ARE TOPIC-SPECIFIC MEASURESOF SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTROLJUSTIFIED? EXPLORING THE REALMOF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION INNATURAL RESOURCEDECISION MAKING

Patrick D. SmithDepartment of Forestry, Michigan State University

Dennis B. PropstDepartment of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources,Michigan State University

n

This study extends the socio-political control scales developed by Zimmer-man and Zahniser (1991) to the context of citizen participation in naturalresource agency decision making. The study shows that a natural resource-specific scale is more appropriate for behaviors related to participation innatural resource decision making. These results confirm the usefulness oftopic-specific measures of socio-political control. © 2001 John Wiley &Sons, Inc.

I definitely feel that I could be part of it, I believe. You know, I might not besomeone who has, you know, authority. I might not be a figure in the public eyeor whatever, but I figure, hey I live here, I live with this forest. I’m one of thepeople that’s gonna be affected by how it’s used and I definitely think that I could,maybe not make the decision, but give input onto what kinds of things would bebeneficiary to up here, you know. ~10th grade focus group participant!

. . . . that far off bureaucracy called the federal government is scary. You can’tmanipulate it. It’s an entity within itself and hard to crack. ~adult focus groupparticipant!

Correspondence to: Dennis B. Propst, Associate Professor, Department of Park, Recreation and TourismResources, 131 Natural Resources Bldg., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail:propst@msu.edu

A R T I C L E

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY , Vol. 29, No. 2, 179–187 (2001)© 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

These two quotes from a focus group study of an ecosystem planning process in north-ern Michigan ~Smith, McDonough, & Mang, 1999! portray the participant’s beliefs abouttheir ability to control the outside world—in this case, the political world of natural re-source management. Psychological theories about locus of control, leadership self-efficacy, and perceived control are often used to explain these types of beliefs. In thebeginning, global scales designed to measure constructs like internal–external locus ofcontrol were developed. However, as the global scales were applied to health, personalrelationships, politics, and other realms, they were modified to make them topic spe-cific. Furnham and Steele ~1993! note the rapid proliferation of such topic-specific scales.

The new scales were developed under the assumption that specific beliefs areassociated with specific behaviors. For example, a person with a high sense of controlover their own health may feel very low control over politics. Thus, a global locus ofcontrol scale may explain only a small proportion of variation in a specific behavior~Rotter, 1975!. However, there are drawbacks to developing so many specific scales.The more specific a scale is, the greater the potential that it will no longer correspondto the general psychological construct it was originally meant to measure. In addition,the psychometric properties of new scales are often inadequately explored.

There have been a few attempts to determine whether or not the use of topic-specific scales is justified. For example, Hau ~1995!, using confirmatory factor analysison seven measures of locus of control, found little evidence that the measures werethe same, and concluded by arguing that the construct of control is multidimensionaland sphere specific. Furnham and Steele ~1993! noted that the usefulness of a topic-specific scale can be assessed through incremental studies that directly compare abroader with a more specific scale to see if the specific scale adds enough explanatorypower to justify its limited generalizability. However, this approach is rare.

In this study, an incremental approach is used to compare general scales with a scalespecific to the domain of participation in governmental natural resource decision mak-ing. The general measures were developed by Zimmerman and Zahniser ~1991! for thesocio-political sphere, one of three behavioral spheres specified by Paulhus ~1983!. Zim-merman and Zahniser created the socio-political control scales by synthesizing person-ality, motivational, and cognitive measures of perceived control. The first of the two scalesmeasured a person’s sense of leadership efficacy ~Leadership Competence!. The secondassessed the belief that one can influence the political world ~Policy Control!. The scaleswere validated using behaviors of participation in voluntary community organizations.For the context of citizen participation in natural resource decision making, the itemsin the Policy Control scale were rewritten to make them specific to natural resource man-agement issues and agencies ~Natural Resource Policy Control!.

In this study, Leadership Competence, Policy Control, and Natural Resource Pol-icy Control scales were applied to the domain of citizen participation in naturalresource decision making. Previous research showing that many citizens feel a lack ofcontrol over governmental decisions suggests that perceived control may influencecitizen participation ~Smith & McDonough, in press!. By testing the scales in thiscontext, it was possible to determine if a more specific scale was justified.

METHODS

Sample

Data were collected as part of a study documenting the citizen participation efforts ofan ecosystem management planning project ~Smith et al., 1999!. Citizen participation

180 • Journal of Community Psychology, March 2001

consisted of focus group interviews with voluntary organizations about the future ofthe natural resources of northern lower Michigan. Prior to the discussions, partici-pants were asked to fill out the questionnaire used in this study. Organizations rangedfrom outdoor recreation groups ~e.g., Trout Unlimited! to service organizations ~e.g.,Jaycees! to ad hoc groups ~nonresident landowners recruited by phone!. Although thiswas not a representative sample of Michigan residents, an attempt was made to max-imize diversity in terms of interests and perspectives. Fifteen focus groups were heldwith a total of 150 participants. Of these, 136 answered all questions. The sample hadan average age of 52 ~SD 5 16!. Participants were 51% male and 93% White.

Measures

The questionnaire included 17 items used by Zimmerman and Zahniser ~1991! tomeasure leadership self-efficacy and policy control ~Appendix A!. It also containedeight items that were natural resource sphere versions of policy control items ~Appen-dix A!. In addition, there was a checklist of nine items about behaviors in generalpolitical and community spheres modified from Zimmerman and Zahniser ~1991!,and 11 items about behaviors in the natural resource decision making sphere ~Appen-dix B!. Behavioral summary scores were created for General Political Behaviors andNatural Resource Participatory Behaviors by summing the number of activities checked.Following Zimmerman and Zahniser ~1991!, the standard deviation was used as aguide to divide respondents into low, medium, and high levels of participation foreach type of behavior.

Analysis

Factor analyses, bivariate correlations, and analyses of covariance were used to assessthe reliability and validity of the scales. Analyses of covariance also measured therelative efficacy of global vs. topic-specific scales.

RESULTS

Leadership Competence and Policy Control

Before testing the control scales in the domain of natural resources, the originalZimmerman and Zahniser ~1991! Leadership Competence and Policy Control scaleswere validated with this study’s sample in the general political sphere. A factor analysisof the combined two scales yielded five factors with eigenvalues above 1, but screeanalysis suggested a two-factor solution. Oblique rotation led to one factor that con-tained items from the Leadership Competence scale and another factor containingPolicy Control items. However, two items loaded on the policy control factor insteadof on the leadership factor as they had for Zimmerman and Zahniser. Because thoseitems also had the lowest loadings in the Zimmerman and Zahniser study, they weredeemed unstable and excluded from the scales used in this study ~see Appendix A!.Alpha reliabilities for the resulting scales were .745 for Policy Control and .804 forLeadership Competence.

To assess validity of the Leadership Competence and Policy Control scales, twounivariate analyses of covariance were conducted with the summary scale scores asdependent variables, groups defined by level of General Political Behaviors as the

Exploring the Realm of Citizen Participation • 181

independent variable, and age, sex, and education as covariates. These covariates wereincluded because they were significantly correlated with the dependent variables ~Table 1!.The correlations suggested that males, younger persons, and persons with highereducation levels have higher perceived control in the sociopolitical domain. TheANCOVAs found that, among the covariates, sex was significant for Leadership Com-petence, F~1,130! 5 5.6, p 5 .019, and education was significant for Policy Control,F~1,130! 5 4.6, p 5 .034. Controlling for the effects of the covariates, the main effectof General Political Behaviors significantly explained variation in Leadership Compe-tence, F~2,130! 5 6.8, p 5 .002, and in Policy Control, F~2,130! 5 17.6, p , .001,supporting the validity of the scales in the general political sphere.

NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY CONTROL

Factor analysis of the Natural Resource Policy Control items combined with the Lead-ership Competence items yielded eigenvalues of 4.57, 2.23, and 1.089. The scree plotsuggested a two-factor solution was appropriate. In addition, the two factor solutionwas easily interpretable: the first factor contained all the Leadership Competenceitems, and the second contained the Natural Resource Policy Control items. Cron-bach’s alpha for Natural Resource Policy Control was .802, while Leadership Compe-tence remained at .804. The factors were moderately correlated at .313 and explained,respectively, 33 and 16% of the total variance before rotation.

Analyses of Covariance for the Topic of Participation inNatural Resource Decision Making

To compare the three control scales in terms of participation in natural resourcedecision making, three univariate analyses of covariance were performed. The scalesummary scores were dependent variables, groups defined by levels of Natural ResourceParticipatory Behavior ~NRPB! was the independent variable, and age, education, andsex were covariates.

The overall ANCOVA model ~Table 2! with Leadership Competence as the depen-dent variable was significant ~ p , .001!, but the main effect of NRPB was nonsignif-

Table 1. Correlations between Control Scales, Behavioral Variables, and Demographic Variables

Variable LC PC NRPC GPB NRPB AGE ED

LC Leadership competencePC Policy control .374*NRPC Natural resource policy control .313* .583*GPB General political behaviors .425* .508* .402*NRPB Natural resource participatory

behaviors.330* .259* .535* .589*

AGE Age 2.174* .017 .084 2.041 .003ED Education .304* .293* .243* .225* .223* 2.002SEX Sex 2.293* 2.010 2.228* 2.211* 2.386* .107 2.022

Pearson correlations ~two tailed! *p , .01.Sex: male 5 0, female 5 1.

182 • Journal of Community Psychology, March 2001

Tabl

e2.

Ana

lysi

sof

Cov

aria

nce

for

the

Con

trol

Scal

esac

ross

Lev

els

ofN

atur

alR

esou

rce

Par

tici

pato

ryB

ehav

iors

wit

hA

ge,

Edu

cati

on,

and

Sex

asC

ovar

iate

s

Lea

ders

hip

Com

pete

nce

Polic

yC

ontr

olN

atur

alR

esou

rce

Polic

yC

ontr

ol

dfF

p%

var

Fp

%va

rF

p%

var

Mod

el5,

130

5.3

,.0

0116

.93.

20.

009

11.0

7.2

,.0

0121

.6

Nat

ural

reso

urce

part

icip

ator

ybe

hav

iors

2,13

02.

80.

064

4.1

3.4

0.03

84.

99.

5,

.001

12.7

Age

1,13

04.

90.

028

3.7

,0.

10.

858

0.0

0.9

0.35

00.

7

Edu

cati

on1,

130

5.4

0.02

24.

06.

90.

010

5.5

5.4

0.02

24.

0

Sex

1,13

04.

20.

043

3.1

0.8

0.36

40.

60.

70.

405

0.5

Sex:

mal

e5

0,fe

mal

e5

1.%

var

isth

epr

opor

tion

ofth

eto

tal

vari

atio

nin

the

depe

nde

nt

vari

able

acco

unte

dfo

rby

vari

atio

nin

the

inde

pen

den

tva

riab

le.

%va

r5

100

∗be

twee

ngr

oups

SS0t

otal

SS.

Exploring the Realm of Citizen Participation • 183

icant ~ p 5 .064!. All three covariates were significant, suggesting they had removedenough variation to affect the significance of the main effect.

The overall ANCOVA model ~Table 2! for Policy Control was also significant ~ p 5.009!. In addition, the main effect of NRPB was significant ~ p 5 .038! as was thecovariate of education ~ p 5 .01!. The main effect accounted for 4.9% of the variationin Policy Control scores. Post hoc Bonferroni paired comparisons of means adjustedfor the covariates ~Table 3! indicated that the high level group of NRPB had signifi-cantly higher scores on Policy Control than the low group ~ p , .05!.

The ANCOVA model ~Table 2! for Natural Resource Policy Control was significant~ p , .001!. The main effect of NRPB was also significant ~ p , .001!, and accounted for12.7% of the variation in scores on Natural Resource Policy Control. Post hoc Bon-ferroni paired comparisons of means adjusted for the covariates ~Table 3! indicatedthat the high level group of NRPB had significantly higher scores on Natural ResourcePolicy Control than both the low and medium groups ~ p , .05!.

DISCUSSION

This study was done to validate a new socio-political control scale specific to the topicof participation in natural resource decision making. Factor analysis demonstratedthat the new scale ~Natural Resource Policy Control! was consistent and reliable.Analysis of covariance supported the validity of the scale. The behavioral measure ofparticipation in natural resource decision making significantly explained scores on theNatural Resource Policy Control scale by showing that people who participate morehave a greater sense of control.

The topic-specific scale was then compared to Zimmerman and Zahniser’s ~1991!general political sphere scales for natural resources decision making behavior. Thegeneral scales did not function as well as did the topic-specific scale. Levels of NaturalResource Participatory Behavior did not significantly explain scores on LeadershipCompetence, and was only moderately significant for Policy Control. However, levelsof Natural Resource Participatory Behavior significantly explained scores on NaturalResource Policy Control and the amount of explained variation was more than twicethe amount explained for Policy Control ~12.7% vs. 4.9%!.

The fact that the topic-specific scale performed better makes sense. Items in thePolicy Control and Natural Resource Policy Control scales asked about levels of per-sonal knowledge, personal motivation to participate, and responsiveness of govern-

Table 3. Adjusted Means, Standard Errors, and Sample Sizes for the Control Scales across Levels ofNatural Resource Participatory Behaviors

Groups DefinedLeadership Competence Policy Control Natural Resource Policy Controlby Level of Natural

Resource ParticipatoryBehaviors Mean SE N Mean SE N Mean SE N

Low 22.7 1.17 27 35.7b 1.41 28 26.6b 1.12 28Medium 25.5 0.67 71 39.1 0.86 70 29.4b 0.68 70High 26.1 0.94 38 40.7a 1.21 38 33.1a 0.95 39

Means are adjusted for covariates of age, education, and sex. Bonferroni posttests on adjusted means were conductedwithin each scale. Means which are significantly different ~ p , .05! are indicated by different subscripts ~i.e., a, b!. Meanswhich are not significantly different have no subscripts or the same subscripts ~i.e., b, b!.

184 • Journal of Community Psychology, March 2001

ment. Citizen knowledge about one domain, like the general political system, may nottranslate to another domain like natural resources. In addition, people may be highlymotivated to participate in environmental issues, but may be indifferent about generalpolitics. Finally, while people may have beliefs about the responsiveness of the politicalsystem in general, they will also have specific beliefs about specific natural resourceagencies. It is not surprising that greater explanation can be gained from a moretargeted set of items.

The purpose of the study should drive the specificity of the scale. If one is tryingto derive general principles across a broad domain, then the Zimmerman and Zahn-iser scales should be used. The fact that their scales were partially explained by levelsof Natural Resource Participatory Behaviors demonstrates the existence of generalpatterns that cross all topics in the socio-political sphere. If one is trying to under-stand and predict a narrow set of behaviors, then a more specific scale should becreated. This conclusion is supported by the greater explanatory power of NaturalResource Policy Control. The study reported here demonstrates that for the domainof citizen participation in natural resource decision making, there is a small butmeaningful gain in explained variation with a more targeted scale.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

For helpful insights we are grateful to our coinvestigator, Maureen H. McDonough,Professor in the Department of Forestry, Michigan State University. This research waspartially funded by the McIntire-Stennis program through the Michigan AgriculturalExperiment Station.

REFERENCES

Furnham, A., & Steele, H. ~1993!. Measuring locus of control: A critique of general, children’s,health- and work-related locus of control questionnaires. British Journal of Psychology, 84,443–479.

Hau, K.T. ~1995!. Confirmatory factor analyses of seven locus of control measures. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 65, 117–132.

Paulhus, D. ~1983!. Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 44, 1253–1265.

Rotter, J. ~1975!. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versusexternal control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56–67.

Smith, P.D., & McDonough, M.H. ~in press!. Beyond public participation: Fairness in naturalresource decision making. Society & Natural Resources.

Smith, P.D., McDonough, M.H., & Mang, M. ~1999! Public participation in ecosystem manage-ment: Lessons from the field. Journal of Forestry, 97~10!, 32–38.

Zimmerman, M.A., & Zahniser, J.H. ~1991! Refinements of sphere-specific measures of per-ceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community Psy-chology, 19, 189–204.

APPENDIX A: PERCEIVED CONTROL SCALE ITEMS

Leadership Competence (Zimmerman & Zahniser, 1991)

I am often a leader in groups.I would prefer to be a leader rather than a follower.

Exploring the Realm of Citizen Participation • 185

I find it very hard to talk in front of a group.Other people usually follow my ideas.I would rather someone else took over the leadership role when I’m involved in a

group project.I can usually organize people to get things done.**I would rather not try something I’m not good at.**I like to wait and see if someone else is going to solve a problem so that I don’t have

to be bothered by it.** Items excluded because they did not load on this factor in this study.

Policy Control (Zimmerman & Zahniser, 1991)

So many other people are active in local issues and organizations that it doesn’t mattermuch to me whether I participate or not.

I enjoy political participation because I want to have as much say in running govern-ment as possible.

Most public officials wouldn’t listen to me no matter what I did.There are plenty of ways for people like me to have a say in what our government

does.Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t

really understand what’s going on.People like me are generally well qualified to participate in the political activity and

decision making in our country.I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues which

confront our society.A good many local elections aren’t important enough to bother with.It hardly makes any difference who I vote for because whoever gets elected does

whatever he or she wants to do anyway.

Natural Resource Policy Control

So many other people are active in local natural resource issues and organizations thatit doesn’t matter much to me whether I participate or not.

So many other people are active in state and national natural resource issues andorganizations that it doesn’t matter much to me whether I participate or not.

I enjoy political participation because I want to have as much say as possible inrunning agencies like the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and U.S.Forest Service.

Most natural resource agency people in Michigan wouldn’t listen to me no matterwhat I did.

There are plenty of ways for people like me to have a say in what the MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources, the U.S. Forest Service, and local planners do.

Sometimes natural resource agencies and issues seem so complicated that a personlike me can’t really understand what’s going on. ~Natural resources include for-ests, water, soil, wildlife, rivers, lakes, etc.!.

People like me are generally well qualified to participate in natural resource and landuse decision making in Michigan.

I feel like I have a pretty a good understanding of the important natural resourceissues that confront Michigan.

186 • Journal of Community Psychology, March 2001

APPENDIX B: BEHAVIORS AND PERCENT OFRESPONDENTS REPORTING BEHAVIORS IN THELAST 5 YEARS

General Political Behaviors (modified from Zimmerman &Zahniser, 1991)

Voted regularly in state0national election. 96.6Voted regularly in local election. 91.8Communicated with a public official or government agency. 69.9Attended meetings of a voluntary organization regularly. 67.8Ran for office of a voluntary organization. 52.1Organized a group of people around some political issue. 21.9Worked on a local political campaign. 20.5Worked on a state or national political campaign. 18.5Ran for public office. 8.2

Natural Resource Participatory Behaviors

Belonged to a natural resource, environmental, or outdoor recreation related org. (1)53.4

Signed a natural resource0environment0land use petition. 45.2Attended a local zoning0land use hearing or meeting. 45.2Communicated with the MDNR or USFS to get information. 41.1Regularly attended meetings of the organization (in 1). 41.1Attended a hearing or meeting of the MDNR or USFS. 32.2Ran for office of the organization (in 1). 30.8Communicated with the MDNR or USFS to give a suggestion or complaint. 27.4Wrote a letter to an editor of a newspaper about a natural resource issue. 23.3Organized a group of people around a natural resource or environmental issue. 23.3Served on a natural resource0land-use commission, advisory board, or planning team.

15.1

Exploring the Realm of Citizen Participation • 187