Assessing citizen views of interest group alliances

Abstract

How do members of the public view collaboration among organized interests and what factors contribute to attitudes about working in coalition? Interest groups frequently must decide whether to partner formally in pursuit of a shared objective while minimizing potential losses of revenue, reputation, and issue ownership. Using a nationally representative survey with an embedded experiment, we consider the potential ramifications of group collaboration from the perspective of potential members. Results show that, while a substantial minority views group collaboration negatively, most do not, and experimental exposure to a collaborating group yields positive evaluations and higher prospective contributions. The results reinforce the essentially pluralist public perceptions of interest groups that are supportive of their existing collaborative efforts.

Appendices

Appendix – Experimental Treatments and Variable Coding

Note: the coalition conditions are demarcated by square brackets “[]” while the salience conditions are marked by curly brackets “{}”.

Variable Coding

Leads to Success “When interest groups work together it is more likely that they will be successful.” 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Donations Declining “I am less likely to donate to a group that frequently teams up with other organizations.” 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Shared Credit “One consequence of interest groups working together is that they have to share the credit of any successes.” 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Weak Groups “Groups work together when they are politically weak.” 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Openness to Experience Each semantic differential item is coded 1-7, introduced with, “As you examine each of the following pairs of words, which comes closest to describing you? The better a word describes you, choose a button closer to that word. If both words describe you equally well, then click the middle button.” Openness combines scores on the following pairs, with the first label the low number (1; some were reversed for scaling): unimaginative–imaginative, unanalytical–analytical, uncreative–creative, uncurious–curious, and unintellectual–intellectual.

Conscientiousness Combines scores for the following pairs: unsystematic–systematic, lazy–hardworking, sloppy–neat, carefree–careful, irresponsible–responsible.

Extraversion Combines scores for the following pairs: introverted–extroverted, quiet–talkative, timid–bold, shy–outgoing, inhibited–spontaneous.

Agreeableness Combines scores for the following pairs: cold-warm, harsh-gentle, unkind-kind, rude-polite, unsympathetic-sympathetic.

Need for Cooperation Averages scores from two items, both coded 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. “It is important to work together to get things done even if less gets done as a result.” And “It is important for members of Congress to compromise in order to get something done.”

Political Knowledge “For each of the political fig

ures on the left please try to identify the political office they hold and enter it in the box:” John Boehner, Joe Biden, John Roberts, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Eric Holder.

Political Participation Additive scale of 1 point per activity, introduced with: “Of the following ways of participating in politics, which have you done in the past 2 years?” Vote in the 2010 elections, Give money to a candidate or party, Write a letter to an elected official, Protest or march for a political cause, Give money to a political cause, Attend a rally for a candidate or cause, Volunteer time to a political campaign.

Female = 1, 0 = male.

Age in years.

Income “Which of the following categories best captures your total family income for the 2011 tax year?” 1 = $0–25,000, 2 = 25,001–40,000, 3 = 40,001–55,000, 4 = 55,001–70,000, 5 = 70,001–85,000, 6 = 85,001–100,000, 7 = 100,001–115,000, 8 = 115,001–130,000, 9 = Over 130,001.

Education “What is the highest level of education you have received?” 1 = Less than a high school/GED, 2 = high School graduate/GED, 3 = some college/associate’s degree, 4 = four year college degree (BA, BS, BFA, etc.), 5 = more than 4 year college degree (e.g., classes toward a master’s), 6 = Master’s or doctoral degree.

Attendance “Lots of things come up that keep people from attending religious services even if they want to. Thinking about your life these days, how often do you attend religious services, not including occasional weddings, baptisms, or funerals?” 1 = More than once a week, every week, 2 = Almost every week, 3 = Once or twice a month, 4 = A few times a year, 5 = Once a week, every week, 6 = Never.

Communitarianism “If you have tried to be a good person of your faith, which did you try to do more: avoid doing sinful things yourself or help other people?” 0 = Avoid sinful things, 1 = help other people.

Inclusive Values Averages two items introduced with, “Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statements about being a *good person of your faith* (whatever it is).” Each is coded: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. “It is important to ‘love the stranger as yourself.’” And “It is important to invite others to my house of worship even if it begins to change as a result.”

Exclusive Values Averages of two items introduced with the same text as for inclusive values and using the same coding. “It is important to shop as much as possible at stores owned by people of my faith.” And “It is important to keep company with other people of my faith.”

White = 1, 0 = otherwise.

Partisan Strength Recoded from a single item partisanship measure, “Where would you place yourself on the following scale regarding your political party affiliation?” 4 = Strong Republican/Democrat, 3 = Not so strong Republican/Democrat, 2 = Independent who leans Republican/Democratic, 1 = Independent.

Group Member “Are you a member of an organization that tries to influence government? These might include professional organizations, churches, environmental organizations, gun rights groups, abortion groups, AARP, etc.” 1 = Yes, I am a member, 0 = No, not a member of such a group.

Group Evaluation Scale (Figure 2 DV) Incorporates all of the following variables, first standardizing them to have mean = 0, var = 1 before averaging the scores.

Credible “How credible do you view Families USA’s actions to be?” 0 = not at all to 10 = completely.

Donate “If asked, how likely would you be to do any of the following regarding Families USA? Donate money.” 1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = somewhat unlikely, 4 = undecided, 5 = somewhat likely, 6 = likely, and 7 = very likely.

Effective “How effective do you think Families USA will be in seeking their proposed changes?” 1 = very ineffective, 2 = ineffective, 3 = somewhat ineffective, 4 = neither effective nor ineffective, 5 = Somewhat effective, 6 = effective, 7 = very effective.

Help Grassroots “If asked, how likely would you be to do any of the following regarding Families USA? Help with their grassroots effort in my community.” 1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = somewhat unlikely, 4 = undecided, 5 = somewhat likely, 6 = likely, and 7 = very likely.

Join “If asked, how likely would you be to do any of the following regarding Families USA? Join their mailing list.” 1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = somewhat unlikely, 4 = undecided, 5 = somewhat likely, 6 = likely, and 7 = very likely.

Learn Group “Would you like to learn more about Families USA?” 0 = definitely not to 10 = definitely yes.

Learn Policy “Would you like to learn more about Families USA’s policy proposals? 0 = definitely not to 10 = definitely yes.

Stand “How likely are you to stand with Families USA to press government on health care reform?” 0 = definitely not to 10 = definitely yes.

Trust “How much do you trust Families USA to advocate on your behalf?” 0 = not at all to 10 = completely.