25
Table 2
The Impact of Voice and Influence on Political Trust
B
Robust
Standard Error
Significance
Non-Influential Quiet Voice
-0.405
0.318
0.203
Non-Influential Loud Voice
-0.607
0.245
0.013
Influential Quiet Voice
0.378
0.333
0.255
Policy Satisfaction
0.562
0.137
0.000
Neutrality 0.787
0.140
0.000
Efficiency 0.492
0.146
0.001
Honesty 1.291
0.261
0.000
Competence 0.691
0.151
0.000
Interpersonal Trust
0.500
0.244
0.040
Hispanic -0.558
0.228
0.014
Ideology 0.196
0.125
0.118
Constant -6.841
0.731
0.000
Number of Cases
841
Log-Likelihood
-395.023
Pseudo R-Square
0.310
Chi-Squared (probability < 0.000)
644.64
Notes: Dependent variable is Political Trust. Results are from logistic regression with standard errors corrected for
clustering on city of residence. Bolded entries are significant at the .05 level (all significance tests are two-tailed). See
Appendix A for descriptions and coding of all variables.
Figure 4
Predicted Probability of Trusting the Government
0.69
0.75
0.54
0.59
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Non-Influential Quiet Voice
(n.s.)
Non-Influential Loud Voice
(p<0.05)
Influential Quiet Voice
(n.s.)
Influential Loud Voice
(Baseline)
Notes: Probabilities calculated using the logistic regression results presented in Table 2. Control variables were set to
their mean values (modal values for dichotomous variables), and the Voice-Influence variables were changed from 0 to
1 individually. The “Influential Loud Voice” category serves as the baseline, excluded category. Only the “Non-
Influential Loud Voice” variable has a statistically significant regression coefficient.
Convention