On the Limits of Officials'Ability to Change Citizens'Priorities TABLE 1. Partnering Officials # Location Population Position Gender Constituents in Study Northeast ≈15K Councilor Female 9 South ~7K Mayor Female South 30K Councilor Male 20 Midwest 125K Councilor Male TABLE 2. Issues City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 Water quality ·Natural trails ·Term limits ·Bike lanes ·Community center ·Rec facilities ·Referenda ·Cleaning up the city ·Expand sewer system ·More special events Benefits for city officials ·Street repair Impact fees for ·Developing a common ·City credit card use Economic development development use area ·Nepotism laws Standards for private Off-shore oil drilling Ethical guidelines for roads city officials 4r元 two were men.One official was the mayor,while the I believe the city should consider this and it should other three were city councilors. be a medium priority for [name of city/town]. The collaborative experiments were carried out dur- I believe the city should consider this and it should ing the spring and summer of 2016.We designed and be a high priority for name of city/town. implemented these experiments to maximize external validity.For example,we had the officials decide what The text of the surveys is provided in Section SI.2 issues they would write about and we had them draft of the Supplementary Material.Because we are inter- the text of the emails.We also had them contact the ested in the ability of officials to affect their supporters' constituents using email because that is how they nor- priorities,we recruited citizens for the study from the mally contacted the constituents in the study.We car- participating officials'email distribution lists.The sur- ried out the study by taking the following steps(which vey recruitment email came from us as researchers and are summarized in Figure 1): explained that we were studying local policy priorities The full text of the invitation to take the survey is pro- vided in SI.1 of the Supplementary Material. 55.501g 1.Identify the issues.We asked each partnering official to identify four to six issues for which they were in terested in building support.We asked them to pick 3.Identifying the Sampling Frame.We used two cri- concrete goals that were relevant for their city and teria to determine which individuals would be in- for which they were willing to write about in com- cluded in the study.First,at the end of the survey we munications with citizens.Table 2 gives an overview asked participants if they would be willing to take of the issues that the officials chose for this study. a follow-up survey.Our study only includes the par- The officials also drafted the text of the issue used ticipants who answered that they would be willing to in the email messages they sent.We had the officials take a follow-up survey.Second,we limited the sam- choose the topics and draft the letter to increase the pling frame to those individuals who agreed with the external validity of the study.Our study looks at the official on an issue but did not think that the issue in effect of the types of messages that elected officials question should be a high priority for the city.10 For would send. 10 One concern might be that individuals who indicated that an is 2.Baseline Surveys.We conducted online surveys sue should be a low or medium priority for the city were actually of expressing weak opposition.This does not seem to be the case as a residents in each city that asked them about their substantial portion of these individuals were willing to sign a peti- positions on the issues that the official had identified. tion on the issue.On the post-treatment survey,14%of those who For each issue,citizens chose one of four responses: expressed the issue should not be a priority for the city were willing to sign the petition.If we include those who expressed that it was a medium priority for the city,that number rises to 28%.The will- I do not support doing this and it should not be a ingness of these individuals to sign a petition on an issue that was /:sony priority for [name of city/town]. not a high priority,or even a medium priority,suggests that this was I believe the city should consider this but it should not something they opposed.Moreover,rerunning the analyses be- low including only those who expressed that the issue was a medium not be a priority for name of city/town. priority for the city does not change the substantive results. 863On the Limits of Officials’ Ability to Change Citizens’ Priorities TABLE 1. Partnering Officials # Location Population Position Gender Constituents in Study 1 Northeast ∼ 15K Councilor Female 89 2 South ∼ 7K Mayor Female 68 3 South ∼ 30K Councilor Male 20 4 Midwest ∼ 125K Councilor Male 67 TABLE 2. Issues City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 • Water quality • Community center • Expand sewer system • Impact fees for development • Standards for private roads • Natural trails • Rec facilities • More special events • Developing a common use area • Off-shore oil drilling • Term limits • Referenda • Benefits for city officials • City credit card use • Nepotism laws • Ethical guidelines for city officials • Bike lanes • Cleaning up the city • Street repair • Economic development two were men. One official was the mayor, while the other three were city councilors. The collaborative experiments were carried out dur￾ing the spring and summer of 2016. We designed and implemented these experiments to maximize external validity. For example, we had the officials decide what issues they would write about and we had them draft the text of the emails. We also had them contact the constituents using email because that is how they nor￾mally contacted the constituents in the study. We car￾ried out the study by taking the following steps (which are summarized in Figure 1): 1. Identify the issues. We asked each partnering official to identify four to six issues for which they were in￾terested in building support. We asked them to pick concrete goals that were relevant for their city and for which they were willing to write about in com￾munications with citizens. Table 2 gives an overview of the issues that the officials chose for this study. The officials also drafted the text of the issue used in the email messages they sent. We had the officials choose the topics and draft the letter to increase the external validity of the study. Our study looks at the effect of the types of messages that elected officials would send. 2. Baseline Surveys. We conducted online surveys of residents in each city that asked them about their positions on the issues that the official had identified. For each issue, citizens chose one of four responses: I do not support doing this and it should not be a priority for [name of city/town]. I believe the city should consider this but it should not be a priority for [name of city/town]. I believe the city should consider this and it should be a medium priority for [name of city/town]. I believe the city should consider this and it should be a high priority for [name of city/town]. The text of the surveys is provided in Section SI.2 of the Supplementary Material. Because we are inter￾ested in the ability of officials to affect their supporters’ priorities, we recruited citizens for the study from the participating officials’ email distribution lists. The sur￾vey recruitment email came from us as researchers and explained that we were studying local policy priorities. The full text of the invitation to take the survey is pro￾vided in SI.1 of the Supplementary Material. 3. Identifying the Sampling Frame. We used two cri￾teria to determine which individuals would be in￾cluded in the study. First, at the end of the survey we asked participants if they would be willing to take a follow-up survey. Our study only includes the par￾ticipants who answered that they would be willing to take a follow-up survey. Second, we limited the sam￾pling frame to those individuals who agreed with the official on an issue but did not think that the issue in question should be a high priority for the city.10 For 10 One concern might be that individuals who indicated that an is￾sue should be a low or medium priority for the city were actually expressing weak opposition. This does not seem to be the case as a substantial portion of these individuals were willing to sign a peti￾tion on the issue. On the post-treatment survey, 14% of those who expressed the issue should not be a priority for the city were willing to sign the petition. If we include those who expressed that it was a medium priority for the city, that number rises to 28%. The will￾ingness of these individuals to sign a petition on an issue that was not a high priority, or even a medium priority, suggests that this was not something they opposed. Moreover, rerunning the analyses be￾low including only those who expressed that the issue was a medium priority for the city does not change the substantive results. 863 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000473