Do Public Consultations Reduce Blame Attribution? The Impact of Consultation Characteristics, Gender, and Gender Attitudes

Abstract

Can public consultations—gatherings organised to solicit constituent opinions—reduce the blame attributed to elected representatives whose decisions end up backfiring? Using two pre-registered survey experiments conducted on nationally representative samples of US respondents, we examine whether the effectiveness of consultations as a blame avoidance tool may be shaped by: (1) consultation characteristics, especially regarding whether or not representatives align their policies, either actively or passively, with constituent opinion; and (2) elected representative and constituent characteristics, especially regarding a representative’s gender and constituents’ gender attitudes. Results suggest that public consultations are indeed liable to decrease blame attribution, just so long as constituent opinion is not explicitly opposed to the representative’s decision. Active alignment with constituent opinion, however, does not appear to be a requirement for decreased blame attribution—and effects related to gender and gender attitudes are also largely absent. These findings are important for scholars seeking to better understand blame attribution, clarifying how public consultations might help politicians to pre-empt blame by reducing clarity of responsibility.

When Should Governments Listen to Social Protests? The Effects of Public Support and Outcome Favorability

“…public opinion can strengthen perceived procedural fairness. Citizens might perceive it to be more procedurally fair when a government adapts and aligns its policies in accordance with the views of a majority in public (Esaiasson et al 2019;Kevins and Vis 2021). Our Hypothesis 2 therefore posits that: "When there is a majority of the public in support of a policy decision, citizens will be more likely express a preference for the government to ignore social protests contesting the policy decision".…”