the strategy of
creating underpopulated settings (Barker, 1960; Perkins, Burns, Perry, & Nielsen, 1988) as a
way to encourage individual involvement. The organization would create a setting before the
necessary personnel were available to maintain it. These strategies appeared to avoid overtax-
ing resource pools, reduce job ambiguity, and encourage member participation.
Snow, Zurcher, and Elhd-Olson (1980) examined the membership recruitment strate-
gies of several community organizations. They examined case studies of emerging organiza-
tions and queried university students about their involvement and recruitment experiences.
They found that organizations that were linked to other groups and tapped social networks
outside the organization grew faster and developed larger memberships than more isolated
groups. organizations, like individuals, may have a better chance of becoming empowered if
 Marc A. Zimmerman

they are connected to other groups and exploit existing resources to foster development.
Networking has been found to be related to organizational longevity and success for advocacy
(Kelly, 1986) and citizen protest (Lindgren, 1987) groups.

Directions for Future Research

Future research on the empowering potential of organizations could examine the relation-
ship between skills learned from involvement and organizational characteristics. These issues
can be examined for different types of organizations (e.g., policy change, community service,
problem amelioration) and different organizational structures (e.g., participatory decision-
making, decentraized authority). The social climate of organizations could also be used to
distinguish different types of settings. For example, social climate variables such as organiza-
tion, cohesion, self-discovery, and task orientation may be especially relevant for empower-
ment in some organizations, but not others.
Research on empowered organizations can expand on resource mobilization theory and
research. Studies that describe processes for identifying, obtaining, and managing resources
may help distinguish empowered organizations from organizations less effective in the policy
process. Comparative studies of organizations with different resource mobilization strategies
can help us understand the factors that may influence organizational empowerment. Research
could examine the type of organizations~thatconnect with other organizations, and the effects
of networking on organizational survival and goal achievement.
Another research direction could be to evaluate the effectiveness of community organiza-
tions. Crosby, Kelly, and Schaefer (1986) describe six criteria for evaluating the success of
citizen-participation. They suggest thateffecfrve~participationincludes: (1) pluralistic repre-
sentation; (2) skill-training and shared information for decision-making; (3) equal input at
all stages of the decision-making process; (4) long-term evaluation of costs; (5) adaptable
methods so several different tasks and decisions can be worked on; and (6) being seriously
considered in final decisions. These criteria can be applied to different types of organizations
as a way to examine empowering processes and empowered outcomes.

COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT

An empowered community is one that initiates efforts to improve the community,

responds to threats to quality of life, and provides opportunities for citizen participation. Iscoe
(1974) identifies a community in which its citizens have the skills, desire, and resources to
engage in activities to improve community life as a competent community. Cottrell (1983)
describes a competent community by the extent to which interdependent components of a
community work together to effectively identify community needs, develop strategies to
address the needs, and perform actions to meet those needs. Mnkler (1990) suggests that
shared leadership and its development are critical for developing competent communities.
The structure and relationships among community organizations and agencies also helps
to define the extent to which a community is empowered. An empowered community is
expected to comprise well-connected organizations (i.e., coalitions) that are both empowered
and empowering. It also has settings for citizen involvement in activities,suchas neighborhood
crime prevention, planning commissions, and health care. This requires several different types
~-
gmpowerment Theory 55

of voluntary organizations,resource accessibilityfor all members of the community, and equal

opportunities for involvement.
An empowering community also includes accessible resources for all community resi-
dents. Resources include recreational facilities (e.g., parks, playing fields), protective services
(e.g., police, fire), health and mental health care (e.g., emergency medical services), and
general services (e.g., media, sanitation). Empowering communities, for example, are ex-
pected to have media resources available to residents. These might include accessible radio
and television stations, as well as editorial pages open to multiple perspectives. A balanced
presentation of the news helps to encourage critical discourse among residents, increases the
chances that problem solutions would represent a variety of viewpoints, and suggests a
tolerance for diversity. White (1981) provides a useful analysis of the power of the media and
the importance .of citizen involvement for influencing television programming (see also
McAlister, this volume). Empowering processes in a community also include an open govern-
mental system that takes citizen attitudes and concerns seriously, and includes strong leader-
ship that seeks advice and help from community members. The town meetings popular in New
England are a good example of a participatory governmental structure. Table 1 summarizes the
characteristics of empowering and empowered communities.

Research Related to Community Empowerment

07Sullivan, Waugh, and Espeland (1984) report a case study of a Native American
community's successful efforts to stop a relocation effort. Community leaders wanted to build
a dam that would flood their tribal homeland. The Fort McDowell Yavapai Indians, a
community of only 350 people, fought business interests and federal government regulatory
agencies to prevent the flooding. Their efforts included using community surveys to show the
psychological impact of relocation, uniting with local environmental groups, and exploiting
the media to stop plans to build the dam. This is an excellent example of community
empowerment because it highlights media accessibility, coalitions among organizations, and
the critical awareness among residents to successfully influence causal agents.
Maynard (1986) describes how a town in New Hampshire successfully persuaded the
U.S. Department of Energy to change its plans for building a nuclear waste repository in their
community. She describes how the community obtained information on nuclear waste, in-
formed each other of the implications of living near the dump site, and organized to remove
their community from a list of potential sites being considered. This is a good example of
united community leadership, competent residents seeking information on the issues, and
dissemination of information throughout the community for individuals to make their own
choices about the proposed dump site.
Freudenberg and Golub (1987) describe the development of the NYC Coalition to End
Lead Poisoning. The coalition included housing activists, health educators, physicians, social
workers, and community organizers. The coalition was established after early lead poisoning
prevention efforts failed to maintain vigilance on the issue. They used small group meetings,
community organizing, coalition-building, and mass-media coverage to alert residents about
the problem of lead poisoning, and to motivate the city to develop more preventive efforts.
This case study provides-an example of the processes involved in an empowering community.
Minkler (1985) describes efforts to foster social support and social activism among low-
income elderly. Other examples of community-empowermentprocesses and outcomes can be
 Marc A. Zimmerman

found for tonic waste issues (Levine, 1982), welfare and civil rights (Pivan & Cloward, 19771,
arson prevention (Mad*, Moore, Leviton, & Guinan, 1998), community health and mental
services (Cravens, 1981), and neighborhood associations (Alinsky, 1971; Fish, 1973).
These case studies emphasize the importance of organizational coditions, media involvement,
and plurallsti~leadership.
community network analysis may be a useful approach for describing empowered
communities (Galaskiewicz, 1979; Monissey, Tausig, & Lindsey, 1986). Galaskiewicz (1979)
examined organizational networks in a community and identified monetary, informational,
and supportive networks. The monetary network was bipolar with a private and public sector.
The information networks were separated by activities, and included television and radio
stations, newspapers, colleges, and organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and
United Way. The support networks were the least well-defined and included hospitals and
social service agencies. He also studied the extent and density of the networks, and reported
that the most central organizations were those with the most available resources.
Momssey et al. (1986) studied mental health system networks in two communities. They
interviewed agency directors about their organizational affiliation with other similar service
organizations in the community and found little evidence for a formally coordinated system of
services for the chronically mentally ill, but the agencies did play a role in connecting dis-
jointed agency sectors. They also found that institutionally based and community-based
services worked primarily independently of one another. Community network analysis sug-
gests that organizational relationships may be useful for identifying factors that enhance or
inhibit community involvement and understanding resource accessibility.

Directions for Future Research

The structure and content of community networks may help to identify the level of inte-
gration, shared problem-solving, and cooperation among organizations in a community. Orga-
nizational network analysis is particularly relevant for community empowerment because it
can be used to describe the nature of resource exchange and the amount of integration among
community organizations. Network analysis can also be useful for understanding the connec-
tions among causal agents and their relationships with resource distribution and accessibility.
Future research at the community level of analysis could also begin to identify environ-
mental factors associated with empowerment. Some areas within a city may be more em-
powering than others because they have active neighborhood associations, access to govern-
ment officials, and shared leadership. Environmental factors such as housing and common
spaces may help influence the empowering potential or the level of empowerment within a
given section of a city. It may be easier, for example, to organize residents living in high-
density housing where accessible meeting places are available than in more dispersed housing
conditions with limited public space. Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, and Chavis (1990)
found that the physical environment of a neighborhood was related to residents' level of
participation in a neighborhood association.
Research on community empowerment could also begin to examine how empowered
individuals work together to create competent communities. This research might examine how
leadership develops in the community and the organizations or settings in which it develops.
The opportunities for getting involved and their accessibility to residents may be an important
part of research on leadership development. Research on community empowerment might also

--
 access to a greater share of community resources.
I

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

While empowerment theory is a fundamental concept in community psychology, it

remains somewhat enigmatic. It is certainly not a panacea for solving community problems,
conducting research, or understanding natural helping systems. In some instances, it may
,,mally be used as an excuse to hold individuals responsible for their life situations, and
providea rationale for relieving institutional responsibility to take care of people and commu-
nities through structural interventions. It is a useful construct that is consistent with our values,
, helps redefine our roles as professionals and our community collaborators, and gives us a
I framework to understand community participation. Yet it is not a remedy for all
and is not applicable in all contexts. Conversely, the difficulty in measuring
l empowermenthas led some to dismiss its usefulness, but that does not diminish its validity as a
vital concept for the field. Empowerment may be most useful as a heuristic for our work. One
could argue that empowerment is only of interest to the extent that it results in some other
outcome. Zirnmerman et al. (1997) describe an intervention designed to prevent the spread of
HIVIAIDS among Mexican males living on the border between the United States and Mexico.
The intervention used an empowering process whereby participants were involved in develop-
ing, implementing, and evaluating the intervention. Participants soon took over leadership of
the project by setting the agenda for topics covered, developing resources for the intervention,
planning strategies to distribute condoms, providing assistance to people with HIVIAIDS,
i
conducting community education campaigns, and forming partnerships with other organiza-
tions. The evaluation of the intervention included attitudes, knowledge, and behavior related
to HIVIAIDS prevention, but did not assess individual empowerment outcomes (i.e., psycho-
[ logical empowerment). The results indicated that participants engaged in more preventive

1
fF
behaviors than did non-participants. This study suggests that empowering strategies may be
beneficial regardless of the effects they may have on the level of empowerment achieved for
~ w i c i ~ a n(psychological).
ts
Another issue raised about empowerment is that it is equivalent to power. The two con-
f smcts are fundamentally connected, but they are not the same (Zimrnerman, 1995). Power that
refers to authority is not analogous to empowerment. Several researchers have reported
instances in which politically disenfranchised groups with no official authority struggled to
influence those with governmentally mandated power and succeeded (e.g., Freudenberg &
Golub, 1987; Minkler, 1985; O'Sullivan, Waugh & Espeland, 1984). They may not have
gained any real authoritative power, but they did influence the decisions of those in power.
may be more closely linked to social power (Speer & Hughey, 1995), which
refersto the application of resources to hinder or facilitate community decision-making. While
this of Power is not authoritative power, it does involve the capability to reward (or
punish)causal agents, influence public debate and policy, and shape community ideology and
Speer and Hughey (1995) suggest that community organizations provide the
means by which disenfranchised individuals gain social power. Power is linked to empower-
ment because the theory includes issues regarding the struggle for power, power relationships,
and to exert control over, or influence on, community power structures, but they are
 1
Marc A. Zimmerman

~lthoughempowerment theory has consistently included multiple levels of analysis, the

preponderance of research has been on psychological empowerment. This may lead to the
erroneous conclusion that empowerment is solely an individual-level construct. Efforts to
understand organizational and community empowerment are clearly necessary to help move
the theory beyond the individual bias of psychology. The theory may also unintentionally
suggest that conceptions of control, participation, and community favor traditionally mas-
culine and Western standards. This, too, may be an erroneous assumption because the
particular definition or meaning of the concepts in empowerment theory depends on the
population with whom one is working, and the context in the which the work is being done.
Zimmerman (1995) points out that empowerment is an open-ended construct that may not be
fully captured by a single operationalization uniformly applied because, by its very nature, it
takes on different forms in distinct populations, contexts, and times. In the final analysis,
empowerment theory is an effort to provide a conceptual framework for understanding
processes and outcomes associated with the continuing struggle to make our lives, organiza-
tions, and communities closer to our ideal. The closer the correspondence between our goals,
our sense of how to achieve them, and our efforts to succeed, the closer we are to being
empowered.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I
Participation, control, and critical awareness are essential aspects of empowerment. At
I
the individual level of analysis, these factors include a belief in one's ability to exert control
(intrapersonal component), involvement in decision-making (behavioral component), and an
_understanding of causal agents (interactional component). At the organizational level of
analysis, these factors refer to settings that provide individuals with opportunities to exert
control and organizational effectiveness in service delivery and the policy process. At the
community level of analysis, these factors refer to the contexts in which organizations and
individuals interact to enhance community living, and insure that their communities address
local needs and concerns.
Social change and policy developed from an empowerment perspective requires a i
1
redefinition of terms and methods. Professional help that limits itself to experts giving advice I
in an office or to intrapsychic adjustment to current social realities is antithetical to an I

empowerment approach. An empowerment approach is concerned with resources and formal

settings for enhancing natural helping systems and creating opportunities for participatory
decision-making. The focus is on enhancing strengths and promoting health, rather than fixing
problems and addressing risk factors. I
Empowerment theory connects individual well-being with the larger social and political
environment, and suggests that people need opportunities to become active in community
decision-making in order to improve their lives, organizations, and communities. Individual
participants may develop a sense of empowerment even if wrong decisions are made because
they may develop a greater understanding of the decision-makingprocess, develop confidence
to influence decisions that affect their lives, and work to make their concerns known.
Organizations may be empowering even if policy change is not achieved because they provide
settings in which individuals can attempt to take control of their own lives. Communities may
enhance opportunities for residents to participate in the policy process\even if some battles are
lost. A community can be empowered because the citizens engage in activities that maintain or
improve their collective quality of life.
 EIllpowerment Theory

~mpowermentis a multilevel construct that requires us to think in terms of health

promotion, self- and muolal-help, and multiple definitions of competence. Research on
empowermentwill add to our understanding of individual adaptation, organizational develop-
ment, and community li?. Empowerment is an individual-level construct when one is con-
cerned with intrapersonal and behavioral variables, an organizational-level construct when
,,, is concerned with resource mobilization and participatory opportunities, and a community-
level construct when sociopolitical structure and social change are of concern. We can begin to
learn about the contexts in which empowerment takes place and the processes by which
empowerment develops if we study the settings that provide opportunities for natural helping
systems to flourish and grow.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I would like to thank James G. Kelly, Thomas A. Reischl, and the
editors of this Handbook, Julian Rappaport and Ed Seidman, for their thoughtful comments on
earlier drafts of this chapter. I would also like to extend special thanks to Deborah A. Salem,
whose support and comments on earlier drafts made this chapter possible, and to Mary Jane
onnsby, for her assistance in formatting the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. NY Vintage.

~ l l o y L.
, B. (1982). The role of perceptions and attributions for response-outcome noncontingency in learned
helplessness: A commentary and discussion. Journal of Personality, 50, 443-479.
Balcazar, F. E., Seekins, T., Fawcett, S. B., & Hopkins, B. L. (1990). Empowering people with physical disabilities
through advocacy skills training. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 281-296.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Barker, R. G. (1960). Ecology and motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 8, 1-44.
Bmnek, J., & Keys, C. (1982). Power equalization in schools through organizational development. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 171-183.
Berger, P. J., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy.
Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Organizing participatory research: Interfaces for joint inquiry and organizational change.
Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, 9-19.
Can; T. H., Dixon, M. C., & Ogles, R. M. (1976). Perceptions of community life which distinguish between
participants and nonparticipants in a neighborhood self-help organization. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 4, 357-366.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation
and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-81.
Checkoway, B. (1982). The empire strikes back: More lessons for health care consumers. Journal of Health Politics,
Policy, and Law, 7, 111-124.
Checkoway, B., & Doyle, M. (1980). Community organizing lessons for health care consumers. Journal of Health
Politics, Policy, and Law, 5, 213-226.
Chesler, M. A. (1991). Participatory action research with self-help groups: An alternative paradigm for inquiry and
achon. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 757-768.
Conger, J. A,, & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13,471-481.
Cornell Empowerment Group. (1989). Empowerment and family support. Networking Bulletin, 1, 1-23.
Cottrell, L. S., Jr. (1983). The competent community. In R. Warren & L. Lyon (Eds.), New perspectives on the
American community (pp. 398-432). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 8, 85-109.
Cravens, R. B. (1981). Grassroots participation in community mental health. In W. Silverman (Ed.), Community
mental health. New York: Praeger.
 Marc A. Zimmerman

Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizen panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public
Administration Review, 46, 170-178.
De Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic.
Denney, W. M. (1979). Participant citizenship in a marginal group: Union membership of California farm workers.
American Journal of Political Science, 23, 330-337.
Dougherty, D. (1988). Participation in community organizations: Effects on political efficacy,personal efficacy, and
self-esteem. Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Fawcett, S. B., Mathews, R. M., & Fletcher, R. K. (1980). Some promising dimensions for behavioral community
technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 505-518.
Fawcett, S. B., Seekins, T., Whang, P. L., Muiu, C., & Suarez de Balcazar, Y. (1984). Creating and using social
technologies for community empowerment. Prevention in Human Services, 3, 145-171.
Fawcett, S. B., White, G. W., Balcazar, E E., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Mathews, R. M., Paine, A. L., Seekins, T., and
Smith, J. F. (1994). A contextual-behavioral model of empowerment: Case studies involving people with
physical disabilities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 471-486.
Ferree, M. M., & Miller, F. D. (1985). Mobilization and meaning: Toward an integration of social psychological and
resource perspectives on social movements. Sociological Inquiry, 55, 38-61.
Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: An introduction to theory and practice. In D. M. Fetterman, S. J.
Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowemzent evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and
accountability (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
I
Fish, J. (1973). Blackpower/white control: The struggle of the Woodlawn Organization in Chicago. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Fleming, I., Baum, A., & Weiss, L. (1987). Social density and perceived control as mediators of crowding stress in
high density residential neighborhoods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 899-906.
Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in community development.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 127589r708.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1979). Exchange networks and community politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
.~ . .
Gallant, R. V., Cohen, C., & Wolff, T. (1985). Change of older persons' image, impact on public policy result from
Highland Valley Empowerment Plan. Perspective-on Aging, 14, 9-13.
Gatchel, R. (1980). Perceived control: A review and evaluation of therapeutic application. In A. Baum & J. Singer
(Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (pp. 1-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress: Experiments onnoise and social stressors. New York: Academic.
Gruber, J., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can we empower others? The paradox of empowerment in the governing of an
alternative public school. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 353-371.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C., & Beattie, M. (1969). Internal-externallocus of control in the motivational dynamics
of negro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 129-153.
Heil, W. B. (1991, August). Re-reviewing participation in decision-making: Toward a multidimensional model.
Paper presented at the Ninety-Ninth h u a l Convention of the American Psychological Association, San
Francisco, CA. I

Iscoe, I. (1974). Community psychology and the competent community. American Psychologist, 29, 607-613.
Israel, B. A,, Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing
partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173-202.

Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology,
9, 527-553.
Kelly, J. G. (1970). Antidotes for arrogance: Training for community psychology. American Psychologist, 25,
524-531.
Kelly, J. G. (1971). Qualities for the community psychologist. American Psychologist, 26, 897-903.
Kelly, J. G. (1986). Context and process: An ecological view of the interdependence of practice and research.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 581-589.
Kelly, J. G. (1988). A guide to conducting prevention research in the community: First steps. Prevention in Human
Services, 6, 1-174.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmentalperspective. Preventibp in Human Services, 3,9-36.
Labs, S. M., & Wurtele, S. K. (1986). Fetal health locus of control scale: Development and validation. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 814-819.
Langer, E. J. (1983). The Psychology of Control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. .-
 . ,A ----.- . .

Marc A. Zimmerman
62
~ ~J. (1981) In~ praise of ~paradox: A~ social policy
~ of empowerment
~ ~over prevention.
t American
, Journal of
Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.
Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction ro the issue. Prevention in Human Services, 3, 1-7.
Rappaport, J. (1985). The power of empowerment language. Social Policy, 16, 15-21.
Rappaport, J. (1990). Research methods and the empowerment social agenda. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L.
Jason (Eds.), Researching Community Psychology (pp. 51-63). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Revicki, D., &May, H. J. (1985). Occupation stress, social support, and depression. Health Psychology, 4,899-906.
Riger, S. (1984). Vehicles for empowerment: The case of feminist movement organizations. Prevention in Human
Services, 3, 99-118.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized experiences for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs, 80, 1014-1053.
Sallis, J. F., Haskell, W. L., Fortman, S. P., Vranizan, K. M., Taylor, C. B., & Soloman, D. S. (1986). Predictors of
adoption and maintenance of physical activity in a community sample. Preventive Medicine, 15, 331-341.
Seeman, M., & Seeman, T. (1983). Health behavior and personal autonomy: A longitudinal study of the sense of
control in illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 144-160.
Serrano-Garcia, I. (1984). The illusion of empowerment: Community development within a colonial context.
Prevention in Human Services, 3, 173-200.
Sherrod, D. R., Hage, J. N., Halpern, H. L., &Moore, B. S. (1977). Effects of personal causation and perceived control
on responses to an adverse environment: The more the control the better. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 13, 14-27.
Snow, D. A., Zurcher, L. A., & Elkind-Olson, S. (1980). Social networks and social movements. Anzerican Sociologi-
cal Review, 45, 787-801.
Speer, P. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowermentand power. American
Journal of Conzmunity Psychology, 23, 729-748.
Stone, R. A., & Levine, A. G. (1985). Reactions to collective stress: Correlates of active citizen participation.
Prevention in Human Services, 4, 153-177.
Sue, S., & Zane, N. (1980). Learned helplessness theory and community psychology. In M. S. Gibbs, J. R.
Lachenmeyer, & J. Sigal (Eds.), Community psychology: Theoretical and empirical approaches (pp. 121-143).
New York: Gardner.
Swift, C., & Levine, G. (1987). Empowerment an emerging mental health technology. Journal of Primary Preven-
__ _ - .- - ---
tion, 8, 71-94.
Vinokuv, A., & Caplan, R. D. (1986). Co,pitive and affective components of Life events: The relations and effects of
well being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 351-370.
Usher, S. C. (1986). The relationship of locus of control and contraception use in the adolescentpopulation. Journal of
Adolescent Health Care, 7, 183-187.
White, D. M. (1981). "Mediacracy": Mass media and psychopathology. In J.M. Joffe & G. W. Albee (Eds.), Preven-
tion through political action and social change. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1986). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empoweiment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1989). The relationship between political efficacy and citizen participation: Construct validation
studies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 554-566.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1990a). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural model analysis of participation and
empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality,.24, 71-86.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1990b). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between psychological and 1
individual conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 169-177.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.American Journal of Community
Ii
Psychology, 23, 581-600.
Zimmerman, M. A. Israel, B. I., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further explorations in empowerment theory:
An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20,
707-728.
Zimmerman, M. A., Ramirez-Valles,J., Suarez, E., de la Rosa, G., & Castro, M. A. (1997). An HIVIAIDS prevention
project for Mexican homosexual men: An empowerment approach. Health Education &Behavior, 24,177-190.

ment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750.

 gmpowerrnent Theory 63

i Z o e r m a n , M. A., & Warschausky, S. (1998). Empowerment theory for rehabilitation research: Conceptual and
issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43(1), 3-16.
I ~ ~ m e r m a M.n , A., & Zahniser, J. H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control:
Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 189-204.
zurcher, L. A. (1970). The poverty board: Some consequences of "maximum feasible participation." Journal of
Social Issues, 26, 85-107.