-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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).
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Trust and Efficacy 63
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Trust and Efficacy 65
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Trust and Efficacy 67
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
-
Trust and Efficacy 69
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Trust and Efficacy 71
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
72 Anderson
Table 2. Sense of Community and External 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
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
-
Trust and Efficacy 73
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?
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
74 Anderson
Table 3. Sense of Community and Personal Trust Model: Estimated
via Ordered Logit
Variable Baseline Model
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
-
Trust and Efficacy 75
Table 4. Sense of Community and Political Trust Model: Estimated
via Ordered Logit
Variable Baseline Model
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Trust and Efficacy 79
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Trust and Efficacy 81
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.
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
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
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015
18:59:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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