Positivity and Negativity Dominance in Citizen Assessments of Intergovernmental Sustainability Performance

Abstract

Abstract Understanding how the public assesses the performance of complex, intergovernmental efforts such as sustainability is critical for understanding both managerial decision-making and institutional design. Drawing from the performance and federalism literature, this study investigates the role that distinctive elements of negativity bias play in citizen assessments of intergovernmental performance. In three survey experiments, this study exploits a well-known intergovernmental initiative to explore the effects of episodic performance information on citizen support for varying sustainability-related activities. Two inter-related research questions are addressed. First, does the positive or negative valence of citizen performance assessments vary with the type and scope of activity? Second, does positive or negative performance information tend to dominate in more realistic scenarios in which both types of stimuli interact? The results advance theoretical understanding of public performance with evidence that the type of activity can influence citizen assessments both positively and negatively. Additionally, partisan cues can overwhelm otherwise positive views of performance in some contexts, a concept described in the psychology literature as negativity dominance. The findings add important insights by showing that biased reasoning of citizens is not just a blanket affective association with constant treatment effects across any type of governmental effort, but is contingent on both the activity and political context.