THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CITIZENS
Deliberation's value extends beyond the reasoned judgment it permits, but to understand this additional virtue, it is necessary to make one final addition to the revised exit, voice, and loyalty model. The effective use of a citizen's voice and vote also depends upon a set of psychological variables necessary to sustain democratic political action. In chapter 1, I argued that healthy governments require public trust and that meaningful deliberation can bolster the citizenry's confldence in its political institutions. In addition, deliberation can change how citizens view themselves, their abilities, and their responsibilities. To this point, the revised model has assumed that citizens recognize the value of participation and have confldence in their abilities to speak and vote wisely. As with deliberation, it is worthwhile to remove this assumption and consider these psychological characteristics as variables in the model.
The effective use of political voice and vote depends upon the maintenance of democratic institutions that reinforce important public attitudes and beliefs. When authors write about the importance of a strong "civil society," some of what concerns them is the public's willingness and ability to use its opportunities for political expression and electoral action.[43] Hirschman calls this the "readiness" to exercise voice; citizens are ready to voice dissent or attempt electoral rejection when they have both the necessary skills and confldence in those abilities. In the case of public voice, citizens cannot express their concerns effectively without basic literacy and a modest public-speaking ability. In addition, citizens must know how to reach public officials, whether they seek a face-to-face audience or simply want to send a letter. Anyone reading this book surely has those modest skills, but it is important to remember that over 20 percent of adult U.S. citizens have only rudimentary literacy skills, and only a quarter of the citizenry know the names of their U.S. senators.[44]
Also, people often develop skills without gaining confldence. This phenomenon is so widespread among people of all backgrounds that psychologists have given it a prominent place in the literature on human behavior. Self-efficacy is the belief that one can competently perform an action, such as brushing one's teeth, defending oneself against an attacker, or writing a letter to the editor.[45]
Despite its general signiflcance, self-efficacy is not always an important influence on people's behavioral choices, and its relevance to political life can not be taken for granted. Research in political science, however, has found a clear and consistent impact for this variable. These studies have demonstrated a strong connection between a person's political self-efficacy and his or her willingness to vote and express dissent through both conventional means, such as letter-writing and demonstration, as well as more radical means, such as civil disobedience.[46] The readiness to use one's voice, then, depends not only upon objective skills but also upon one's subjective assessment of those same skills.
Complicating matters further is the difference between one's own perceived abilities and the skills one attributes to fellow citizens. Obviously, a person's confldence in his or her ability to express dissent is unshaken by any doubts as to other people's communication skills. But one's sense of group efficacy is important when one considers expressing dissent through a group or organization.[47] A good deal of political expression comes through collective entities, and if citizens have doubts about the competence of groups they have joined (or are considering
Even with a strong sense of self- and group efficacy, citizens may still not exercise voice, believing that their actions, although competently performed, will have no impact. Cognitive psychologists refer to this belief as "outcome expectancy"—the expectation that one's actions will result in a desired outcome. Hirschman underscores the importance of this expectation by arguing that loyalty ultimately depends upon the expectation that one's voice will have influence.[48] Past research has shown that in politics, as well as other spheres of action, a person's outcome expectancy is a powerful predictor of whether he or she will take actions that require effort.[49] Only if citizens believe that public officials will act upon their advice will they go to the trouble of writing, calling, e-mailing, or directly addressing elected representatives.[50]
Political scientists call this belief "perceived system responsiveness." It bears some correspondence to the political trust discussed in chapter 1. With regard to voting, one may or may not trust that casting a ballot for a candidate is likely to influence the outcome of an election. As for voice, citizens vary in the degree to which they trust elected officials to give a meaningful response to one's expressed concerns. In these ways, low public trust is one of the important beliefs underlying sustained political action.[51]
If public expression and electoral rejection are so difficult, why do people take political action at all? To answer this question, I focus on the relatively simple act of voting. Voters unsure of the impact of their vote might still do so. Some voters might make a pessimistic assessment of their ability to make an accurate and influential voting decision yet vote nonetheless because they place such a high value on the influence that they might achieve. This consideration, which psychologists call "outcome valuation," is regularly paired with self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in research on behavioral choice. With regard to voting,
Once again, this set of political beliefs and orientations is important because it undergirds sustained citizen participation in public affairs. Democratic political institutions must "shape the psychology of citizens," because the system depends upon the involvement of those citizens. Deliberation, the expression of a strong public voice, and effective electoral action all require a citizenry with self-confldence, some confldence in system responsiveness, and genuine concern for the outcomes of political actions.[53]