Methoden vergleichen

	Skala zur Messung der demokratischen Unterstützung	Political Efficacy Scale
Fachgebiet	Politische Psychologie	Politische Psychologie
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	1999	1969
Urheber	Russell Dalton & Pippa Norris	Richard Niemi, Steven Craig, Albert Bandura
Typ	Self-report	Self-report
Wegweisende Quelle	Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407-1413.
Aliasnamen	SFD, Democratic Legitimacy Scale, System Support Scale	Political Efficacy, Internal Efficacy, External Efficacy
Verwandt	3	3
Zusammenfassung	The Democratic Support Scale measures citizen commitment to democracy as a regime type, including beliefs that democracy is the best system of government, willingness to defend democratic institutions, and rejection of non-democratic alternatives. Pioneered by Norris (1999) and Dalton (2004) in comparative research, the measure distinguishes regime support (belief in democracy's superiority) from performance support (satisfaction with current government). It addresses the paradox of 'critical citizens'—in advanced democracies, people often express dissatisfaction with current government performance while maintaining deep commitment to democratic principles.	Political efficacy measures sense of personal agency and power in the political system, encompassing both internal efficacy (belief in own political competence and understanding) and external efficacy (belief that the political system is responsive to citizen input). Rooted in Bandura's self-efficacy theory (1977) and developed for political contexts by Niemi, Craig, and colleagues (1969 onwards), the measure explains why some citizens feel empowered to engage in politics while others feel powerless. High-efficacy citizens are substantially more likely to participate, contact representatives, and vote; low-efficacy citizens withdraw from politics and are susceptible to anti-democratic appeals.