Representative bureaucracy and its symbolic effect on citizens: a conceptual replication

References

• Baker, M. 2015. “First Results from Psychology’s Largest Reproducibility Test.” Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17433.
   Google Scholar
• Bless, H., and A. M. Burger. 2016. “A Closer Look at Social Psychologists’ Silver Bullet: Inevitable and Evitable Side Effects of the Experimental Approach.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (2): 296–308. doi:10.1177/1745691615621278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury, M., and J. Edward Kellough. 2011. “Representative Bureaucracy: Assessing the Evidence on Active Representation.” The American Review of Public Administration 41 (2): 157–167. doi:10.1177/0275074010367823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carli, L. L. 2001. “Gender and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues 57 (4): 725–741. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesario, J. 2014. “Priming, Replication, and the Hardest Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (1): 40–48. doi:10.1177/1745691613513470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, A. C., and P. Li. 2015. “Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say “Usually Not”.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-083. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. doi:10.17016/FEDS.2015.083.
   Google Scholar
• Dimock, M., C. Doherty, and A. Tyson. 2013. “State Governments Viewed Favorably as Federal Rating Hits New Low State Governments Viewed Favorably as Federal Rating Hits New Low.” http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/15/state-govermnents-viewed-favorably-as-federal-rating-hits-new-low/
   Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., W. Wood, and A. B. Diekman. 2000. “Social Role Theory of Sex Differences and Similarities: A Current Appraisal.” In The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, edited by T. Eckes and H. M. Trautner, 123–174. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Enarson, E., and L. Meyreles. 2004. “International Perspectives on Gender and Disaster: Differences and Possibilities.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 24 (10/11): 49–93. doi:10.1108/01443330410791064.
   Google Scholar
• Fothergill, A. 1998. “The Neglect of Gender in Disaster Work: An Overview of the Literature.” In The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes, edited by E. Elaine and B. H. Morrow, 11–25. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Gade, D. M., and V. M. Wilkins. 2013. “Where Did You Serve? Veteran Identity, Representative Bureaucracy, and Vocational Rehabilitation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (2): 267–288. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallup. n.d. “Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013.” Accessed June 2, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Gebbie, K. M., and K. Qureshi. 2002. “Emergency and Disaster Preparedness: Core Competencies for Nurses: What Every Nurse Should but May Not Know.” American Journal of Nursing 102 (1): 46–51. doi:10.1097/00000446-200201000-00023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodsell, C. T. 2003. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hibbing, J. R., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2001. What Is it about Government that Americans Dislike? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Houston, D. J. 2006. ““Walking the Walk” of Public Service Motivation: Public Employees and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 67–86. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, L. M., A. Hatch, and A. Johnson. 2004. “Cross-National Gender Variation in Environmental Behaviors.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (3): 677–694. doi:10.1111/ssqu.2004.85.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakeway, C. C., G. LaRosa, A. Cary, and S. Schoenfisch. 2008. “The Role of Public Health Nurses in Emergency Preparedness and Response.” Public Health Nursing 25 (4): 353–361. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2008.00716.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, R. J. H. 1991. “Caring about Nature: Feminist Ethics and the Environment.” Hypatia 6 (1): 75–89. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00210.x.
   Google Scholar
• Kingsley, J. D. 1944. Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs, OH: The Antioch Press.
   Google Scholar
• Makel, M. C., J. A. Plucker, and B. Hegarty. 2012. “Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?” Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7 (6): 537–542. doi:10.1177/1745691612460688.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meier, K. J. 1993a. “Latinos and Representative Bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson Hypotheses.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3 (4): 393–414.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J. 1993b. “Representative Bureaucracy: A Theoretical and Empirical Exposition.” Research in Public Administration 2 (1): 1–35.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J.. 1975. “Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis.” The American Political Science Review 69 (2): 526–542. doi:10.2307/1959084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., and J. Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. “Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault.” Public Administration Review 66 (6): 850–860. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., and L. G. Nigro. 1976. “Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences.” Public Administration Review 36 (4): 458–469. doi:10.2307/974854.
   Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., and J. Stewart. 1992. “The Impact of Representative Bureaucracies: Educational Systems and Public Policies.” The American Review of Public Administration 22 (3): 157–171. doi:10.1177/027507409202200301.
   Google Scholar
• Mosher, F. C. 1968. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaborative. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 (6251). doi:10.1126/science.aac4716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravetz, J. R. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riccucci, N. M., G. G. Van Ryzin, and C. F. Lavena. 2014. “Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (3): 537–551. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riccucci, N. M., G. G. Van Ryzin, and H. Li. 2016. “Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce: An Experimental Study.” Public Administration Review 76 (1): 121–130. doi:10.1111/puar.12401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riccucci, N. M., and M. K. Meyers. 2004. “Linking Passive and Active Representation: The Case of Frontline Workers in Welfare Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (4): 585–597. doi:10.1093/jopart/muh038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selden, S. C. 1997. The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. E., and K. R. Monaghan. 2013. “Some Ceilings Have More Cracks: Representative Bureaucracy in Federal Regulatory Agencies.” The American Review of Public Administration 43 (1): 50–71. doi:10.1177/0275074011420997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R. 2014. “Research Design.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. 2nd ed. edited by H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd, 27–48. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sowa, J. E., and S. C. Selden. 2003. “Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy.” Public Administration Review 63 (6): 700–710. doi:10.1111/puar.2003.63.issue-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theobald, N. A., and D. P. Haider-Markel. 2009. “Race, Bureaucracy, and Symbolic Representation: Interactions Between Citizens and Police.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (2): 409–426. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsang, E. W. K., and K.-M. Kwan. 1999. “Replication and Theory Development in Organizational Science: A Critical Realist Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 759–780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Census Bureau. 2015. American Community Survey. Accessed June 2, 2016. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
   Google Scholar
• Van Ryzin, G. G.. 2008. “Validity of an On-Line Panel Approach to Citizen Surveys.” Public Performance & Management Review 32 (2): 236–262. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576320203.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkins, V. M. 2007. “Exploring The Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Priorities.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 77–94. doi:10.1093/jopart/muj012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, E. 2012. “Replication Studies: Bad Copy.” Nature 485 (7398): 298–300. doi:10.1038/485298a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, E. 2013. “Psychologists Strike a Blow for Reproducibility.” Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14232.
   Google Scholar
• Zelezny, L. C., -P.-P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 443–457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar