Porównaj metody

	Skala Uczestnictwa Politycznego	Skala poparcia dla demokracji	Skala Efektywności Politycznej	Skala cynizmu wyborczego
Dziedzina	Psychologia polityczna	Psychologia polityczna	Psychologia polityczna	Psychologia polityczna
Rodzina	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Rok powstania	1995	1999	1969	1960
Twórca	Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Henry Brady	Russell Dalton & Pippa Norris	Richard Niemi, Steven Craig, Albert Bandura	Angus Campbell et al.
Typ	Self-report	Self-report	Self-report	Self-report
Źródło pierwotne	Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.	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.	Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Inne nazwy	PPCS, Civic Participation Measure, Political Activity Scale	SFD, Democratic Legitimacy Scale, System Support Scale	Political Efficacy, Internal Efficacy, External Efficacy	PCS, Political Efficacy Cynicism, Electoral System Cynicism
Pokrewne	3	3	3	3
Podsumowanie	The Political Participation Scale measures engagement in civic and political activities, encompassing voting, campaign involvement, contacting officials, organizational membership, community volunteering, and protest activity. Developed by Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995), the measure captures both conventional participation (voting, contacting representatives) and unconventional participation (protest, civil disobedience). It addresses fundamental questions in political science: Why do some citizens engage while others withdraw? How do structural resources (time, money, education) and psychological factors (efficacy, interest) drive participation?	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.	The Voter Cynicism Scale measures citizen skepticism and disillusionment regarding the political process, including beliefs that the electoral system is rigged, politicians are self-serving, and voting does not matter. The measure captures a pessimistic orientation toward electoral democracy distinct from distrust in institutions (which can coexist with belief in democratic potential) or political alienation. Rooted in Campbell et al.'s American Voter (1960) tradition of measuring political efficacy and cynicism, the scale remains central to understanding voter turnout decline, support for populist alternatives, and democratic legitimacy crises.