Members of Congress (MCs) are concerned about reelection and act in office with this goal in mind. Whether citizens notice this behavior and how they respond remains an open question. We examine the relationships between legislators' characteristics and activity and their constituents' evaluations of their performance in office. We argue that MCs' behavior does filter down to citizens, but that their responses are conditioned by their partisanship and interest in politics. Our analyses combine 2006 and 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey data on citizens with information on legislators' activity in office in the 109th and 110th Congresses. The results reveal that there are widespread linkages between MC behavior and constituency approval, but that legislators' copartisan, outpartisan, and independent constituents respond in different, yet predictable, ways. Moreover, these effects are strongest among the most interested constituents. Our findings have important implications for our assessments of legislators' strategies and constituency representation.
On average, veterans are more civically and politically engaged than civilians. Previous research on the effects of military service, however, did not account for differences in veterans’ combat experiences. Using survey data from a representative sample of Vietnam veterans, this study presents evidence that veterans who were exposed to severe combat trauma and veterans who exhibited attitudes and fears associated with post‐traumatic stress had significantly lower levels of political efficacy and trust. The negative consequences of combat exposure and post‐traumatic stress are not mitigated when veterans have quality social support or when they seek professional counseling. These findings inform political psychology and hold implications for claims regarding the empowering influence of service in the U.S. military, increased political engagement, in particular. Among Vietnam veterans, exposure to severe combat trauma and post‐traumatic stress were both associated with reduced political efficacy and trust.
Objective
Although severe weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe, for many citizens, climate change and its consequences are still a distant concern. In the United States, Republicans, in particular, have expressed skepticism about the threat posed by climate change. Is this skepticism reduced by direct experience with severe weather events?
Methods
Using two surveys of registered voters in North Carolina, we test whether the threat of being hit by Hurricane Florence, or experiencing its effects directly through power loss, flooding, or wind damage, was associated with reduced skepticism about the impact of climate change.
Results
Republican voters who were the most threatened by the storm and who experienced one or more of its impacts were more likely to say climate change poses a threat to the state than their copartisans who were not threatened or impacted. However, among highly educated and motivated Republican voters, experience with Hurricane Florence was associated with increased skepticism about climate change.
Conclusion
Severe weather events have the potential to moderate climate change skepticism in the United States but not among the most engaged, dedicated partisans.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.