Legislative representation entails a degree of bonding between representatives and represented, demonstrated when constituents evaluate the performance of their representative favorably. Why are some constituents more favorable toward their representative than others? This analysis draws on previous research to construct and test a model of constituent evaluation. The data come from interviews conducted in 1988 with 1,013 Ohioans, who were asked to evaluate their member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The analysis relies on ordinary least squares regression. The results underscore the powerful role of partisanship in the nexus of constituents and their representatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acock, Alan, Harold D. Clarke, and Marianne C. Stewart .1985. A new model for old measures: A covariance structure analysis of political efficacy. Journal of Politics47:1062-84.
2.
Asher, Herbert B.1974. The reliability of the political efficacy items . Political Methodology1:45-72.
3.
Balch, George I.1974. Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept "sense of political efficacy." Political Methodology1:143.
4.
Born, Richard.1990. The shared fortunes of Congress and congressmen: Members may run from Congress, but they can't hide. Journal of Politics52:1223-41.
5.
Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina.1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Cook, Timothy E.1979. Legislature vs. legislator: A note on the paradox of congressional support. Legislative Studies Quarterly4:43-52.
7.
Craig, Stephen C.1979. Efficacy, trust, and political behavior: An attempt to resolve a lingering conceptual dilemma. American Politics Quarterly7:225-39.
8.
Craig, Stephen C., and Michael A. Maggioto.1982. Measuring political efficacy . Political Methodology8:85-109.
9.
Craig, Stephen C., Richard G. Niemi, and Glenn E. Silver.1990. Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior12:289-314.
10.
Davidson, Roger H., and Glenn R. Parker.1972. Positive support for political institutions: The case of Congress. Western Political Quarterly25:600-612.
11.
Easton, David.1965. A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
12.
Elster, Jon.1989. The cement of society: A study of social order . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Erikson, Robert S.1990. Economic conditions and the congressional vote: A review of the macrolevel evidence. American Journal of Political Science34:373-99.
14.
Fenno, Richard F., Jr.1975. If, as Ralph Nader says, Congress is "the broken branch," how come we love our congressmen so much? In Congress in change: Evolution and reform, edited by Normal J. Ornstein, 277-87. New York: Praeger.
15.
Fiske, Susan T., Richard R. Lau, and Richard A. Smith .1990. On the varieties and utilities of political expertise. Social Cognition8:31-48.
16.
Kinder, Donald R., and D. Roderick Kiewiet .1979. Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science23:495-527.
17.
Larson, Stephanie Greco.1990. Information and learning in a congressional district: A social experiment. American Journal of Political Science34:1102-18.
18.
Luskin, Robert C.1987. Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science31:857-899.
19.
McPherson, J. Miller, Susan Welch, and Cal Clark.1977. The stability and reliability of political efficacy: Using path analysis to test alternative models. American Political Science Review71:509-521.
20.
Parker, Glenn R.1981. Incumbent popularity and electoral success. In Congressional elections, edited by Louis Sandy Maisel and Joseph Cooper, 249-79. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
—. 1989. Characteristics of Congress: Patterns in congressional behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
22.
Parker, Glenn R., and Roger H. Davidson.1979. Why do Americans love their congressmen so much more than their Congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly4:53-61.
23.
Patterson, Samuel C., and Gregory A. Caldeira.1990. Standing up for Congress: Variations in public esteem since the 1960s. Legislative Studies Quarterly15:25-47.
24.
Patterson, Samuel C., Ronald D. Hedlund, and G. Robert Boynton .1975. Representatives and represented . New York: Wiley.
25.
Patterson, Samuel C., Randall B. Ripley, and Stephen V Quinlan .1992. Citizens' orientations toward legislatures: Congress and the state legislatures. Western Political Quarterly45:315-38.
26.
Smith, Eric R.A.N., Richard Herrera, and Cheryl L Herrera .1990. The measurement characteristics of congressional roll-call indexes. Legislative Studies Quarterly15:283-95.
27.
Stein, Robert M.1990. Economic voting for governor and U.S. Senator: The electoral consequences of federalism. Journal of Politics52:29-53.
28.
Zaller, John.1990. Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition8:125-53.
