Future directions

Given the research findings above, there are a number of directions that fu- ture research could take. Three areas in particular warrant highlighting. The first is improving upon the data presented here. The second is investigating

different decision-making domains. The third is investigating how to attain high levels of descriptive representation.

On the first point, one of the limitations of the data analysis in this project has been the source of the data. Using MTurk as a data source could be seen as problematic for a number of reasons (the analyses of Berinsky, Huber and Lenz (2012) notwithstanding). Some have raised concerns about the gener- alizability of internet samples to begin with (e.g., Malhotra and Krosnick, 2007). Even if this is not a concern, there are some concerns with MTurk data in particular.

For the present purposes MTurk samples are not ideal due to their low numbers of black workers. MTurk samples tend to have only around 5% black according to Berinsky, Huber and Lenz (2012). The sample used here actually was somewhat higher than this mark. Still, the percent black in the sample used for the analyses here is a poor approximation of the national average (a problem commonly confronted by survey research that does not include an oversample of blacks).

To that end, it would be beneficial to re-run the analyses presented here on a nationally representative sample. This would accomplish two goals. First, it would boost the number of blacks in the sample and thereby increase our power in explaining how representation affects their ratings of fairness and satisfaction. Second, it would allow us to test the exploratory analyses in Chapter 5 in a more rigorous manner.

Fortunately, data collection of a national sample replicating the results pre- sented here has already been completed. The treatment vignettes, outcome variables, and measures of perceived community demographics were placed on a wave of the 2012 CCAP election study. This study uses a national probability sample, and so should a far more representative sample of the

U.S. population than MTurk workers. Moreover, the increased length of the study allows for more potential explanatory variables. In sum, this source of data should greatly improve the generalizability of the results presented here.

A second potential expansion of this research could include investigating other issue domains. The issue investigated here was nonpartisan and locally focused. I argue that this was appropriate for the purposes of this study — identifying how people evaluate different aspects of representation — but it certainly is uncharacteristic of a great many issues in American politics.

Future studies could investigate the roles of descriptive and substantive representation when partisan cues are available. This has the potential for substantially changing the dynamics of aspects of representation. If exposed to a party cue, the salience of substantive outcomes might be far greater than observed under the present conditions. One could easily hypothesize that in a highly partisan decision, the importance of the substantive outcome would be far greater than when the decision is nominally non-partisan.

A third area of continuation from this research is how best to attain high levels of descriptive representation. The present study suggests that de- scriptive representation can compensate for unfavorable policy outcomes for blacks. As a result, democratic practitioners might seek to create institutions that afford minority groups a greater voice in the decision-making process, even if that does not translate into a greater likelihood of achieving those groups’ preferred policies.

But an open question is how best to boost descriptive representation to the levels necessary to compensate for unfavorable policy outcomes. For example, if we were to set up deliberative institutions to bring in participants from the minority community, how could we best ensure that minorities would

participate at all? As Sanders (1997) argues, not all groups are equally equipped to participate in such scenarios. As a result, a large number of minorities might opt out of participating, hamstringing any efforts to boost descriptive representation. To this end, scholars could investigate how best to structure institutions such that high levels of descriptive representation result.

A final point worth mentioning is the question these results raise about the nature of substantive representation for members of the majority. The treatment vignettes used in this study were designed specifically to evoke a race-sensitive response. In the treatments, the outcome either favored a white neighborhood or a black neighborhood. The assumption implicit in this was that the outcome favoring the white neighborhood would be a favorable substantive outcome for whites and the converse would be true for blacks. But in actuality, whites seemed to prefer an outcome favoring the black neighborhood. This suggests that in the treatment, the outcome favored by whites was not the outcome that was more beneficial for their racial in-group.

Another way of stating this is that there seemed to be broad consensus about which policy outcome was preferred across both groups. For both blacks and whites, a decision to build a school in the black neighborhood elicited more favorable responses than the decision to build a school in a white neighborhood. As such, this might not be a critical test of tradeoffs between substantive and descriptive representation. Ideally, the policy decision would be such that blacks and whites differed in their preferred outcome. In such a situation, it would be much more telling if whites were still willing to cede representation to blacks.

broad consensus on the preferred policy outcome. First, it might have been the case that most respondents were indifferent between the two outcomes. Since the vignette stated that both neighborhoods were equally deserving and needing of the school, it may have made determining a preferred outcome difficult for most respondents. Second, unmentioned concerns, such as socioe- conomic status, might have been at play. If people extrapolated information about the neighborhoods based on their racial composition, then that infor- mation might have played the pivotal role. For example, if people perceive most black neighborhoods to be relatively poor and most white neighbor- hoods to be relatively well-off, then respondents might have preferred the outcome favorable to blacks because of their perceived worse socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, the present study does not allow us to adjudicate between these competing alternatives, and so it will fall on future work to investigate more fully the situations in which members of minority groups and the majority are willing to make hard tradeoffs between descriptive and substantive representation.