Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 203–228 | Cite as

Participation in the Wake of Adversity: Blame Attribution and Policy-Oriented Evaluations

  • Ines Levin
  • J. Andrew Sinclair
  • R. Michael Alvarez
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper we investigate to what extent perceptions of economic conditions, policy-oriented evaluations, and blame attribution affected Californians’ involvement in political activities in 2010. We use a statistical methodology that allows us to study not only the behavior of the average citizen, but also the behavior of “types” of citizens with latent predispositions that incline them toward participation or abstention. The 2010 election is an excellent case study, because it was a period when citizens were still suffering the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis and many were concerned about the state’s budgetary crisis. We find that individuals who blamed one of the parties for the problems with the budget process, and who held a position on the 2010 Affordable Care Act, were often considerably more likely to participate. We also find, however, that the impact of economic evaluations, positions on the health care reform, and blame attributions was contingent on citizens’ latent participation propensities and depended on the class of political activity.

Keywords

Economic adversity Policy-oriented evaluations Health care reform Blame attribution Budget process Political participation Civic engagement 

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9316_MOESM1_ESM.docx (239 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 239 kb)

References

  1. Aldrich, J. H., Bishop, B. H., Hatch, R. S., Hillygus, D. S., & Rohde, D. W. (2014). Blame, responsibility, and the tea party in the 2010 midterm elections. Political Behavior, 36, 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., & Sinclair, J. A. (2015). Nonpartisan primary election reform: Mitigating mischief. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., Levin, I., & Nunez, L. (2015) The four faces of political participation in Argentina: Using latent class analysis to study political behavior. Paper presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1995). Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 714–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arcenaux, K. (2003). The conditional impact of blame attribution on the relationship between economic adversity and turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arcenaux, K., & Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Who wants to have a tea party? The who, what, and why of the tea party movement. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 700–710.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, S. H., Farah, B. G., & Heunks, F. (1979). Personal dissatisfaction. In S. H. Barnes, M. Kaase, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644, 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boehmke, F. J., & Bowen, D. C. (2010). Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. Journal of Politics, 72, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boehmke, F. J., & Alvarez, R. M. (2014). The influence of initiative signature-gathering campaigns on political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brody, R. A., & Sniderman, P. M. (1977). From life space to polling place: The relevance of personal concerns for voting behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 7, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, A. L. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2011). Issue preferences, civic engagement, and transformation of American politics. In P. M. Sniderman & B. Highton (Eds.), Facing the challenge of democracy: Explorations in the analysis of public opinion and political participation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chandler, W. M., & Kousser, T. (2008). Governors, geography, and direct democracy: The case of Arnold Schwarzenegger. In F. Douzet, T. Kousser, & K. P. Miller (Eds.), The new political geography of California. Berkeley: Berkeley Public Policy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Dyck, J. J. (2006). Residential concentration, political socialization, and voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 68, 156–167.Google Scholar
  17. Cummins, J. (2012). An empirical analysis of California budget gridlock. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 12, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Decker, C. (2010). California voter turnout is highest since 1994 gubernatorial election. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 24, 2013 from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/11/local/la-me-vote-tally-20101211.
  19. Decker, C. (2010). Not your typical California election. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 24, 2013 from http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/10/local/la-me-vguide-overture-20101010.
  20. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  21. Enns, P. K., & Kellstedt, P. M. (2008). Policy mood and political sophistication: Why everybody moves mood. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feldman, S. (1982). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 446–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, FCIC. (2011). The financial crisis inquiry report. Retrieved June 24, 2013 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf.
  24. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics, 69, 813–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2006). Finite mixture and Markov switching models. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Yajima, M. (2012). Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hacker, J. S. (2004). Dismantling the health care state? Political institutions, public policies and the comparative politics of health reform. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 693–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hacker, J. S., Rehm, P., & Schlesinger, M. (2013). The insecure American: Economic experiences, financial worries, and policy attitudes. Perspectives on Politics, 11, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heunks, F. (1989). From personal to political. In M. K. Jennings, J. W. van Deth, et al. (Eds.), Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three western democracies. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Hibbs, D. A., Jr. (1982). On the demand for economic outcomes: macroeconomic performance and mass political support in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Journal of Politics, 44, 426–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill, J. L., & Kriesi, H. (2001). Classification by opinion-changing behavior: A mixture model approach. Political Analysis, 9, 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Imai, K., & Tingley, D. (2012). A statistical method for empirical testing of competing theories. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 218–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackman, S. (2000). Estimation and inference via Bayesian Simulation: An introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobson, G. C. (2011a). Legislative success and political failure: The public’s reaction to Barack Obamas early presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41, 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobson, G. C. (2011b). The republican resurgence in 2010. Political Science Quarterly, 126, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Javeline, D. (2003). The role of blame in collective action: Evidence from Russia. American Political Science Review, 97, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaase, M., & Marsh, A. (1979). Political action: A theoretical perspective. In S. H. Barnes, M. Kaase, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936–1960. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomics & micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Konisky, D. M., & Richardson, L. E. (2012). Penalizing the party: Health care reform issue voting in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40, 903–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kramer, G. H. (1971). Short-term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896–1964. American Political Science Review, 65, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: Why and how people get involved in politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmeier, M. (2000). Economic determinants of electoral outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lohmann, S. (1994). The dynamics of informational cascades: The monday demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-91. World Politics, 47, 42–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malhotra, N., & Margalit, Y. (2010). Short-term communication effects or long-standing dispositions? The public’s response to the financial crisis of 2008. Journal of Politics, 72, 852–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Margalit, Y. (2013). Explaining social policy preferences: Evidence from the great recession. American Political Science Review, 107, 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marsh, A., & Kaase, M. (1979). Measuring political action. In S. H. Barnes, M. Kaase, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Martin, P. S. (2008). The mass media as sentinel: Why bad news about issues is good news for participation. Political Communication, 25, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Milbrath, L. W. (1960). Predispositions toward political contention. Western Political Quarterly, 13, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Milbrath, L. W. (1977). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?. Lanham, MD: University Press of America Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., & Seligson, M. A. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mughan, A., & Lacy, D. (2002). Economic performance, job insecurity and electoral choice. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Peffley, M. (1984). The voter as juror: Attributing responsibility for economic conditions. Political Behavior, 6, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pew, Center on the States and the Public Policy Institute of California. (2011). Facing facts: Public attitudes and fiscal realities in five stressed states. Retrieved June 24, 2013 from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=951.
  60. Plummer, M. (2012). JAGS Version 3.3.0 user manual. Retrieved June 24, 2013 from http://iweb.dl.sourceforge.net/project/mcmc-jags/Manuals/3.x/jags_user_manual.pdf.
  61. Popp, E., & Rudolph, T. J. (2011). A tale of two ideologies: Explaining public support for economic interventions. Journal of Politics, 73, 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Radcliff, B. (1992). The welfare state, turnout, and the economy: A comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 86, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  64. Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosenstone, S. J. (1982). Economic adversity and voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rudolph, T. J. (2003). Institutional context and the assignment of political responsibility. Journal of Politics, 65, 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2013). The tea party and the remaking of republican conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, M. A. (2011). The contingent effects of ballot initiatives and candidate races on turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  71. Southwell, P. L. (1988). The mobilization hypothesis and voter turnout in congressional elections, 1974–1982. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Thomassen, J. (1989). Economic crisis, dissatisfaction, and protest. In M. K. Jennings, J. W. van Deth, et al. (Eds.), Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three western democracies. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  74. Tolbert, C. J., Grummel, J. A., & Smith, D. A. (2001). The effects of ballot initiatives on voter turnout in the American states. American Politics Research, 29, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tucker, J. A. (2007). Enough! Electoral fraud, collective action problems, and post-communist colored revolutions. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Uhlaner, C. J. (1989). “Relational Goods” and participation: Incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action. Public Choice, 62, 253–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes?. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ines Levin
    • 1
  • J. Andrew Sinclair
    • 2
  • R. Michael Alvarez
    • 3
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations