Abstract
Survey research on political efficacy is longstanding. In a number of countries efficacy has been measured using batteries of negatively worded “agree-disagree” statements. In this paper, we investigate the measurement properties of the Canadian variant of this traditional battery and compare its performance with an alternative, positively worded, battery. The research is based on data gathered by a random half-sample experiment administered in the 2004 Political Support in Canada national panel survey. Analyses of these data provide no evidence that negatively framing the statements designed to tap political efficacy is problematic. Rather, it appears that students of political efficacy would have been worse off if they had spent the past several decades conducting analyses employing positively worded variants of the traditional statements. Perhaps most important, scholars have not been misled by acquiescence bias depressing efficacious responses to the traditional battery. These experimental results indicate that widespread political inefficacy in contemporary democracies is a fact, not an artifact.
References
(1981). On the meaning of ‘political trust’: New evidence from items introduced in 1978. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 297–307.
(1990). Alternative measures of political efficacy: Models and means. Quality and Quantity, 24, 87–105.
(1985). A new model for old measures: A covariance structure analysis of political efficacy. The Journal of Politics, 47, 1062–1084.
(1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(2007). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
(1974). The reliability of political efficacy items. Political Methodology, 1, 45–72.
(1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept ‘sense of political efficacy’. Political Methodology, 1, 1–43.
(1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
(1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
(1981). Pearson’s r and coarsely categorized measures. American Sociological Review, 46, 232–239.
(1999). Political participation in a new democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 549–588.
(1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
(1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row.
(2001). How people view democracy: Halting progress in Korea and Taiwan. Journal of Democracy, 12, 122–136.
(1989). National elections and political attitudes: The case of political efficacy. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 551–562.
(2000). A polity on the edge: Canada and the politics of fragmentation. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
(1972). Change in the American electorate. In , The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage.
(1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
(1979). Efficacy, trust, and political behavior: An attempt to resolve a lingering conceptual dilemma. American Political Quarterly, 7, 225–239.
(1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 8, 85–109.
(1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.
(1992). The problem of civic competence. Journal of Democracy, 3, 45–59.
(1999). Political support in advanced industrial democracies. In , Critical citizens: global support for democratic government (pp. 57–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1993). Political efficacy: A comparative study of the United States, West Germany, Great Britain, and Australia. European Journal of Political Research, 23, 261–280.
(1996). Models of democracy (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Scientific Software International; Erlbaum.
(2002). Democracy, trust, and political efficacy: Comparative analysis of Danish and Korean political culture. Applied Psychology, 51, 318–353.
(1992). Citizens and community: Political support in a representative democracy. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press Cambridge studies in comparative politics.
(1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.
(1998). Designing good questionnaires: Insights from psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
(1986). Effects of identification with governing parties on feelings of political efficacy and trust. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19, 705–728.
(1959). Political life: Why people get involved in politics. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
(1976). Measuring the sense of political efficacy in Canada: Problems of measurement equivalence. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 490–500.
(1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
(2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 589–602.
(2000). Value change and reorientations in citizen-state relations. Canadian Public Policy, 26, 73–94.
(1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407–1413.
(1995). Building democracy in the new South Africa: Civil society, citizenship, and political ideology. Review of African Political Economy, 22, 525–537.
(1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, England: University Press.
(1998). Voter turnout at the British general election of 1992: rational choice, social standing, or political efficacy?. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 263–283.
(1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
(1983). Efficacy, mistrust, and political mobilization: A cross-national analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 16, 118–143.
(1992). Arenas and attitudes: A note on political efficacy in a federal system. Journal of Politics, 54, 179–196.
(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(1986). Political action repertoires: The role of efficacy. Comparative Political Studies, 19, 104–129.
(1975). Does acquiescence bias the ‘Index of Political Efficacy?’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 219–226.
(2003). Psycho-political correlates of political efficacy: The case of the 1994 New Orleans Mayoral Election. Journal of Black Studies, 33, 729–60.
