Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
Political theorists have long argued that political participation has been a minimal requirement of democratic political systems. More recently, social scientists have turned their attention to understanding the factors that impede or promote participation. This paper examines several such hypotheses which lie within the framework of personality and social-psychological theory. Briefly stated, this author's contention is that: (1) each individual has a need to have sufficient control over relevant aspects of his life-space, which, under specified conditions, includes the political system; (2) the attempt to satisfy this need in the social world generates basic assumptive beliefs about personal control; and (3) these beliefs have important implications for political participation and the support of regimes.
To examine these contentions more fully, we first must consider the concept of political efficacy, especially as it relates to the motivation to participate in political life. It will then be possible to present a theory that links feelings of personal control in the political arena with more basic psychological needs that help to organize the personality system. Finally, we will present some exploratory data on the relation between beliefs in personal control and political participation. While these data do not directly contradict previous empirical studies, they do suggest the possibility that a substantial reorganization of the way in which political efficacy is conceptualized may be in order.
1 Wolin, Sheldon, Politics and Vision (Boston 1960)Google Scholar
2 Nie, Norman and Verba, Sidney, Participation in American Life (New York 1973)Google Scholar
3 Easton, David and Dennis, Jack, “The Child's Acquisition of Regime Norms: Political Efficacy,” American Political Science Review 61 (1967), 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Campbell, Angus et al., The Voter Decides (Evanston, Ill. 1954), 187Google Scholar
5 For a general review, see Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Chicago 1965).Google Scholar
6 “The Child's Acquisition”
7 The Voter Decides
8 Levenson, George, “The Behayioral Relevance of the Obligation to Participate,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1971Google Scholar
9 We would not expect all people to have the same level of need for personal control. Although we would expect the need to exist within certain parameters, there would still be room for individual variation. If we were to undertake a national survey of adults in the United States by means of an accurate instrument that measured the need for personal control on a scale from 1 (a low need) to 10 (a high need), we might find that most of the people vary between 6 and 8, yet there would also be a few people for whom the need would either be very high (perhaps 9 or 10), or very low (perhaps 2 or 3). Obviously, the strength of the need will be strongly associated with the degree of control needed. A person with slight need for personal control will be satisfied with less, while an individual with extensive need for personal control will require greater amounts of control in order to be satisfied. Thus, a person who reduces his goal of obtaining a certain amount of personal control could do so only if that degree of control was commensurate with the strength of his need. At this stage of research there is no way to assess the degree of this need or its distribution within the social system. We are making a much more general statement – that there is a need for personal control.
10 A more extensive explanation may be found in Renshon, Stanley, Psychological Needs and Political Behavior: A Theory of Personality and Political Efficacy (New York 1974)Google Scholar
11 By political system I refer to the people, institutions, and processes that are perceived to have the power and/or authority to make decisions that are binding on the individual and other components of the social system. These decisional outputs become salient to the person, and this control relevant, under any of the following four conditions: first, if the political system is seen to be the only or best system capable of supplying needed goods or services; second, if the outputs of the political system are perceived to be interfering with the individual's pursuit of his goals or values; third, if it is believed that it is part of the good citizen's role to pay attention to the outputs; and finally, if the political system becomes linked with need satisfaction by idiosyncratic experiences.
12 For an analysis and empirical exploration of the relative importance of particular dimensions of family experiences in the acquisition of personal control beliefs, see Renshon, Stanley, “Personality and Family Dynamics in the Political Socialization Process,” American Journal of Political Science 19 (1975), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 According to the work of Easton and Dennis, this norm is apparently acquired at a very early age. An examination of items used in the Survey Research Center's operationalization of the political efficacy scale shows that two of the five items mention voting specifically. This suggests the possibility that a democratic norm emphasizing voting as the most important element in democratic participation may constitute a large part of what is being measured by this scale. Thus, it is important to distinguish the norm of political efficacy from the belief in political efficacy.
14 Throop, William and Macdonald, Alen P., “Internal-External Locus of Control: A Bibliography,” Psychological Reports 28 (1971), 175–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Rotter, Julian, “Generalized Expectancies for the Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement,” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80 (1966), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Ibid., 10
17 See, for example, the abbreviated scale utilized in Jessor, Richard, et al., Society, Personality, and Deviant Behavior (New York 1968).Google Scholar
18 The distribution of political salience for our respondents was as follows; for the federal government, 38 per cent described the impact as great, 46 per cent described it as moderate, and 16 per cent described it as small. For the local government, 10 per cent of our respondents described the impact as great, 79 per cent described it as moderate, and 11 per cent described it as small. By combining both local and national salience our data suggest that for less than 10 per cent of our respondents the political system is perceived to be a non-relevant control sphere.
19 See “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, D. (New York 1964)Google Scholar; “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuations of a Dialogue,” The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, E. (Reading, Mass. 1970)Google Scholar; and “Comment on Non-Attitudes and Public Opinion,” American Political Science Review 68 (1974), 650–61.
20 In order to examine this hypothesis, each respondent was asked if he had ever engaged in the following political activities: (1) worked for a political party; (2) worked for a particular political candidate; (3) worked for a community organization dealing with social issues; (4) been an officer in any political group; (5) contributed money to any campaigns or political activities; (6) tried to influence someone on a particular issue or for a particular candidate; (7) written to a public official; (8) signed a petition on some issue; (9) taken part in a mass-demonstration; (10) broken a law to demonstrate opposition to some policy; (11) taken part in a sit-in; and (12) been involved in any physical confrontation during any of the above (such as, pushing, shoving, fighting). These acts are fairly representative of the possible range of political behaviours, from the traditional campaign-oriented activities to the newer forms of participation such as sit-ins, mass demonstrations, as well as participation in a form of politics called “trashing” (breaking windows, starting fires, etc.). The one glaring omission is voting. The item was included in the survey, but since most of the respondents were less than 21 years of age, which was the minimal age required legally at the time, the item was deleted from the analysis.
21 “The Cost of Realism: Contemporary Restatements of Democracy,” Western Political Quarterly, 17 (1964), 43–4
22 The Semi-Sovereign People (New York 1960), passim
23 “On the Meaning of Alienation,” American Sociological Review 24 (1959), 783–9
24 “On the Multidimensionality of Alienation,” American Sociological Review 31 (1967), 54–64
25 “Alienation, Membership and Political Knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (1966), 353
26 “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries,” American Sociological Review 62 (1969), 86
27 Frazer, John, “The Mistrustful-Efficacious Hypothesis and Political Participation,” Journal of Politics 32 (1970)Google Scholar
28 Political Alienation and Political Behavior (Chicago 1973), chap. 9
29 “Alienation and Political Opinions,” Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (1965), 203
30 Social Integration,” 710
31 See Schwartz, Political Alienation, passim, for a full discussion of the validity and reliability of the index. Each respondent was awarded a political alienation score based on his responses to the following three-item index: (1) Do you believe that the government represents people with your political and social beliefs? (2) Does the government seem unable or unwilling to do the things that you think need to be done? (3) When you think of your ideas and the ideas and actions of the federal government in general, do you feel there is no gap – a small gap – a fairly wide gap – a very wide gap?
32 A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York 1965)
33 Each respondent was asked to evaluate the government in Washington on a number of adjunctive pairs including (1) honest-dishonest, (2) open-closed, and (3) trustworthy-untrustworthy. The responses to these semantic differential items were coordinated to form a faith-in-government index. A respondent who evaluated the government as dishonest, closed, and un-trustworthy would exhibit a substantial lack of trust in government.
