Methoden vergelijken

	Political Cynicism Scale	Politieke Effectiviteitsschaal
Vakgebied	Politieke psychologie	Politieke psychologie
Familie	Latent structure	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	1961	1969
Grondlegger	Robert Agger, Marshall Goldstein & Stanley Pearl	Richard Niemi, Steven Craig, Albert Bandura
Type	Attitude scale for distrust of politics	Self-report
Oorspronkelijke bron	Agger, R. E., Goldstein, M. N., & Pearl, S. A. (1961). Political Cynicism: Measurement and Meaning. The Journal of Politics, 23(3), 477-506.	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.
Aliassen	Political Distrust Scale, Agger-Goldstein-Pearl Cynicism Measure, Cynicism Toward Government Scale, Political Disaffection Scale	Political Efficacy, Internal Efficacy, External Efficacy
Verwant	3	3
Samenvatting	The Political Cynicism Scale measures the disposition to hold politicians and politics in disrepute, viewing officeholders as dishonest, self-serving, and unresponsive. First operationalized by Agger, Goldstein, and Pearl in 1961, the construct captures a generalized distrust distinct from disagreement with particular leaders or policies. Cynicism scales sit alongside political trust and efficacy as core measures of citizens' orientation toward the political system, and they figure prominently in debates, sharpened by Jack Citrin, over whether low trust reflects deep alienation from the regime or merely dissatisfaction with current incumbents.	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.