Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-5mwv9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-25T20:31:56.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Policy Makers Listen to Experts? Evidence from a National Survey of Local and State Policy Makers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2021

NATHAN LEE Open the ORCID record for NATHAN LEE [Opens in a new window]
NATHAN LEE*
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, United States
*
Nathan R. Lee, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States, and Managing Director, CivicPulse, United States, nrlcla@rit.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do elected officials update their policy positions in response to expert evidence? A large literature in political behavior demonstrates a range of biases that individuals may manifest in evaluating information. However, elected officials may be motivated to accurately incorporate information when it could affect the welfare of their constituents. I investigate these competing predictions through a national survey of local and state policy makers in which I present respondents with established expert findings concerning three subnational policy debates, debates that vary as to whether Republicans or Democrats are more likely to see the findings as confirmatory or challenging. Using both cross-subject and within-subject designs, I find policy makers update their beliefs and preferences in the direction of the evidence irrespective of the valence of the information. These findings have implications for the application of mass political behavior theories to politicians as well as the prospects for evidence-based policy making.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 677 - 688
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baekgaard, Martin, Christensen, Julian, Dahlmann, Casper Mondrup, Mathiasen, Asbjørn, and Petersen, Niels Bjørn Grund. 2019. “The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among Politicians.” British Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 1117–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., and Cook, F. L.. 2015. “Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (March): 271–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Palm, Risa, Bolsen, Toby, and Palm, Risa. 2019. “Motivated Reasoning and Political Decision Making.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Skovron, Christopher. 2018. “Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites.” American Political Science Review 112(3): 542–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brossard, Dominique, and Lewenstein, Bruce. 2010. “A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science.” Chap. 1 in Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, eds. Kahlor, Lee Ann and Stout, Patricia A.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bullock, John G., Gerber, Alan S., Hill, Seth J., and Huber, Gregory. 2015. “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10(4): 519–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G., Gerber, Alan S., Hill, Seth J., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2013. “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs About Politics.” NBER Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Dynes, Adam M.. 2016. “How Politicians Discount the Opinions of Constituents with Whom They Disagree.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 975–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Nickerson, David W.. 2011. “Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6 (1): 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2017. “Injection Drug Use | HIV Risk and Prevention.” https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-transmission/injection-drug-use.html.Google Scholar
Chan, Man-pui Sally, Jones, Christopher R., Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Albarracín, Dolores. 2017. “Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.” Psychological Science 28 (11): 1531–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2010. “Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects Over Time.” American Political Science Review 104(4): 663–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2012. “The Politics of Motivation.” Critical Review 24(2): 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Fein, Jordan, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012. “A Source Of Bias In Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106(2): 430–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, Brendan, and Reifler, Jason. 2017. “The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics.” Political Psychology 38: 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, and Green, Donald. 1999. “Misperceptions about Perceptual Bias.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Luttmer, Erzo F. P.. 2003. “The Misallocation of Housing under Rent Control.” American Economic Review 93 (4): 1027–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guess, Andrew, and Coppock, Alexander. 2020. “Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments.” British Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 1497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, Eitan. 2017. “Political Hobbyism: A Theory of Mass Behavior.” Working Paper. https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_theory_of_hobbyism_v2.0.pdf.Google Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, Mildenberger, Matto, and Stokes, Leah C.. 2019. “Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review. 113 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Hjort, Jonas, Moreira, Diana, Rao, Gautam, and Santini, Juan. 2019. “How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25941.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Blair. 2009. “Rent Control: Do Economists Agree?” Econ Journal Watch 6 (1): 73–112.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer, Barabas, Jason, Altman, Micah, Berinsky, Adam, Best, Jonathan, Campbell, Andrea, Claibourn, Michele, et al. 2006. “Bankrupt Rhetoric: How Misleading Information Affects Knowledge About Social Security.” Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (3): 278–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan. 2010. “Fixing the Communications Failure.” Nature 463 (7279): 296–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahan, Dan M. 2013. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making 8 (4): 407–24.Google Scholar
Khanna, Kabir, and Sood, Gaurav. 2018. “Motivated Responding in Studies of Factual Learning.” Political Behavior. 40: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klar, Samara. 2013. “The Influence of Competing Identity Primes on Political Preferences.” Journal of Politics 75 (4): 1108–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., and Taber, C. S.. 2015. “Why People ‘Don’t Trust the Evidence’: Motivated Reasoning and Scientific Beliefs.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (March): 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Nathan. 2021. “Replication Data for: Do Policy Makers Listen to Experts? Evidence from a National Survey of Local and State Policy Makers.” Harvard Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/S2SNOT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Nathan, Nyhan, Brendan, Reifler, Jason, and Flynn, D. J.. 2021. “More Accurate, but No Less Polarized: Comparing the Factual Beliefs of Government Officials and the Public.” British Journal of Political Science 51(3): 1315–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Oberauer, Klaus. 2016. “Motivated Rejection of Science.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 25 (4): 217–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Katherine T. 2016. “Attitude Responsiveness and Partisan Bias: Direct Experience with the Affordable Care Act.” Political Behavior 38(4): 861–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J. 2018. “Civic Duty and Political Preference Formation.” Political Research Quarterly 71(1): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumolo, Jonathan, and Peterson, Erik. 2018. “Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment.” American Political Science Review 113(2): 517–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Thomas M. 2017. The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan. 2010. “Why the ‘Death Panel’ Myth Wouldn’t Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate.” The Forum 8 (1): Article 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan, and Reifler, Jason. 2015. “The Effect of Fact-Checking on Elites: A Field Experiment on US State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 628–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academy of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Erik. 2019. “The Scope of Partisan Influence on Policy Opinion.” Political Psychology 40(2): 335–53.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus, Sood, Gaurav, and Khanna, Kabir. 2015. “You Cannot Be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 489–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Paul J., Bendix, William, and Bächtiger, Andre. 2018. “Institutional Deliberation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, eds. Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren, 273–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., and Luks, Samantha. 2018. “Misinformation or Expressive Responding? What an Inauguration Crowd Can Tell Us about the Source of Political Misinformation in Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(1): 135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheffer, Lior, Loewen, Peter, Soroka, Stuart, Walgrave, Stefaan, and Sheafer, Tamir. 2018. “Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians.” American Political Science Review 112(2): 302–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorson, Emily. 2016. “Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation.” Political Communication 33(3): 460–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivalt, Eva, and Coville, Aidan. 2020. “How Do Policymakers Update Their Beliefs?” Working Paper. http://evavivalt.com/wp-content/uploads/How-Do-Policymakers-Update.pdf.Google Scholar
Zelizer, Adam. 2018. “The Effects of Informational Lobbying by a Legislative Caucus: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43(4): 595–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lee supplementary material

Lee supplementary material

Download Lee supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.3 MB
Supplementary material: Link

Lee Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/S2SNOT
Link
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.