Voting and Attention to Political Campaigns indicate “Reliable Political Trust"

[Frank Bellamy, MAP Masters of Applied Politics]

Paper Title

Voting and Attention to Political Campaigns as indicators for "Reliable Political Trust"; An Examination for targeted measuring of Political Trust in a non-culturally biased Framework


Abstract

  Political trust had previously resided in the realm of; How well is the incumbent elected official trusted?  This study has attempted to offer other suggestions as to measures of reliable political trust and inferred interpersonal trust.  Our hypothesis of political trust as a dominate force stimulating voter efficacy, interest and participation is supported.  

It argues that higher levels of voting and political interest are present in people at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale that maybe conceived of as an analytical category in its own right called perceived [reliable] political trust. Analyzing the National Election Study 2000 panel data (n = 1,555).  Our method of analyzing for reliable political trust yielded predictable indicators towards ideology, voting and efficacy.  

Past research touted that a "strong confirmation of the need to take a multidimensional approach in measuring political trust (incumbent based trust and regime-based trust) is proposed."
(Schiffman, Sherman 2002)  


Introduction to Theory

To what extent do Adults who are politically moderate and independent vote less and exhibit lower levels of political trust as compared to ideologically partisan voters?  

This research will explore voter ideology and party labeling that will give indicators towards differing levels of political trust.


Comparative Variables for Measuring Political Trust

Hypothesis

(H1): Ideologically partisan voters will be more interested in political campaigns and will exhibit higher levels of political trust.

(H2): Politically moderate or independent voters will be more apt to vote less and be more distrustful of politics.

(H3): Voters who pay more attention to political campaigns and vote are people at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale.

(H4): Voters who exhibit less political trust and less campaign interest label themselves as being more politically independent.

(H5): People that voted for Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election express less political trust than those who voted for Bush.

(H6): Voters in favor of Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election will be more apt to label themselves at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale.


Literature Review Section

  Previous scholarly works have offered linkages to trust as if to find a blame for why mistrust prevails in political perceptions. Researchers noted that a "30-year decline in the American voters' trust of political office holders and the election process is contrasted to their enduring trust of the democratic form of government" (Schiffman, Sherman 2002).  The idealistic notion of increased political mobilization due to the combination of low political trust and high political efficacy measured reliably weak (Sigelman, Lee; Feldman, Stanley 1983). Apparently, political trust is more generalized in its perceptible effect than is in its practical applications.  Theories have used the American obsession for materialistic values as an explanation of why social trust has eroded (Rahn, Wendy, Transue 1998). Social trust is shown to be the influencer for both interpersonal trust and political trust.  

  "Previous research demonstrates that distrustful voters are less likely to vote for major party candidates than their more trusting counterparts." (Peterson, Geoff1; Wrighton, J. Mark 1998)  The third-party political voters have also exhibited greater predictors of political trust that is separate from the usual reasons for vote selection.  Social capital is also an indicator of one's ability and desire to trust.  The participating in the act or atmosphere of trusting directly influences interpersonal trust and civic engagement among voters (Shah, Dhavan 1998).  

  The modern decline of civic engagement is often referenced through the observations of Robert Putnam (Putnam 1995, 1996) who "places the blame for the loss of the various components of so-called civic or social capital squarely on television as a medium (Lee, Cappella, Joseph, Southwell 2003).  "Those high in social trust, however, are not consistently heavier or lighter consumers of television. "Putnam's hypothesis, in other words, is not confirmed in these data" (Lee, Cappella, Joseph, Southwell 2003). Negative political media coverage and media exposure has created a certain level of political cynicism among the rank and file voter population, thus causing these two variables to be viewed in the same vein (Bennett, Stephen, Rhine, Staci, Flickinger, Bennett 1999).  Political trust is documented as being adversely impacted through televised political formats that promote viewer-ship over normative and "polite expression of opposing views" (Mutz, Reeves, 2005).  

  Some theories have presented arguments that trust is a dependent variable of shared values and that "political trust is derived from the confidence in the institutions and processes of government as well as public" (Ruscio 1999).  The quest to label sources and consequences of political trust has been difficult to accurately document.  However the application, development and process of government policy by bureaucrats do show as a source for participation in act of governmental trust (Ulbig, Stacey G. 2002).  The big picture application of governmental trust by voters can be linked to the outcome of the prior national and high interest elections. "Political trust is highest among voters who voted either for both the presidential and congressional winners or the presidential winner and congressional losers; trust is lowest among those who voted for both the presidential and congressional losers or congressional winners and the presidential loser" (Anderson, LoTempio, Andrew 2002).  

  The level of political trust is often associated with the trust level of the political leader or elected official but, the responsiveness of the political process seems to be more relative in the evaluation of political trust. "Partisans should trust government more when their party controls Congress, the presidency, or both" (Keele, Luke 2005).  Governmental spending is linked to political trust as moderated by ones political ideology for government policy issues (Rudolph, Evans 2005).

  Studies have shown that political trust is important in determining political participation however, "inequality is the strongest determinant of trust and that trust has a greater effect on communal participation than on political participation" (Uslaner, Brown, 2005).  Some segments of the voting population seem to understand "changes in the political environment and update its views of government when the political environment changes" (Gershtenson, Ladewig, Plane 2006). The adaptation to these changes lead to explaining intuitional and governmental trust.  Some published accounts of political trust relate to "short-term political and policy performance and does not affect political participation" (Avery, 2006).  Researched results indicate that social capital and governmental performance both matter.  However the force for the decline of trust is the effects of social capital over the past 40 years (Keele 2007).

  The overall concern of short comings in prior research on the subject of "Political Trust" is their attempts at attributing tangential causal effects to measuring political trust as a reliable measure.  This research is direct and straightforward in attributing voting and attention to current events as indicators of governmental and political trust.  This research assumes that the vast majority of Americans are exposed to a median level of radio and television communications.  Additionally, this study approach will be more targeted and will exclude any cultural biases in measuring for political trust.


Data and Methodology

  To test the hypotheses, we analyzed the 2000 American NES panel data. The
study involved a pre-election survey of 1,807 voters (overall response rate 61.2%). Of them, 1,555 respondents were re-interviewed after the Election Day (overall response rate 86%). The post election interviewing took place during a 45-day period immediately after the Election Day. The period coincided with that of the Florida recount and the court battles, which lasted until December 13, 2000, when Al Gore delivered his televised concession address.  Dependent Variables = Vote: Gore or Bush Attention R paid to campaigns; Campaign interest; Political trust; Did R vote in the 2000 election.  Independent Variables = Self placement lib-con 3 cats; Party ID 3 categories; Party ID.


Research Design Model Specifications

 To ascertain a more reliable picture of voters who exhibit conduct and practices indicating political trust beyond the simple expression of "Yes or No I have political trust", we conducted our analyses in two steps. First, we set out to address the question on what group of voter practices gave room for assuming ones political trust in the 2000 Presidential Election.  Secondly, we combined these practices and analyzed them in conjunction with the voter's direct expression to the question of political trust in the survey.  

 At this stage of analysis, the political trust measures were examined separately for the voter's survey response on "Self Placement=Liberal, Moderate and Conservative" we also used "Party ID" to get some sense of reinforcement for our assumptions.  The falsifiable observations to this study's theory will be if the analyzed variables results indicate measures of voter conduct contrary to political trusting actions.  


Measures

Regular news and public affairs media use. The pre-election survey asked the respondents a series of questions on the number of days "in the last week" they
watched (a) national network news, (b) early local TV news, and (c) late local TV news,
and on how much attention (1 = none, 5 = a great deal) they paid to (d) network TV
news and (e) local TV news. We have no compelling theoretical or empirical reasons
to form a measurement model that is different from an additive one. Therefore, the
five variables were normalized to have a range from 0 to 1 and then averaged into
an index of TV news exposure (α = .83). The same principle of applying the most parsimonious additive model also applies to other multi-item indices.
For newspaper reading, only a single question on the number of days "in the last
week" respondents read a newspaper was asked in the survey.

Exposure to talk radio was measured by two questions: (a) the frequency of listening to talk radio (1 = only occasionally, 4 = every day) and (b) the amount of attention paid to radio talk shows (1 = very little, 4 = very close). For both measures, those who reported to have "never listened" received a zero. The two variables were normalized to have a range from 0 to 1 and then averaged into an index of talk radio exposure (α = .90).

The three indices of general media use were found to be positively correlated,
with correlation coefficients ranging from .08 (p < .001) between newspaper reading days and talk radio exposure to .23 between newspaper reading days and TV news consumption (p < .001).  5322 Communication Research Campaign exposure. Campaign exposure involved a set of questions in the postelection survey on voter-initiated exposure to campaign messages on the media, including (a) the amount of campaign TV programs watched (0 = none, 3 = a good many), (b) the amount of a televised presidential debate watched (0 = none, 1 = part, 2 = whole), (c) the amount of radio discussion and speeches about campaigns listened to (0 = none, 3 = a good many), (d) attention paid to press news on campaign for president (1 = none, 5 = a great deal), and (e) attention to press news on campaign for Congress (1 = none, 5 = a great deal). They were each normalized to have a range from 0 to 1 and then averaged into a campaign exposure index (α = .77).

Campaign contacts. Campaign contacts were measured by eight questions in the postelection survey asking the respondents whether (1 = yes, 0 = no) they were contacted by a party, a group, or an individual, whether information about candidates, parties, or political issues was made available in their place of worship, and whether they had been encouraged to vote for a particular candidate or party by the clergy or other church leaders. The "yes" answers to these items were summed into an index (α = .55). Because very few individuals (2.3% of the total) scored above 5 on this index, values of 5 or above on the index were recoded into 5, resulting in a scale ranging from 0 to 5.

Ideological extremity. Because the pre- and postelection responses to the ideologicalself-placement question (1 = extremely liberal, 7 = extremely conservative) were highly correlated (r = .64, p < .001), they were averaged into an index of ideological orientation (α = .80). The absolute distance of each individual score from the midpoint was obtained as a measure of ideological extremity.

Demographics. Ten demographic characteristics were available in the preelection
survey, including age, gender, marital status (dummy coded into married vs.
other), educational level (years of formal schooling completed), household income
(1 = less than $4,999 and 22 = $200K or above), occupational status (Duncan's SEI), race and ethnicity (dummy coded into White vs. other), length of residence in the current community, home ownership (dummy coded into owner vs. other), and having a child living in the house (dummy coded into "yes" vs. "no").
7324 Communication Research


Results

  This study employed a series "Cross Tabulations Test" for descriptive statistical analysis of several dependent and independent variable comparisons. .  Dependent Variables = Vote: Gore or Bush Attention R paid to campaigns; Campaign interest; Political trust; Did R vote in the 2000 election.  Independent Variables = Self placement lib-con 3 cats; Party ID 3 categories; Party ID.

•   The research hypotheses have been confirmed through the cross tabulation test but they were not as dramatic as expected but conclusive.   (H1): a. Ideologically partisan voters do show more interested in political campaigns but both Liberals 30.4% and Conservative 31.6% rated highest at the "Somewhat Interested" levels only slightly due it part because this was a High Interest Political Race, b. Ideologically partisan voters do exhibit higher levels of political trust however, Liberals at 51.9% registered the greatest levels with Conservative at 43.7% and Moderates at 38.7%; (H2): a. Politically moderate or independent voters Voted at a rate 70.7% ranking slightly lower than Liberals at 79.3% and Conservatives at 79.3%, b. Politically moderate or independent voters do register higher levels of political distrust at 61.3% with Liberals at 48.1% and Conservatives at 56.3%;  (H3): a. Partisanship and ideology near the end of the scale do record higher levels of attention/interest but all categories ranked high or within 10-20 percentage points, b. Voting among these groups also were high [High Interest Race];  (H4): a. Independent voters ranked at 60.9% ranking the lowest in political trust; b. Independent voters ranked at 26.5% ranking the lowest in campaign interest "Not much Interested"; (H5): a. People that voted for Gore recorded lower political trust at 47.8% compared to Bush voters at 55.8%;
(H6): a. Voters in favor of Bush do label themselves partisan on the ideology scale     but heavily on the Conservative scale [more as Slightly Conservative at 34.5%]


Conclusion and Discussion

  The original quest for this research was to suggest indicators that would be reliable for determining political trust.  This study may not have blazed any new trails for survey analysis but it may have reached its objective of in determining indicators for political trust.  

The Ideological Voter is overwhelmingly linked to positive indicator for political trust.  However, there are surprising indicators that the voters who label themselves as Moderate or Independent were well ranked and scored within 10% points of partisan scores in all measured comparisons. This 2000 NES Survey data and crosstabs on identifying political trust gives me a much better perspective on predicting today's political fallout.


Table 1
A Descriptive Portrayal of Ideologically partisan voters will be more interested in political campaigns and will exhibit higher levels of political trust the 2000 Presidential Campaign

(H1): Ideologically partisan voters will be more interested in political campaigns and will exhibit higher levels of political trust.

   Attention R paid to campaigns * Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats Crosstabulation

       Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   Total
       1. Liberal   3. Moderate   5. Conservative   
Attention R paid to campaigns   1. Very much interested   Count   147   28   244   419
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   30.4%   28.9%   31.6%   31.0%
   3. Somewhat interested   Count   251   48   376   675
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   51.9%   49.5%   48.7%   49.9%
   5. Not much interested   Count   86   21   152   259
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   17.8%   21.6%   19.7%   19.1%
Total   Count   484   97   772   1353
   % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%


   Political trust: 2 cats * Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats Crosstabulation

       Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   Total
       1. Liberal   3. Moderate   5. Conservative   
Political trust: 2 cats   Low   Count   188   46   357   591
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   48.1%   61.3%   56.3%   53.7%
   High   Count   203   29   277   509
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   51.9%   38.7%   43.7%   46.3%
Total   Count   391   75   634   1100
   % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%



Table 2
Politically moderate or  independent voters will be more apt to vote less and be more distrustful of politics.

(H2): Politically moderate or independent voters will be more apt to vote less and be more distrustful of politics.

   Did R vote in the 2000 election * Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats Crosstabulation

       Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   Total
       1. Liberal   3. Moderate   5. Conservative   
Did R vote in the 2000 election   1. Voted   Count   329   58   530   917
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   79.3%   70.7%   79.3%   78.7%
   5. Did not vote   Count   86   24   138   248
       % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   20.7%   29.3%   20.7%   21.3%
Total   Count   415   82   668   1165
   % within Self plcmnt lib-con 3 cats   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%




Table 3
Voters who pay more attention to political campaigns and vote are people at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale.

(H3): Voters who pay more attention to political campaigns and vote are people at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale.

   Did R vote in the 2000 election * Self placement lib-con scale Crosstabulation

       Self placement lib-con scale   Total
       1. Strong liberal   2. Liberal   3. Slightly liberal   4. Moderate   5. Slightly conservative   6. Conservative   7. Strong conservative   
Did R vote in the 2000 election   1. Voted   Count   51   81   197   58   278   149   103   917
       % within Self placement lib-con scale   87.9%   77.9%   77.9%   70.7%   74.3%   81.4%   92.8%   78.7%
   5. Did not vote   Count   7   23   56   24   96   34   8   248
       % within Self placement lib-con scale   12.1%   22.1%   22.1%   29.3%   25.7%   18.6%   7.2%   21.3%
Total   Count   58   104   253   82   374   183   111   1165
   % within Self placement lib-con scale   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%


   Campaign interest * Self placement lib-con scale Crosstabulation

       Self placement lib-con scale   Total
       1. Strong liberal   2. Liberal   3. Slightly liberal   4. Moderate   5. Slightly conservative   6. Conservative   7. Strong conservative   
Campaign interest   High   Count   56   106   236   76   336   171   113   1094
       % within Self placement lib-con scale   83.6%   84.1%   81.1%   78.4%   76.4%   80.7%   94.2%   80.9%
   Low   Count   11   20   55   21   104   41   7   259
       % within Self placement lib-con scale   16.4%   15.9%   18.9%   21.6%   23.6%   19.3%   5.8%   19.1%
Total   Count   67   126   291   97   440   212   120   1353
   % within Self placement lib-con scale   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%



Table 4
Voters who exhibit less political trust and less campaign interest label themselves as being more politically independent.

(H4): Voters who exhibit less political trust and less campaign interest label themselves as being more politically independent.

   Political trust: 2 cats * Party ID: 3 categories Crosstabulation

       Party ID: 3 categories   Total
       1. Democrat   2. independent   3. Republican   
Political trust: 2 cats   Low   Count   196   277   163   636
       % within Party ID: 3 categories   47.8%   60.9%   51.7%   53.9%
   High   Count   214   178   152   544
       % within Party ID: 3 categories   52.2%   39.1%   48.3%   46.1%
Total   Count   410   455   315   1180
   % within Party ID: 3 categories   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%



   Attention R paid to campaigns * Party ID: 3 categories Crosstabulation

       Party ID: 3 categories   Total
       1. Democrat   2. independent   3. Republican   
Attention R paid to campaigns   1. Very much interested   Count   170   137   141   448
       % within Party ID: 3 categories   32.9%   23.6%   37.3%   30.4%
   3. Somewhat interested   Count   260   290   172   722
       % within Party ID: 3 categories   50.3%   49.9%   45.5%   48.9%
   5. Not much interested   Count   87   154   65   306
       % within Party ID: 3 categories   16.8%   26.5%   17.2%   20.7%
Total   Count   517   581   378   1476
   % within Party ID: 3 categories   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%



Table 5
People that voted for Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election expressed less political trust than those who voted for Bush.

(H5): People that voted for Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election expressed less political trust than those who voted for Bush.

   Political trust: 2 cats * Vote: Gore or Bush Crosstabulation

       Vote: Gore or Bush   Total
       Gore   Bush   
Political trust: 2 cats   Low   Count   224   231   455
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   47.8%   55.8%   51.5%
   High   Count   245   183   428
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   52.2%   44.2%   48.5%
Total   Count   469   414   883
   % within Vote: Gore or Bush   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%



Table 6
Voters in favor of Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election will indicate high in political trust and be more apt to label themselves at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale.

(H6): Voters in favor of Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election will be more apt to label themselves at the ends of the partisanship and ideology scale.

   Self placement lib-con scale * Vote: Gore or Bush Crosstabulation

       Vote: Gore or Bush   Total
       Gore   Bush   
Self placement lib-con scale   1. Strong liberal   Count   41   2   43
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   9.2%   .5%   4.9%
   2. Liberal   Count   67   12   79
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   15.0%   2.8%   9.1%
   3. Slightly liberal   Count   151   34   185
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   33.7%   8.0%   21.2%
   4. Moderate   Count   36   21   57
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   8.0%   5.0%   6.5%
   5. Slightly conservative   Count   115   146   261
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   25.7%   34.5%   30.0%
   6. Conservative   Count   24   122   146
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   5.4%   28.8%   16.8%
   7. Strong conservative   Count   14   86   100
       % within Vote: Gore or Bush   3.1%   20.3%   11.5%
Total   Count   448   423   871
   % within Vote: Gore or Bush   100.0%   100.0%   100.0%



References


   Sigelman, Lee; Feldman, Stanley 1983, Trusting Souls: A
Comparative Political Studies, Volume 16, issue 1 , p. 118-143

   Rahn, Wendy M, Transue, John E 1998,Social Trust and Value Change: The Decline of Social Capital in American Youth, 1976–1995, Political Psychology, Volume 19, issue 3 , p. 545-565

   Peterson, Geoff1; Wrighton, J. Mark 1998, Expressions of Distrust: Third-Party Voting and Cynicism in Government, Political Psychology, Volume 19, issue 3, p. 545-565 Political Behavior, Volume 20, issue 1 (March 1998), p. 17-34

   Shah, Dhavan V 1998, Civic Engagement, Interpersonal Trust, and Television Use: An Individual-Level Political Psychology, Volume 19, issue 3, p. 469-496

   Bennett, Stephen Earl; Rhine, Staci L.; Flickinger, Richard S., Bennett, Linda L 1999, "Video Malaise" Revisited: Public Trust in the Media and Government
The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Volume 4, issue 4 , p. 8-23

   Leon G. Schiffman, Elaine Sherman, Nicole Kirpalani 2002 Segmentation of the Voting Public Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19(12): 993–1007

   Ruscio, Kenneth P. 1999, Jay's Pirouette, or Why Political Trust is Not the Same as Personal Trust International JourAdministration & Society, Volume 31, issue 5 p. 639-657

   Ulbig, Stacey G 2002, Policies, Procedures, and People: Sources of Support for Government? Social Science Quarterly, Volume 83, issue 3 , p. 789-809

   ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER J. 2002Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America British Journal of Political Science, Volume 32, issue 2 , p. 335-351

   Lee, GangHeong; Cappella, Joseph N. 2003, The Effects of News and Entertainment on Interpersonal Trust: Political TalkRadio, Newspapers, and Television Mass Communication and Society, Volume 6, issue 4 , p. 413-434

   Gross, Kimberly; Aday, Sean; Brewer, Paul R. 2004, A Panel Study of Media Effects on Political and Social Trust after September 11, 2001Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Volume 9, issue 4, p. 49-73

   Keele, Luke 2005, The Authorities Really Do Matter: Party Control and Trust in Government, Journal of Politics, Volume 67, issue 3 , p. 873-886

   MUTZ, DIANA C.1; REEVES, BYRON 2005, The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust, American Political Science Review, Volume 99, issue 1 , p. 1-15

   Rudolph, Thomas J.; Evans, Jillian 2005,Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending, American Journal of Political Science, Volume 49, issue 3, p. 660-671

   Uslaner, Eric M.; Brown, Mitchell 2005,
Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement American Politics Research, Volume 33, issue 6 , p. 868-894
   
   Catterberg, Gabriela; Moreno, Alejandro 2006, The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New and Established Democracies Journal of Public Opinion Research, Volume 18, issue 1 , p. 31-48

   Gershtenson, Joseph; Ladewig, Jeffrey; Plane, Dennis L 2006,Parties, Institutional Control, and Trust in Government Social Science Quarterly, Volume 87, issue 4, p. 882-902

   Avery, James M. 2006,The Sources and Consequences of Political Mistrust among African AmericansAmerican Politics Research, Volume 34, issue 5, p. 653-682

   Letki, Natalia 2006, Investigating the Roots of Civic Morality: Trust, Social Capital, and Institutional Performance, Political Behavior, Volume 28, issue 4 , p. 305 - 325
   Keele, Luke 2007, Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in GovernmentAmerican Journal of Political Science, Volume 51, issue 2, p. 241-254
   
   Marschall, Melissa1; Shah, Paru R. 2007, The Attitudinal Effects of Minority Incorporation: Examining the Racial Dimensions of Trust in Urban America, Urban Affairs Review, Volume 42, issue 5, p. 629-658