Eficacia Política y Confianza

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust Author(s): Mary R. Anderson Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1 (February 2010), pp. 59-84Published by: International Society of Political PsychologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25655445Accessed: 05-05-2015 18:59 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015 18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Political Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010 doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-9221.2009.00734.x

Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust

Mary R. Anderson

University of Tampa

Much attention has been paid to the effects of political efficacy and trust on political

participation. Most studies tend to use efficacy or trust as an independent variable to

explain political actions such as voting, campaign involvement, and the like. Despite their

importance in explanations of political behavior, relatively little is known regarding mecha

nisms through which social involvement may influence trust and efficacy. If efficacy and

trust are of value, then it is important that we determine how their development can be

fostered, and especially whether their development can be promoted through social

interaction?such as a sense of community. Borrowing from the field of community psy

chology, I employ the Sense of Community Index to provide a more nuanced measure of

community based on individual perceptions of their community that previous studies were

unable to capture. Analyzing original survey data, this paper examines to what extent, if any, a sense of community matters for trust and efficacy. The results demonstrate that social

forces, such as community, exert positive and significant effects on internal and external

efficacy and personal and political trust, independently of individual traits such as income,

age, gender, and education.

KEY WORDS: Community psychology, Trust, Efficacy, Political behavior

Much attention has been paid to the effects of political efficacy and trust on

political participation (Abramson, 1983; Bennett, 1986; Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Hetherington, 1998; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Uslaner, 2002; and Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995, for example). Most studies tend to use efficacy or trust as an independent variable to explain political actions such as voting, campaign involvement, and the like. The logic underlying these effects is that individuals are

empowered and motivated when they believe that their involvement in politics will be consequential and that they can have confidence that the behavior of others will be honorable.

A current theoretical perspective among those who study urban social orga nization is collective efficacy theory. Broadly speaking, the theory suggests (and

59 0162-895X ? 2009 International Society of Political Psychology

Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Maiden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, and PO Box 378 Carlton South, 3053 Victoria Australia


60 Anderson

empirical evidence substantiates the claim) that "the prevalence and density of

kinship, friendship, and acquaintanceship networks and the level of participation in community based organizations fosters the emergence of collective efficacy, or solidarity and mutual trust (social cohesion) among community residents combined with shared expectations for social control-related action" (Browning, Feinberg, & Dietz, 2004, pp. 506-507). While these studies have been directed at issues of urban policy (Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001; Rosenfeld,

Messner, & Baumer, 2001; Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999; Sampson, Rauden bush, & Earls, 1997) and health behavior (Browning & Cagney, 2002), there is no reason to believe that collective efficacy theory would not be applicable to studies of political behavior. The implication therefore is that the causal direction speci fied here flows from sense of community to trust and efficacy.

Previous research demonstrates a strong correlation between both efficacy (external and internal) and trust (personal and political) and political behavior.

However, despite the fact that these variables contribute to explaining things like

voting and campaign involvement (for a discussion of efficacy, see Abramson, 1983; Bennett, 1986; Craig, Niemi, & Silver, 1990; Niemi, Craig, & Mattei, 1991; for a discussion of trust, see Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Hetherington, 1998; Uslaner, 2004, 2002), relatively little is known about the social forces that influence them. Over the last decade, political science research has returned to the Columbia idea that individuals should not be studied in isolation, rather we should pay attention to social forces potentially operating on the individual.

Social capital research, for example, demonstrates that social interaction

offers an array of resources that can be of benefit at both the individual and collective level (Claibourne & Martin, 2000; La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998; Putnam, 1993, 1995; Stolle, 1998, for example). Context research demonstrates that the physical contexts in which we are embedded impose significant param eters in terms of the type(s) of information we receive (Huckfeldt, Johnson, &

Sprague, 2004; Huckfeldt, Plutzer, & Sprague, 1993; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995, for example). Despite the importance of efficacy and trust in explanations of

political behavior, relatively little is known regarding mechanisms through which social involvement may influence them. If efficacy and trust are of value, then it is

important that we determine how their development can be fostered, and especially whether their development can be promoted through social interaction?such as a sense of community.

Social forces?where and with whom we work, live, socialize, and

worship?play a crucial role in determining many of the choices we make,

including our level of political involvement and political attitudes. Previous research has largely neglected to consider whether social forces, such as com

munity, constitute antecedents of trust and efficacy (a notable exception is Uslaner [2002], who devotes considerable time discussing the roots of trust). This omission is unfortunate. Efficacy and trust are important constructs in them

selves, and thus evidence that sense of community influences trust and/or efficacy


Trust and Efficacy 61

would be of considerable substantive significance. This significance is magnified, however, when we recall the critical roles efficacy and trust play as forces affect

ing a broad array of political behaviors. Any impact of sense of community identified here would suggest an indirect effect on the many factors known to be influenced by efficacy and trust.

Theoretically it is quite reasonable to assume that social forces should play a role in influencing levels of efficacy and trust. Context research and social capital research highlights the potential importance of social contexts (i.e., the commu

nity) on political behavior and attitudes?those such as trust and efficacy for

example. It is entirely rational, therefore, to hypothesize those social forces?such as community?will affect efficacy (internal and external) and trust (social and

political). Sense of community at its very core suggests collaboration. Central to the completion of any collective effort?the likes of which church groups, service

organizations, and workplace environments undertake?is cooperation. One of the

cornerstones of building trust is cooperation (Putnam, 2000), thus the greater one's sense of community the more likely they are to be trusting. Second, sense of

community is built on relationships. Those who are successful in building rela

tionships with others and in influencing the opinions of fellow members, cowork ers, or neighbors might be encouraged to believe that they can also be influential in the political arena. In other words, those with higher levels of sense of com

munity may be more likely to have strong feelings of efficacy. Although the theoretical framework outlined here posits that sense of commu

nity influences efficacy and trust, alternate causal connections are possible. The most likely alternate scenario is that any identified relationship is spurious, tracing not to the influence of sense of community on trust and efficacy, but rather to some common underlying force that influences all three of these variables. Given the construction of the sense of community index, which I describe in detail below, a less likely scenario is that efficacy and trust influence sense of community. As is

always the case in cross-sectional analyses, there is no definitive means to exclude these possibilities. However, cognizant of these concerns, I included in the survey several items designed to capture an important array of individual-level traits; the

Big Five personality characteristics. Inclusion of the Big Five as control variables does much to allay concerns about spuriousness because the variables account for the most obvious forces?extroversion, warmth and agreeableness, conscientious

ness, and so on?that might incline an individual both to feel efficacious and

trustworthy and to develop a strong sense of community. Personality is important as a control as it is likely to play a role in how an individual views his/her community.1

1 The Big Five personality traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, emo tional stability, and agreeableness. These are included mainly as control variables to account for personality affects that may be related to various types of political behaviors. It is entirely plausible, even likely, that personality plays a large role in many types of political behaviors and attitudes, including levels of trust and efficacy. For a detailed discussion of personality and political behavior, see Mondak and Halperin (2008).


62 Anderson

Sense of Community

Implicitly it has been suggested that community matters for various types of

political behavior, yet why it matters remains a mystery. One possible reason for this mystery may lie in the construct of our measures for community. For the most

part, measures of community have often been quite coarse; studies often used indicators such as length of residence and home ownership to capture community ; at best these can really only serve as a proxy for community connectedness and fail to capture how community comes to matter. Sense of community as described in the community psychology literature can give us a more nuanced measure of

community based on individual perceptions of their community that previous studies were unable to capture. Therefore with a more intricate measure of sense of community, we can begin to understand how and why social forces such as

community matter for all sorts of political behaviors and attitudes. A sense of community is akin to a feeling of belonging. Borrowing from the

field of community psychology where sense of community has a long and distin

guished history, I argue that the concept of sense of community is useful to the

study of political behavior and attitudes because it captures individuals' percep tions of their social contexts. Specifically, sense of community is defined as "a

feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met

through their commitment together" (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9). McMillan and Chavis (1986) proposed that sense of community is composed of four ele ments: (1) membership, (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and

(4) shared emotional connection. The first element, membership, creates a sense of belonging and identification

and creates boundaries: there are those who belong and those who do not. For

example, individuals who belong to a particular association such as the Rotary Club are known as Rotarians and those who do not belong to the group are not Rotarians. Yet, the "us" and "them" division may not be as clear cut as in the Rotarian example described above. It may be "as subtle as to be recognized by only the members themselves" (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 10). The second

element, influence, is a sense of mattering. For instance, when a member of a

group believes that she can make a difference to the group, that she matters to the

group, and that the group matters to the member?this entails a reciprocal rela

tionship. The third element is integration and fulfillment of needs. This refers to the feeling that members' needs will be met by their membership in the group and that there are shared values among group members; for example, members of a

particular church typically hold similar beliefs and values. The final element is shared emotional connection. This element is based, in part, on a shared history or an identification of shared events; an example would be individuals who belong to a cancer survivors group, all the individuals involved in the group share a connec tion through a similar experience, namely surviving cancer (for a full discussion



of the elements of sense of community, see McMillan & Chavis, 1986). These elements combine to create a sense of community or community connectedness.

Note that community as described here extends beyond a simple geographic locale and can include various other contexts such as the workplace, voluntary associa

tions, churches, and the like. In order to measure an individual's sense of community, McMillan and Chavis

(1986) developed what has come to be referred to as the Sense of Community Index, a 12-item True/False questionnaire that taps into the four elements of sense of

community.2 Over time the index has been adapted in format to include a 5-point Likert-type response. Using the same statements as the original True/False battery, individuals are asked to respond based on how much they agree or disagree with the statements, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, "a modification that is

likely to result in greater sensitivity in representing 'true' perceptions of the social connections, mutual concerns and community values" within the respective con texts (Long & Perkins, 2003, p. 291). Here, a similar version of the SCI will be

employed to gauge levels of connectedness in various types of social contexts such as the workplace, place of worship, associations, neighborhood, and informal

settings such as a social network (circle of friends). In the following pages I will (a) discuss briefly the literature on efficacy and trust and (b) demonstrate how social factors, such as sense of community, affect efficacy and trust.

Efficacy

Political efficacy has been widely used to explain various types of political activities such as voting, campaign involvement, signing petitions, and the like. To a large extent, much of the recent research on political efficacy itself has focused on how to correctly measure the concept. Scholars generally agree that it is a

concept with two distinct components (see, for example, Craig et al., 1990; Niemi etal., 1991). Today, scholars generally agree that political efficacy includes: (1) internal efficacy?beliefs about one's own ability to influence the political process?and (2) external efficacy?beliefs about the responsiveness of govern ment officials to the concerns of the citizenry (Balch, 1974; Coleman & Davis, 1976; Converse, 1972; Craig et al., 1990; Niemi et al., 1991). While most of the

2 There exist other measures of sense of community in the literature. However, the McMillan and Chavis SCI is the most used and broadly validated measure of SOC (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999). Support for the reliability and validity of the Sense of Community Index is well documented in the community psychology literature, and the scale has been used to examine a wide variety of communities.

Although its most common use has been in the neighborhood context (e.g., Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis et al., 1990), it has also been employed in studies dealing with workplaces (Pretty & McCarthy, 1991), support and demand characteristics of college students' social environ

ments (Pretty, 1990), union participation (Catano, Pretty, Southwell, & Cole, 1993), and support systems for adolescents (Pretty, Andrews, & Collett, 1994; Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler, & Will iams, 1996). Because it can be adapted to different types of communities, it suits the purpose of this research quite well.


64 Anderson

research on political efficacy has focused on how to measure the concept and its

impact on political participation (Abramson, 1983; Bennett, 1986; Rudolph, Gangl, & Stevens, 2000; Verba, Burns, & Schlozman, 1997; Verba et al., 1995), little research has considered the impact of social forces on the development of

political efficacy.3 There are several reasons to expect that sense of community will promote

feelings of efficacy. First, experience at functioning meaningfully and effectively within a given community may signal to individuals that their capacity to exert influence extends outside of the context at hand, such as to the larger political environment. Even though such activity may not be explicitly political in nature, any success at the group level may engender in individuals the belief that they have the capacity to be influential. Second, sheer strength in numbers?whether because people in a community are genuinely acting in concert or merely because individuals recognize that others share their views?should fuel efficacy. Third, past political activity within many contexts provides empirical evidence of effica cious behavior. For example, members of voluntary associations and neighbor hood groups often tackle political issues. By doing so, their members may gain confidence that they as individuals can be politically efficacious.

Verba et al. (1995) suggest that among the various factors that shape partici pation, resources such as civic skills?those that make it easier for individuals to become involved, such as communication and organizational skills?are criti cal. Involvement beyond simply membership in the workplace, organizations, or

church?something such as a sense of community?helps to build those skills. Those who take on leadership roles in their church or their workplace for matters such as fundraising or party planning are cultivating the skills that Verba et al.

(1995) argue are important for participation. Therefore, it is entirely logical to

hypothesize that sense of community could influence levels of internal efficacy. An individual who has had success in influencing others in his/her workplace, church, neighborhood, and so forth is also likely to believe s/he has the power to influence

government. I also expect that a sense of community will come to matter for external

efficacy?the belief that government officials actually listen to and care about what citizens have to say. Individuals who are part of a group or context in which they have a high level of sense of community are likely to believe that the government will listen to their concerns, especially when they present a unified voice to relay the message. Secondly, sense of community should affect external efficacy simply because of the belief that there is strength in numbers, that with more people behind an idea (i.e., a chorus as opposed to a soloist), the more likely that idea is

3 Some efforts (although dated) have been made to examine group consciousness as a factor influencing efficacy (Gamson, 1971; Gurin & Epps, 1975; Gurin, Gurin, & Beattie, 1969; Shingles, 1981). Verba et al. (1995) speak to the idea in terms of individual-level traits influencing "roots in the community" and therefore concern about local issues. Most recently, Rudolph, Gangl, and Stevens (2000) con ducted research on emotions, efficacy (particularly anxiety), and campaign involvement.



to have a positive outcome in their favor. Thus, based on previous research that

suggests community matters for behaviors such as efficacy, sense of community should be strong predictors of both internal efficacy and external efficacy.

Political Trust

It is generally agreed that when it comes to examining trust as a predictor of

political participation, there are two separate concepts: (1) trust in government, often referred to as confidence in government or political trust, and (2) trust in others, conveyed a number of different ways such as interpersonal trust (Brehm & Rahn, 1997), social trust (Putnam, 2000), or generalized trust (Uslaner, 2002). Hetherington (1998) defines political trust as "a basic evaluative orientation toward the government founded on how well the government is operating according to

people's normative expectations" (p. 791). Interpersonal trust on the other hand relies on trusting other people in a way that is very different from trusting govern ment. It requires giving people?even those who we may know very little about? the benefit of the doubt (Putnam, 2000; Uslaner, 2002). Uslaner (2002) and Putnam

(2000) strongly encourage that these concepts be kept distinct from one another because "they simply are not the same thing" (p. 137, emphasis in original). Political trust may be a consequence of interpersonal trust or visa versa, and they may be correlated with one another; however, they capture two very distinct concepts and therefore should be treated as such. Aside from Uslaner (2002), who devotes a great deal of time to examining the roots of trust, little else has focused directly on the social factors that may influence interpersonal trust and political trust.4

Like efficacy, there are multiple reasons to believe that sense of community will matter for trust. First, sense of community builds relationships; those who

belong to a workplace, organization, church, and so on will typically build rela

tionships with those around them. Even at the most basic level, that of an acquain tance, a relationship probably exists simply because members share a common interest in their job, faith, or pastime. Relationships at this most basic level involve some sort of trust, even if it simply means that you trust that the other person in your group shares your interest.

Second, and most importantly, sense of community should matter for trust because sense of community entails cooperation. Brehm and Rahn (1997) and Putnam (2000) both suggest that cooperation leads to trust. Those individuals who have a greater sense of community are likely to be involved in activities that

require cooperation. Indeed, collaborative effort is central to the very concept of sense of community. Thus, it is quite reasonable, based both on logic and on

previous research, that sense of community should affect trust.

4 Brehm and Rahn (1997) demonstrate that "experience with crime and fear of walking in their

neighborhood at night undermine trust in others" (p. 1018) and that age may also play a factor. Stolle (1998) provides mixed results on the relationship between voluntary associati6ns and generalized trust.


66 Anderson

Now, as Putnam (2000), Uslaner (2002), and others argue, it is important to

distinguish between interpersonal trust?trust in others?and political trust? confidence in government. I argue that sense of community is likely to have

stronger effects on interpersonal trust than political trust because of the social nature by which sense of community is developed. Sense of community emerges when the individual has positive bonding experiences within some context. Hence, it is highly plausible that a by-product of this bond with the context will promote similarly positive feelings toward the other individuals in the context with whom the person interacts. More specifically, I expect that sense of community will contribute to trust in others (i.e., personal trust). Additionally, sense of community is also likely to have effects on political trust, because having a sense of commu

nity within an organized context such as a church, the workplace, or an organiza tion may also lead one to believe that in formal organized structures (such as

government institutions) a firm set of rules and procedures ultimately leads to the best outcome?just as it possibly does in their own context. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that those who have a greater sense of community are

likely to trust both others and government to do what is right.

Data

Data used for the following analyses are original survey data collected via

telephone interviews during the month of October 2004. There were 820 respon dents. The survey took approximately 25 minutes to complete.5 The core of the

survey was the battery of questions directly related to sense of community. Addi

tionally, there were numerous other items intended to provide data on a wide array of dependent and independent variables related to political behavior. The survey had a completion rate of 58.8%.

The survey selection site provided an excellent setting in which to implement a survey of this type for a number of reasons. Although it had some limitations (as does any selection site), the advantages override those concerns and make this

particular city a study site that is comparable to many other cities in the United States. As with Huckfeldt and Sprague's (1995) choice of South Bend as the focal

point of their study, the fact that I resided in this city during the time in which the

survey was in the field and know it well were important considerations. But this

city also possesses diversity of the sort essential for pursuit of my central research

questions. It has many different neighborhoods and a varied collection of churches and associations. The area is also diverse in terms of demographics.6 Of course,

comparable claims could be made about virtually all cities in the United States. This is to the good. The diversity present in this city is of analytical importance,

5 See Appendix C for survey methodology and dispositions. 6 In terms of the area's demographic characteristics, the survey site has a population of 284,539. 77% reside in urban communities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The per capita income is $19,990. Roughly 48% of the population is male, and the median age is 30.



but the fact that similar diversity, albeit of varying levels, can be found elsewhere means that there is no reason whatsoever to expect the general patterns identified in the following analyses to be unique to the selected survey site.

Analysis and Results

The social factors that potentially contribute to efficacy and trust have been discussed in the literature, yet few studies have tested empirically to what extent

(if any) social forces such as sense of community influence efficacy and trust. As

previous scholars have noted, both these concepts contain two very distinct com

ponents. In the analyses that follow, I will examine the impact that sense of

community has on internal efficacy, external efficacy, personal trust, and political trust. I will discuss how the measures for each of the key variables were con structed and then discuss the results of the analysis.

Sense of Community. Respondents in this survey were asked about their sense of community in five separate contexts: workplace, organizations, church, neigh borhood, and circle of friends (an informal context). Appendix A contains the

survey items used to measure sense of community. A variable defined as total sense of community is a summary measure of the respondent's sense of community scores across all contexts for which they offered answers and is used in the

analyses that follow. Total scores range from 11 to 275.7 A table containing the

descriptive statistics for the Sense of Community Index?from here on referred to as the SCI?and other key variables can be found in Appendix B.8

Efficacy. Respondents were asked two efficacy questions on the survey meant to measure both internal and external efficacy. The first question addressing inter nal efficacy asked:

How much of a difference do you believe you can make in [city name]? Do you believe that you can make a big difference, a moderate difference, a small difference, or no difference at all?

For external efficacy, respondents were asked:

How much do you believe your local representatives (such as county commissioners and city council members) care about what you think is

important for [city name]? Do you think they care very much, somewhat, only a little, or not at all?

7 Some respondents may have scores in fewer than the five contexts in which they were asked about because some individuals may not belong to a church or an organization, in which case they would have opted out of the battery of questions associated with those contexts. 8 The SCI used in this survey was adapted to contain only 11 items; correlational tests conducted on a

pilot study reveals that the 11-item battery is highly correlated with the 12-item battery at .989.


68 Anderson

Table 1. Sense of Community and Internal Efficacy: Estimated via Ordered Logit

Variable Baseline Model

Coefficient (se)

Full Model

Coefficient (se)

Total Sense of Community Summary Context (No. of Contexts) Total Sense of Community X No. of Contexts

Gender -.085 (.159)

Age .095 (.026)***

Age Squared -.001 (.000)*** Education .045 (.045)

Strength of Party . 16 (.083)# Income -.004 (.059)

Marital Status -.132 (.112)

Employment Status -.072 (.191)

Agreeableness .016 (.022) Emotional Stability -.046 (.018)** Conscientiousness .013 (.017) Extroversion .026 (.014)#

Openness to Experience .030 (.020) # of observations (pseudo R2) 641 (.033) Log likelihood -772.3

.022 (.011)** -.529 (.405) -.001 (.002) -.027 (.161) .074 (.026)**

-.000 (.000)** .038 (.045) .147 (.083)#

-.041 (.059) -.085 (.114) .005 (.196) .005 (.022)

-.038 (.017)* .009 (.017) .017 (.014) .026 (.020) 641 (.05)

-760.5

# = p


As the table depicts, positive results emerge for the sense of community variable; however, there is a negative coefficient for the summary variable for the number of contexts. These two variables?total sense of community and the

summary variable for number of contexts?must be discussed in tandem because

they are interrelated. For instance, it is impossible for an individual to have the maximum sense of community score (which is 275) if she has a sense of commu

nity score in fewer than five contexts. Individuals were asked about their sense of

community in multiple contexts (a total of five) yet a given respondent may not

belong to a church or a local organization, and therefore not be eligible to have a sense of community score in those contexts. Thus, we need to consider the sense of community and sum of contexts variables together when discussing the

meaning of the results, hence, the full model also includes an interaction term for total sense of community X number of contexts.

My first consideration regarding the insignificant coefficient for the interac tion term is that it is likely the result of multicollinearity. I employed joint-F tests to substantiate my suspicions and the results verify a joint significance of the number of contexts and sense of community interaction.10 Because the coefficients are derived from ordered logit models which are typically confusing to interpret substantively, I have generated a few predicted probabilities to help clarify the substantive meaning of the results in column two.

Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the predicted probabilities for sense of community by number of contexts. It displays estimates of the joint effects of sense of community and number of contexts on internal efficacy. Similar figures will be presented below for the other three dependent variables. In each figure, all other predictors are held constant at their mean values with only number of contexts, sense of community score, and the interaction term allowed to vary. The horizontal axis indicates the number of contexts in which a person is involved; scale values range from two to five (all respondents answered at least two of five context batteries). The vertical axis is the estimated likelihood of

high efficacy; that is, this is the estimate that a person will have selected the top response category of the four available. Each graph will include three lines which capture variance in levels of sense of community. Again, the critical point to keep in mind is that minimum and maximum values on the sense of com

munity scale are partly determined by the number of contexts in which the person is involved. Specifically, the minimum value adds 11 points per context and the maximum value adds 55 points per context. One line in each figure will reflect effects for respondents with minimum levels of sense of community; i.e.,

10 Berry, Esarey, and Rubin (2007) argue that a statistically significant interaction term is neither a

necessary nor sufficient condition to demonstrate that a substantively meaningful interaction effect exists (p. 4) and that the sign of the coefficient may give a misleading signal about the relationship between the product term and the dependent variable (p. 19). In cases such as these, the authors recommend generating and plotting predicted probabilities such as those that are found here in

Figures


70 Anderson

'I believe I can make a big difference."

1.01

Figure 1. Internal Efficacy Model?Graphical Representation of Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community (SOC) at Three Different Levels.

sense of community scores that range from 11 to 55 as we move across the horizontal axis from two contexts to five. A second line will report estimated

efficacy for individuals with average levels of sense of community. The third line will reflect effects for maximum sense of community, or values increasing from 55 to 275 across the horizontal axis.

Three features of the depicted results will warrant assessment. First, if the three lines slope roughly parallel to one another, this would indicate a general effect of contextual involvement, controlling for sense of community. For

example, if all three lines slope upward from left to right, this would suggest that

being involved in more contexts generates more efficacy, irrespective of whether the respondent has a high or a low sense of community. Second, the gaps between the three lines will indicate the general effects of sense of community. For

example, if there is a large gap between the lines for high and low sense of

community, this would mean that sense of community is associated in a positive manner with efficacy. Third, if the slopes of the three lines change relative to one another across the horizontal axis (i.e., the lines are distinctly not parallel), this would reflect a unique joint effect of sense of community and number of contexts. For example, if the lines for high and low sense of community intersect where number of contexts equals two, but diverge widely where number of contexts

equals five, this would suggest that efficacy is produced primarily where people have high levels of social attachment within multiple contexts.

Figure 1 highlights two key results. First, the slope of the lines are nonparallel, in fact, they are opposite, suggesting that sense of community affects those who



are more and less attached to various contexts differently. Second, there is a large gap between the lines for minimum sense of community and maximum sense of

community signaling that sense of community is positively associated with inter nal efficacy. For instance, for an individual involved in two contexts, and who receives the minimum possible sense of community score, 22, the estimated likelihood of a high level of efficacy is only 0.03. In contrast, were this individual to have the highest possible sense of community score given involvement in two contexts, a score of 110, the estimated likelihood of high efficacy is 0.12. The estimated probability of high efficacy for individuals with the lowest and highest possible levels of sense of community are 0.01 and 0.22 given involvement in three contexts, and 0.01 and 0.54 for involvement in five contexts. Regardless of the number of contexts in which an individual is involved, the higher her sense of

community the greater the probability of having positive feelings of internal

efficacy. But what about the average person, the person who has an average sense

of community score? If we look at the observed mean by the number of contexts in which one is involved, a clear positive pattern emerges for internal

efficacy. For an individual with average sense of community, the result of

joining multiple contexts results in positive net effects, and the predicted prob ability of high efficacy increases moderately from 0.05 to 0.09. For instance, having an average sense of community in two contexts results in a probability of 0.05 for strong feelings of internal efficacy; it increases to 0.06 for three con texts; and peaks at .09 for four and five contexts. Thus, sense of community

matters most for internal efficacy for those individuals with high levels of attach ment. Being involved in more contexts is better only when you are at least moderately attached in those contexts and best if your level of attachment is high and beyond three contexts you level off in the likelihood that you will feel strongly efficacious. If you are involved in multiple contexts and have a low sense of community, then the results are actually modestly negative for every context added.

External Efficacy. The results for external efficacy are displayed in Table 2. Again, an interesting pattern emerges. While the total sense of community variable fails to reach significance, the culprit is the addition of the interaction term to the model and the issue of multicollinearity. When the model is run without the interaction term, the sense of community variable is positive and significant. Figure 2 displays the predicted probabilities for external efficacy, with focus on the likelihood that respondents believe local officials care "very much" about what they think is important.

The figure demonstrates the decreasing shift in external efficacy for those with low, average, and high sense of community scores as the number of contexts increases. This suggests, then, that having a high sense of community in a few contexts matters more than having a high sense of community in multiple contexts. Predicted probabilities decrease from 0.42 to 0.02 when moving from two to five


72 Anderson

Table 2. Sense of Community and External Efficacy: Estimated via Ordered Logit


Coefficient (se)

Full Model

Coefficient (se)

Total Sense of Community Summary Context (No. of Contexts) Total Sense of Community X No. of Contexts Gender

Age Age Squared Education

Strength of Party Income

Marital Status

Employment Status

Agreeableness Emotional Stability Conscientiousness Extroversion

Openness to Experience # of observations (pseudo R2) Log likelihood

-.242 (.165) .025 (.027)

-.000 (.000) .090 (.047)# .059 (.085) .058 (.063) .005 (.117) .185 (.198) .038 (.022)#

-.004 (.018) .026 (.017) .004 (.015)

-.049 (.021)* 635 (.03)

-698.9

.008 (.001) -1.21 (.412)**

.003 (.002) -.23 (.167) .004 (.027) .000 (.000) .083 (.048)# .053 (.086) .038 (.064) .031 (.118) .186 (.203) .024 (.022) .000 (.018) .022 (.017)

-.005 (.015) -.052 (.022)*

635 (.04) -689.5

# = p


contexts for those with low sense of community scores and decrease from 0.60 to 0.13 when moving from two to five contexts for those with high sense of com

munity scores. Thus, the more contexts in which an individual with a low sense of

community score is involved, the greater the probability for decreased feelings of external efficacy. Simply being involved in more contexts does not necessarily translate into a greater sense of efficaciousness. What seems to matter most is the level of attachment that people have in those contexts. Having a high sense of

community in only two contexts is better than having a low sense of community in five contexts.

In examining the influence of sense of community on efficacy several points are worth considering. First, until now, the literature has implied that social forces such as community affect efficacy but no true test of this relationship existed. The

approach I employ here with the SCI captures individual levels of connectedness across multiple contexts which until now has typically been relegated to whether a respondent was part of a context or not (context research) or the number of

voluntary associations to which a respondent belongs (social capital research). Using the SCI we can examine the effect of sense of community at various levels (low, average, and high).

The analysis shows that sense of community has positive and significant effects on both internal and external efficacy. It is not simply membership in a

given context that matters for efficacy or being involved in more contexts. Rather, it is the level of attachment within the context that seems to matter most. There fore, fostering positive efficacious attitudes seems to be connected with the build

ing of a stronger sense of community within the context(s) in which individuals are involved; becoming more intricately involved and absorbed in the context helps to

promote a greater sense of both internal and external efficacy. Finding ways to foster sense of community should ultimately yield positive feelings of efficacy. This is important given the direct effects we know to exist between efficacy and other types of political behaviors and attitudes. These results suggest that sense of community may indirectly affect many of the factors known to be influenced by efficacy.

Trust. The second question to be considered is whether sense of community also matters for the development of trust. Following the recommendation of Putnam and others to keep distinct the concepts of interpersonal trust and political trust, this research project posed questions on the survey to measure both concepts. Recall that political trust entails confidence in government institutions and authori ties. In this project, political trust was measured by asking respondents the fol lowing question:

How much of the time do you think you can trust your local officials (such as the County Commissioners and City Council members) to do

what is right? Do you think you can trust them nearly all of the time, most of the time, seldom, or never?


74 Anderson

Table 3. Sense of Community and Personal Trust Model: Estimated via Ordered Logit


Coefficient (se)

Full Model

Coefficient (se)

Total Sense of Community .022 ( Oil)*

Summary Context (No. of Contexts) -.864 (.399)* Total Sense of Community X No. of Contexts -.000 (.002)

Gender -.245 (.161) -.212 (.163)

Age .057 (.025)* .036 (.026)

Age Squared -.000 (.000)# -.000 (.000) Education .213 (.046)*** .209 (.046)***

Strength of Party -.157 (.083)# -.157 (.083)# Income .175 (.061)** .158 (.062)*

Marital Status -.195 (.112)# -.170 (.114)

Employment Status .308 (.193) .338 (.199)#

Agreeableness .047 (.021)* .039 (.021)# Emotional Stability -.002 (.017) .005 (.017) Conscientiousness -.004 (.017) -.009 (.017)

Extroversion -.000 (.014) -.011 (.015)

Openness to Experience -.001 (.020) -.004 (.020) No. of observations (pseudo R2) 631 (.06) 631 (.07) Log likelihood -775.4 -765.6

# = p


Table 4. Sense of Community and Political Trust Model: Estimated via Ordered Logit


Coefficient (se)

Full Model

Coefficient (se)

Total Sense of Community .014 (.012)

Summary Context (No. of Contexts) -.838 ( 458)# Total Sense of Community X No. of Contexts .001 (.002)

Gender -.170 (.177) -.159 (.179)

Age .001 (.029) -.016 (.029)

Age Squared .000 (.000) .000 (.000) Education .195 (.051)*** .195 (.052)***

Strength of Party .125 (.093) .130 (.093) Income .035 (.066) .026 (.067)

Marital Status -.022 (.126) .001 (.128)

Employment Status .133 (.217) .138 (.221)

Agreeableness .070 (.024)** .061 (.024)* Emotional Stability .002 (.019) .006 (.019) Conscientiousness .021 (.019) .017 (.019)

Extroversion .007 (.016) -.000 (.016)

Openness to Experience -.074 (.023)** -.076 (.024)*** No. of observations (pseudo R2) 635 (.04) 635 (.05)

Log likelihood -568.4 -563.0

# = p < .10, * = p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

community on personal trust. When total sense of community is introduced into the model, it emerges as a positive and significant predictor of interpersonal trust, suggesting that in addition to individual-level variables sense of community also contributes to one's trust in others. Furthermore, these effects are over and above

those associated with personality (and especially agreeableness), and therefore, it is not simply the case that some sorts of people are likely to develop a strong sense of community and also to be trusting, but it is instead the case that, controlling for the most directly relevant individual-level traits, there remains a noteworthy direct effect of sense of community.

Figure 3 graphically depicts these results. The slopes of the lines in Figure 3 are distinctly not parallel, and the gap between those with high sense of commu

nity and low sense of community is huge. This suggests that sense of community is clearly positively associated with personal trust and that personal trust is pro duced where people have high levels of attachment within multiple contexts.

Further, the negative slope for average and low sense of community indicates that, for the number of contexts with which the person is affiliated, personal trust

actually decreases as the number of contexts increases from two to five. For

example, for those with low scores and involved in two contexts the predicted probability of trusting others very much is 0.13 but decreases to 0.02 for those with low scores in five contexts. This is an important effect. One might consider that where sense of community is absent, heightened social interaction merely provides


76

"Trust very much.'

10-1

Anderson

-O CD -O O D_ *D Q) O Sense of Community

average

2.00 3.00 4.00

Number of Contexts

Figure 3. Personal Trust Model?Graphical Representation of Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community (SOC) at Three Different Levels.

individuals with a broader base to be suspicious and distrustful of others. Hence, not only is there no guarantee that social interaction in itself will generate trust, but such interaction actually may erode trust if that interaction is not accompanied by the bonds of sense of community.

For those with a high sense of community score in two contexts the predicted probability of trusting others very much is 0.53; for those with the highest sense of

community score in five contexts, the predicted probability is 0.77. This suggests that social interaction can generate trust, but it does so to a meaningful extent only for those individuals with greater than average levels of sense of community. We also can assess the effect of movement from low to high sense of community while

holding constant the number of contexts in which the person is involved. For

instance, an individual with the lowest possible sense of community score in three contexts has a predicted probability of trusting others very much of 0.08; however if that person had the highest possible sense of community score for three contexts, the predicted probability would increase to 0.63.

Collectively, results in Figure 3 provide an important lesson. If the develop ment of trust is viewed as desirable, the optimal approach toward that end is the establishment of sense of community, not sheer membership in multiple contexts. It is better in terms of trust, for example, for a person to have a high level of sense of community and be involved in two contexts than to have a moderate level of sense of community across five contexts. Clearly, these outcomes demonstrate the


Trust and Efficacy

"Trust officials to do what is right nearly all of the time."

1.00t-1

77

CD _Q 2 CL ~o CD O .40 Sense of Community

average

3.00 4.00

Number of Contexts

5.00

Figure 4. Political Trust Model?Graphical Representation of Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community (SOC) at Three Different Levels.

need to account for not only individual traits such as education and age in

explaining levels of personal trust but also social factors such as sense of com

munity and feelings of attachment. Political Trust. In a similar fashion as the preceding tables, Table 4 shows

strong effects for individual-level factors in explaining political trust. While the introduction of the total sense of community variable fails to achieve signifi cance (in much the same way as it did in the external efficacy models?which is due to the multicollinearity associated with the inclusion of the interaction

term)?the number of context variable remains significant. And while I am hesi tant to make any sweeping claims, it is worthwhile to note that the pattern displayed in Figure 4 remains very similar to the other dependent variables I have considered. While the lines are slightly flatter and closer together, there remains an upward trend for those with high levels of sense of community. One

possible reason for the lessened effect seen here could be due to the nature of the political trust variable. Unlike personal trust, where relationships between individuals and their surroundings are the key elements in the construct, political trust emphasizes relationships between individuals and government and institu tions. Therefore it is not surprising that the effect seen here would be slightly different than the effect for personal trust, hence lines that are closer together and more stable.


78

Conclusion

Anderson

Previous studies have tended to examine efficacy and trust in light of their

explanatory power for political participation. Few studies have focused on whether social forces, such as those associated with interaction in the community, have effects on political efficacy and trust. Because efficacy and trust are important constructs used in all sorts of analysis, evidence that sense of community influ ences trust and efficacy is substantively important. The impact of sense of com

munity found here magnifies this importance when we consider the potential indirect effects of sense of community on the factors known to be influenced by efficacy and trust. While it is often implied in the literature that social factors, in one way or another, influence efficacy and trust, there has been scarce empirical evidence to support the arguments on either side.

This paper examined the effects of social forces?namely sense of

community?in explaining internal efficacy, external efficacy, personal trust, and

political trust. Overall, sense of community, or one's perception of connectedness within the community, has positive and significant effects on the dependent vari ables examined here.12 Three main conclusions regarding the relationship between sense of community and efficacy and trust can be drawn from the general pattern that emerged in all four models and is depicted in Figures 1-4. First, the slopes of the lines were distinctly not parallel, meaning that sense of community affects those who are more and less attached to various contexts differently. Second, the

gaps between the lines for high sense of community and low sense of community were typically large (although some were larger than others) suggesting that sense of community is associated in a positive manner with the dependent variables examined here. Third, the slopes of the three lines changed relative to one another across the horizontal axis reflecting a unique joint effect of sense of community and number of contexts.

Past research has implied that community matters for all sorts of political behavior. However, measures of community used in these studies have been rather coarse. Borrowing from the field of community psychology, I have intro duced a defensible measure of sense of community which captures individual connectedness to various forms of community in a more nuanced manner than before. The Sense of Community Index, as developed in the community psy chology literature, allows us to have a better measure of community connected ness and therefore greater insight into how and why social forces come to matter for trust and efficacy. By doing so, we have taken a step towards a deeper understanding of the process through which sense of community, trust, and effi

cacy are related.

12 Although the net positive varies for each dependent variable, across all four, the effect is either

positive or no effect exists; in no case do we see a net negative effect.



The past decade has witnessed a rebirth within the discipline to examine more closely the role of social forces on political behavior. Moving beyond simple individual-level explanations for political behavior and attitudes, network research, context research, and social capital research have demonstrated that social forces and interactions should not be neglected. However, much of the work in this area has unrealistically treated involvement in memberships and/or contexts as equal, thus failing to account for possible variance in connectedness. In these cases, context has become something of a black box. Individuals are involved (or not) and something good (or bad) comes out. There is no modeling of process. We do not know why the context comes to matter. The SCI allows us to overcome that

problem by accounting for variation in sense of community. Therefore we are able to parse out the effects of sense of community on trust

and efficacy for those individuals with low, average, and high levels of sense of

community. For those with low sense of community, the consequences for political efficacy and trust can be grave; individuals may feel isolated, unimportant, and irrelevant. Alternatively, for those individuals with a greater sense of community efficacy and trust are heightened; individuals may have positive feelings of self worth and significance to the community.

The effect of sense of community on personal trust, for example, is strong and positive, even controlling for personality. It is not simply the case that some individuals are more likely to be trusting and to develop a sense of community. Instead, the analysis demonstrates that sense of community has a direct positive effect on personal trust even when these individual-level characteristics are taken into account. Similarly, sense of community has strong positive effects on efficacy (both internal and external). In both models, increased levels of sense of commu

nity were positively associated with feelings of efficacy. It is not simply an issue of being involved in more contexts that matter but rather developing strong bonds within the contexts that seem to generate the largest effect for efficacy and trust. Sense of community has a strong effect for those who are at least moderately attached and strongest for those who are highly attached to the contexts in which

they are involved. It is not only important to know that efficacy and trust influence political

behavior as has been the case for most of the past research using these variables, but also that there are key factors which explain the variation in levels of efficacy and trust. Beyond the individual-level characteristics?most of which are fixed, such as age and gender?social forces also contribute to an individual's sense of

efficacy and trust and do so to a meaningful extent. That sense of community acts

independently of these individual-level traits such as income, education, gender, and age is something that until now, political scientists have claimed but were unable to substantiate empirically. By understanding that factors such as connect edness in the community can account for some of this variation we further understand ways in which we can foster feelings of efficacy and trust. Hence, by establishing that sense of community is a strong and positive predictor of internal


80 Anderson

and external efficacy and personal and political trust, future work may explore the effect of both the direct and indirect influence of sense of community on other

types of political behaviors and attitudes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to Jeff Mondak, Tom Carsey, Charles Barrilleaux, Carol Weis sert, and Christopher Lewis for their helpful advice and assistance while writing this paper. I also wish to thank anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and

suggestions. This project was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (SES-0417813); the Leroy Collins Center for Public Policy Research at Florida State University; and the DeVoe L. Moore Center at Florida State

University. An earlier version of this paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Correspon dence concerning this article should be sent to Mary Anderson, The University of

Tampa, Department of Government and World Affairs, 401 W. Kennedy Blvd, Tampa, FL 33606. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Abramson, P. R. (1983). Political attitudes in America: Formation and change. San Francisco: Free Press.

Balch, G. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept "sense of political efficacy." Political Methodology, 1, 1-43.

Bennett, S. E. (1986). Apathy in America, 1960-1984: Causes and consequences of citizen political indifference. New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc.

Berry, W., Esarey, J., & Rubin, J. (2007). Testing for an interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential? Unpublished manuscript, http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jee03c/ber_

may_2007.pdf.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social

capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.

Browning, C. R., & Cagney, K. A. (2002). Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43 (4), 383-399.

Browning, C., Feinberg, S. L., & Dietz, R. D. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83 (2), 503-534.

Catano, V., Pretty, G., Southwell, R., & Cole, G. (1993). Sense of community and union participation. Psychological Reports, 72, 333-334.

Chipuer, H., & Pretty, G. (1999). A review of the sense of community index: Current uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 643-658.

Claibourne, M. P., & Martin, P. A. (2000). Trusting and joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Political Behavior, 22 (4), 267-291.

Coleman, K. M., & Davis, C. L. (1976). The structural context of politics and dimensions of regime performance: Their importance for the comparative study of political efficacy. Comparative Political Studies, 9, 189-206.



Converse, P. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change (pp. 263-337). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Craig, S. C, Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.

Gamson, W. A. (1971). Political trust and its ramifications. In G. Abearian & J. W. Soule (Eds.), Social

psychology and political behavior (pp. 40-55). New York: Merrill.

Gurin, P., & Epps, E. (1975). Black consciousness, identity and achievement. New York: Wiley. Gurin P., Gurin, G., & Beattie, L. M. (1969). Internal-external control in the motivational dynamics of

negroes. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 29-53.

Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review, 92, 791-808.

Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. Journal of Politics, 55 (May), 365-381.

Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and

influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.

La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and participation. Political

Psychology, 19 (3), 567-584.

Long, D. A., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 279-296.

McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Mondak, J., & Halperin, K. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335-362.

Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective

efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-560.

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C, & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1998 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C, Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of resident blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 83-115.

Pretty, G. (1990). Relating psychology sense of community to social climate characteristics. Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 60-65.

Pretty, G., Andrews, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents' sense of community and its

relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 346-358.

Pretty, G., Conroy, C, Dugay, J., Fowler, K., & Williams, D. (1996). Sense of community and its relevance to adolescents of all ages. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 351-361.

Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among women and men of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351-361.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone. Journal of Democracy, 6 (January), 65.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rosenfeld, R., Messner, S. F, & Baumer, E. P. (2001). Social capital and homicide. Social Forces, 80, 283-309.

Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.


82 Anderson

Rudolph, T. J., Gangl, A., & Stevens, D. (2000). The effects of efficacy and emotions on campaign involvement. The Journal of Politics, 62, 1189-1197.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, E (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy. American Sociological Review 64, 633-60

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel

study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918-923.

Shingles, R. D. (1981). Black consciousness and participation: The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75 (1), 79-91.

Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19 (3), 197-525.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uslaner, E. M. (2004). Trust and social bonds: Faith in others and policy outcomes reconsidered. Political Research Quarterly, 57 (3), 501-507

Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and

political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59, 1054-1072.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American

politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Appendix A

Adapted Sense of Community Index (SCI)

Instructions: I am going to read some statements that people might make about their (insert context here). Each time I read one of these statements, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with the statement. One is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."

1. I think my (context) is a good place for me to live. 2. People on this (context) do not share the same values. 3. My (context members) and I want the same things from the (context). 4. I can recognize most of the people who live on my (context). 5. I feel at home on this (context). 6. I care about what my (context members) think of my actions. 7. I have no influence over what this (context) is like. 8. If there is a problem on this (context) people who live here can get it solved. 9. It is very important to me to live on this particular (context). 10. People on this (context) generally don't get along with each other. 11. I expect to live on this (context) for a long time.

Context = workplace/place of worship/neighborhood/association/circle of friends.

Total Sense of Community Index = Ql through Qll


Trust and Efficacy

Appendix B

Descriptive Statistics of Key Independent Variables

83

Variable Name Number of

Observations Mean

(SD) Range

Total Sense of Community

Number of Contexts

SOC X No. of Contexts

Age

Education

Gender

Party Strength

Income

Marital Status

Employment Status

Agreeableness

Emotional Stability

Conscientiousness

Extroversion

Openness to Experience

822

822

822

803

820

822

794

715

762

807

822

822

822

822

822

158 (36.8) 3.79

(.744) 624 (251) 45.9

(17.2) 4.7

(1.88) .43

(.494) 3.06

(.894) 3.67

(1.51) 1.54

(.716) 1.32

(.469) 16

(3.97) 6.2

(4.62) 13.9

(4.74) 12.63

(5.22) 15.3

(4.11)

46-263

2-5

92-1315

18-94

1-8

0 = male 1 = female

1-8

1-3

1-2

0-20

0-20

0-20

0-20

0-20

Appendix C

Sampling Methodology

The selection of telephone numbers (households with telephones) was based on a simple random sample of all telephone numbers in the Tallahassee/Leon

County area. From that list, telephone exchanges exclusively assigned to non household populations were excluded. Ultimately, a computer randomly generated 11,000 telephone numbers, and interviewers called 8,309 of the numbers to com


84 Anderson

plete the desired number of questionnaires (800). If a final disposition could not be reached on the first call, two follow-up attempts were made. A total of 17,860 telephone calls were attempted, and 822 surveys were completed.

All surveys are subject to sampling error. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points with a 95% confidence level.

Final Disposition Breakdown and Response Rate

CM CB RF IE Household DS (determined NA/ FX Non-Household TOTAL Contacts after first call) AM Contacts

822 210 366 1060 2458 2675 2724 452 5851 8309 IE = households never reached after initial contact

Eligible Respondents = Household contacts - ineligible = 1398

Response Rate =

Completed Interviews / eligible respondents = 58.8%

Appendix D

Frequency Distribution of Dependent Variables

Variable Frequency

External Efficacy Not at all 44

Only a little 147

Somewhat 447

Care very much 175

Internal Efficacy Make no difference at all 79

A small difference 282

A moderate difference 327

A big difference 131

Personal Trust Not at all 129

Only a little 148

Somewhat 179

Very much 345

Political Trust

Never 27

Seldom 193

Most of the time 524

Nearly all of the time 63


Article Contentsp. 59p. 60p. 61p. 62p. 63p. 64p. 65p. 66p. 67p. 68p. 69p. 70p. 71p. 72p. 73p. 74p. 75p. 76p. 77p. 78p. 79p. 80p. 81p. 82p. 83p. 84

Issue Table of ContentsPolitical Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1 (February 2010) pp. 1-148Front MatterCirculating Metaphors of Sexuality, Aggression, and Power: Otto Rank's Analysis of "Conquering Cities and 'Conquering' Women" [pp. 1-19]CritiquesMetaphors and Repression: A Comment on Rank [pp. 21-25]The Many Metaphors of War: A Critique of Rank's Essay [pp. 27-31]Sex, War, and Peace: Rank, and Winter on Rank [pp. 33-39]

Predicting Election Outcomes from Positive and Negative Trait Assessments of Candidate Images [pp. 41-58]Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust [pp. 59-84]Perceptions of Anti-Semitism among American Jews, 200005, A Survey Analysis [pp. 85-107]The Ideological Legitimation of the Status Quo: Longitudinal Tests of a Social Dominance Model [pp. 109-137]BOOK REVIEWSReview: untitled [pp. 139-142]Review: untitled [pp. 143-145]Review: untitled [pp. 146-148]

Back Matter

Date post:	18-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rodrigo-silva-jerez
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times

Eficacia Política y Confianza

Documents