¹ Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little Brown, 1970), pp. 8–44.Google Scholar

² Ibid., p. 14; also see Almond, Gabriel A. and Powell, G. Bingham Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little Brown, 1966), p. 50.Google Scholar

³ Among the few exceptions, see: Suleiman, Michael, “Attitudes of Arab Elites toward Palestine and Israel,” American Political Science Review, 67 (06 1973), 482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barakat, Halim, “Social Factors Influencing Attitudes of University Students in Lebanon towards the Palestinian Resistance Movement,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 1 (Autumn 1971), 87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nasr, Nafhat and Palmer, Monte, “Family, Peers, Social Control and Political Activism among Lebanese College Students,” Journal of Developing Areas, 9 (04 1975), 377–394Google Scholar; Cunningham, Robert, “Dimensions of Family Loyalty in the Arab Middle East: The Case of Jordan,” Journal of Developing Areas, 8 (10 1973), 55–64Google Scholar; Melikian, Levon and Diab, Lufty, “Group Affiliations of University Students in the Arab Middle East,” Journal of Social Psychology, 49 (05, 1959), 145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farah, Tawfic E., Aspects of Consociationalism and Modernisation: Lebanon as an Exploratory Test Case (Lincoln, Nebr.:M.E.R.G., 1975), 179–189Google Scholar; and Al-Salem, Faisal S. A., “The Traditionalism and Modernization Dichotomy: The Cases of Lebanon and Kuwait,” Journal of the Social Sciences, 4 (04, 1976), 38–52.Google Scholar

⁴ Farah, Tawfic E. and Al-Salem, Faisal S. A., “Alienation among Kuwaiti and Non-Kuwaiti University Students,” Journal of the Gulf and Arab Studies, 2 (07 1976), 243–248.Google Scholar English translations of this study which was originally published in Arabic may be obtained from the authors.

⁵ A compendium of such measures is available in Robinson, J. et al. , Measures of Social-Psychological Attitudes (Ann Arbor: Institution of Social Research Publications, 1968).Google Scholar Also see Cunningham, Robert, “Perception of Institutions and Individuals: A Look at Alienation in the Middle East,” Comparative Political Studies, 4, 1 (04 1971), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Research on sense of political efficacy is enormous. Easton and Dennis, for example, list more than forty studies. This number could easily be doubled, see Easton, David and Dennis, Jack, “The Child's Acquisition of Regime Norm: Political Efficacy,” American Political Science Review, 61 (03 1967), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The review here relies on George I. Balch's Review presented in “Multiple indicators in Survey Research: The Concept ‘Sense of Political Efficacy’” paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1971, pp. 2–3.

⁷ Campbell, Angus et al. , The Voter Decides (Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1954), p. 187.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., pp. 190–194.

⁹ See for example, Agger, Robert et al. , “Political Cynicism: Measurement and Meaning,” Journal of Politics, 23 (08 1961), 477–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Campbell, Angus et al. , The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960), pp. 104–105, 480–481Google Scholar; and Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 286–293.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman, Participation in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), p. 133.Google Scholar

¹¹ Balch, George I., “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept of ‘Sense Political Efficacy,’” p. 1.Google Scholar Also, see Easton, and Dennis, , “The Child's Acquisition.”Google Scholar

¹² Among the many works on political trust, see Abravnel, Martin D. and Bush, Ronald J., “Political Competence, Political Trust, and Action Orientations of University Students,” Journal of Politics, 37 (02 1975), 57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Malik, Yogendra K. and Marquette, Jesse F., “Democracy and Alienation in North India,” Journal of Politics, 37 (02 1975), 35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aberbach, Joel D., “Alienation and Political Behavior,” American Political Science Review, 63, 1 (03 1969), 86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aberbach, Joel D. and Walker, Jack L., “Political Trust and Racial Ideology,” American Political Science Review, 64, 4 (12 1970), 1199–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abramson, Paul R., “Political Efficacy and Political Trust among Black School Children: Two Explanations,” Journal of Politics, 34, 4 (11 1972), 1243–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balch, George I., “Political Trust and Styles of Political Involvement among American College Students,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-West Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill., 04 29– 05 1, 1971Google Scholar; Cole, Richard L., “On the Causes and Consequences of Political Trust: A Causal Analysis,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-West Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill., 04 28, 1972Google Scholar; Fraser, John, “The Mistrustful-Efficacious Hypothesis and Political Participation,” Journal of Politics, 32 (05 1970), 40–45, 444–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kraus, Martin, Houlihan, Kevin, Oberlander, Mark I., and Carson, Lawrence, “Some Motivational Correlates of Attitudes toward Political Participation,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 14 (08 1970), 383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Litt, Edger, “Political Cynicism and Political Futility,” Journal of Politics, 25 (05 1963), 312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDill, Edward L. and Ridley, Jean Claire, “Status, Anomia, Political Alienation and Political Participation,” American Journal of Sociology, 68 (09 1968), 205–213Google Scholar; Muller, Edward N., “The Representation of Citizens by Political Authorities: Consequences for Regime Support,” American Political Science Review, 64, 4 (12 1970), 1149–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rodgers, Harrell R. Jr., and Taylor, George, “Pre-Adult Attitudes toward Legal Compliance: Notes toward a Theory,” in Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, ed. Nimmo, Dan and Bonjean, Charles (New York: David McKay, 1972), pp. 215–227Google Scholar; Stokes, Donald E., “Popular Evaluations of Government: An Empirical Assessment,” in Ethics and Bigness: Scientific, Academic, Religious, Political and Military, ed. Cleveland, Harland and Lasswell, Harold D. (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 61–73Google Scholar; Watts, Meredith W., “Efficacy, Trust and Orientation toward Socio-Political Authority: Students' Support for the University,” American Journal of Political Science, 17 (05 1973), 282–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Abravanel, and Busch, , “Political Competence, Political Trust,” p. 60.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Coser, Lewis, “The Functions of Social Conflict” (New York: Free Press, 1956), parts 2 and 5.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Abravanel, and Busch, , “Political Competence, Political Trust,” p. 62.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Gamson, William, “Political Trust and Its Ramifications,” in Social Psychology and Political Behavior: Problems and Prospects ed. Abcarian, Gilbert and Soule, John W. (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1971), pp. 40–55Google Scholar; and his Power and Discontent (Home-wood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1968), pp. 42–52.Google Scholar

¹⁷ In his discussion of the relationship between political trust and political efficacy, Gamson reports data collected by Jeffery Paige as evidence for his typology. In his study of black residents of Newark, New Jersey, in the aftermath of the 1967 riots in the city, Paige found that low trusters were no more apt than others to have engaged in riots. When political efficacy (measured by a political information item) and trust are examined together, however, he reports these findings: persons with high efficacy and low political trust constitute the group most apt to have engaged in riots; persons with a medium level of trust and high efficacy are those who were most apt to have engaged in conventional civil rights activities; but those with both a high level of trust and a high sense of efficacy constituted the group most likely to have limited their activity to the ballot box (Gamson, “Political Trust and Its Ramifications,” pp. 40–55). Cole conducted a secondary analysis of the 1970 national sample. He tested for causal linkages in a political trust model which incorporated nontraditional modes of political behavior. He found a very strong relationship between political efficacy and political trust (Gamma = .55). However, when he considered the combined impact of efficacy, trust and other variables, the model failed to account for as handsome percentages of the “nonconven-tional” tactic sympathy as one would have expected (Cole, “On the Causes and Consequences of Political Trust” p. 19). Aberbach and Walker report moderately strong correlation co- efficients between trust and three indexes of political expectations—among them, political competence (Gamma = .40 for blacks; Gamma = .32 for whites) (“Political Trust and Racial Ideology,” 1205–1207).

¹⁸ Abravanel, and Busch, , “Political Competence and Political Trust,” p. 60.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Obviously the significance of political efficacy to the regime varies with the value placed on the role of the citizen in public affairs. For an interesting interpretation of the role of the citizen in the Soviet political system see Barghoorn, Frederick C., Politics in the USSR (Boston: Little Brown, 1966)Google Scholar, and Oliver, James H., “Citizen Demands and the Soviet Political System,” American Political Science Review, 63 (06 1969), 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ For an overview of the Kuwaiti political system, see al-Ebraheem, Hassan A., Kuwait: A Political Study (Kuwait: Kuwait University Press, 1975), pp. 123–143.Google Scholar

²¹ We have borrowed heavily from the methods developed by Abravanel, and Busch, , “Political Competence, Political Trust,” pp. 67–69.Google Scholar

²² Przeworski, A. and Teune, H., The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York: John Wiley, 1970), pp. 31–34, 119.Google Scholar Also, see Balch, , “Multiple Indicators”Google Scholar; Wright, James D., “Does Acquiescence Bias the ‘Index of Political Efficacy?’” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (Summer 1975), 219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chandler, William M. and Chandler, Marsha A., “The Problem of Indicator Formation in Comparative Research,” Comparative Political Studies, 7 (04 1974), 26–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herzon, Frederick D., “Intensity of Opinion and the Organization of Political Attitudes,” Western Political Quarterly, 28 (03 1975), 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ For documentation of the decline of trust in government, see Miller, A., Brown, T., and Raine, A., “Social Conflict and Political Estrangement, 1958–1972,” paper delivered at the 1973 Midwest Political Science Association meetingGoogle Scholar; Miller, Arthur and Citrin, Jack, “Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970,” American Political Science Review, 68 (09 1974), 951–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Citrin, J., “Political Disaffection in America: 1958–68,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1972Google Scholar; and Harris, L., “U.S. Confidence in Leaders Continues at Low Ebb,” Washington Post, 11 5, 1973, p. A7.Google Scholar

²⁴ On the relationship between interpersonal trust and political trust see Lane, Robert E., Political Life (New York: Free Press, 1959), p. 164Google Scholar; Cole, , “Causes and Consequences,” p. 10Google Scholar; Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture, pp. 248–288Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Morris, “Misanthropy and Political Ideology,” American Sociological Review, 21 (12 1956), 690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Our finding is in harmony with the finding of Abravanel and Busch (Gamma = .15) in “Political Competence and Political Trust,” p. 71.Google Scholar Aberbach and Walker report a Gamma of .17 for blacks and .16 for whites (“Political Trust and Racial Ideology,” 1706).Google Scholar

²⁶ Our finding is consistent with Abravanel and Busch's finding of (Gamma = .35) in “Political Competence, Political Trust,” p. 72.Google Scholar

²⁷ Our finding is not consistent with the finding of Abravanel and Busch. They state: “We find neither an exceptionally strong association between political trust and dimensions of competence nor a relationship that is consistently positive. As was anticipated, those who trust the national government are more likely than others to believe that successful congressional influence is possible, yet the Gamma between trust and governmental responsiveness is a moderate .24. At the same time, politically trusting students exhibit less of an inclination to take an active part in such efforts (Gamma = –.22). Those who distrust the government then, are somewhat more likely than their counterparts to say that they would attempt to influence the legislature” (ibid., p. 73). However, our finding is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Aberbach, and Walker, , “Political Trust and Racial Ideology,” 1207Google Scholar; Cole, , “Causes and Consequences,” p. 11).Google Scholar

²⁸ See Gross, Steven and Niman, C. Michael, “Attitude-Behavior Consistency: A Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (Fall 1975), 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Our finding contradicts Abravanel and Busch's finding of Gamma = .10 (“Political Competence, Political Trust,” p. 75).Google Scholar

³⁰ Our finding is consistent with Abravanel and Busch who report an association between political trust and the Engagement Direction of .50.

³¹ The population of Kuwait is estimated at about I million, only half of them Kuwaitis. Non-Kuwaitis did not enjoy the right to vote.

³² Dahl, Robert A., After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), p. 157.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., pp. 156, 161. See also Dahl, Robert A., “The City in the Future of Democracy,” American Political Science Review, 61 (09 1971), 953–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dahl, Robert A. and Tufte, Edward, Size and Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

³⁴ Almond, and Verba, , The Civic Culture p. 234.Google Scholar

³⁵ Finifter, Ada W. and Abramson, Paul R., “City Size and Feelings of Political Competence,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (Summer 1975), 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., p. 199.

³⁷ Loyalty to one's family is a trait shared by many Arabs and other peoples who inhabit the Mediterranean basin. Loyalty to one's family was underscored by Melikian and Diab in their pioneering study conducted at the American University of Beirut in the mid-fifties. Farah found a persistence of traditional values in a sample of modernizing Lebanese in 1974: 68 percent of his sample still sought parental advice when faced with a problem; 84 percent agreed that there is nothing lower than the person who does not feel deep respect and concern for his parents. Loyalty to one's family was superior to loyalty to one's religion and country. In a sample of Kuwaiti University students, Farah and Al-Salem found that loyalty to one's religion is paramount followed by loyalty to family and country (Khalaf, Samir, “Primordial Ties and Politics in Lebanon,” Middle East Studies, 4 (04 1968), pp. 243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Antoun, Richard, “Conservatism and Change in the Village Community,” Human Organisation, 24 (Spring 1965), 4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Suleiman, Michael, “Crisis and Revolution in Lebanon,” Middle East Journal, 26 (Winter 1972), 11–24Google Scholar; Cunningham, , “Dimensions of Family Loyalty”Google Scholar; Melikian, and Diab, , “Group Affiliations of University Students;”Google ScholarFarah, , Aspects of Consociationalism and Modernisation, pp. 179–189Google Scholar; Farah, and Al-Salem, , “The Traditionalism and Modernization Dichotomy,” pp. 38–52Google Scholar; and Banfield, Edward, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society (New York: Free Press, 1967).Google Scholar

³⁸ Our finding is consistent with Abravanel, and Busch, , “Political Competence and Political Trust,” p. 71.Google Scholar