CONTACTING ON THE LOCAL AND EXTRALOCAL LEVELS: RESULTS FROM THE 1987 GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY (NORC)

CONTACTING ON THE LOCAL AND EXTRALOCAL LEVELS: RESULTS FROM THE 1987 GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY (NORC) Carol Ann Traut University of South Dakota Craig F. Emmert Texas Tech University The contacting ofpublic oficials is a major form of political participation. Using data from the 1987 NORC General Social Survey, this study expands the scope of contacting research by examining the determinants of contact- ing behavior at the state and national level as well as at the local level. Overall contacting at the local level is determined by SES, eflcacy, awareness, and political ties. At the extralocal level, race, ideology (liber- alism), and personal economic dissatisfaction are also significant factors. When contactors are divided into general-referent and particularized- referent contactors, wefind that SES is an important determinantforgeneral but not for particularized contacting. D e s c r i b i n g the conditions under which citizens interact with their government continues to be a major area of study in American politics. One way in which people can interact with government is to contact government directly on issues of specific importance to them. These contacts can be important to individuals who are able to express both personal needs and wants and more general policy preferences in a straightforward way. Nearly all of the past studies of citizen-initiated contacting had two limitations. One is that such studies have been limited to contacting in one or a few cities with the results likely confounded by city-specific factors. Second, the research has been limited to the local government context. This is unfortu- nate because, while a lot of money is spent maintaining national offices and staff in part to allow citizen input into extralocal governmental policies, there is little information on exactly who is more likely to interact with state and national government leaders. In this study, we expand the scope of contacting research beyond the local context first by looking at contacting, using data from the 1987 NORC Southeastern Political Review Volume 23 No. 2 June 1995 246 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 General Social Survey. We then compare people who contact locally with those who contact officials outside the local government environment to see if the factors that explain local contacting also apply at the extralocal governmental level. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Citizen-initiated contacting plays a unique role in the study of political participation because of its direct nature. Other major forms of participation (i.e., voting and campaigning, interest-group activity, communal activities) most often provide citizens with only a general, imprecise means of com- municating individual policy wishes. Electoral choices and the organiza- tion structures of interest groups and their responsiveness (or lack of) to members restrict people’s abilities to express their policy wishes. For example, Verba and Nie’s (1972) now-classic description of voting as a “blunt instrument” for expressing individual opinions still holds true since most elections, national or state, select officeholders rather than determine specific policy directions. Citizen-initiated contacting differs from other types of political participation in that individuals can contact when, where, and how they wish upon the subject of their choice (Verba and Nie 1972). There are two theoretical explanations that researchers have relied on for explaining contacting. First, contacting, as a form of political partici- pation, it is held by one school, will be influenced by socioeconomic status (SES) and SES-linked factors. The other view of contacting looks upon contacting as “consumer politics,” to use Coulter’s (1988) description, It is need that motivates people to contact their officials, regardless of their socioeconomic status or acquired political skills. According to the first perspective, increased political participation, including contacting, is most often linked to higher socioeconomic status which in turn brings skills, resources, and psychological attributes that make it easier for people to participate. Research on contacting has found a negligible to weak positive relationship between SES and contacting al- though specific attributes, generally the result of higher socioeconomic advantages, theoretically apply to this type of participation (Verba and Nie 1972; Hirlinger 1992; Hero 1986; Sharp 1982, 1984). Given the American commitment to equality and its history of group conflict, researchers continue to examine the relationship between the attitudes and opinions of various groups and political participation. Minori- ties have been less likely to participate generally unless they have been specifically mobilized through group interests to do so (Murray and Vedlitz 1977). Bob0 and Gilliam (1990) and Tate (1991) have also found that, in Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 247 voting, blacks sometimes participate at a rate equal to, to greater than, that of whites when SES is controlled for, when there are black officeholders in the community, or when black candidates stimulate black participation. Given the greater personal effort required to contact as opposed to voting, however, minorities are less likely to contact public officials at the local level although the differences between whites and nonwhites may or may not be statistically significant, depending upon the type or context of the contact (Hirlinger 1992; Traut and Emmert 1993). While SES itself has moderate effects on contacting, there are specific attributes, most often linked with SES, that are especially applicable to contacting. Because contacting requires such high initiative (e.g. seeking out the appropriate official and then writing letters or calling), political efficacy, or the perceived ability to influence government and the sense that government is responsive to requests, is theoreticalIy very important. The research has not always found that efficacy is a significant variable. Some research has found that even people with low levels of efficacy are likely to contact (Hero 1986). Other research finds efficacy to have a positive effect on contacting (Thomas 1982). Knowledge of whom and how to contact, or political awareness, is also an important variable in contacting- more so than in other forms of political Participation where people act and share knowledge in groups (e.g., campus activities) or where the mechanics of participation are carefully detailed by the government and the media (as in voting). Need has been a second important theoretical construct in contacting research. Because contacting allows direct communication with govem- ment, citizens are able to make specific requests. Therefore, traditional measures of political participation that rely on socioeconomic status and related variables may not be the only explanations for contacting. That is, when need is seen as great enough, people will overcome traditional personal barriers to political participation. A classic model used to explain contacting has been one which argues that need combined with political awareness drives contacting-people with moderate needs and moderate levels of political awareness are most likely to contact (Jones et al. 1977). This model has not always been supported in subsequent research. As Vedlitz, Dyer, and Durand (1980) asserted, findings are very much affected by characteristics unique to a particular local setting. Using neighborhood conditions or socioeconomic status, as these studies have done, as both measures of awareness and need is sometimes unnecessary, especially in survey research which very likely has separate measures for individual economic status, need, and political awareness. 248 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 Another approach to measuring need has been based on the definition of need as perceived problems in one’s environment or evaluations of government responses to conditions in the individual’s environment (Sharp 1982; Thomas 1982; Traut and Emmert 1993). Perceived inadequate gov- ernmental responses have increased contacting behavior.’ This approach postulates that people are more likely to contact officials if they feel that the government response has been inadequate or that there are problems that government should be addressing. A third approach to measuring need has focused on the individual’s perceived level of personal economic well-being. Evaluations of personal financial well-being can be translated into demands by individuals who feel their needs are not currently being addressed by government at whatever level. This is the approach employed in this study. Research on the effects of perceived personal economic well-being on the likelihood of participa- tion has had mixed results. Some researchers have found that evaluations of personal need increase political activism, particularly at the local level which encourages demandmaking on the part of citizens (Yates 1978). Other researchers have argued that citizens in this country do not expect government to respond to problems seen as purely personal ones (Kinder and Kiewiet 1979; Brody and Sniderman 1977). This study allows us to test whether perceptions of economic well-being affect contact behavior and whether the relationship is consistent at different levels of government. CONTACTING IN THE EXTRALOCAL CONTEXT Most research on contacting has focused on the local political environ- ment. Research looking at contacting beyond the local level has generally concentrated on the viewpoints of the legislators, rather than those of citizens, and analyzed legislative roles and functions (Davidson 1969). We do know that the “errand-boy’’ role, or constituency casework, is regarded by legislators as both very time consuming and important in terms of service obligations and electoral benefits (Davidson 1969; Fenno 1978; Wahike et al. 1962). Therefore, officials will likely encourage citizen contacts, par- ticularly when the official can respond in a helpful manner to the contactor. Despite the opportunities for contacting extralocal officials, Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina (1985) find that less than 20 percent actually do contact their representatives. While there is reason to believe that both SES and SES-linked factors and need influence the contacting of extralocal government officials, need is likely to have a stronger influence at the local level. Researchers such as Yates (1978) and Sharp (1984) have described the relationship between Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 249 citizens and local government as one of “entitlement;” that is, citizens feel that they are due specific services and therefore are within their rights to demand responsiveness. Citizens receive clear and more readily measur- able services on a frequent basis from local government. Therefore, they are more certain about what they receive, what they can expect, and what they can demand than they are in evaluating extralocal government services. The demandmaking of which Yates speaks is further enhanced by the greater accessibility of local government officials. Therefore, need is more likely to motivate contacting at the local level. We believe that one difference between contacting at the local versus extralocal levels is that contacting is more likely linked to ideology at the extralocal level. Research on contacting has generally ignored the role of ideology in determining whether or not people contact. However, Sharp ( 1984) argued that contacting would be affected by people’s beliefs con- cerning governmental activities and responsibilities. We would expect that the local-extralocal distinction would affect the influence of ideology on contacting. In the local government setting, there have been fewer debates about what services government should be offering, and often the debate is over means. Increasing local government activities created by mandates from the state and national levels have been very clearly and publicly singled out by local officials as impositions by higher levels of government (Flynn 1992; Sylvester 1989). Consequently, the public has been able to distin- guish between traditional activities of local government and those imposed upon them. On the other hand, ideological splits become prominent at the state and national levels where debate over governmental activities has a long history. Clearly, liberal-conservative beliefs hinge very broadly upon alternative views of governmental activism. Liberals are described as supporting expanded governmental roles, particularly in the areas of business regula- tion, the economy, and social welfare while conservatives support a more limited governmental role. On the other hand, conservatives do indeed support broader governmental regulation in areas of social mores (Smith 1990). Individuals holding clear-cut beliefs, either liberal or conservative, generally demonstrate higher levels of political activity (Verba and Nie 1972). We thus expect that people expressing ideological positions will be more likely to contact at the extralocal level. DATA AND METHODOLOGY This study uses data from the 1987 NORC General Social Survey with 1466 respondents. In the study, people were asked two questions about 250 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 contacting: (1 ) Have you ever personally gone to see, or spoken to, or written to-some member of local government or some other person of influence in the community about some needs or problems? and (2) What about some representatives or governmental officials outside of the local community-on the county, state, or national level? Have you ever con- tacted or written to such a person on some need or problem? The first question dealing with local contacting differs from that used in most studies in that it includes people of influence as well as local government officials. However, we do not believe this is a serious shortcoming since the percent- age responding “yes” (34.8) to this question is similar to the findings of other researchers on local contacting. Almost 30 percent said they had contacted officials beyond the local level. We constructed a model to explain contacting behavior at the local and extralocal levels. The first variable included in the model is socioeconomic status (SES), here represented by an index combining an educational achievement question and a family income question (alpha = .5 1). We also included a variable for black. Race was coded 0 for white and 1 for black ( 19 1 respondents).2 Psychological variables include political awareness and efficacy. Politi- cal awareness, defined in this study as familiarity with major political figures locally and state- and nation-wide, is measured by an index com- posed of three questions: (1) Could you tell me the name of the governor of this state? (2) Do you happen to know the name of the congressperson from this district? and (3) What is the name of the head of the local school system? (alpha = 34). Efficacy is measured by an index of two questions: (1 ) How much influence do you think people like you can have over local government decision-a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or none at all? and (2) If you had some complaint about a local government activity and took that complaint to a member of the local government council, would you expect him or her to pay a lot of attention to what you say, some attention, very little attention, or none at all? (alpha = .53).3 Activism in a group setting has long been considered a stimulant to participation in the political arena (Verba and Nie 1972). One test of the effects of activism has been Zuckerman and West’s (1985) “political ties” model which indicated that people active in campaigns and political parties feel a greater connection to the government officials elected and therefore feel more obligated and more willing to put subsequent demands on people in office. The “political ties” model here was tested by an index consisting of a question asking whether the person worked in a political campaign and one asking whether the person gave money to a candidate (alpha = .44). Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 251 Need is measured in this study by the following question: During the last few years, has your financial situation been getting worse, has it stayed the same, or [gotten] better?4 We expect that people who answer that their financial situation is getting worse (coded 1) are more likely to contact government than those who answer that their situation has stayed the same or has gotten better (coded 0). Last, we felt that those who identified themselves as possessing stronger political beliefs, whether liberal or conservative, would be more likely to contact. Both ideological positions theoretically support governmental activity in certain areas of economic and social life. The effects should be greater for extralocal contacting since abstract political questions are dealt with there while more concrete issues of service delivery dominate debates at the local level. We also felt that liberals would be more likely overall than conservatives to make demands on government. Thus the impact of the liberal variable should be greater than that of the conservative variable. The variable liberal is coded 1 if respondents described themselves as liberal and 0 if they described themselves as moderate to conservative; the variable conservative is coded 1 if respondents described themselves as conservative, and 0 if moderate to liberaL5 Finally, a common distinction is made in contacting research between people who contact primarily for themselves and their families and those who claim that they contact for others in the community or in the same situation. Research has found that particularized contactors are motivated primarily by need and that generalized contactors are motivated by the traditional array of socioeconomic and attitudinal variables (Verba and Nie 1972; Zuckerman and West 1985; Sharp 1982, 1984; Traut and Emmert 1993). We operationalize generalized and particularized contacting at each level based upon the responses to the following question: Was this need or problem [that led to the contact] primarily of concern to you-your friends and family, or was it an issue of wider concern? At the local level, slightly over 10 percent of the respondents reported contacting about particularized concerns while 25 percent reported contacting about issues of wider con- cern. At the extralocal level, just over seven percent reported contacting about particularized concerns; about 22 percent for broader concerns. FINDINGS Comparison of Contacting a t the Local and Extralocal Levels In our general comparison of local and extralocal contactors, we ex- pected to find that socioeconomic status as well as the more specific 252 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 psychological attributes of political awareness and efficacy would affect contacting at both levels. We expected to find that whites would be more likely to contact at both levels. Political activism in the form of political ties was also expected to increase the likelihood of contacting. We likewise explored the effect of need, here operationalized by individuals’ perceptions of their financial situations in the past few years. Finally, we explored the impact of liberal and conservative ideological views on contacting behavior. Table 1 shows the logistic regression analysis results for the contacting of local and extralocal officials. The models improve our ability to explain contacting behavior at both levels as the reduction of error statistics show. We note that most of our expectations are supported. People of higher socioeconomic status with higher levels of efficacy and awareness are more likely to contact officials at both levels. All three of the coefficients (SES, efficacy, and awareness) are positive and statistically significant. Likewise, the positive and significant coefficients for the effects of political ties on contacting indicate that Zuckerman and West’s political-ties model is also supported: people who have been involved in the electoral campaign process are more likely to make demands on those now in office. Three variables are worthy of particular attention. The effect of race (black) is negative at both levels (but statistically significant only at the extralocal level, indicating that, in this study, minority contacting is not below that for whites). We feel that this is the case because the issues over which people contact local officials are so immediately relevant (e.g., police, fire services). This relevancy or, in some cases, urgency overcomes any reluctance of minorities to contact local government. Extralocal offi- cials, on the other hand, deal with issues less connected to day-to-day living and the process of contacting these officials is more difficult so that there is less minority willingness to engage in this type of participation. Further- more, unlike with voting, there is less likely to be a widespread mass media effort to get people to contact officials, a fact which would lessen even more the likelihood of minority contacts. Our measure of need, people’s evaluations of their personal financial situations, indicates that people reporting increased financial difficulties are more likely to contact at both the local and extralocal levels (although this finding is statistically significant only at the extralocal level). Since, as has been argued in previous research, there is often a relationship between personal economic well-being and demands put upon government, we feel that this measure provides a satisfactory, although not always significant, assessment of needs for which people hold government responsible.6 Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 253 Table 1 Factors Affecting Citizen Contacting of Local and Extralocal Public Officials Dependent Variable Contacted Local Contacted Extralocal Independent Variable Official Official (3.02)* (4.64) * Socioeconomic Status .03 .05 Black -.21 -1.07 (1.09) (4.31)* Efficacy .28 .25 Political Ties .90 .82 Political Awareness .2 1 .3 1 Financial Situation Getting .29 .57 (5.72)* (4.81)* (9.92)* (8.76)* (3.09) (4.32)* Worse ( I .78) (3.37)* Liberal .20 .58 ( I .30) (3.52) * Conservative -.02 .27 (.I61 ( I .72) (10.61)* ( 1 1.83)* Constant -3.91 -4.87 Chi-square 276 87 Degrees of Freedom 8 Probability 000 I Number of Cases Correctly Predicted: null I305 65.16% 322.09 8 ,000 I I404 70.21% 74.64% I5 .OO% As we had anticipated, ideology comes into play at the extralocal level only. Liberals, who generally support a more expansive role for govem- ment, are more likely to contact higher level officials. Conservatives are not more likely than moderates to contact higher level officials.’ Again, we believe that at the local level, government is seen as a service provider dealing with very instrumental concerns while extralocal officials often deal 254 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 with more broad-based and abstract issues, which are more likely to stimulate contacting on the basis of strongly felt policy positions, even those not immediately affecting a person’s personal life. Particularized- and General-Referent Contacting Table 2 presents the explanatory model results for particularized and general-referent contacting at the local and extra- local levels. As the table shows, the model improves our ability to explain general-referent contact- ing at both levels by more than 15 percent. There is little or no improvement provided by the particularized contacting models. This result is probably due in large part to the highly skewed nature of the dependent variable for particularized contacting. SES has a positive and significant influence only for general-referent contacting at both levels of government. This is consistent with hypotheses that the need to contact officials on purely personal matters (particularized- referent contacting) allows people to overcome any lack of political attrib- utes so important in other types of participation. Of special significance is the finding that the relationship between race (black) and contacting is negative for both levels and for both particularized- and general-referent contacting although statistically significant only at the extralocal level. As we found in our overall analysis (Table l), contacting above the local level poses more of a problem for minorities than does contacting local govern- ment officials. Need, as we have argued above, is an important concept in explaining contacting. Evaluations of worsening personal financial conditions increase the likelihood of contacting (although statistically significant only for general-referent contacting at the extralocal level). This is contrary to the expectation that need would be important especially at the local level and for particularized-referent contacting which focuses on subjects imme- diately salient to the individual. This result occurred, we believe, because of the way in which need was measured. Although the variable is in the expected direction (those who feel their situations are worsening are more likely to contact), i t does not completely capture the distinct concerns of particularized-referent contactors. Evaluations of personal economic well- being, on the other hand, are more connected to evaluations of general economic conditions for which governments are held responsible. Therefore, those who are concerned over their personal well-being and who are contacting on behalf of others as well as themselves (general-referent contactors) are also implicitly linking such evaluations with national performance and so are more motivated to contact. Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 255 Table 2 Factors Affecting Particularized- and General-Referent Contacting of Local and Extralocal Public Officials Dependent Variable Contacted Local Contacted Extralocal Official: 0 ffici a I : Independent Variable For Self For Others For Self For Others Socioeconomic Status .01 .04 .01 .07 Black - . I7 - .24 -1.36 -.95 Efficacy . I 4 .35 .I5 .29 Political Ties .75 .95 .34 .98 (5.34)* (9.57)* (2. I3)* (9.52)* Political Awareness .23 . I 8 .28 .3 1 (2.28)* (2.41)* (3.40) * (3.83)* Financial Situation .24 .26 .47 .54 Getting Worse (.98) (1.42) (1.82) (2.82)* Li beral .32 .I8 .58 .54 (1.37) (1.01) (2.26)* (2.88)* Conservative .07 -.03 .05 .32 ( 3 2 ) (. 17) (.20) (1.75) (.76) (3.1 1 )* (.76) (5.14)* ( . 5 8 ) (1.52) (2.87) * (3.41)* ( I .92 j (6.23)' ( I .88j (4.95)* Constant -3.81 -4.88 -4.15 -6.02 (7.17j* ( 1 I .07)* (6.85)* ( 1 2. IS)* Chi-square 63 61 267 82 43 75 339 69 Degrees of Freedom 8 8 8 8 Probabi lily 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 Number ot C a w 1052 I263 1080 1300 Correctly Predicted null 86 70% 72 21% 90 46% 75 15% model 86 79% 77 51% 90 46% 79 25% Reduction of Error 0 0 1 8 I9 01% 0 00% I6 45% Awareness of political officials has a positive and significant effect for both particularized- and general-referent contacting at both levels of gov- ernment. Having political ties is important regardless of type of contact and governmental level. Although not statistically significant for particular- ized-referent contacting at either level, efficacy has a positive effect on 256 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 contacting government officials generally. Finally, we see that liberalism has a positive impact across the board but attains statistical significance only when people contact extralocal officials while conservative beliefs do not affect contacting. CONCLUSION The models we present improve our ability to explain contacting behav- ior at both the local and extralocal levels. Three findings seem theoretically important for increasing our knowledge of contacting behavior. First, people are willing to contact local government, regardless of race, but minorities appear to be less willing to interact with higher levels of govern- ment. This presents some concern because it indicates that minorities do not express their views to extralocal policymakers and so may not have as much influence at the higher levels of policymaking. On the other hand, the fact that there is no statistically significant difference between white and minority contacting locally indicates that minorities may indeed be willing to contact officials at local levels of government. There is a need for more in-depth study of minority contacting, as thorough as those which study minority voting. Second, our findings regarding people’s evaluations of their personal economic well-being provide some support for the belief that people link their personal financial well-being with what government, especially na- tional government, does. This measure of need, although it is connected to subsequent demands for governmental responses, does not provide for analysis of more specific problems or perceptions of governmental ade- quacy. Given that contacting is an instrumental activity, such measures likely would have increased the explanatory power of our models, espe- cially for particularized contacting. Finally, this study has indicated that contacting is a strongly instrumental activity at the local level even without a more clearly defined measure of need. Abstract beliefs concerning governmental expansion and activism do not play a significant role in contacting at the local level. Clearly, people who contact local government, regardless of their political beliefs. do so expecting specific responses. However, with extralocal contacting, ideology does play a role. As we move from the local and more easily accessed local government environ- ment to higher levels of government, the ability to define problems and assign responsibility becomes more difficult, and possible solutions to problems become more debatable. Self-reported liberalism, even after controlling for socioeconomic status, encourages such contacting whether Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 257 for self or others. In addition to the specific issues addressed in the contact, contacting at the extralocal level is more likely to be used as a vehicle for expressing abstract beliefs about the role of government and what broad public policy directions government should take. Where local contacting appears to remain a viable avenue for communicating specific wants and needs, extralocal contacting contains an element of symbolic expression of political beliefs. In this study, we have found support for the thesis that contacting is a form of political participation motivated by variables of the standard socio- economic model. At the same time, the instrumental nature of contacting, not so well defined because of the data in this survey, continues to influence behavior, most important for particularized-referent contacting. We make this argument based upon the fact that socioeconomic status is significant for general-referent contacting, but not for particularized-referent contact- ing. As previous researchers have found, people who contact for personal reasons are less motivated by civic attitudes reflected in socioeconomic variables and more by the wish to express some very specific desire (Traut 1990; Traut and Emmert 1993). We also find that there is no difference in the likelihood of whites or blacks contacting at the local level, where immediate and concrete outcomes are more likely to be forthcoming. Last, we do find a connection between personal economic well-being and the propensity to contact, although the relationship is significant only for contacting for others at the extralocal level. Our measure of ideology and findings of its relevance for extralocal contacting suggests that more sophisticated measures of the effect of liberalism and conservatism ought to be employed in future contacting research. Since we have found that whites are more likely to contact at the extralocal level, continued explorations of black and minority political participation in ways other than voting ought to be encouraged. Finally, there has been research on motivations for contacting and research on governmental responses to citizen requests, but no research that combines the two sides of the coin. Research that explores both contacting and subsequent responses by government officials would be invaluable. NOTES 'We are constrained from employing such a measure by our use of a national survey. The General Social Survey did not ask questions about government performance in specific areas or about problems in one's environment. But see Note 4. 258 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 ’We also ran the model with a race variable, combining the 191 blacks and 53 “other racial groups” (the NORC data combined other racial groups into their “other race” category so that breakdowns into other groups besides white and black (e.g., Hispanic and Asian) is not possible. The results were consistent with those presented in this paper. ”here were no efficacy questions about citizen interactions with gov- ernment officials above the local level so the same variable was used in the extralocal model because we feel that efficacy at the local level will translate into efficacy i n dealing with higher levels of government. “s indicated in Note I , the data set contained no questions on problems or governmental performance assessments. We were able to create an index to approximate the above measures of need. The GSS asked six questions on governmental spending on environment, health care, crime, drug control, education, and welfare to a subset of the sample. Responses of “too little spending” i n any, some, or all of these areas were interpreted as need. However, in no case was this measure of need statistically significant. Thus, it was dropped from the final presentation of analyses. 5While the liberalism and conservatism dichotomy oversimplifies these ideological types (e.g., it is well documented that fiscal conservatives may be social liberals), we are using a self-reported measure of ideology which does not allow for such distinctions. Several of these variables are moder- ately correlated as one might expect. We regressed each of the independent variables against the others; the highest R’ was .19. Thus, multicollinearity does not appear to be a serious problem. %ince many studies have used SES as a measure of need in efforts to duplicate the Jones at al. theory (those at lower SES levels contact less because they do not have the skills and those at higher levels of SES also contact less because they do not have the need), we also estimated models including an SES-squared term to test for a parabolic effect of SES on contacting. Our findings indicate that the relationship between SES and contacting is positive and linear. 7We also estimated models including need-awareness, need-ties, liberal- need, and conservative-need interaction terms. Including the interaction terms did not improve our ability to explain contacting behavior in any of the models, Thus, we present the more straightforward and parsimonious main effects models. Contacting on the Local and Extralocal Levels 259 REFERENCES Bobo, Lawrence, and Franklin D. Gilliam. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review 84:377-93. Brody, Richard, and Paul Sniderman. 1977. “From Life Space to Polling Place: The Relevance of Personal Concerns for Voting Behavior.” British Journal of Political Science 7:337-60. Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Moms Fiorina. 1985. “Constituency Service in the U.S. and Great Britain,” in L. C. Dodd and B. I. Oppen- heimer, eds., Congress Reconsidered. 3d ed. Washington: Congres- sional Quarterly Press. Coulter, Philip B. 1988. Political Voice: Cirizen Demandfor Urban Public Services. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Davidson, Roger H. 1969. The Role of the Congressman. New York: Pegasus. Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little. Flynn, Raymond D. 1992. “Dear Legislator.” Governing 5: 1 1 . Hero, Rodney E. 1986. “Explaining Citizen-initiated Contacting of Gov- ernment Officials: Socioeconomic Status, Perceived Need, or Some- thing Else.” Social Sciences Quarterly 67:626-35. Hirlinger, Michael W. 1992. “Citizen-initiated Contacting of Local Gov- ernment Officials: A Multivariate Explanation.” Journal of Politics 54 : 5 5 3-64. Jones, Bryan D., Saadia Greenberg, Clifford Kaufman, and Joseph Drew. 1977. “Bureaucratic Response to Citizen-Initiated Contacts: Environ- mental Enforcement in Detroit.” American Political Science Review. 72: 148-65. Kinder, Donald, and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1979. “Economic Grievances and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Discontents and Collective Judgments in Congressional Voting.” American Joiirnal of Political Science 23 :495-527. Murray, Richard, and Arnold Vedlitz. 1977. “Race, Socioeconomic Status and Voting Participation.” Joirrnal of Politics 39: 1064-72. Sharp, Elaine B. 1982. “Citizen-initiated Contacting With Government Officials and Socioeconomic Status: Determining the Relationship and Accounting For It.” American Political Science Review 76: 109- 15. 260 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 23 No. 2 Sharp, Elaine B. 1984. “Citizen Demand Making in the Urban Context.” Smith, Tom W. 1990. “Liberal and Conservative Trends in the United Sylvester, Kathleen. 1989. “The Mandate Blues.” Governing 2:27-30. Tate, Katherine. 1991. “Black Political Participation in the 1984 and 1988 Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 85: 1 159- 76. Thomas, John C. 1982. “Citizen-initiated Contacts With Government Agencies: A Test of Three Theories.” American Journal of Politicul Science 26:504-22. Traut, Carol Ann. 1990. “Citizen-initiated Contacting: A Three-City Test of SES and Need Theories.” The MidSouth Political Science Journal Traut, Carol Ann, and Craig F. Emmert. 1993. “Citizen-initiated Contact- ing: A Multivariate Analysis.” American Politics Quarterly 2 1 :239-53. Vedlitz, Arnold, James A. Dyer, and Roger Durand. 1980. “Citizen Con- tacts With Local Governments: A Comparative View.” American Jour- nal of Political Science 2450-67. Verba, Sidney, and Norman Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Politicul Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row. Wahlke, John C., Heinz Eulau, William Buchanan, and LeRoy C. Ferguson. I 962. The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior. New York: Wiley. Yates, Douglas. 197s. The Ungovernable City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zuckerman, Alan S., and Darrell M. West. 1985. “The Political Bases of Citizen Contacting: A Cross-national Analysis.” American Political Science Review 79: I 17-3 I . American Journal of Political Science 28:654-70. States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 54:479-507. 11:81-104.