Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 201

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma

Craig, Stephen C.·1979·American Politics Quarterly

Abstract

Political efficacy and political trust are concepts which have become central to the study of political behavior, yet different studies continue to conceptualize and operationalize these variables in different ways. This study builds upon previous research in an attempt to clarify our understanding of the dimensions of political efficacy and their relationship to political trust. Evidence from three independent samples suggests that "input efficacy" and "output efficacy" are distinct attitudinal dimensions, that each is related in different ways to political trust, and that each may help us to better understand the psychological bases of political action.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1532673x7900700207

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 201

Metadata

Authors
Craig, S. C.
Venue
American Politics Quarterly
Published
1979-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
225-239
ISSN
0044-7803 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034418063
Cited by
201
References
0
FWCI
14.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1532673x7900700207
The paper
Craig, S. C. (1979). Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma. American Politics Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x7900700207

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.