Citizens' Orientations toward Legislatures: Congress and the State Legislature

Patterson, Samuel C.; Ripley, Randall B.; Quinlan, Stephen

doi:10.2307/448714

Cited by 37 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instrumental concerns, however, comprise only half of Easton's conception of political support-diffuse support of regime-level institutions may also play a role in shaping political trust. The distinction between individual and institutional judgments and how they relate to political trust has been greatly debated (Abramson and Finifter, 1981;Citrin, 1974;Citrin and Green, 1986;Citrin et al, 1975;Cook, 1979;Miller, 1974;Parker and Davidson, 1979;Parker and Parker, 1993;Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan, 1992), and this work fits well with arguments that trust evaluations are based largely on political actors' competency and morality (Barber, 1983;Hart, 1978;Wright, 1976). Most recently, researchers have started to link political attitudes to the processes occurring within political institutions, arguing that perceptions of procedural inefficiency resulting from conflict drive down evaluations of Congress (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht, 1997;Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 1995).…”

Section: Previous Studies Of the Causes Of Trust In Governmentmentioning

confidence: 52%

Policies, Procedures, and People: Sources of Support for Government?

Ulbig

2002

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective.Many have written about the public's low opinion of the federal government; however, the theoretical sources and consequences of political trust have been empirically elusive. Drawing on the procedural justice framework, this study investigates the structure and consequences of people's mistrust of the federal government. Methods. Using data from various years of the National Election Study (NES), this research investigates the relationship between policy, procedural, and personal concerns and support of government. Results. Judgments about policy outputs, the process by which these policies develop, and the people involved in this process are shown to be sources of governmental trust, and certain aspects of trust are shown to have important behavioral consequences. Conclusions. These findings help to explain the failure of previous research into the causes and consequences of political trust. The various policy and process judgments that the NES Index combines play important independent roles in explaining political trust itself and its relationship with political behaviors and other attitudes.Many have written about the public's low opinion of the federal government. We know that the American public holds the political system in surprisingly low regard, but we understand less about the reasons for and consequences of these negative feelings. Studies linking the public's low trust in government to demographic characteristics, interpersonal trust levels, and policy outputs or outcomes have given, at best, mixed results. The consequences of low trust in the federal government have been equally elusive. There is only scant evidence that diminishing political trust has measurable impacts on political behavior at the individual level or on system stability at the aggregate level.The procedural justice literature offers an intriguing explanation for why people mistrust government and the behavioral consequences of this mistrust. Work in this area suggests that people are concerned not only with the outcomes of decision-making processes but with the procedural and per-

show abstract

Section: Previous Studies Of the Causes Of Trust In Governmentmentioning

confidence: 52%

Policies, Procedures, and People: Sources of Support for Government?

Ulbig

2002

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the legislative level, scholars have explored evaluations of legislative performance and approval, but not specific system support for the legislative body. These studies investigate how legislative professionalism and state economic health translate into public support for state legislatures (Jewell 1982;Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan 1992;Squire 1993). In the case of the state judiciary, Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue (2003) highlighted the importance of individual differences in explaining support for state courts, arguing that experience with the courts, race, and education influence levels of confidence.…”

Section: The Sources Of Support For Governmental Institutions At the mentioning

confidence: 98%

Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government

Kelleher

Wolak

2007

Political Research Quarterly

133

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What explains public confidence in the leadership of government institutions at the state level? The authors explore how political processes, the nature of representation, and economic and policy performance in the states translate into citizen confidence in state institutions. Using a multilevel modeling approach, the authors consider the sources of public confidence in the people who lead state legislatures, offices of the governor, and state courts. While the explanations for government confidence at the state level resemble, in part, those of the national government, the authors also observe notable differences, with each branch of state government drawing on distinct sources of public satisfaction.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have found a number of variables which affect these evaluations (Patterson, Hedlund, and Boynton 1975;Jewell 1982;Cotter 1986;Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan 1990), although they do not always agree on which ones are important, or even the direction of the effect. In general, people like legislatures controlled by their party and also are favorable if they approve of the governor (see also Rosenthal 1990).…”

Section: Evaluating the Legislaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Heartland Poll is a random sample telephone survey of approximately 300 people in Iowa and in each of its six neighboring states (Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin). The total number of interviews for the survey was 2,112.2 This survey is an advance over previous studies of legislative support because they were focused on a single state (Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan 1990), compilations of disparate state polls (Jewell 1982;Cotter 1986), or a mix of both approaches (Patterson, Hedlund, and Boynton 1975). The Heartland Poll provides a large random sample in each of seven states and asks respondents the same questions over the same time period.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Professionalization and Public Opinion of State Legislatures

Squire¹

1993

The Journal of Politics

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University ofIowaUsing a seven-state survey I examine how closely people follow the activities of the state legislature, how much contact they have with its members, and how they evaluate its perfonnance. In particular, I investigate whether legislative professionalization level or district size influences how people see their legislature. Professionalization has a positive relationship with contact but has a negative relationship with attention level and perfonnance rating. Constituency size exhibits little influence except on contacts.

show abstract

Citizens' Orientations toward Legislatures: Congress and the State Legislature

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

Policies, Procedures, and People: Sources of Support for Government?

Policies, Procedures, and People: Sources of Support for Government?

Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government

Professionalization and Public Opinion of State Legislatures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About