Responding to whom? An experimental study of the dynamics of responsiveness to interest groups and the public

References

• Agnone, J. (2007). Amplifying public opinion: The policy impact of the U.S. environmental movement. Social Forces, 85(4), 1593–1620. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aizenberg, E. (2023). Conflict and salience as drivers of corporate lobbying? An elite survey experiment. Governance, 36(2), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allern, E. H., Klüver, H., Marshall, D., Otjes, S., Rasmussen, A., & Witko, C. (2022). Policy positions, power and interest group-party lobby routines. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(7), 1029–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1912148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailer, S. (2014). Interviews and surveys in legislative research. In S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, & K. W. Strøm (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of legislative studies (pp. 167–193). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, L., Carroll, B., Chalmers, A., Marquez, L. M. M., & Rasmussen, A. (2014). Defining and classifying interest groups. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2014.9
   Google Scholar
• Bergan, D. 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), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08326967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkhout, J. (2013). Why interest organizations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2(2), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2013.6
   Google Scholar
• Berkhout, J., Hanegraaff, M., & Statsch, P. (2019). Explaining the patterns of contacts between interest groups and political parties: Revising the standard model for populist times. Party Politics, 27(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819856608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2020). When does government listen to the public? Voluntary associations and dynamic agenda representation in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boräng, F., & Naurin, D. (2022). Political equality and substantive representation by interest groups. British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 1447–1454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boräng, F., Naurin, D., & Polk, J. (2023). Making space: Citizens, parties and interest groups in two ideological dimensions. Journal of European Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2182819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, U. S., & Svendsen, G. T. (2004). Fighting windmills: The coalition of industrialists and environmentalists in the climate change issue. International Environmental Agreements, 4(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-004-2330-5
   Google Scholar
• Brodbeck, J., Harrigan, M. T., & Smith, D. A. (2013). Citizen and lobbyist access to members of congress: Who gets and who gives? Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2013.11
   Google Scholar
• Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, E. (1774). Speech to the electors of Bristol. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burstein, P. (2014). American public opinion, advocacy and policy in congress. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D. M., & Dynes, A. M. (2016). How politicians discount the opinions of constituents with whom they disagree. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 975–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, D. M., & Nickerson, D. W. (2011). Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6(1), 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00011019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cluverius, J. (2017). How the flattened costs of grassroots lobbying affect legislator responsiveness. Political Research Quarterly, 70(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916688110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, M. (2017). How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.14
   Google Scholar
• Daadkracht. (2021). Nationaal Raadsledenonderzoek 2021. Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• De Bruycker, I. (2015). Pressure and expertise: Explaining information supply in EU legislative lobbying. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(3), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bruycker, I., & Rasmussen, A. (2021). Blessing or curse for congruence? How interest mobilization affects congruence between citizens and elected representatives. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(4), 909–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin, E. (2005). Factors affecting public acceptance of wind turbines in Sweden. Wind Engineering, 29(6), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1260/030952405776234580
   Google Scholar
• Dür, A. (2019). How interest groups influence public opinion: Arguments matter more than the sources. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 514–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eady, G., & Rasmussen, A. (2022). The unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on political interest representation. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09842-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eising, R. (2007). Institutional context, organizational resources and strategic choices. European Union Politics, 8(3), 329–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116507079542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezrow, L., De Vries, C., Steenbergen, M., & Edwards, E. (2011). Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters? Party Politics, 17(3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810372100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenno, R. F. (2003). Home style: House members in their districts. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Flöthe, L., & Rasmussen, A. (2019). Public voices in the heavenly chorus? Group type bias and opinion representation. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(6), 824–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1489418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furnas, A. C., LaPira, T., Hertel-Fernandez, A., Drutman, L., & Kosar, K. (2023). More than mere access: An experiment on moneyed interests, information provision, and legislative action in congress. Political Research Quarterly, 76(1), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221098743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic power and political inequality in America. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grose, C. R., Lopez, P., Sadhwani, S., & Yoshinaka, A. (2022). Social lobbying. Journal of Politics, 84(1), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1086/714923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanegraaff, M., Berkhout, J., & van der Ploeg, J. (2022). Exploring the proportionality of representation in interest group mobilization and political access: The case of the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 57(2), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00185-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanretty, C., Lauderdale, B. E., & Vivyan, N. (2017). Dyadic representation in a Westminster system. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 42(2), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertel-Fernandez, A., Mildenberger, M., & Stokes, L. C. (2019). Legislative staff and representation in congress. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahn, D. (2016). Changing of the guard: Trends in corporatist arrangements in 42 highly industrialized societies from 1960 to 2010. Socio-Economic Review, 14(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwu028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A., Wuttke, A., Mader, M., & Schoen, H. (2021). A source like any other? Field and survey experiment evidence on how interest groups shape public opinion. Journal of Communication, 71(2), 276–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junk, W. M., & Rasmussen, A. (2023). Are citizens responsive to interest groups? A field experiment on lobbying and intended citizen behaviour. West European Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2023.2229710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. (2016). Campaign contributions facilitate access to congressional officials: A randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, J. V., & Barabas, J. (2019). No harm in checking: Using factual manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klüver, H., & Pickup, M. (2019). Are they listening? Public opinion, interest groups and government responsiveness. West European Politics, 42(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1483662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladenburg, J. (2015). Does more wind energy influence the choice of location for wind power development? Assessing the cumulative effects of daily wind turbine encounters in Denmark. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leech, B. L. (2010). Lobbying and influence. In L. S. Maisel, M. B. Jeffrey, & C. E. George (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American political parties and interest groups (pp. 534–551). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, W. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining freedman’s critique. Annals of Applied Statistics, 7(1), 295–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowery, D. (2013). Lobbying influence: Meaning, measurement and missing. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2012.20
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C., & Beckstrand, M. J. (2011). Following the money: European Union funding of civil society organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(6), 1339–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manza, J., & Cook, F. L. (2002). A democratic polity? Three views of policy responsiveness to public opinion in the United States. American Politics Research, 30(6), 630–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/153267302237231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew, D. R. (1974). The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. M. (1981). Toward a broader view of interest groups. The Journal of Politics, 43(2), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2021). Improving experimental treatments in political science. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 219–238). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nichifor, M. A. (2016). Public reactions towards wind energy instalments. Case study: Romania and the Netherlands. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 11(3), 532–543.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Otjes, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2017). The collaboration between interest groups and political parties in multi-party democracies: Party system dynamics and the effect of power and ideology. Party Politics, 23(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068814568046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peyton, K., Huber, G. A., & Coppock, A. (2022). The generalizability of online experiments conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.17
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., Binderkrantz, A. S., & Klüver, H. (2021). Organised interests in the media and policy congruence: The contingent impact of the status quo. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., & Reher, S. (2023). (Inequality in) interest group involvement and the legitimacy of policy-making. British Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., Reher, S., & Toshkov, D. (2019). The opinion-policy nexus in Europe and the role of political institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, L., & John, P. (2012). Who listens to the grass roots? A field experiment on informational lobbying in the UK. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 14(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00481.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeijn, J. (2020). Do political parties listen to the(ir) public? Public opinion–party linkage on specific policy issues. Party Politics, 26(4), 426–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110212
   Google Scholar
• Sevenans, J. (2021). How public opinion information changes politicians’ opinions and behavior. Political Behavior, 43(4), 1801–1823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09715-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soontjens, K., & Sevenans, J. (2022). Electoral incentives make policians respond to voter preferences: Evidence from a survey experiment with members of parliament in Belgium. Social Science Quarterly, 103(5), 1125–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wallander, L. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M. (2010). Near-shore wind power – protected seascapes, environmentalists’ attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zittel, T., Louwerse, T., Pedersen, H. H., & Schakel, W. (2023). Should we conduct correspondence study field experiments with political elites? International Political Science Review, 44(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121211026489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar