Subjective Political Efficacy as a Measure of Diffuse Support

SINCE the publication of David Easton's A Systems Analysis of Political Life, "diffuse support" has become a widely researched political attitude. Diffuse support encompasses affect for the entire political system, affect which is not contingent upon specific rewards or deprivations (Easton, 1965:272-74). Underlying diffuse support are sentiments of legitimacy. In the case of the political regime and political authorities, these consist of perceptions that political institutions, norms, and procedures and the behavior of incumbent officials conform to "moral principles" and "what is right and proper" (Easton, 1965:278-79). Operationalizing diffuse support has proved to be no easy task. In essence, the difficulty lies in constructing a measure of diffuse support that is not contaminated by short-term partisan considerations such as the popularity of incumbent officials and current government policies. The crux of the measurement problem is this: can indicators of system affect be empirically differentiated from indicators of incumbent affect (Muller and Jukam, 1977; Citrin, 1974; Miller, 1974). In Easton's terms, can indicators of diffuse support be separated from indicators of specific support (Easton, 1965:267-72; for discussion of this issue see Loewenberg, 1971). Political trust and the sense of political efficacy are among the most frequently used measures of diffuse support. Both attitudes appear to tap sentiments of legitimacy. As operationalized by the SRC, trust