Community Identity and Political Behavior

COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR This page intentionally left blank Community Identity and Political Behav...

Author: Mary R. Anderson

115 downloads 1750 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

This page intentionally left blank

Community Identity and Political Behavior

Mary R. Anderson

COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

Copyright © Mary R. Anderson, 2010. All rights reserved. First published in 2010 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–0–230–62191–6 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Anderson, Mary R., 1973– Community identity and political behavior / Mary R. Anderson. p. cm. ISBN 978–0–230–62191–6 (alk. paper) 1. Community organization—United States. 2. Community life— United States. 3. Political participation—United States. 4. Community development—United States—Citizen participation. 5. United States— Politics and government. I. Title. HN65.A687 2010 307.0973—dc22

2009041146

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: July 2010 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

This book is dedicated to my children Grace, Joe, and Will.


Contents

List of Tables and Figures

ix

List of Appendices

xiii

Acknowledgments

xv

1 Introduction

1

2

A Research Design for Studying Sense of Community and Political Behavior: Methodological Considerations

19

3

Measuring Sense of Community

35

4

Sense of Community, Efficacy, and Trust

53

5 Political Participation and Sense of Community 6 7 8 9

The Interplay between Sense of Community and Political Discussion

77 95

The Relationship between Political Knowledge and Sense of Community

109

An Alternate Approach: Simple Membership versus Sense of Community

119

Broadening Our Perspective

131

Appendices

143

Notes

211

Bibliography

217

Index

223


Tables and Figures

Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Demographic Characteristics of Counties in Jury Pool Sample Demographic and Political Characteristics of Jury Pool Sample Demographic and Political Characteristics of Jury Pool Respondents by County Demographic and Political Characteristics of Context Survey Sample Demographic and Political Characteristics of Telephone Survey Sample Descriptive Statistics for Sense of Community Items Used in Jury Pool Survey Factor Loadings for Sense of Community Items Used in Jury Pool Survey Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Community Scales for Jury Pool Survey Descriptive Statistics for Sense of Community by Context for Telephone Survey Highest and Lowest Values for Sense of Community by Context for Telephone Survey The Effect of Sense of Community on Internal Efficacy: Estimated via OLS and Ordered Logit The Effect of Sense of Community on External Efficacy: Estimated via OLS and Ordered Logit The Effect of Sense of Community on Personal Trust: Estimated via Ordered Logit The Effect of Sense of Community on Political Trust: Estimated via Ordered Logit Predicted Probabilities for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts for Internal Efficacy

26 27 28 31 32 41 41 42 48 50 60 64 68 69 73

x

TA B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

4.6 Predicted Probabilities for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts for External Efficacy 4.7 Predicted Probabilities for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts for Personal Trust 4.8 Predicted Probabilities for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts for Political Trust 5.1 The Effect of Sense of Community on General Participation Model: Estimated via OLS Regression 5.2 The Effect of Sense of Community on Participation by Political Act: Estimated via Ordered Logit 5.3 The Effect of Sense of Community on Local Voting: Estimated via Ordered Logit 6.1 Average Frequency of Local Discussion by Context 6.2 The Effect of Sense of Community on Local Discussion and General Discussion: Estimated via Ordered Logit 6.3 The Effect of Sense of Community on Discussion Partner: Estimated via Ordered Logit 6.4 The Effect of Sense of Community on Exposure to Dissimilar Political Views: Estimated via OLS Regression 7.1 Frequency Distribution of General Political Knowledge and Local Political Knowledge 7.2 The Effect of Sense of Community on General Political Knowledge Estimated via Ordered Logit 7.3 The Effect of Sense of Community on Local Political Knowledge Estimated via Ordered Logit 8.1 Internal Efficacy: Predicted Probabilities Comparing Membership Alone to Sense of Community at Three Levels 8.2 Local Vote: Predicted Probabilities Comparing Membership Alone to Sense of Community at Three Levels 8.3 Local Discussion: Predicted Probabilities Comparing Membership Alone to Sense of Community at Three Levels

74 74 75 81 84 90 100 102 104

106 112 114 116

125

126

128

Figures 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Hypothetical Scenario 1 Hypothetical Scenario 2 Histogram context by context: Jury Pool Sample Distribution of Responses: Context Survey Sample

37 39 43 47

TA B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

xi

3.5 Distribution of Responses for two Neighborhoods: Telephone Survey Sample 49 4.1 Internal Efficacy Model—Graphical Representation of the Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts at Three Different Levels 62 4.2 External Efficacy Model—Graphical Representation of the Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts at Three Different Levels 66 4.3 Personal Trust Model—Graphical Representation of the Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts at Three Different Levels 70 4.4 Political Trust Model—Graphical Representation of the Change in Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts at Three Different Levels 72 5.1 Path Model of Participation 82 5.2 Letter Writing Model—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 87 5.3 Petition Signing Model—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 89 5.4 Local Vote Model—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 91 6.1 General Political Discussion Model—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 103 6.2 Local Political Discussion Model—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 103 6.3 Discussion Partner Model—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 105 7.1 Local Political Knowledge—Graphical Representation of Predicted Probability for Sense of Community by Number of Contexts 117


Appendices

A B

Sample Request Letter for Jury Coordinator Assistance Jury Pool Questionnaire—Survey Items for Sense of Community C Context Survey D Tallahassee Community Survey (Telephone Survey) E Final Dispositions (Telephone Survey) F Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables G Adapted Sense of Community Index based on McMillan et al (1986) H Simple Membership Models

143 147 149 165 201 203 205 207


Acknowledgments

I

have always considered myself as one who has been fairly involved with the people with whom I lived, worked, and played. However, as a graduate student, I realized that these were one in the same. Pretty early on in my graduate study, I discovered that the people with whom I interacted nearly 12 hours a day had become those that I lived, worked and played with. I was rather disconnected from my neighbors in my small little apartment building with only four units, yet I was immensely connected with the people on the Fifth Floor of the Bellamy Building which housed the Department of Political Science. So when we began to discuss the things that influence participation and attitudes, we naturally came to the topic of community. Although we all agreed it ought to have an impact I realized that we really only considered community to be geographic in nature. As the discussions progressed I began to question how community might come to mean something different for each of us sitting around the table. For me at this time period, the most influential community in my life was my cohort on the Fifth Floor and I wondered are we (political scientists) missing something by simply thinking about community only in the geographic sense? I continued to ponder this question, examining it from different angles in all sorts of seminars and research classes and it ultimately led me to the work that I have produced here. However, it has been a long journey and while the work here is entirely my own and I take full responsibility for the content including any errors that might exist—I absolutely could not have completed this project without the guidance and support of many, many people along the way. As you will see I have been blessed with a wonderful community of family, friends, and mentors who have encouraged and supported me even when it seemed like the continuation of my journey as a graduate student might be in jeopardy because of unforeseen events. While a graduate student, I had the good fortune to be the beneficiary of funding to support this research project. I wish to thank the

xvi

ACK NOW LEDGMENT S

National Science Foundation, the DeVoe L. Moore Center for the Study of Critical Issues in Economic Policy and Government at Florida State University and the Leroy Collins Institute for Public Policy at Florida State University for funding the data collection effort of this project. I also wish to thank the DeVoe L. Moore Center for the generous research fellowship that allowed me to complete this project. During my time at Florida State University, where this project began, I benefited from the exchange of ideas and constant feedback on this work as it progressed in developmental stages. I would like to say thank you to the many faculty members who were there at that time including Bill Berry, Bob Crew, Damarys Canache, Bill Claggett, Bob Jackson, Paul Hensel, Will Moore, Sara Mitchell, Evan Ringquist, Dale Smith, and John Scholz, each of whom offered advice and guidance during times in which I presented parts of this project at departmental colloquia. I also wish to thank the wonderful community of graduate students that listened to my ideas and provided suggestions all along the way. Thank you Mike Allison, Chardie Baird, Ethan Bernick, Ramiro Berardo, Sabri Cifti, Belinda Davis, Christina Fattore, Brad Kile, Emilia Powell, Scot Schraufnagel, Steve Shellman, Cliff Sherrill, Tom Sowers, Joe Young, and especially to my dear friend Rod Lewis. Your willingness to review and offer guidance on nearly every aspect of this project along with your methodological know-how has been a blessing but it all pares in comparison to your friendship. Thank you as well to Paul Speer, a faculty member and community psychologist at Vanderbilt University who I met at an ICPSR networking conference; it was through our discussions that this project came to take on its final shape. Finding the world of community psychology has been wonderful adventure. Thank you Paul for putting me on the path. To Heather Price and Dave Richards, my colleagues at the University of Memphis, thank you for your encouragement and support as I wrestled with the adjustment of being a new faculty member, I appreciate the time you spent “talking me down.” I am grateful that we had that time together and that we remain close still. I also wish to thank the editors of Political Behavior and Political Psychology for their approval and permission for the use of previously published work to be included in this book. Four faculty members at Florida State deserve a special thank you. They offered guidance and support for which I am utterly grateful and I wish to thank them personally here. Carol Weissert, thank you for lending support to this project, particularly in the final stages

ACK NOW LEDGMENT S

xvii

(including funding) and providing me with the confidence to reach the finish line. Charles Barrilleaux, thank you for lending your ear to this project from its inception and providing me with countless hours of advice. You mentored me from the first day that I walked through the doors of FSU. I am particularly indebted to you for your generous assistance in helping me find sources of support to keep this project on track. To Tom Carsey, thank you for teaching me about the rigor of analysis and for instilling in me the confidence to persevere despite seemingly difficult odds. Above all, thank you for your friendship and for sharing your family with me. Finally, I am deeply grateful for the continued support, mentorship, and friendship that Jeff Mondak has provided me. Thank you for teaching me to think critically, work independently, and to believe in myself. Thank you for encouraging me to seek out the real answers to my questions and not settle for data that is simply available. The countless hours you spent reading, editing, and lending an ear is how this project has finally come to completion. I am thankful for each of you and the hard work you invested in me. Thank you also to Palgrave Macmillan for giving me the opportunity to make this project a reality. I want to especially thank Robyn Curtis and Farideh Koohi Kamali for their support and guidance in keeping things on track. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the University of Tampa. I appreciate the support that you have provided me this last year as this project has finally come to fruition. I appreciate the advice and encouragement you have given me. I personally wish to thank Jim Beckman, your guidance through the book contract process has been very much appreciated. Most of all, I would like to thank my family. To my mom and dad, Ben and Philomena Ruggiero thank you for your unwavering support and encouragement that has allowed us to fulfill this dream. To my brother Neil, thank you for your support via the telephone and email, I feel like this project has been to all parts of the world thanks to you. To my mother-in-law Judy, thank you for all your help and support particularly in helping me find the time to finish this project. Most importantly, thank you to my wonderful husband Keith. This project has been a permanent house guest for way too many years, thank you for your patience, encouragement, and support as we finally bring it to a close. Lastly, thank you to my children Grace, Joe, and Will. It is to you that I dedicate this book. You have taught me so much in the short time you have been a part of my life. Joy and sorrow are a part of life and undoubtedly you will have your share of

xviii

ACK NOW LEDGMENT S

both, though I pray you will have much more joy than sorrow. Yet, no matter what life holds, I hope that I can teach you what you have taught me: never give up, never give up, never give up. Perseverance is everything. You gave me the reason to continue when things seemed bleak. You give me the reason to live each day to its fullest. Thank you.

Chapter 1

Introduction

A long time ago I was in the ancient city of Prague and at the same time Joseph Alsop, the justly famous critic of places and events was there . . . Joe and I flew home to America in the same plane, and on the way he told me about Prague, and his Prague had no relation to the city I had seen and heard. It just wasn’t the same place, and yet each of us was honest, neither one a liar, both pretty good observers by any standard, and we brought home two cities, two truths. John Steinbeck

C

ommunity has long been acknowledged to play a vital role in influencing various types of political behaviors and attitudes, especially at the local level. Over the years, political scientists have often noted this fact, however, we know very little as to why or how this pattern emerges. Over the last two decades, research on political participation has made significant advances in examining factors beyond the individual level to look at contextual effects on behavior. Social forces— where and with whom we work, live, socialize, and worship—play a crucial role in determining many of the decisions we make, including our political choices (Huckfeldt, Plutzer and Sprague 1993). Just as Steinbeck and Alsop experienced Prague entirely differently, as the quote at the start of this chapter illustrates, so too do people experience life differently—some people like their jobs more than others, some feel stronger attachments to their neighborhoods or churches, some are deeply involved in their voluntary associations while others are less so—and these differences in social experiences matter for political attitudes and perceptions. The environment in which we operate can influence political behavior and attitudes among individuals, such that experiences resulting from interactions with others can lead some individuals to become more or less politically engaged.

2

C O M M U N I T Y I D E N T I T Y A N D P O L I T I C A L B E H AV I O R

Most people would agree that community is a critical component for social change. Indeed the results of the 2008 election highlight community as a critical element for change. In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama, was successful largely because his organization recognized the unique power and longing that individuals have for a sense of community, the idea of being a part of something, engaging in social change. Indeed writing even before his candidacy for president, Obama alludes to the value of and the strength of community in fostering social change. In particular, he writes about a sense of community, stating that “despite all the evidence to the contrary that we could restore a sense of community to a nation torn by conflict” (Obama 2006, p. 356). Hence Obama is suggesting that sense of community is something that can lead to positive empowerment. Sense of community is a critical term firmly grounded in theory and practice in the field of community psychology; however the field of political science has yet to fully explore and utilize this theory in examining the effects of community on political behaviors. Community psychology is a subfield of psychology that emerged out America’s historical Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The political and social changes that materialized as a result of the Civil Rights movement paved a pathway for the exploration of the effects of community on social change (Perkins, Hughey, and Speer 2002). Political Psychology Political psychology is the point at which psychology and politics intersect. While still a relatively young field in comparison to other fields in political science—the professional association, the International Society of Political Science, ratified its constitution in 1985—political psychology has contributed to our understanding of the way in which psychological patterns influence decision making in the political arena. Political psychology is by nature and name interdisciplinary. It includes scholars from political science and psychology to be sure, but it also draws upon scholars from sociology, public administration, criminal justice, and many more. It is an extremely broad area of research and as such has been used to examine all sorts of interesting questions. Why do political leaders make the decisions that they do? What role does personality play in deciding to run for political office? How do groups and group dynamics influence decision making (i.e., the Senate)? What prompts extremists groups to

INTRODUCTION

3

action? How do individuals process information from campaigns, from the media, or from other individuals? These are the types of questions political psychologists seek to answer. Yet for all the advances made in political psychology and all the communication that has taken place between psychologists and political scientists and the crossroads between the two, one area that has been largely overlooked has been the relationship between community psychology and political behavior. To be fair community psychology is also a young field within psychology, however the theoretical application of community psychology for the study of politics is significant. Community psychologists (as I will explain more fully later) are interested in similar types of questions as are political scientists. They are concerned with building healthy communities and problem solving through cooperation and trust—clearly the work of government and thus so appropriate for the study of politics. In the pages that follow, I will focus on how community psychology is important to the study of politics and how we can use it to better understand political behavior. Returning to Columbia In recent years, many political scientists have returned to the (Columbia) idea that individuals should not be studied merely in isolation, but that they instead should pay attention to social forces potentially operating on the individual (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1944).1 We see numerous examples of this in recent research. One such example is network research. This line of inquiry demonstrates that communication networks expose participants to information and viewpoints that produce numerous important consequences “that are valued in democratic systems” (Mutz 2002, p. 112). These include, for instance, greater interpersonal deliberation, awareness of opposing viewpoints, and greater tolerance. A second area is context research. This research demonstrates that the physical contexts in which we are embedded impose significant parameters in terms of things such as what information we receive (e.g., Huckfledt, Plutzer, and Sprague 1993; Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995). Third, social capital research argues that social interaction offers a unique array of resources that can be of benefit at both the individual and collective level (Putnam 1993, 1995). Fourth, group identity research, derived in large part from social identity theory, focuses on the effects of group membership in terms of solving collective action problems and more recently examining inter-group

4


conflict (Miller, Gurin, Gurin and Malanchuk, 1981; Gurin, Miller, and Gurin, 1980; Simon and Klandermans 2005 for example). While each of these four approaches have moved the field forward toward a better understanding of the effects of social forces, there remains something missing in the overall analysis. In studies such as these, as Huddy (2003, pp. 514–515) carefully explains “group membership is effectively treated as an objective assignment rather than a subjective identification.” Hence, what still remains a mystery is that “internalized sense of belonging to the group” (Huddy 2003, p. 515). This objective view has led us down a path where we often have sought to measure whether an individual is a part of group or not without any regard whatsoever about the level of attachment the individual has to the group. Thus, this leaves out an important variable which may or may not have significant effects on political behavior. It is my contention that it does indeed hinder our broader understanding of political behavior. I take a related but somewhat different approach to studying the effects of social forces on political behavior and attitudes than the approaches followed in these aforementioned studies. There are two central arguments that provide a foundation for what follows. First, all individuals interact within multiple contexts. Others (e.g., Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995) have noted this point, but most research examines only one context, such as the neighborhood or association. I argue that we need to account for the multiple contexts in which the person operates if we are to fully understand the impact of social forces on political attitudes and behavior. Second, within any given context, one’s level of embeddedness or connectedness can vary. For example, is a neighborhood just a place to live, or is it a neighborhood/ community to which the person is attached, and for which the person feels pride? Is an office just a place for work or does the workplace act more like a family where the worker is a proud and loyal member? We need to take account of this variance in levels of attachment (i.e., sense of community) to improve our understanding of how, why, and when social forces influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. Past research, although fruitful, has been limited by its failure to act on these two key points: (1) attention to multiple contexts and (2) attention to variance in level of community connectedness or sense of community. Putnam’s (1995) initial work on voluntary association membership provides a case in point. Putnam first operationalized “social capital” solely in terms of membership in voluntary associations, but this entirely misses the possibility that contexts other than

INTRODUCTION

5

voluntary associations matter for social capital (a point he himself recognizes later). For instance, under Putnam’s original approach, someone who belongs to two associations is operationally defined as having more social capital than someone who belongs to zero, although it may well be that the person with zero memberships is highly embedded in various workplace networks and committees and spends a great deal of time socializing informally with friends. While Putnam simply counts association memberships, context research and group identity research simply measures whether you are or are not part of a given context or group. These approaches necessarily treat all memberships as equal. On its face, this is highly unrealistic. There is a clear likelihood that group membership means something very different for the ten-year, highly active member than for the two-year member with sporadic attendance at meetings. Further, by treating all memberships as equal, context becomes something of a black box. There is no modeling of process. People go into a context or belong to a group, and something good (or bad) comes out. But how, why and when this happens is not modeled. We do not know what transpired, only that the context or the group somehow matters. The present approach takes into account multiple contexts and individual attachment within those contexts. Although it is probably impossible to develop an exhaustive list of contexts, we at least can improve upon the single-context approach typically used in the political science literature. Here I will consider the neighborhood, the workplace, church, or place of worship, organization/associations, and informal network such as one’s circle of friends; all contexts that have been examined in numerous political science studies and for which we know have some bearing on political behavior. Community Psychology Broadly speaking, community psychologists seek to examine connections between individuals and the social system to which they belong. It is a field of research that is interdisciplinary drawing heavily from psychology—interest in the individual—and sociology—interest in groups and group dynamics. Community psychologists are concerned with healthy communities made up of well thriving individuals. It simultaneously advances both theoretical and applied approaches to research. As Division 27 of the American Psychological Association, the professional association for community psychology—SCR A— The Society for Community Research and Action—has as its mission

6


“the advancement of theory, research and social action to promote positive well being, increase empowerment, and prevent the development of problems of communities, groups and individuals” (http:// www.scra27.org/, accessed June 24, 2009). Theoretically a community psychology is applicable for a wide variety of contexts—such as the workplace, places of worship, neighborhoods, etc.—all of which have been deemed important by political scientists studying political behavior. In 1974, Seymour Sarason published a groundbreaking book titled “The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology.” This work served as a call to his colleagues in psychology to explore what he termed “the destruction of the psychological sense of community that was the central problem in social living” (Sarason 1974, p. viii). He recalls cataloging all the books in which this theme emerged over a two year period beginning in 1972 only to stop when he reached the inevitable conclusion that everything he read suggested that we were becoming a nation of loners— individuals with no sense of belonging. Based largely on his work in the mental health community—he was the director of the Yale Psycho-Educational Clinic—Sarason concluded like many others across multiple disciplines over the years—that healthy communities are essential to a well functioning society. Thus, he called for a greater focus on the interconnectedness of individuals and their communities. Bess et al. (2002) suggest that the goal of Sarason’s work was ultimately to bridge together “three interrelated opinions” (p. 6) that he had developed during his tenure in the profession. First, that a lack of sense of community was something that occurred more often than not. Second, that it was negatively affecting society. And third, that community psychologists should place a greater emphasis on examining it, including its consequences and prevention. In other words, he laid out his vision for the future of the field. The call did not go unnoticed. By 1986, research on sense of community was flourishing, with special editions to the Journal of Community Psychology, dedicated to research in this field. Sense of Community Sarason’s work reflected the belief that individuals who are strongly connected to the community could help build a healthier society. Thus, applying this logic to political science, individuals’ perceptions about their significance in a given community can have meaningful

INTRODUCTION

7

effects on the way in which communities influence politics and governing. In general, we tend to think of communities in terms of geography—or what community psychologists term locational communities; however community is not simply a geographic location. There are numerous communities in which individuals are involved. For instance, for the typical academic they may be involved in the city community, the university community, the social science community, the church community, and so on—what community psychologists refer to as relational communities—those based on some shared interest (Bess et al. 2002). Although geography plays an important role in defining a community, it does not alone establish a sense of community—a fact political science scholars are now recognizing. Beyond Sarason’s theory, one of the largest developments in the field of community psychology has been transferring the theory into a quantitative model. Perhaps the greatest contribution in this endeavor has been the development of the sense of community scale lead by McMillan and Chavis (1986).2 According to McMillan and Chavis (1986) a sense of community is defined as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment together” (p. 9). The measure therefore is comprised of four components which can be observed and then applied to different contexts. Although some individuals may be disconnected from their geographic neighborhood—meaning they may not know their neighbors or visit with them regularly—this does not necessarily mean they are disconnected from all communities. It is entirely possible they have a sense of community. However, rather than this feeling coming from their neighborhood it may instead come from some other type of community such as their church, organization, or workplace, or even from multiple contexts. For political scientists, a mystery remains as to why community comes to matter for political behavior. I propose that part of the answer lies in sense of community. McMillian and Chavis (1986) proposed that sense of community is composed of four elements; (1) membership, (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and (4) shared emotional connection. The first element, membership, creates a sense of belonging and identification, it creates boundaries; there are those who belong and those who do not. For example, individuals who belong to a particular association such as the Rotary Club are known as Rotarians and

8


those who do not belong to the group are not Rotarians. The second element, influence, is a sense of mattering. An example would be a member of a group who believes that s/he can make a difference to the group—that s/he matters to the group and that the group matters to the member. The third element is integration and fulfillment of needs. This refers to the feeling that members’ needs will be met by their membership in the group and that there are shared values among group members, for example members of a particular church typically hold similar beliefs and values. The final element is shared emotional connection. This element is based, in part, on a shared history or an identification of shared events; an example would be individuals who belong to a cancer survivors group. In order to measure an individual’s sense of community, McMillian et al. (1986) developed what has come to be referred to as the Sense of Community Index, a 12-item True/False questionnaire that taps into the four elements of sense of community. Support for the reliability and validity of the Sense of Community Index is well documented in the community psychology literature, and the scale has been used to examine a wide variety of communities. Although its most common use has been in the neighborhood context (e.g., Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, and Chavis, 1990), it has also been employed in studies dealing with workplaces (Pretty and McCarthy 1991), support and demand characteristics of college students’ social environments (Pretty 1990), union participation (Cantano, Pretty, Southwell, and Cole, 1993), and support systems for adolescents (Pretty, Andrews, and Collett, 1994, Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler, and Williams 1996). Because it can be adapted to different types of communities, it suits the purpose of this research quite well. The index has also been adapted in format to include a 5 point Likert-type response. Using the same statements as the original True/False battery, individuals are asked to respond based on how much they agree or disagree with the statements ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, “a modification that is likely to result in greater sensitivity in representing ‘true’ perceptions of the social connections, mutual concerns and community values” within the respective contexts (Long and Perkins 2003, p. 291). McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) work represents a model in which a sound theory is accompanied by a formal measure. It advances the field in that the approach is based on the scientific method in which hypotheses are deduced and then tested. It provides a means to understanding how varying levels of sense of community can influence individual and group behavior.

INTRODUCTION

9

Possible Consequences of Sense of Community Sense of community may have several consequences for various types of political attitudes and behaviors such as political participation and a concern for the collective good, tolerance, community satisfaction, trust, efficacy, and political discussion.3 My objective in this book is to build an analytical case for how and why attention to sense of community may shed light on many questions of political behavior. Although many studies in political science have directly or indirectly implied that community affects political attitudes and behaviors, this research has not studied how sense of community may influence these positions and actions, nor has this research explored the concept of sense of community with a level of depth comparable to that characteristic of research in community psychology (Davidson and Cotter 1989 is the notable exception with relation to political participation). Instead, past research in political science has typically concentrated only on the geographic nature of communities such as the neighborhood or city (i.e., locational communities). A more direct approach which allows for the examination of individuals’ sense of community can help us achieve a better understanding of the process in which sense of community influences political views and behaviors.

Participation Many factors may affect an individual’s level of political participation. The literature has provided numerous examples of the effects of demographics such as education, income, age, and race on political participation. Recent studies have also considered the impact of contextual variables such as organization membership (Putnam 1993, 1995), and interaction within neighborhoods, churches (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995, Wald 1988, 1990), and workplaces (Mondak and Mutz 2002, 2001, Mutz and Mondak 2006) on political participation and decision-making. Collectively, the findings suggest that context matters. These studies demonstrate that the extent of involvement in the workplace, church, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations can all have meaningful effects on levels of political participation (see also Zuckerman 2005). Theoretically then, it is plausible to believe that sense of community can influence political participation (particularly local participation) because “people who are strongly attached, as is the case with sense of community, can be expected to get involved” (Davidson and Cotter 1989, p. 119). In fact, Davidson

10


and Cotter (1989) demonstrate that there is a high level of correlation between several types of political participation and sense of community where “city” is the context for sense of community.4 For decades now, Americans have exhibited disturbingly high levels of political cynicism and disturbingly low levels of political participation. One place that we can possibly counter these patterns is at the grass-roots level—getting citizens involved in local governance. Efficacy and Trust Much attention has been paid to the effects of political efficacy and trust on political participation (for a discussion of efficacy see Abramson 1983, Bennett 1986; for a discussion of trust see Uslaner 2002, Hetherington 1998, Brehm and Rahn 1997). Previous research demonstrates a strong correlation between both efficacy and trust and political behavior. However, despite the fact that these variables contribute to explaining things like voting, campaign involvement, and the like, relatively little is known about the social forces that influence them. We know that individual level characteristics such as age, income, and education are key predictors of efficacy and trust, yet excluded from virtually all analyses is the possibility that efficacy and trust may also be influence by social interaction and involvement. Theoretically, however, it is quite reasonable to assume that social forces—such as sense of community—should play a role in influencing levels of efficacy and trust. For example, sense of community at its very core suggests collaboration. Central to the completion of any collective effort—the likes of which church groups, service organizations, workplace environments undertake—is cooperation. One of the cornerstones of building trust is cooperation (Putnam 2000), thus the greater one’s sense of community, the more likely they are to be trusting. Second, sense of community is built on relationships. Those who are successful in building relationships with others and in influencing the opinions of fellow members, co-workers, or neighbors, might lead them to believe they can also be influential in the political arena. In other words, those with higher levels of sense of community may be more likely to have strong feelings of efficacy. This theoretical argument runs parallel to collective efficacy theory, a theoretical perspective which is used widely by scholars who study urban social organization. According to collective efficacy theory, “the prevalence and density of kinship, friendship, and acquaintanceship networks and the level of participation in community based organizations fosters the emergence of collective efficacy, or solidarity

INTRODUCTION

11

and mutual trust (social cohesion) among community residents combined with shared expectations for social control-related action” (Browning, Feinberg, and Dietz 2004). Thus, based on collective efficacy theory the causal relationship posited here is quite logical. Political Discussion The extent to which the social context provides a means for political dialogue has also received considerable attention over the last decade (Cramer-Walsh 2004, Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995, Huckfeldt, Plutzer, and Sprague 1993, Huckfeldt, Johnson and Sprague 2004, Mutz 2006, Mutz and Mondak 2006, McClurg 2006, Wald, Owen, and Hill 1988, 1990 to name a few). The findings collectively suggest that social communication and political discourse play a significant role in American politics; from exposing individuals to opposing viewpoints, to assisting in political decision making and even increasing participation. We know that absent anything else discussion of political events, leaders, and issues disseminates information; this information may be accurate or not, depending on the source, but the key is that the person(s) involved are exposed to some form of political information which may directly or indirectly effect their political decision making. This may occur around the water cooler at the office, on the soccer field between parents, or more formally at meetings or church. A sense of community that is built within these communities (i.e., the workplace, association, and church) can therefore have a significant influence on the extent to which individuals discuss politics and issues facing their communities. Political Knowledge While a great deal of research on political knowledge exists, we know relatively little about the manner in which social contexts may come to affect levels of political knowledge. Few studies have focused on the link between social contexts and political knowledge and a review of the literature on local political knowledge is quite scarce. One notable exception is a 2002 study by Scheufele, Shanahan, and Kim where they suggest that community ties and social networks play a role in acquiring information and becoming informed about local issues. However, knowledge of local issues and local politics are likely two very different things (I will expand upon this difference later in chapter 7). But, like Scheufele, Shanahan, and Kim (2002), I contend that a likely relationship between sense of community and political

12


knowledge exists. I suspect that the relationship will be stronger for local political knowledge than general political knowledge—a difference we will explore in the chapter on political knowledge—simply because sense of community in and of itself implies a more localized focus rather than a national one and as such should have implications for levels of local political knowledge more so than general political knowledge which focuses on national politics. Why Community? Above, I lay out a series of expectations about the relationship between sense of community and political behavior. But why should these social interactions matter? Past work in this area such as Coleman’s groundbreaking analysis of social capital suggests at least one simple yet reasonable answer. Social interaction provides information. At the very least people observe one another and they communicate with one another and that these processes disseminate information. In other words, a person’s involvement in the community (i.e., context) may heighten that person’s exposure to political information and spark political discussion and/or action. Cramer-Walsh’s (2004) evidence of social interaction and political talk in Ann Arbor is a case in point. Her observation of people in Ann Arbor suggests that political discussion is a by-product of social interaction. “Much political interaction occurs not among people who make a point to specifically talk about politics but emerges instead from the social processes of people chatting with one another” (Cramer-Walsh 2004, p. 35). Hence, when individuals come together and form a group whether it is a group of individuals who work together, attend the same church, live in the same neighborhood, etc. and engage in interaction with one another, a by-product of this social interaction is political discussion. This interaction may also encourage individuals to become involved in politics in a way they may have not otherwise considered. Theoretically then it is plausible to hypothesize that sense of community will have significant effects on political behavior and/or attitudes. Critical prefatory empirical matters must be addressed before the causal hypotheses I outlined can be considered truly viable. First, the scenarios I have laid out hypothesize that sense of community influences political behavior, however, alternate causal connections are possible. The most likely alternate scenario is that the relationship is spurious. While I do not believe this to be the case, I am aware that such a relationship potentially could exist. Although there is no

INTRODUCTION

13

definitive means in the case of cross-sectional analyses to exclude such a possibility particularly with regard to sense of community, measures can be taken to limit such concerns and I have done so. Throughout this study I have included measures that capture an important array of individual-level traits; personality characteristics. Because personality captures many of the most obvious factors that might incline an individual to develop a strong sense of community and be likely to engage others in political conversation—extroversion, warmth, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—I have included measures of personality as control variables which should allay much of the concern about spuriousness. Personality is important as a control as it is likely to play a role in how an individual views his/her community. There are numerous measures developed in the psychological literature to capture various aspects of personality. I have elected to use the Big Five personality traits. The Big Five personality traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, and agreeableness. These are included mainly as control variables to account for personality affects that may be related to various types of political behaviors. It is entirely plausible, even likely that personality plays a large role in many types of political behaviors and attitudes. For a detailed discussion of personality and political behavior see Mondak and Halperin (2008). I have argued that sense of community is best measured in a manner that taps more than sheer membership, and in a manner that captures the multiple contexts within which a given individual interacts. These claims require empirical corroboration. First, do individuals within the same type of context (e.g., church or workplace) exhibit differing levels of sense of community? If not, then there would be nothing to be gained through the introduction of measurement strategies that capture more than sheer membership. Second, do individuals develop a sense of community within multiple contexts? If not, then simultaneous attention to multiple contexts may be unnecessary. The empirical examination carried out in the following chapters address these questions and reveal the potential value to be gained through attention to sense of community in research on political behavior. It is generally agreed that community matters for political behavior, however past research neglects to consider (a) the diversity of communities, and (b) the levels of attachments within communities. Therefore, a central objective here is to address these deficiencies by attempting to measure sense of community as it is operationalized by community psychologists in contexts that political scientists have

14


deemed important for politics such as workplaces, neighborhoods, churches, and voluntary organizations. The analyses presented in the following chapters are from original data collected from three separate surveys. The first two surveys provide critical evidence for the existence of sense of community which is discussed in great detail in chapter 3. The third survey is based on a telephone survey of 822 randomly selected individuals and provides the data necessary to conduct empirical tests of the sorts of relationships which I hypothesize exist. These examinations are conducted in chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The study site for the telephone survey is Tallahassee, FL. It provides an excellent setting in which to implement a community survey of this type for a number of reasons. It possesses diversity of the sort that is essential for pursuit of my central research question. This study site has many different neighborhoods and a varied collection of churches and associations. It is the state capital and home to two universities and one community college, it plays host to a variety of industries ranging from agricultural to manufacturing to technology, and it has a booming professional community. I discuss more on the study site in the next chapter. Summary We know from previous research that the context in which an individual interacts influences his or her political behaviors and attitudes quite widely, from beliefs and attitudes to practices and behavior. Previous research has suggested that community matters, however it has failed to address two critical points (1) the multiple contexts in which individuals interact and (2) the variation of connectedness within any given context. By examining individuals’ perceptions in multiple contexts, we will be able to gain a deeper understanding of how sense of community works to influence different types of political behaviors and attitudes. The social component of political behavior has been re-introduced into models that seek to explain not only what but why different forces matter for politics. If social interaction matters for politics—and previous research is premised on the assumption that it does—then we should broaden our understanding of how and why this interaction matters. Examining sense of community is a step in that direction. The concept that I outline, the hypothetical scenarios I will propose, and the empirical assessment of sense of community suggest that it is not only the membership in a context, but also, and arguably more importantly, the quality of the interactions

INTRODUCTION

15

and attachments within those contexts that truly matter for political behavior. The analytical and empirical examples that will be reported here make the case that too much of interest is overlooked when we focus on only membership, and when we examine only a single context. Research in community psychology has made clear that a broader approach of the sort proposed here can pay substantial dividends in research on human behavior. My purpose in this book is to demonstrate that these dividends also may be accrued when the particular topics in question concern political behavior. We must continue to work to broaden our perspective when examining the social component of political behavior. Just as Steinbeck and Alsop experienced the same city entirely differently so too do people experience life differently. These differences in social experiences influence our political behaviors and attitudes, and therefore deserve to play a central role in our accounts of political behavior. A Brief Overview of the Book Individual perceptions about their significance in a given community can only be known by simply asking individuals about their experiences. We can observe individuals from afar in various social/group settings, however we can only understand their perception of their importance to the group by asking them. Surveying individuals both within groups and across groups provides a method to better our understanding of an individual’s sense of community. Chapter 2 develops the research design for studying sense of community and political behavior. I argue that previous studies, although fruitful, have missed the mark on gaining nuanced information about how community comes to matter for all sorts of political behavior. The chapter provides descriptions of the data collected and the rationale for each different survey instrument. Chapter 3 is the first of six empirical chapters. Utilizing a modified version of the sense of community index (SCI) developed by McMillan and Chavis (1986), I analyze two critical questions in this chapter: (1) how much variance exists between and within contexts? And (2) where does sense of community develop—does it stem from one or multiple contexts? It provides critical descriptive information on sense of community across several types of communities and the variance in sense of community within and across those communities. Through the use of hypothetical scenarios, I demonstrate the reasoning for a multicontext approach to studying sense of community and point out

16


where past research has failed to adequately measure this type of concept. Chapter 4 initiates the discussion of the consequences of sense of community for different types of political behaviors and attitudes. Specifically, this chapter’s focus is on political efficacy and trust. The basic hypothesis is that sense of community will influence levels of political efficacy and trust, contributing to the development of both. Past research has highlighted the significant contributions that efficacy and trust have on political participation, but relatively little is known about what impact—if any—social forces exert on the generation of efficacy and trust. Chapter 5 explores the manner in which sense of community can be used to predict various types of political activities such as the likelihood of voting in local elections, signing petitions, attending local meetings, etc. First, I examine how sense of community influences participation in the general sense through attention to a summary indicator that captures multiple forms of participation. I then focus on each activity individually. Chapter 6 examines the role of sense of community in the discussion of local politics and general politics. While scholarly research has been paying greater attention to political discussion, the extent to which sense of community influences general and local discussion is relatively unknown. In addition, I explore the relationship between sense of community and the closeness of discussion partners, whether the most frequent discussion partner is a close friend or family member or someone for which one is more casually acquainted? This follows a stream of research on networks and could contribute to that larger body of research. Chapter 7 explores the relationship between sense of community and political knowledge, particularly local political knowledge. Although research on political knowledge abounds, for multiple reasons which I will discuss in this chapter, relatively scant research exists related to local political knowledge. The last empirical chapter, chapter 8, takes a look at the alternative approach to which this research rallies against. I examine several models where instead of examining political behavior with sense of community as the key independent variable, I model each behavior as a function of simple membership. As will be discussed further and as you have already read, my argument is that we need to move beyond simply examining membership in a community or context and rather look at multiple contexts. Chapter 8 will look back at several key dependent variables and determine what the results would have been

INTRODUCTION

17

had we decided to examine only membership in a context rather than sense of community. Finally, I close in chapter 9 with a reflection about what we have learned by examining a sense of community as it relates to political behavior and attitudes. I sum up by offering some concluding thoughts about the state of this literature in the broader field as well as implications that can be drawn from the research. Finally, I pose questions for future research.


Chapter 2

A Research Design for Studying Sense of Community and Political Behavior: Methodological Considerations

T

he thesis I have developed thus far suggests that the concept of sense of community is relevant to a great deal of contemporary research on American political behavior. However, a mix of theoretical and methodological limitations has meant that the full value of the sense of community perspective has not yet been realized. Methodological considerations are my concern in the present chapter. Even though political scientists have written implicitly and explicitly about sense of community in terms of context, social influence, social capital, and identity, the measures of sense of community have been blunt and all too often have failed to capture the fine nuances of variation both within and across contexts. In an effort to address this limitation, this study implemented several surveys in a multistage process. This chapter will provide a detailed description of the survey instruments used for this project and highlight how the instruments used here render a better measure for sense of community to be used in studies of political behavior than had been offered in previous research. Ideally it would have been the most cost effective and efficient to use existing data sources in order to examine the influence of sense of community on political behavior. Thus, my first instinct was to turn to the National Election Studies and General Social Survey—both of which are used in numerous studies of political behavior because they ask the sort of questions that are typically of interest to students of political behavior. However, in this case, I found that like others before me, the measures that I could construct for sense of community from the NES and GSS were too vague and failed to live up the

20


type of nuanced measure I needed in order to fully explore the connection between community and behavior. Thus, I undertook a year—long process to construct a multisurvey, iterative approach to creating a research design that would allow me to examine these relationships as accurately as I possibly could given certain limitations of time, money, and access to groups. The data used in this study are from three original surveys. The designing of these surveys was an iterative process. The first survey, completed by members of jury pools in several states in the spring of 2003, provided an initial exploration of variance in sense of community across contexts. I refer to this survey throughout the remained of this book as the jury pool survey. After integrating findings from this survey and insights from psychological research on sense of community, a paper-and-pencil survey was administered to members of specific contexts or groups in the Tallahassee area in the spring of 2004. I refer to this survey as the context survey throughout the remainder of the book. This instrument was then replicated, but with several key refinements, via a telephone survey conducted in Tallahassee in the fall of 2004; this survey for future reference is known as the telephone survey. It is generally agreed that community matters for political behavior, however past research neglects to consider (a) the diversity of communities, and (b) the levels of attachments within communities. Therefore, a central objective here is to address these deficiencies by attempting to measure sense of community as it is operationalized by community psychologists in contexts that political scientists have deemed important for politics such as workplaces, neighborhoods, churches, voluntary organizations, and informal settings such as a group of friends.

Three Surveys One Goal Jury Pool Survey Sense of community, a feeling of belonging, community attachment, social connectedness; these are terms that have been used in political science to describe the extent to which an individual is connected to other individuals or a group. Because these terms are often used interchangeably, it is imperative to know whether people understand them to mean the same thing. Further, it is unclear how the level of embeddedness varies within a particular context from one individual to another. For example, does everyone who lives in a neighborhood with an active association feel the same degree of connectedness to that neighborhood and to that association? In an effort to gain insight

A RESEARCH DESIGN

21

as to whether these terms are tapping a similar connotation and to uncover whether a sense of community exists in multiple contexts, the first of the three surveys used in this study was administered in the spring of 2003 to potential jurors in six counties in four states (Florida, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin). Because potential jurors are selected through a random sampling process, jury pools serve as excellent cost—effective sources for conducting exploratory surveys. The use of jury pools from multiple jurisdictions yields samples with characteristics approximately as diverse as the county populations from which they are drawn. The survey used here yielded nearly 600 observations. Jury coordinators were contacted as a means to obtain potential jurors in which to administer the 2003 survey. Those coordinators who agreed to participate in the survey were mailed packages that included the requested number of self—administered survey forms, along with an instruction sheet.1 Prospective jurors were informed of the opportunity to participate in the survey, and those who agreed to do so obtained instruments from jury staff, completed the instruments as per the instructions, and returned them to the jury coordinator. Participation was voluntary, and participants’ identities were not recorded. The instruments themselves were omnibus forms that bundled items from several research projects, along with a core group of attitudinal and demographic indicators. On average, the forms were four pages in length and included approximately thirty items, five of which focused on sense of community. Using the most common terms which are applied when describing a sense of community, I asked respondents to consider a particular context and to gauge to what extent they (1) had a sense of community, (2) had a sense of belonging, (3) felt connected to everyone, (4) turned to people for support during crises, (4) considered people like family, and (5) had a sense of attachment. Each respondent was asked these items as they pertained to one of five contexts—the workplace, church, neighborhood, associations, city or town, and the person’s circle of friends.2 These data permit a couple of descriptive analyses. First, I am able to determine what variance exists, if any, in the extent to which people feel a sense of connectedness within these various contexts. Second, looking across the contexts, I am able to ascertain whether sense of community is more prevalent in some contexts than others. These analyses are important both because they provide a preliminary look at the potential nuance of sense of community and because the insights gained from these data informed my efforts to develop this project’s second and third survey instruments.

22


Context Survey Part two of this multistage survey process involved individuals embedded within various contexts including places of worship, workplaces, and associations. Initially designed as a method of pretesting the telephone survey, this survey ultimately provided an excellent way to measure the variation of sense of community for individuals within similar contexts. The questions relating directly to sense of community are adapted from work in the field of community psychology. Much attention in this field has been paid to measuring sense of community. By building on and adapting the work already completed in community psychology, we can broaden our understanding of how sense of community affects political behavior and attitudes. As discussed in the previous chapter, the key elements for measuring sense of community are (1) membership, (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and (4) shared emotional connection (McMillian and Chavis 1986). The battery of questions designed to tap these elements comprise the Sense of Community Index (SCI). The context survey contained the SCI along with questions that measure demographic and political characteristics, political knowledge, personality, and attitudes about local issues. The survey was a selfadministered paper-and-pencil instrument, and it was completed by 270 respondents between February 2004 and July 2004. Managers of workplaces, church leaders, and organization presidents in Tallahassee, FL were contacted in an effort to acquire groups to which to administer the 2004 context survey. First, they were sent a letter of introduction with a description of the project. Second, the letter was followed up with a phone call requesting access to their employees or members to use as participants for the survey.3 Those who agreed to assist with the project either a) were hand delivered a package of surveys along with an instruction sheet to pass out to their employees or members or b) permitted me to make a presentation at a meeting of the group and hand out the survey to those who were willing to participate. In all instances, participation was voluntary and identities of respondents remained anonymous. In the cases where the bundle of surveys was dropped off, the participants were asked to return the completed survey to the contact person in their office, church, or organization. This person subsequently contacted me after a period of roughly two weeks at which point I then picked up the package of returned forms. For the meetings in which I was present and personally handed out the survey, participants returned them to me at the close of the event. In one instance an organization

A RESEARCH DESIGN

23

requested their members be mailed the instrument and for these I provided self—addressed return envelopes. Initially, a dozen churches, workplaces, and groups were identified based on a variety of characteristics. I purposely selected groups that varied in size and demographic characteristics. For example, of the workplaces that agreed to participate, there are participants from the medical, agriculture, manufacturing, legal, and nonprofit fields. Likewise, the churches that were selected are mixed in terms of denomination, size, and racial composition of members. Of those groups on the initial list, five churches, two workplaces, and four organizations4 agreed to participate. Because the desired number of returned surveys was not met, another list of potential workplaces, churches, and organizations was generated and initial contact was made via telephone and walk-in visits. This second effort yielded seven additional workplaces and one additional organization for a total of nine workplaces, five places of worship, and three associations. The instrument itself was thirteen pages in length and consisted of fifty—nine items. It included items designed to measure core demographic and political characteristics, tolerance, political knowledge, personality, and of course sense of community.5 They were completed by people embedded within three contexts: (1) the workplace, (2) organizations, and (3) places of worship. The data, therefore, permit several types of analyses both within and across contexts. Previously, I argued that a better measure of sense of community was needed in order to capture the delicate subtleties of variation that exist not only between contexts but within contexts as well. These data will allow such an examination. First, I am able to account for the variance in sense of community that exists within each context. Second, I am able to compare across contexts the extent to which a sense of community exists (if at all). Telephone Survey The final data set examined in this study is drawn from the 2004 telephone survey. The survey instrument is similar in content to the context survey, except that it asks respondents about their sense of community in all five contexts of interest to this study—the workplace, place of worship, associations, neighborhood, and circle of friends. Interviews were conducted by Oppenheim Research in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondents were selected through random digit dial and participation was limited to individuals residing in

24


Tallahassee, Florida, and surrounding areas in Leon County. The survey was completed by 822 respondents between October 29, 2004 and November 1, 2004; a completion rate of 58.8%.6 Because this third instrument of the multistage survey process contains items about sense of community in several contexts it will permit both descriptive and causal analyses. Similar to the jury survey, this instrument will allow me to examine what variance exists in the extent to which people feel a sense of connectedness within several different contexts. However, in addition to these descriptive analyses, I will also be able to explore the relationship(s) that may (or may not) exist between sense of community (in any number of contexts) and various types of political behavior and attitudes. It is these two points: (1) attention to multiple contexts and (2) attention to variance in sense of community within a context that have been lacking in past research. This multistage survey process is aimed at addressing this deficiency. In particular, the third survey instrument permits me to account for the multiple contexts in which a person operates and individual attachments within those contexts. Why Tallahassee? The Tallahassee area provides an excellent setting in which to implement a survey of this type for a number of reasons. Although it has some limitations (as does any selection site), the advantages override those concerns and make Tallahassee a study site that is comparable to many other cities in the United States. As with Huckfeldt and Sprague’s (1995) choice of South Bend as the focal point of their study, the fact that I resided in Tallahassee at the time the surveys were administered and know it well were important considerations. But Tallahassee also possesses diversity of the sort essential for pursuit of my central research questions. Tallahassee has many different neighborhoods and a varied collection of churches and associations. It is the state capital and home to two universities and one community college, it plays host to a variety of industries ranging from agricultural to manufacturing to technology, and it has a booming professional community. Like any other city, Tallahassee also has its share of problems. Over the last few decades, the downtown area of Tallahassee has suffered from retail deterioration. Retailers whose customers have been drawn to newer shopping centers elsewhere in the city pulled out of the downtown area. In their place, government center offices now occupy the prime retail space, thus leaving the downtown area a virtual ghost

A RESEARCH DESIGN

25

town after regular business hours. In addition, since the 1970s Tallahassee’s historic “French Town” district—a predominantly black neighborhood—has experienced high levels of poverty and unemployment. Tallahassee’s South Side has been plagued by similar problems of poverty and low wage jobs. In terms of the area’s demographic characteristics, the Tallahassee MSA which includes Leon and Gadsden counties, has a population of 284,539, 77% reside in urban communities (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The per capita income is $19,990. Roughly 48% of the population is male and the median age is thirty. The area is also racially diverse, with minorities making up 37% of the population. Of course, comparable claims could be made about virtually all cities in the United States. This is to the good. The diversity present in Tallahassee is of analytical importance, but the fact that similar diversity, albeit of varying levels, can be found elsewhere means that there is no reason whatsoever to expect the general patterns identified in the following chapters are unique to Tallahassee. A Description of the Samples The Jury Pool Sample The jury pool survey instrument was intended to provide a preliminary exploration of sense of community within various contexts. An important element therefore is to have a diverse sample. As an alternate data acquisition strategy, one approach would have been to survey a convenience sample, such as university undergraduates or faculty and staff. The limitation of such an approach is that the multiple forms of homogeneity—age-based, educational, geographic, and so on—might matter for sense of community, and thus the opportunity to derive broader lessons from the data would be constrained. So how diverse is the jury pool sample? On its face, we know that the sample should be relatively diverse in the sense that respondents are drawn from multiple counties in three different regions of the nation, and because virtually all citizens may be called for jury duty. Still, a more specific assessment of the data is possible through examination of the demographic properties of respondents to the jury survey and residents of the surveyed counties. In total, there were 520 respondents from five counties in three states representing the South, New England, and the Midwest: Florida—Indian River County, Charlotte County, and Collier County; Rhode Island—Providence County; and Wisconsin—St. Croix County. Table 2.1 shows the demographic characteristics of the

Table 2.1

Demographic Characteristics of Counties in Jury Pool Sample FLORIDA

Population, 2003 estimate Population, 2000 Population percent change 1990–2000 Persons 65 years and older, percent 2000 Median age Female persons, percent 2000 White persons, percent 2000 Black or African American persons, percent 2000 Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent 2000 High school graduates, percent of persons 25+, 2000 Bachelor’s degree of higher, percent of persons 25+, 2000 Per capita money income, 1999 UnemploymentCivilian Labor Force, percent 2000

RHODE ISLAND

WISCONSIN

Indian River County

Charlotte County

Collier County

Providence County

St. Croix County

120,463

153,392

286,634

639,442

71,155

112,947 25.20%

141,627 27.60%

251,377 65.30%

621,602 4.20%

63,155 25.70%

29.20%

34.70%

24.50%

14.60%

9.90%

47.00 51.60%

54.30 52.20%

44.10 49.90%

35.40 52.10%

35.00 50%

87.40%

92.60%

86.10%

78.40%

97.80%

8.20%

4.40%

4.50%

6.50%

0.30%

6.50%

3.30%

19.60%

13.40%

0.80%

81.60%

82.10%

81.80%

72.50%

91.60%

23.10%

17.60%

27.90%

21.30%

26.30%

$27,227

%21,806

$31,195

$19,255

$23,937

2.30%

1.50%

1.90%

3.90%

2.00%

27

A RESEARCH DESIGN

counties as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau 2000. Overall, the counties differ on a great number of variables, suggesting that drawing data from these locales is a first step toward ensuring a diverse respondent base. For example, the counties vary dramatically in size; St. Croix County, Wisconsin has just over 71,000 people while Providence County, Rhode Island has roughly nine times as many people at approximately 640,000. The population for the counties in Florida range from 120,000 to nearly 290,000. The counties also vary in the critical areas of age and education; the median age in Providence and St. Croix counties is 35 years while in Charlotte County it is 54 years. There is also a fair amount of variance in economic conditions amongst these counties as is evidenced by per capita income and unemployment; Collier County, Florida has a per capita income of $31,195 while in Providence County, Rhode Island it is over ten thousand less at $19,255. Table 2.2 shows the demographic and political characteristics of the respondents in the jury pool sample as a whole. The average age of respondents is 51.5 years with a Table 2.2

Demographic and Political Characteristics of Jury Pool Sample

Variable age

gender race

education

Scale age in years

Mean SD N

51.5 13.1 507

0=male 1=female

%female N

58.2% 512

1=white 1=black 1=hispanic

%white %black %hispanic N

89.7% 4.9% 3.6% 498

0=high school or less to 8=professional degree

Mean

4.04

SD

1.72

N

512

party ID

1=strong Democrat to 7=strong Republican

Mean SD N

4.35 2.23 505

ideology

1=strong liberal to 7=strong conservative

Mean SD N

4.37 1.34 500

0 to 5, no. of knowledge items answered correctly

Mean SD N

3.36 1.46 520

political knowledge

Table 2.3

Demographic and Political Characteristics of Jury Pool Respondents by County FLORIDA

Variable

RHODE ISLAND

WISCONSIN

Indian River County Charlotte County Collier County Providence County St. Croix County

Scale

age

age in years

Mean SD N

54.07 12.52 86

55.79 10.93 89

52.29 12.3 167

47.61 14.13 122

45.35 13.75 43

gender

0=male 1=female

%female N

65.80% 85

57.30% 89

57.60% 170

57.20% 124

50% 44

race

1=white 1=black 1=hispanic

%white %black %hispanic N

91.70% 0.035% 0.047% 86

91.80% 0.07% 0.01% 86

92.70% 0.02% 0.05% 166

86.30% 10.30% 0.03% 117

87.70% 0% 0.02% 44

education 0=high school or less to 8=professional degree

Mean SD N

4.08 1.78 86

3.72 1.7 88

4.38 1.83 170

3.82 1.53 123

3.91 1.55 45

party ID


Mean SD N

4.5 2.39 86

4.4 2.43 89

5.06 2.12 168

3.34 1.7 120

4.02 2.12 42

ideology

1=strong liberal to 7=strong conservative

Mean SD N

4.4 1.29 85

4.42 1.23 88

4.51 1.54 168

4.17 1.11 116

4.19 1.3 43

Mean

3.5

3.33

3.6

3.05

3.11

SD N

1.32 86

1.47 89

1.47 173

1.48 127

1.51 45

political 0 to 5, no. of knowledge knowledge items answered correctly

A RESEARCH DESIGN

29

standard deviation of 13.1. Of the respondents 58% are women and 8.6% are racial or ethnic minorities (black and Hispanic). The average respondent completed “some college.” As for political characteristics, the average respondent was independent (but leaned slightly Republican) and was moderate (but leaned toward conservative). Finally, respondents answered an average of 3.36 political knowledge questions correctly out of five, suggesting a relatively moderate degree of political knowledge. The standard deviations are high for each of these variables, indicating that respondents are quite diverse on a number of potentially important attributes. So how does this sample look on a county-by-county basis? Table 2.3 depicts demographic and political characteristics of jury pool respondents by county. Again we see a similar pattern in that table 2.3 clearly shows variance in age, gender, race, and education amongst these counties. Acquisition of data from prospective jurors has brought two levels of variation. First, because jury pools are selected from the general population, potential respondents are inherently diverse. Second, by gathering these data in multiple counties, the risk that results are idiosyncratic to a particular state or region is minimized. The demographic information reported here demonstrates that both of these attributes are present in the current data set. As with any survey, the fact that participation is voluntary means respondents are not fully representative of the population at large. Still, drawing samples from jury pools is an effective and highly cost-efficient means of obtaining data from a diverse array of respondents. As such, this technique facilitates initial exploration of patterns in sense of community. The Context Survey Sample The context survey was the second component of this multistage survey design. The intended purpose of the context survey was to collect data from individuals embedded within several contexts. By doing so, it is possible to ascertain whether people in the same type of context, and in some cases the very same contextual unit (e.g., members of a given church or employees at the same workplace), exhibit similarity in their perceptions of sense of community. The contexts included places of worship, workplaces, and associations. Contexts chosen for inclusion in this portion of the project were not selected randomly. Instead, I specifically selected groups based on a number of characteristics in order to maximize diversity within the sample. For example, there are nonprofit organizations, cultural

30


organizations, and civic organizations included in this sample; for the workplaces there are respondents from the medical, industrial, and legal fields; finally, several religious groups participated in the survey including members from the Jewish, Catholic, and Methodist faiths. In total, 302 respondents completed the survey. One hundred and forty-four were from workplaces, eighty-five from places of worship, and seventy-three from associations. I had relatively little difficulty identifying a dozen groups in each of the contexts, as Tallahassee certainly has an ample number of churches, workplaces, and associations from which to choose. However, the level of cooperation I received from associations seemed rather low in comparison to the other groups. It could be that these groups have such a full agenda that taking on one more project was simply too taxing, or maybe the associations felt that participating in a project such as this detracted from their respective missions and goals. Although associational activity has been championed by Putnam (2000) and others, one critique of association membership is its potential balkanizing effect, with members possibly taking on an us-versus-them mentality; such a dynamic could fuel reticence on the part of group leaders to permit participation in a study such as this. Whatever the reason may be, as a whole, associations were relatively unaccommodating in their willingness to participate in this project, and thus the number of respondents from associations is low, making analysis of individuals in this context difficult. Table 2.4 depicts some of the demographic and political characteristics of the respondents in the sample. The sample yields a great deal of variation on several key demographic variables such as age, race, and number of years living in Tallahassee. The sample has a slightly higher number of females than males, with 53.3% of the respondents being women. Roughly 77% of the respondents were white, and nearly 25% were minorities. The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 83, with an average age of 41.5 years. People lived in Tallahassee anywhere from less than a year to 73 years; the average was 14.5 years. Therefore, as a whole, the sample looks relatively as diverse as the area from which it is drawn. However, it is imperative that this point is made clear: the fact that the sample is fairly representative of Tallahassee as a whole does not mean that the context survey sample is representative of workers, church-goers, and group members in Tallahassee. The key point I wish to emphasize about the context survey sample is that there is indeed variance in the sample, which means that many sorts of analyses are possible. Further, the sample not only varies across contexts—such as the workplace, organizations, places or

31

A RESEARCH DESIGN

Table 2.4 Demographic and Political Characteristics of Context Survey Sample Variable

Scale

Gender

0=male 1=female N

race

% female

302 % white % black % Hispanic %Asian %other

77.5% 9.3% 2.0% 1.7% 3.0% 302

age in years

Mean SD N

41.5 15.1 287

1=less than $4,999 and 12=over $105,000

Mean SD N

7.8 3.0 282.0

in years

Mean SD N

14.5 12.7 288.0


Mean SD N

3.8 2.4 298.0

0=hs or less to 8=professional degree

Mean SD N

4.9 1.8 297.0

0 to 5 no. of knowledge items answered

Mean SD N

3.8 1.4 302.0

1=stong liberal 7=strong conservative

Mean SD N

4.2 1.8 296.0

N age

income

Years in Tallahassee

party ID

Education

political knowledge

ideology

53.3%

worship—but variance is also evident within specific contexts, for instance, the very same workplace. The Telephone Survey Sample The telephone survey was the third and final component of the data collection effort. This was the largest of the three data sets. The instrument is similar in content to the context survey with one critical

32


difference. In the telephone survey respondents were asked to complete the full 11—item sense of community battery for each of five contexts. This is a crucial element of the telephone survey because it allows me to account for the simultaneous effects of an individual’s multiple social attachments. Central to my thesis is that previous research has neglected to account for these multiple attachments, thus a multicontext approach, such as this one, is warranted. Like the jury survey and the context survey the telephone sample is diverse and variance is apparent in the data. For example, 57% of the sample was female, minorities make up 29% of the sample, and the average age is 46 with a standard deviation of 17.2. Table 2.5 depicts some of the demographic and political characteristics of the sample. Not only do we see variance in terms of key demographic characteristic, but variance also exists for political characteristics as Table 2.5 Demographic and Political Characteristics of Telephone Survey Sample Variable

Scale

Gender

0=male 1=female N

race

% female

57.0% 822

% white % black % hispanic % asian N

68.0% 24.0% 2.6% 2.3% 822

age

age in years

mean sd N

45.9 17.2 803

income

1=less than $4,999 and 12=over $105,000

mean sd N

3.6 1.5 715.0

Education

0=hs or less to 8=professional degree

mean sd N

4.6 1.8 820.0

ideology

1=stong liberal 5=strong conservative

party ID


mean sd N mean sd N

2.9 1.0 808.0 2.6 1.3 794.0

A RESEARCH DESIGN

33

well. For example, the mean for party identification—on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is strong Democrat and 5 is strong Republican—is 2.6 with a standard deviation of 1.3. Ideology has less variance than does the other variables with a mean of 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly liberal and 5 is strongly conservative. Overall however, like the jury pool data and the context data, variance and diversity within the telephone sample exists, which means that many types of analyses are possible. The subsequent chapters will highlight some of the descriptive and multivariate analyses that these data permit. Summary Much of the research on social capital, social influence, contexts, and identity has been limited, in my view, by at least one of two factors. First, many analysts have studied a single context in isolation, thus ignoring the possibility that individuals may have meaningful experiences in more than one type of context. In fact, by focusing on only one context, it is possible that researchers may entirely miss the context or contexts that matter most for any given individual. Further we ignore the possibility that individuals may have meaningful social attachments in more than one context. The second limitation is insufficient attention to variance in people’s experiences within their social contexts. By failing to account for this variance, we assume (incorrectly) that people have similar types of experiences in the same context. Research that takes account of only group membership, for example, completely misses the possibility that people may have radically different experiences within that group, and it fails to explain how these different experiences come to matter for political behavior. The methodological approach that I advocate, using the three survey instruments described in this chapter, makes corrections for both of these concerns by (1) taking a multicontext approach that measures individuals’ attachments across several contexts and (2) measuring a person’s level of attachment within these various contexts—what is referred to as “a sense of community.” The three surveys are designed to address the deficiencies that exist in previous research and each data set brings a varied means of analyzing the key questions addressed in this book. This study, therefore, offers a unique approach to examining questions of social influence, contexts, and political behavior that until now we have only been able to discuss in very broad terms with little attention to the quality of individuals’ social interactions.

34


The data sets described here will be examined in the next several chapters. The analysis begins in chapter 3 at the descriptive level, with a look to how the concept of sense of community is operationalized and to patterns in sense of community exhibited by the respondents on the three surveys. Subsequent chapters introduce multivariate tests designed to explore more fully the possible significance of sense of community for American political behavior.

Chapter 3

Measuring Sense of Community

W

e see numerous examples in political science research that community matters for a host of political behaviors and attitudes. However, previous research has neglected to consider modeling the process of how context matters. Such a black box perspective suggests merely that people enter into a context and something good (or bad) comes out. We do not know how people are affected; only that context somehow matters. Attention to where sense of community develops and how much variation exists within each context are critical to broadening our understanding of how to model the process of how, why, and when social forces influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. The present approach takes into account multiple contexts and variance in individual attachments within those contexts. Even though it is impossible to develop an exhaustive list of contexts, we can at least improve upon the single-context approach typically used in the literature. Further, focus on variation in attachments within contexts potentially offers an important step toward understanding why context matters, and especially why multiple members of a given context may experience very different effects. As a first step in deepening our understanding of the impact of sense of community, it is vital that the properties of individuals and their social contexts be understood. Hence, my objective in this chapter is to examine two key questions. First, how much variation in sense of community exists between and within contexts? At question is whether sense of community is more vibrant in some contexts than others, and whether, within a given context, there is consensus or conflict among individuals in the degree of sense of community they experience. Second, which context or contexts seem to matter most for the development of sense of community? Is the neighborhood

36


context more important to sense of community than is the workplace or church? The analyses to be reported below unfold in several stages. First we will examine some hypothetical scenarios. The virtue of doing so is that the hypothetical examples can help us to see clearly the potential advantages of the approach I have outlined. I will then move on to an analysis of the jury pool data. Recall that the jury pool data permit an initial exploration of the degree of variation that exists within several contexts. This will be followed by an analysis of the context survey data that consist of individuals embedded within particular contexts. Lastly, I will look at the data from the telephone survey which focuses on attachment in multiple social contexts. Hypothetical Scenarios The hypothetical scenarios we will examine relate to the two key concerns regarding past research (1) focusing on only one context (i.e., the single-context approach) and (2) insufficient attention to variance in people’s experiences within their social contexts. Let us first turn to the choice between a single-context approach and a multi-context approach to studying sense of community. Suppose for the moment that what matters for various politically relevant outcomes—outcomes such as participation, tolerance, and so on—is the person’s total level of sense of community across all subcontexts for that person. This assumption is quite reasonable and very little research in this area assumes the opposite. For example, when researchers focus on a single context such as the workplace or association, there is typically not an assumption that the political impact of social interaction within that context differs in any fundamental way from interaction in other contexts. Consider three hypothetical respondents. For each, I will prescribe true levels of involvement in the neighborhood, church, workplace, and association, but impose the assumption that the researcher in this case possesses data only on the neighborhood. Figure 3.1 displays the scenarios for each of our three individuals. The vertical in each graph marks the level of attachment, or sense of community, and the horizontal marks the four contexts. As the figure demonstrates, Person A has low levels of attachment in every context. Person B has a low level of attachment in the neighborhood, but high levels everywhere else. Person C has a high level of attachment in the neighborhood, but low levels in the church, workplace, and association. If we used a singlecontext approach with focus only on the neighborhood, we would

37

Sense of Community Scale

M E A S U R I N G S EN S E O F C O M M U N I T Y

10

Person A

8 6 4 2 0

neighborhood

church

workplace

organization


Context Person B

10 8 6 4 2 0

neighborhood

church

workplace

organization


Context 10

Person C

8 6 4 2 0

neighborhood

church

workplace

organization

Context Figure 3.1 Hypothetical Scenario 1

conclude that Person C is the one with the highest level of sense of community and we would conclude that Person A and Person B are indistinguishable. My multi-context approach, however, results in a much more realistic portrayal in this case. With attention to multiple contexts, we would conclude that Person B has the highest level of total sense of community, followed by Person C who at least has some, and then finally by person A. If we are going to use social involvement to help explain matters such as political participation and discussion, then it is clearly vital that social involvement be measured accurately. The single-context approach fails in this hypothetical example to distinguish Person A from B, people who are, in reality, highly distinct, and it gets the

38


order backward for Persons B and C. The problem here is one of validity. Armed with data from only one context, it is impossible to derive valid inferences regarding an individual’s broader pattern of social involvement. Individuals who are highly engaged within their neighborhoods may have comparable levels of involvement in other contexts, but they also may have no meaningful attachments whatsoever outside of the neighborhood. The single-context approach simply does not permit accurate differentiation of scenarios such as these. Consequently, if we are to derive valid inferences regarding social attachments as a whole, then it is essential that a multi-context approach be introduced. The second scenario I propose relates to the potential benefits of measuring variance in sense of community rather than measuring only membership. The sense of community scale introduced below captures differences that exist in how attached people are within various contexts.1 If this possible variance does exist (and I believe it is reasonable to hypothesize that it does), and it matters for political behavior, then our analyses fall short when we measure only membership. Consider three hypothetical contexts. Figure 3.2 displays several graphs; each represents a specific context, such as a single church or workplace. The vertical axis is the number of people at any given level of sense of community, and the horizontal axis is the sense of community scale. In context A, all of the people have very similar scores on the sense of community scale and they are at a high value. If this scenario maps to reality, then measuring membership alone is perfectly reasonable in that the correspondence between sheer membership and the occurrence of a high level of sense of community would be quite high. However, in context B, we see substantial variance in sense of community among the context’s members. There is also variance in context C, but in this case, it is bimodal in nature—some people tend to be very attached, others distinctly not. If scenarios such as those in contexts B and C are possible, then we take a clear risk when we chose to consider only membership. By measuring only membership in a context rather than possible variance in people’s experiences within the context, we impose an assumption of homogeneity that may have no empirical foundation whatsoever. With my approach, in contrast, I will represent much more precisely the variance that exists within a given context. This means, first, that we will have an improved understanding of people’s levels of involvement in these contexts, and second that we will be able to determine whether variance such as that seen here in examples B


39

Sense of Community Context A

30

Count

20

10 Std. Dev = 6.14 Mean = 55.5 N = 32.00

0 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 Sense of Community Scale

Sense of Community Context C

Sense of Community Context B

12

12

10

10

Count

8 6

Std. Dev = 18.30 Mean = 39.1 N = 31.00

8 Count

Std. Dev = 12.98 Mean = 35.5 N = 32.00

6

4

4

2

2 0

0 10

20

30

40

50

60


10

20 30 40 50 60 Sense of Community Scale

Figure 3.2 Hypothetical Scenario 2

and C matters for political behavior. Although the examples presented here are hypothetical extremes, it should be clear that variance within a context is at least possible. Therefore, the implicit assumption of past research that all members of a particular workplace, church, organization, or neighborhood have virtually identical experiences should seem implausible on its face. As will be seen in the following sections, variance in sense of community does indeed exist, even for members of the same specific context. The remainder of this chapter will use data from all three surveys to demonstrate the degree to which variance exists in each of several contexts, and to assess which context or contexts matter the most for sense of community

40


An Empirical Investigation Jury Pool Data Five hundred and twenty individuals answered the jury pool survey about sense of community. The questionnaire asked people to consider one of six contexts when answering the extent to which they (1) had a sense of community, (2) had a sense of belonging, (3) had feelings of connectedness, (4) leaned on others for support during a crisis, (5) considered people within the context to be like family, and (6) had a sense of attachment. Assignment of context was designed so that individuals were randomly asked about either their (1) workplace, (2) place of worship, (3) neighborhood, (4) group associations, (5) city or town, or (6) circle of friends. As expected given random assignment, the contexts were fairly dispersed with each context garnering approximately 16.5% of the responses. Sense of Community Items The sense of community items are attitudinal measures meant to tap sense of community within various contexts and to reveal whether sense of community (1) exists within these contexts and (2) constitutes one or more than one attitudinal dimension within each context. Each item was based on a 1 to 10 scale on which respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they had feelings about a context; one signifies “none at all” and ten means “very much.” Table 3.1 demonstrates that these items have an overall mean of 6.1, indicating that on average, respondents have some positive feelings regarding community or connectedness in these contexts. However, it is also important to note both that sense of community is far from overwhelming and that consensus on the presence of sense of community is minimal. On only one item, “sense of belonging,” does the mean even eclipse 7.0, and the standard deviations on all items are well above 2.0. These data suggest that sense of community can be a feature of involvement in various contexts, but also that its emergence is far from a certainty. Because I want to create a sense of community scale based on these items to use in subsequent analyses, I conducted a factor analysis to examine how these items fit together. Table 3.2 displays these results. The six items fit nicely together, creating one factor. The factor loadings range from 0.79 to 0.89. I also conducted a reliability analysis on the six items; for the 476 observations, Cronbach’s alpha is 0.92, indicating a highly reliable scale.

41


Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics for Sense of Community Items (Jury Pool Data) Sense of community items Sense of belonging Feeling connected Lean on others for support during crisis People are like family Sense of attachment Sense of community

N

mean

sd

494 492 489 485 491 488

6.74 7.04 6.42 5.28 5.35 5.8

2.37 2.4 2.37 2.8 2.67 2.68

Table 3.2 Factor Loadings for Sense of Community Items (Jury Pool Data) Sense of community Sense of belonging Feeling connected Lean on others for support during times of crisis People are like family Sense of attachment

0.836 0.870 0.886 0.794 0.865 0.873

Sense of Community Scale Now that there is confidence that the sense of community items can indeed be combined to produce a single reliable scale, the data will be examined in several ways. First, I will consider the scale as an additive measure, where the range of the scale is from six to sixty. Second, I will create a categorical scale from the additive measure so that I have sense of community divided into weak, moderate, and strong categories. I created these categories by defining respondents with scale values of 6 to 24 as having a weak sense of community, those with values 25 to 42 as having moderate sense of community, and finally, those with scores of 43 to 60 as having strong sense of community. Third, the data will be examined on a context-by-context basis. Is there variation within the same type of context? The first point to note is that there is a wide range of variation on these scales. For the additive scale, the mean is 36.55 and the standard deviation is 13.02 and for the categorical scale the mean is 2.18 and the standard deviation is 0.71. These data are highly revealing. They suggest that, on balance, people typically do develop a sense of community within

42


each of the contexts considered here. However, this typical effect masks an enormous amount of variance. On the full additive scale, for instance, a span of two standard deviations on either side of the mean encompasses nearly the entire 54-point scale. Absent such data, we would know only that individuals belong to a given context, and we would be forced to assume—erroneously—that that context exerts constant effects on all of its members. Table 3.3 depicts the descriptive statistics for the categorical scale and additive scales. Figure 3.3 displays the distribution of responses for the six contexts on the additive scale. On a context-by-context basis table 3.3 and figure 3.3 demonstrate that the means for sense of community are mostly positive, albeit not overwhelmingly so, and that the variance is immense. Place of worship, for example, has a mean of 32.21 and a standard deviation of 16.36 on the full scale. Similar results emerge for the categorical scale. For instance, the mean for neighborhood on the categorical scale is 2.08 with a standard deviation of 0.62. Both of these serve as examples that suggest sense of community does exist within each of these contexts and that its Table 3.3 Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Community Scales (Jury Pool Data) Full Scale mean (sd)

Categorical Scale mean (sd)

36.55 (13.02)

2.18 (.71)

42.01 (11.35)

2.46 (.67)

place of worship N=80

32.21 (16.36)

1.98 (.80)

neighborhood N=84

34.75 (10.83)

2.08 (.62)

associations N=83

35.88 (12.98)

2.09 (.74)

circle of friends N=79

39.44 (11.85)

2.34 (.66)

city or town N=78

35.69 (11.97)

2.17 (.69)

Overall data N=476 By context Workplace N=72

Note: Categorical Scale 1= weak, 2=moderate, 3=strong. Full Scale Range = 6 to 60, where 10 is low and 60 is high.


Count

15

Sense of Community Workplace Std. Dev = 11.35 Mean = 42.0 N = 72.00

10

10

5

0

0

5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sense of Community Scale

Sense of Community Place of Worship (Church)

25

Std. Dev = 16.36 Mean = 32.2 N = 80.00

20

10

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sense of Community Scale

Sense of Community Neighborhood

30

Count

Count

15

Std. Dev = 16.36 Mean = 32.2 N = 80.00

15

5

20

Sense of Community Place of Worship (Church)

20

Count

20

43

Std. Dev = 10.83 Mean = 34.8 N = 84.00

15 10

5 5 0

0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sense of Community Scale

20

15

5

Sense of Community Circle of Friends Std. Dev = 11.85 Mean = 39.4 N = 79.00

14 12

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sense of Community Scale Sense of Community City or Town

Std. Dev = 11.97 Mean = 35.7 N = 78.00

Count

Count

10 10

5

8 6 4 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sense of Community Scale

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sense of Community Scale

Figure 3.3 Histogram context by context: Jury Pool Sample

strength varies a great deal. This is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates my point that sense of community originates from multiple contexts and therefore the single context approach that is so prevalent in the literature should be broadened to include multiple sources for sense of community. For a given respondent, for example,

44


focus on only a single context might lead us to conclude that the person lacks a sense of community when the reality for that person is that sense of community is high elsewhere—in settings that the singlecontext approach happened to overlook, as the first hypothetical scenario depicted. Second, simply knowing that a person lives in a certain neighborhood or attends a particular church is not sufficient enough to demonstrate that person scores high on sense of community within that context. For places of worship, for instance, data in table 3.3 reveal both a low mean and a high standard deviation, suggesting we would be wrong quite often when inferring the presence of sense of community from data on whether individuals attend places of worship. Is there variation between contexts? In addition to the variation within each context, a couple of points can be made about the variation between contexts. The workplace has the highest average on the categorical scale, where the mean is 2.46; the lowest, by contrast, is for place of worship where the mean is 1.98, a difference of 0.48. On the surface it certainly appears to be a rather large difference given that the scale ranges from one to three, but is it a significant difference? I conducted difference of means tests between the means for the various contexts and the tests demonstrate that significant differences among the means do exist. 2 This suggests that not only does variation of sense of community exist within multiple contexts but also that variation between contexts is present. Thus, for the first phase of the study, these data have provided insight into a) whether sense of community exists within these contexts—and it does and b) the degree to which variation in sense of community is present within and between these contexts—and that variation is substantial. Context Survey Data The context survey was a lengthy paper and pencil self-administered instrument. It took respondents on average 15 minutes to complete the survey. Three hundred and two individuals responded to the survey. Respondents were from one of three contexts in the Tallahassee area: the workplace, place of worship, or organization. The survey included at its core the 12-item sense of community battery developed in the field of community psychology, with items targeted toward the context of focus. So, for example, the workplace respondents were asked the sense of community index with focus on the workplace. The surveys also included single-item measures of sense of


45

community for several other contexts, along with items intended to provide data on a wide array of independent and dependent variables. Data from this survey facilitate numerous descriptive and multivariate analyses. What follows in the subsequent section of this chapter is (1) a description of the sense of community scale and (2) a descriptive analysis of these data. The Sense of Community Index As was pointed out in chapter 1, McMillian and Chavis (1986) define a sense of community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment together.” They propose that sense of community is composed of four elements; (1) membership (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and (4) shared emotional connection. In order to measure an individual’s sense of community, McMillian et al. (1986) developed what has come to be referred to in the field of community psychology as the Sense of Community Index, a 12 item True/False questionnaire that taps into the four elements of sense of community.3 The index has also been adapted in format to include a 5 point Likert-type response—the type that was used in the Tallahassee context survey and the Tallahassee telephone survey. Using the same statements as the original True/False battery, individuals are asked to respond based on how much they agree or disagree with the statements ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. On the present study’s context survey, respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with each statement about their particular context (i.e., church, workplace, or organization). The scale values range from 12 to 60, with a midpoint of 36. Appendix G shows the question wording for the sense of community index. A Descriptive Analysis As we saw in the earlier analysis of the jury pool data, people can experience the same sorts of contexts differently. However, it could be that the source of that variance is the context itself. For example, if some workplaces are more collegial than others, then we would see variance across workplaces but we might not see variance within a given workplace. This is precisely the type of issue that can be explored with the context data. Recall that in the context survey there are multiple respondents from each of several specific contexts. That is, these respondents belong to the very same group and church, or work at the very same company. First, however, we will consider basic descriptive

46


information about each context. Like the data from the jury pool study, mean values for sense of community among respondents in each of the three contexts fall short of the scale maximum, with an average score of 46 and standard deviations between six and eight. Thus, a similar pattern emerges as did with the jury pool data, namely that variance does indeed exist in each of these contexts and that the experiences people share within similar contexts can be entirely different. Is variation in sense of community the result of a particular context? Now we will return to the question of whether the variance that has been shown to exist is a product of the particular contexts from which the respondents are drawn. For example, do members from the same church experience the same degree of sense of community? Do people who work in the same office share the same level of sense of community? I will examine this question by turning to specific contexts— that is, I will examine cases from the exact same church, workplace, and organization. Figure 3.4 displays the distribution of responses for one workplace, one church, and one organization. Here, we again see a large amount of variance and also mean values well short of the scale’s maximum of 60. The standard deviations are between seven and nine. These results suggest two key points. First, even within the very same context (that is members of the exact same group, church, or workplace), sense of community can differ greatly. While some members of the same church felt a strong sense of community, there were others that did not. The same can be said for employees in the same workplace and members of the same organization. Thus, again, this provides evidence against the use of membership alone as the key indicator. But second, the variance with the context data is a bit less than with the jury data. The scales are not exactly comparable, so it is impossible to offer a definitive interpretation of this difference. However the lower within-context variance is consistent with the idea that there is at least some level of shared experience within a specific context. The data from the jury and context surveys have allowed me to examine the degree to which sense of community varies within each of these key contexts that I have identified and we have learned that a great deal of variation does indeed exist both within and across contexts. However, these data sets are limited in that they do not permit an analysis of an individual’s attachments in multiple contexts because they focus on only one particular context such as the workplace, place of worship, etc. The Tallahassee telephone survey however, is designed to address the simultaneous effects of individual’s


12

10

Place of Worship A

Workplace A

14

Std. Dev = 7.04 Mean = 46.6 N = 39.00

12

47

Std. Dev = 8.91 Mean = 46.3 N = 48.00

10

Count

Count

8

6

8 6

4 4 2

2

0

0 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 62.5

17.3 21.8 26.4 30.9 35.5 40.0 44.5 49.1 53.6 58.2 62.7

Sense of Community Index

Sense of Community Index Organization A

6

5

Std. Dev = 6.98 Mean = 47.6 N = 17.00

Count

4

3

2

1

0 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 62.5 Sense of Community Index

Figure 3.4 Distribution of Responses: Context Survey Sample

multiple social attachments. This, as I have noted previously, is a key design element of the study because past research in this area has been limited by the inability of researchers to addresses this key point. If we want to understand the broad impact of social contexts on factors such as participation, discussion, etc, then it is critical that we examine multiple contexts. The remainder of this chapter will include an analysis of the telephone survey data. Telephone Survey Data The data from the Tallahassee telephone survey is the largest of the three data sets. It took approximately 25 minutes to complete and was asked to 822 randomly selected Tallahassee residents. The survey

48


format is similar to the context survey with one critical difference: on the telephone survey respondents are asked the sense of community battery for five different contexts.4 These data, therefore, permit an analysis of the differences in sense of community across multiple contexts as well as an examination of which context or contexts seem to matter most for sense of community. A Descriptive Analysis The results from the telephone survey data add to the mounting evidence that we have seen from the jury and the context data that a) sense of community does exist and that it varies from one context to the next and b) that there is a wide range of variation within contexts. For instance, the mean values for sense of community in each context fall well short of the scale maximum (the scale ranges from 11 to 55). The average mean value across all contexts is 41.76 and the average standard deviation is 6.19, meaning that a shift of two standard deviations in either direction of the mean encompasses over half of the entire sense of community scale. Table 3.4 displays the results for sense of community in each of the five contexts. All of the respondents answered the sense of community questions about circle of friends and neighborhood but many opted out of the questions that dealt with associations, church, and work. This was certainly expected to occur. It makes complete sense that most people have friends and live in a neighborhood but they may not work, attend a church, or belong to an association. Based on the results shown in table 3.4, circle of friends generates the highest mean value at 43.92 while neighborhood is the lowest with 39.72. The variation within contexts is also large with standard deviations ranging between 5.4 and 6.9. While neighborhood had the lowest mean value for sense of community, it also had the highest standard deviation at 6.9, suggesting that people do indeed

Table 3.4 Descriptive Statistics for Sense of Community by Context: Telephone Survey Data Context Church Neighborhood Association Circle of Friends Work

N

Mean

Standard Deviation

531 822 182 822 763

42.65 39.72 41.93 43.92 40.59

6.33 6.91 5.39 5.51 6.83

Note: Scale values range from 11 to 55, with a midpoint of 33.

M E A S U R I N G S EN S E O F C O M M U N I T Y 30

49

Neighborhood A Std. Dev = 5.64 Mean = 41.6 N = 134.00

Count

20

10

0 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 Sense of Community Scale Nieghborhood B

30 Std. Dev = 6.72 Mean = 38.4 N = 132.00

Count

20

10

0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 Sense of Community Scale

Figure 3.5 Sample

Distribution of Responses for two Neighborhoods: Telephone Survey

experience similar contexts differently. Figure 3.5 displays the distribution of responses for sense of community in two Tallahassee neighborhoods.5 The horizontal is the sense of community scale and the vertical is the number of respondents. As the figures show, by simply assuming someone has a particular level of sense of community based

50


on where they live may be entirely incorrect and thus yield misleading results about the effects of sense of community. What context seems to matter most for sense of community? In addition to examining the extent to which sense of community varies across contexts, using the Tallahassee telephone survey data, we can also explore which context seems to matter most for sense of community. Recall that telephone survey asked respondents about five different contexts, therefore giving us the ability to look at which context among the five, is most important for sense of community. Here we are looking for which context respondents had the highest value for sense of community. Table 3.5 displays these results. A few points are worth noting about these results. Most striking is that the means are very similar, in all five contexts there were people who had the “highest” level of sense of community, suggesting that people develop a strong sense of community in all the contexts examined in this study. This is important because it further corroborates my claim that it is critical to take a multi-context approach to sense of community. By examining only one context at a time, we could potentially miss the context that matters most for any given individual. For example, if we chose to examine only place of worship and not workplace, then we would have missed the context that mattered most for 199 individuals! Second informal contexts, such as socializing with friends, appears to have the largest impact on sense of community. However, of actual formal contexts, people develop sense of community in large numbers in each of work, place of worship and neighborhood. We can also examine this data in terms of the context with the “lowest” sense of community. The average mean across all contexts is 37.41 and the standard deviations are between 5.1 and 6.6. The context in which sense of community is the “lowest” is neighborhood, but similar to the results for “highest” sense of community, the means are relatively similar. These results are also displayed in table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Highest and Lowest values for Sense of Community by context: Telephone Survey Context Work Neighborhood Association Church Circle of Friends

Highest Mean (sd) 46.2 (4.59) 45.4 (4.56) 45.02 (6.69) 46.93 (4.95) 46.01 (4.46)

N

Lowest Mean (sd)

N

199 144 36 171 361

36.24 (6.12) 35.68 (6.65) 39.52 (5.16) 37.07 (5.75) 38.57 (6.12)

283 332 48 115 95


51

Finally, we can look at the average standard deviation across all contexts. Here, if we see a high mean we can conclude that people have a lot of variance in the level of sense of community across contexts, in other words, they have high sense of community in some contexts but not others. If we see a low mean, then we could assume that people are generalists with sense of community developing at the same rate across contexts. In fact, what the data reveal is that the standard deviation across contexts ranges from 0 to 17.79, with a mean of 4.79 and standard deviation of 3.0. Summary Several conclusions about this chapter can be noted here. First, using three data sets, I have provided evidence that supports my claim that sense of community exists, that it varies across contexts and within contexts. People experience similar contexts differently and thus, we should be guarded against using mere membership as the sole indicator of how attached people are within various contexts. Second, attention to multiple-contexts is critical if we want to be able to identify from where people get their sense of community. If we choose to examine only one context in isolation, then we run the risk of missing the context or contexts that are most important for any given individual. In the next couple of chapters we will be able to assess empirically the effect of sense of community on different types of political activities and behaviors such as voting, contacting local officials, attending local meetings of city/county government, and political discussion. We will be able to examine to what extent having a sense of community in several contexts in comparison to just one, influences different types of behaviors. Recall, at the most basic level, the claim that I advance is that attention to multiple contexts is critical in understanding the social influence of political behavior. The evidence presented in this chapter clearly demonstrates that sense of community does indeed exist, the next crucial step is to determine to what extent sense of community influences political behavior. The point I wish to make clear is that in the analyses that follow we are interested in the impact of individuals’ total sense of community across multiple contexts not which context seems to matter most for political behavior. As is evidenced in this chapter, no one context mattered more than another for sense of community. This is the critical argument of the book, that we need to account for sense of community across multiple contexts not simply one context or another or simply membership in a context, just as hypothetical scenario one demonstrates.


Chapter 4

Sense of Community, Efficacy, and Trust

P

eople vary on any number of politically relevant factors, including predispositions, attitudes, and behaviors. And, as I have argued, this variance may be influenced by social interaction and sense of community. Two especially important factors will be examined in this chapter. The first is efficacy, or people’s beliefs that they can make a difference in the political world—that they have the capacity to act, and that those who possess political power will listen. The second is trust or confidence in people and/or institutions of government to do what is right. Efficacy and trust have been shown to be important predictors of political participation (Abramson 1983, Bennett 1986, Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995, Rosenstone and Hansen 1993, Brehm and Rahn 1997, Hetherington 1998, Uslaner 2002). Most studies tend to use efficacy or trust as an independent variable to explain political actions such as voting, campaign involvement, and the like (for a discussion of efficacy see Abramson 1983, Bennett 1986, for a discussion of trust see Uslaner 2002, Hetherington 1998, Brehm and Rahn 1997). The logic underlying these effects is that individuals are empowered and motivated when they believe that their involvement in politics will be consequential and that they can have confidence that the behavior of others will be honorable. A current theoretical perspective among those who study urban social organization is collective efficacy theory. The theory suggests (and empirical evidence substantiates the claim) that “the prevalence and density of kinship, friendship, and acquaintanceship networks, and the level of participation in community based organizations fosters the emergence of collective efficacy, or solidarity and mutual trust (social cohesion)

54


among community residents combined with shared expectations for social control-related action” (Browning, Feinberg, and Dietz 2004). Collective efficacy theory suggests that individuals can be mobilized to action in order to achieve an intended outcome. While these studies have been directed at issues of urban policy (Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush 2001, Rosenfeld, Messner, and Baumer 2001, Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997, Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls 1999) there is no reason to believe that collective efficacy theory would not be applicable to studies of political behavior and hence corroborate my hypothesis that sense of community influences efficacy and trust.1 Despite their importance in explanations of political behavior, relatively little is known regarding mechanisms through which social involvement may influence trust and efficacy. If efficacy and trust are of value, then it is important that we determine how their development can be fostered, and especially whether their development can be promoted through social interaction—such as a sense of community. The goal of this chapter then is to examine to what extent, if any, a sense of community matters for trust and efficacy. Efficacy and Sense of Community Political efficacy has been widely used to explain various types of political activities such as voting, campaign involvement, signing petitions, and the like. To a large extent, much of the recent research on political efficacy itself has focused on how to correctly measure it, most scholars agree that it is a concept with two distinct components (e.g., Craig, Neimi, and Silver 1990, Niemi, Craig, and Mattei 1991). Today, scholars generally agree that political efficacy includes: (1) internal efficacy—beliefs about one’s own ability to influence the political process and (2) external efficacy—beliefs about the responsiveness of government officials to the concerns of the citizenry (Balch 1974, Coleman and Davis 1976, Converse 1972, Craig et al. 1990, Niemi et al. 1991). A great deal of the research on political efficacy has focused on how to measure the concept and its impact on political participation. For example, studies have demonstrated that individual -level determinants such as gender, age, income, and education have some influence on an individual’s level of efficacy and/or interest in community affairs (Verba et al. 1995, Verba, Burns, and Schlozman 1997, Bennett 1986, Abramson 1986). However, little research has considered the impact of social forces on the development of political efficacy.2

S E N S E O F C O M M U N I T Y, EF F I C A C Y, A N D T R U S T

55

There are several reasons to expect that sense of community will promote feelings of efficacy. First, experience at functioning meaningfully and effectively within a given community may signal to individuals that their capacity to exert influence extends outside of the context at hand, such as to the larger political environment. Even though such activity may not be explicitly political in nature, any success at the group level may engender in individuals the belief that they have the capacity to be influential. Second, sheer strength in numbers—whether because people in a community are genuinely acting in concert or merely because individuals recognize that others share their views—should fuel efficacy. Third, past political activity within many contexts provides empirical evidence of efficacious behavior. For example, members of voluntary associations and neighborhood groups often take on political issues. By doing so, their members may gain confidence that they as individuals can be politically efficacious. Verba et al. (1995) suggest that among the various factors that shape participation, resources such as civic skills—those that make it easier for individuals to become involved, such as communication and organizational skills—are critical. Involvement beyond simply membership in the workplace, organizations, or church—something such as a sense of community—helps to build those skills. Those who take on leadership roles in their church or their workplace for matters such as fundraising or party planning, are cultivating the skills that Verba et al. (1995) argue are important for participation. Therefore, it is entirely logical to hypothesize that sense of community could influence levels of internal efficacy. An individual who has had success in influencing others in his/her workplace, church, neighborhood, etc. is also likely to believe s/he has the power to influence government. Thus, if I want to make a difference in my community, I know that I have to take some sort of action, whether it is something as simple as signing a petition or as involved as planning a protest, the responsibility falls in my own hands to do something. I also expect that a sense of community will come to matter for external efficacy—the belief that government officials actually listen and care about what I have to say. Individuals who are part of a group or context in which they have a high level of sense of community are likely to believe that the government will listen to what they have to say, especially when they present a unified voice to relay their message. Secondly, sense of community should affect external efficacy simply because of the belief that there is strength in numbers, that with more people behind an idea (i.e., a chorus as opposed to a

56


soloist), the more likely that idea is to have a positive outcome in their favor.3 Thus, based on previous research that suggests community matters for behaviors such as efficacy, sense of community should be strong predictors of both internal efficacy and external efficacy. Trust and Sense of Community It is generally agreed that when it comes to examining trust as a predictor of political participation, there are two separate concepts: (1) trust in government, often referred to as confidence in government or political trust and (2) trust in others, conveyed a number of different ways such as, interpersonal trust (Brehm and Rahan 1997), social trust (Putnam 2000) or generalized trust (Uslaner 2002). Hetherington (1998, p. 791) defines political trust as “a basic evaluative orientation toward the government founded on how well the government is operating according to people’s normative expectations.” Interpersonal trust on the other hand relies on trusting other people in a way that is very different from trusting government. It requires giving people—even those who we may know very little about—the benefit of the doubt (Uslaner 2002, Putnam 2000). Uslaner (2002) and Putnam (2000) strongly encourage that these concepts be kept distinct from one another because they simply are not the same thing (Putnam’s emphasis [2000, p. 137]). Political trust may be a consequence of interpersonal trust or visa versa, and they may be correlated with one another; however, they capture two very distinct concepts and therefore should be treated as such. Aside from Uslaner (2002) who devotes a great deal of time to examining the roots of trust, little else has focused directly on the social factors that may influence interpersonal trust and political trust.4 Like efficacy, there are multiple reasons to believe that sense of community will matter for trust. First, sense of community builds relationships; those who belong to a workplace, organization, church, and so on will typically build relationships with those around them. Even at the most basic level, that of an acquaintance, a relationship probably exists simply because members share a common interest in their job, faith, or pastime. Relationships at this most basic level involve some sort of trust, even if it simply means that you trust that the other person in your group shares your interest. Second, and most importantly, sense of community should matter for trust because sense of community entails cooperation. Brehm and Rahn (1997) and Putnam (2000) both suggest that cooperation leads to trust. Those individuals who have a greater sense of community are likely to


57

be involved in activities that require cooperation. Indeed, collaborative effort is central to the very concept of sense of community. Thus, it is quite reasonable, based both on logic and on previous research, that sense of community should affect trust. Now, as Putman (2000), Uslaner (2002), and others argue, it is important to distinguish between interpersonal trust—trust in others—and political trust— confidence in government. I argue that sense of community is likely to have effects on both personal and political trust, but that the effect will be stronger on personal trust than political trust because of the social nature by which sense of community is developed. Sense of community emerges when the individual has positive bonding experiences within some context. Hence, it is highly plausible that a byproduct of this bond with the context will promote similarly positive feelings toward the other individuals in the context with whom the person interacts. Additionally, sense of community may also have an effect on political trust. When an individual has a sense of community within an organized context such as church, the workplace, or an organization this may also lead him/her to believe that in formal organized structures (the likes of governmental institutions for example) the way in which the system is organized tends to yield the best outcome in the end for its members (i.e., citizens). Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that those who have a greater sense of community are likely to trust both others and trust government to produce the best policies for its citizens. The rationale outlined here provides a strong basis to expect that sense of community will contribute to the development of internal and external efficacy, and trust in others and trust in government. It should also be noted at this time that the analyses which follow assumes the causal arrow flows in one direction from sense of community to trust and/or efficacy, this is based on the rather implicit writing of others who have suggested that community matters for all sorts of political behavior (Schlozman 2002) and collective efficacy theory (Browning, Feinberg, and Dietz 2004).5 Efficacy and trust are important constructs in themselves, and thus evidence that sense of community does indeed play the hypothesized role would be of considerable substantive significance. This significance is magnified, however, when we recall the critical roles efficacy and trust play as forces affecting a broad array of political behaviors. Any impact of sense of community identified here would suggest an indirect effect on the many factors known to be influenced by efficacy and trust. The social factors that potentially contribute to efficacy and trust have been discussed in the literature yet few studies have tested

58


empirically to what extent (if any) social forces such as sense of community influence efficacy and trust. As previous scholars have noted, both these concepts contain two very distinct components. In the analyses that follow, I will examine the impact that sense of community has on internal efficacy, external efficacy, personal trust, and political trust. I will discuss how the measures for each of the key variables were constructed and then discuss the results of the analysis. Sense of Community: We can examine sense of community using data from the telephone survey and the context survey. In the analyses that are presented in the following chapters, the key variable of interest is the sense of community variable. This variable is defined as an individual’s total sense of community; using data from the telephone survey, this variable is a summary measure of the respondent’s sense of community scores across all contexts for which they offered answers.6 The data from the context survey provide us with a contextspecific sense of community; that is the individual’s score for a particular context (the one in which they were a part of when they completed the survey). Also, as part of the context survey, respondents were asked one single item about their feeling of connectedness in several other contexts: the sum of these items provides the indicator of the total sense of community. Remember that my main thesis is that it is important to pay attention to multiple contexts. While previous research has examined individual contexts and have concluded that individual contexts matter for political behavior, such as neighborhoods (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995), churches (Wald 1988, 1990), the workplace (Mondak and Mutz 2002, 2001, Mutz and Mondak 2006) I contend that it is important to pay attention to sense of community across multiple contexts. That by examining one context in isolation from another might cause us to miss the context or contexts that matter most for any given individual. Thus, for the purposes of the analysis that follows it is not critical that we know that a particular context matters more than another, such as church over associations, but rather we need to examine what is the impact sense of community across all contexts, hence a summary score. For the telephone survey, total sense of community scores range from 11 to 275; a table containing the descriptive statistics for the SCI and other key variables can be found in appendix F.7 Because an individual’s SCI score is partially determined by the number of contexts in which s/he is involved, I have also included, as a control, a summary context variable which is simply a count of the number of contexts for which an individual has SCI scores. For example, for an individual involved in two contexts, her score can range between 22 and 110, whereas


59

someone involved in four contexts could have a score which ranges from 44 to 220. A score of 100 then would have a different meaning for the individual involved in only two contexts compared to the individual involved in four. For the context survey, total sense of community score ranges from 5 to 50; the descriptive statistics can also be found in appendix F. Individual or what I term context specific sense of community score is the total score for the sense of community items for the particular context in which the respondent was embedded is also included; these scores range from 12 to 60. Efficacy: Respondents were asked two efficacy questions on the survey, meant to measure both internal and external efficacy. The first question addressing internal efficacy asked “How much of a difference do you believe you can make in [city name]? Do you believe that you can make a big difference, a moderate difference, a small difference, or no difference at all?” For external efficacy, respondents were asked “How much do you believe your local representative (such as county commissioners and city council members) care about what you think is important for [city name]? Do you think they care very much, somewhat, only a little, or not at all?”8 To explore whether sense of community influences internal and external efficacy, I first model efficacy as a function of a full array of demographic variables and other individual level characteristics such as personality. Personality is important as a control as it is likely to play a role in how an individual views his/her community. I then add measures of sense of community to the mix to determine whether doing so furthers our understanding of the sources of efficacy. Internal Efficacy: The results for the internal efficacy model are displayed in table 4.1. The first two columns depict the results from the paper and pencil context survey. Recall, this is a survey of individuals embedded within particular contexts such as churches, associations, and workplaces. The second two columns show the results from the telephone survey. This survey asked individuals about their sense of community in multiple sets of contexts such as church, workplace, association, neighborhood, and informal networks, such as their circle of friends. Several interesting findings emerge in these models. First, the baseline model displays the results for the key individual-level variables that the literature has suggested influence efficacy—age, party strength, and income. As the results show, age and income are indeed positive predictors of internal efficacy. These results suggest that as we grow older and as our incomes increase we are more likely to believe that we can make a difference in our community. In the full model, what the table

Table 4.1

Internal Efficacy Model—The Effect of Sense of Community on Internal Efficacy Estimated via OLS and Ordered Logit

Variable Constant Context Specific Sense of Community Total Sense of Community Number of Contexts

Context Survey* Coefficient (se)

Context Survey Coefficient (se)

–1.46 (1.617)

–2.75 (1.74) .041 (.022)# .088 (.018)***

Phone Survey Coefficient (se)

Phone Survey Coefficient (se)

.020 (.004)*** –.615 (.228)**

Gender Age Age Squared Education Strength of Party Income Marital Status Employment Status

.401 (.305) .092 (.050)# –.001 (.001)# .108 (.085) .086 (.123) .097 (.054)# .242 (.054)

.466 (.318) .031 (.053) –.000 (.001) –.011 (.090) .058 (.123) .125 (.055)* .310 (.227)

–.085 (.159) .095 (.026)*** –.001 (.000)*** .045 (.045) .16 (.083)# –.004 (.059) –.132 (.112) –.072 (.191)

–.032 (.160) .074 (.026)** –.000 (.000)*** .038 (.045) .147 (.083)# –.041 (.059) –.086 (.113) –.002 (.194)

Warm Emotional Conscientious Extroverted Intelligence LR Chi2 (df) Adjusted R2 (df) # of observations (pseudo R2)

.002 (.047) –.016 (.036) .093 (.036)** .034 (.032) .066 (.050)

–.029 (.049) .005 (.039) .066 (.037)# –.022 (.034) .039 (.051)

.016 (.022) –.046 (.018)** .013 (.017) .026 (.014)# .030 (.020) 52.31 (13)

.004 (.022) –.038 (.017)* .009 (.017) .017 (.014) .026 (.020) 75.74 (15)

.084 (249)

.233 (205) 641 (.03)

641 (.05)

Notes: # p

Community Identity and Political Behavior

The Unfinished Revolution: Learning, Human Behavior, Community, and Political Paradox

Identity: Community, Culture, Difference

Ancestors and Relatives: Genealogy, Identity, and Community

Cultural Identity and Political Ethics

Virtual Social Identity and Consumer Behavior

Identity, Ethnic Diversity and Community Cohesion

Invisible politics: Black political behavior

Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior

Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation

Federalism: Political Identity and Tragic Compromise

Understanding torture: law, violence, and political identity

Contemporary Southern Identity: Community through Controversy

A Networked Self Identity, Community, a

Community Identity: Dynamics of Religion in Context

Behavior Analysis And Behavior Modification

Collective Dreams: Political Imagination & Community

Latina Legacies: Identity, Biography, and Community (Viewpoints on American Culture)

Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives

Eros and Polis: Desire and Community in Greek Political Theory

Rancheros in Chicagoacán: Language and Identity in a Transnational Community

Community Action and Organizational Change: Image, Narrative, Identity

Rethinking basic writing: exploring identity, politics, and community in interaction

Diasporas in the New Media Age: Identity, Politics, and Community

Community Under Anarchy Transnational Identity and the Evolution of Cooperation

Community Under Anarchy: Transnational Identity and the Evolution of Cooperation

The Politics of Latino Faith: Religion, Identity, and Urban Community

Jewish Identity in Early Modern Germany: Memory, Power and Community

No There There: Race, Class, and Political Community in Oakland

Profiling Political Leaders: Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality and Behavior

Rushed to judgment: talk radio, persuasion, and American political behavior

Community Identity and Political Behavior

The Unfinished Revolution: Learning, Human Behavior, Community, and Political Paradox

Identity: Community, Culture, Difference

Ancestors and Relatives: Genealogy, Identity, and Community

Cultural Identity and Political Ethics

Virtual Social Identity and Consumer Behavior

Identity, Ethnic Diversity and Community Cohesion

Invisible politics: Black political behavior

Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior

Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation

Federalism: Political Identity and Tragic Compromise

Understanding torture: law, violence, and political identity

Contemporary Southern Identity: Community through Controversy

A Networked Self Identity, Community, a

Community Identity: Dynamics of Religion in Context

Behavior Analysis And Behavior Modification

Collective Dreams: Political Imagination & Community

Latina Legacies: Identity, Biography, and Community (Viewpoints on American Culture)

Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives

Eros and Polis: Desire and Community in Greek Political Theory

Rancheros in Chicagoacán: Language and Identity in a Transnational Community

Community Action and Organizational Change: Image, Narrative, Identity

Rethinking basic writing: exploring identity, politics, and community in interaction

Diasporas in the New Media Age: Identity, Politics, and Community

Community Under Anarchy Transnational Identity and the Evolution of Cooperation

Community Under Anarchy: Transnational Identity and the Evolution of Cooperation

The Politics of Latino Faith: Religion, Identity, and Urban Community

Jewish Identity in Early Modern Germany: Memory, Power and Community

No There There: Race, Class, and Political Community in Oakland

Profiling Political Leaders: Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality and Behavior

Rushed to judgment: talk radio, persuasion, and American political behavior

Recommend Documents