27

Political Interest and Communication

Questions were designed to tap four types of behavior, which we have grouped here.

Political interest was indexed with a single question, asked at all three time periods:

1. Each year, the Florida State Lesiglature meets in the spring. How interested are you in the things that happen in the Legislature?

(very, somewhat, a little or not interested)

Interpersonal communication about politics was assessed by a pair of questions, asked during the three waves:

1. How often do you talk about politics with your friends?

2.

(often, sometimes, almost never)

How often do you talk about politics with your parents?
(often, sometimes, almost never)

Public affairs exposure was directed at the individual's attention to law-making news as manifested by certain mass media behaviors.

tions served as replicates in this area:

Three ques

1. How often do you read news about the state government in Tallahassee?

2.

3.

(every day, several times a week, once or twice a week, almost never)

How often do you read about the national government in Washington?

(every day, several times a week, once or twice a week, almost never)

About how often do you watch the national TV news shows, like
Walter Cronkite or John Chancellor?

(every day, several times a week, once or twice a week, almost never)

All the items described in this section were treated singly, and no combined measures were constructed.

28

Use of public television for political information.

At two time peri

ods we assessed the out-of-class public television exposure behaviors of the

study respondents.

During the second testing session, after the experimental group had viewed six of the series' episodes in classroom situations, all respondents were asked two questions about their home viewing behavior:

1. This year, the Florida State Legislature sessions are being presented on TV.

About how many of these shows have you watched on

TV at home?

(none, one or two, some of them, most of them)

2. About how many have your parents watched?

(none, one or two, some of them, most of them)

At the third testing session exposure to the series had ended

-

-

fully two weeks after their in-class

we again assessed their now voluntary

exposure to these shows. Basically we sought to determine whether the forced exposure incidents had led to any longitudinal increment in their political interest, as assessed by self-selection of such programs. The questions asked were:

1.

2.

This year,
WFSU (Channel 11) has been showing some programs on
the state legislature, called "Today In The Legislature."
In
the last two weeks, how many of these shows have you seen at

home?

(0 to more than 10)

Tonight will be the last show of "Today In The Legislature."
Do you think you'll watch it?

(yes, no, maybe)

Political Efficacy

As introduced by Campbell, Gurin and Miller (1954), political efficacy identifies a set of psychological dispositions toward politics involving

29

perceived effectiveness and capacity in the governmental sphere. Subsequent research has defined at least three elements of efficacy: a feeling that government authorities are responsive to individuals like the respondent; the perception that the general public can affect the course of government; and the subjective ability of the respondent to comprehend the intricacies of politics and government (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, 1960; Easton and Dennis, 1967).

Items tapping policital efficacy were adapted from those used in prior research at the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan (Robinson, Rusk, and Head, 1968). A three-item index was constructed from the following:

Here are three statements about the government. Tell us whether you agree or disagree with each one:

1. Public officials do not care much about what people like yourself
think.

2.

3.

The way people vote is the main thing that decides how things are
run in this country.

Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like you can't really understand what's going on.

Response categories were 'agree,' 'not sure' and 'disagree.' Responses from the three items were summed into a single index with a range from 0-6, with the higher score representing a larger sense of political efficacy. The average inter-item correlation was +.05. The Time 1 index was correlated +.31 with the Time 2 re-administration of the three-item index. At Time 1, the distribution of respondents was:

Much of the program time emphasized the work of legislators, either in committees, on the floor of the House or Senate, or in personal interview situations. Three attributes of the legislators were assessed both before

and after exposure to the television series, in this fashion:

In general, what do you think of the state legislators? Are they

The

These three responses were summed into a single index with a range from 0-6, with the higher score representing more favorable reactions. average inter-item correlation was +.31. The correlation between Time 1 and Time 2 indices was +.39. At Time 1, the distribution of responses was:

For one, the youngsters were asked,

Two single items also fit this section. "After you finish school, do you think that you might want to be a legislator?" as a means of determining whether a more favorable attitude toward

31

legislators would lead to this level of desirability. Response categories were 'yes,' 'no,' and 'maybe,' and the question was asked at the first two testing sessions. At a more general level, another question asked about the degree of secrecy in legislative work. The question was, "How much of the legislature's work is done in secret?" It was anticipated that a principal

outcome of televizing legislative sessions would be to substantially reduce

any aura of secrecy.

Political Knowledge

The cognitive effects of exposure to the televised programs were assessed in three ways. A series of general knowledge questions about the activities of the state legislature was introduced at the first testing, and repeated identically at the second wave. It determined whether and what the students were learning about the general process of legislative activities.

For the second wave of testing, a second battery of knowledge questions were constructed which dealt with specific activities of the legislature, as could have been observed in the programs, or obtained through other media reportings of legislative business. This second battery was sub-divided into questions which dealt with (a) factual knowledge about bills and actions of the legislature during its current session; and (b) structural aspects of how the legislature works.

Each of these knowledge variables will be operationalized here. Basic legislative knowledge. These questions were repeated during the first two testings. Nine questions were asked, and each was scored as correct or not. For most, only one answer could be correct; for some, trained coders determined the acceptability of the response. All questions are cited here, with correct answers, or samplings of correct answers. After the