Neighborhood Advocacy and Informal Social Control: Testing Mutual Efficacy As a Predictor of Action in Communities

Background: Collective efficacy theory examines the process by which communities act together to solve problems. Collective efficacy is typically comprised of two constructs: social cohesion and informal social control. Recent research supports mutual efficacy, defined as, “Community members’ beliefs that collective action can be successful” as a factor that mediates the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control.

Previous research on mutual efficacy is limited because they utilize a two-item proxy measure of mutual efficacy. This study will contribute to the literature by using primary data set that was created for developing a mutual efficacy scale. Mutual efficacy will be tested as a mediator of the relationship between social cohesion and two forms of collective action: informal social control and neighborhood advocacy.

Method: Data for this study were collected from Prolific.co, an online survey platform. A sample of 750 individuals was recruited using Prolific.co was recruited.

The majority of respondents were white (n = 574, 76.1%), female (n = 374, 49.1%) and the average age of respondents was 45.7 years old (s.d. = 16.1). Most respondents were married/cohabiting (n = 373, 49.5%), employed (n = 348, 46.2%), and held a Bachelor’s degree (n = 275, 36.5%) at the time of survey completion.

Mutual efficacy was measured using nine items (e.g. residents in your neighborhood can work together successfully to influence positive change). Social cohesion and informal social control are measured using items based on the original measure of collective efficacy. Neighborhood activism was measured as the perceived likelihood that neighbors would participate in five advocacy activities (e.g. “Gotten together with neighbors to address a neighborhood problem.”).

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test two models. One where mutual efficacy as a factor that mediates the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control (informal social control model) and another where mutual efficacy as a factor that mediates the relationship between social cohesion and neighborhood advocacy (neighborhood advocacy model).

Results: Both the informal social control model (CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.913, SRMR = 0.057) and neighborhood advocacy model (CFI = 0.925, TLI = 0.912, SRMR = 0.050) fit the data well. Though mutual efficacy did not mediate the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control (model indirect = 0.035, p = 0.532), it did partially mediate the relationship between social cohesion and neighborhood activism (model indirect = 0.377, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Findings suggest that mutual efficacy mediates the relationship between social cohesion and neighborhood advocacy, but not informal social control. Mutual efficacy was developed to explain collective actions in communities. To that end, it appears to be a factor related to broader advocacy efforts. However, it does not explain all collective actions in communities.

Future research can expand on these findings by testing mutual efficacy as a predictor of more collective actions than neighborhood advocacy and neighborhood informal social control. Doing so will highlight targets of intervention for community organizers and can help identify methods of fostering mutual efficacy in communities.