Resistance or Capitulation? How Discrete Emotions Shape Citizens’ Interactions With the Administrative State
| Author | Elizabeth Bell,Julian Christensen,Kristina Jessen Hansen |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740221128554 |
| Published date | 01 November 2022 |
| Date | 01 November 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Resistance or Capitulation? How Discrete
Emotions Shape Citizens’Interactions
With the Administrative State
Elizabeth Bell
1
, Julian Christensen
2
and Kristina Jessen Hansen
3
Abstract
Public administration researchers have found that unfavorable state actions can trigger negative emotions in citizens, but the
behavioral consequences of these emotions have been understudied. We draw on psychological insights to predict how dis-
crete emotional responses to unfavorable interactions with the state (specifically: administrative decisions to deny access to
public benefits) will predict citizens’coping behaviors, such as whether they voice grievances, file complaints, and seek infor-
mation. We test our hypotheses using a survey of applicants of a notoriously burdensome, means-tested tuition-free college
program in Oklahoma, USA. In line with our theoretical framework, we find anger increases opposition behaviors in reaction
to losses of access to the program, whereas shame reduces opposition among citizens. We also find that fear increases infor-
mation-seeking and resistance behaviors. The results demonstrate the role of discrete emotions in predicting state-directed
citizen behaviors, but also provide the groundwork for applying the discrete emotions framework to other actors, such as
public managers and street-level bureaucrats.
Keywords
discrete emotions, citizen–state interactions, administrative burden, education policy
When citizens
1
experience administrative burdens or unfavor-
able encounters with the administrative state, it can have pro-
found consequences on their lives (Barnes 2020; Brodkin and
Majmundar 2010; Christensen et al. 2020; Heinrich 2016;
Herd and Moynihan 2020; Lens and Vorsanger 2005; Masood
and Nisar 2021). However, while public administration scholar-
ship has built considerable evidence on the consequences of state
actions on the lives of citizens, less is known about how citizens
cope with unfavorable bureaucratic decisions.
2
For instance,
when bureaucratic decisions leave citizens in an unfavorable sit-
uation, the citizens can either react actively, by challenging the
decision through mechanisms such as individual or collective
voice, or they can capitulate and passively accept their situation
(Dowding & John, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2020). While a great deal
is known about the resources and skills needed for (successfully)
standing up against the system (Bisgaard. 2020; Döring 2021;
Masood and Nisar 2021), little is known about what motivates
people to do so. Better understanding this motivation is of para-
mount importance for public administration scholars, as citizen
resistance, such as the use of voice, can put pressure on public
managers and other kinds of decision makers to address citizen
dissatisfaction and improve the quality of public service delivery
(James & Jilke, 2017).
In this article, we draw on insights from psychology to
propose a series of hypotheses that highlight the impact of
discrete emotions—a previously understudied variable—on
citizens’state-directed behaviors (including the use of
voice) when faced with unfavorable state actions. The start-
ing point of our investigation is Hattke et al.’s (2020)
finding that when citizens experience burdensome state
actions, they react to these experiences with negative emo-
tions. We build on this work by investigating what types of
negative emotions may trigger resistance or capitulation
behavior. As noted by Nørgaard (2018, 5) “discrete emotions
involve different behavioral tendencies”(see also Huddyet al.,
2007; Lerner and Keltner 2000; Petersen 2010) and thus, we
hypothesize that discrete emotions of the same valence (e.g.,
different negative emotions) will have diametrically opposed
consequences for citizens’decision making and behavior in
response to unfavorable state actions.
In our study, we measured the types of negative emotional
responses citizens experienced in response to bureaucratic
decisions causing them to lose access to a public benefit
program, and we investigated the corresponding likelihood
1
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
2
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
3
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Corresponding Author:
Elizabeth Bell, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32303, USA.
Email: Elizabethbell012@gmail.com
Article
American Review of Public Administration
2022, Vol. 52(8) 535–557
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02750740221128554
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
of various types of coping behaviors, including preparation
(seeking information) and opposition behaviors (voicing
grievances and filing complaints) (Nielsen et al., 2020).
3
Based on our theoretical framework, we derived four hypoth-
eses about the associations between discrete negative emo-
tions (including anger, fear, and shame) and citizen
behaviors in response to the loss of benefits. To test the
hypotheses, we leveraged empirical evidence from a state-
wide survey of applicants (n =2,150) who applied for a
means-tested and notoriously burdensome public benefit
program: the Oklahoma’s Promise, a statewide tuition-free
college program in Oklahoma.
We found empirical support for our theoretical frame-
work: although anger, fear, and shame are all negatively
valenced emotions, they have opposite implications for citi-
zens’state-directed behaviors. In line with our theoretical
expectations, angry citizens are much more likely to file com-
plaints, voice grievances to public officials, and contact the
media in response to losing access. In contrast, people who
experience shame are less likely to file complaints and
voice grievances to public officials. Finally, people who
experience fear are more inclined to seek out information,
file complaints, and raise grievances. Ironically, despite
angry citizens being the ones who are most eager to challenge
the system and hence need the information to support their
case, the results show that there is no clear association
between anger and information-seeking.
In the remainder of the article, we ground our study in
prior literature and develop the theoretical hypotheses.
Then we introduce the empirical context of our investigation
and present our research design and data. We conclude by
presenting the main results, robustness checks, and discuss-
ing the implications of our findings for public administration
research and practice.
Existing Literature on Citizen–State
Interactions
Traditionally, studies of citizen–state interactions have
focused mainly on the state-side of the interactions, that is,
the behaviors of street-level bureaucrats and other state
actors, and the determinants of these behaviors (e.g.,
Andersen and Guul 2019; Jilke and Tummers 2018; Lipsky
2010; Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003; Schneider and
Ingram 2012; Tummers et al. 2015). In recent years,
however, a more citizen-centered approach has emerged,
wherein scholars have investigated the effects of state
actions on citizen outcomes and experiences.
Studies from economics have documented how state-
imposed burdens reduce the take-up of public services and
benefits (Bhargava and Manoli 2015; Deshpande and Li
2019; Homonoff and Somerville 2020; Lopoo et al., 2020).
Moreover, sociologists, political scientists, and public admin-
istration researchers have investigated the impact of state
actions on the psychological well-being of citizens. For
example, a large body of qualitative research has investigated
citizens’experiences in means-tested programs where benefit
receipt is often conditional on stigmatizing compliance
demands (e.g., Barnes 2020; Barnes and Henly 2018;
Brodkin 2011; Soss 1999; Watkins-Hayes 2009; 2011).
And more recently, quantitative evidence (both observational
and experimental) on the psychological impact of state
actions has been generated as well (e.g., Baekgaard et al.
2021a; Hattke et al. 2020).
The existing literature has contributed important insights
by moving the study of citizen–state interactions in an
increasingly citizen-centered direction, but the literature con-
tinues to be state-centered in that the main focus is on (effects
of) state actions. As a result, the literature has been criticized
for paying too little attention to the agency of citizens. After
all, the term “citizen-state interactions”suggests that citizens
are actors as well, and Masood and Nisar (2021) warn against
presenting “citizens as passive actors who simply experience
or receive whatever burdensome rules, policies, or proce-
dures they must face while accessing state services”(Ibid., 1).
In light of this criticism, some scholars have begun to
employ a more agentic approach to the study of citizen
behavior. Scholars have found inspiration in prior literature
on interactions between users and service providers who
are financially dependent on their ability to attract users,
meaning the users are in a powerful position to put pressure
on the providers through strategies of voice and exit in
response to poor performance (Dowding and John 2008;
Hirchman 1970; James and Jilke 2017). In other citizen–
state interactions, such as public aid programs, citizens will
typically be in a less powerful position vis-à-vis the state
4
but this does not render the citizens unable to shape the inter-
actions. We leverage the Nielsen, Nielsen, and Bisgaard,
(2020) framework which categorizes citizens’coping behav-
iors in response to unfavorable bureaucratic decisions to
develop our dependent variables.
According to Nielsen et al.’s (2020) framework, citizens’
state-directed behaviors can vary on three different dimen-
sions: their degree of activity, their degree of preparation,
and their degree of opposition (Ibid.). The activity dimension
captures how people can choose to behave passively or
actively toward the state. Above, we mentioned Masood
and Nisar’s (2021) warning against portraying citizens as
passive actors but sometimes, people do “act passively
(…), i.e., the citizen does as told or accepts the decisions
made without further response to or engagement with the
public authorities”(Nielsen et al., 2020: 11). Braithwaite
(2009) refers to such passive citizen behaviors as “capitula-
tion.”Moving on to preparation and opposition, these dimen-
sions capture different kinds of behavior at the higher end of
the activity spectrum. Preparation refers to one kind of active
behavior: information seeking. For example, people may
check on program rules to better understand and, potentially,
challenge the decisions of state actors. On the other hand,
536 American Review of Public Administration 52(8)
To continue reading
Request your trial