IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i2p830-843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Eva‐Maria Trüdinger
  • Achim Hildebrandt
  • Sebastian Jäckle
  • Jonas Löser

Abstract

Objective We analyze whether and how individuals react to information about the adoption of a particular policy, with a focus on the role of conservatism. Methods We conducted an online survey experiment on support for data retention in Germany. A recent law on this issue allowed us to test the effects of two policy signals, information about the adoption of a new law (law signal) and information that this followed a Constitutional Court decision (law and court signal), on separate groups of respondents. Results Our results show a positive effect of each policy signal on support for data retention. The effect of the law signal was even slightly stronger for individuals with conservative beliefs. Conclusion Illustrating how lock‐in effects of policies can work, our study contributes to research on attitudinal policy feedback: creating new legislation also means legitimizing the policy position in question and stating that this norm should be accepted.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:2:p:830-843
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12931
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12931?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    2. Franklin, Charles H. & Kosaki, Liane C., 1989. "Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(3), pages 751-771, September.
    3. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Mummolo, Jonathan & Xu, Yiqing, 2019. "How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 163-192, April.
    5. Wallace, Geoffrey P.R., 2013. "International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 105-140, January.
    6. Stephen P. Nicholson & Thomas G. Hansford, 2014. "Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 620-636, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    2. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    3. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    4. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    5. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    6. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    8. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    9. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    10. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    11. Bonesrønning, Hans & Finseraas, Henning & Hardoy, Ines & Iversen, Jon Marius Vaag & Nyhus, Ole Henning & Opheim, Vibeke & Salvanes, Kari Vea & Sandsør, Astrid Marie Jorde & Schøne, Pål, 2022. "Small-group instruction to improve student performance in mathematics in early grades: Results from a randomized field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    12. Ishii, Joy & Xuan, Yuhai, 2014. "Acquirer-target social ties and merger outcomes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 344-363.
    13. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Anne Marie Knott & Rachel Croson, 2017. "Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 278-299, February.
    14. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Boon, L.N. & Brière, M. & Rigot, S., 2018. "Regulation and pension fund risk-taking," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 23-41.
    16. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    17. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    18. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Claude Montmarquette, 1996. "Cognition In Seemingly Riskless Choices And Judgments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 167-185, May.
    19. H. Henry Cao & Bing Han & David Hirshleifer & Harold H. Zhang, 2011. "Fear of the Unknown: Familiarity and Economic Decisions," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 15(1), pages 173-206.
    20. Stefano D’Angelo & Angelo Cavallo & Antonio Ghezzi & Francesco Di Lorenzo, 2024. "Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: a review and research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(12), pages 3719-3774, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:2:p:830-843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.