Eficacia Política y Confianza

Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust
Author(s): Mary R. Anderson

Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1 (February 2010), pp. 59-84
Published by: International Society of Political Psychology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25655445
Accessed: 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 support@jstor.org.
International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political
Psychology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.16.173 on Tue, 05 May 2015 18:59:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

10.1111/j. 1467-9221.2009.00734.x
Political
doi:
Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust

Mary R. Anderson
University of Tampa
attention
Much
participation.
has
Most
been
to the effects of political

paid
efficacy and trust on political
to
tend to use efficacy or trust as an independent
variable
such as voting, campaign
their
involvement, and the like. Despite
studies
actions
political
in explanations
behavior, relatively little is known regarding mecha
importance
of political
nisms through which social
involvement may influence trust and efficacy. If efficacy and
can be
trust are of value, then it is important that we determine
how their development
explain
can be promoted
and especially
whether
their development
fostered,
through social
as a sense of community. Borrowing
interaction?such
from the field of community psy
a more nuanced measure
Index to provide
chology, I employ the Sense of Community
of
studies were
that previous
community based on individual perceptions
of their community
to capture. Analyzing
unable
to what extent, if
examines
survey data, this paper
original
that social
any, a sense of community matters for trust and efficacy. The results demonstrate
such as
and significant effects on internal and external

community, exert positive
and
and
traits such as income,
trust,
personal
political
of individual
efficacy
independently
age, gender, and education.
forces,
KEY WORDS:
Community
psychology, Trust, Efficacy, Political
behavior
Much
attention has been paid to the effects of political efficacy and truston
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 theybelieve that their involvement inpolitics will
be consequential and that they can have confidence that thebehavior of otherswill
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
SocietyofPoliticalPsychology
PublishedbyWiley Periodicals,Inc.,350Main Street,
Maiden,MA 02148,USA, 9600Garsington
Road,Oxford,OX4 2DQ,
andPO Box 378CarltonSouth,3053VictoriaAustralia
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 thatcollective efficacy theorywould 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 trustand 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 theColumbia idea
that individuals should not be studied in isolation, ratherwe 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 inwhich we are embedded impose significant param
eters in terms of the type(s) of informationwe 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 regardingmechanisms throughwhich
social involvementmay influence them. If efficacy and trustare of value, then it is
importantthatwe determine how theirdevelopment can be fostered, and especially
whether theirdevelopment can be promoted through social interaction?such as a
sense
of community.
and with whom we work, live, socialize, and

forces?where
a crucial role in determining many of the choices we make,
worship?play
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 trustare importantconstructs in them
selves, and thus evidence that sense of community influences trustand/or efficacy
Social
Trust and Efficacy
61
would be of considerable substantive significance. This significance ismagnified,

however, when we recall the critical roles efficacy and trustplay as forces affect
ing a broad array of political behaviors. Any impact of sense of community
identifiedhere would suggest an indirect effect on themany 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 trustis cooperation (Putnam, 2000), thus thegreater one's

sense of community themore likely they are to be trusting. Second, sense of
community is built on relationships. Those who are successful in building rela
tionshipswith 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 thatany identifiedrelationship is spurious, tracing
not to the influenceof sense of community on trustand 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 definitivemeans to exclude
these possibilities. However, cognizant of these concerns, I included in the survey
several items designed to capture an importantarray of individual-level traits; the
Big Five personality characteristics. Inclusion of theBig 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
trustworthyand todevelop a strong sense of community. Personality is importantas
a control as it is likely toplay a role inhow 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 thatmay 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 ithas been suggested that community matters for various types of
political behavior, yet why itmatters remains a mystery. One possible reason for
thismystery may lie in the construct of our measures for community. For themost
part, measures of community have often been quite coarse; studies often used
indicators such as lengthof 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 tomatter. 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 intricatemeasure 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 thatmembers have of belonging, a feeling thatmembers matter to one
another and to the group, and a shared faith thatmembers' 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) integrationand fulfillmentof needs, and
(4) shared emotional connection.
The firstelement,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. Itmay be "as subtle as to be recognized by
only themembers 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 shematters to the
group, and that the group matters to themember?this entails a reciprocal rela
tionship. The third element is integration and fulfillmentof needs. This refers to
the feeling thatmembers' needs will be met by theirmembership 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 identificationof 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
Trust and Efficacy
63
of the elements of sense of community, see McMillan

elements
combine
to create
a sense
of community
& Chavis,
or community
1986). These
connectedness.
Note thatcommunity 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 tomeasure an individual's sense of community,McMillan and Chavis
(1986) developed what has come tobe referred to as theSense ofCommunity Index,
a 12-item True/False questionnaire that taps into the four elements of sense of
community.2Over time the index has been adapted in format to include a 5-point
Likert-type response. Using the same statements as theoriginal True/False battery,
individuals are asked to respond based on how much theyagree or disagree with the
statements, ranging from stronglydisagree to stronglyagree, "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 Iwill (a)
discuss briefly the literatureon efficacy and trustand (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 itselfhas 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 thatpolitical efficacy includes: (1)
internal efficacy?beliefs about one's own ability to influence the political
(2) external efficacy?beliefs about the responsiveness of govern
process?and
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, theMcMillan
and
Chavis SCI is themost used and broadly validated measure of SOC (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999). Support
for the reliability and validity of the Sense of Community Index iswell documented in the community
literature, and the scale has been used to examine a wide variety of communities.
psychology
Although itsmost 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
1991), support and demand characteristics of college students' social environ
(Pretty& McCarthy,
ments (Pretty, 1990), union participation (Catano, Pretty, Southwell, & Cole, 1993), and support
systems for adolescents (Pretty,Andrews, & Collett, 1994; Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler, & Will
it can be adapted to different types of communities, it suits the purpose of this
iams, 1996). Because
research quite well.
64
Anderson
research on political efficacy has focused on how tomeasure 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 functioningmeaningfully 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 activitymay not be explicitly political in nature,
any success at thegroup levelmay engender in individuals thebelief that theyhave
the capacity to be influential. Second, sheer strength in numbers?whether
because people in a community are genuinely acting in concert ormerely because
individuals recognize that others share their views?should
fuel efficacy. Third,
past political activitywithin 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, theirmembers 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 thatmake it easier for individuals
to become involved, such as communication and organizational skills?are criti
cal. Involvement beyond simply membership in theworkplace, organizations, or
to build those skills.
church?something such as a sense of community?helps
Those who take on leadership roles in their church or theirworkplace formatters
such as fundraising or party planning are cultivating the skills thatVerba et al.
(1995) argue are important for participation. Therefore, it is entirely logical to
hypothesize that sense of community could influence levels of internalefficacy.An
individual who has had success in influencingothers inhis/herworkplace, church,
neighborhood, and so forth is also likely to believe s/hehas thepower to influence
government.
I also expect that a sense of community will come to matter for external
efficacy?the belief thatgovernment officials actually listen to and care about what
citizens have to say. Individuals who are part of a group or context inwhich they
have a high level of sense of community are likely to believe that the government
will listen to theirconcerns, especially when theypresent a unified voice to relay
themessage. Secondly, sense of community should affect external efficacy simply
because of the belief that there is strength in numbers, thatwith more people
behind an idea (i.e., a chorus as opposed to a soloist), themore 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.
65
Trust and Efficacy
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 thatwhen it comes to examining trustas 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 differentways such as interpersonal trust(Brehm &
Rahn, 1997), social trust (Putnam, 2000), or generalized trust (Uslaner, 2002).
Hetherington (1998) defines political trustas "a basic evaluative orientation toward
the government founded on how well the government is operating according to
people's normative expectations" (p. 791). Interpersonal truston the other hand
relies on trustingother people in a way that is very differentfrom trustinggovern
ment. It requires giving people?even
thosewho we may know very littleabout?
thebenefit of thedoubt (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 thesame thing" (p. 137, emphasis inoriginal). Political
trustmay be a consequence of interpersonal trustor visa versa, and theymay be
correlated with one another; however, they capture two very distinct concepts and
thereforeshould be treatedas such.Aside fromUslaner (2002), who devotes a great
deal of time to examining the roots of trust,little else has focused directly on the
social factors thatmay influence interpersonal trustand 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
tionshipswith those around them.Even at themost basic level, thatof an acquain
tance, a relationship probably exists simply because members share a common
interest in theirjob, faith,or pastime. Relationships at thismost basic level involve
some sort of trust,even if it simplymeans thatyou 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 thatcooperation 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 trustbecause 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 thisbond 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 trustin others (i.e., personal trust).Additionally, sense of community
is also likely to have effects on political trust,because having a sense of commu
nitywithin an organized context such as a church, theworkplace, or an organiza
tionmay 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
as it possibly does in their own context. Therefore, it is
best outcome?just
to
reasonable
hypothesize that those who have a greater sense of community are
to
trust
both others and government to do what is right.
likely
Data
Data used for the following analyses are original survey data collected via
telephone interviews during themonth of October 2004. There were 820 respon
dents. The survey took approximately 25 minutes to complete.5 The core of the
surveywas the battery of questions directly related to sense of community.Addi
tionally, therewere 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 inwhich to implement
a survey of this type for a number of reasons. Although ithad some limitations (as
does any selection site), the advantages override those concerns and make this
particular city a study site that is comparable tomany other cities in theUnited
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 inwhich the
surveywas in the field and know itwell were important considerations. But this
city also possesses diversity of the sort essential for pursuit ofmy central research
questions. It has many differentneighborhoods 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 theUnited 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 ismale, and themedian age is 30.
67
Trust and Efficacy
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 thatpotentially contribute to efficacy and trusthave been

discussed in the literature,yet few studies have tested empirically towhat 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 themeasures for each of the key variables were con
structed and then discuss the results of the analysis.
Sense ofCommunity. Respondents in this surveywere 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 itemsused tomeasure 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 inAppendix B.8
Efficacy. Respondents were asked two efficacy questions on the surveymeant
tomeasure both internaland external efficacy.The firstquestion addressing inter
nal efficacy asked:
How much of a difference do you believe you can make in [city name]?
Do you believe thatyou 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
importantfor [cityname]? Do you think they care verymuch, somewhat,
only a little,or not at all?
7
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, inwhich case theywould
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.
Some
68
Anderson
Table
1. Sense of Community
and Internal Efficacy: Estimated
Variable
via Ordered Logit
Baseline Model
Coefficient (se)
Total
Sense of Community
Summary Context (No. of Contexts)
Total Sense of Community X No. of Contexts
.022 (.011)**
-.529 (.405)
-.001 (.002)
Gender
Age
Age Squared
Education
Strength of Party . 16 (.083)#
Income
Marital
Status
Employment
-.132 (.112)
Status
-.072
.016
Agreeableness
Emotional Stability
Conscientiousness
-.046
Extroversion
.026 (.014)#
to Experience
.030
Openness
# of observations (pseudo R2)
-772.3
Log likelihood
# = p<.10,
*=
(.191)
(.022)
.013 (.017)
p<.05,
**p<.01,
(.020)
641 (.033)
Full Model
Coefficient (se)
(.018)**
-.085
(.159)
.095 (.026)***
-.001 (.000)***
.045 (.045)
-.004
(.059)
-.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<.001
To explore whether sense of community influences internal and external efficacy,

I firstmodel efficacy as a function of a full array of demographic variables and
other individual level characteristics such as personality. I then add measures of
sense of community to the mix to determine whether doing so furthers our
understanding of the sources of efficacy.
Internal Efficacy. The results for the internalefficacymodel are displayed in
Table 1. Several interestingfindings emerge in thesemodels. First, in thebaseline
model age, strengthof party, emotional stability, and extroversion are significant
predictors of internalefficacy.9 In the fullmodel, when social forces, such as sense
of community, are introduced,we see strong, significant effects on internal effi
cacy, beyond age, strengthof party,and emotional stability.Recall that thevariable
total sense of community is the sum of the respondent's sense of community
scores across multiple contexts, and the summary variable for number of contexts
is simply thenumber of contexts forwhich an individual had a sense of community
score. The introduction of the sense of community variable into themodel has
strong positive effects on internal efficacy.
9
Two of the items used tomeasure sense of community, items 7 and 8, speak directly to the perceived
these items arguably capture a facet of efficacy, I removed those
capacities of the individual. Because
two items and ran correlations between the index with and without those items. The indices are
correlated at .996. Additionally, I ran a second set of models with sense of community constructed
with these items omitted. Precisely the same pattern of results emerged bringing added confidence to
the causal account presented here.
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
sense of community and the
number of contexts. These two variables?total
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 inmultiple contexts (a total of five) yet a given respondent may not
belong to a church or a local organization, and thereforenot 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 fullmodel 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 ofmulticollinearity. 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.10Because the coefficients
are derived from ordered logitmodels which are typically confusing to interpret
substantively, I have generated a few predicted probabilities to help clarify the
substantivemeaning 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 theirmean 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 inmind is thatminimum 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, theminimum value adds 11 points per context
and themaximum 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

for Sense of Community
Representation of Change in Predicted Probability

(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 formaximum 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, thiswould indicate a general
effect of contextual involvement, controlling for sense of community. For

example, if all three lines slope upward from left to right, thiswould suggest that
being involved inmore 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, thiswould 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 reflecta unique joint effect of sense of community and number of contexts.
For example, if the lines for high and low sense of community intersectwhere
number of contexts equals two, but diverge widely where number of contexts
equals five, thiswould suggest that efficacy is produced primarily where people
have high levels of social attachment within multiple contexts.
Figure 1highlights two key results. First, the slope of the lines are nonparallel,
in fact, they are opposite, suggesting that sense of community affects those who
Trust and Efficacy
71
are more and less attached to various contexts differently.Second, there is a large
gap between the lines forminimum 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 inwhich 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 inTable 2.
Again, an interestingpattern 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 thepredicted probabilities for external efficacy,with focus on the
likelihood that respondents believe local officials care "very much" about what
they think is important.
The figuredemonstrates thedecreasing shift in external efficacy for thosewith
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
contextsmatters more thanhaving a high sense of community inmultiple contexts.
Predicted probabilities decrease from 0.42 to 0.02 when moving from two to five
72
Anderson
Table
and External Efficacy: Estimated
Variable
via Ordered Logit
Baseline Model
Coefficient (se)
Total
Sense of Community
.008 (.001)
-1.21
Gender
-.242
(.165)
.025 (.027)
-.000 (.000)
Age
Age Squared
Education
Strength of Party
Income
Marital
Status
Employment
Status
Extroversion
*=
p<.05,
.005 (.117)
.185 (.198)
.031 (.118)
.186 (.203)
.024 (.022)
(.018)
.026 (.017)
.004 (.015)
to Experience
Openness
# of observations (pseudo R2)
Log likelihood
**p<.01,
.004 (.027)
.000 (.000)
.083 (.048)#
.053 (.086)
.038 (.064)
-.004
Conscientiousness
(.412)**
.003 (.002)
-.23 (.167)
.090 (.047)#
.059 (.085)
.058 (.063)
.038 (.022)#
Agreeableness
Emotional Stability
# = p<.10,
Full Model
Coefficient (se)
-.049
(.021)*
635 (.03)
-698.9
.000 (.018)
.022 (.017)
-.005
(.015)
-.052
(.022)*
635 (.04)
-689.5
***p<.001
"Local officials care verymuch about what I think is important."

1.0t-1
.8
2.00
3.00
5.00
4.00
NumberofContexts
Figure
2. External Efficacy Model?Graphical

for Sense of Community

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, themore contexts inwhich an individual with a low sense of
community score is involved, the greater the probability fordecreased feelings of
external efficacy. Simply being involved inmore contexts does not necessarily
translate into a greater sense of efficaciousness. What seems tomatter most is the
level of attachment that people have in those contexts. Having a high sense of
community in only two contexts is better thanhaving 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 literaturehas implied that social forces
such as community affect efficacy but no true testof 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 towhether
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 thatmatters for efficacy or being involved inmore contexts. Rather,
it is the level of attachment within the context that seems tomatter most. There
fore, fostering positive efficacious attitudes seems to be connected with the build
ingof a stronger sense of communitywithin the context(s) inwhich 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 importantgiven the direct effectswe know to exist between efficacy and
other types of political behaviors and attitudes.These results suggest that sense of
community may indirectly affectmany of the factors known to be influenced by
efficacy.
Trust. The second question to be considered iswhether sense of community

also matters for the development of trust. Following the recommendation of
Putnam and others tokeep distinct the concepts of interpersonal trustand political
trust,this research project posed questions on the survey tomeasure both concepts.
Recall thatpolitical trustentails confidence ingovernment institutionsand authori
ties. In this project, political trustwas measured by asking respondents the fol
lowing question:
How much of the time do you think you can trustyour local officials
(such as the County Commissioners and City Council members) to do
what is right?Do you thinkyou can trustthemnearly all of the time,most
of the time, seldom, or never?
74
Anderson
Table
and Personal Trust Model:
Variable
Estimated
via Ordered Logit
Baseline Model
Full Model
Coefficient (se)
Coefficient (se)
Total
Sense of Community .022 ( Oil)*

-.864
(.399)*
-.000
(.002)
Gender
-.245
(.161) -.212
(.163)
.036 (.026)
-.000 (.000)
Age .057 (.025)*

Age Squared -.000 (.000)#
Education
.213 (.046)***
.209 (.046)***
-.157 (.083)#-.157
Strength of Party
Income .175 (.061)**
-.195 (.112)#
-.170
Marital Status
Status
Employment
.308 (.193)
Agreeableness .047 (.021)*
Emotional Stability
Conscientiousness
-.002
-.004
Extroversion
-.000
Openness
to Experience
-.001
No. of observations
(pseudoR2)
Log
#=
p<.10,
p<.05,
**p<.01,
(.017).005
(.017)
-.009
(.017)
(.014)
(.020)
-.011
-.004
631 (.06)
likelihood
*=
.338
-775.4
(.083)#
.158 (.062)*
(.114)
(.199)#
.039 (.021)#
(.017)
(.015)
(.020)
631 (.07)
-765.6
***p<.001
Using theGSS (General Social Science Survey) as an example, personal trustwas

constructed with data from three questions. Respondents were asked:
1. Generally speaking, would you say thatmost people can be trustedor thatyou
can't be too careful in dealing with people?
2. Do you thinkmost people would try to take advantage of you if they got the
chance, or would they try to be fair?
3. Would you say thatmost of the time people try to be helpful or that they are
just looking out for themselves?11
Tables 3 and 4 depict the results for the personal trust and political trust
models. The designs of the tables are similar to Tables 1 and 2 with the first
column containing the baseline model where sense of community has been inten
tionally leftout so that the effects of the sense of community variables may be seen
in relation to the baseline model where mostly individual-level variables are used.
Personal Trust. The personal trustmodel (Table 3) demonstrates that the
inclusion of the sense of community variables produces significant effects beyond
the effects seen in thebaseline models. When themodel is expanded to include the
sense of community variables, we see positive and significant effects for sense of
11
These are the same questions
trust.
used by Brehm and Rahn
(1997)
for theirmeasure
of interpersonal
75
Trust and Efficacy

Table
and Political Trust Model:
Estimated
via Ordered Logit

Full Model
Baseline Model
Variable
Coefficient (se)
Coefficient (se)
Sense of Community .014 (.012)
-.838
Total
( 458)#
.001 (.002)
(.177) -.159
Age.001 (.029)
Age Squared .000 (.000)
Education .195 (.051)***
-.170
Gender
of
Strength
.133
Status
Agreeableness
.002
Emotional
Stability
Conscientiousness
.10,
*=
p <
.026 (.067)
.001 (.128)
.138
(.221)
.061 (.024)*
(.217)
.070 (.024)**
.006
(.019)
(.019)
.021
to Experience
Openness
No. of observations (pseudo R2)
Log likelihood
#= p <
(.029)
.000 (.000)
.195 (.052)***
.125 (.093) .130 (.093)
Party
Income .035 (.066)

Marital Status -.022 (.126)
Employment
(.179)
-.016
.05, **p <
.01, ***p <
(.019).017
(.019)
-.000
Extroversion .007 (.016)
-.074 (.023)**
-568.4
(.016)
-.076
635 (.04)
-563.0
635
(.024)***
(.05)
.001
When total sense of community is introduced into

community on personal trust.
themodel, it emerges as a positive and significantpredictor 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
themost 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 trustand thatpersonal 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 trustingothers verymuch is 0.13 but decreases to 0.02 for thosewith
low scores in five contexts. This is an important effect.One might consider that
where sense of community is absent, heightened social interactionmerely provides
76
Anderson
"Trust very much.'
10-1
-O
CD
-O
O
D_
*D
Q)
O
Sense
of Community
average
2.00
3.00
Number
Figure
4.00
of Contexts
3. Personal Trust Model?Graphical

Sense of Community

for
individuals with a broader base to be suspicious and distrustful of others. Hence,

not only is thereno guarantee that social interaction in itselfwill generate trust,but
such interaction actually may erode trust if that interaction is not accompanied by
the bonds of sense of community.
For thosewith a high sense of community score in two contexts the predicted
probability of trustingothers verymuch is 0.53; for thosewith thehighest sense of
community score in five contexts, the predicted probability is 0.77. This suggests
that social interactioncan generate trust,but itdoes so to a meaningful extent only
for those individuals with greater than average levels of sense of community.We
also can assess the effectofmovement from low to high sense of communitywhile
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 trustingothers verymuch of 0.08; however
if thatperson had thehighest possible sense of community score for threecontexts,

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 sheermembership inmultiple contexts.
It is better in termsof 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
77
Trust and Efficacy

"Trust officials to do what is right nearly all of the time."
1.00t-1
CD
_Q
2
CL
~o
CD
O
Sense
.40
of Community
average
4.00
3.00
Number
5.00
of Contexts
Figure 4. Political Trust Model?Graphical

Sense of Community

for
need to account for not only individual traits such as education and age in
explaining levels of personal trustbut 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
While the
strong effects for individual-level factors in explaining political trust.
introduction of the total sense of community variable fails to achieve signifi
cance (in much the same way as it did in the external efficacymodels?which
is due to themulticollinearity 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
trustemphasizes 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
Anderson
Conclusion
Previous studies have tended to examine efficacy and trust in light of their
explanatory power forpolitical 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 trustand 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
While it is often implied in the literature that social factors, in
efficacy and trust.
one way or another, influence efficacy and trust, there has been scarce empirical
evidence to support the arguments on either side.
sense of
This paper examined the effects of social forces?namely
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.12Three main conclusions regarding the relationship between

sense of community and efficacy and trustcan be drawn from the general pattern
thatemerged in all fourmodels and is depicted inFigures 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 thanothers) 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 bettermeasure of community connected
ness and thereforegreater insight into how and why social forces come tomatter
for trust and efficacy. By doing so, we have taken a step towards a deeper
understanding of the process throughwhich 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
we see a net negative effect.
positive or no effect exists; in no case do
Trust and Efficacy
79
The past decade has witnessed a rebirthwithin 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 thework
in thisarea has unrealistically treated involvement inmemberships 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 tomatter. 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 thosewith low sense of community, the consequences forpolitical
efficacy and trustcan be grave; individuals may feel isolated, unimportant, and
irrelevant.Alternatively, for those individuals with a greater sense of community
efficacy and trustare 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 trustingand to develop a sense of community.
Instead, the analysis demonstrates that sense of community has a direct positive
effect on personal trusteven when these individual-level characteristics are taken
into account. Similarly, sense of community has strongpositive effects on efficacy
(both internal and external). In both models, increased levels of sense of commu
nitywere positively associated with feelings of efficacy. It is not simply an issue
of being involved inmore contexts thatmatter but ratherdeveloping strongbonds
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 inwhich
they are involved.
It is not only important to know that efficacy and trust influence political
behavior as has been the case formost of the past research using these variables,
but also that there are key factorswhich 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
a
so
trust
to
and
and
do
efficacy
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 inwhich 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,futurework 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 theirhelpful 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);
theLeroy Collins Center forPublic 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 theMidwest Political Science Association. Correspon
dence concerning this article should be sent toMary Anderson, The University of
Tampa, Department of Government and World Affairs, 401 W. Kennedy Blvd,
Tampa, FL 33606. E-mail: mranderson@ut.edu
REFERENCES
Abramson, P. R.
Press.
(1983). Political
Balch, G. (1974). Multiple

Political Methodology,
attitudes inAmerica:
Formation
indicators in survey research: The

1, 1-43.
Causes
(1986). Apathy inAmerica, 1960-1984:
indifference. New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc.
Bennett, S. E.
and change. San Francisco:
concept "sense of political

and consequences
Free
efficacy."
of citizen political
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
capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.
and consequences
of social
structural disadvantage, collective efficacy,

Browning, C. R., & Cagney, K. A. (2002). Neighborhood
and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 43 (4),
383-399.
(2004). The paradox of social organization:
Browning, C., Feinberg, S. L., & Dietz, R. D.
Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83 (2),
503-534.
Catano, V., Pretty, G., Southwell, R., & Cole, G.
Psychological Reports, 72, 333-334.
(1993).
Sense of community and union participation.
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
nature of social capital. Political Behavior, 22 (4), 267-291.
test of the reciprocal
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.
Coleman,
81
Trust and Efficacy
Converse, P. (1972). Change in theAmerican 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 theNES
study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.
Gamson, W. A. (1971). Political trustand its ramifications. In G. Abearian &
psychology and political behavior (pp. 40-55). New York: Merrill.
Gurin, P., & Epps, E.
(1975). Black
J.W. Soule
(Eds.), Social
identity and achievement. New York: Wiley.
consciousness,
Gurin P., Gurin, G., & Beattie, L. M. (1969). Internal-external control in themotivational
negroes. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 29-53.
Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political
Review, 92, 791-808.
pilot
relevance of political
dynamics of
trust. The American Political
Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political

diverse
within communication
networks. New
opinions
Press.
The
disagreement:
York:
Cambridge
Science
survival
of
University
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:
influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R.
Psychology, 19 (3), 567-584.
(1998).
Social
Information and
capital, social networks, and participation. Political
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.
Community Psychology,
(1986). Sense
14, 6-23.
of community: A
definition and
theory. Journal
of
Mondak, J.,& Halperin, K. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behavior.
British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335-362.
J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood
inequality, collective
efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-560.
Morenoff,
internal political efficacy in the 1998

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C, & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring
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.
sense of community and its
Pretty, G., Andrews, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents'
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.
sense of community among women
Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological
men of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351-361.
Putnam, R. D.
(1993). Making
Putnam, R. D.
(1995). Bowling
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling

Simon and Schuster.
Rosenfeld, R., Messner,
283-309.
and
democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

alone. Journal of Democracy,
alone:
The collapse
6 (January), 65.
and revival of American
S. F, & Baumer, E. P. (2001). Social
Rosenstone, S. J.,& Hansen, J.M. (1993). Mobilization,

New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
community. New York:
capital and homicide. Social Forces,
participation,
and democracy
80,
inAmerica.
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
collective efficacy. American Sociological
(1999). Beyond social capital:

Review 64, 633-60
Sampson, R. J.,Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods

study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918-923.
Shingles, R. D. (1981). Black consciousness
Science Review, 75 (1), 79-91.
Spatial
(2002). The moral foundations
and participation: The missing
of trust.Cambridge:
Uslaner, E. M.
(2004). Trust and social bonds: Faith
Political Research Quarterly, 57 (3), 501-507
Verba,
of
and violent crime: A multilevel

link. American
Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized

associations. Political Psychology, 19 (3), 197-525.
Uslaner, E. M.
dynamics
Cambridge
Political
trust in voluntary
University Press.
in others and policy outcomes
reconsidered.
S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender
political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59, 1054-1072.
and
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: civic voluntarism inAmerican
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 tellme
towhat extent you agree or disagree with the statement.One is "strongly disagree"
and five is "strongly agree."
1. I thinkmy (context) is a good place forme to live.
2. People on this (context) do not share the same values.
3. My (contextmembers) 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 (contextmembers) thinkof 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 tome 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
throughQll
83
Trust and Efficacy
Appendix B
Descriptive
Statistics of Key Independent Variables

Number
Variable Name
of
Mean
(SD)
Observations
Total Sense of Community
of Contexts
Number
SOC X No.
of Contexts
822
158
(36.8)
822
3.79
Range
46-263
2-5
(.744)
822
624
(251)
92-1315
803
45.9
820
(17.2)
4.7
822
(1.88)
.43
Party Strength
794
(.494)
3.06
Income
715
(.894)
3.67
1-8
762
(1.51)
1.54
1-3
807
(.716)
1.32
1-2
822
(.469)
16
0-20
Age
Education
Gender
Marital
Status
Employment
Status
Agreeableness
Emotional
Stability
Conscientiousness
Extroversion
Openness
to Experience
(3.97)
18-94
1-8
0 = male
1= female
822
6.2
0-20
822
(4.62)
13.9
0-20
822
(4.74)
12.63
0-20
822
(5.22)
15.3
0-20
(4.11)
Appendix
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 thedesired number of questionnaires (800). If a final disposition could not be

reached on the firstcall, 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
CM
CB
RF
IE
822
210
366
1060
Household
Contacts
Breakdown
DS
(determined
after firstcall)
2458
2675
and Response
NA/
AM
FX
Rate
Non-Household
Contacts
2724 452
TOTAL
5851
IE = households
never reached after initial contact

= Household
contacts - ineligible = 1398
Eligible Respondents
=
Rate
Interviews
/ eligible respondents = 58.8%
Response
Completed
Appendix D
Frequency Distribution
Variable
of Dependent
Variables
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
27
Never
Seldom
Most
Nearly
193
of the time 524

all of the time 63
8309

Eficacia Política y Confianza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eficacia Política y Confianza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust

Author(s): Mary R. Anderson

Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2010

Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust

to the effects of political

and significant effects on internal and external

psychology, Trust, Efficacy, Political

combined with shared expectations for social control-related action" (Browning,

and with whom we work, live, socialize, and

Trust and Efficacy

would be of considerable substantive significance. This significance ismagnified,

cornerstones of building trustis cooperation (Putnam, 2000), thus thegreater one's

tionshipswith others and in influencing the opinions of fellow members, cowork

Trust and Efficacy

of the elements of sense of community, see McMillan

Note thatcommunity as described here extends beyond a simple geographic locale

tions, churches, and the like.

employed to gauge levels of connectedness in various types of social contexts such

Trust and Efficacy

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

Trust and Efficacy

The social factors thatpotentially contribute to efficacy and trusthave been

and Internal Efficacy: Estimated

via Ordered Logit

To explore whether sense of community influences internal and external efficacy,

Trust and Efficacy

My first consideration regarding the insignificant coefficient for the interac

substantivemeaning of the results in column two.

The horizontal axis indicates the number of contexts in which a person is

1. Internal Efficacy Model?Graphical

Representation of Change in Predicted Probability

sense of community scores that range from 11 to 55 as we move across the

effect of contextual involvement, controlling for sense of community. For

Trust and Efficacy

and External Efficacy: Estimated

via Ordered Logit

"Local officials care verymuch about what I think is important."

2. External Efficacy Model?Graphical

Representation of Change in Predicted Probability

Trust and Efficacy

In examining the influence of sense of community on efficacy several points

(low, average, and high).

Trust. The second question to be considered iswhether sense of community

and Personal Trust Model:

via Ordered Logit

Sense of Community .022 ( Oil)*

Age .057 (.025)*

Using theGSS (General Social Science Survey) as an example, personal trustwas

used by Brehm and Rahn

Trust and Efficacy

and Political Trust Model:

via Ordered Logit

.125 (.093) .130 (.093)

Income .035 (.066)

.05, **p <

.01, ***p <

When total sense of community is introduced into

those associated with personality (and especially agreeableness), and therefore, it

is clearly positively associated with personal trustand thatpersonal trust is pro

3. Personal Trust Model?Graphical

Representation of Change in Predicted Probability

individuals with a broader base to be suspicious and distrustful of others. Hence,

if thatperson had thehighest possible sense of community score for threecontexts,

Trust and Efficacy