Towards a Four-Factor Model of Political Efficacy: The Role of Collective Political Efficacy

Towards a Four-Factor Model of Political Efficacy: The Role of Collective Political Efficacy Proposal for 2008 American National Election Studies (ANES) Time Series Study Mark Manning, University of Massachusetts Amherst (mmanning@psych.umass.edu) Constanze Beierlein, University of Frankfurt/Main, Germany Siegfried Preiser, University of Frankfurt/Main, Germany Sonja Wermuth, University of Frankfurt/Main, Germany Key Words: political efficacy, collective efficacy, collective political efficacy, political behavior Many of the problems and challenges of life are not only individual but institutional, requiring collective effort to produce significant change. The strength of groups, organizations, and even nations lies partly in people's sense of collective efficacy that they can solve the problems they face and improve their lives through unified effort. (Bandura, 1995, pg. 454) Overview: To assess the utility of the collective components of political efficacy in concert with the individual components of political efficacy among a representative sample of citizens, it is proposed that all individual-related internal and external political efficacy items, as well as twelve proposed items to assess collective internal and collective external political efficacies, be included in the 2008 ANES survey (see appendix). Given the wealth of studies concerning the importance of perceptions of individual political efficacies 1, the bulk of this proposal will focus on perceptions of collective political efficacy. In particular, a case will be presented for the importance of collective political efficacy as a predictor of political action. Empirical performance of the proposed items will be addressed. Finally, discussion of the range 1 Interested readers are referred to Craig et. al., 1990 for an in depth analysis of the individual efficacy items

of potential empirical inquiries will speak to the relevance and cross-disciplinary applications of a four-factor model of political efficacy. Background: Evidence supports the conception of political efficacy as two related factors of a singular construct (Balch, 1974; Craig & Maggiotto, 1982; Craig, Niemi, & Silver, 1990). Internal political efficacy refers to the perceptions of one s capability to engage in political behaviors, while external political efficacy refers to perceptions that the political system will be responsive. The target of these perceptions has always been the individual; little attention has been paid to perceptions of collective capability to be politically active or to perceptions of the political system s response to such collective action. The following proposal introduces a conception of a four factor model of political efficacy, and proposes inclusion of items on the 2008 ANES to measure the two individual as well as the two collective components of political efficacy. An individual s perception of his/her internal and external political efficacy has long been shown to be related to a host of political outcome variables (Beierlein & Preiser, 2004; Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954; Pierce & Carey Jr., 1971; Pollock, 1983; Preiser & Wermuth, 2003; Verba & Nie, 1972). Individual political efficacy items are included among the core items of the 2008 ANES survey 2 (see appendix), and the items have historically being included in the ANES survey (e.g., V560108, V560109, V560112 and V560115). Unfortunately, perceptions of collective political efficacy have not received sufficient attention. In fact, only four published studies have been identified that explicitly investigated collective political efficacy (Beierlein & Preiser, 2004; Lee, 2006; Mangum, 2003; Yeich & Levine, 1994). In all four studies, collective 2 The confirmed core items for the 2008 ANES are all measures of external political efficacy. The sole internal political efficacy core item is in danger of being excluded ( at risk item ), while non-repeated core items measuring internal political efficacy may be included on the survey at the discretion of the ANES staff.

political efficacy proved to be an important predictor of political action. However, despite its importance, it receives little empirical study, and to date has not been included in the ANES. Evidence for the Importance of Collective Political Efficacy: Among the studies that explicitly explored the relation between collective political efficacy and political participation, collective political efficacy was conceptualized in slightly varying manners. Yeich and Levine s (1994) measure was most comparable to external political efficacy in that it assessed perceptions of the systems response to collective action. Among homeless people who mobilized to utilize political action to fight homelessness, perceptions of collective political efficacy was strongest when compared to perceptions of internal and external political efficacy. Using similar measures of the construct, perceptions of collective political efficacy once again proved to be most favorable when compared to the individual components of political efficacy, and a positive relation was found between collective political efficacy and voting in a sample of college students (Manning, in review). Mangum s (2003) measure, termed group-based political efficacy, can also best be compared to measures of external political efficacy in that it was purported to measure government s responsiveness to the group. This measure was found to be related to voter turnout among African-Americans, whereas a measure of individual efficacy was not related to turnout. Taking a different conceptualization of collective political efficacy, Lee s (2006) measure of the construct was most comparable to internal collective political efficacy. Consistent with the aforementioned studies, the perceptions of collective political efficacy were stronger compared to individual internal and external political efficacy, and also consistently, it was related to support for democratization and political participation among citizens in Hong Kong. Utilizing similar conceptions of collective political efficacy in a study among trade union members in Germany

and Northern Ireland, perceptions of collective political efficacy of a trade union was found to be positively related to a member s participation in trade union activities (Beierlein & Preiser, 2004). Noticeably, both types of collective political efficacy are related to political participatory behaviors, however as of yet they have not been investigated together as predictors of participatory behavior. Consequently there are also no studies that have explored how the four components of political efficacy function together in the prediction of political participation. Empirical Performance of Proposed Collective Political Efficacy Items. As discussed, collective political efficacy does not refer to the aggregate of individual perceptions of political efficacy, but rather refers to an individual s perceptions of his/her group s collective political efficacy. Consequently, the only way to assess this perception is to explicitly elicit it from the individual; the measurement of this construct must be assessed with items separate from the ones that are already included on the ANES survey to assess perceptions of individual political efficacies. Items proposed to measure collective internal and external political efficacy are included in the appendix. The items for the collective external political efficacy have an acceptably high internal reliability (α ranged from.86 to.88 among a sample of undergraduates; Manning, under review). As measured by these items, collective external political efficacy was found to be positively related to voting. To assess collective internal political efficacy, items were adopted and modified from the teacher collective self-efficacy scale proposed by Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999) 3. In a test of the items among a sample of undergraduates (N=72) the internal reliability was acceptable (α =.72). Theoretical and Empirical Directions: According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy is an emergent group attribute that varies with situational constraints and intergroup dynamics. 3 Schwarzer and Schmitz (1999) constructed the items of their scale in order to assess a teacher s perception of the collective internal efficacy of his/her group of teachers within the school.

Nonetheless, a person s perception of their group s collective efficacy is an individual level attribute, in contrast to an objective measure of group s collective efficacy in the context of attaining a particular goal. To be clear, collective efficacy is not the sum of perceptions of individual efficacy, but rather it is a belief in the capability to the group to achieve a goal. This perception has received sparse attention in the political domain, and has received no attention on ANES surveys. Collective efficacy has been investigated extensively outside of the political domain, and results suggest that it is an important predictor of group performance in different domains (e.g., Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson, & Watson, 2003; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004; Myers, Payment, & Feltz, 2004). However, there is a noticeable lack of attention paid to the effects of perceptions of collective efficacy on individual performance. There is an inherent attribute of political action wherein a citizen works in concert with other citizens to achieve political ends, and much work has shown that identification with a group serves to increase the propensity to be politically active (e.g., Davidson & Cotter, 1989; Deaux & Reid, 2000; Klandermans & de Weerd, 2000; Koch, 1993; Miller, Gurin, Gurin, & Malanchuk, 1981). The political domain, therefore, offers an arena in which to model the relation between perceptions of collective efficacy and individual actions. In particular, the ANES offers the unique opportunity to relate perceptions of collective political efficacy to voting, party affiliation, campaign volunteering, and a wealth of other indicators of political activity. It is contended that a major criterion of a shared belief is agreement within groups (Bandura, 1997; pg 480). The extent to which there is a common perception of collective efficacy within a particular group ought to be reflected in the extent to which there is variation in perceptions of collective efficacy within a group. In the realm of political behavior, the extent to

which collective political efficacy predicts political participation may vary as a function of the extent to which there is a cohesive perception, within a group, of their ability to achieve political goals. Inclusion of collective political efficacy items on the ANES offers an opportunity to investigate theories of the construct among a representative population sample, with the potential to explore between group differences based on political orientation, race, state of residence, etc. There is further contention that collective efficacy has its foundation in individual efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In other words, a group comprised of individuals with low perceptions of self-efficacy will not be a collectively efficacious group. Though a person s perceptions of their individual political efficacy may be reflected in the level of the group s collective political efficacy, the constructs are not inextricably wed. Perceptions of low individual political efficacy may not be translated to one s perceptions of collective political efficacy; there is potential for someone to make a distinction between their capabilities and the capabilities of a group. In fact, previous studies have shown that where perceptions of individual political efficacy may be low, perceptions of collective political efficacy may be high (Manning, under review; Yeich and Levine, 1994). Consistently, there is potential for varying degrees of influence of either individual or collective political efficacy on political behavior, and there is potential for perceptions of collective political efficacy to not have it s genesis in perceptions of individual political efficacy. Though a longitudinal design would best test the emergence of collective political efficacies and their potential origins from individual political efficacies, concurrent measurement offers the ability to establish which of these types of political efficacies share unique variance with political activities in a representative sample. Previous work supports the importance of each components of political efficacy separately. In bringing the constructs together, the proposed four-factor-model provides a

fundamental contribution to the theory of the political efficacy construct itself. Furthermore, it allows for investigations of the relation between internal and external components of political efficacy on an individual as well as a collective level, and allows for modeling their relation to the wealth of political behaviors and related variables contained within the ANES survey.

References Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept of sense of political efficacy. Political Methodology, 37, 1-43. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy. In A. S. R. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 453-454). Oxford: Blackwell. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Beierlein, C., & Preiser, S. (2004). Solidarisches Engagement, Gerechtigkeitsüberzeugungen und kollektive Kompetenzerwartung bei Gewerkschaftsmitgliedern [Solidarity in collective action, justice beliefs, and collective self-efficacy among trade union members]. Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, 1 & 2, 79-95. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides.: Row, Peterson, and Co. Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring Political Efficacy. Political Methodology, 8, 85-109. 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(3), 289-314. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal of Community Psychology, 17(2), 119-125. Deaux, K., & Reid, A. (2000). Contemplating collectivism. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements. (pp. 172-190): University of Minnesota Press. Hoyt, C. L., Murphy, S. E., Halverson, S. K., & Watson, C. B. (2003). Group Leadership: Efficacy and Effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(4), 259-274. Katz-Navon, T. Y., & Erez, M. (2005). When Collective- and Self-Efficacy Affect Team Performance: The Role of Task Interdependence. Small Group Research, 36(4), 437-465. Klandermans, B., & de Weerd, M. (2000). Group identification and political protest. In S. Stryker & T. J. Owens (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements. (pp. 68-90): University of Minnesota Press. Koch, J. W. (1993). Assessments of Group Influence, Subjective Political Competence, and Interest Group Membership. Political Behavior, 15(4), 309-325. Lee, F. L. F. (2006). Collective Efficacy, Support for Democratization, and Political Participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 297-317. Mangum, M. (2003). Psychological Involvement and Black Voter Turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 41-48. Manning, M. (in review). Collective Political Efficacy and Collectivism: Their Relation to Voting Among a Youth Sample.Unpublished manuscript. Miller, A., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group Consciousness and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 494-511. Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Short, S. E. (2004). Collective Efficacy and Team Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Collegiate Football Teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(2), 126-138.

Myers, N. D., Payment, C. A., & Feltz, D. L. (2004). Reciprocal Relationships Between Collective Efficacy and Team Performance in Women's Ice Hockey. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(3), 182-195. Pierce, J. C., & Carey Jr., A. (1971). Efficacy and Participation: A Study of Black Political Behavior. Journal of Black Studies, 2(2), 201-223. Pollock, I., Philip H. (1983). The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: a Research Note. Political Research Quarterly, 36(3), 400-409. Preiser, S., & Wermuth, S. (2003). Gerechte-Welt-Glaube, Rechtfertigung von Ungleichheit und politisches Engagement. Ideologien der Ungleichheit und der Glaube an eine gerechte Welt [Belief in a just world, justification of inequality, and political participation. Iedologies of inequality and the belief in the just world]. In M. K. W. Schweer (Ed.), Vertrauen im Spannungsfeld politischen Handelns: Herausforderungen und Perspektiven für eine Politische Psychologie. Psychologie und Gesellschaft (Vol. 2, pp. 79-89). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. S. (1999). Kollektive Selbstwirksamkeits- erwartung von Lehrern. Eine Längsschnittstudie in zehn Bundesländern [Collective self-efficacy of teachers. A longitudinal study in ten German states]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 262-274. Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper and Row. Yeich, S., & Levine, R. (1994). Political Efficacy: Enhancing the Construct and It's Relationship to Mobilization of People. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 259-271. Appendix: Political Efficacy Items Individual External Political Efficacy (Core items) 1. How much does R agree or disagree that people like R don't have any say about what the government does? 2. How much does having elections make the government pay attention to what the people think? 3. How much does R agree or disagree that public officials don't care much what people like R think? 4. How much attention does government pay to what people think when it decides what to do? Individual Internal Political Efficacy (Non-repeated core items) 5. How much does R agree or disagree that R has a pretty good understanding of important political issues facing the U.S.? 6. How much does R agree or disagree that R is well-qualified to participate in politics? 7. How much does R agree or disagree that R could do as good a job in public office as most other people? 8. How much does R agree or disagree that R is better informed about politics and government than most people?

9. How much does R agree or disagree that sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like R can't understand what's going on?* Collective External Political Efficacy (New Items) 10. How much does R agree or disagree that dramatic change could occur in this country if people banded together and demanded change? 11. How much does R agree or disagree that if enough people banded together and demanded change, politicians would take the steps to enact change? 12. How much does R agree or disagree that organized groups of citizens can have much impact on the political policies of this country? 13. How much does R agree or disagree that politicians would respond to our needs if we banded together and began a movement to demand policies to address those needs? 14. How much does R agree or disagree that politicians would respond to the needs of citizens if enough people demanded change? 15. How much does R agree or disagree that politicians would listen to people if we pressured them to? Collective Internal Political Efficacy (New Items) 16. How much does R agree or disagree that as people in this country, we can all band together in order to achieve political goals? 17. How much does R agree or disagree that we are definitely able to accomplish something positive since we are a competent group of people? 18. How much does R agree or disagree that as a people we can cooperatively develop and carry out programs to benefit us all, even when difficulties arise? 19. How much does R agree or disagree that we, as people, are able to struggle together in order to achieve political goals? 20. How much does R agree or disagree that since we are all competent in engaging in collective action, we can forward our political demands successfully? 21. How much does R agree or disagree that we can work together to promote important political goals even if we face difficulties? * At risk core item