This study determined factors which influenced Canadian provincial (state) politicians when making funding decisions for public libraries. Using the case study methodology, Canadian provincial/state-level funding for public libraries in the 2009-2010 fiscal year was examined. The data were analyzed to determine whether Cialdini’s theory of influence and specifically any of the six tactics of influence (i.e., commitment and consistency, authority, liking, social proof, scarcity, and reciprocity) were instrumental in these budgetary decision-making processes. Findings show the principles of “authority,” “consistency and commitment,” and “liking” were relevant, and that “liking” was especially important to these decisions.
AllenB. (2003). Public opinion and the funding of public libraries. Library Trends, 51, 414-423.
3.
BaileyG. M. (2007). Allocating state funds for public school library media programs: A case study of education policymaking in Maryland (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland–College Park). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations & Theses, 3297364.
4.
BlakeV. L. P. (1988). Joining city hall: The role of the public library director in obtaining local support for the public library (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers–The State University of New Jersey–New Brunswick). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations & Theses, 8901084.
5.
Brey-CasianoC. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through advocacy. Public Library Quarterly, 25, 181-190.
ChamberlainJ. (2009). Trustees and administrators: These are days for advocacy. ILA Reporter, 27(3), 6-9.
8.
ChappellH. (2005). Provincial structures for resource allocation decision-making in health care: A case study of four provinces in Canada. (M.Sc., University of Toronto [Canada]). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations & Theses, MR02229.
9.
ChavezC.YuklG.SeifertC. (2008). Validation of the extended Influence Behavior Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 609-621.
10.
ChurchA. (2008). Pressure groups and Canadian sport policy: A neo-pluralist examination of policy development. (Ph.D., The University of Western Ontario (Canada)). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations & Theses, NR39256.
11.
CialdiniR. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
CialdiniR. B. (2004, September). The language of persuasion. Harvard Management Update, 9(9), 10-11.
13.
EstabrookL.LankerB. (1995). A survey of public libraries and local government. Urbana-Champaign: Library Research Centre, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois.
14.
FarnhamB. (1990). Political cognition and decision-making. Political Psychology, 11, 83-111.
15.
GibbonsJ. (2009). Implementing a national advocacy campaign at the state level: Kentucky public librarians put theory into practice. Kentucky Libraries, 73(3), 4-8.
16.
HicklinA.O’TooleL. J.MeierK. J. (2008). Serpents in the sand: Managerial networking and nonlinear influences on organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 253-273.
17.
HubbardE. R. (1996). A conflict of values: An inquiry into the impact of local political decision-making on the funding of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh in three selected decades (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA. Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations & Theses, 9718616.
18.
The Humbling of Detroit North. (2009). Economist, 392(8642), 31-32.
19.
JensenJ. L. (2007). Getting one’s way in policy debates: Influence tactics used in group decision-making settings. Public Administration Review, 67, 216-227.
KoslowskyM.SchwarzwaldJ. (1993). The use of power tactics to gain compliance: Testing aspects of Raven’s (1988) theory in conflictual situations. Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 135-144.
LindquistE. (1990). Even exorcists need theory: A new agenda for the literature on cabinet and budgetary systems. Canadian Public Administration, 33, 645-657.
25.
LondonK. A.CadmanK. (2009). Impact of a fragmented regulatory environment on sustainable urban development design management. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5, 5-23.
26.
MaxwellN. (2008). Libraries?—Yes, in my backyard!Journal of Access Services, 5, 391-396.
27.
McClureC.FeldmanS.RyanJ. (2007). Politics and advocacy: The role of networking in selling the library to your community. Public Library Quarterly, 25, 137-154.
28.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 271-293.
29.
MinS. (2009). An analysis of sport reporters’ perceptions of the effectiveness of sport public relations practitioners’ influence practices in South Korea (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 3374861.
30.
MittermeyerD. (1994). The public libraries boards of trustees versus the committees of city council: A power game. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 19(1), 1-17.
MoynihanD. P.IngrahamP. W. (2010). The suspect handmaiden: The evolution of politics and administration in the American state [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 70, S229-S237.
33.
O’TooleL. J.MeierK. J. (2004). Public management in intergovernmental networks: Matching structural networks and managerial networking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 469-494.
PatouilletL. D. (2000). Alumni association members: Attitudes toward university life and giving at a public AAU institution (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA). Available from Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection, 9974464.
36.
ProssA. P. (1992). Group politics and public policy. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.
37.
RavenB. H. (1990). Political applications of the psychology of interpersonal influence and social power. Political Psychology, 11, 493-520.
38.
RichardsJ. (2009). Frontline. inCite, 30(11), 4.
39.
Robbins-CarterJ. (1984, Spring). Political science: Utility for research in librarianship. Library Trends, pp. 425-439.
40.
Schulz-HardtS.FreyD.LuthgensC.MoscoviciS. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 655-669.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3-20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
VarheimA.SteinmoS.IdeE. (2008). Do libraries matter? Public libraries and the creation of social capital. Journal of Documentation, 64, 877-892.
YuklG.ChavezC.SeifertC. F. (2005). Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 705-725.
