Providing representation entails making choices about prioritizing the needs of diverse groups within one’s constituency. While citizens cannot reasonably expect that representatives will cater to their particular interests or priorities all the time, we know little about citizens’ expectations in this regard. In this paper, we present the results of two survey experiments that probe the relationship between citizens’ group identifications, their perceptions of their constituencies, and their demands regarding representation. We find that citizens are generally egocentric, in that they expect a representative to cater to personally relevant interests even when such interests are not an important part of the representative’s constituency. Moreover, we find that this egocentrism is not mitigated through the provision of information about the district’s diversity or composition, indicating that voter ignorance about the nature of constituencies is not the primary cause of these expectations. Regardless of sophistication, we observe expectations that are unrealistically self-centered.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). Parties in our heads: Misperception about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics, 80, 964–981.
2.
AlwinD. F.KrosnickJ. A. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416–425.
3.
AmsalemE. (2019). How informative and persuasive is simple elite communication? Effects on like-minded and polarized audiences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83, 1–25.
4.
AndersonC. J. (2007). The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 271–296.
5.
AnsolabehereS.JonesP. E. (2010). Constituents’ responses to congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 583–597.
6.
KinderD. R.KiewietD. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129–161.
7.
BaroneM.CohenR. (2010). The almanac of American politics. National Journal.
8.
BishinB. G. (2009). Tyranny of the minority: The subconstituency politics theory of representation. Temple University Press.
9.
BowlerS. (2017). Trustees, delegates, and responsiveness in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 766–793.
10.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.KimballD. C.MeinkeS. R.TateK. (2003). The effects of political representation on the electoral advantages of house incumbents. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 259–270.
11.
BroockmanD. E.ButlerD. M. (2017). The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 208–221.
12.
BrunellT. (2008). Redistricting and representation: Why competitive elections are bad for America. Routledge.
13.
BuchlerJ. (2005). Competition, representation and redistricting: The case against competitive congressional districts. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17, 431–463.
14.
KinderD. R.KiewietD. 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.
15.
CramerK. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in wisconsin and the rise of scott walker. University of Chicago Press.
16.
Canes-WroneB.BradyD. W.CoganJ. K. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.
17.
CarmanC. J. (2007). Assessing preferences for political representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 17, 1–19.
18.
CarsonJ. L.KogerG.LeboM. J.YoungE. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 598–616.
19.
ChristensonD.HeidemannE. D. (2016). Superdelegates or supertrustees? The timing and consistency of superdelegate decisions. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46, 640–668.
20.
ChristensonD.MakseT. (2015). Mass preferences on shared representation and the composition of legislative districts. American Politics Research, 43, 451–478.
21.
CiukD. J.LuptonR. N.ThorntonJ. R. (2018). Values voters: The conditional effect of income on the relationship between core values and political attitudes and behavior. Political Psychology, 39(4), 869–888.
22.
ConverseP. E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2, 139–171.
23.
CostaM.JohnsonK. T.SchaffnerB. F. (2018). Rethinking representation from a communal perspective. Political Behavior, 40, 301–320.
24.
CainB.FerejohnJ.FiorinaM. (1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Harvard University Press.
25.
DohertyD. (2013). To whom do people think representatives should respond: Their district or the country?Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 237–255.
26.
DohertyD. (2015). How policy and procedure shape citizens’ evaluations of senators. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40, 241–272.
27.
DruckmanJ.KamC. (2011). Students as experimental participants. In DruckmanJ.GreenD.KuklinskiJ.LupiaA. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). Cambridge University Press.
28.
EsaiassonP.GilljamM.PerssonM. (2017). Responsiveness beyond policy satisfaction: Does it matter to citizens?Comparative Political Studies, 50, 739–765.
29.
EvansG.AndersenR. (2006). The political conditioning of economic perceptions. Journal of Politics, 68, 194–207.
30.
EvansG.PickupM. (2010). Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 US presidential election cycle. Journal of Politics, 72, 1236–1251.
31.
FennoR. F.Jr. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Scott, Foresman, and Company.
32.
FiorinaM. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale University Press.
33.
FrederickB. (2009). Congressional representation & constituents: The case for increasing the U.S. house of representatives. Routledge.
34.
GomezB. T.WilsonJ. M. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 899–914.
35.
GoodsellC. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (4th ed.). CQ Press.
36.
GorenP. (1997). Political expertise and issue voting in presidential elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 50(2), 387–412.
37.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
38.
GreeneS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403.
39.
GriffinJ. D.FlavinP. (2011). How citizens and their legislators prioritize spheres of representation. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 520–533.
40.
GriffinJ. D.NewmanB. (2008). Minority report: Evaluating political equality in America. University of Chicago Press.
41.
GrimmerJ.MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2012). How words and money cultivate a personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106, 703–719.
42.
GroseC. R. (2005). Disentangling constituency and legislator effects in legislative representation: Black legislators or black districts?Social Science Quarterly, 86, 427–443.
43.
GroseC. R.MalhotraN.Van HouwelingR. P. (2015). Explaining explanations: How legislators explain their policy positions and how citizens react. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 724–743.
44.
HansfordT. G.GomezB. T. (2015). Reevaluating the sociotropic economic voting hypothesis. Electoral Studies, 39, 15–25.
45.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN. (2011). Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in congress: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 494–510.
46.
HardenJ. J. (2016). Multidimensional democracy: A supply and demand theory of representation in American legislatures. Cambridge University Press.
47.
HardenJ. J.ClarkC. J. (2016). A legislature or a legislator like me? Citizen demand for collective and dyadic political representation. American Politics Research, 44, 247–271.
48.
HassellH. GMonsonJ. Q. (2016). Representational inconsistency: Presentation of self and explanations of Washington activity in campaign mail and franked mail. Congress & The Presidency, 43, 206–226.
49.
HayesM.HibbingM. V. (2017). The symbolic benefits of descriptive and substantive representation. Political Behavior, 39, 31–50.
50.
HeroR. E.TolbertC. (1995). Latinos and substantive representation in the U.S. house of representatives: Direct, indirect, or nonexistent?American Journal of Political Science, 39, 640–652.
51.
HerreraR.TaylorM. K. (1994). The structure of opinion in American political parties. Political Studies, 42, 676–689.
52.
HuddyL.MasonL.AaroeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.
53.
HuiI. (2013). Who is your preferred neighbor? Partisan residential preferences and neighborhood satisfaction. American Politics Research, 41, 997–1021.
54.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.
55.
JacobsN. F.MunisB. K. (2019). Place-based imagery and voter evaluations: Experimental evidence on the politics of place. Political Research Quarterly, 72, 263–277.
56.
KerwinC. M. (1999). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. CQ Press.
57.
CampbellA.ConverseP.MillerW.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Michigan Press.
58.
ArnoldD. (1990). The logic of congressional action. Yale University Press.
59.
LacyD.ChristensonD. P. (2017). Who votes for the future? Information, expectations and endogeneity in economic voting. Political Behavior, 39, 347–375.
60.
LapinskiJ.LevenduskyM.WinnegK.JamiesonK. H. (2016). What do citizens want from their member of congress?Political Research Quarterly, 69, 535–545.
MacDonaldJ. A.O’BrienE. E. (2011). Quasi-experimental design, constituency, and advancing women’s interests: Reexamining the influence of gender on substantive representation. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 472–486.
63.
MarkusG. B. (1983). Dynamic modeling of cohort change: The case of political partisanship. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 717–739.
64.
McGuireK. T.StimsonJ. A. (2004). The least dangerous branch revisited: New evidence on supreme court responsiveness to public preferences. Journal of Politics, 66, 1018–1035.
65.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
66.
MilerK. C. (2018). Poor representation: Congress and the politics of poverty in the United States. Cambridge University Press.
67.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45–56.
68.
MishlerW.SheehanR. S. (1996). Public opinion, the attitudinal model, and supreme court decision making: A micro-analytic perspective. Journal of Politics, 58, 169–200.
69.
NeubergS.CottrellC. A. (2008). Managing the threats and opportunities afforded by human sociality. Group Dynamics, 1, 63–72.
70.
RossetJ.GigerN.BernauerJ. (2017). I the people? Self-interest and demand for government responsiveness. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 794–821.
71.
ShakerL. (2012). Local political knowledge and assessments of citizen competence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 525–537.
72.
ShivelyE. P. (1979). The development of party identification among adults: Exploration of a functional model. American Political Science Review, 73, 1039–1054.
73.
SidesJ.TeslerM.VavreckL. (2018). Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton University Press.
74.
SouthwellP. L. (2010). A backroom without the smoke? Superdelegates and the 2008 democratic nomination process. Party Politics, 18, 267–283.
75.
SulkinT. (2009). Campaign appeals and legislative action. Journal of Politics, 71, 1093–1108.
76.
SulkinT.TestaP.UsryK. (2015). What gets rewarded? Legislative activity and constituency approval?Political Research Quarterly, 68, 690–702.
77.
SwersM. L. (2005). Connecting descriptive and substantive representation: An analysis of sex differences in cosponsorship activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30, 407–433.
78.
WinburnJ.HendersonM.DowlingC. M. (2017). From the constituent’s eye: Experimental evidence on the district selection preferences of individuals. Political Research Quarterly, 70, 32–41.
79.
WongC. J. (2007). Little and big pictures in our heads: Race, local context, and innumeracy about racial groups in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 392–412.
80.
ZubrinskyC.BoboL. (1996). Prismatic metropolis: Race and residential segregation in the city of the Angels. Social Science Research, 25, 335–374.
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.
