This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Can efficacy manipulation increase political participation?
An experimental study on actual and persuasory political efficacy
by
Jong Won Ha
Professor
Sun Moon University
&
Jong Hyuk Lee
Doctoral Student
S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
Contact:
Jong Hyuk Lee
S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
215 University Place
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
[log in to unmask]
Manuscript submitted to the Communication Theory & Methodology Division
of the 2005 AEJMC, San Antonio, TX
Can efficacy manipulation increase political participation?
An experimental study on actual and persuasory political efficacy
Abstract
This study examined the effect of two types of political efficacy –
actual efficacy and persuasory efficacy – on the intention to
participate in politics. Compared to the actual political efficacy,
persuasory political efficacy is a manipulated perception of efficacy
through evaluative feedback. A 2 (high/low actual efficacy) * 2
(high/low persuasory efficacy) experiment was designed and the
intention of six different types of political participation were
measured. 221 university students participated in this experiment.
There were several findings: first, overall actual political efficacy
has a predominant effect on political participation; second,
persuasory efficacy has an effect on online participation rather than
offline participation; third, unconventional political participation
showed the results contradictory to those of conventional
participation. The possible use of persuasory efficacy in boosting
the political participation of those with low actual efficacy was discussed.
It is said that democracy is the form of government in which the
people govern, either through elected representatives or more direct
methods such as referendum and assemblies. Even in its representative
form, the ability of citizens to express their political views is a
fundamental principal. Such expression can take place in a variety of
ways, including voting, interest-group membership, opinion directed
toward elected officials, and in general, civic debate (Fereber,
Foltz and Pugliese, 2005, p. 85). However, the world of politics is
not enough near and open to all the people. It is not certain whether
widespread participation can be accomplished for its ideal goal.
There are two kinds of elements which have an influence on political
participation in a society: structural elements and individual
elements. The former includes the level of its modernization,
political system and activities of political organizations. On the
other hand, the latter comprises cognitive abilities, socioeconomic
status, political interest and motivational element that an
individual has (Verba & Nie, 1972). Especially such individual
differences can make individual's political participation unequally
and discriminately.
Political efficacy, an individual's actual belief that he or she
can have an influence on political system, can be regarded as
comprehensive concept of individual elements to affect political
participation. In general, it is agreed that political efficacy is
greater for individuals with high education, high income, high
occupational status, and male, namely those who are already
politically well connected. However, this belief is changeable over
time, over tasks, or over counterparts. Especially, persuasion can
boost or decrease an individual's perceived efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
It is necessary to examine whether this kind of efficacy can be
really stimulated and influence individual's political activities.
Communication technologies have repeatedly been connected to the
idea of improving democratic government and providing a venue for
further participation in public life. Recently the Internet and World
Wide Web have joined the earlier innovations, notably television,
that have been forecast as means to fundamentally alter the scope and
nature of public participation (Fereber, Foltz and Pugliese, 2005).
The Internet is more advantageous than any other media in low cost,
ease of use and broad diffusion possibilities. It makes people
participate in politics easier and more convenient. While
acknowledging the democratic potential of the Internet, however, the
question remains as to whether the Internet mobilizes or demobilizes
citizens (Weber, Loumakis and Bergman, 2003). We should examine if
the Internet can really provide an opportunity to participate in
public sphere for political minorities in particular, including
people with low political efficacy.
Irrespective of the East and the West, younger generation generally
tends to engage politics at a much lower level compared to older
citizens: they are less likely to vote and participate in other
political activities and have lower level of traditional political
resources (Putnam, 2000; Kim, 1999: Hong, 2003). But political
activity in the young, one of the political minorities is a social
phenomenon and like other social features of a complex society, it is
constantly changing (Hess, 1971). One of the most influential factors
may be the Internet. The younger generation can use Internet more
than any other age group (More than 80% of those 30 and younger
report access to the Internet compared to only 30% of those 65 and
older in the US; Krueger, 2002). In Korea, the Internet has bloomed
flowers of citizen participatory journalism, which can change
politics. One of the backgrounds is its superior Internet
infrastructure to most other countries including America. There is
over 75% broadband penetration that makes multimedia, always-on
service and interactive news service possible. But the most important
reason is that Korea has a young, active and reform-minded generation
to be ready to participate (Oh, 2004). In this context, Korea is very
useful case to examine the new pattern of political participation
through Internet by the young people who have been regarded as the
indifferent to politics for a long time.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the usefulness of the
concept of political efficacy as a way of explaining the development
of political participation in the young people under the new age of
the Internet.
Literature Review
Political efficacy and persuasory efficacy
Political efficacy is defined as "the feeling that individual
political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political
process, i.e., that it is worth while to perform one's civic duties"
(Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954, p.187). As Campbell et al. (1954)
pointed out, this definition implies that individuals can feel that
political change is possible and play a part in bringing about this
change. Thus, the individual with high level of political efficacy
tend to think that he or she can have some effect on political system
or process. Hess (1971) elaborated this concept of political efficacy
by proposing three components of political efficacy: trust in the
system and its representatives, confidence that one can manipulate
and deal with the system, and belief that one can coerce or force the
system to put out a response.
This construct of political efficacy has two dimensions in general.
Building on the work of Lane (1959), researchers often separated
political efficacy into two dimensions: internal efficacy and
external efficacy. Internal efficacy refers to a belief about one's
own competence to understand and participate in politics effectively
whereas external efficacy means the beliefs about the responsiveness
of political or governmental authorities to individuals' demands
(Niemi, Craig, & Mattei, 1991; Balch, 1974; Converse, 1972). For
example, if an individual think that he or she can effectively
influence political system and the political system response
effectively to his or her demand, this individual has a high level of
internal and external political efficacy. Furthermore, the internal
efficacy is conceived of as a mixture of understanding and
participating (Craig, Niemi, & Silver, 1990; Niemi, Craig, & Mattei,
1991). The external efficacy is also called system-based efficacy
(Shingles, 1981). This distinction between internal and external
efficacy is useful because it helps explain why some people who are
generally cynical about political system can be politically active
under certain circumstances (Newhagen, 1994). Whether internal or
external efficacy, it is generally agreed that political efficacy is
greater for individuals with high education, high income, and high
occupational status. Also, White and male tend to show higher
political efficacy than African American and female (Hess, 1971).
The political efficacy that many scholars are interested in is an
individual's actual belief that he or she can have an influence on
political system. However, this belief is changeable over time, over
tasks, or over counterparts. Especially, persuasion can boost or
decrease an individual's perceived efficacy.
According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy beliefs are constructed
from four major sources of information: enactive mastery experience,
vicarious experience, persuasion, and psychological states from which
people judge their capability. For the persuasion, Bandura (1997) explained:
"Persuasion serves as a further means of strengthening people's
beliefs that they possess the capabilities to achieve what they seek…
People who are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities
to master given tasks are likely to mobilize greater effort and
sustain it … Persuasory efficacy attributions, therefore, have their
greatest impact on people who have some reason to believe that they
can produce effects through their actions" (p. 101).
This persuasory efficacy information often takes a form of evaluative
feedback given to performance and it can boost or undermine a sense
of efficacy an individual actually has (Schunk, 1982; Schunk & Cox,
1986) Jourden's (1991) experimental study shows how this persuasory
efficacy can be manipulated and how this persuasory efficacy
influences individual's performance. After subjects finished certain
organizational task, one group of subjects received a complimentary
feedback saying that their works are close to a desired standard
whereas the other group received a contrary feedback saying that
their works are far from the desired standard. The former group which
is persuaded toward a high level of self-efficacy showed a better
performance in the subsequent tasks than the latter group which is
persuaded toward a low level of self-efficacy.
Bandura (1997) also addressed that persuasion can be a useful way to
promote self-efficacy and a skilled efficacy builder should not only
cultivates people's beliefs in their capabilities but also structures
activities for them in order to bring success and avoid repeated failure.
Political Participation and Political Efficacy
Political participation is defined as those activities of citizens
that attempt to influence the structure of government, the selection
of government authorities, or the policies of government (Verba and
Nie, 1972; Conway, 1991). But there is little agreement in its
meaning and range, which means that political participation is a
multiple dimensional construct and many studies concerning political
participation have use different definitions and measurements of
participation. Conway (1991, p.13) adopted a broad definition
including both passive and active forms of political participation.
The common definition of political participation emphasizes active
involvement that is instrumental or goal-oriented like voting,
working for specific politician or writing to authorities. However,
political participation also includes passive kinds of involvement,
such as attending ceremonial or supportive activities, or paying
attention to what is happening in the government or in politics.
According to his definition, information seeking through mass media,
which is generally regarded as just precedent variable to political
participation, can be a sort of political participation. Therefore
political definition can be also divided as behavioral dimension and
cognitive dimension.
Many studies explored the relationship between political efficacy and
political participation. They found that the political efficacy is an
important factor to predict political participation. Voting behavior
was found to be influenced by the political efficacy (Abramson &
Aldrich, 1982; Acock, Clarke & Stewart, 1985; Finkel, 1985; Stewart,
Kornberg, Clarke, & Acock, 1992), and other types of political
participations including contacting officials turned out to be
positively correlated with the level of political efficacy
(Hirlinger, 1992; Sharp, 1984; Verba & Nie, 1972; Vedlitz & Veblen,
1980; Milbrath, 1965; Peterson, 1990; Zimmerman & Rapport, 1988).
Finkel and Muller's (1998) panel study not only confirmed the causal
relationship between political efficacy and political participation
but also found that the perception of political efficacy could lead
to future political behavior. One of the applications of the
political efficacy's effect on political participation is Gamson
theory. Based on two independent constructs – political efficacy and
political trust -, Gamson (1968) argued that "A combination of high
sense of political efficacy and low political trust is the optimum
combination for mobilization" (Gamson, 1968, p. 48).
In Korea, it is found that political efficacy had impact on voting
participation (Kim and Kim, 2004), online signing and site visiting
(Park & Joo, 2004), and political participation over all generations
(Kang, 2004). It is agreed by most studies that the level of
political efficacy is positively associates with the level of
political participation.
Another important view on political participation is the distinction
among the many different forms of activity in which political
mobilization can result. Because it seems unlikely that the same
circumstances that encourage voting, campaign activity, and other
'conventional/tradititional' forms of political participation would
also lead to demonstrations, riots, and other
'unconventional/untraditional' types of activity (Sigelman and
Feldman, 1983). It is very important and necessary to examine what
makes people choose these two kinds of different means of political
participation.
Individuals with strong subjective feelings of efficacy have been
found to be more likely to vote, to take an interest in political
campaigns and to participate in party activities (Milbraith, 1965;
Paige, 1971, p. 310 recited). On the contrary, alienated or apathetic
individuals who lack such feelings of efficacy are less inclined to
participate all forms of conventional politics and are said to be
particularly susceptible to radical or revolutionary appeals (Bell,
1964; Kornhauser, 1959; Lipset, 1960; Ransford, 1968; Paige, 1971, p.
310 recited). Introducing the concept of 'process commitment', the
predisposition to participate within the given system, Watts (1973)
insisted that especially, those with low personal political efficacy
were more likely to engage non-traditional political behavior.
Craig (1979) devised the 'extra-system orientation' (EXTRA) as a
behavioral disposition, which meant the degree to which an individual
is inclined to become involved in or approve of influence attempts
outside normal political channels. He concluded that especially
political trust was the strongest element of EXTRA. It was
reconfirmed in Craig and Maggiotto (1981), in which political
discontent was a much stronger determinant of EXTRA among the
internally efficacious than was true for those who were low in
internal efficacy. In those with low internal efficacy, there is no
evidence of factors leading to EXRA.
Pollock (1983) examined the effect of political efficacy on political
participation in two dimensions of political participation. He found
that high internal and external political efficacy were associated
with a high level of participation in conventional participation.
However, in unconventional participation, there was no difference in
the level of participation between the people with high and low
political efficacy.
It is not certain yet what make people choose unconventional
political participation instead of means within given system. We
should pay attention to what is happening in this political process.
Internet and Political Participation
For users, the Internet provides unique information and communication
capacities. Control over information may potentially become freed
from media entities such as newspapers, television networks, and
radio stations, enabling individuals to choose what information to
access and when to access it. The Internet also increases
communication flexibility while reducing communication costs.
(Krueger, 2002, pp. 476-477). Internet as a means of political
participation is special in that Internet users can not only search
information but also express their own opinion in the same space. In
the Internet, the boundaries between passive and active participation
are increasingly blurred and cognitive and behavioral participation
can be done at the same time.
Could the introduction of the Internet in political participation
change the established patters of politics? There are two different
perspectives regarding the effects of Internet on the political
process: reinforcement perspective and mobilization perspective.
Reinforcement argument suggests that Internet resources on politics
will be used primarily to reinforce those citizens who are already
politically well connected, educated, and motivated via traditional
channels, like mass media, political actors, and grassroots activist
(Whang, 2001).
While acknowledging the democratic potential of the Internet that
increased communication capacity may raise the degree of political
participation in general. (Norris, 1999; Williams, 1997; Bimber,
1998), Internet would only serve to reinforce existing inequality.
Men, Whites and those in higher socioeconomic group access the
Internet at the highest rates (Anderson, Bikson, Law & Mitchell,
1995; Bimber, 2000; Krueger, 2002, p. 478 recited). Davis (1999)
acknowledged that the Internet has changed the shape of political
processes and institutions, but also observed that traditional
political actors are adapting to it. Whang (2001) analyzed the use of
media and Internet during the 16th General Election in Korea, 2000,
and confirmed the reinforcement perspective that increased
communication and information flow brought by the Internet will not
change the basic logic of established political participation. The
Internet, therefore, will be overtaken by players who have previously
dominated other mass media. Because of the higher socioeconomic
profile of Internet users, the ability of the Internet to expand
political participation to new individuals may be doubted, and it
merely reinforces the long-established patterns of participatory inequality.
Another positive idea, mobilization or expansionist argument holds
that the Internet may serve to inform, organize and engage those that
are currently marginalized from existing political system – such as
the younger generation, political minorities – so that this group
will eventually take part in the political process. This idea assumes
the causal relationship between the communication capacity and
political activity.
Dyson et al. (1994) argued that the Web will allow citizens to
supplant current government structures with a more direct
participatory experience. Grossman (1995) predicts the Internet will
transform the political participation of ordinary citizens. Pointing
that most studies from the reinforcement perspective take a decidedly
static, Krueger (2002) insisted that the growth of Internet should be
taken into account. Given equalized access, she concluded that the
Internet shows genuine potential to bring new individuals into the
political process. Examining the influence of alternative online news
sites upon the 16th presidential election campaign in Korea, 2003,
Park and Joo (2004) showed that the use of alternative online news
sites was significantly related to the online opinion formation,
political participation, and vote-related activities in offline and
the active Internet user who participates in online political
activities could be a new opinion leader.
Speaking generally, the Internet still appears to exacerbate the
socioeconomic bias already exhibited by civic and political
participation despite of its technological ability that it can make
it easier for citizens to obtain political information. Nevertheless,
we shouldn't overlook the possibility of Internet to change political
circumstances. Cyber space can make an access of political process
open to the minorities who would otherwise have little opportunities
in real world. When online, those with lower income tend to take
better advantage of the unique participatory possibilities of the
medium. With the exception of free time, those with higher
traditional resources (money and skills) tend to participate less,
everything else equal (Krueger, 2002). It was found that younger
adults (18~35) and African Americans used the nontraditional
opportunity of political participation using the Internet for
political discussion more than older and White respondents,
respectively (Wilhelm, 1998). The Internet has potential to act as an
important political outlet for minorities.
This study examined two kinds of political efficacy - actual efficacy
and persuasory efficacy - in relation to political participation by
both offline and online. It is agreed by many previous studies that
high actual political efficacy tends to result in higher level of
political participation than low actual political efficacy. As
discussed earlier, high persuasory political efficacy is also likely
to bring out greater effort to participate in politics than low
persuasory political efficacy. In addition, the two kinds of
political efficacy will have an interaction effect on political
participation. Based on these assumptions, the following hypotheses
are proposed:
H1: (main effect of actual political efficacy) People with high
actual political efficacy will show higher level of intention to
participate in politics than people with low actual political efficacy.
H2: (main effect of persuasory political efficacy) People with high
persuasory political efficacy will show higher level of intention to
participate in politics than people with low persuasory political efficacy.
H3: (interaction) There will be an interaction between actual
political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy on the intention
to participate in politics.
This hypothesis will be examined repeatedly for six different types
of intention of political participations: offline conventional
participation in general politics, offline conventional participation
in certain politicians or parties, offline unconventional
participation in politics, online conventional participation in
general politics, online conventional participation in certain
politicians or parties, and online unconventional participation in
politics. Thus, the following research question was raised:
RQ1: Is there any difference in the effect of actual and persuasory
political efficacy on the intention to participate in politics
according to different types of political participations?
Method
Design
To examine proposed hypothesis and research question, this study
conducted an online experiment. The independent variables are actual
political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy and the
dependent variable is political participation. Both actual and
persuasory political efficacy have two conditions – low and high.
Thus, this experiment has a 2 (low/high actual political efficacy) x
2 (low/high persuasory political efficacy) between subject design.
Participants
The participants in this experiment were students recruited from
three universities located in different areas in Korea. The youth
sampling might be useful to examine the some aspects of Internet
political participation. The students taking basic mass communication
classes were asked to participate in this experiment in an exchange
for extra-credit in the classes. A total of 221 students
participated. 56.8% were male and their average age was 22. Most of
them are freshmen (33.7%) and sophomore (27.9%). And more than half
of them (53.4%) reported they are in the middle class in terms of
social economic status.
Procedure
An online experiment was conducted in such a way that participants
received e-mails containing a web address that links them to the
experiment web site. This e-mail requesting to participate in an
experiment was distributed to students by their class instructors.
After accessing the experiment web site, participants were provided
an introductory explanation about the procedure of experiment and
asked to consent to participate in the experiment. By clicking START
button, participants began the experiment and continued to the last
page according to instructions shown in each page. Finally
participants saw a message saying thank-you for participation.
Independent variables and manipulations
For the actual political efficacy, participants were asked how much
they agree with the statements that are designed to assess the level
of individual's political efficacy. Nine statements were pulled out
from Craig, Niemi and Silver's (1990) NES (National Election Study)
pilot study that organized a number of political efficacy
measurements. Out of nine statements, five are about internal
political efficacy and four are about external political efficacy.
Participants answered each statement on the Likert scale. Table 1
shows individual statements and the statements' internal consistency
(measured by Crombach's alpha) to construct the political efficacy
variable. Only five internal efficacy statements were used because
the statements on external efficacy did not yield satisfactory point
of internal consistency. Based on the political efficacy scores
aggregated from five statement scores, high political efficacy group
and low efficacy group were divided at the median point of political
efficacy score.
For the persuasory political efficacy, an evaluative feedback about
the measured actual political efficacy was manipulated. Bandura
(1997) pointed out that the persuasion in the form of an evaluative
feedback can influence people's self-efficacy. After filling out the
actual political efficacy statements, participants were shown
manipulated analysis results indicating how strong political efficacy
they have compared to other participants. About half participants
with odd student numbers were shown a web page indicating they have
higher level of political efficacy compared to others while another
half with even student numbers were shown another web page indicating
they have lower level of political efficacy. In this way, the former
participants were assigned to a group with high persuasory political
efficacy while the latter participants were assigned to another group
with low persuasory political efficacy.
Measures
Six different indices of individual's intention to participate in
politics were adapted from Siegelman and Feldman (1983) and Krueger
(2002): offline conventional participation in general politics,
offline conventional participation in certain politicians or parties,
offline unconventional participation in politics, online conventional
participation in general politics, online conventional participation
in certain politicians or parties, online unconventional
participation in politics. Each measure of political participation
was constructed from multiple questionnaires. Table 1 shows those
questionnaires and their internal consistency to compose each measure.
Manipulation check
The manipulated variable, persuasory political efficacy, was checked
to see if the participants were persuaded as the manipulation
intended. After showing the participants manipulated feedback
messages indicating their level of political efficacy in comparison
with others, this experiment asked them if they agree with the result
of the manipulated feedback messages. Out of 221 participants, 35
responded they did not agree with the results. Thus, these
participants were excluded from the experiment analysis.
Result
As the result of an online experiment, the data of 169 participants
were analyzed excluding the participants who did not agree with the
efficacy manipulation and the participants with missing values in any
of the questionnaires. The descriptive statistics about each
questionnaire are shown in Table 1. For the actual political
efficacy, 96 participants who scored above the median of the
aggregated efficacy score were assigned to the high efficacy group
and 73 participants who scores below the median were assigned to the
low efficacy group. For the persuasory political efficacy, 85
participants who were persuaded to have high efficacy were assigned
to high efficacy group and 84 who were persuaded to have low efficacy
were assigned to low efficacy group. Two-way ANOVA with two
independent variables – actual political efficacy and persuasory
political efficacy – was conducted respectively for six types of
political participations. Tables 2 to 7 show the results of analyses
for all the types of participations.
For the offline conventional participation in general politics, only
main effect of actual political efficacy was found, which means that
high actual efficacy group had more intention to participate in
general politics than low actual efficacy group. Persuasory political
efficacy did not influence this type of political participation.
Interaction was not observed, either. Only H1 was supported in this case.
Offline conventional participation in certain politicians or parties
also shows the same result as the previous one. Only actual political
efficacy made significant difference in the intention of political
participation. H1 was supported.
For the offline unconventional participation in politics - the main
effects of actual efficacy and persuasory efficacy did not result in
any significance. However, the interaction between the two kinds of
political efficacy was found significantly. Figure 1 illustrates how
this interaction occurred. The analysis of simple effect shows that,
in low actual efficacy group, high persuasory political efficacy lead
to stronger intention of political participation than low persuasory
political efficacy (t = 2.31, p < .05) whereas, in the high actual
efficacy group, persuasory political efficacy did not make any
difference in the intention of political participation (t = .69,
n.s.). Only H3 was supported.
For online conventional participation in general politics, both
political efficacy showed significant effects on the intention of
political participation in such a way that high efficacy groups
revealed stronger intention of political participation than low
efficacy groups. Interaction was not observed. H1 and H2 were supported.
The online conventional participation in certain politicians or
parties showed a significant main effect of actual political
efficacy. High efficacy group turned out to have more intention of
political participation than low efficacy group. Only H1 was supported.
Lastly, the online unconventional participation in politics showed an
interesting result. The group with high persuasory political efficacy
revealed significantly weaker intention of political participation
than the group with low persuasory political efficacy. This is
contrary to the typical findings in which high efficacy people tend
to show high level of political participation than low efficacy
people. Anyway, no hypothesis was supported.
Table 8 illustrates together the results for six types of political
participations. Some patterns can be observed. First, overall, the
effect of actual political efficacy is predominant than persuasory
political efficacy. For four types of political participations, the
difference between high and low actual efficacy group were found
whereas the effect of persuasory efficacy were significant for only
two types of political participations. Second, online political
participation tends to be more subject to the persuasory political
efficacy than offline political participation. Significant difference
in the intention of political participation between high and low
persuasory efficacy groups was observed only for two types of online
participations. This implies that boosting or decreasing political
efficacy through persuasive feedbacks can influence online political
participation rather than offline participation. Third, compared to
conventional political participations, unconventional participations
brought unexpected results. For offline unconventional participation,
only interaction between two kinds of political efficacy was found
without any significant main effects of any political efficacy and,
for the online unconventional participation, high persuasory efficacy
group showed weaker intention of political participation than the low
persuasory efficacy group. Probably, the people who are persuaded as
having low political efficacy might have expressed their desire to
participate in politics more intensely through the Internet rather
than traditional offline channels.
Discussion and Conclusion
The effects of actual political efficacy and persuasory political
efficacy on the intention of political participation took the various
forms depending on the types of political participation. As for the
actual political efficacy, it is found that it can affect political
participation in general politics and specific politician, and over
offline and online both. This result is consistent with those of many
previous studies: voting behavior (Abramson & Aldrich, 1982; Acock,
Clarke & Stewart, 1985; Finkel, 1985; Stewart, Kornberg, Clarke, &
Acock, 1992), voting participation (Kim and Kim, 2004), contacting
officials (Hirlinger, 1992; Sharp, 1984; Verba & Nie, 1972; Vedlitz &
Veblen, 1980; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Milbrath, 1965; Peterson,
1990; Zimmerman & Rapport, 1988), future political behavior (Finkel
and Muller, 1998), online signing and site visiting (Park & Joo,
2004). It can be concluded that the level of political efficacy is
positively and strongly associated with the level of political participation.
Upon the unconventional political participation, however, the actual
political efficacy have little influence. We can have implication
from this result. Some researchers (Gamson, 1971; Hawkins et al.,
1971; Paige, 1971) argued that radical or revolutionary politics
cannot be understood as a result of general feelings of alienation or
apathy as indicated by a low political efficacy. Instead, it was
suggested that radical political action depended on a combination of
a storng sense of personal political competence combined with a deep
distrust on the political system. Even Siegelman and Feldman (1983)
insisted that political efficacy and distrust simply did little to
help explain unconventional political participation such as protest,
and proposed high levels of protest might depend on particular
combinations of factors rather than the simple cumulative effect of
these same factors. It is necessary to take other variables into
consideration for examining the unconventional political participation.
It is found that persuasory political efficacy doesn't have relation
with all the political participation in offline. It means that it is
difficult to persuade an individual and boost his sense of efficacy
to influence his performance in political sphere as Bandura's
argument (1997). A plausible reason for the relatively weak effect of
persuasory political efficacy may be that inconsistent situation
between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
might have interfered with the actual intention of political
participation. For example, participants who had low actual political
efficacy but were persuaded into high political efficacy group might
have been confuse in deciding their level of political participation
in the future. In this confusing situation, most participants might
have decided their intention of political participation based on
their actual political efficacy rather than their persuasory
political efficacy because they were more certain about their actual
efficacy than temporarily persuaded efficacy. Another reason may be
the context: its recognizable situation to others. People generally
tend to be so concerned about others' eyes that it is not easy to put
his idea into practice.
We can also see it in the case of online political participation. The
persuasory efficacy could explain some of the variance in online
conventional participation unlike offline. This result may be due to
be relatively easy to participate through the Internet compared to
offline political participation. As discussed above, the persuasory
political efficacy was not very effective in changing the intention
of political participation. However, the persuaded political efficacy
condition might have stimulated participants to change their
intention of political participation through the Internet, because
they may feel less pressure in online participation than offline
participation in that the Internet is easy to access and possibly
guarantees anonymous activities. But it showed limitation that it
didn't extend to more specific attitude to certain politicians or parties.
It is very interesting that the group with high persuasory political
efficacy reveals significantly weaker intention of online
unconventional participation than the group with low persuasory
political efficacy. This result could be interpreted as a kind of
reaction of minorities. Some studies (Bell, 1964; Kornhauser, 1959;
Lipset, 1960; Ransford, 1968) argued that alienated or apathetic
individuals of low of efficacy were particularly more susceptible to
radical or revolutionary appeals than all forms of conventional
politics. Rather than his own actual efficacy (not open to him), the
assigned efficacy to him (persuasory efficacy) could incite him to do
such unconventional activities. As mentioned above, however, he
preferred online to offline because of the fear to be become known.
In that respect, the Internet has potential to act as an important
political outlet for minorities, and to mobilize those who are
currently marginalized from existing political system (Dyson et al.,
1994; Grossman, 1995). The participants with low persuasory political
efficacy might have considered themselves as those who are
marginalized from current political system and decide to use the
Internet actively for political participation. In fact, it was found
that the young and the black in America used more the unconventional
opportunity of political participation using the Internet for
political discussion than older and White respondents, respectively
(Wilhelm, 1998). It will be an important task to examine how the
Internet can be employed as means of political activities by minorities.
There showed up only one interaction effect between actual efficacy
and persuasory efficacy for the offline unconventional participation
in politics, in which the main effects of actual efficacy and
persuasory efficacy did not result in any significance. The result
that low actual efficacy group, high persuasory political efficacy
lead to stronger intention of political participation than low
persuasory political efficacy shows a possibility of persuasory
efficacy, though weak. Through the fact that in the high actual
efficacy group, persuasory political efficacy did not make any
difference in the intention of political participation, it is
probable that it is easier to boost the sense of efficacy rather than
to retract it. But its performances were revealed in the sphere of
unconventional participation, which suggested the more radical
inclination of people with low political efficacy than those with
high political efficacy.
This study focused on two kinds of political efficacy – actual and
persuasory efficacy – to see how they influence the intention of
political participation. The introduction of new dimension of
political efficacy, the persuasory efficacy, may contribute to
expanding the boundary of studies on political participation.
However, there are more factors that may predict political
participation, such as political interest, political knowledge,
political ideology, and political trust. For future studies, it is
necessary to examine the effect of actual and persuasory political
efficacy in combination with these other variables to explain
political participation.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for political efficacy and
intention of political participation
Variables and questions
Mean
SD
N
Political efficacy a (_= .69)
- I feel that I could do as good as a job in public office as most
other people.
- Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person
like me can't really understand what's going on.
- I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important
political issues facing our country.
- I often don't feel sure of myself when talking with other people
about politics and government.
- I consider myself well-qualified to participate in politics.
2.77
2.64
2.38
2.51
2.37
.72
.64
.61
.70
.67
182
182
182
182
182
Offline conventional participation in general politics b
(_ = .74 )
- seek information about politics from mass media
- discuss politics with friends or colleagues
- participate in a collective activity to solve a public problem
- participate in a political rally
3.06
2.52
1.98
1.54
.71
.73
.82
.72
169
168
169
169
Offline conventional participation in certain politicians or parties
b (_ = .71)
- persuade friends to support a politician I support
- contact politicians or government officials in person, over the
phone, or by sending letters
- work or donate money for political candidates or political parties
1.49
1.35
1.32
.69
.59
.55
169
169
169
Offline unconventional participation in politics b (_ = .79)
- sign a petition that support or criticize a political issue
- participate in a campaign for boycotting newspaper subscription or
television watching
- participate in a rally that criticize politics
2.36
1.98
1.64
.90
.84
.81
168
169
169
Online conventional participation in general politics b
(_ = .70)
- seek political information on the Internet
- discuss politics in online discussion boards
- join online political communities as a member
3.01
2.25
1.58
.86
.93
.81
169
169
169
Online conventional participation in certain politicians or parties b (_ = .83)
- post a message that supports a politician or political party on an
online discussion board
- send an e-mail to a politician or government official
- join a politician's or political party's homepage or blogs as a member
- donate money to a politician or party using the Internet
1.52
1.42
1.39
1.27
.81
.69
.65
.60
169
169
169
168
Online unconventional participation in politics b (_ = .70)
- send e-mails in a group to a politician's or party's homepage I
dislike in order to break its public connection
- try to hack a politician's or party's homepage I dislike
1.21
1.10
.59
.39
169
169
a Responses were coded 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2
= disagree, 1 = strongly disagree.
b Responses were coded 4 = very often, 3 = often, 2= sometimes, 1 = never.
Table 2. Two-way analysis of variance of actual political efficacy
and persuasory political efficacy on offline conventional
participation in general politics
Main effects and interaction
Mean
SD
F
df
Sig.
Main effect of actual political efficacy
High
Low
2.40
2.12
.58
.47
9.73
1
p < .01
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
High
Low
2.35
2.20
.53
.58
1.80
1
n.s.
Interaction between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
High (AE) and High (PE)
High (AE) and Low (PE)
Low (AE) and High (PE)
Low (AE) and Low (PE)
2.44
2.35
2.20
2.06
.57
.60
.43
.52
.05
1
n.s.
Table 3. Two-way analysis of variance of actual political efficacy
and persuasory political efficacy on offline conventional
participation in certain politicians or parties
Main effects and interaction
Mean
SD
F
df
Sig.
Main effect of actual political efficacy
High
Low
1.49
1.26
.55
.35
9.29
1
p < .01
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
High
Low
1.41
1.37
.45
.52
.02
1
n.s.
Interaction between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
High (AE) and High (PE)
High (AE) and Low (PE)
Low (AE) and High (PE)
Low (AE) and Low (PE)
1.49
1.48
1.26
1.25
.50
.62
.32
.38
.01
1
n.s.
Table 4. Two-way analysis of variance of actual political efficacy
and persuasory political efficacy on offline unconventional
participation in politics
Main effects and interaction
Mean
SD
F
df
Sig.
Main effect of actual political efficacy
High
Low
2.08
1.88
.73
.67
2.66
1
n.s.
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
High
Low
2.05
1.93
.75
.68
1.39
1
n.s.
Interaction between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
High (AE) and High (PE)
High (AE) and Low (PE)
Low (AE) and High (PE)
Low (AE) and Low (PE)
2.03
2.13
2.08
1.72
.74
.72
.77
.58
4.50
1
p < .05
Table 5. Two-way analysis of variance of actual political efficacy
and persuasory political efficacy on online conventional
participation in general politics
Main effects and interaction
Mean
SD
F
df
Sig.
Main effect of actual political efficacy
High
Low
2.39
2.14
.69
.66
4.02
1
p < .05
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
High
Low
2.41
2.15
.66
.69
4.96
1
p < .05
Interaction between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
High (AE) and High (PE)
High (AE) and Low (PE)
Low (AE) and High (PE)
Low (AE) and Low (PE)
2.47
2.28
2.30
2.02
.65
.72
.66
.65
.17
1
n.s.
Table 6. Two-way analysis of variance of actual political efficacy
and persuasory political efficacy on online conventional
participation in certain politicians or parties
Main effects and interaction
Mean
SD
F
df
Sig.
Main effect of actual political efficacy
High
Low
1.50
1.27
.62
.43
6.66
1
p < .05
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
High
Low
1.42
1.38
.52
.60
.04
1
n.s.
Interaction between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
High (AE) and High (PE)
High (AE) and Low (PE)
Low (AE) and High (PE)
Low (AE) and Low (PE)
1.49
1.51
1.31
1.25
.55
.70
.44
.43
.25
1
n.s.
Table 7. Two-way analysis of variance of actual political efficacy
and persuasory political efficacy on online unconventional
participation in politics
Main effects and interaction
Mean
SD
F
df
Sig.
Main effect of actual political efficacy
High
Low
1.20
1.09
.54
.25
3.48
1
n.s.
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
High
Low
1.09
1.21
.33
.52
3.93
1
p < .05
Interaction between actual political efficacy and persuasory political efficacy
High (AE) and High (PE)
High (AE) and Low (PE)
Low (AE) and High (PE)
Low (AE) and Low (PE)
1.11
1.31
1.05
1.12
.38
.67
.20
.29
.89
1
n.s.
Actual and persuasory political efficacy
Table 8. Summary of effects of political efficacy on the intention of
political participation according to different types of participation
Offline political participation
Online political participation
Conventional
Unconventional
Conventional
Unconventional
General
Politics
Certain politician
General
Politics
Certain politician
Main effect of actual
political efficacy
Yes
(High> Low)
Yes
(High> Low)
No
Yes
(High> Low)
Yes
(High> Low)
No
Main effect of persuasory political efficacy
No
No
No
Yes (High> Low)
No
Yes
(High< Low)
Interaction
No
No
Yes
(refer to figure 1)
No
No
No
Actual and persuasory political efficacy
5
Figure 1. Interaction effect between actual political efficacy and
persuasory political efficacy on the intention of offline
unconventional political participation.
* Solid line = high persuasory political efficacy
Dotted line = low persuasory political efficacy
References
Abramson, P. R. & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral
participation in America. The American Political Science Review, 76, 502-521.
Acock, A., Clarke, H. D., & Stewart, M. C. (1985). A new model for
old measures: A covariance structure analysis of political efficacy.
Journal of Politics, 47, 1062-1084.
Anderson, R., Bikson, T., Law, S. A. and Mitchell, B. (1995).
Universal access to e-mail: Feasibility and societal implications.
Santa Monica: RAND.
Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The
concept "sense of political efficacy." Political Methodology, 1, 1-43.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman and Co.
Bell, D. (1964). The Radical right. New York: Double Day.
Bimber, B. (1998). Toward an empirical map of political participation
on the Internet. paper presented at the American Political Science
Association conference, Boston, PA.
Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social
Science Quarterly, 81, 868-867.
Campbell, A., Guirin, G., & Miller, W. (1954). The voter decides.
Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A.
Campbell and P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social
change (pp. 263-337). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Conway, M. M. (1991). Political participation in the United States
(2nd ed.) Washington, DC: CQ press.
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.
Craig, Stephen C. (1979). Efficacy, trust, and political behavior: An
attempt to resolve a lingering conceptual dilemma, American Politics
Quarterly, 7(2): 225-239.
Craig, S. C. & Maggiotto, M. A. (1981). Political discontent and
political action. Journal of Politics, 43, 514-522.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the
American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dyson, E., Gilder, G., Keyworth, G., & Toffler, A. (1994). Cyberspace
and the American dream: A Magna Carta for the knowledge age.
http://www.pff.org/position.html.
Ferber, P., Foltz, F., & Pugliese, R. (2005). The Internet and Public
Participation: State Legislature Web Sites and the Many Definitions
of Interactivity , Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 85-93.
Finkel, S. E. & Muller, E. N. (1998). Rational choice and the
dynamics of collective political action: Evaluating alternative
models with panel data. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 37-49.
Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and
political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political
Science, 29, 891-913.
Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Grossman, L. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping American
democracy in the information age. New York: Viking.
Hess, R. D. (1971). The acquisition of feelings of political efficacy
in pre-adults. In A. Gilbert & Soule, J. W. (Eds.), Social Psychology
and political behavior: Problems and prospects (pp. 58-78).
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Hirlinger, M. W. (1992). Citizen-initiated contacting of local
government officials: A multivariate explanation. The Journal of
Politics, 54, 553-564.
Hong, D, Y. (2003). The study on generation in Korean society.
History Critic, 64, 150-191
Hwang, Y. S. (2001). An exploratory study of the relationship between
internet uses of political participation, Korean Journal of
Journalism and Communication Studies, 5(3), 421-456.
Jourden, F. (1991). The influence of feedback framing on the
self-regulatory mechanisms governing complex decision making.
Dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Kang, N. W. (2004). Effect of internet and mass media uses on
citizens' participation: Generational differences. Korean Journal of
Journalism and Communication Studies, 48(3), 116-143.
Kim, M. K. and Kim. K. K. (2004). The use and evaluation of media in
voters of university students: Based on the results of survey in the
17th general election. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication
Studies, 18(3): 134-174.
Kim, Y. K. (1999). Empirical study on generation in politics in
Korea. Trend and Prospect, 41, 119-133.
Kornhouser, W. (1959). The politics of mass society. New York: Free Press.
Krueger, Brian S. (2002). Assessing the potential of internet
political participation in the United States: A resource approach.
American Politics Research, 30(5): 476-498.
Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: Why and how people get involved
in politics. New York: Free Press.
Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man. New York: Anchor.
Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do
people get involved in politics? Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.
Newhagen, J. E. (1994). Self-efficacy and call-in political
television show case. Communication Research, 21(3), 366-379.
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. G., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal
political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American
Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.
Norris, P. (1999). Who surfs? New technology, old voters and virtual
democracy in the 1996 and 1998 US elections. Paper presented at the
American political Science Association conference, Atlanta, GA.
Oh, Y. H. (2004). Korean netizens change journalism and politics: The
marriage of democracy and technology, Berkman Center for Internet &
Society Forum.
Paige, Jeffery M. (1971). Political participation and riot
participation, American sociological Review, 36, 810-820.
Park, S. H. & Joo, C. M. (2004). The influence of alternative online
news sites during the 16th presidential election campaign: Online
political activities and voting behavior of Ohmynews users, Korean
Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 48(5), 214-242.
Peterson, S. A. (1990). Political behavior: Patterns in everyday
life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ransford, H. E. (1968). Isolation, powerlessness, and violence: A
study of attitudes and participation in the Watts riot." American
Journal of Sociology, 73, 581-591.
Schunk, D. H. & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and
attributional feedback with learning disabled students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78, 201-209.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effect of effort attributional feedback on
children's perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 548-556.
Sharp, E. B. (1984). Citizen demand making in the urban context.
American Journal of Political Science, 28, 654-670.
Shingles, R. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation:
The missing link. American Political Science Review, 75, 76-91.
Lee, S. & Stanley, F (1983). Efficacy, mistrust and political
mobilization: A cross-national analysis. Comparative Political
Studies, 16(1): 118-143.
Woody, S. J. & Christoper, W. (2004). The effects of Internet use on
political participation: Evidence from an agency online discussion
forum, Administration & Society, 36(5), 503-527.
Stewart, M. C., Kornberg, A., Clarke, H. D., & Acock, A. (1992).
Arenas and attitudes: A note on political efficacy in a federal
system. The Journal of Politics, 54, 179-196.
Vedlitz, A. & Veblen, E. P. (1980). Voting and contacting: Two forms
of political participation in a suburban community. Urban Affairs
Quarterly, 16, 31-48.
Verba, S. & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political
democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row.
Watts, M. W. (1973). Efficacy, trust, and commitment to the political
process, Social Science Quarterly, 54: 623-631.
Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates
and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and mass public,
Social Science Computer Review, 21(1): 26-42.
Wilhelm, A. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is
on-line political discussion? Information, Communication and Society,
1(3), 313-338.
Williams, P. (1998). How the Internet is being used by political
organization: Promises, problem and pointers. Research Paper
1997-1998. http://www.aph.gov. au/library/pubs/rp/1997-98/98rp11.htm.
Zimmerman, M. A. & Rapport, J. (1988). Citizen participation,
perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 16, 725-750.
|
