Political Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 29–49 | Cite as

Participatory Reactions to Policy Threats: Senior Citizens and the Defense of Social Security and Medicare

  • Andrea Louise Campbell


The sociodemographic factors emphasized in much participation research cannot explain abrupt changes in levels of activity. This study shows how threat of undesirable policy change acts as an impetus to participatory activity, helping to explain temporal variation in participation. Newly available individual-level time-series data are used to show surges in senior citizen letter writing in response to threats to Social Security and Medicare during the 1980s. Policy threat interacts with individual characteristics to produce variations in participatory reaction congruent with the magnitude of the threat to the individual.

participation policy threat Social Security self-interest senior citizens 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, Odin W., and Feldman, Jacob J. (1956). Family Medical Costs and Voluntary Health Insurance: A Nationwide Survey. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, Samuel, and Kaase, Max (1979). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, Jeffrey M. (1984). The Interest Group Society. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  4. Bianco, William T. (1994). Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Binstock, Robert H. (1992). Older voters and the 1992 presidential election. Gerontologist 32: 601–606.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, Henry E. (1999). Political Participation. In John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and Lawrence S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Political Attitudes, pp. 737–801. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, Henry E., Putnam, Robert D., Campbell, Andrea L., Elms, Laurel, Yonish, Steven, and Apollonio, Dorie (2000). Roper Social and Political Trends Data, 1973– 1994. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, distributor.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, Andrea Louise (2000). The Third Rail of American Politics: Senior Citizen Activism and the American Welfare State. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, Andrea Louise (2002). Self-interest, Social Security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review 96: 565–574.Google Scholar
  10. Chong, Dennis, Citrin, Jack, and Conley, Patricia (2001). When self-interest matters. Political Psychology 22: 541–570.Google Scholar
  11. Citrin, Jack, and Green, Donald Philip (1990). The self-interest motive in American public opinion. Research in Micropolitics 3: 1–28.Google Scholar
  12. Cleveland, William S. (1979). Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 829–836.Google Scholar
  13. Cleveland, William S. (1985). The Elements of Graphing Data. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  14. Converse, Phillip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dalton, Russell (1988). Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  16. Day, Christine L. (1990). What Older Americans Think: Interest Groups and Aging Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Day, Christine L. (1993). Older Americans' attitudes toward the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Journal of Politics 55: 167–77.Google Scholar
  18. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics (2000). Older Americans 2000: Key Indicators of Well-Being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  19. Fessler, Pamela, and Donnelly, Harrison (1981). Congress seeking to assure retirement income security. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 39 (November 28): 2333–2336.Google Scholar
  20. Gamson, William A. (1975). The Strategy of Protest. Homewood IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  21. Green, Donald P., and Gerken, Ann E. (1989). Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking restrictions and cigarette taxes. Public Opinion Quarterly 53: 1–16.Google Scholar
  22. Gurr, Theodore R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hansen, John Mark (1985). The political economy of group membership. American Political Science Review 79: 79–96.Google Scholar
  24. Highton, Benjamin, and Wolfinger, Raymond E. (2001). The first seven years of the political life cycle. American Journal of Political Science 45: 202–209.Google Scholar
  25. Himelfarb, Richard (1995). Catastrophic Politics: The Rise and Fall of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ifill, Gwen (1993). Social Security won't be subject to freeze, White House decides. New York Times (February 9): A1.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–292.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Alford, John R. (1980). Can government regulate safety? The coal mine example. American Political Science Review 74: 745–756.Google Scholar
  29. Lipset, Seymour Martin (1981). Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1959)Google Scholar
  30. Loomis, Burdett A., and Cigler, Allan J. (1995). Introduction: the changing nature of interest group politics. In Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis (eds.), Interest Group Politics, pp. 1–10. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, Joanne M., Krosnick, Jon A., and Lowe, Laura (1999). The impact of policy change threat on grassroots activism. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  32. Moon, Marilyn, and Mulvey, Janemarie (1996). Entitlements and the Elderly: Protecting Promises, Recognizing Reality. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nagel, Jack H. (1987). Participation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics 58: 1055–1078.Google Scholar
  35. Ornstein, Norman J., and Elder, Shirley (1978). Interest Groups, Lobbying and Policymaking. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ragan, Paul K., and Dowd, James J. (1974). The emerging political consciousness of the aged: a generational interpretation. Journal of Social Issues 30: 137–158.Google Scholar
  37. Rose, Arnold M. (1965). Group consciousness among the aging. In Arnold M. Rose and Warren A. Peterson (eds.), Older People and Their Social World: The Subculture of the Aging, pp. 19–36. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenau, James N. (1974). Citizenship Between Elections: An Inquiry into the Mobilizable American. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark (1993). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Rovner, Julie (1988). Catastrophic-insurance law: costs vs. benefits. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (December 3): 3450–3452.Google Scholar
  41. Rovner, Julie (1989a). Authors defend catastrophic-insurance law. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (January 14): 86.Google Scholar
  42. Rovner, Julie (1989b). Surtax reduction a possibility, but critics demand repeal. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (April 22): 901–2.Google Scholar
  43. Rovner, Julie (1995). Congress's 'catastrophic' attempt to fix medicare. In Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein (eds.), Intensive Care: How Congress Shapes Health Policy, pp. 145–78. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute and Brookings.Google Scholar
  44. Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack (1982). Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L. (1990). Self-interest in Americans' political opinions. In Jane J. Mansbridge (ed.), Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stoker, Laura (1994). A reconsideration of self-interest in American public opinion. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  47. Sussman, Barry (1981). By 3 to 2, Americans disapprove of Reagan plan for Social Security. Washington Post (May 16): A8.Google Scholar
  48. Tedin, Kent L., Matland, Richard E., and Weiher, Gregory R. (2001). Age, race, selfinterest, and financing public schools through referenda. Journal of Politics 63: 270–294.Google Scholar
  49. Trela, James E. (1972). Age structure of voluntary associations and political self-interest among the aged. Sociological Quarterly 13: 244–252.Google Scholar
  50. Truman, David (1951). The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  51. U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. (1998). 1998 Green Book: Overview of Entitlement Programs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  52. Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  53. Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Walker, Jack L. (1991). Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wielhouwer, Peter W., and Lockerbie, Brad (1994). Party contacting and political participation. American Journal of Political Science 38: 211–229.Google Scholar
  56. Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Louise Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations