Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-9glht Total loading time: 0.209 Render date: 2021-07-23T20:10:00.072Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Is Position-Taking Contagious? Evidence of Cue-Taking from Two Field Experiments in a State Legislature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

ADAM ZELIZER
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Cue-taking is thought to be influential because legislators seek information from like-minded, trusted policy experts. Unfortunately for researchers, this self-selection process complicates efforts to separate the causal effects of cues from the tendency of legislators to communicate with similar peers. Prior causally-oriented research has estimated cues’ effects in exogenous networks, but not in the naturally-occurring communication networks that legislators themselves choose to form. This study examines cue-taking with two legislative field experiments, with over 2,000 observations in total, that model the diffusion of a randomly-assigned information treatment across an endogenous legislative network. Experimental results reinforce findings from classic interview-based studies of self-selected communication networks by Matthews and Stimson (1975) and Kingdon (1973): cue-taking influences a large percentage of policy positions and occurs late in the policymaking process. I also contribute to the literature by showing that on average cues complement, rather than substitute for, policy information from other sources of expertise within the legislature.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

The author wishes to express his appreciation to Greg Wawro, Don Green, Anthony Fowler, Florian Foos, and Alex Coppock for providing comments on versions of this paper, to Trish Kirkland, Winston Lin, and Peter Aronow for helpful discussions on the research design, to attendees to the CSAP American Politics Conference 2017 for their questions and comments, and to Mary Catherine Sullivan for excellent research assistance. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZJTLSW.

References

Alemán, Eduardo, Calvo, Ernesto, Jones, Mark P., and Kaplan, Noah. 2009. “Comparing Cosponsorship and Roll-Call Ideal Points.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (1): 87116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronow, Peter M., and Samii, Cyrus. 2017. “Estimating Average Causal Effects under General Interference, with Application to a Social Network Experiment.” The Annals of Applied Statistics 11 (4): 1912–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergan, Daniel 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): 327–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bimber, Bruce. 1991. “Information as a Factor in Congressional Politics.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (4): 585605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G., Green, Donald P., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. “Yes, but What’s the Mechanism? (Don’t Expect an Easy Answer).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98 (4): 550–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogue, Allan G., and Marlaire, Mark P.. 1975. “Of Mess and Men: The Boardinghouse and Congressional Voting, 1821–1842.” American Journal of Political Science 19 (2): 207–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, Jake, Fredrickson, Mark M., and Panagopoulos, Costas. 2013. “Reasoning about Interference between Units: A General Framework.” Political Analysis 21 (1): 97124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Ryan, Josh M., and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2015. “Examining Legislative Cue-Taking in the US Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40 (1): 1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Broockman, David E.. 2011. “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 463–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Pope, Jeremey C.. 2012. “A Field Experiment on Legislators’ Home Styles: Service versus Policy.” The Journal of Politics 74 (2): 474–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Nickerson, David. 2011. “Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6 (1): 5583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Jennifer H., and Caro, Veronica. 2013. “Multimember Districts and the Substantive Representation of Women: An Analysis of Legislative Cosponsorship Networks.” Politics and Gender 9 (1): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander. 2014. “Information Spillovers: Another Look at Experimental Estimates of Legislator Responsiveness.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (2): 159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander. 2016. “Information Spillovers: Another Look at Experimental Estimates of Legislator Responsiveness—CORRIGENDUM.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 3 (2): 206–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, Christian. 2018. “Expertise, Networks, and Interpersonal Influence in Congress.” The Journal of Politics, Forthcoming. http://stanford.edu/cjfong/cues.pdf.Google Scholar
Foos, Florian, and de Rooij, Eline A.. 2017. “All in the Family: Partisan Disagreement and Electoral Mobilization in Intimate Networks—A Spillover Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 289304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation . New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. “Collective Decision-making and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 287335.Google Scholar
Hammond, Susan W. 2001. Congressional Caucuses in National Policymaking. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.Google Scholar
Harbridge, Laurel. 2015. Is Bipartisanship Dead? Policy Agreement and Agenda-Setting in the House of Representatives . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highton, Benjamin, and Rocca, Michael. 2005. “Beyond the Roll-Call Arena: The Determinants of Position Taking in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudgens, Michael G., and Halloran, M. Elizabeth. 2008. “Toward Causal Inference with Interference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 103 (482): 832–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalla, Joshua L., and Broockman, David E.. 2015. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 545–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, Daniel, and Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Dynamics of Cosponsorship.” American Political Science Review 90 (3): 555–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Koger, Gregory. 2003. “Position Taking and Cosponsorship in the US House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (2): 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. “Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 906–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugar, Richard. 2017. Bipartisan Index. Washington, D.C.: The Lugar Center. Retrieved 21 August 2018. http://web.archive.org/web/20181228180904/http://www.thelugarcenter.org/ourwork-Bipartisan-Index.html.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2008. “Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: The Impact of Seating Proximity on Legislative Cue-Taking.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3 (3): 301–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald R., and Stimson, James A.. 1975. Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision-Making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government . London, United Kingdom: Parker, Son, & Bourn.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 102 (1): 4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peress, Michael. 2013. “Estimating Proposal and Status Quo Locations Using Voting and Cosponsorship Data.” The Journal of Politics 75 (3): 613–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Nils, Victor, Jennifer N., and Carman, Christopher J.. 2013. Bridging the Information Gap: Legislative Member Organizations as Social Networks in the United States and the European Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, Michael S., and Sanchez, Gabriel R.. 2007. “The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on Bill Sponsorship and Cosponsorship in Congress.” American Politics Research 36 (1): 130–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C., and Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Social Interaction with Endogenous Networks.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 316–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalizi, Cosma R., and Thomas, Andrew C.. 2011. “Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies.” Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2): 211–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Green, Donald P.. 2012. “Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 1055–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, Jeffery C., and Potoski, Matthew. 2002. “Setting the Legislative Agenda: The Dimensional Structure of Bill Cosponsoring and Floor Voting.” The Journal of Politics 64 (3): 864–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treadway, William E. 1938. “Problems Peculiar to the Short-Session Legislature.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 195 (1): 110–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J. 2000. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the US House of Representatives . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojcik, Stefan. 2018. “Do Birds of a Feather Vote Together, or Is It Peer Influence?Political Research Quarterly 71 (1): 7587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. “Bill Sponsorship in Congress: The Moderating Effect of Agenda Positions on Legislative Proposals.” The Journal of Politics 70 (1): 201–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, Adam. 2018. “How Responsive Are Legislators to Policy Information? Evidence from a Field Experiment in a State Legislature.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43 (4): 595618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Zelizer supplementary material

Appendices

Download Zelizer supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 254 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Zelizer Dataset

Link
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Is Position-Taking Contagious? Evidence of Cue-Taking from Two Field Experiments in a State Legislature
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Is Position-Taking Contagious? Evidence of Cue-Taking from Two Field Experiments in a State Legislature
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Is Position-Taking Contagious? Evidence of Cue-Taking from Two Field Experiments in a State Legislature
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *