July 2012
e - C i t i z e n s h i p : Tr u s t i n
Government, Political Efficacy,
and Political Participation in the
Internet Era
Sari Sharoni
Georgetown University
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This article examines the changing relationship of the
United States Federal government and the American
public over the internet. The concepts of trust in
government and political efficacy are used to construct
a theoretical framework to study this relationship. After
defining these concepts, a typology of high and low
levels of trust in government and political efficacy is
explained to characterize responses from research
participants. Each type of American citizen,
characterized by high or low levels of trust and efficacy,
is associated with a set of properties regarding political
interest and activity, derived from theories of trust in
government and political efficacy. Data from the
original “Trust and Online Engagement” survey is used
to uncover relationships between different internet uses
and sample distribution among the theoretical types
defined by high or low levels of trust and efficacy.
Additionally, in order to ensure the applicability of the
theoretical types to the sample, political characteristics
associated with each type are operationalized and tested
against the survey sample, revealing both the viability
of the typology and the strength of political efficacy
over trust in government in determining political
interest and participation among the internet-active
American public.
Introduction
In the past several years, the relationship
between the State and the American public has
fundamentally changed. Taking note of the political
discourse already occurring on the internet, government
agencies and public officials from federal, state, and
local government have sought to leverage the
relationship-building capacity of social media to reach
out to the public, and interact in ways to which the
public is receptive.
The relationship between the United States
government and the American public can be understood
as a factor of trust and a product of interaction.
Interactions, in person or online, allow two parties to
form a connection and enter a relationship; the quality
and quantity of those interactions, and the resultant
substance and depth of the relationship produce a level
of trust—or alternatively, distrust—among the
participants. Within the relationship of the government
and the American public, trust in government represents
the perspective of the American public; the level of
trust tells whether, as a product of their interactions and
relationship with the State, the public has developed
positive or negative feelings towards the State
comprised of its bureaucrats and public officials.
Political efficacy describes the average
American’s feelings of political empowerment, and his
or her perception of the government’s receptiveness to
public political participation. In simpler terms, political
efficacy describes an individual’s motivation to engage
on the subject of politics, and whether he or she
believes the State listens to his or her opinions.
Theories of trust in government and political efficacy,
considered together, lend themselves to the creation of a
typology of the American public’s attitudes toward the
State which can be used characterize their political
attitudes, and predict their participation in politics and
interaction with government.
This study address the following research
question: How does internet use, in particular and
generalized forms, help determine internet-active
Americans’ attitudes towards government, and political
activity? It argues that internet use, measured in both
scope and frequency, plays a significant role in
determining how internet-Active Americans interact
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
119
with the government and participate in politics. Further,
this study argues that certain forms of internet use, such
as social media use, online political activity, and online
engagement with government, significantly contribute
to Americans’ political attitudes and resultant political
behavior.
In order to test the hypotheses, the original
“Trust and Online Engagement” survey was fielded in
January 2012.Trust in government and political efficacy
take focus as the central operationalized concepts in the
“Trust and Online Engagement” survey, in which 924
American internet users responded to questions on
internet use, trust in government, and political efficacy.
This original survey is used to determine whether
internet uses are positively correlated with political
attitudes, as predicted by theory, and to test the
predicted relationships between political attitudes and
political behaviors when applied to internet use.
Statistical analysis and comparison of the sample
distribution among the iterated types of the trust in
government and political efficacy typology reveals
significant relationships between different uses of the
internet and political attitudes. The theoretical
associations between typeset attitudes and political
interest and activity are also shown to be applicable to
the survey sample through bivariate correlation testing.
Trust in government and political efficacy
theories, the typology they form, and the “Trust and
Online Engagement” survey work together to frame,
explain, analyze, and predict the changes occurring
under the present influence of social media. Findings
from the “Trust and Online Engagement” survey reveal
the hierarchy of levels of trust in government and
political efficacy among the survey sample. Throughout
the typologies, specified by different forms and
frequencies of internet use, the highest concentration of
internet users consistently have high efficacy and low
trust, and the lowest concentration have low efficacy
and high trust.
Survey findings establish significant
relationships between online political activity, online
government engagement, and distribution between the
“high efficacy, high trust” and “low efficacy, low trust”
categories.
Imbued with trust in government and
political efficacy theory, empirical findings suggest that
proliferation of internet use in the United States will
extend the internet’s role in determining political
attitudes and behaviors to a broader, more
technologically-active, sector of the American public.
Internet and social media use will more broadly
determine the American public’s fulfillment of
citizenship roles, and, in effect, support institutions of
United States democracy.
Literature Review
The relationship between the United States
government, or any democracy, and the internet-active
public, as determined by online interactions, has not
been studied empirically within political science,
sociology, or communications literature. In order to
ground this 21st century relationship in theory,
established concepts relevant to the relationship
between the government and the public must be
considered. Trust in government and political efficacy
detail two dimensions of the relationship between the
government and the public from the perspective of
individual citizens. Trust in government signifies an
individual’s belief that the government is working in his
or her best interest, whereas political efficacy is used to
describe feelings of person political empowerment.
These two concepts can be united to form a typology of
trust and efficacy, with which the role of internet use in
defining the relationship between the United States
government and the internet-active American public can
be analyzed.
Trust in Government
“Trust in government” is a term that is used to describe
how strongly an individual believes the government—
comprised of elected and appointed government
officials, civil servants and Foreign Service officers—
works in his or her best interest. It is a form of
particularized trust which Russell Hardin describes as
an “expression of encapsulated interest,” or motivation
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
120
for the trustworthy individual to maintain a relationship
with the trustor, and thus encapsulate the interest of the
trustor in the trustworthy individual’s own interest.1 He
goes on to define trust as “reason to expect you to act in
my interest with respect to that matter because you have
good reason to do so, reasons that are grounded in my
interest” (Hardin, 1999: page 24). Trust in government
is particularly pertinent to the healthy functioning of
American democracy. The American political system is
based on representative government in which citizens
elect politicians to act as agents on their behalf, and
represent their interests in local, state, and federal
governments. When Americans vote for elected
officials, the act of voting signifies an expression of
trust that the individual they choose will act in their best
interest. Even those who abstain from voting, choose
whether they will invest their faith in the capabilities of
these public servants. Low trust in government and
elected officials could signify public disenchantment
with representative democracy, and motivate a turn
towards more direct democracy. Unlike elected
officials, entrenched government bureaucrats, have a
more direct relationship with the American public:
though their faces may not appear on television news
programs with frequency, these are the public servants
who provide Americans with the government’s services.
Though trust in government would not have any
bearing on bureaucrats’ public image, public trust is
crucial to the longevity of their agencies and their
performance in the public sector.2 Those Americans
who have low trust in government agencies will not
utilize the services they provide, and in time, should the
American public share this low trust, that government
agency could be discredited (Christensen and Laegreid,
2002: page 24).
High trust in government reinforces the
American public’s faith in representative government
and the role of government agencies, and supports their
continuance within American democracy. Considered
as an independent variable, high trust in government is
associated with higher voter turnout, higher satisfaction
with public servants and elected officials, and greater
utilization of services provided by government agencies
(Inglehart, 1999: page 101). Low trust in government
is, contrastingly, associated with lower voter turnout,
general dissatisfaction with public servants and elected
officials, and less utilization of government services.
Low trust in government challenges the effectiveness of
representative democracy and the role of government
agencies within American democracy. Americans with
low trust in government may either be independently
politically active or politically inactive and removed
from politics.3
Trust in government has traditionally been more
closely associated with “thin” trust than “thick” trust.
“Thick” trust requires repeated interactions with the
party to whom trust is extended, whereas “thin” trust is
extended to parties at a greater distance with whom
interactions are infrequent (Williams, 1998: page 9).
“Thin” trust in government is based in the structure of
incentives that compel individuals within the
government, either elected officials or bureaucrats, to
act in the interest of the American public (Hardin, 1998:
pages 21). Broadly, it is trust that the United States
government is structured so that government officials
are not self-serving, and instead work to benefit the
American public. “Thin” trust is not produced through
interactions between the State and the American public
—it is more the product of an expectation of how the
State is to act based on its past actions and their
consequences. “Thin” trust is generally societal,
historically based, and as such, difficult to build or
change.4
Until recent years, the State had not been able to
build a relationship of “thick” trust with the American
public. Beyond the preexisting social distance between
the State and the public, there has been a deficit of
mechanisms that could bring the State and the
American public closer together. In the 21st century, the
internet and social media have endowed the State with
the power to shorten the social distance between itself
and the everyday American. The average internet user
now has the ability to directly ask bureaucrats
questions, engage public officials in conversation, and
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
121
voice policy criticisms to a broad audience ostensibly as
equals. Social media are designed to foster repeated
interactions which can help users develop a rapport
leading to “thick” trust. By engaging directly with the
American public, government agencies and officials
have the potential to benefit from the reputations they
develop; reputations of transparency and acuity for
public service.
Whether social media have effectively been
used to build trust in government has yet to be
determined. Regardless, Facebook, Twitter, and other
internet outlets have opened up the possibility of
“thick” trust in government which were otherwise
largely unfeasible. If social media can effectively shape
trust in government, they also may be used to promote
representative democracy and support American
government for years to come.
Political Efficacy
Political efficacy, or the belief that one can have
an impact on political affairs, is popularly used as a
“barometer of democratic systems” (Riedel and
Sullivan, 2001: page 4353). Efficacy is also sometimes
thought to be a predictor of political behavior. Political
efficacy is traditionally employed in backwards
reasoning: it assesses the reason behind one’s relative
proclivity to participate in political life. For the
purposes of this study, political efficacy will be
analyzed as a dependent variable, predicted by the
frequency and form of internet use. I predict that
internet use is positively related to political efficacy.
Political efficacy is broken down into two
categories: internal efficacy and external efficacy.
Sullivan and Riedel define internal political efficacy as
an individual’s “beliefs about the impact [he or she]
may have on the political process as a result of [his or
her] own skills and confidence,” or the skills and
confidence of similar individuals. External efficacy is
the belief that political institutions will be responsive to
a citizen’s action in the political process, or the belief
that one is effective when participating in political life
(Riedel and Sullivan, 2001: pages 4353).
Trust in government and external efficacy
overlap in their consideration of governmental
receptiveness and responsiveness to public participation
in politics, but differ in the way they go about
addressing this concept. Trust in government assesses
governmental receptiveness as part of the healthy
function of the system of representative democracy,
while external political efficacy addresses one’s
confidence in his or her self to participate effectively
through political institutions. High trust in government
may not necessarily include high external efficacy. For
example, an individual may have full confidence in the
proper functioning of the government, but believe that
it is not necessary for an individual’s opinion to be
considered in political decision-making.
An individual’s level of political efficacy can be
influenced by his or her education, socioeconomic
status, gender, ethnic status, and age. By examining
structural antecedents to political efficacy, Sullivan and
Riedel find that “educating citizens in nonpolitical
environments about self-governance,” a form of
political socialization, “increased internal efficacy.”
External efficacy is not increased by continued
education in nonpolitical environments; rather, it is
influenced by direct political participation (Riedel and
Sullivan, 2001: pages 4355).
Internal and external political efficacy are
respectively correlated with a range of aspects of
political culture. Internal efficacy is linked to political
interest, knowledge, and engagement. External efficacy
is linked to trust in government and voter turnout. In an
early study of political efficacy, Almond and Verba
write:
The belief in one’s competence is a key political attitude.
The self-confident citizen appears to be the democratic
citizen. Not only does he think he can participate, he
thinks others ought to participate as well. Furthermore, he
does not merely think he can take part in politics; he is
likely to be more active (Almond and Verba, 1963: page
257).
Further studies have shown that high levels of efficacy
are associated with 20-30% higher likelihood to vote
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
122
than those with low levels of efficacy (Kahne and
Westheimer, 2006: page 289).
Figure 1: Political Efficacy Flow Chart (with Inputs and
Outcomes)
Depicted in Figure 1, when considering political
efficacy as an outcome, education, socioeconomic
status, gender, ethnicity, and age are all control
variables.—The two factors that can fluidly change
with an individual’s choices and actions are education
in nonpolitical environments about self-governance and
direct political participation. Both of these factors
describe an aspect of the interaction between the State
and the American public. Social media-based
interactions are in a principally nonpolitical
environment, insofar as popular social media hubs such
as Facebook and Twitter are not inherently political
websites (as the Democratic National Committee’s
homepage would be), though they may be subject to
political use. In this environment, one must choose to
continue one’s education of self-governance by actively
engaging with others on politics, or engaging with
political leaders and institutions themselves.5 Direct
political participation, as institutionalized in American
democracy, is reserved to referenda and plebiscites.
Social media, however, have broadened direct
participation to include actual direct, conversational
interactions between the State and the American public.
As such, the only form of participation more direct than
engaging with the government on the internet is
engaging with government institutions in person.
It is possible for interactions between the State
and the American public via social media to contribute
to an individual’s sense of political efficacy, but higher
political efficacy is not necessarily the outcome of those
interactions. Considered together, political efficacy and
trust in government form a comprehensive input-output
mechanism through which independent variables of
trust and efficacy determine political participation. In
my empirical research, I determine whether those who
engage with the State via social media feel more
politically efficacious than those who abstain from such
interactions.
Trust in Government and Political Efficacy
Typography
Though political efficacy and trust in
government have overlapping components, by way of
external political efficacy, the two concepts address
distinct determining factors of the relationship between
the State and the American public. High and low levels
of trust in government and political efficacy,
respectively, foretell different ways the American public
engage or disengage with the government. These two
concepts should be considered together, as a typology,
because their associated characteristics form a paradigm
of political participation and the belief in the strength of
representative democracy.
The typology, depicted in Figure 2, separates the
American public into four categories, based on high or
low levels of trust in government and political efficacy.
High political efficacy and high trust in government is
labeled “The Empowered American Citizen;” high
efficacy and low trust, “The Engaged Grassroots
Activist;” low efficacy and high trust, “The Complacent
American Citizen;” and low trust and efficacy, “The
Politically Alienated American.” Each of these
categories reflects a type of American citizen, and each
is associated with varying political behaviors and
interest, voting patterns, and use of government
services. Each combination of the Trust/Efficacy
Typology reflects how, theoretically, an individual with
high or low levels of trust in government and political
efficacy would interact with the State via voting,
utilization of public services, and independent political
activity. Simultaneously, each describes the way the
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
123
individual who fits this mold relates to American
democracy; whether he or she is inclined towards
continued representative democracy, or more direct
democracy.
Figure 2: Political Efficacy and Trust in Government
Typology
Outcome #1: “The Empowered American Citizen”
High Political Efficacy, High Trust in Government
An individual with high political efficacy and
high trust in government is highly likely to vote. He or
she is generally satisfied with public servants and
elected officials, likely to use government services, and
typically interested in and knowledgeable about
politics. Overall, this individual has the utmost faith in
representative government, and favors the continuance
of government agencies. Moreover, this individual is
empowered to participate in politics through existing
government structures.
Outcome #2: “The Complacent American Citizen”
Low Political Efficacy, High Trust in Government
An individual with low political efficacy and
high trust in government is fairly unlikely to vote. He or
she is generally satisfied with public servants and
elected officials, is likely to utilize government
services, and has faith in representative democracy and
government structure as it stands. This individual is
uninterested in politics, and either does not feel the
need to participate, or does not believe that popular
participation is necessary in political processes or for
the proper functioning of the government.
Outcome #3: “The Engaged Grassroots Activist”
High Political Efficacy, Low Trust in Government
An individual with high political efficacy and
low trust in government may or may not vote,
depending on how receptive he or she believes the
government is to his or her opinion.6 If he or she is to
vote, it would likely not be for the majority party
(whose policies may have contributed to this
individual’s low trust in government).7 This individual
is generally dissatisfied with public servants and elected
officials, and is less likely to utilize government
services. He or she rejects representative democracy,
and prefers to directly participate in politics
independent of existing government structures, perhaps
through rallying or joining advocacy groups. This
individual may believe that the government is corrupt,
and is inclined participate in direct democracy as made
possible by plebiscites and referenda.
Outcome #4: “The Politically Alienated American”
Low Political Efficacy, Low Trust in Government
An individual with low political efficacy and
low trust in government is unlikely to vote, and is
generally dissatisfied with the performance of public
servants and elected officials. He or she is less likely to
utilize government services, largely lacks interest in
politics, and consequently, is not politically active. This
individual either does not care about politics and
government or is resigned to accept the ineffectiveness
of American democracy. He or she lacks faith in
representative democracy, and is also unlikely to have
faith in or participate in direct democracy.
Each outcome of the Trust/Efficacy Typology
can be used to analyze an individual’s adherence to the
ascribed theoretical characterizations Each can also be
employed to determine the percentage of the American
public that fall into any of the four categories, and the
implications of these patterns. In my empirical research,
I use data from the original “Trust and Online
Engagement” Survey to quantify the concentrations of
those who interact with the government via social
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
124
media among the four outcomes. I determine whether
there are significant differences between the
percentages in the typology categories and the
percentages of internet users overall, social media users
overall, and politically-active internet users.
Hypotheses
With the use of the Trust/Efficacy Typology and
data from the original “Trust and Online Engagement”
survey, I test the following hypotheses:
H1: Frequency of internet use has a strong, positive
relationship with trust in government and political
efficacy.
H2: Frequency of social media use has a strong,
positive relationship with trust in government and
political efficacy.
H3: Scope of online interactions with government
agencies and officials has a strong, positive
relationship with trust in government and political
efficacy.
H4: Frequency of political internet use has a strong,
positive relationship with trust in government and
political efficacy.
After analyzing how the sample distribution
among categories change as internet use changes, I test
theoretical predictions of each category’s political
behavior against reported political behavior from the
“Trust and Online Engagement” survey. This secondary
analysis confirms the typology’s applicability to
internet users, and provides insight on how levels of
trust in government and political efficacy, considered
conjunctively as independent variables, determine
political interest and behaviors.
H5: Trust in government and political efficacy have a
strong, positive relationship with political interest.
H6: Trust in government and political efficacy have a
strong, positive relationship with offline political
participation.
H7: Trust in government and political efficacy have a
strong, positive relationship with voting in the last
congressional election.
H8: Trust in government and political efficacy have a
strong, positive relationship with voting in the last
presidential election.
H9: Trust in government and political efficacy have a
strong, positive relationship with offline interaction
with government agencies and/or officials.
H10: Trust in government and political efficacy have a
strong, positive relationship with online government
interaction with government agencies and/or officials.
Data & Measures
Survey Data
The original “Trust and Online Engagement”
survey on internet use, trust in government and political
efficacy was constructed to uncover how extensively
internet users interact with government or are otherwise
politically active online. In this study responses are
analyzed to bring to light significant relationships
between different internet uses and levels of trust in
government and political efficacy. This survey was
intended to portray the American internet user’s
attitudes and opinions on government and politics, and
examine the forms and frequencies of general, political,
and governmental internet use with which political
attitudes are associated. It contains questions that fall
into the following categories: internet use, trust in
government, political efficacy, and demographics.
Internet use and demographic questions were modeled
after questions from “Social Side of the Internet,” a
study conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life
Project in December 2010. Trust in government
questions were modeled after questions in “Trust in
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
125
Government,” a poll conducted by Gallup. Some
political efficacy questions were based on efficacy
questions from the American National Election Studies
(ANES), and others were formulated from political
efficacy theory.
The “Trust and Online Engagement” survey was
first officially launched on January 24th, 2012 on
Mechanical Turk, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, through
which individual “requestors” can post microtasking
jobs and “workers” accept and complete jobs for
financial compensation. The posting solicited 1000
respondents who were compensated $1 each after
successfully completing the survey. Due to technical
difficulties, this posting was cancelled on January 25th,
2012, and 189 successful survey responses were
retained. The “Trust and Online Engagement” survey
was launched for the second time on January 25th,
2012, and closed on January 30th, 2012, after receiving
501 successful survey responses. During the first
launch, the rate of successful responses was 33.8%;
during the second launch, 60.4%.8 The “Trust and
Online Engagement” survey was launched for the third
time on February 1, 2012 in a final effort to acquire a
1000-person sample. The final post was closed on
February 5th, 2012, after receiving 232 successful
submissions with a success rate of 92.4%. The survey
closed with a total of 924 complete, unique responses.
Measures
In this study, individual indicators are grouped
by concept and measured as indices. The Trust Index
and the Efficacy Index are comprised of a variety of
Likert scale statements that address individual aspects
of each concept. These two indices are joined to
operationalize the theoretical Trust/Efficacy Typology
—high and low scores are determined based on the
median possible score, and the types are populated
correspondingly. In addition, an Internet Use Index, a
Social Media Use Index, an Online Government
Engagement Index, and an Online Political Activity
Index are composed using individual and applicable
internet-use indicators. These indices are also split into
“high” and “low” activity levels, based on the median
recorded score. These internet-use indices are extracted
from the survey in order to examine the hypotheses, and
determine the forms and frequencies of internet use that
are correlated with levels of trust in government and
political efficacy among the sample.
Trust Index
The Trust Index (IDGovTrust) is composed of
ten scale questions tapping individual's trust and
confidence in the government. The respondents were
asked to rate their opinion on a scale of one to five,
with the key as follows: 1 = A great deal, 2 = A fair
amount, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = Not very much, 5 = None
at all. After the index was created, the scale was
flipped, and a higher overall score indicates greater
trust in government.
The following questions make up the Trust Index:
How much trust and confidence do you have in our
federal government in Washington when it comes to
handling:
1. International problems? (Trust2a)
2. Domestic problems? (Trust2b)
How much trust and confidence do you have at this time
in:
3. The Executive Branch headed by the President?
(Trust6a)
4. The Judicial Branch headed by the U.S. Supreme
Court? (Trust6b)
5. The U.S. Senate? (Trust6c)
6. The U.S. House of Representatives? (Trust6d)
7. Washington to do what is right? (Trust6f)
8. The government of the state in which you live, when it
comes to handling state problems? (Trust7a)
9. The local government of the area in which you live,
when it comes to handling local problems? (Trust7b)
10. The men and women in political life in this country
who either hold or are running for public office? (Trust7c)
The Trust in Government Index includes a valid
sample of 915 respondents, and has a range in score
from zero to 41, with a mean score of 17.6, a skewness
of -.034, and standard deviation of 7.2; the scale is
normally distributed. Reliability analysis reveals that
this index has a Cronbach’s alpha of .881, which
indicates that it is a highly reliable scale.
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
126
Efficacy Index Characteristics
The Efficacy Index (IEfficacy_All) is composed
of thirteen statements relating to internal and external
political efficacy. The respondents were asked to rate
agreement or disagreement with each statement on a
scale of one to five, with the key as follows: 1 =
Completely agree, 2 = Somewhat agree, 3 = Do not
agree or disagree, 4 = Somewhat disagree, 5 =
Completely disagree. After the index was created, the
scale was flipped, and a higher overall score indicates
higher political efficacy.
The following statements make up the Efficacy Index9:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
(I) When reading the political news I understand
almost all of what I read. (Efficacy1a)
(I) I have strong political opinions/outlook/ideology.
(Efficacy1b)
(I) In school (primary, secondary, college, etc.) I
received a good education of U.S. government and
politics. (Efficacy1c)
(I) I never speak about politics with my family,
friends, and/or colleagues. (Efficacy1d)
If I had the opportunity to engage directly with a
government official or politician I would have a lot to
speak about. (Efficacy1e)
(E) If given the opportunity to participate in an online
town hall I would participate. (Efficacy1g)
(E) If given the opportunity to vote on a referendum
online I would participate. (Efficacy1h)
(E) If given the opportunity to vote on any bill in
Congress, I would participate. (Efficacy1i)
(I) If invited to, I would join a group online that tries
to influence government policies. (Efficacy1j)
(E) If and/or when I write to a government agency,
official, or politician, my views are not considered.
(Efficacy2a)
(E) If and/or when I publicly express my opinion
(such as in an op-ed, blog post, or in a T.V. interview)
the government will consider my opinion.
(Efficacy2b)
(E) My vote matters. (Efficacy2c)
(E) If and/or when I petition my representative, I am
unsure that he/she will act in my best interest.
(Efficacy2d)
The Efficacy Index includes a valid sample of
921 respondents, and has a range in score from zero to
44, with a mean score of 24.3, a skewness of -.389, and
standard deviation of 7.8. As Figure 4.2 indicates, the
Efficacy Index is normally distributed. Reliability
analysis reveals that this index has a Cronbach’s alpha
of .775, which indicates that it is a highly reliable scale.
Trust in Government and Political Efficacy Typology
Operationalization
I begin by testing the theoretical Trust/Efficacy
Typology using the “Trust and Online Engagement”
survey data. I analyze the levels of trust in government
and political efficacy of a sample of American internetusers, and determine the strength, direction and
statistical significance of relationships between the
Trust/Efficacy type-sets and different forms of internet
use.
I first determine the frequency distribution
among the categories for (1) all internet users (the full
sample), (2) most active internet users (the top-50% of
most frequent internet users), (3) all social media users,
(4) most active social media users (the top-50% of most
frequent social media users), (4) all internet users who
have engaged with the government online, (5) those
with the broadest scope of online government
engagement (the top-50% with the broadest scope), and
(6) most politically active (online) internet users (the
top-50% of most frequent political internet users).
These groups were extracted from the sample because
they are used to examine this hypothesis:: that general
internet use, social media use, online political activity,
and online engagement with government have strong,
positive relationships with trust in government and
political efficacy.
For each individual typology, the theoretical
categories within are quantified using the Trust and
Efficacy Indices, divided into “high” and “low” scores
based on the median possible score. The Trust in
Government Index has scores ranging from zero to 44;
scores between zero and 22 are considered “low,” and
scores between 23 and 44 are considered “high.” The
Political Efficacy Index has scores ranging from zero to
41; scores between zero and 20 are considered “low,”
and scores between 21 and 41 are considered “high.”
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
127
After determining the relationships between
different internet uses and the typology categories,
further empirical analysis reveals whether observed
characteristics of the four outcomes within the sample
adhere to theorized characteristics elaborated in the
theoretical Trust/Efficacy Typology. Differences of type
ordering, from the most populated to least populated
category expose the relationship among internet use,
levels of trust in government and political efficacy, and
political interest and participation among the internetactive American public.
Findings
Internet Activity
Depicted in Table 1, the highest concentration of
participants have high efficacy and low trust (37.6%),
and the second highest concentration have low efficacy
and low trust (26.2%). The lowest concentration of
Internet users has high trust and low efficacy (13.2%).
After dividing internet users into most and least active,
split along the median score of 23 on the 1 to 32 scale
of internet use frequency, the typology breakdown for
the most active internet users, shown in Table 2, is
nearly identical to that of internet users overall. There is
not a significant difference between the trust and
efficacy scores of very active internet users and all
internet users (χ2 = .572, Sig. = .903). For both groups,
most internet users are “Engaged,” and over one-quarter
of internet users are “Alienated,” whereas fewer than a
quarter are “Empowered,” and few are “Complacent.”
Table 1: Trust/Efficacy Typology, Internet Users (All)
Table 2: Trust/Efficacy Typology, Internet Users (Most
Active)
!
Social Media Users
As shown in Table 3, the highest concentration
of social media users overall has high efficacy and low
trust (37.4%), and the second highest concentration has
low efficacy and low trust (25.4%). The lowest
concentration of Internet users has high trust and low
efficacy (13.5%).
After dividing social media users into most and
least active, split along the median score of 3 on the
zero to 16 scale of social media use frequency, the
typology breakdown for the most active social media
users, depicted in Table 4, is very close to that of social
media users overall, with a slight decrease in the “low
trust, low efficacy” category and a slight increase in the
“high trust, high efficacy” category. Notably, the second
most populated category for most active social media
users is high efficacy, high trust, rather than low
efficacy, low trust as it is for all social media users, and
all and most active internet users.
Though the difference in type ordering is
notable, this 2 to 3 percentage point difference does not
yield a statistically significant difference between the
trust and efficacy scores of very active social media
users and all social media users (χ2 = 5.401, Sig. = .
145). Moreover, the percentage breakdown for social
media users is very similar to the breakdown for
internet users and the difference is not statistically
significant (χ2 = 3.779, Sig. = .286).
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
128
Table 3: Trust/Efficacy Typology,
Social Media Users (All)
!
Table 4: Trust/Efficacy Typology, Social Media Users
(Most Active)
Online Government Engagement
Depicted in Table 5, the highest concentration of
internet users who engage with government online has
high efficacy and low trust (41.9%), and the second
highest concentration has high efficacy and high trust
(24.5%). The lowest concentration of internet users has
high trust and low efficacy (11.6%). The relative
concentration among the categories for all internet users
who engage with the government online is very similar
to the relative concentration for most active social
media users.
The group of internet users who engage with the
government online is divided into most and least active
based on their placement above or below the median
score of 5 on the zero to 31 scale of scope of online
government engagement. The typology breakdown for
those with the highest scope of online government
engagement, shown in Table 6, is notably different than
that of all users who engage with the government online
Among those who have the greatest scope of
engagement, 49.4% have high efficacy and low trust,
28.9% have high efficacy and high trust, 14.8% have
low trust and low efficacy, and 6.9% have high trust
and low efficacy. The greatest difference between the
the squares for all users who engage with government
online, and users with the greatest scope of online
government engagement is the decrease in the low
efficacy, low trust category (7.2 percentage point
difference), and the increase in the high efficacy, low
trust category (7.5 percentage point difference). There
is a statistically significant difference between the trust
and efficacy scores of those with a broad scope of
online interaction with the government and all users
who have engaged with the government online (χ2 =
94.752, Sig. = .000). Type ordering is the same for both
groups, with high efficacy, low trust most popular, and
high efficacy, high trust second most popular; internet
users with a broader scope of online government
engagement have a more polarized typology, with high
efficacy, low trust nearing 50% of users, and categories
of low trust, low efficacy, and high trust, low efficacy
dwindling well below one-quarter of users.
Moreover, the percentage breakdown for
internet users who have engaged with the government
online is strikingly different than that of internet users
overall and social media users overall. While the low
trust, high efficacy category is the highest concentration
group for both those who have interacted with the
government online and for all internet users, the
concentration is 4-5 percentage points higher for the
former group than the latter. Diverging from the type
ordering for all internet users, the second highest
concentration for those who have interacted with the
government online have high trust and high efficacy
rather than low trust and low efficacy. There is a
statistically significant difference between the trust and
efficacy scores of internet users who have engaged with
the government online and of internet users in general
(χ2 = 66.807, Sig. = .000).
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
129
Table 5: Trust/Efficacy Typology,
Internet Users who have engaged with Government
(All)
Table 7: Trust/Efficacy Typology, Politically Active
Internet Users (Most Active)
Table 6: Trust/Efficacy Typology,
Internet Users who have engaged with Government
(Most Active)
Analysis
Internet Uses and Placement in the Trust/Efficacy
Typology
Throughout all of the iterated typologies, the
least populated category is low efficacy and high trust
—“The Complacent American Citizen,” and the most
populated category is high efficacy and low trust
—“The Engaged Grassroots Activist.” Internet users,
regardless of the differences in their form and
frequency of internet use, are loath to trust government
more than they trust their own political will.
Interestingly, these two categories of individuals are the
most intrinsically polarized in terms of political
attitudes—they are formed by one “high” attitude and
one “low” attitude—and the most polarized in quantity.
The two least intrinsically polarized categories, those of
high trust, high efficacy and low trust, low efficacy are
also the least polarized in quantity throughout the
typologies.
The two least intrinsically polarized categories
are also the two cases with entirely contrasting
characteristics; between the typologies, these two types
—low trust, low efficacy, and high trust, high efficacy
—rotate as second and third place categories. As a
result, the typologies for most active social media users,
most active politically-oriented internet users, and
internet users who engage with the government online
are strikingly different than the typologies for internet
users in general and social media users in general. For
the former groups, the second highest concentration is
in high trust-high efficacy rather than low trust-low
Politically Active Internet Users
Highly politically active internet users are
distilled from the sample based on a score above the
median (11) on a political activity scale of zero to 51.
As depicted in Table 7, similar to those who engage
with the government online, the highest concentration
of highly politically active internet users have high
efficacy and low trust (43.4%), and the second highest
concentration have high efficacy and high trust
(27.5%). The lowest concentration of highly politically
active internet users have high trust and low efficacy
(10.5%). . As for the Online Government Engagement
Typology, there is a notable statistically significant
difference between those most politically active online
and internet users over all, with a switch in the “secondplace” category from low trust and low efficacy to high
trust and high efficacy, and a 6 to 7 percentage point
increase in the high efficacy, low trust category (χ2 =
41.533, Sig. = .000).
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
130
efficacy. Chi-Square scores of the subgroups reveal that
frequency of internet use, general social media use, and
active social media use are not correlated with levels of
political efficacy and trust in government. In contrast,
online government engagement overall, as well as
active online government engagement and frequent
online political activity are correlated with levels of
efficacy and trust. These findings suggest that online
government engagement and frequent online political
activity contribute to a greater percentage of highly
trusting, highly efficacious American internet users, and
a lower percentage of untrusting, inefficacious
American internet users.
Greater frequency of social media use, online
government engagement, and online political activity
are associated with more “Engaged” Americans. The
consistent dominance of high efficacy and low trust
throughout the analysis based on the typologies
suggests that this disposition is largely uninfluenced by
frequency of internet use, social media use, online
government engagement, and online political activity.
The reason for the “Engaged” type’s dominance is
likely a product of broader societal changes in the
public’s interest and participation in politics. The
fluctuations in quantity of the second and third place
categories—low trust and efficacy, and high trust and
efficacy—among the iterated typologies suggests that
these dispositions are influenced by form and frequency
of internet use. Though among internet users overall,
low trust and efficacy is the second most populated
category, as internet functions and frequencies are
specified, high trust and efficacy out-populates low
trust and efficacy.
Trust/Efficacy Typeset Theorized and Observed
Characteristics
Each category populated by the “Trust and
Online Engagement” survey data is associated with a
set of characteristics of a type of American citizen. The
theoretical categories of the typology, ordered from
largest to smallest concentration of users, are: “The
Engaged Grassroots Activist,” “The Politically
Alienated American,” “The Empowered American
Citizen,” and “The Complacent American.” In order to
determine whether these labels, and their respective
descriptions, actually apply to the outcomes of the
typology in the sample, their theoretical associations
must be tested empirically using the survey data.
Theory predicts that “The Engaged Grassroots
Activist” is interested in politics and participates in
ways other than voting, does not use government
services extensively, and may be more or less inclined
to vote, and if more inclined to vote, then would likely
vote against the administration in office. In contrast,
“The Complacent American” is politically disinterested
and inactive, is likely to use government services, and
is not likely to vote. “The Empowered American
Citizen” is interested and active in politics, uses
government services, and is likely to vote. “The
Politically Alienated American” is disinterested and
inactive in politics, does not use government services,
and is unlikely to vote. Each of these defining
components—interest in politics (Polint), political
participation (Politpart), use of government services
(GovEng2, IBGovweb_Gov), and voting history
(Votecon, Votepres)—is testable using the “Trust and
Online Engagement” survey data typology outcomes.
(See Table 8.)
Table 8: Typology Theory and Survey Data Results10
Comparing each of the categories, “The
Empowered American Citizen” and “The Engaged
Grassroots Activists” are more politically interested and
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
131
politically active, whereas “The Complacent American”
and “The Politically Alienated American” are
significantly less politically interested and active.
Moreover, a majority of respondents in the prior two
categories are interested in politics, and a minority
expressed interest in the latter two. Though a majority
within each category voted in the last presidential
election, only a majority of “Empowered” and
“Engaged” Americans voted in the last congressional
elections, while the majority of “Complacent” and
“Alienated” Americans abstained. Comparing across
categories, “Empowered” and “Engaged” Americans
are more likely to vote overall than are those who are
“Complacent” or “Alienated.” Voting behavior and
political interest and activity adhere to the associations
offered in theory, but the “Trust and Online
Engagement” survey data and theoretical postulations
diverge on use of government services. Theory predicts
that the typesets with high trust in government—the
“Engaged” and “Complacent” Americans—will utilized
government services, and those typesets with low trust
in government—the “Empowered” and “Alienated”
Americans—would not use government services. As
shown in the Table 8, “Empowered” and “Engaged”
Americans—the typesets with high political efficacy—
were more likely to use government services both in
person and online, while “Complacent” and
“Alienated” Americans—the typesets with low political
efficacy—were less likely to use government services,
and otherwise interact with government.
“The Complacent American” and “The
Politically Alienated American” share low political
efficacy, and differ in their levels of trust in government
—the former has high trust, and the latter low trust. The
rough similarity of their levels of political interest and
participation, voting patterns, and interactions with the
government, indicates that the level of trust in
government does not have enough of an impact to make
these categories substantially different. For those
American internet-users with low political efficacy,
levels of high or low trust in government will not yield
any real difference in political behaviors.
Trust in government—or lack thereof—
stimulates a difference between “The Empowered
American Citizen” and “The Engaged Grassroots
Activist”—the latter category having consistently
higher levels of political interest, participation, voting,
and government interaction. Even so, the theoretical
descriptions, aside from “Complacent” use of
government services, adequately describe the typology
outcomes from “Trust and Online Engagement” survey
data.
Discussion
Though no causative statement may be made
about the relationship among internet use, trust in
government and political efficacy, and political interest
and participation, each of these attributes of the
internet-active American public are linked. Social
media use, online interactions with government, and
online political activity are positively correlated with
efficacy and trust. As Americans use the internet more
extensively and intensively, there will likely be a rise in
the relative percentage of “Empowered” citizens among
the general population, who are more politically
interest, active, and engaged with government.
A s
social life and political activity in the United States
increasingly take place on the internet and through
social media, and access to computers and the internet
continues to expand, more Americans will be more
engaged on social media platforms. This study shows
that as frequency of social media use increases, more
Americans are likely to have high trust in government
and high political efficacy than low trust and efficacy.
Further, the difference between these types’ political
engagement is extreme: those with low trust and
efficacy are likely to withdraw from politics, and those
with high trust and efficacy are likely to take an active
role.
The implications on the future of American
citizenry are vast. As more Americans become more
active online, this country may see a rise in the
percentage of highly efficacious, politically active
citizens. Moreover, the government’s online presence,
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
132
particularly on Facebook and Twitter, can only bolster
the population’s conversion. Though, among the
iterated types, trust in government is not associated
with greater utilization of government services, higher
likelihood to vote, or great political interest and
participation, lack of trust in government among the
highly efficacious gives way to greater fulfillment of
citizenship roles.
The United States government is based on the
assumption that citizens will take an active role in
political life. Though the Founding Fathers could not
have predicted the rise of the internet and social media,
these outlets serve as virtual “meeting places,” at which
citizens, and non-citizens, voice their opinions on civil,
political, and trivial matters. As civic participation
moves from the neighborhood to the “online
community,” this country is likely to see an increase in
the American public’s political activity on and offline.
The effects of the population’s conversion have yet to
be seen, but will certainly be a research topic of interest
in the 21st century.
References
Almond, G.A., and S. Verba. The Civic Culture:
Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1963.
Christensen, Tom, and Per Laegreid. Trust in
Government – the Relative Importance of
Service Satisfaction, Political Factors and
D e m o g r a p h y. N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 . h t t p : / /
www.ub.uib.no/elpub/rokkan/N/N18-02.pdf
(accessed October 15, 2011).
Ferber, Paul, Franz Foltz, and Rudy Pugliese.
"Cyberdemocracy and Online Politics: A New
Model of Interactivity." Bulletin of Science
Technology Society, 2007: 391-400.
Ferber, Paul, Franz Foltz, and Rudy Pugliese.
"Cyberdemocracy v. Egovernment: The Degree
of Interactivity on State Legislative Websites."
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
2003.
Gibson, George H. Public Broadcasting: The Role of
the Federal Government, 1912–1976. New
York: Praeger, 1977.
Giles, Howard, and Susan C. Baker. "Communication
Accommodation Theory." The International
Encyclopedia of Communication, 2008.
Ha, L., and L. James. "Interactivity reexamined: A
baseline analysis of early." Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1998:
457-474.
Hardin, Russell. "Do we want trust in government?" In
Democracy & Trust, by Mark E. Warren, 24, 26.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Hardin, Russell. "The Street-Level Epistemology of
Trust." Politics and Society, 1993: 505-529.
Hardin, Russell. "Trust in government." In Trust and
Governance, by Margaret Levi Valerie
Braithwaite, 9-27. New York: Russell Sage,
1998.
Inglehart, Ronald. "Trust, well-being and democracy."
In Democracy & Trust, by Mark E. Warren,
98-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Kahne, Joseph, and Joel Westheimer. "The Limits of
Political Efficacy: Educating Citizens for a
Democratic Society." PS: Political Science and
Politics, 2006: 289-296.
Library of Congress Archives. n.d. http://www.loc.gov/
s e a r c h / ? q = p h o n e
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
133
%20directory&fa=digitized:true (accessed
November 10, 2011).
McKenna, Katelyn Y. A., and Yair Amichai-Hamburger.
"The contact hypothesis reconsidered:
Interacting via the Internet." Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006:
Article 7.
Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Putnam, Robert. "Social Capital: Measurement and
Consequences." Canadian Journal of Policy
Research, 2001: 41-51.
Riedel, J.L., and E. Sullivan. "Efficacy: Political."
International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2001: 4353-4356.
Schuller, T., S. Baron, and J. Field. "Social capital: a
review and critique." In Social Capital, by T.
Schuller, S. Baron and J. Field, Fill in later.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Sharoni, Sari. “In Ourselves We Trust.” Washington:
Georgetown University, 2012.
Steinfield, Charles, Joan M. DiMicco, Nicole B.
Ellison, and Cliff Lampe. "Bowling Online:
Social Networking and Social Capital within the
Organization." C&T '09 Proceedings of the
fourth international conference on Communities
and technologies, 2009: 245-254.
Steuer, J. "Defining virtual reality: Dimensions
determining telepresence." Social Responses to
Communication Technologies, 1992: 73-93.
U.S. Political History: Herbert Hoover. n.d. http://
uspoliticalhistory.com/Hoover_1.html (accessed
November 10, 2011).
Williams, Bernard. "Formal structures and social
reality." In Trust: Making and Breaking
Cooperative Reations, by Diego Gambetta,
3-13. Oxford: Basi-Blackwell, 1998.
Endnotes
1. Particularized trust, as opposed to general trust, is
trust extended from an individual to a specific entity.
General trust, in contrast, is trust extended to society
as a whole; it includes all individuals, organizations,
and institutions within it.
2. Trust in government agencies is based on confidence
in bureaucrats and public servants to carry out their
job functions, to provide useful services to the
American government and the American public, and
to, more generally, work in the best interest of the
American public.
3. Whether Americans with low trust in government are
independently politically active or politically inactive
is determined by their political efficacy.
4. “Thin” trust is more likely to change with national
performance with respect to economics, foreign
policy, and other issue areas that more directly affect
the quality of life of the American public.
Traditionally, development or diminishment of “thin”
trust occurred during and after wars.
5. Social media are nonpolitical in the sense that they
do not concern acts of government and they are not,
in their entirety, part of any government or political
party process or institution. Practically, there are
political aspects of social media because those tools
have been employed by some towards the end of
politics. They are not, however, fundamentally or
overwhelmingly political tools.
6. This particularly depends on whether the individual
has high external political efficacy. With high
external political efficacy, the individual would vote
even though he or she has low trust in government.
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
134
With low external efficacy, the individual would be
less likely to vote.
7. In the “Trust in Government” section I did not go
into how trust in political parties plays into trust in
government, because trust in political parties is a
broader issue that relates as much to actual
governmental performance as it does to elections and
campaigning. Even so, distrust in the majority
political party can be deflected to distrust in
government.
8. The rate of successful responses refers to the number
of users who completed the survey and submitted it
divided by the number of users who submitted a
survey, complete or incomplete.
9. (I) indicates that this statement is a measure of
internal political efficacy. (E) indicates that this
statement is a measure of external political efficacy.
Additionally, the scale for answers to statements (4),
(10), and (13) were flipped prior to integration into
the Efficacy Index, because the statements were
phrased negatively.
10.In this table, the four types represented in the Trust/
Efficacy Typology are compared to one another
based on their type-specific percentage of affirmative
answers to the dichotomous “Political interest,”
“Political participation,” “Voting in the last
congressional election,” and “Voting in the last
presidential election” variables. “In-person
government engagement” and “Online government
engagement” are scale variables recoded as
dichotomous.
Sharoni, Sari. 2012. “e-Citizenship,” Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135
135