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

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.

Does Social Media Promote Civic Activism? A Field Experiment with a Civic Campaign

“…There is no evidence that liking the Facebook page positively affected other behavioral, attitudinal or knowledge outcomes in Figures 5 and 6: subjects are neither more likely to perceive that they are able to make a difference, nor do they report a higher probability of participating in environmental protests in the future. Surprisingly, subjects who followed the Facebook campaign think that others are less likely to appreciate those who campaign (see Figure 4) and we also report a negative estimate of the email campaign on issue importance, which is consistent with Butler and Hassell (2018)'s finding from an email experiment in the United States.…”

Political Responsiveness and Centralized Religious Leaders: Lessons from the Catholic Church

“…While the impact of responsiveness should be greater among dedicated members, it is surprising to nd that less dedicated members actually decrease their support and participation when they receive responsiveness. One explanation for this trend is that when passive members see that the pope is responsive, it signals that the pope already prioritizes that issue and action is unnecessary (Levine and Kam 2017;Butler and Hassell 2018). If this is the case, members who agree with the pope, not members that disagree, should be less likely to support the Church when they receive responsiveness.…”

“…Infrequent church attendees, however, are also more likely to decrease their support if they receive messages on issues that they agree on with the Church. Responsiveness among passive, life-long members may be counterproductive because it signals that action is unnecessary and that leadership presently prioritizes that issue (Levine and Kam 2017;Butler and Hassell 2018). Dedicated members, interestingly, still respond positively to issues that they prioritize, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the Church, which shows a potential tolerance of leaders that have inconsistent positions (Tomz and Van Houweling 2012).…”

Willingness to Pay for Police Reform

“…Liberal-minded individuals may endorse a similar point of view; however, conservative persons could resist police reform because of a perceived difference in values and ideology. To assess this possibility, one could devise a political communication experiment grounded in the research of elite cue-taking and agenda setting (Barbera et al, 2019; Butler & Hassell, 2018; Lenz, 2012). Insights from a political communication study could identify the degree political ideology shapes police policy preferences (especially as they relate to police reform).…”