Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-5pczc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:46:43.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Limits of Officials’ Ability to Change Citizens’ Priorities: A Field Experiment in Local Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2018

DANIEL M. BUTLER  and
HANS J.G. HASSELL Open the ORCID record for HANS J.G. HASSELL [Opens in a new window]
DANIEL M. BUTLER*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
HANS J.G. HASSELL*
Affiliation:
Florida State University
*
Daniel M. Butler is an Associate Professor, University of California, San Diego, Social Sciences Building, 9500 Gilman Drive #0521, La Jolla, CA 92093-0521 (daniel.butler@gmail.com).
Hans J.G. Hassell is an Assistant Professor, Florida State University, Department of Political Science, 531 Bellamy Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306 (hans.hassell@gmail.com).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We test whether politicians’ communications shape their supporters’ policy priorities by conducting a field experiment in collaboration with several local elected officials. In the experiment, the officials sent out email messages to the constituents on their distribution lists. Half the constituents received messages where the official advocated for the priority of a given issue, while the other half received a placebo email. We surveyed the constituents one to two months before the message went out and again the week after the official sent the message. The experiment shows that politicians did not change citizens’ priorities in the desired direction. Moreover, citizens who received a message where the official indicated the issue was a priority were not more likely to act when invited to sign a petition on the issue. Elected officials’ ability to shape the priorities of the politically active citizens with whom they regularly communicate is limited and can even be self-defeating.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 860 - 873
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of the paper was presented at the Urban Political Economy Conference at Vanderbilt University in March 2017. We thank Marc Meredith and other conference participants for comments. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KTCXTE.

References

REFERENCES

Angrist, Joshua D. 1998. “Estimating the Labor Market Impact of Voluntary Military Service Using Social Security Data on Military Applicants.” Econometrica 66 (2): 249.Google Scholar
Anzia, Sarah F. 2014. Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anzia, Sarah F., and Meeks, Olivia M.. 2016. “Political Parties and Policy Demanders in Local Elections.” Goldman School of Public Policy Working Paper.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Johnson, Martin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Aronow, Peter M., and Middleton, Joel A.. 2013. “A Class of Unbiased Estimators of the Average Treatment Effect in Randomized Experiments.” Journal of Causal Inference. 1(1): 135–144.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.Google Scholar
Bergan, Daniel E. 2009. “Does Grassroots Lobbying Work? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effects of an E-Mail Lobbying Campaign on Legislative Behavior.” American Politics Research 37 (2): 327–52.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 1999. “The Two Faces of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 1209–30.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2004. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 351–68.Google Scholar
Brehm, Jack W. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brehm, Sharon S., and Brehm, Jack W.. 1981. Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2016. “The Causal Effects of Elite Position-Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 208–21.Google Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 496–515.Google Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2012. “A Field Experiment on Legislators’ Home Styles.” Journal of Politics 74 (2): 474–86.Google Scholar
Coppock, Alexander. 2013. “10 Things You Need to Know about Statistical Power.” EGAP Methods Guides.Google Scholar
de Benedictis-Kessner, Justin. 2018. “Off-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage.” Journal of Politics 80 (1): 119–32.Google Scholar
Dillard, James Price, and Shen, Lijiang. 2005. “On the Nature of Reactance and Its Role in Persuasive Health Communication.” Communication Monographs 72 (2): 144–68.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Jacobs, Lawrence R.. 2015. Who Governs: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Manipulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Erie, Steven P., Kogan, Vladimir, and MacKenzie, Scott A.. 2011. Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Foos, Florian and John, Peter. 2018. “Parties Are No Civic Charities: Voter Contact and the Changing Partisan Composition of the Electorate.” Political Science Research and Methods 6 (2): 283–98.Google Scholar
Foos, Florian, and de Rooij, Eline A.. 2017a. “All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks-A Spillover Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 289–304.Google Scholar
Foos, Florian, and de Rooij, Eline A.. 2017b. “The Role of Partisan Cues in Voter Mobilization Campaigns: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment.” Electoral Studies 45 (1): 63–74.Google Scholar
Franklin, Aimee, and Ebdon, Carol. 2004. “Aligning Priorities in Local Budgeting Processes.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 16 (2): 210–27.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Karlan, Dean, and Bergan, Daniel E.. 2009. “Does the Media Matter? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political Opinions.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (2): 35–52.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin. 2013. “Appropriators Not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 624–42.Google Scholar
Guess, Andrew, and Coppock, Alexander. 2016. “The Exception, Not the Rule? The Rarely Polarizing Effect of Challenging Information.” Working paper. Yale University.Google Scholar
Guo, Hai, and Neshkova, Milena I.. 2013. “Citizen Input in the Budget Process: When Does It Matter Most?” American Review of Public Administration 43 (3): 331–46.Google Scholar
Hassell, Hans J. G., and Visalvanich, Neil. 2015. “Call to (In)Action: The Effects of Racial Priming on Grassroots Mobilization.” Political Behavior 37 (4): 911–32.Google Scholar
Hassell, Hans J. G., and Wyler, Emily E.. 2018. “Negative Descriptive Social Norms and Political Action: People Aren't Acting, So You Should.” Political Behavior, 1–26. Published Online February 21, 2018.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2013. “Name Recognition and Candidate Support.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 971–86.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Schneer, Benjamin, and White, Ariel. 2017. “How the News Media Activate Public Expression and Influence National Agendas.” Science 358 (6364): 776–80.Google Scholar
Kiousis, Spiro, and McCombs, Max. 2004. “Agenda-Setting Effects and Attitude Strength: Political Figures during the 1996 Presidential Election.” Communication Research 31 (1): 36–57.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. “Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America.” Political Behavior 12 (1): 59–92.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Levine, Adam Seth. 2014. “Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (1): 59–80.Google Scholar
LaPiere, Richard T. 1934. “Attitudes vs. Actions.” Social Forces 13 (2): 230–7.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth. 2015. American Insecurity: Why Our Economic Fears Lead to Political Inaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth, and Kam, Cindy D.. 2017. “Organizations, Credibility, and the Psychology of Collective Action.” Political Communication 34 (2): 200–20.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth, and Kline, Reuben. 2017. “A New Approach for Evaluating Climate Change Communication.” Climatic Change 142 (1): 301–9.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McComb, Mawell E., and Shaw, Donald L.. 1972. “Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (June): 176–87.Google Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2016. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 109–38.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1995. “Effects of Horse-Race Coverage on Campaign Coffers: Strategic Contributing in Presidential Primaries.” Journal of Politics 57 (4): 1015–42.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2005. “Scalable Protocols Offer Efficient Design for Field Experiments.” Political Analysis 13 (3): 233–52.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric, and Ha, Shang E.. 2007. “Vote Choice in Suburban Elections.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 393–408.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, David P. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1021–44.Google Scholar
Ringold, Debra Jones. 2002. “Boomerang Effects in Response to Public Health Interventions: Some Unintended Consequences in the Alcoholic Beverage Market.” Journal of Consumer Policy 25 (1): 27–63.Google Scholar
Rugh, Jacob S., and Trounstine, Jessica. 2011. “The Provision of Local Public Goods in Diverse Communities: Analyzing Municipal Bond Elections.” Journal of Politics 73 (4): 1038–50.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1984. “What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System.” Journal of Politics 46 (4): 1006–32.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley. 1980. “Public Opinion and Public Ignorance: The Fine Line Between Attitudes and Nonattitudes.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (5): 1214–25.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2014. “Representation in Municipal Government.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 605–41.Google Scholar
Vogel, Ronald J., and Ardoin, Phillip. 2008. “Ask Me No Questions, I'll Tell You No Lies: Does the Bradley Effect Still Exist?” Race, Gender, and Class 15 (3): 65–84.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Butler and Hassel Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KTCXTE
Link
Supplementary material: File

Butler and Hassel supplementary material

Butler and Hassel supplementary material 1

Download Butler and Hassel supplementary material(File)
File 104.2 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.