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

ResistanceorCapitulation?HowDiscrete

EmotionsShapeCitizens’Interactions

WiththeAdministrativeState

ElizabethBell

1

,JulianChristensen

2

andKristinaJessenHansen

3

Abstract

Publicadministrationresearchershavefoundthatunfavorablestateactionscantriggernegativeemotionsincitizens,butthe

behavioralconsequencesoftheseemotionshavebeenunderstudied.Wedrawonpsychologicalinsightstopredicthowdis-

creteemotionalresponsestounfavorableinteractionswiththestate(specifically:administrativedecisionstodenyaccessto

publicbenefits)willpredictcitizens’copingbehaviors,suchaswhethertheyvoicegrievances,filecomplaints,andseekinfor-

mation.Wetestourhypothesesusingasurveyofapplicantsofanotoriouslyburdensome,means-testedtuition-freecollege

programinOklahoma,USA.Inlinewithourtheoreticalframework,wefindangerincreasesoppositionbehaviorsinreaction

tolossesofaccesstotheprogram,whereasshamereducesoppositionamongcitizens.Wealsofindthatfearincreasesinfor-

mation-seekingandresistancebehaviors.Theresultsdemonstratetheroleofdiscreteemotionsinpredictingstate-directed

citizenbehaviors,butalsoprovidethegroundworkforapplyingthediscreteemotionsframeworktootheractors,suchas

publicmanagersandstreet-levelbureaucrats.

Keywords

discreteemotions,citizen–stateinteractions,administrativeburden,educationpolicy

Whencitizens

1

experienceadministrativeburdensorunfavor-

ableencounterswiththeadministrativestate,itcanhavepro-

foundconsequencesontheirlives(Barnes2020;Brodkinand

Majmundar2010;Christensenetal.2020;Heinrich2016;

HerdandMoynihan2020;LensandVorsanger2005;Masood

andNisar2021).However,whilepublicadministrationscholar-

shiphasbuiltconsiderableevidenceontheconsequencesofstate

actionsonthelivesofcitizens,lessisknownabouthowcitizens

copewithunfavorablebureaucraticdecisions.

2

Forinstance,

whenbureaucraticdecisionsleavecitizensinanunfavorablesit-

uation,thecitizenscaneitherreactactively,bychallengingthe

decisionthroughmechanismssuchasindividualorcollective

voice,ortheycancapitulateandpassivelyaccepttheirsituation

(Dowding&John,2008;Nielsenetal.,2020).Whileagreatdeal

isknownabouttheresourcesandskillsneededfor(successfully)

standingupagainstthesystem(Bisgaard.2020;Döring2021;

MasoodandNisar2021),littleisknownaboutwhatmotivates

peopletodoso.Betterunderstandingthismotivationisofpara-

mountimportanceforpublicadministrationscholars,ascitizen

resistance,suchastheuseofvoice,canputpressureonpublic

managersandotherkindsofdecisionmakerstoaddresscitizen

dissatisfactionandimprovethequalityofpublicservicedelivery

(James&Jilke,2017).

Inthisarticle,wedrawoninsightsfrompsychologyto

proposeaseriesofhypothesesthathighlighttheimpactof

discreteemotions—apreviouslyunderstudiedvariable—on

citizens’state-directedbehaviors(includingtheuseof

voice)whenfacedwithunfavorablestateactions.Thestart-

ingpointofourinvestigationisHattkeetal.’s(2020)

findingthatwhencitizensexperienceburdensomestate

actions,theyreacttotheseexperienceswithnegativeemo-

tions.Webuildonthisworkbyinvestigatingwhattypesof

negativeemotionsmaytriggerresistanceorcapitulation

behavior.AsnotedbyNørgaard(2018,5)“discreteemotions

involvedifferentbehavioraltendencies”(seealsoHuddyetal.,

2007;LernerandKeltner2000;Petersen2010)andthus,we

hypothesizethatdiscreteemotionsofthesamevalence(e.g.,

differentnegativeemotions)willhavediametricallyopposed

consequencesforcitizens’decisionmakingandbehaviorin

responsetounfavorablestateactions.

Inourstudy,wemeasuredthetypesofnegativeemotional

responsescitizensexperiencedinresponsetobureaucratic

decisionscausingthemtoloseaccesstoapublicbenefit

program,andweinvestigatedthecorrespondinglikelihood

1

FloridaStateUniversity,Tallahassee,FL,USA

2

AarhusUniversity,Aarhus,Denmark

3

AalborgUniversity,Aalborg,Denmark

CorrespondingAuthor:

ElizabethBell,FloridaStateUniversity,Tallahassee,FL32303,USA.

Email:Elizabethbell012@gmail.com

Article

AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration

2022,Vol.52(8)535–557

©TheAuthor(s)2022

Articlereuseguidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI:10.1177/02750740221128554

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

ofvarioustypesofcopingbehaviors,includingpreparation

(seekinginformation)andoppositionbehaviors(voicing

grievancesandfilingcomplaints)(Nielsenetal.,2020).

3

Basedonourtheoreticalframework,wederivedfourhypoth-

esesabouttheassociationsbetweendiscretenegativeemo-

tions(includinganger,fear,andshame)andcitizen

behaviorsinresponsetothelossofbenefits.Totestthe

hypotheses,weleveragedempiricalevidencefromastate-

widesurveyofapplicants(n=2,150)whoappliedfora

means-testedandnotoriouslyburdensomepublicbenefit

program:theOklahoma’sPromise,astatewidetuition-free

collegeprograminOklahoma.

Wefoundempiricalsupportforourtheoreticalframe-

work:althoughanger,fear,andshameareallnegatively

valencedemotions,theyhaveoppositeimplicationsforciti-

zens’state-directedbehaviors.Inlinewithourtheoretical

expectations,angrycitizensaremuchmorelikelytofilecom-

plaints,voicegrievancestopublicofficials,andcontactthe

mediainresponsetolosingaccess.Incontrast,peoplewho

experienceshamearelesslikelytofilecomplaintsand

voicegrievancestopublicofficials.Finally,peoplewho

experiencefeararemoreinclinedtoseekoutinformation,

filecomplaints,andraisegrievances.Ironically,despite

angrycitizensbeingtheoneswhoaremosteagertochallenge

thesystemandhenceneedtheinformationtosupporttheir

case,theresultsshowthatthereisnoclearassociation

betweenangerandinformation-seeking.

Intheremainderofthearticle,wegroundourstudyin

priorliteratureanddevelopthetheoreticalhypotheses.

Thenweintroducetheempiricalcontextofourinvestigation

andpresentourresearchdesignanddata.Weconcludeby

presentingthemainresults,robustnesschecks,anddiscuss-

ingtheimplicationsofourfindingsforpublicadministration

researchandpractice.

ExistingLiteratureonCitizen–State

Interactions

Traditionally,studiesofcitizen–stateinteractionshave

focusedmainlyonthestate-sideoftheinteractions,thatis,

thebehaviorsofstreet-levelbureaucratsandotherstate

actors,andthedeterminantsofthesebehaviors(e.g.,

AndersenandGuul2019;JilkeandTummers2018;Lipsky

2010;Maynard-MoodyandMusheno2003;Schneiderand

Ingram2012;Tummersetal.2015).Inrecentyears,

however,amorecitizen-centeredapproachhasemerged,

whereinscholarshaveinvestigatedtheeffectsofstate

actionsoncitizenoutcomesandexperiences.

Studiesfromeconomicshavedocumentedhowstate-

imposedburdensreducethetake-upofpublicservicesand

benefits(BhargavaandManoli2015;DeshpandeandLi

2019;HomonoffandSomerville2020;Lopooetal.,2020).

Moreover,sociologists,politicalscientists,andpublicadmin-

istrationresearchershaveinvestigatedtheimpactofstate

actionsonthepsychologicalwell-beingofcitizens.For

example,alargebodyofqualitativeresearchhasinvestigated

citizens’experiencesinmeans-testedprogramswherebenefit

receiptisoftenconditionalonstigmatizingcompliance

demands(e.g.,Barnes2020;BarnesandHenly2018;

Brodkin2011;Soss1999;Watkins-Hayes2009;2011).

Andmorerecently,quantitativeevidence(bothobservational

andexperimental)onthepsychologicalimpactofstate

actionshasbeengeneratedaswell(e.g.,Baekgaardetal.

2021a;Hattkeetal.2020).

Theexistingliteraturehascontributedimportantinsights

bymovingthestudyofcitizen–stateinteractionsinan

increasinglycitizen-centereddirection,buttheliteraturecon-

tinuestobestate-centeredinthatthemainfocusison(effects

of)stateactions.Asaresult,theliteraturehasbeencriticized

forpayingtoolittleattentiontotheagencyofcitizens.After

all,theterm“citizen-stateinteractions”suggeststhatcitizens

areactorsaswell,andMasoodandNisar(2021)warnagainst

presenting“citizensaspassiveactorswhosimplyexperience

orreceivewhateverburdensomerules,policies,orproce-

durestheymustfacewhileaccessingstateservices”(Ibid.,1).

Inlightofthiscriticism,somescholarshavebegunto

employamoreagenticapproachtothestudyofcitizen

behavior.Scholarshavefoundinspirationinpriorliterature

oninteractionsbetweenusersandserviceproviderswho

arefinanciallydependentontheirabilitytoattractusers,

meaningtheusersareinapowerfulpositiontoputpressure

ontheprovidersthroughstrategiesofvoiceandexitin

responsetopoorperformance(DowdingandJohn2008;

Hirchman1970;JamesandJilke2017).Inothercitizen–

stateinteractions,suchaspublicaidprograms,citizenswill

typicallybeinalesspowerfulpositionvis-à-visthestate

4

butthisdoesnotrenderthecitizensunabletoshapetheinter-

actions.WeleveragetheNielsen,Nielsen,andBisgaard,

(2020)frameworkwhichcategorizescitizens’copingbehav-

iorsinresponsetounfavorablebureaucraticdecisionsto

developourdependentvariables.

AccordingtoNielsenetal.’s(2020)framework,citizens’

state-directedbehaviorscanvaryonthreedifferentdimen-

sions:theirdegreeofactivity,theirdegreeofpreparation,

andtheirdegreeofopposition(Ibid.).Theactivitydimension

captureshowpeoplecanchoosetobehavepassivelyor

activelytowardthestate.Above,wementionedMasood

andNisar’s(2021)warningagainstportrayingcitizensas

passiveactorsbutsometimes,peopledo“actpassively

(…),i.e.,thecitizendoesastoldoracceptsthedecisions

madewithoutfurtherresponsetoorengagementwiththe

publicauthorities”(Nielsenetal.,2020:11).Braithwaite

(2009)referstosuchpassivecitizenbehaviorsas“capitula-

tion.”Movingontopreparationandopposition,thesedimen-

sionscapturedifferentkindsofbehavioratthehigherendof

theactivityspectrum.Preparationreferstoonekindofactive

behavior:informationseeking.Forexample,peoplemay

checkonprogramrulestobetterunderstandand,potentially,

challengethedecisionsofstateactors.Ontheotherhand,

536AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration52(8)