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