The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: A Research

Note
Author(s): Philip H. Pollock III
Source: The Western Political Quarterly , Sep., 1983, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Sep., 1983), pp. 400-
409
Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/448398

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Western
Political Quarterly

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE PARTICIPATORY CONSEQUENCES OF
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
POLITICAL EFFICACY:
A RESEARCH NOTE
PHILIP H. POLLOCK III

University of Central Florida

GOOD DEAL of scholarly attention has been paid in recent ye

the increasing disaffection of the American electorate. Mu
this concern has centered on the sources and meaning of p
cal discontent, such as the erosion of political trust. Some have inte
this trend as transient dissatisfaction (Citrin 1974); others ha
considerably less sanguine (Miller 1974a, 1974b). In any case, p
trust, taken by itself, is not a strong predictor of levels of political pa
pation (Muller 1977; Milbrath and Goel 1977: 68-74). Better beh
explanations are obtained when political efficacy also is taken into
(Aberbach 1969; Miller and Miller 1975: 406-7). It appears that, wh
levels of trust are combined with high levels of efficacy, the poten
unconventional or "nonallegiant" action is optimal. Presumably, e
affects the level of initiative required by the act, and trust struct
allegiant or nonallegiant nature. This is the familiar "mistrust-se
political efficacy" hypothesis, and it has been widely investigated
venal and Busch 1975; Craig 1979; Craig and Maggiotto 1981; F
1970; Fraser 1970; Hart 1978: chap. 2; Hawkins, Marando, and
1971; Paige 1971; Watts 1973; Zurcher and Monts 1972). Of course
original formulation of the hypothesis, Gamson (1968) connec
cynical combination of beliefs to all forms of activism - conventio
unconventional. Even so, most studies have shown low trust a
efficacy to be related to nonallegiant action, but not to conve
participation.
However, the development of cumulative research in this a
proven difficult - for several reasons. One problem was me
above. We know that political trust is declining, but there is stil
question whether we are witnessing a fundamental rejection of p
institutions or a less durable disapproval of government offic
policies (Abramson and Finifter 1981). Clearly, our behavioral
tions depend on this distinction: Conditions of low diffuse suppo
foster different participatory consequences than conditions of low
support for the system (Craig 1980). Additionally, most studies h
been sensitive to the emergent dimensional properties of political e
All evidence now strongly indicates that political efficacy itself m
an "external," system-regarding attitude, as well as an "internal," p
dimension of belief (Converse 1972; Balch 1974; Craig 1979). Final
lack evidence for the connections between these political attitude
wider range of conventional or "within-system" behaviors, other
voting (Verba and Nie 1972).

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Participatory Consequences 401

In an attempt to clarify and address some of these issues, Craig (1980)

argues convincingly that low diffuse support - low "trust" - is not a
necessary precondition for mass mobilization; that certain "elite-
challenging" activities may result from low external efficacy, especially
when combined with high levels of internal efficacy (p. 198). Further-
more, recent empirical treatments of Gamson's hypothesis indicate that
the familiar, blunt distinction between allegiant and nonallegiant partici-
pation does not capture the variety of conventional participatory alterna-
tives available to individuals (Seligson 1980; Shingles 1981). Shingles, in
particular, recognizes the difference between internal and external politi-
cal efficacy, and he clearly identifies the conditions under which high
initiative conventional participation (such as communal and campaign
activity) may flow from efficacious and mistrusting attitudes.'
Data presented below support these recent findings. To be sure, the
following analysis shows that individuals who harbor feelings of personal
political competence (high internal political efficacy) and relatively cynical
assessments of the responsiveness of the political system (low external
political efficacy) are more prone toward unconventional, nonconformist
participation. However, they also engage in high initiative conventional
participation closely connected with the ongoing political process.

DATA AND MEASURES

Five measures of political participation were constructed from

sponses to the 1972 National Election Study conducted by the Center
Political Studies.2 Four are conventional modes, ranging from low ini
tive (voting) to moderate and high initiative activities (campaigning, co
tacting, and communal activity).3 No direct behavioral measure of unc

1Shingles also confirms substantial race-related differences in the relationships betwe

these political attitudes and participation. In addition to racial differences in the d
tribution of motivating beliefs (most notably, poor blacks are much more likely t
poor whites to possess the combination of high internal efficacy and low political trust
Shingles finds differences between moderate to high income blacks and whites in t
patterns of high initiative participation (1981: 84-87). We know from other studies t
political efficacy and trust have different origins for blacks and whites (Abramson 197
and that the familiar survey questions which tap these beliefs may not have the sa
meanings for both races (Wright 1976: 91-92). Most scholars of participation agree t
the political mobilization of black Americans requires a special explanatory mod
although there is considerable debate about which of several models is most appropr
(for example, Verba and Nie 1972: chap. 10; Welch and Secret 1981; Danigelis 19
Miller 1982). This important question is beyond my purpose here. Accordingly, bla
are not included in the present analysis.
2 The data were made available to the scholarly community by the Inter-University Con
tium for Political and Social Research. The black subsample (N = 267) was exclu
from this analysis. Of course, ICPSR bears no responsibility for the analyses or
terpretations presented here.
3 The measures of conventional participation are additive scales, each of which was stan
dized (mean=O, standard deviation= 1). Voting: based on whether the respondent
has voted in none/some, most/all of the national elections since gaining the franchise;
voted in the 1968 presidential contest; (3) voted in the 1972 general elections. Ca
paigning: based on whether the respondent during the 1972 elections (1) tried

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
402 Western Political Quarterly

ventional participation was available, but a surrogate variable (approval of

protest activity) was obtained from survey responses.4 There is reason to
regard these responses as measures of the propensity to engage in non-
conformist action (Citrin 1974: 980; Muller 1972). In fact, of all available
data sources, the 1972 CPS study affords the best opportunity for
measuring such a wide range of participatory behaviors.5
This analysis employs the distinction, mentioned above, between
internal and external political efficacy. Converse was first to observe this
systematic divergence in the four items of the SRC/CPS scale (1972:
322-37).6 The two affective elements (No Say and No Care) measure the
respondent's perception of the political system; that is, the degree of
"trust in system responsiveness" (p. 334). The two cognitive items (Vote
Only and Politics Complicated), on the other hand, refer to the respon-
dent's own capacities - his or her "personal feelings of political compe-
tence" (p. 334). Balch (1974) uses the label "internal efficacy" for the Vote
Only/Politics Complicated pair, both of which refer to the "individual's
confidence in his own abilities, regardless of the political circumstances"
(p. 24). No Say and No Care, which correlate highly with political trust,
measure "external efficacy"; that is, "the respondent's perceived proba-
bility of success at influencing public officials, or, alternatively, the politi-
cal responsiveness of officials" (p. 24). Craig (1979) finds the same distinc-
tion in two samples, one of which is the national survey under examina-
tion here.

influence the vote choice of others; (2) worked for one of the parties or candidates; (3)
wore a campaign button or displayed a sticker; (4) gave money to a political party.
Contacting: based on whether the respondent has ever (1) written a letter to any public
official giving him/her an opinion about something that should be done; (2) written a
letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine giving any political opinions. The 1972
study probed membership and level of activity in seventeen voluntary associations. The
measure of communal activity is based on the reported number of fairly or very active
memberships in these groups.
4 Respondents were asked whether they disapprove, conditionally approve ("depending on
the circumstances"), or approve of (1) "protest meetings or marches that are permitted
by the authorities," and (2) "sitins, mass meetings, demonstrations, and things like that."
Scoring disapproval as 1, conditional approval as 2, and approval as 3 for each act,
respondents were assigned an additive score, which ranged from 2 (disapproval of both)
to 6 (approval of both). As with the conventional modes, the protest approval variable was
standardized, giving it a mean of 0; a standard deviation of 1. This variable reflects the
respondent's approval of "adversary" actions, as well as less extreme "advocacy" protest.
See Sniderman 1981: chap. 3.
5 Most of the protest questions - and all of the group membership variables - were
eliminated from later ICPSR surveys.
6The agree-disagree, four-item scale is well known. (1) No Say: "People like me don't have
any say about what the government does." (2) No Care: "I don't think public officials
care much what people like me think." (3) Vote Only: "Voting is the only way that people
like me can have any say about how the government runs things." (4) Politics Compli-
cated: "Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me
can't really understand what's going on." Respondents were scored 1 (agree) or 2
(disagree) on each question. External Political Efficacy (EPE) is measured by the sum of
the No Say and No Care items. Internal PoliticalEfficacy (IPE) is the sum of Vote Only and
Politics Complicated.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Participatory Consequences 403

In keeping with this line of research, external political efficacy (EPE)

herein refers to whether or not the individual perceives the political
system as potentially responsive to popular demand. Following Craig
(1979), I consider this belief as conceptually distinct from - though
empirically related to - political trust.7 Internal political efficacy (IPE)
refers to the individual's perception of his or her own competence as a
political actor, quite apart from his/her evaluations of the political system.
Of course, the dimensional characteristics of political efficacy have not
gone unnoticed (Coleman and Davis 1976; Farah, Barnes, and Heunks
1979; House and Mason 1975; McPherson, Welch, and Clark 1977;
Shingles 1978), but there has been little further investigation of the
behavioral correlates of the two components. The following analysis re-
veals highly suggestive relationships between these measures of internal
and external political efficacy and the five modes of participation.

THE ANALYSIS

To assess the participatory effects of different combinations of

nal political efficacy (IPE) and external political efficacy (EPE), th
lowing regression equation was estimated for each of the five mo
activity:
Mode of Participation = bo + bl (EDUC) + b2 (low IPE/high EPE)
+ b3 (high IPE/ low EPE) + b4 (high IPE/high EPE)
The different attitudinal combinations are expressed as dummy variables,
which were created to summarize the levels of IPE and EPE for each
respondent.8 Individuals scoring low on both variables (low IPE/low
are the excluded category. Their level of participation is estimated b
intercept (bo). The coefficients b2, b3, and b4, therefore, estimate the le
of participation for respondents in each attitudinal category, relat
the intercept term.
Level of education (EDUC) is independently related to all the mo
of participation, and its effects are controlled in the analysis.9 Of c
we are assuming that the effects of the attitudinal variables are inv

7Craig argues that political trust, unlike external efficacy, taps "the anticipated qua
government outputs," not "the degree to which an individual perceives his po
actions as being (potentially) successful." This distinction hinges on the intriguin
that, for political trust, the question of "individual influence is not strictly rel
theoretically," since trust "refers to government action perceived as being more
public interest than as a product of popular demand" (1979: 229). Framed in this
political trust connotes a species of belief more diffuse and less volatile than ex
political efficacy.
8 Each respondent was assigned to one of four mutually exclusive categories, which
created by dichotomizing EPE and IPE at their sample means. For each var
individuals below the mean were treated as "low"; on or above the mean as "h
9 Education (EDUC) was measured by the highest of eight levels attained, ranging fro
grade-7 grades plus non-college training) to 8 (bachelor's degree or any adva
degree). To ease interpretation of the other coefficients, this variable was standa
(mean=0; standard deviation= 1).

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
404 Western Political Quarterly

across education levels.10 This assumption proved to be valid, with two

intriguing exceptions, which are discussed below.
Table 1 reports the estimates and statistics for the five models. Con-
sider first the behavior associated with holding "consistent" combinations
of attitudes. Predictably, respondents who harbor low assessments of
personal political competence (low IPE) and who view the system as
unresponsive (low EPE) withdraw from political activity. Individuals
scoring high on both variates, on the other hand, are virtually "complete
participators" in conventional politics. For example, at average levels of
education (EDUC = 0), these activists score at least a fifth of a standard
deviation (in the case of contacting, over a third of a standard deviation)
above the sample mean on the four conventional modes. However, their
propensity for protest activity (b = .079) does not differ significantly from
the politically estranged.

TABLE 1. FIVE MODES OF PARTICIPATION: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR

DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF IPE AND EPE, CONTROLLING FOR EDUCATION

low IPE/
low EPE low IPE/ high IPE/ high IPE/
EDUC (intercept) high EPE low EPE high EPE R2

Voting
b .181* -.147 .271* .112 .343* .080
(s. e. b) (.028) (.087) (.075) (.066)
Campaigning
b .203* -.177 .219* .258* .395* .091
(s. e. b) (.029) (.091) (.079) (.070)
Contacting
b .239* -.137 .051 .301* .495* .133
(s. e. b) (.029) (.090) (.078) (.069)
Communal
b .327* .052 .104 .071 .210* .120
(s. e. b) (.030) (.093) (.081) (.071)
Protest Approval
b .231* -.027 -.169 .210* .079 .077
(s. e. b) (.027) (.085) (.074) (.065)

*denotes significance at the .05 level.

N = 1404 for all models.

More interesting for present purposes are the patterns of particip

tion associated with the "inconsistent" configurations of belief. As earl
analyses suggest, inefficacious individuals who nonetheless perceiv
responsive political world are likely to express their allegiance throug
ritualistic or symbolic participation (Milbrath and Goel 1977: 69-7
Here we find that these individuals engage in the traditional electora

0 Shingles (1981: 80-81) argues that the relationship between political attitudes and part
pation should vary, depending upon whether or not the individual has "prior motiv
tions to participate," such as higher education. This possibility is examined below.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Participatory Consequences 405

modes, especially voting (b = .271). Moreover, the relevant coefficient for

protest approval (b = -.169), though not statistically significant, indicates
the lowest propensity for unconventional participation of all the attitude
groups.
When high internal political efficacy is combined with low external
political efficacy, by contrast, the potential for nonconformist participa-
tion is optimal (b = .210). This finding is consistent with previously cited
analyses of Gamson's hypothesis. However, the important point is that the
cynical combination of high IPE and low EPE is also associated with robust
levels of high initiative conventional behavior. To be sure, these individuals
eschew voting (b = .112), as previous research has shown (Hawkins et al.
1971; Fraser 1970). But they apparently prefer modes of influence more
closely connected with the political process: campaigning, and especially
contacting. This finding clearly implies that politically competent, mis-
trusting individuals do not view political action as a simple choice between
traditional allegiant participation (voting) and extremist behavior.
Rather, they recognize - and engage in - a broader range of participat-
ory alternatives.

A FURTHER OBSERVATION

It is important to report, however, that the choice between voting

protest appears to be more clearly structured by political attitudes
those with lower education than at higher educational levels. For th
two activities the effects of the attitudinal combinations were found to
vary, though no differential effects were discovered for the three high
initiative conventional modes." Table 2 reports the coefficients for voting
and protest approval, at low and high levels of education.
Certain of these patterns recall those of Table 1. For voting, the
mobilizing effect of high IPE/high EPE is essentially the same at both
levels. For protesting, the cynical combination of high IPE/low EPE is
associated with similar increases in the rate of approval. However, there
are systematic and revealing differences here. Those with more education
are more prone toward both forms of participation, despite their beliefs.

"To determine whether the effects of different combinations of IPE and EPE vary by
educational level, the sample was divided at its mean on the education varible: "low" is
below the mean; "high" is on or above the mean. The data were then reanalyzed by
estimating the coefficients for the attitudinal dummies at each level of education. Under
these circumstances a t-statistic can test for differences between coefficients for the same
variable:
bhigh EDUC - blow EDUC
t = with (m + n - k - 1) d. f.,

/var(bhigh EDUC) + var(blow EDUC)

where m = size of high EDUC subsample

number of independent variables. Since w
direction of the differences between the
appropriate. For campaigning, contacting
attitudinal combinations were found to be
The coefficients for voting and protest ap

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
406 Western Political Quarterly

TABLE 2. VOTING AND PROTEST APPROVAL: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR

DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF IPE AND EPE, AT HIGH AND LOW LEVELS OF EDUCATION

low IPE/
lou EPE low IPEI high IPEI high IPEI
(intercept) high EPE low EPE high EPE

Voting
High EDUC
b -.061 .106 .257* .361*
(s. e. b) (.091) (.080) (.064)
Low EDUC
b -.392 .571* -.118 .374*
(s. e. b) (.171) (.145) (.152)
t-statistic -2.471** 2.282** -.079

Protest Approval
High EDUC
b -.131 -.160 .281* .218*
(s.e. b) (.119) (.104) (.083)
Low EDUC
b -.446 -.071 .246* -.025
(s.e. b) (.122) (.103) (.109)
t-statistic .522 .236 1.763**

*denotes significance at the .

**denotes significant differe
N = 892 for High education
N = 512 for Low education

In fact, high levels of internal political efficacy appear to be pivotal for t

group, since the politically competent are more likely to approv
protest - and to vote - regardless of their assessments of system resp
siveness. For those with less education, by contrast, the specific comb
tions of internal and external political efficacy obviously play a m
discriminating role. Indeed, the less educated are actually more likel
vote if they harbor "allegiant" beliefs (low IPE/high EPE) than are t
more educated counterparts (b = .571). And, unlike respondents w
more education, they approve of protest at significant levels only if
external political efficacy is combined with high internal efficacy (
.246). Apparently, for individuals who are already motivated to part
pate (by virtue of higher education), the level of external political effi
is a less important mobilizing influence than for individuals with less
motivation (Shingles 1981: 79-80).

IMPLICATIONS

This brief analysis indicates that an increase in cynical perceptions o

the political system does not necessarily imply an increased potential f
extremist behavior. It may, however, imply a change in patterns of co
ventional participant activity. We know from previous research t
aggregate levels of compaigning and (less conclusively) contacting

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Participatory Consequences 407

increasing among the electorate, even as turnouts are declining (Brody

1978; Rosenau 1974; Verba and Nie 1972: 252). In fact, as much as
one-half of the decline in presidential turnouts between 1960 and 1980
may be attributed to the erosion of external political efficacy (Abramson
and Aldrich 1982: 512). The present analysis points toward some motiva-
tional correlates of this change. Here we find that politically competent,
cynical individuals favor high initiative modes of influence - campaign-
ing and contacting, as well as protest behavior.
Previous tests of Gamson's hypothesis generally have focused too
narrowly on the distinction between allegiant participation (usually vot-
ing) and nonconformist action (rioting, protesting), and they have missed
the patterns of conventional behavior reported here. It is interesting,
however, that the only education-related differences emerged for these
two dissimilar modes. For those with less education, the "inconsistent"
combinations of belief are associated with remarkably distinct activities:
high absolute levels of voting (but low rates of protest approval) for the
"allegiant"; an enhanced propensity for protest (but low turnouts) among
the "cynical." Thus, for these two forms of participation, future investiga-
tions should find the lower strata to be more responsive to individual-level
changes in internal and external political efficacy.

REFERENCES

Aberbach, Joel D. 1969. "Alienation and Political Behavior." Ameri

Science Review 63: 86-99.

Abramson, Paul R. 1977. The Political Socialization qf Black Americans. New Y

Free Press.

and John H. Aldrich. 1982. "The Decline of Electoral Participation

America." American Political Science Review 76 (3): 502-21.
.and Ada W. Finifter. 1981. "On the Meaning of Political Trust: Evidenc
from New Items Introduced in 1978." American Journal of Political Science 2
297-307.

Abravenal, Martin D., and Ronald J. Busch. 1975. "Political Competence, Political
Trust, and the Action Orientations of University Students."Journal of Politics
37 (1): 57-82.
Balch, George I. 1974. "Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept of
'Sense of Political Efficacy'." Political Methodology 1: 1-43.
Brody, Richard A. 1978. "The Puzzle of Participation in America." In Anthony
King, ed., The New American Political System, pp. 287-324. Washington, D. C.:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Citrin,Jack. 1974. "Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government."
American Political Science Review 68: 973-88.
Coleman, Kenneth M., and Charles L. Davis. 1976. "The Structural Context of
Politics and Dimensions of Regime Performance: Their Importance for the
Comparative Study of Political Efficacy." Comparative Political Studies 9: 189-
206.

Converse, Philip E. 1972. "Change in the American Electorate." In Angus

Campbell and Converse, eds., The Human Meaning of Social Change, pp. 263-
337. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
408 Western Political Quarterly

Craig, Stephen C. 1980. "The Mobilization of Political Discontent." Political Be-

havior 2 (2): 189-209.
. 1979. "Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve a
Lingering Conceptual Dilemma." American Politics Quarterly 7 (2): 225-39.
. and Michael A. Maggiotto. 1981. "Political Discontent and Political Ac-
tion." Journal of Politics 43: 514-22.
Danigelis, Nicholas L. 1982. "Race, Class, and Political Involvement in the U.S."
Social Forces 61 (2): 532-50.
Farah, Barbara G., Samuel H. Barnes, and Felix Heunks. 1979. "Political Dissatis-
faction." In Barnes and Max Kaase, eds., Political Action, chap. 14. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Finifter, Ada W. 1970. "Dimensions of Political Alienation." American Political
Science Review 64: 389-410.

Fraser,John. 1970. "The Mistrustful-Efficacious Hypothesis and Political Par

pation."Journal o' Politics 32: 444-49.
Gamson, William A. 1968. Power and Discontent. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Pr
Hart, Vivien. 1978. Distrust and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer
Press.

Hawkins, Brett W., Vincent L. Marando, and George A. Taylor. 1971. "Efficacy,
Mistrust and Political Participation: Findings from Additional Data and Indi-
cators."Journal oJ Politics 33: 1130-36.
House, James S., and William M. Mason. 1975. "Political Alienation in America:
1952-1966." American Sociological Review 40: 123-47.
McPherson,J. Miller, Susan Welch, and Cal Clark. 1977. "Stability and Reliability
of Political Efficacy: Using Path Analysis to Test Alternative Models." American
Political Science ReviewP 71: 509-21.

Milbrath, Lester W., and M. L. Goel. 1977. Political Participation. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Miller, Arthur H. 1974a. "Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964-1970."
American Political Science Reviewz 68: 951-72.

. 1974b. "Rejoinder to 'Comment' by Jack Citrin: Political Discontent or

Ritualism?" American Political Science Review 68: 989-1001.

. and Warren E. Miller. 1975. "Issues, Candidates and Partisan Divisions in

the 1972 American Presidential Election." BritishJournal of Political Science 5:
393-434.

Miller, Philip L. 1982. "The Impact of Organizational Activity on Black Polit

Participation." Social Science Quarterly 62 (1): 83-98.
Muller, Edward N. 1977. "Behavioral Correlates of Political Support." Americ
Political Science Review 71: 454-67.

1972. "A Partial Test of a Theory of Potential for Political Violenc

American Political Science Review 66: 928-59.

Paige, Jeffrey M. 1971. "Political Orientation and Riot Participation." American

Sociological Review 36: 810-20.
Rosenau, James N. 1974. Citizenship Between Elections. New York: Free Press.
Seligson, Mitchell A. 1980. "Trust, Efficacy and Modes of Political Participation: A
Study of Costa Rican Peasants." British Journal of Political Science 10: 75-98.
Shingles, Richard D. 1981. "Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The
Missing Link." American Political Science Review 75: 76-91.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Participatory Consequences 409

1978. "Internal and External Control as Two Separate Dimensions of

Political Efficacy: A Reformulation and Bi-Racial Comparison." Paper pre-
sented at the 1978 Midwest Political Science Association Meetings.
Sniderman, Paul M. 1981. A Question of Loyalty. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America. New York:
Harper and Row.
Watts, Meredith W. 1973. "Efficacy, Trust and Commitment to the Political
Process." Social Science Quarterly 54: 623-31.
Welch, Susan, and Philip Secret. 1981. "Sex, Race and Political Participation."
Western Political Quarterly 34 (1): 5-16.
Wright, James D. 1976. The Dissent of the Governed: Alienation and Democracy in
America. New York: Academic Press.

Zurcher, Louis A., andJ. Kenneth Monts. 1972. "Political Efficacy, Political Tr
and Anti-Pornography Crusading: A Research Note." Sociology and So
Research 56: 211-19.

This content downloaded from

132.174.251.250 on Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:33:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms