to Mississippi probably had different motivations from those who

stayed home, which explained the divergence in participation. To test

this idea, he divided applicants into two groups. The first pile were
people who said they wanted to go to Mississippi for “self-interested”
motives, such as to “test myself,” to “be where the action is,” or to
“learn about the southern way of life.” The second group were those
with “other-oriented” motives, such as to “improve the lot of blacks,”
to “aid in the full realization of democracy,” or to “demonstrate the
power of nonviolence as a vehicle for social change.”
The self-centered, McAdam hypothesized, would be more likely to
stay home once they realized the risks of Freedom Summer. The other-
oriented would be more likely to get on the bus.
The hypothesis was wrong.
The selfish and the selfless, according to the data, went South in
equal numbers. Differences in motives did not explain “any significant
distinctions between participants and withdrawals,” McAdam wrote.
Next, McAdam compared applicants’ opportunity costs. Maybe
those who stayed home had husbands or girlfriends keeping them
from going to Mississippi? Maybe they had gotten jobs, and couldn’t
swing a two-month unpaid break?
Wrong again.
“Being married or holding a full-time job actually enhanced the
applicant’s chances of going south,” McAdam concluded.
He had one hypothesis left. Each applicant was asked to list their
memberships in student and political organizations and at least ten
people they wanted kept informed of their summer activities, so
McAdam took these lists and used them to chart each applicant’s
social network. By comparing memberships in clubs, he was able to
determine which applicants had friends who also applied for Freedom
Summer.
Once he finished, he finally had an answer as to why some students
went to Mississippi, and others stayed home: because of social habits
—or more specifically, because of the power of strong and weak ties
working in tandem. The students who participated in Freedom