Mutual Efficacy and Social Cohesion: Predictors of Informal Social Control, Neighboring, and Organizational Participation

Background:  Facilitating collective action in communities is a key step in addressing structural inequality and social injustice.  Collective efficacy examines the process by which communities act together to address problems.  Collective efficacy is typically comprised of two constructs: social cohesion and informal social control.  Social cohesion is the extent of trust, solidarity, and shared values among community members.  Informal social control reflects a community’s willingness to enforce social norms.

There are two key limitations of collective efficacy.  First, a key component of collective efficacy – the belief that action can be successful – is missing from empirical studies.  Second, relatively few collective efficacy studies examine actions other than informal social control. 

This study contributes to the literature by developing a construct called mutual efficacy, which is defined as, “Community members’ beliefs that collective action can be successful.”  I will then test the relationships among social cohesion, mutual efficacy, and three forms of collective action:  1) informal social control, 2) neighboring, and 3) participation in organized community activities. 

Method:  Data for this study are drawn from the Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Survey.  Mutual efficacy is measured using two items assessing residents’ perceptions of how effective:  1) small groups of neighbors, and 2) organized neighborhood clubs or groups are at solving neighborhood problems.  Social cohesion and informal social control are measured using items based on the original measure of collective efficacy.  Neighboring was measured as the frequency with which a respondent did activities for their neighbors (e.g. borrowed tools).  Organizational participation was measured as the frequency with which individuals participated in activities organized by community organizations (e.g. neighborhood associations).  Neighborhood disorder was measured using five items assessing the severity of neighborhood issues (e.g. trash in the streets).

Three structural equation models were conducted to test the relationships among social cohesion, mutual efficacy, and three collective actions:  1) informal social control, 2) neighboring, and 3) participation in organized community activities.  Neighborhood disorder was included as a covariate for all analyses.  All analyses were conducted using MPlus 7.

Results:  All structural equation models demonstrate acceptable model fit, and mutual efficacy is supported as a partial mediator of the relationship between social cohesion and all three collective actions.  Social cohesion has a strong association with informal social control (β = 0.631, p < 0.05) and neighboring (β = 0.505, p < 0.05), but its impact on organizational participation is weaker (β = 0.205, p < 0.05).  Mutual Efficacy is associated with informal social control (β = 0.080, p < 0.05), neighboring (β = 0.179, p < 0.05), and organizational participation (β = 0.335, p < 0.05) as well.

Conclusions:  Findings suggest that social cohesion and mutual efficacy are associated with multiple forms of collective actions.  Future research can develop a more valid and reliable measure of mutual efficacy and continue to explore the relationships among social cohesion, mutual efficacy, and collective actions.  Such research can increase our understanding of how and why communities act collectively and can inform interventions aimed at facilitating collective action.