Do Public Consultations Reduce Blame Attribution? The Impact of Consultation Characteristics, Gender, and Gender Attitudes

Anthony Kevins,Barbara Vis

doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09751-5

Abstract

Can public consultations—gatherings organised to solicit constituent opinions—reduce the blame attributed to elected representatives whose decisions end up backfiring? Using two pre-registered survey experiments conducted on nationally representative samples of US respondents, we examine whether the effectiveness of consultations as a blame avoidance tool may be shaped by: (1) consultation characteristics, especially regarding whether or not representatives align their policies, either actively or passively, with constituent opinion; and (2) elected representative and constituent characteristics, especially regarding a representative’s gender and constituents’ gender attitudes. Results suggest that public consultations are indeed liable to decrease blame attribution, just so long as constituent opinion is not explicitly opposed to the representative’s decision. Active alignment with constituent opinion, however, does not appear to be a requirement for decreased blame attribution—and effects related to gender and gender attitudes are also largely absent. These findings are important for scholars seeking to better understand blame attribution, clarifying how public consultations might help politicians to pre-empt blame by reducing clarity of responsibility.

Highlights

Public Consultation CharacteristicsDrawing insights from the literature on clarity of responsibility (e.g. Anderson, 2007; Powell et al, 1993), this study starts from the claim that the clearer the potential attribution of responsibility is, the easier it will be for voters to apportion blame (i.e. ‘a “bad” or “wrong” thing to a particular person or entity’ (Sulitzeanu-Kenan & Hood, 2005, p. 1))
Our analysis is based on two pre-registered survey experiments conducted on nationally representative samples of US respondents: one centred on a cold snap in the wake of cuts to homeless shelter funding (n = 3200; quota sample with Lucid); and the other centred on damage prevention efforts in the face of an impending flood (n = 2299; quota sample with Qualtrics)
Most research examining the effect of procedure manipulation on blame attribution focuses on either (1) the effects of federalism or delegation to lower or higher government levels (Vis, 2016) or (2) reactive blame avoidance strategies—i.e. strategies adopted after the occurrence of blame (Sulitzeanu-Kenan & Hood, 2005)—rather than anticipatory ones

Summary

Background

Drawing insights from the literature on clarity of responsibility (e.g. Anderson, 2007; Powell et al, 1993), this study starts from the claim that the clearer the potential attribution of responsibility is, the easier it will be for voters to apportion blame (i.e. ‘a “bad” or “wrong” thing to a particular person or entity’ (Sulitzeanu-Kenan & Hood, 2005, p. 1)). Study 1 uses a pre-registered survey experiment fielded with Lucid in September/ October 2019 to investigate how blame attribution is shaped by: decision acceptance (H1a) and perceived responsiveness (H1b); representatives listening to constituents, explaining their stances, and either aligning (H2a) or not aligning their policy with constituent opinion (H2b); the elected official’s gender (H4a); and respondents’ gender attitudes (H4b). On the page of the experiment, respondents are presented with one of the following consultation treatments, with the wording once again adapted from related research (Esaiasson et al, 2017): Control: Without a significant public debate, [Kevin / Karen] Bailey decides to push forward with [his / her] proposed 20% cut to shelter funding and the bill is passed in City Council. These questions are asked on the final survey page to avoid drop-offs (given the harsh tone of the items), while placing

Results

Limitations

Discussion