






































Microsoft Word - Volume15.doc


Commonwealth: A Journal of Political Science  Volume 15, Number 2  September 2009

 2009 PPSA/LORL, PA House of Reps. ISSN 0890-2410

Viewing Representative Behavior through the
Lens of Social and Political Identity

Robin Lauermann
Messiah College

Much scholarly attention has been paid to the representative
activities of members of the national legislature. Equally important
to representative democracy, however, are the perceptions and
evaluations of these members by their constituents. Using the 2000
American National Election Studies survey, this article assesses the
impact of social and political identity in the formation of
constituency perceptions of members of the U.S. House of
Representatives. Demographic characteristics and political
predispositions affect the relevance of the four measures of
legislator responsiveness—policy, casework, district service, and
symbolic responsiveness—to each constituent’s evaluation.
Ethnicity, age, gender, and education affect the degree of
importance of each measure to constituents; women, minorities, and
older citizens are more concerned with symbolic actions on the part
of their representatives. Furthermore, the descriptive composition
of a representative’s constituency has an influence not only with
respect to policy choices the member may make, but also with
regard to understanding how particular behaviors are successful in
establishing a relationship between the representative and those
represented.

Constituent Evaluations

epresentative democracy provides a governmental framework
wherein citizens elect officials who will make policy for the nation.

Elections legitimate the actions of policymakers. Yet, officials are not
given free reign once in office, for citizens will ultimately be able to
assess their performance and hold them accountable for their actions at
the next election. Elections are central to the representative process
because they provide a means for placing new representatives in office
and removing those who have not satisfied their constituents. While
voting decisions are an important part of the representational

R



66 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

relationship, less noticed are the factors used to make them, particularly
those that shape constituent evaluations of representatives.

Past research has focused on what congressional members do in
office (Fenno 1977; Fenno 1996; Fiorina 1982; Kingdon 1989; Mayhew
1974; Miller and Stokes 1963). Member behavior is crucial to the
formation of constituent perception of the representatives’ behavior that
will contribute to the voting decision. Individuals who do not believe that
their interests are being represented by a governing official may become
discontented with the officeholder and possibly with the political system
itself. Citizens who think government is not responsive to their needs
may become more likely to seek alternative help outside regular political
channels. This shift in political action can be dangerous to the stability of
the political system. Consequently, it is important to understand
constituent expectations within the representative process because voters
have the ultimate authority to revoke the power of the representatives.
When individuals cast their vote, however, there is one additional
consideration that affects their decision whether or not to extend the
service of their member: their retrospective evaluations of the member’s
behavior. Constituent evaluations therefore provide a crucial link
between a member’s behavior and a constituent’s decision in the voting
booth (Lauermann 2001).

While the constituent perspective was relatively neglected by
scholars in the past, it has received attention in more recent studies,
especially in elections literature focusing on the “personal vote” and
incumbency advantage (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1987; Erikson and
Wright 1993; Jacobson 1981; Jacobson 2001; Johannes and MacAdams
1981; Parker 1989; Serra and Cover 1992; Serra and Moon 1994;
Yiannakis 1981). Many of these studies, however, center their analysis
on the vote itself rather than on the factors affecting the evaluation of
member behavior. Voting decisions involve factors relevant not only to
the representative but also to the challenger and to election-specific
contexts. Constituent evaluations evolve prior to the vote decision, so
understanding them is a prerequisite of understanding the vote. More
attention should be given to identifying the factors affecting these
evaluations. Furthermore, many studies have focused on only a portion
of the factors that affect constituents’ evaluations of their representatives.
A representative may cast a vote on a piece of legislation, provide
particular or general constituency service, or engage in other activities
that may inspire the support of constituents. Researchers who fail to



Robin Lauermann 67

address all relevant behaviors will achieve a less complete understanding
of the representative process.

Past research has demonstrated that constituent perceptions of
member voting behavior, casework, district service, and symbolic actions
contribute significantly to their general evaluation of member behavior.
Among these and other personal and national factors, perceptions of
symbolic connections are strongest (Lauermann 2001). The relative
importance of each factor may vary, though, depending upon the
characteristics of an individual constituent. This article will examine the
way in which political and social identities shape the relevance of multi-
faceted representative behaviors in the construction of constituent
evaluations. Attention to multiple components of representation provides
a much more accurate reflection of the “complexities of the real world”
(Eulau and Karps 1978, 62).

Components of Responsiveness

A retrospective view of voter evaluation is based on the idea that
elections serve as a means for constituents to reward or punish elected
officials for their past behavior. V.O. Key (1966) laid the foundation for
retrospective voting theory by noting that voters conduct an “appraisal”
of past behavior of elected officials. Similarly, Fenno’s “Theory of
Accountability” holds that “if members want to be reelected, they know
that they will be held accountable at the next election and their behavior
will be more responsive” (1978, 23). Fenno (1996, 78) reiterates in his
later work on senatorial campaigns that the representative relationship is
reciprocal because “candidates want support and they offer
responsiveness; citizens want responsiveness and they offer support.”
Thus the voting decision is made in light of an evaluation of member
activities. Moreover, citizens care not about the means by which
politicians make policy but about the results that come from policy
(Fiorina 1981, 8; Wahlke 1978). Constituent perceptions of these factors
require retrospective evaluations of the specific acts as well as the overall
performance of a representative.

Constituent evaluations stem from a number of sources, including
evaluations of responsiveness, party identification, and national factors
(Lauermann 2001). Although evaluations of responsiveness are relevant,
the relative importance of different member behaviors may vary across



68 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

individuals. Eulau and Karps (1978) note that many studies focus on a
more limited understanding of member behavior as issue representation.
They propose a four-part conception that includes policy, service,
allocative responsiveness, and symbolic responsiveness. These
components of representation can be distinguished by their degree of
partisanship and tangibility (specific or concrete) in outcome. While
Eulau and Karps offer a valuable conceptualization, attempts to
operationalize this expanded perspective of representation have been
limited (Lauermann 2001).

Not surprisingly, many of these efforts focus on the voting behavior
of representatives and the impact of their voting decisions on their
electoral fortunes. Policy responsiveness represents the “presence of a
meaningful connection between constituent (public) policy preferences
or demands and the representative’s official behavior” (Eulau and Karps
1978, 63). At the individual level, policy responsiveness is indicated by
closeness in issue positions.1 People who share their representative’s
ideology are more likely to be satisfied with activities in this venue
(Johannes and MacAdams 1981). While Congress is first and foremost a
lawmaking body, policy is not the only relevant criterion for evaluation.

There are several nonpartisan means of responsiveness, i.e., actions
that can draw support from individuals who are not members of the
representative’s party since these actions do not involve a firm policy
commitment.2 One such method includes the “advantages which the
representative is able to obtain for particular constituents” (Eulau and
Karps 1978, 64). More commonly known as casework, this activity
involves member actions to cut through bureaucratic red tape.
Representatives may help an individual having difficulty obtaining
benefits from an administrative agency, e.g., Social Security disability
benefits or remuneration from the Black Lung program for former
miners. Fiorina (1989) argues that members of Congress deliberately
perpetuate the bureaucratic maze in order to create opportunities for
themselves to build electoral credit. Constituents evaluate more
favorably members who provide such services (Cover 1977; Rivers and
Fiorina 1989; Serra 1991; Serra and Cover 1992; Serra and Moon 1994).
These activities draw support from constituents of all partisan stripes
since they are not linked to issues.

A second nonpartisan means of responsiveness, allocative, involves
“advantages and benefits presumably accruing to a representative’s



Robin Lauermann 69

district as a whole” (Eulau and Karps 1978, 65). Known also as district
assistance or “pork barrel,” allocative responsiveness includes a broader
category of tangible awards than does casework. Legislators can bring
public works projects or other federal programs to the district. Witness
the budget appropriations process in 2004 when members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee generated $12 billion in
district funding. A Democrat, Tim Holden, represents Pennsylvania’s
primarily Republican 17th District. Yet, he managed to win reelection in
2002 by a 51% to 49% margin in a district reapportioned to benefit his
Republican opponent, incumbent George Gekas. Holden was reelected
even more handily in 2004 (59% to 39%) against challenger Scott
Paterno, which may not have been surprising but for the challenger’s
name recognition as the son of the celebrated Penn State football coach,
Joe Paterno. While some portion of Holden’s win may be explained by
his relatively more conservative voting record as a Blue Dog Democrat,
he was certainly aided by his success in obtaining funds for the district,
as he invariably advertises in his frequent newsletters to constituents.
Between 2004 and 2009, for example, the 17th District received over $15
million in federal funding under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act. Constituent perceptions of allocative
responsiveness can therefore be a boon to representatives at the voting
booth (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1987; Jacobson 2001; Stein and
Bickers 1994). Accordingly, they are a crucial component of any model
of constituent evaluations.

Lastly, constituents may evaluate their representatives based on a
more nebulous but no less important criterion: symbolic responsiveness.
Symbolic responsiveness involves a relationship “built on trust and
confidence expressed in the support that the represented gives to the
representative and to which he responds by symbolic, significant gestures
in order to, in turn, generate trust and support” (Eulau and Karps 1978,
66). These gestures appear on the surface to be important but often have
little substance, e.g., appearing at a ribbon-cutting ceremony. This
concept is akin to Easton’s (1965) diffuse support of “general or positive
sentiments” that allows representatives to weather periods of
nonresponsiveness in other areas. In his seminal study of the impact of
trust-generating activities, Fenno (1978) notes that constituency service,
in the form of “home style,” can provide a representative with greater
freedom in the policymaking realm in Washington. One of the more
significant aspects of home style is “presentation of self.” Building trust



70 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

takes time, so how does a member do it? According to Fenno, members
must show that they are qualified, experienced, competent, honest, at one
with their district, and able to empathize with its people. In fact, evidence
suggests that symbolic responsiveness is more important to voters than
the other components of responsiveness (Bianco 1994; Sigelman,
Sigelman and Walkrosz 1994; Wahlke 1978). Yet, few studies have
incorporated this component within a more comprehensive framework
(Lauermann 2001). While each of these components of responsiveness
has some level of importance, individual preferences and evaluations are
likely to be shaped by personal experiences and factors. The social and
political composition of a constituency may influence representative
behavior as well.

Constituent Identity

In the field of social psychology, social identity theory conveys the
relevance of one’s social identity in the construction of opinions. As
Robert Lane (1974, 110) has framed the discussion: “Identity . . . is the
complex answer to the simple question ‘Who am I?’” The social
categories that construct one’s environment, such as ethnicity and
gender, provide a social identity that shapes resulting opinions (Hogg,
Terry, and White 1995, 260; Kinder and Sears 1985, 672). Using factor
analysis, Hooper (1976) demonstrated that such reference groups as
religion, ethnicity, sex, and class provide reliable indicators of social
identity. The reference group attachment can create stereotypical
perceptions among those with a shared group identity. Social differences
can thus produce distinctions in opinion (Kinder and Sears 1985; Lane
1974; Stets and Burke 2000; Turner 1987). Although these distinctions
may be based on the self-interest of the group, they may also develop
from shared life experiences (Erikson and Tedin 2005, 177). Moreover,
the interactive effect of multiple layers of identity produces great
variations across individuals. While the idea that political and social
identities can affect perceptions of the citizen–government relationship is
not new, past studies have focused on attitudes toward the government at
large rather than on the particular officials who compose it (Erikson and
Tedin 2005; Lane 1974).

Among those identity characteristics unchangeable by individual
action is ethnic identity. The most significant distinction between the
opinions of whites and minorities concerns the appropriate role of



Robin Lauermann 71

government in assisting minorities, whether that includes monetary
assistance or affirmative action (Erikson and Tedin 2005, 188). This
distinction holds even when controlling for socioeconomic differences,
which often are mistaken for ethnic differences. African Americans have
shown greater concern for district and symbolic (particularly the
identification component) factors (Griffin and Flavin 2007; Tate 2003).
Minorities may consequently value activities by their member that are
designed to help people both individually and as a constituency (Cain,
Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1987, 42). Ethnic identity therefore is a significant
factor in understanding constituent evaluations of member behavior.

A constituent’s age may also affect member evaluations. Younger
Americans tend to be less politically involved because they do not
perceive most political activity to be relevant to their lives. Youths are
less likely to be aware of or concerned about policy matters, which
parallels the relationship between age and general political knowledge
and interest. Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina (1987, 43) found that younger
individuals are more concerned with district attentiveness, whereas older
individuals are more concerned with casework and policy.3 These results
are consistent with findings related to the impact of age on more general
political opinions. While the young may not need public assistance
themselves, they tend to be more supportive of government programs to
help people (Erikson and Tedin 2005, 192–194). By contrast, certainly
some policy focus on the part of older Americans is self-interested, such
as their concern about proposed changes to Social Security and
Medicare.

Another important social reference group is gender. Although much
has been written about the “gender gap,” the relevance of gender is
perhaps less clear with regard to perceptions of representative behavior.
Much research has focused on the impact of gender, specifically feminist
and nonfeminist perspectives, on policy attitudes (Conover 1988;
Kaufmann and Petrocik 1999) or on evaluations of male and female
candidates (Dolan 2001; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993) rather than on how
gender may shape the expectations of elected officials. Gender
differences tend to be greatest with respect to compassion issues, such as
increasing the quality and availability of education or protecting the less
fortunate (Erikson and Tedin 2005, 209). Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina
(1987, 41) found that men tend to prefer oversight and policy behavior to
constituency-related activities. Support of constituency-related actions
certainly is consistent with compassion concerns; yet, policy-based



72 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

behavior may offer the most systematic means of eradicating problems in
these areas.

Among the more relevant reference groups, socioeconomic status has
a variable impact on individual perceptions of representatives. Economic
cleavages have not been as distinct in America as they have been in other
industrialized nations, yet there have been significant differences in
preferences on economic issues across social strata (Erikson and Tedin
2005, 178–179; Glynn et al. 1999, 227–229; Kinder and Sears 1985,
673). Individuals from lower classes are more likely to favor programs
benefiting poorer people. Distinctions are not as large as expected once
ideology is controlled for, as individuals of lower socioeconomic status
tend to be less liberal or tolerant on noneconomic issues and thus are
perhaps more likely to favor benefits to self and district. Past research
has shown that lower class individuals tend to favor constituency service
because they are in greater need of the benefits (Cain, Ferejohn, and
Fiorina 1987; Yiannakis 1981). In fact, Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina
(1987, 42) found that working class individuals ranked policy concerns
as the third most important criterion for member behavior, whereas
middle class individuals ranked it second. Ultimately, expectations of
representative behavior will be influenced by this group identity.

Education may also affect constituents’ views of what is important.
Although often considered a related characteristic of social class,
education has its own distinctive impact on the formation of opinions.
High levels of education generally provide people with a greater
understanding of the political system. It also tends to produce people
more likely to be attentive to issues and the extent to which the
representative is in accordance with their views. In an early study, Cain,
Ferejohn, and Fiorina (1987, 42) found that 40% of college-educated
individuals believed policy concerns were most important, as opposed to
only 17% of those with less than a high school education. Because of
their greater exposure to politics, those with higher levels of education
are also more likely to be attentive to the other components of
responsiveness.

Finally, as a function of one’s political identity, ideology also plays a
role in the formation of political opinions. Conservatives typically prefer
a smaller central government and lower government expenditures. Yet,
when using measures of partisanship rather than ideology, Cain,
Ferejohn, and Fiorina (1987) found that Republicans (who may be more



Robin Lauermann 73

or less conservative) supported greater levels of district spending but less
individualized assistance. It is difficult to assess the past evidence for this
component since party identification and ideology are not necessarily
mutually reinforcing. Indeed, recent work has distinguished between
“symbolic conservatives” and those who profess such an ideological
leaning yet in reality are often “operationally liberal” because they
support more government action and emphasize diffuse support due to
pragmatic outcomes rather than programmatic ideals (Stimson 2004,
166–167). Ideological identity thus may have a less focused impact on
constituents’ perceptions of their representatives.

Despite the strong rationale for examining the impact of these and
other factors on constituent evaluations, there has been minimal
investigation. The relevance of identity on constituents’ evaluations of
their representatives’ behavior (as distinct from their representatives’
votes) has not been sufficiently explored, nor has much effort been made
to develop a more robust model of that behavior from the constituent
perspective. Such work is needed because evidence of the impact of
social and political identity on constituents’ perceptions is important for
understanding not only individual opinions but also the implications of
constituency composition for member behavior. By incorporating the oft-
excluded symbolic concerns, member behavior would likely be
encouraged in certain methods, depending upon the portion of
individuals in the district possessing a particular identity or combination
of identities.

Method and Design

This article used the 2000 American National Election Studies
(ANES) data set to assess the impact of group identities on constituent
perceptions (Burns et al. 2002).4 The ANES data includes 1,807
respondents selected through a stratified cluster sampling technique.5 In
order to identify the importance of each facet of representation, this
article uses an “identity model,” incorporating the group identities
discussed above, to estimate the relevance to constituents of different
components of responsiveness.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables, representing each component of
responsiveness, are derived from a similar measurement. Because there



74 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

is no set of questions directly assessing the importance of the various
components of representation, it was necessary to construct alternative
measures to determine their relevance. In the survey, respondents were
asked a series of open-ended questions about Democratic and Republican
House candidates. Specifically, they were asked what they liked or
disliked about the candidates, in this case, their own representatives.6 The
constituents had an opportunity to mention up to five positive and five
negative aspects of the candidate as reported in variables 1,329–1,351.
Open-ended questions allow individuals to communicate their ideas
freely without having to conform to pre-selected answers. They also
provide an additional benefit in that respondents are able to discuss
things important to them. The responses to the open-ended questions are
coded with specificity in the ANES code book appendix. These
responses were sorted and collapsed into one of four categories based on
the fit of the coded open-ended answer with the responsiveness concept.
Building on Fenno’s (1978) idea of “presentation of self,” symbolic
responsiveness includes those responses that indicate trustworthiness
(e.g., honesty, integrity, independence from other political actors, and not
acting in self-interest), qualification for the job (i.e., experience),
identification, and empathy. District service responses include mentions
of actions on behalf of the district as a whole (e.g., keeping constituents
informed and doing things to help the district’s economy).7 Service
responses provided indications that the representative had helped
individual constituents with problems. Specific policy responses were
coded as policy, as were all general ideological responses.8 A complete
listing of the values coded for each category is provided in the Appendix.

An individual’s likelihood of mentioning a particular component of
responsiveness provides an indicator of those facets of representation
that are most important. While there are alternative ways of assessing the
constituent perspective, the model used here is based on the subjective
perceptions of the respondents. Although objective actions of House
members may contribute to individual constituents’ perceptions of their
representative’s behavior, it is ultimately the subjective perceptions that
are relevant to constituent evaluations. If the perceptions themselves are
skewed by bias or lack of information, the final evaluation itself will be
skewed because it will be based more on subjective perceptions of the
representative and less on the representative’s objective actions. While
these objective actions are relevant to the larger framework of the
representational relationship (Box-Steffensmeier et al. Tate 2003), this



Robin Lauermann 75

article seeks only to determine what constituents value. It is not
concerned with the accuracy of those perceptions.

Identity Characteristics: Hypotheses and Measurement9

Ethnicity. Nonwhite individuals are more likely to prefer nonpolicy
behavior, such as group or district benefits, because they have a greater
need for tangible benefits. To understand how race affects the
importance of each component, individuals were placed into one of two
variable categories, white and nonwhite, based on the coding of
responses to Variable 1,006.10

Age. Individuals at different life stages may have different
expectations from their representatives as a result of different needs.
Older individuals may be more concerned with policy factors because of
their greater exposure to and understanding of the impact of government
action on their lives. In accordance with Variable 908, individuals were
grouped into one of three categories corresponding to the three age
ranges during which political interest and involvement vary: 18–29, 30–
54, and 55 and older.

Gender. Women are more likely than men to prefer member
behaviors that are targeted at district and constituent assistance. Variable
1,029 was used to control for the gender of constituents.

Social class. As a matter of self-interest, individuals from lower
social classes are more likely to mention particular and general benefits
rather than policy, whereas upper-class individuals may prefer policy
considerations. This variable was measured by the self-selected social
class response ranging from lower working class to upper middle class as
reported by Variable 1,005.

Education. Highly educated individuals are the most likely to
mention policy concerns rather than other factors because they are best
equipped to understand politics. A collapsed scale of education levels
was created from Variable 913: no high school degree (individuals with
11 years or less of schooling); high school (individuals who had
completed high school or only a few years of college without earning a
degree); and college education (individuals with an associate, bachelor,
or advanced degree).

Ideology. Past research has examined the impact of party
identification on assessments of member behavior. Ideology is a more



76 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

appropriate measure than is partisanship, however, because it is a more
consistent indicator of political opinions. Conservatives are more likely
to prefer district benefits than casework. Ideology is measured with
Variable 1,370, which provides a seven-point continuum from extremely
liberal to extremely conservative.

Results and Discussion

Before examining the results of the multivariate analysis, it is
instructive to review the distribution of responses to the like versus
dislike mentions. Table 1 presents the distribution of responses according
to the recoded categories. There is a significant disproportionality
between the number of responses for likes and dislikes. Positive
responses outnumbered negative responses by more than three to one.
This response pattern is consistent with the overwhelmingly positive
approval that constituents tend to accord their representatives (Parker and
Davidson 1979). Across all respondents, individuals were most likely to
mention a symbolic consideration as a reason for liking or disliking their
representative. This behavior is consistent with past research finding
symbolic responsiveness to be of primary importance to constituents
(Lauermann 2001), and it confirms the necessity of representatives
having to explain convincingly their Washington activity when they are
home in their districts (Fenno 1978; Kingdon 1989).

More interesting, however, is the relative level of mentions of issue-
related considerations. While individuals were more likely to mention
policy responses as the next most significant basis of evaluation
regardless of the nature of approval, the relative distribution varied.
Individuals were more likely to list policy as a consideration of
disapproval (33%) than approval (25%). It thus appears that constituents
are more likely to consider policy in their evaluation matrix when there is
perceived dissonance between themselves and their members. Similarly,
they are more likely to punish representatives for perceived policy
disagreement than they are to reward those holding similar issue
positions. Such behavior is consistent with past studies finding
asymmetrical influence of blame relative to credit (Kernell 1977).



Robin Lauermann 77

Table 1

Percentage of Like versus Dislike Mentions
(Frequencies in Parentheses)

Likes Dislikes

Symbolic Responsiveness 52% (642) 50% (194)

Allocative Responsiveness 12% (146) 3% (11)

Service Responsiveness 4% (51) 1% (4)

Policy Responsiveness 25% (315) 33% (130)

Other 7% (88) 12% (46)

Total 100% (1,242) 100% (385)

As for tangible nonpartisan behaviors, district service is more
relevant to constituents than is casework, perhaps because fewer
individuals are likely to seek assistance, whereas pork-barrel benefits are
extended to all people within a constituency regardless of their efforts.
District service is more likely to be mentioned as a positive attribution
than as a negative criticism. Despite public outcries against the allegedly
irresponsible budgetary politics of pork, individuals seem willing to
make exceptions for their own members. Likewise, few individuals
mention service responsiveness as a drawback in evaluating their
members. These actions are therefore overwhelmingly beneficial to
members in building a relationship with constituents.11

How do social and political identities shape evaluations of members?
To answer this question, a more complex analysis is required. Given the
dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, the model including the
identity characteristics was estimated for each of the four types of
responsive behavior mentions using probit estimation techniques. Table
2 summarizes the model estimates.12 The coefficients provide mixed
support for the hypotheses. With respect to ethnicity, African Americans
were less likely to mention policy concerns. They focused instead on
constituency service and symbolic considerations. Older Americans were
most likely to address the way in which members presented themselves
to the constituency. They were also more likely than younger individuals



78 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

to mention both policy and service considerations. Better-educated
individuals were also more likely to mention symbolic considerations.
This finding is especially interesting given that college graduates are
better equipped to process policy concerns. Women were much less
likely than men to mention policy concerns, though given the magnitude
of the coefficients, they were less likely to respond to all mentions. More
conservative individuals were most likely to mention district service
consideration yet less likely to cite issues of casework. Finally, those
from a higher social class were more likely to raise issue concerns and
least concerned with casework, perhaps because such people are less
likely to perceive benefits. Still, class and ideology had only modest
impact on the relevance of any of these considerations. Indeed, only the
influence of social class on policy mentions was statistically significant.

Table 2

Influence of Identity Characteristics
On Responsiveness Relevance

(probit estimates; n=1069 for all models)13

Symbolic Allocative Service Policy

African American .214* .007 .549* -.097

Age .450*** .31*** .179 .199***

Female -.139* -.174* -.048 -.275***

Social Class .035 .038 .005 .071**

Education .203*** .179* .194 .191***

Ideology .007 .028 -.045 .005

LR Chi2 76.92*** 25.14*** 11.05* 41.34***

***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

While the initial estimates provide a general assessment of the
impact of group identities on constituent evaluations, a more specific
estimate is needed since the relationships in the models are nonlinear. No
two individuals are completely alike; each possesses a number of layers



Robin Lauermann 79

of identities with potentially cross-cutting influences. To facilitate the
interpretation of the probit coefficients, Stata’s SPOST commands were
used to estimate probabilities of identity impact providing a sample
interaction among group identity characteristics.

Table 3 presents data showing the variation of two identities:
ethnicity and gender. Among college-educated, middle-class moderates
who are middle-aged, African Americans and white females are most
likely to consider the symbolic way in which members relate to their
constituents. White males, on the other hand, are more likely to weigh
policy concerns as a portion of their evaluation. While district and
casework considerations are much less likely to be noted, African
Americans are more likely than whites to mention casework, while men
are slightly more likely than women to mention district considerations.
Given the similarity in rankings of probabilities across all categories,
however, it is clear that both forms of constituency service are less
important to all these individuals.

Table 3

Probability of Responsiveness Mention among
College-educated, Middle-class, Middle-aged

Individuals of Moderate Ideology

Symbolic Allocative Service Policy

Black male .44 .13 .06 .33

Black female .38 .10 .05 .22

White male .36 .13 .01 .38

White female .29 .09 .01 .25

Since age and education produced some of the strongest coefficients
of influence, predicted probabilities were also estimated to assess the
relative impact of these reference groups on evaluations of member
behavior. Among moderate middle-class whites, young males and
females—regardless of education—were actually most likely to mention
policy concerns, though college-educated men were much more likely



80 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

(.31) to cite policy than were similarly educated women (.22). Middle-
aged women at all levels of education were likely to address symbolic
concerns and policy concerns equally, though middle-aged men were
more likely to provide policy-related comments than symbolic ones.
Older citizens, on the other hand, were most likely to mention symbolic
concerns. Within this category, education provides only a greater
likelihood of responding to representative behavior and not an influence
on the relative importance of different responsive behaviors. While other
layers of identity could be estimated, the purpose of this study is not to
conduct an exhaustive generation of probabilities of potential
interactions. Rather, the results can help to direct future analysis and
theoretical development.

Conclusions

The findings of this study concerning the influences of identity on
constituents’ perceptions of various member-responsive behaviors are
consistent with past research. Given the complexity of assessing the
influence of the multiplicity of identities that each individual may
possess, further research and analysis is needed. Group identities surely
affect individual political perceptions in the representational relationship.
In particular, age, gender, education, and ethnicity exhibit significant yet
varied effects on the relevance of member behavior for each constituent.
These effects result from a combination of self-interest, political
knowledge, concern for others, and life experiences. Future research
should focus on expanded analysis of the effects of group identities on
perceptions of representative behavior with attention devoted to
refinement of measurement. Huddy (2001) asserts that while there may
be value in viewing identity as a fluid factor determined by its contextual
salience, there is also enduring evidence of larger-scale stability in the
role that identity plays. Further attempts to examine the relevance of
contextual salience for this topic are certainly merited. Most important,
this study illustrates the need for research on the constituent perspective
of representation to incorporate the nontangible component of symbolic
responsiveness, as many individuals are likely to reference this type of
activity, regardless of identity.

This topic should also interest House members. Much of the
literature on Congress focuses on member behavior with a presumption
that it matters similarly to all constituents. This study reveals that



Robin Lauermann 81

representatives of districts populated by differing social identities—e.g.,
urban areas with higher proportions of minorities, or districts with large
numbers of older citizens—should take heed to know who comprises
their districts so that they may best represent their constituents’ concerns.
While the relative-ranked importance of each component, represented by
the likelihood of mention, does not always vary across groups, these
factors may make a difference in the outcome of close elections.
Understanding the impact of social identities may help members to
recognize when policy and other concerns are most or least relevant to
voters, thereby strengthening the relationship between representatives
and their constituents. The impact of social and political identities also
demonstrates the importance of continued attention to concerns of
descriptive representation, for just as identities shape constituent
preferences, so too will members’ identities drive their own behaviors.

Appendix

Coding for Like versus Dislike Mentions

Symbolic Mentions: 201, 203, 211–225, 297, 301–320, 334, 335, 397,
401–426 431, 432, 435–442, 447, 449–457, 459–462, 464, 502–505,
603, 604, 609, 610, 613–620, 622, 623, 625, 627, 701–711, 722, 732,
807, 808, 829–838, 841, 842, 845, 846, 1201–1206.

Policy Mentions: 327, 328, 500, 501, 508–520, 531–536, 601, 602, 605–
608, 611, 612, 731, 801–828, 847–849, 897, 900–997, 1001–1047,
1101–1199.

Service Mentions: 321, 322.

Allocative Mentions: 323–326, 329–332.

Group Mentions: 207–1236, 1297.

Other or Not Applicable: 427–430, 433, 434, 443–445, 446, 448, 495–
498, 506, 507, 543, 551–556, 597, 697, 718–730, 796, 797, 843.



82 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

Table A1

Pearson’s Correlations:
Identity Characteristics and Responsiveness Mentions

Age Education Female Ideology Ethnicity
Social
Class

Age 1.00

Education -.125*** 1.00

Female .038 -.042 1.00

Ideology .096*** .011 -.064** 1.00

Ethnicity .134*** .142*** -.034 .134*** 1.00

Social
Class

.089*** .314*** -.011 .099*** .158*** 1.00

Symbolic
Mention

.029 -.014 -.009 -.012 .029 -.026

Allocative
Mention

-.033 .062 -.040 -.009 -.018 .030

Service
Mention

-.009 .057 .029 -.087** .009 .009

Policy
Mention

-.077 .059 .072 .002 -.098** -.061

***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

Notes
1While issue voting is problematic at best (see Campbell, Converse, Miller, and
Stokes 1960; Hurley and Hill 1981; and Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde 2001), it
must be remembered that evaluations are calculated on the basis of subjective
perceptions, accurate or not. Moreover, Bishin (2002) finds that while
constituents may not fulfill a sophisticated level of issue voting, there still are
constraints on representative behavior.
2Credit claiming is a principal electoral activity (Mayhew 1974). It is defined as
“acting so as to generate a belief in a relevant political actor (or actors) that one
is personally responsible for causing the government, or some unit thereof, to do
something that the actor (or actors) consider desirable” (Mayhew 1974, 53).
These actions may include particular benefits to the constituency or groups
within the constituency or for the district as a whole. The idea is that if members



Robin Lauermann 83

can convince their constituents that they were responsible for some positive
government outputs, even in part, then that will work in their favor when they
stand for reelection. Compared with policy matters, casework and project
assistance provide relatively non-controversial and nonpartisan means for
getting constituency approval. Furthermore, it is easier to take credit for smaller
projects than for the passage of a bill (Fiorina, 1989, 44).
3Multivariate analysis is needed to assess the extent to which the policy
differences are not confounded by educational characteristics.
4This is the most recent year for which all variables were available.
5Only one National Election Study survey provides a measure in which
respondents are able to rank various member activities in terms of importance.
While the 1978 NES has a question that allows respondents to rank behaviors, it
does not correspond exactly to concepts here. The concepts included: “Helping
people in the district who have personal problems with the government,”
“Making sure the district gets its fair share of government money and projects,”
“Keeping track of the way government agencies are carrying out laws passed by
Congress,” “Keeping in touch with the people about what government is doing,”
and “Working in Congress on bills concerning national policy.”
6The responses were not coded specifically with respect to the incumbent. Those
respondents who were coded in the race type variable as “Republican incumbent
running” were rated using the House Republican candidate questions and those
with a Democratic incumbent running were rated using the House Democratic
candidate questions. While this method did not permit the inclusion of those
individuals whose incumbent was retiring, there was no measure that would also
allow for a similar evaluation. Few cases lacked an incumbent race, so excluding
them is not problematic.
7This category did not include the comments for whether the representative
conveys the views of the district. These responses were considered to be more
policy-oriented in nature and were coded accordingly.
8Individuals also mentioned the importance of the representative acting on
behalf of or against specific groups. While this categorization does not expressly
fit within the framework established, the significant number of mentions
suggests that it is a worthwhile consideration to measure. This distinction differs
from that of identification, which suggests explicitly that a member is connected
in some social grouping to the constituent. Instead, it provides a measure of
relevance of group connections irrespective of the characteristics of the
constituent. Only a handful of responses were included in this category,
however, so a separate model of estimation was not included in this study. The
remaining responses were placed in a residual category because they typically
bore no relation to any consideration of responsiveness, such as campaign-
specific comments indicating support of candidates because they were the
underdog.
9In this study, identity serves as a factor influencing the constituent’s opinion,
not as a measure of descriptive congruence, as used for example by Box-



84 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

Steffensmeier, Kimball, Meinke, and Tate (2003). Therefore, whether
individuals who share important identity characteristics with their
representatives have more favorable evaluations is an issue worth exploring, it is
beyond the scope of this particular project.
10The decision to place both Hispanic and Asian American individuals in the
non-white category was based not on the erroneous assumption that all
minorities tend to respond with the same characteristics, but on the small pool
of Hispanic and Asian Americans (due to missing values). Analyzing these two
groups separately would not produce statistically meaningful results given the
limited number of cases.
11While these results are instructive, it is important to place the actual responses
within the larger potential framework. As the unit of analysis is the mention and
not the respondent, the 1,600 cases are much fewer than if each respondent gave
four mentions of like and dislike, which would result in 7,200 cases (based on
the 1,807 person sample) for each set of evaluations. Even if all people
mentioned only one item of like and dislike, it would produce over 3,600 units
for analysis.
12Bivariate correlations presented in Table A1 reveal no significant multi-
colinearity concerns.
13The limited number of statistically significant coefficients for the service
model is likely due to a small number of responses for this category relative to
the other models.

References

Abramson, Paul, John Aldrich, and David Rohde. 2001. Change and Continuity in the
2000 Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Bishin, Benjamin. 2002. “What Constituents Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them:
Representation and Constituent Ignorance.” Presented at the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Boston.

Bianco, William. 1994. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, David Kimball, Scott Meinke, and Katherine Tate. 2003. “The
Effects of Political Representations on the Electoral Advantages of House
Incumbents.” Political Research Quarterly 56(3): 259–270.

Burns, Nancy, Donald Kinder, Stephen Rosenstone, Virginia Sapiro, and the National
Election Studies. 2002. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 2000: PRE-
AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY [Computer file]. 2nd ICPSR version. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], 2001. Ann
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
[distributor].

Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency
Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.



Robin Lauermann 85

Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The
American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1988. “Feminists and the Gender Gap.” Journal of Politics
50(1): 985–1,010.

Cover, Albert. 1977. “One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency
in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 21(3): 523–539.

Dolan, Kathleen. 2001. “Electoral Context, Issues, and Voting for Women in the 1990s.”
Women & Politics 23(1): 21–36.

Erikson, Robert, and Kent Tedin. 2005. American Public Opinion. 6th ed. Boston:
Pearson Longman.

Erikson, Robert, and Gerald Wright. 1993. “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in
Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, 5th ed., eds. Lawrence Dodd
and Bruce Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 91–114.

Eulau, Heinz, and Philip Karps. 1978. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying
Components of Responsiveness.” In The Politics of Representation, eds. Heinz Eulau
and John Wahlke. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 55–69.

Fenno, Richard Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little
Brown.

Fenno, Richard Jr. 1996. Senators on the Campaign Trail: The Politics of Representation.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven,
CT: Yale University. Press.

Fiorina, Morris. 1982. “Congressmen and their Constituencies: 1958 and 1978.” In
Proceedings of the Thomas P. O'Neill. Jr. Symposium on the U.S. Congress, ed.
Dennis Hale. Boston: Eusey Press, pp. 33–64.

Fiorina, Morris. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Glynn, Carroll, Susan Herbst, Garrett O’Keefe, Robert Shapiro, and Mark Lindeman.
1999. Public Opinion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Griffin, Jack, and Patrick Flavin. 2007. “Racial Differences in Information, Expectations,
and Accountability.” Journal of Politics 69(10): 220–236.

Hogg, Michael, Deborah Terry, and Katherine White. 1995. “A Tale of Two Theories: A
Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory.” Social
Psychology Quarterly 58(4): 255–269.

Huddy, Leonie. 2001. “From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of
Social Identity Theory.” Political Psychology 22(1): 127-156.

Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of
Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 119–
147.

Hurley, Patricia, and Kim Hill. 1980. “The Prospects for Issue Voting in Contemporary
Congressional Elections: An Assessment of Citizen Awareness and Representation.”
American Politics Quarterly 8(4): 425–458.



86 VIEWING REPRESENTATIVE BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL IDENTITY

Jacobson, Gary. 1981. “Incumbents’ Advantages in the 1978 Congressional Elections.”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 6: 183–200.

Jacobson, Gary. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 5th ed. Boston: Longman.

Johannes, John, and John MacAdams. 1981. “The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is it
Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else? An Examination of the 1978
Election.” American Journal of Political Science 25(3): 512–541.

Key, V.O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–
1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kaufmann, Karen, and John Petrocik. 1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men:
Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap.” American Journal of Political
Science 43(3): 864–887.

Kinder, Donald R., and David O. Sears. 1985. “Public Opinion and Political Action.” In
The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 3rd ed., eds. Garner Lindzey, and Elliot
Aronson. New York: Random House, 659–714.

Kingdon, John. 1989. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.

Lane, Robert E. 1974. “Patterns of Political Belief.” In The Handbook of Political
Psychology, ed. Jeanne Knutson. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 83–116.

Lauermann, Robin. 2001. Evaluations of Responsiveness: The Constituent Perspective of
Representation. Ph.D. diss. State University of New York at Buffalo.

Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Miller, Warren, and Donald Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress,” The
American Political Science Review 57(1): 45-56

Parker, Glenn. 1989. “The Role of Constituent Trust in Congressional Elections.” Public
Opinion Quarterly 53(2): 175–196.

Parker, Glenn, and Roger Davidson. 1979. “Why Do Americans Love their Congressmen
So Much More Than Their Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4(1): 53–61.

Rivers, David, and Morris Fiorina. 1989. “Constituency Service, Reputation, and the
Incumbency Advantage.” In Home Style and Washington Work: Studies of
Congressional Politics, eds. Morris Fiorina and David Rohde. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 17–45.

Serra, George. 1991. “What’s in it for Me? The Impact of Congressional Casework on
Incumbent Evaluations.” American Politics Quarterly 22(4): 403–420.

Serra, George, and Albert Cover. (1992). “The electoral consequences of perquisite use:
The casework case.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 27: 233–246.

Serra, George, and David Moon. 1994. “Casework, Issue Positions, and Voting in
Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 56(1): 200–213.

Sigelman, Lee, Carol Sigelman, and Barbara Walkosz. 1992. “The Public and the
Paradox of Leadership: An Experimental Analysis.” American Political Science
Review 36(2): 366–385.



Robin Lauermann 87

Stein, Robert, and Kenneth Bickers. 1994. “Congressional Elections and the Pork
Barrel.” Journal of Politics 56(2): 377–399.

Stets, Jan, and Peter Burke. 2000. “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.” Social
Psychology Quarterly 63(3): 224–237.

Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their
Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Turner, John. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Wahlke, John. 1978. “Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the
Represented.” In The Politics of Representation, eds. Heinz Eulau and John Wahlke.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 73–90.

Yiannakis, Diana. 1981. “The Grateful Electorate: Casework and Congressional
Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 25(3): 568–580.


