Canonical theories of democratic representation envision legislators cultivating familiarity to enhance esteem among their constituents. Some scholars, however, argue that familiarity breeds contempt, which if true would undermine incentives for effective representation. Survey respondents who are unfamiliar with their legislator tend not to provide substantive answers to attitude questions, and so we are missing key evidence necessary to adjudicate this important debate. We solve this problem with a randomized field experiment that gave some constituents an opportunity to gain familiarity with their Member of Congress through an online Deliberative Town Hall. Relative to controls, respondents who interacted with their member reported higher esteem as a result of enhanced familiarity, a mediation effect supporting canonical theories of representation. This effect is statistically significant among constituents who are the same political party as the member but not among those of the opposite party, although in neither case did familiarity breed contempt.
AbernathyClaire. 2018. “Understanding and Responding to Constituent Opinion on Capitol Hill.” Congress and the Presidency45 (3): 254–278.
2.
AlvarezR. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
3.
AngristJoshua D.ImbensGuido W.RubinDonald B.. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association91 (June): 444–455.
4.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
AtirStavRosenzweigEmilyDunningDavid.. 2015. “When Knowledge Knows No Bounds: Self-Perceived Expertise Predicts Claims of Impossible Knowledge.” Psychological Science.
6.
BerinskyAdam J. 1999. “The Two Faces of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science43 (Oct): 1209–1230.
7.
BerinskyAdam J.TuckerJoshua A.. 2006. “‘Don’t Knows’ and Public Opinion Towards Economic Reform: Evidence from Russia.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies39: 73–99.
8.
BollenKenneth A1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
9.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.KimballDavid C.MeinkeScott R.TateKatherine.. 2003. “The Effects of Political Representation on the Electoral Advantages of House Incumbents.” Political Research Quarterly56 (3): 259–270.
10.
BradyDavid W.TheriaultSean M.. 2001. “A Reassessment of Who’s to Blame: A Positive Case for the Public Evaluation of Congress.” In What is it About Government that Americans Dislike?, edited by HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth, 175–192. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BroockmanDavid E.ButlerDaniel M.. 2017. “The Causal Effects of Elite Position Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 208–221.
12.
CoverAlbert D.BrumbergBruce S.. 1982. “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion.” American Political Science Review76 (2): 347–359.
13.
DarrJoshua P.DunawayJohanna L.. 2018. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship Revisited: The Role of Media Choice in Clarifying Elite Ideology.” American Politics Research46 (6): 943–970.
14.
Delli CarpiniMichael XKeeterScott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
EsterlingKevin M.NebloMichael A.LazerDavid M.J.. 2011a. “Estimating Treatment Effects in the Presence of Noncompliance and Nonresponse: The Generalized Endogenous Treatment Model.” Political Analysis19 (Spring): 205–226.
16.
EsterlingKevin M.NebloMichael A.LazerDavid M.J.. 2011b. “Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed about Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment Involving Members of Congress and their Constituents.” Public Opinion Quarterly75 (Fall): 483–503.
17.
FennoRichard F. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, Mass. Little, Brown and Co.
18.
FiorinaMorrisCainBruceFerejohnJohn. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
19.
FirestoneChazSchollBrian J.. 2015. “When do Ratings Implicate Perception Versus Judgment? The “Overgeneralization Test” for Top-Down Effects.” Visual Cognition23 (910): 1217–1226.
20.
FrangakisConstantine E.RubinDonald B.. 1999. “Addressing Complications of Intention-to-Treat Analysis in the Combined Presence of All-or-None Treatment Noncompliance and Subsequent Missing Outcomes.” Biometrika86 (2): 365–379.
GrantJ. TobinRudolphThomas J.. 2004. “The Job of Representation in Congress: Public Expectations and Representative Approval.” Legislative Studies Quarterly29 (Aug): 431–445.
23.
GrimmerJustinMessingSolomonWestwoodSean J. 2012. “How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation.” American Political Science Review106 (4): 703–719.
24.
Harmon-JonesEddieAllenJohn J. B.. 2001. “The Role of Affect in the Mere Exposure Effect: Evidence from Psychophysiological and Individual Differences Approaches.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27 (7): 889–898.
25.
HetheringtonMarc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review95 (3): 619–631.
26.
HibbingJohn R. 2002. “How to Make Congress Popular.” Legislative Studies Quarterly27 (2): 219.
27.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustin. 2010. “A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods15 (4): 309–334.
29.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustinYamamotoTeppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review105 (Nov): 765–789.
30.
JesseeStephen A2017. “‘Don’t Know’ Responses, Personality, and the Measurement of Political Knowledge.” Political Science Research and Methods5 (4): 711–731.
31.
KingGary. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science21 (1): 119–128.
32.
KrosnickJon A2002. “Survey Nonresponse.” In Technometrics, edited by GrovesR MDliimanD AEltingeJ LLittleR J A, Vol. 44. New York: Wiley.
33.
KrosnickJon A.MilburnMichael A.. 1990. “Psychological Determinants of Political Opinionation.” Social Cognition8 (1): 49–72.
34.
LammersJorisPauelsEileenFleischmannAlexandraGalinskyAdam D.. 2021. “Why People Hate Congress but Love Their Own Congressperson: An Information Processing Explanation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletinforthcoming, 1–14.
35.
LauRichard R.SigelmanLeeRovnerIvy Brown.. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics69 (4): 1176–1209.
36.
LazerDavid M.J2015. “The Rise of the Social Algorithm.” Science348 (6239): 1090–1091.
37.
LeeAngela Y2001. “The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27 (10): 1255–1266.
38.
LevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeil. 2016. “(Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public.” Public Opinion Quarterly80: 378–391.
39.
LuskinRobert C.BullockJohn G.. 2011. ““Don’t Know” Means “Don’t Know”: DK Responses and the Public’s Level of Political Knowledge.” Journal of Politics73 (April): 547–557.
40.
MadisonJames. 1961. “Federalist 57: The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation.” In The Federalist Papers, edited by RossiterClinton, New York, NY: New American Library.
41.
MansbridgeJane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review97 (4): 515–528.
42.
MinozziWilliamNebloMichael A.EsterlingKevin M.LazerDavid M.J.. 2015. “Field Experiment Evidence of Substantive, Attributional, and Behavioral Persuasion by Members of Congress in Online Town Halls.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112 (13): 3937–3942.
43.
MondakJeffery A1999. “Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge.” Political Analysis8 (1): 57–82.
44.
MondakJeffery J.AndersonMary R.. 2004. “The Knowledge Gap: A Reexamination of Gender-Based Differences in Political Knowledge.” Journal of Politics66 (2): 492–512.
45.
MondakJeffrey J.CarminesEdward GHuckfeldtRobertDona-GeneMitchellSchraufnagelScot. 2007. “Does Familiarity Breed Contempt? The Impact of Information on Mass Attitudes Toward Congress.” American Journal of Political Science51 (Jan): 34–48.
46.
NebloMichael A.EsterlingKevin MKennedyRyanLazerDavidSokheyAnand. 2010. “Who Wants to Deliberate – and Why?” American Political Science Review104 (3): 566–583.
47.
NebloMichael A.EsterlingKevin M.LazerDavid M.J.. 2018. Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
NorpothHelmutLodgeMilton. 1985. “The Difference between Attitudes and Nonattitudes in the Mass Public: Just Measurements.” American Journal of Political Science29 (2): 291.
49.
PierceJohn C.RoseDouglas D.. 1974. “Nonattitudes and American Public Opinion: The Examination of a Thesis.” American Political Science Review68 (2): 626–649.
50.
PitkinHanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
51.
PooleKeith TRosenthalHoward. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics46 (4): 1061–1079.
52.
SettleJamie M2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SteenbergenMarco RBachtigerAndreSporndliMarkusSteinerJurg. 2003. “Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index.” Comparative European Politics1 (1): 21–48.
54.
TannerMartin A.WongWing Hung. 1987. “The Calculation of Posterior Distributions by Data Augmentation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association82 (398): 528–540.
55.
TurgeonMathieu. 2009. “’Just Thinking’: Attitude Development, Public Opinion, and Political Representation.” Political Behavior31: 353–378.
56.
VisserPenny S.HolbrookAllyson L.KrosnickJon A.. 2007. “The Sage handbook of public opinion research.” In The Sage Handbook of Public Opinion Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
57.
WilcoxClydeSigelmanLeeCookElizabeth. 1989. “Some Like it Hot: Individual Differences in Responses to Group Feeling Thermometers.” Public Opinion Quarterly53: 246–257.
58.
WinkielmanPiotrCacioppoJohn T. 2001. “Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence that Processing Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81 (6): 989–1000.
59.
WinterNicholasBerinskyAdam. 1999. What’s Your Temperature? Thermometer Ratings and Political Analysis. Tech. rept. Atlanta, GA: Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
60.
ZajoncR.B. 2001. “Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal.” Current Directions in Psychological Science10 (6): 224–228.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
