Does constituency focus improve attitudes to MPs? A test for the UK

Figures & data

Figure 1. Constituency focus of all MPs’ debate contributions, 1950–2000 (words beginning constituen* in Hansard per million words by year).

Table 1. Results of linear regression models of perceived local focus of MP and trust in MP, with and without interactions.

	DV: local focus (low-high)		DV: trust (low-high)
	[1]	[2]	[3]	[4]
% constituency mentions	.015*** (.003)	−.001 (.006)	.008* (.003)	−.001 (.006)
Knows MP’s name	−.016 (.085)	−.430** (.151)	.077 (.086)	−.143 (.155)
% constituency mentions * knows MP’s name		.021*** (.006)		.011 (.007)
Match with MP’s party (base: matching PiD)
Clash with MP party	−.339*** (.079)	−.347*** (.078)	−1.296*** (.079)	−1.300*** (.079)
No party ID	.163 (.106)	−.170 (.106)	−1.068*** (.108)	−1.072*** (.108)
Didn’t guess MP party	.129 (.250)	−.144 (.249)	−1.324*** (.259)	−1.337*** (.259)
Gender: female	.455*** (.072)	.449*** (.071)	.365*** (.072)	.362*** (.072)
Age	.011*** (.003)	.011*** (.003)	.014*** (.003)	.014*** (.003)
Highest qualification
GCSEs	−.040 (.143)	−.047 (.143)	.101 (.146)	.100 (.145)
A-levels	−.024 (.153)	−.024 (.153)	.074 (.156)	.076 (.156)
University	−.041 (.145)	−.040 (.145)	.225 (.148)	.227 (.148)
NS-SEC (base: routine)
Intermediate	−.239* (.110)	−.252* (.110)	−.036 (.112)	−.033 (.112)
Managerial/professional	−.233* (.111)	−.248* (.111)	−.044 (.112)	−.052 (.112)
Political attention (0–10)	−.064** (.020)	−.065** (.020)	−.013 (.020)	−.013 (.020)
Has contacted MP	.009 (.079)	.013 (.079)	.198* (.079)	.195 (.079)
Seniority (years)	−.003 (.004)	−.003 (.004)	.009* (.004)	.009* (.004)
MP: Minister/ shadow minister	−.180 (.108)	−.178 (.108)	.094 (.109)	.095 (.109)
MP’s majority	−.010** (.003)	−.009** (.003)	.000 (.003)	.000 (.003)
Trust MPs in general	.158*** (.024)	.158*** (.024)	.595*** (.024)	.595*** (.024)
N	1977	1977	1937	1937

Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Figure 2. Predicted value of perceived local focus by MP’s constituency focus.

Figure 3. Predicted value of trust in local MP by MP’s constituency focus.

Figure 4. Predicted value of perceived local focus by MP’s constituency focus and constituent name recall.

Figure 5. Predicted value of trust in local MP by MP’s constituency focus and constituent name recall.