From Personal Responsibility to Political Mobilization: Using Attribution Frames to Overcome Policy Feedback Effects

SoRelle, Mallory E.

doi:10.1177/1532673x211063215

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The hollowing out of state usury and fee regulations meant that consumers were left to rely increasingly on federal information disclosures as their primary form of financial protection (SoRelle, 2020). Studies have shown that information disclosures contribute to the privatization of consumer financing as an issue, with negative consequences for political engagement in support of lending reform (SoRelle, 2022a(SoRelle, , 2022b. Thus, by preempting stronger state usury limits, policymakers introduced a feedback process that ultimately made it more challenging to convince borrowers to agitate politically for robust lending protections.…”

Section: Feedback Effects For Organized Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The policy feedback effects of preemption

SoRelle,

Fullerton

2024

Policy Studies Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have charted a dramatic rise in the use of preemption both at the federal and state levels since the 1970s, with courts and politicians from both parties enacting preemptions across a range of contentious issues. Thus, preemption is a critical feature of American policymaking—one that almost certainly shapes the political choices of policymakers, organized interests, and voters across levels of government. Despite its significance to the politics of policymaking, scholars have yet to systematically consider the political consequences of preemption. We apply the logic of policy feedback theory to create a framework for analyzing the political consequences of preemption. Specifically, we detail how the use of both federal‐state and state‐local preemption might produce unique resource and interpretive effects that shape the subsequent political behaviors of policymakers, organized interests, and the public. We then consider two illustrative cases—federal preemption of state consumer financial protections and state preemption of local gender identity anti‐discrimination statutes—to demonstrate our framework's application. The article addresses a gap in the preemption literature and provides a critical extension of policy feedback theory, proposing a research agenda for future work to help better understand the politics of a widely used policy tool.

show abstract

Section: Feedback Effects For Organized Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The policy feedback effects of preemption

SoRelle,

Fullerton

2024

Policy Studies Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After observing the relationships among these different attributes and social policy acknowledgement through cross-sectional observational analysis, we test each of the observable implications described earlier through a series of information-based survey experiments. Information treatments have been shown in specific policy contexts to mitigate the effects of the submerged state on a range of political outcomes (e.g., Faricy & Ellis, 2014;Mettler, 2011;SoRelle, 2020SoRelle, , 2022.…”

Section: Data a N D M Et Hodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because we have a sufficiently large sample size to support the random assignment necessary for a between-subjects design, we have chosen this approach to help alleviate the potential for strategic behavior from opt-in survey takers and to accommodate our information treatments. Between subjects designs like ours are commonly used in feedback research (e.g., Faricy & Ellis, 2014;Mettler, 2011;SoRelle, 2022SoRelle, , 2023.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The policy acknowledgement gap: Explaining (mis)perceptions of government social program use

SoRelle

Shanks

2023

Policy Studies Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly, all Americans have received social policy benefits, yet many do not acknowledge “using government social programs.” Why? Work on the submerged state proposes that people who receive social assistance through market mechanisms do not realize that the benefits they get are the result of government policy, and therefore, they do not acknowledge receiving government assistance. Others point to motivated reasoning or social desirability bias to explain the gap between acknowledging and using social programs. We classify the existing literature into three broad explanations—delivery, definition, and desirability—and propose that each may be responsible for people's inability to accurately report using government social programs. We test these mechanisms with original survey experiments. The results of this study provide support for the theory that multiple mechanisms are at work in shaping social policy acknowledgment, but they confirm that a partisan acknowledgement gap exists across a variety of conditions, and it persists despite treatments designed to minimize it. The study has significant implications for the conditions under which partisanship and policy usage coalesce to undermine support for government social expenditures, and it helps to explain the persistence of a “makers vs. takers” logic in American politics.

show abstract

“…Scholars have found a clear correlation between policy benefits and political engagement (e.g., Campbell 2002), especially when the electorate can link policymaking to a particular governmental actor. The ability to attribute responsibility for policy action is particularly important for consumer lending (SoRelle 2022a), and perhaps especially for student loans, where government’s role has historically been hidden from the public (Mettler 2011). Yet, government’s responsibility for student loan policy was substantially revealed to the public during the highly visible blanket pause on payments and interest during Covid.…”

Section: Study 2: Political Benefits Of Executive Action On Debt Reliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

The political benefits of student loan debt relief

SoRelle

Laws

2023

Research & Politics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are people likely to reward politicians who support canceling student loan debt? This paper draws on original conjoint and survey experimental data to assess the effects of student debt relief proposals on voter behavior. Using data collected 3 months prior to Biden’s announcement of a specific plan for broad-based student debt relief, the paper addresses two interrelated questions: How do policy details—such as eligibility restrictions and the amount of debt canceled—shape voter support for candidates who embrace student loan cancellation? And second, will executive action by President Biden increase Democrats’ chances of winning in 2022 or 2024? We find evidence to suggest that candidates who support student debt relief plans offering generous debt cancellation while minimizing eligibility restrictions get the largest boost in support from voters, especially for key Democratic constituencies. We also find that executive action on student debt increases the likelihood that key groups would support Democratic congressional candidates in upcoming electoral contests. These results offer the first systematic evidence exploring the potential political ramifications of enacting student debt relief.

show abstract

From Personal Responsibility to Political Mobilization: Using Attribution Frames to Overcome Policy Feedback Effects

Cited by 5 publications

References 55 publications

The policy feedback effects of preemption

The policy feedback effects of preemption

The policy acknowledgement gap: Explaining (mis)perceptions of government social program use

The political benefits of student loan debt relief

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About