Many studies on this topic have been done looking at political efficacy and how that relates to political participation. One such study by John C. Pierce and Addison Carey Jr. did just this. This study defined efficacy as, “the feeling that a person can influence political outcomes through his participation” (Pierce and Carey 1971, 202). Their examination looked at four main problems: (1) how much are individuals participating, (2) analyze political efficacy and how that relates to traditional and nontraditional participation, (3) relate efficacy to the types of problems which blacks are concerned about, and (4) look at how efficacy and voter registration experiences influence each other. For the purpose of this paper the findings are not that important, but it is most important to n

While looking at these five explanations, Rogers sites the studies that backed up these ideas and goes on to explain his determinations. On the matter of education previous studies claimed that black students are taught that they can do little to change the political landscape so therefore they should not participate. However in Rogers study he found that black students planned to participate significantly more than white students (Rogers 1974, 266). Due to these numbers Rogers rejects the education hypothesis (Rogers 1974, 267).

The last bit of data to be noted is that political efficacy varies at an almost identical rate to that of political participation. For example, those who exhibited high levels of efficacy also exhibited equally high levels of participation (Pierce and Carey 1971, 210). As these levels of efficacy fell the level of participation fell in an almost uniform fashion (Pierce and Carey 1971, 212). Another study pitted traditional participation (i.e. Voting) against nontraditional forms, mainly protest. The study found that in every instance, the respondents found that voting was preferable to protest (Pierce and Carey 1971, 213). The study concluded by saying that the variables such as income and age make much less difference in the variation of efficacy than previous studies had suggested (Pierce and Carey 1971, 214).

In this model as well as the efficacy model only two of the variables turned out to be statistically significant. Marital status and annual household income were the only variables that were significant with values of .046 and .014 respectively. Both of the relationships were positive so as the person went from single to married they became more conservative in their political outlook and as the respondent made more money they grew more conservative. Neither of these findings should come as a surprise.

The next set of variables will be used to determine the individual’s political ideology. It is important to note that this will not include the political party that the respondent identifies with. This is a measure of how the respondent feels about important issues and more importantly where the place on the liberal/conservative scale. The five variables are: (1) should the federal government give aid to blacks, (2) how does the respondent feel about abortion, (3) how does the respondent feel about gun control, (4) how does the respondent feel about the death penalty finally, (5) where does the respondent place themselves on the liberal/conservative scale. These five variables will be calculated into one measure that will be known as ideology. This variable will also range from zero to infinity with low numbers meaning the more liberal the respondent is. It should be noted that the highest observed value for the 208 cases is 5.25.

Some topics in this essay:
Election Survey, Pierce Carey, Jr Rogers, Harvey Harvey, House Senate, Due Rogers, Harrell Rogers, Bolce Gerald, Powell Watson, Elwood Watson, political efficacy, rogers 1974, pierce carey, de maio, carey 1971, pierce carey 1971, bolce de, bolce de maio, de maio 1993, factor determining, maio 1993, political ideology, black students, political efficacy political, six independent variables,