Introduction
Allegations of vote rigging during the 2016 presidential election have raised concerns about citizens' confidence in U.S governing institutions While attention is often directed at electoral systems and formal government bodies, doubts about the legitimacy of the U.S Constitution may arise if citizens feel their political system no longer represents them Although short-term accusations typically do not affect institutional loyalty, recent studies suggest that negative perceptions can undermine long-term support for the courts If accusations against electoral integrity persist, they could threaten citizens' broader institutional loyalties, potentially destabilizing the foundations of the sociopolitical system, including the federal Constitution and state charters.
Sanford Levinson (2018) suggests that the Constitution is considered the sacred text of the United States, revered from a young age by Americans This 231-year-old document holds a prominent place at the National Archives, akin to a shrine Scholars, such as Hunsicker (2012), emphasize that the popular belief in the Constitution underpins institutional stability, helping to prevent significant disruptions that could impact governance.
1 I use institutional loyalty, institutional support, institutional legitimacy, and diffuse support interchangeably, as is common in legitimacy theory studies (see below and also Chapter 2)
Public support for the federal Constitution is strong, with Americans rating it an average of 7.8 out of 10 In comparison, state constitutions receive a slightly lower average rating of 6.7 This reflects a general consensus on the legitimacy of Congress and the continuity of government, as discussed by Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995).
James Madison emphasized that popular support is crucial for maintaining the legitimacy of a constitution, as it fosters continued obedience to the laws Constitutions backed by widespread societal approval tend to be more resilient, enabling citizens to navigate coordination and enforcement challenges effectively However, excessive reverence for a constitution can lead to detrimental outcomes, potentially binding a political community to ineffective institutions Therefore, it is essential to balance support with the need for "periodic repairs," allowing each generation to reassess the work of its predecessors Critics advocate for regular constitutional conventions to facilitate revisions that transcend tradition and the notion of legal permanence.
This article examines the interplay between constitutional loyalty and periodic conventions within a politically strained environment where institutional support is challenged While existing research on constitutional support has identified factors such as demographic traits, sociopolitical attitudes, and constitutional knowledge, it has primarily focused on specific support for a constitution rather than the broader feelings of loyalty, or what Easton (1965) refers to as diffuse support Additionally, the literature has largely centered on federal constitutions, with some recent studies addressing state charters In contrast, periodic conventions have garnered significant attention from legal scholars, who are divided on their impact; some argue that such conventions could undermine constitutional support by disrupting legal stability, while others contend that they can enhance support by demonstrating a deliberate acceptance or rejection of the constitution across generations.
This dissertation examines whether knowledge of a constitution's susceptibility to change reinforces or undermines constitutional loyalty Specifically, it investigates how awareness of Michigan's state constitution being subject to revision every 16 years affects individual loyalty It questions whether prior voter outcomes on periodic convention referenda influence this loyalty By focusing on diffuse support rather than specific approval, the research aims to enhance the understanding of constitutional support and its covariates Ultimately, it seeks to determine if the awareness of periodic conventions impacts specific support while leaving diffuse support unchanged.
Constitutional loyalty is crucial for the civic health of a nation or state, prompting interest from scholars, politicians, and citizens This dissertation explores whether periodic conventions undermine institutional loyalty or foster citizen deliberation on political issues, providing insights for both supporters and opponents when these conventions appear on ballots If periodic conventions reinforce existing biases, opponents can leverage past defeats to sway voters The impact of these conventions on constitutional support is particularly significant at the state level, where status quo biases are weaker Understanding what drives citizen support is vital, as institutional backing enables political systems to maintain authority despite public policy disagreements Thus, constitutional approval and loyalty play a key role in sustaining democratic governance.
Michigan's experience with periodic conventions offers valuable insights into the effectiveness of constitutional reviews These conventions allow citizens to assess whether their current constitutional framework aligns with their needs and expectations However, there is a concern that such reviews may inadvertently strengthen the existing constitution, leading to questions about the true efficacy of periodic conventions in fostering meaningful change.
Utilizing Michigan as a case study enhances my research by incorporating mundane realism through a recent political event This approach enables participants to evaluate not just historical political occurrences, but also to gather insights that can inform supporters, detractors, and voters ahead of the upcoming convention ballot question in November 2026.
This research contributes to the limited but emerging body of literature on constitutional support and attitudes, while also drawing on the well-established frameworks of legitimacy theory and institutional political support Institutional legitimacy is a fundamental concept in political science, as highlighted by Tanenhaus and Murphy, underscoring its significance in understanding the dynamics of political systems.
While previous studies have identified various factors influencing individual support for constitutions, they overlook the impact of a constitution's susceptibility to change and do not specifically address diffuse support or loyalty Legal scholars and political theorists have engaged in discussions about the advantages of periodic conventions and their organizational structures, yet empirical research on a constitution's vulnerability to change and its effect on individual support remains absent This dissertation aims to address these gaps in the existing literature.
Overview of the Literature & Theory
Institutional Legitimacy: Specific versus Diffuse Support
David Easton’s legitimacy theory (1965) serves as the primary framework for understanding institutional support in political science, positing that citizens recognize the moral authority of institutions to make societal decisions This support manifests as a "strong inner conviction" (Easton 1965, 278), which allows individuals to accept the validity of institutional policy decisions, even when they disagree with specific outcomes, due to their deep-rooted belief in the institution's integrity (Cann and Yates 2008, 303) This concept of diffuse support, or institutional loyalty, forms the essence of legitimacy theory and contrasts with specific support, which pertains to job approval (Baird 2001; Caldeira and Gibson 1992; LaRowe and Hoekstra).
Diffuse support refers to a long-lasting preference for stability and resistance to significant changes, contrasting with specific support, which is often rational, short-term, and linked to particular policy outcomes such as constitutional amendments.
Understanding the distinction between specific and diffuse support is crucial in political science Specific support, as defined by Easton (1965), refers to attitudes towards an institution based on the fulfillment of particular demands or policies, while diffuse support represents a broader reservoir of goodwill that allows individuals to tolerate unfavorable outputs In the context of the U.S Supreme Court (SCOTUS), specific support fluctuates with agreement on rulings and is influenced by factors such as public opinion on institutional conduct and nomination controversies In contrast, diffuse support reflects a general endorsement of the Court's role within the political system, often measured by respondents' willingness to alter the Court's jurisdiction or existence While specific support can be transient and influenced by immediate contexts, diffuse support is seen as a more stable allegiance to the Court's institutional function, with individuals expressing loyalty despite disagreements on specific decisions.
Scholars differentiate between specific support and diffuse support when discussing constitutional attitudes, with specific support relating to approval and satisfaction, while diffuse support encompasses institutional legitimacy and loyalty This article adopts this framework to define constitutional support, categorizing feelings toward a constitution into constitutional approval (specific support) and constitutional loyalty (diffuse support) Common survey questions that assess thermometer ratings, approval of constitutional provisions, and satisfaction with the constitution's performance primarily measure specific support In contrast, inquiries about the willingness to fundamentally alter the constitution, such as replacing it, align more closely with diffuse support.
Methods
This dissertation aims to investigate three interconnected objectives: first, to determine if periodic conventions strengthen or weaken constitutional loyalty; second, to create a measure of constitutional loyalty that aligns with the broader legitimacy theory; and third, to assess the impact of actual constitutional knowledge on loyalty compared to self-reported knowledge To address these questions, a survey experiment will be conducted with undergraduate students to evaluate their constitutional knowledge, approval, and loyalty, while also examining the influence of periodic conventions on their support The following sections will detail the experiment's components, including survey design, variable operationalization, and considerations regarding reliability, validity, and case selection.
General Design, Procedures, and Subjects
In a between-subjects survey experiment conducted during the Winter 2018 semester, undergraduates at Wayne State University in Detroit, MI, participated in an anonymous survey aimed at assessing their knowledge and attitudes towards the federal and Michigan state constitutions The survey was distributed during regular class sessions of introductory American government courses (1000 level), with participation being voluntary and consent obtained through an informative sheet provided to the students.
Wayne State University provides two American government courses that share the same substantive content and instructors, differing only in course designator and credit hours For clarity, these courses will be referred to collectively as an introduction to American government.
During the Fall 2018 semester, a second wave of surveys was conducted, though the results are not included in this report; for detailed findings, refer to Appendix B The survey maintained an anonymous format, with consent assumed through students' participation Participants were allotted 15-20 minutes of class time to complete the survey, while non-participants remained quietly seated To minimize coercion, no extra credit was offered for participation, and neither the primary investigator nor their advisor was the instructor for the participating classes Consent forms and survey packets were distributed by course faculty and teaching assistants to further ensure that students did not feel pressured to participate For demographic details of the subjects, see Chapter 5.
Participants initially completed a pre-test assessing their demographic characteristics, sociopolitical variables, and support for the federal and Michigan state constitutions They were then randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions, where they received different information about Michigan's 2010 periodic convention through a mock newspaper article After reviewing the article, participants took a post-test consisting of questions on their likelihood of supporting a constitutional convention at both the federal and state levels, their knowledge of constitutional matters, and a repeat of the support measures from the pre-test The full survey instrument, including all tests and manipulations, can be found in Appendix A.
To prevent students from being prematurely informed about the experimental nature of the study, survey packets containing a pre-test, an experimental vignette, and a post-test were distributed together The experimental conditions were randomly assigned prior to the distribution of these packets.
This design effectively addresses various threats to internal validity by employing random assignment to control and treatment groups, ensuring their equivalence and balancing environmental changes To mitigate demand effects, a "distractor" task precedes the constitutional knowledge tests, confirming that observed outcomes stem from the treatment rather than external influences This methodology is supported by previous research, reinforcing its credibility Additionally, the between-subjects design obscures experimenter intent, as participants remain unaware of their assigned condition and encounter a mix of experimental and non-randomized content, further enhancing the validity of the results.
Using undergraduates as research subjects raises concerns about external validity and generalizability to broader populations, as noted by Sears (1986) However, Druckman and Kam (2011) contend that college student samples are suitable for most research designs, particularly when the larger population shares key characteristics Furthermore, Druckman and Nelson (2003) indicate that external validity issues are less critical in studies focused on framing and priming effects This dissertation's emphasis on priming awareness of constitutional change suggests that the findings may extend to other groups A student-only sample is justifiable if the hypothesized effects are likely applicable across diverse populations (Bello et al., 2009; Ellsworth and Gonzales 2007) While literature indicates variations in constitutional support among certain sub-populations, these differences are addressed in the experiment through random assignment and pre-test variables Ultimately, it is more significant that the observed patterns among college students are relevant to other groups rather than focusing solely on specific estimates (Ellsworth and Gonzales 2007) Theoretical perspectives indicate no substantial differences in how college students respond to the priming exercise compared to other demographics.
The timing of administering surveys during the semester is crucial, especially in American government courses where the U.S Constitution is taught early on Students surveyed at the beginning may exhibit lower knowledge scores compared to those surveyed later, after they have engaged with the Constitution unit To address this, I conduct surveys in the middle of the semester, ensuring that students have received at least an introductory lesson on the U.S Constitution This approach allows for a more accurate assessment of constitutional knowledge and its impact on constitutional loyalty, as it requires a foundational understanding to build upon.
A college sample is suitable for this study as it aims to test and generate theories rather than generalize findings to larger populations Specifically, the research investigates whether periodic conventions affect constitutional loyalty, a relationship that has not been empirically tested before The focus is on determining if this hypothesized relationship exists, prioritizing internal validity Although a convenience sample is used, the survey experiment incorporates key elements of a classic experiment, such as random assignment to interventions, a controlled environment, and measurement of respondents' reactions to stimuli Additionally, it is important to note that studies utilizing college student samples serve as initial steps, which should be followed by replication studies involving national samples.
2014) Future research, therefore, should seek to replicate my findings produced here 4
Sociopolitical and Prior Knowledge Variables
All participants will undergo a pre-test, irrespective of their experimental group This assessment will gather demographic and sociopolitical data, alongside initial measures of their approval and loyalty towards both the federal and Michigan state constitutions The demographic and sociopolitical questions are designed to capture various covariates identified in previous research that affect constitutional and institutional support Whenever feasible, the wording of the questions aligns with those used in earlier studies, facilitating comparisons and enhancing the validity of the findings.
A comprehensive research agenda emphasizes that individual studies should be assessed based on their contributions to the broader research framework, whether in theory development or empirical validation Following a Popperian perspective on causation, evidence must be gathered through multiple studies to establish reliable conclusions Therefore, findings derived from research involving college students should not be deemed definitive, highlighting the need for further replication to strengthen the validity of results.
Participants respond to sociopolitical questions regarding their partisanship, ideological beliefs, and news consumption patterns Research indicates that individuals aligned ideologically and politically with governmental institutions are more likely to support them, while higher engagement with news correlates with increased constitutional approval Partisanship is measured on a seven-point scale from "strong Democrat" to "strong Republican," and ideology on a five-point scale from "very liberal" to "very conservative." News consumption is assessed through frequency questions for both national and local news Participants also express their approval of federal and state institutions Although evidence is mixed on whether support for one institution influences support for others, findings suggest that backing constitutionally-mandated bodies can enhance overall support for the constitutional system These questions are adapted from the TIME/Abt SRBI Poll on constitutional attitudes conducted in June 2011.
5 Compare Jones and McDermott (2002), Lebo (2008), and Mondak et al (2007) with Chanley, Rudolph, and Rahn
(2000) and Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan (1992) See also Durr et al (2000) who find no relationship
In my research involving federal institutions, I assess subjects' specific support for President Trump, the U.S Congress, and the U.S Supreme Court Similarly, in Michigan, I evaluate opinions on state-level figures, including Governor Snyder, the Michigan State Legislature, and the Michigan Supreme Court It's important to note that support for executive officeholders is linked to the incumbent rather than the office itself, prompting me to focus on individual opinions regarding President Trump and Governor Snyder instead of general titles like U.S President.
Michigan Governor Given that the questioning for the legislatures and courts is not tied with any statements
Participants are first asked a series of true/false questions to gauge their prior knowledge about Michigan's state constitution and the periodic convention mechanism This assessment aims to establish a baseline for the experimental treatments and determine the significance of the priming effect among individuals with existing knowledge The questions include whether Michigan has a state constitution, if participants are aware that a periodic convention ballot is held every 16 years, and their understanding of the potential functions of a periodic convention These inquiries are crafted to measure prior knowledge without revealing the study's objectives, and convention support questions are intentionally omitted to prevent bias and ensure valid comparisons between pre- and post-treatment scores.
Measuring Constitutional Loyalty and Approval
What Generates Constitutional Loyalty?
In this chapter, I present the findings of my study on the factors that generate constitutional loyalty, beginning with an analysis of overall levels of federal and Michigan constitutional loyalty and their measurement I explore loyalty across three dimensions: personal attributes such as demographics, political affiliations, and institutional attitudes Additionally, I employ regression analysis to demonstrate how these factors collectively impact an individual's constitutional loyalty Furthermore, I investigate constitutional approval and compare my results with existing literature, focusing on the interplay between approval and loyalty.
Before examining the results, it's important to clarify the primary dependent variables: federal and Michigan constitutional loyalty, which is often referred to as diffuse support for a constitution Previous studies on institutional loyalty have defined diffuse support as opposition to major structural or functional changes within the institution This definition has become prevalent in court literature As noted by Gibson and Caldeira, individuals who advocate for significant changes, penalize the institution for its policy decisions, or exhibit general distrust towards it demonstrate a lack of legitimacy and loyalty to that institution.
Chapter 6 introduces a crucial fourth dimension: civic knowledge The findings indicate that those advocating for significant changes to their constitution exhibit low levels of loyalty, characterized by minimal diffuse support In contrast, individuals who resist any modifications demonstrate high diffuse support and a strong sense of institutional fealty.
Institutional loyalty is distinct from specific support, often referred to as institutional approval, which reflects an individual's particular endorsement of a constitution While existing research primarily focuses on constitutional approval, as highlighted by Stephanopoulos and Versteeg (2016), it is essential to differentiate this from broader support, as discussed in studies by Blake and Levinson (2016) and Zink and Dawes.
In their 2016 study, Stephanopoulos and Versteeg highlight that questioning methods often reflect diffuse support rather than specific loyalty to the constitution They emphasize that traditional measures, such as "feeling thermometers" or approval scales, gauge respondents' current sentiments about the constitution without prompting them to consider deeper issues, such as adherence to its principles in the face of perceived injustice Consequently, these assessments should be interpreted as measures of approval rather than loyalty to the constitutional framework.
To effectively gauge an individual's constitutional loyalty, a new approach is essential Studies by Blake and Levinson (2016) and Zink and Dawes (2016) prompt respondents to reflect on their loyalty to the federal constitution Blake and Levinson focus on support for a constitutional convention to amend the U.S Constitution, while Zink and Dawes assess preferences for public policies presented as statutes versus constitutional amendments Although these methods offer a closer look at constitutional loyalty, they still have limitations As highlighted by Zink and Dawes, Americans exhibit a significant "constitutional status quo bias" alongside typical risk aversion, indicating that respondents were not encouraged to consider their support for more profound structural changes or a complete overhaul of the Constitution.
To measure constitutional loyalty, I utilize a new approach based on the diffuse support battery developed by Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence (2003a), which assesses public sentiment towards the United States Supreme Court This method involves a series of negatively framed statements regarding the Court's elimination, power reduction, and overall trust, with respondents indicating their agreement on a five-point Likert scale Supportive responses, indicated by disagreement with these statements, are counted to create a "scale of support." I then adapt this framework to evaluate loyalty towards a constitutional charter, recoding responses into three categories: agree, undecided, and disagree, where the disagree category reflects greater constitutional loyalty Descriptive statistics for these questions are provided in Table 1.
The article discusses the critical evaluation of the U.S Supreme Court's decisions, suggesting that widespread disagreement could lead to calls for its abolition Respondents who express disagreement with this notion are categorized as supportive of the institution To quantify this support, a "constitutional loyalty scale" is proposed, which calculates the average response across four specific statements This scale serves as the dependent measure for further analysis, with each subject assessed for loyalty to both the federal and Michigan state constitutions.
Observations on constitutional loyalty among college students reveal a complex relationship with both the federal and Michigan state constitutions While a significant majority (58 percent) believes it matters if the Constitution is rewritten or amended, a slight majority (52 percent) disagrees that it is too controversial to be useful However, 54 percent feel the Constitution favors certain groups, and 46 percent would consider abolishing it if it obstructs popular support Overall, these findings indicate that American college students maintain a supportive yet critical perspective on the Constitution, expressing concerns about bias and its effectiveness in reflecting popular decision-making Notably, the average level of support across four statements is only 1.7, with 26 percent of respondents showing no support at all.
In this article, I utilize the arithmetic mean of four statements to summarize diffuse support, as this method offers more intuitive results Additionally, I developed various scale measures for constitutional loyalty, including the count of supportive statements based on Gibson’s 2012 approach, factor scores derived from principal component factor analysis (referencing Gibson and Caldeira 1992), and the proportion of support calculated by dividing supportive responses by the total number of statements The substantive findings remain consistent with those presented here, as discussed in Chapter 5.
In this report, all percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number, which may result in totals that do not equal 100 Notably, there were instances where no supportive statements were made regarding the constitution, while 10 percent of respondents provided supportive statements for all questions However, a significant majority, accounting for 54 percent, offered two or more supportive statements.
Constitutional Loyalty Towards the U.S and Michigan State Constitutions
Level of Diffuse Support Percentage
Item Agree Disagree Undecided Mean Std Dev N Factor
Do away with the Constitution
The data presented in this article is derived from pre-test measures, with percentages calculated from combined responses of "strongly agree" and "agree." It is important to note that due to rounding, the total percentages may not equal 100 In this context, the "agree" category reflects low constitutional loyalty, while "disagree" indicates high constitutional loyalty, as the questions are framed negatively Mean scores and standard deviations are based on uncollapsed distributions, using a scale from 1 to 5, where higher mean scores signify greater constitutional loyalty The loadings are derived from the first factor in the unrotated solution of a principal-components factor analysis for both federal and Michigan data, with no rotation required due to other factors having negligible eigenvalues.
Question wording is as follows (with “Michigan state” substituting federal in the state-level battery):
1 No difference if rewritten “It would not make much difference to me if the federal constitution were rewritten or amended.”
2 Constitution favors some groups “The federal constitution favors some groups more than others.”
3 Do away with the Constitution “If the federal constitution continually prevents decisions that the people agree with, it might be better to do away with the Constitution altogether.”
4 Constitution is too controversial “The federal constitution is too controversial to be useful today.”
Michigan state data reveals a significant level of uncertainty among residents, with majorities remaining undecided on three out of four statements regarding the state constitution Notably, 46 percent of respondents are unsure if rewriting or amending the constitution would lead to meaningful changes When excluding undecided responses, a majority of participants express support for all questions except the perception of bias in the constitution, where 74 percent believe it favors certain groups, mirroring federal findings Overall, the data indicates a trend of minimal support, with an average of only one supportive response across all four statements, and 46 percent of respondents showing no support for the Michigan constitution Only 3 percent provided supportive answers to all four questions.
The findings indicate a seemingly low loyalty to Michigan's constitution, particularly highlighted by the loyalty scale results However, the significant number of undecided responses points to a possible lack of awareness about the constitution, leading many respondents to choose a neutral stance When focusing on those who did express an opinion, over 60 percent showed support for the constitution across various questions, except regarding its favoritism towards certain groups This suggests that among those who engaged with the questions, there is a stronger sense of loyalty towards the Michigan state constitution.
The greater loyalty baseline for the federal constitution can be attributed to two main factors Firstly, college students tend to have a deeper understanding of the federal charter due to its emphasis in secondary and collegiate civic education This increased knowledge likely accounts for the lower number of undecided responses regarding federal questions compared to state-related queries The connection between constitutional knowledge and loyalty merits further investigation at both the federal and state levels This analysis will be explored in greater detail in Chapter [insert chapter number].
6 Second, and relatedly, the U.S Constitution does enjoy a “protected status” of sorts given the innate constitutional status quo bias Americans are likely to express regarding it (Zink and Dawes
5 Only 31 percent of the sample gave two or more supportive answers
Periodic Conventions & Constitutional Loyalty
This chapter examines the experimental results of my dissertation, focusing on the role of periodic conventions in influencing constitutional loyalty I begin by restating my central research question, theory, and formal hypotheses After summarizing my methods and subject sample, I present the experiment's results and evaluate my predictions Finally, I discuss the limitations and implications of the experiment.
How Do Periodic Conventions Influence Constitutional Loyalty?
Thomas Jefferson opposed permanent constitutional charters, fearing that unwavering loyalty to a constitution could lead to inadequate institutions He advocated for "periodic repairs," allowing future generations to revise or completely replace the constitution, a concept that aligns with modern calls for constitutional conventions In contrast, James Madison expressed concerns that such conventions might undermine the constitution's legitimacy and reduce long-term adherence However, he acknowledged that knowing previous conventions had been rejected could enhance respect for the current constitution, as it reflects a deliberate choice by the people.
[1788] 1961) Put another way, knowing that prior generations could have replaced the constitution but chose not to would increase loyalty towards it
Constitutional loyalty can be influenced by two key mechanisms: the first is the idea that habitual obedience fosters a preference for the status quo, leading to increased satisfaction and loyalty to a constitution simply because it is the default option; as the status quo persists, its support grows stronger The second mechanism, discussed by Jefferson and Madison, suggests that the potential for constitutional change can actually enhance loyalty; the threat posed by periodic conventions, which could fundamentally alter or replace the constitution, plays a significant role Research on risk aversion indicates that individuals tend to prefer options resembling the status quo and avoid alternatives perceived as risky, suggesting that merely emphasizing the potential consequences of periodic conventions can effectively reinforce constitutional loyalty.
Several questions can be distilled from this philosophical debate and empirical literatures
Periodic conventions may enhance constitutional loyalty by highlighting the risks associated with altering the constitution Research on risk aversion and status quo bias indicates that voters tend to be less supportive of constitutional changes once they recognize the implications of such conventions Consequently, the threat posed by periodic conventions could strengthen voters' attachment to the current constitution However, the impact of previous voter decisions on past conventions also plays a crucial role; if voters are aware that earlier conventions were rejected, their loyalty to the constitution may increase Conversely, knowledge of prior approvals of conventions might lead to diminished loyalty among voters.
Madison's argument emphasizes the importance of individual loyalty to constitutions, suggesting that as people become more aware of potential changes, their support for those modifications diminishes Research by Zink and Dawes (2016) reinforces this idea, indicating that heightened awareness of constitutional changes leads to increased resistance to proposed alterations.
Hypothesis 1a: Subjects exposed to more information about periodic conventions will exhibit higher constitutional loyalty
The literature on diffuse support suggests that its long-term and resilient characteristics may overshadow the influence of periodic conventions However, these conventions can significantly affect an individual's constitutional approval or specific support Unlike diffuse support, which remains stable over time, specific support is more vulnerable to the transient effects of periodic conventions and the priming associated with them.
Hypothesis 1b: Subjects exposed to more information about periodic conventions will exhibit higher constitutional approval
Exploring the relationship between constitutional loyalty and approval is crucial, as a person's inherent loyalty may remain unchanged despite a bias towards the constitutional status quo However, their approval can be influenced by external factors, such as periodic conventions Therefore, I will continue to align with Madison's expectations, as outlined in Hypothesis 1a, which is central to the focus of this dissertation.
A second set of hypotheses explores the relationship between periodic conventions and constitutional loyalty, focusing on specific factors Federalist 49 proposes that awareness of previously rejected conventions enhances constitutional loyalty Additionally, understanding that earlier generations upheld the constitution in its entirety may strengthen contemporary support for it Thus, I anticipate that these factors will positively influence constitutional loyalty.
Hypothesis 2a: Subjects informed about prior periodic conventions being rejected by voters will have higher constitutional loyalty than those told prior periodic conventions were approved
Hypothesis 2b: Subjects informed about prior periodic conventions being rejected by voters will have higher constitutional approval than those told prior periodic conventions were approved
Again, the nature of diffuse support should argue against Madison’s contention in Hypothesis 2a, but I assume its potentiality here given my dissertation’s goal of empirically testing Madison’s proposition
A third hypothesis suggests that awareness of periodic conventions could influence electoral behavior, leading individuals to vote in favor of holding such conventions This experiment examines this possibility, operating under the assumption that a person's bias towards the current constitutional framework will diminish their support for electoral changes, regardless of any shifts in their loyalty or approval of the constitution.
Hypothesis 3: Subjects exposed to more information about a periodic convention will indicate lower likelihoods of voting to hold a convention
I leave open my expectations about whether a particular prime (i.e being informed that prior conventions were approved versus rejected) will have a differential effect on a convention’s electoral support (see results section, below)
The experimental nature of this study necessitates post-hoc control, as subjects unfamiliar with periodic conventions may react differently to the treatments compared to those who are already informed.
Hypothesis 4: Subjects less familiar with periodic conventions will be more susceptible to the treatment than subjects with greater familiarity
I anticipate that any notable findings will primarily stem from participants who were previously unaware of periodic conventions In contrast, those who are more acquainted with these conventions are less likely to show a significant response to the treatment, as evidenced by their unchanged mean scores for constitutional loyalty and approval For a detailed overview of the hypotheses and results, refer to Table 6 below.
In this study, a between-subjects survey experiment was conducted to test specific hypotheses Participants first completed a pre-test assessing their demographic characteristics, sociopolitical variables, and levels of support for both the federal and Michigan state constitutions Following this, subjects were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions, where they encountered different information about Michigan's 2010 periodic convention and its powers through a mock newspaper article After reading the vignette, participants' responses were analyzed to draw conclusions about their perceptions and attitudes.
1 Greater elaboration of these methods (including justifications) can be found in Chapter 3 This section serves as both a quick primer and reminder
The complete survey instrument, including the pre-test, manipulations, and post-test, can be found in Appendix A, while Chapter 3 details the variable operationalizations not covered here Participants undertook a post-test consisting of three tasks: assessing their likelihood of supporting a constitutional convention at both federal and state levels, answering short question batteries on their knowledge of federal and Michigan state constitutions, and re-completing the specific and diffuse support batteries from the pre-test.
The primary dependent variable in this study is the index of constitutional loyalty, which is calculated separately for federal and Michigan contexts This index represents the average responses to four diffuse support statements collected in the post-test, as previously discussed Additionally, the study evaluates the treatment's impact on participants' constitutional approval ratings, which are scored on a scale from 1 (strongly disapprove) to 5 (strongly approve), along with two questions regarding support for constitutional conventions.
To explore the impact of prior knowledge on perceptions of periodic conventions, I employed three true/false pre-test questions regarding Michigan's state constitution These questions assessed whether Michigan has a state constitution, if voters are asked every 16 years about holding a constitutional convention, and if the current constitution can be revised through such a convention The responses formed a "prior knowledge" scale, scoring from zero (no correct answers) to three (all correct) For ease of analysis, I recoded this variable into a binary measure, categorizing subjects who answered zero or one question correctly.
The Impact of Constitutional Knowledge
In this final analysis, I explore the impact of constitutional knowledge on predicting constitutional loyalty, examining whether individuals with greater understanding respond differently to periodic conventions compared to those with less knowledge By building on previous analyses and revising earlier conclusions, I provide a theoretical framework that highlights the relationship between civic knowledge—encompassing news consumption and constitutional awareness—and support for constitutional principles.
Previous studies inadequately assess true constitutional knowledge, often relying on self-reported familiarity with a charter, which raises validity issues To address this, I introduce a new measurement approach for evaluating both federal and Michigan constitutional knowledge After detailing these measures, I revisit the findings from Chapters 4 and 5, incorporating controls for civic knowledge aspects, such as attentiveness to national and local news and the depth of constitutional understanding Ultimately, I conclude with a discussion of the implications and limitations of this research.
Civic Knowledge and Its Influence on Constitutional Support
Research on institutional support indicates that knowledge about an institution influences individuals' support for it, although this relationship can differ across institutions For instance, studies by Gibson and colleagues reveal that individuals with a deeper understanding of the U.S Supreme Court tend to exhibit greater loyalty, a phenomenon referred to as "positivity bias." In contrast, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that those who are most knowledgeable about Congress often have the least favorable opinions of it Similarly, Jones and McDermott, along with Mondak et al., identified a comparable trend regarding Congress's specific support, suggesting that variations in evaluations between high and low knowledge individuals contribute to this phenomenon rather than knowledge itself having a direct effect Overall, it appears that institutional knowledge significantly influences both specific and diffuse support for institutions.
Previous research on constitutional support has indirectly accounted for varying levels of constitutional knowledge Studies by Blake and Levinson (2016) and Stephanopoulos and Versteeg (2016) revealed that individuals with higher education, such as bachelor’s degree holders compared to high school graduates, generally show more support for the U.S Constitution and their state constitutions, while also being less inclined to favor a federal constitutional convention However, this correlation relies on the assumption that higher education equates to greater governmental knowledge In their thorough analysis of constitutional approval, Stephanopoulos and Versteeg (2016) improved upon this by asking respondents to self-assess their familiarity with both their state and federal constitutions on a five-point scale, providing a more accurate measure of constitutional knowledge.
In 2016, researchers examined how general public affairs knowledge influences constitutional approval by investigating individuals' news consumption habits, specifically their frequency of following national and local news These inquiries collectively represent a broader dimension of civic knowledge.
Research by Mondak et al (2007) indicates that individuals with a high level of knowledge assess Congress's performance primarily on policy alignment, known as policy congruence In contrast, those with lower knowledge tend to evaluate Congress based on their perceptions of the current president.
Stephanopoulos and Versteeg (2016) demonstrate that civic knowledge significantly influences constitutional approval, with individuals possessing a greater understanding of the federal constitution rating it more favorably than those with less knowledge This correlation extends to attentiveness to national news, and similar patterns are observed regarding state constitutional approval In their unified regression models, both news consumption and constitutional knowledge are shown to be highly significant and impactful, alongside factors such as institutional attitudes, race, and age However, these findings focus solely on constitutional approval and do not explore the effects of charter knowledge or news consumption on constitutional loyalty or diffuse support.
The findings on constitutional approval, as noted by Stephanopoulos and Versteeg (2016), come with two important caveats Firstly, the measures are based on self-reported data, meaning respondents were not evaluated for their actual constitutional knowledge or news consumption habits, leading to only tentative evidence of a link between constitutional approval and civic knowledge Additionally, participants with higher charter knowledge did not perform better on reading comprehension quizzes than those with lower knowledge, suggesting a discrepancy between self-reported knowledge and true familiarity Secondly, it is possible that respondents perceived themselves as more knowledgeable about their constitutions due to their approval or support for them.
Constitutional approval signifies an individual's current satisfaction and feelings regarding the charter, while constitutional loyalty represents a deeper, long-term commitment to the charter and its institutional integrity.
The surveys aimed to evaluate respondents' comprehension of the treatment, while also testing the differences between low- and high-knowledge individuals Research indicates that both support and claimed familiarity arise from a shared positive attitude toward the documents (Stephanopoulos and Versteeg 2016, 145) However, there has been limited exploration of the psychological dimensions of knowledge, as the existing literature predominantly emphasizes actual knowledge over professed knowledge (Delli Carpini and Keeter).
The insights from 1996 highlight the necessity for a revised conceptualization and measurement approach to effectively assess the influence of civic knowledge, particularly charter knowledge, on constitutional approval and loyalty.
Measuring true constitutional knowledge is challenging due to the lack of formal assessments, relying instead on self-reported questions, particularly at the state level Demonstrating actual knowledge through practical tests is more reliable than simply asking individuals about their familiarity with the Constitution Social desirability bias can inflate perceived knowledge, as admitting to limited understanding may be viewed as unpatriotic Therefore, posing specific questions about the Constitution's content is a more effective method to evaluate genuine familiarity with this foundational document.
To effectively assess constitutional knowledge, it is essential to draw from political knowledge and civic education literature, which emphasizes the importance of an individual's ability to understand and retain key political facts (Nie, Junn, and Stehlik-Barry 1996) Delli Carpini and Keeter’s five-question battery, recognized as the gold standard in political science, measures various aspects of political knowledge, including democratic norms and current events (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996) Surveys often evaluate factual understanding of constitutional norms and principles, frequently utilizing open-ended questions For instance, Green and colleagues (2011) exemplify this by assessing students' comprehension of civil and political rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, reflecting the central role these rights play in civics education.
1993) Nonetheless, the structural principles (e.g institutional processes and separation of powers) should not be ignored
To assess federal and state constitutional knowledge, I employ two distinct methodologies For federal constitutional knowledge, I utilize six targeted questions that evaluate understanding across three key areas: structural factors, principles and norms, and general facts In response to Gibson and Caldeira’s (2009b) critique of political knowledge surveys, I favor closed-ended questions that emphasize recognition over open-ended recall questions This approach increases the likelihood of correct responses, revealing a greater level of knowledge than what recall questions might indicate, as supported by Luskin and Bullock (2011) My questions are carefully adapted to enhance effectiveness.
In their analysis, Gibson and Caldeira (2009b) advocate for a more nuanced understanding of public ignorance regarding civic and political issues, drawing on insights from various surveys such as the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s annual Constitution Day Civics Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics exam They align with Lupia (2006) in suggesting that perceptions of ignorance are significantly influenced by these assessments, alongside previous research on political and civic knowledge, including studies by Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996), Gainous and Martens (2012), Green et al (2011), and Niemi and Junn.
Conclusions, Implications & Future Work
This article examines the relationship between institutional support and constitutional loyalty, revealing that the lack of influence from primes related to periodic conventions on constitutional loyalty may be reassuring for advocates of constitutional veneration Despite this, there is a notable political reality where individuals express discontent with the constitutional system and its outcomes Interestingly, primes about periodic conventions do affect approval of constitutions, albeit in unexpected manners The discussion will outline these findings, their implications, and suggest directions for future research on constitutional loyalty and periodic conventions.
Lessons & Implications: Constitutional Loyalty, Periodic Conventions, and the Big Picture
Opinions on Political Institutions (and System) Drive Constitutional Loyalty
Constitutional scholar Sandford Levinson refers to the U.S Constitution as our nation's "sacred text," highlighting the deep loyalty it inspires among Americans While there is a general reluctance to fundamentally alter the Constitution, research indicates that a significant portion of the population, including 61% according to the Pew Research Center, believes that substantial changes are necessary in the design and structure of American government This creates a paradox where, despite a strong attachment to the Constitution, many citizens feel dissatisfied with the political system it establishes.
Attitudes towards U.S institutions, particularly the Supreme Court and President Trump, significantly influence individuals' loyalty to the Constitution When government entities engage in constitutional debates, their performance can sway public perception of constitutional fidelity This trend is concerning as widespread dissatisfaction with government may undermine national civic values and suggest that constitutional loyalty is susceptible to political shifts, exacerbated by partisan polarization The Pew Research Center's findings indicate that a majority of Americans now advocate for substantial changes to the constitutional framework, suggesting a notable decline in constitutional loyalty compared to previous years.
While partisanship can negatively influence perceptions of the political system, it remains uncertain whether these sentiments call for fundamental changes to the constitutional framework Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995) suggest that the public tends to critique governmental institutions rather than the overall design of the system itself.
People perceive two distinct political systems, with the constitutional framework consistently receiving positive feedback Issues within the political system are viewed as deviations from the Constitution's original guidelines, suggesting that the core outline itself is not flawed.
The Pew survey reveals that respondents harbor negative feelings not only towards specific governmental institutions, particularly Congress, but also believe that the overall design of government necessitates substantial and fundamental reforms.
Recent findings indicate a growing skepticism towards the U.S Constitution, with many individuals viewing it as inherently flawed rather than attributing issues to its institutions While there is no overwhelming desire to abolish the Constitution, concerns about its fairness are prevalent, with a significant number of respondents believing that major alterations would be inconsequential This skepticism, coupled with negative attitudes towards key institutions like the Supreme Court and the presidency, suggests that hyperpartisan polarization is undermining faith in the constitutional system Additionally, the positive correlation between constitutional approval and loyalty highlights how short-term perceptions can significantly shape long-term attitudes toward the Constitution.
State constitutions are also influenced by institutional attitudes, though my findings did not show a direct correlation between these attitudes and state constitutional loyalty However, my regression analysis revealed a "warm-glow" effect, indicating that positive feelings towards the constitution can impact loyalty Zink and Dawes (2016) note that a constitutional status quo bias at the federal level extends to the states, highlighting the interconnectedness of constitutional attitudes across different governance levels.
The diminished resilience of the status quo bias suggests that Americans rely on a common framework when assessing their federal and state constitutions My research indicates that sentiments towards federal institutions, especially the Supreme Court and President Trump, significantly impact state constitutional loyalties This effect is intensified by the limited understanding and engagement citizens have with their state charters, leading them to depend on familiar federal schemas for guidance Consequently, attitudes towards the federal Constitution and government serve as a convenient reference point for evaluating the unknown aspects of state constitutions.
Periodic Conventions: Influencing Constitutional Approval
Periodic conventions play an unexpected role in influencing constitutional approval, despite not affecting overall constitutional loyalty Specifically, individuals informed that previous conventions were rejected showed decreased approval scores compared to those who learned that prior conventions were approved This finding contradicts Madison's expectations in Federalist 49 and suggests that positive reinforcement may activate risk aversion and a preference for the constitutional status quo Notably, both Michigan and federal constitutional approval were significantly impacted by these informational primes.
My findings indicate that changes to constitutional evaluative criteria can begin at the state level and have significant effects on the federal level, creating a “reverse” warm glow Since the federal Constitution lacks a history of periodic conventions, examining convention effects at the state level is more practical However, federal sentiments influence state constitutional loyalty, leading to a feedback loop where low constitutional approval correlates with low loyalty This dynamic suggests that Madison’s advice may inadvertently diminish constitutional loyalty by encouraging voters to support amendments that challenge their established biases Prominent critics, like Levinson (2018), urge a reevaluation of whether our 18th-century Constitution remains effective, highlighting the rejection of various constitutional reforms favored by contemporary Americans over the past two centuries.
Constitutional Ignorance: The Importance of Reading the Manual
There exists an "ignorance gap" regarding constitutional knowledge, where individuals unfamiliar with periodic conventions are more influenced by primes, skewing results Those with a deeper understanding of a constitution tend to show greater loyalty and support for it, illustrating a "positivity bias" in institutional backing—essentially, familiarity breeds affection (Gibson and Caldeira 2009a) Therefore, enhancing constitutional loyalty and mitigating negative political trends, such as hyperpartisanship, can be achieved through education on constitutional processes and general constitutional knowledge.
Michigan's constitutional loyalty highlights the detrimental impact of constitutional ignorance, particularly among those unfamiliar with the state's periodic convention mechanism Individuals lacking this knowledge showed no significant differences in their constitutional loyalties or approval ratings compared to those who were aware of it The absence of a positivity bias at the Michigan level suggests a widespread lack of constitutional understanding, a trend not surprising given that periodic conventions are rarely taught in schools, and state constitutions are often overlooked in civics education (Snider 2017) Furthermore, as research indicates that many Americans possess low political knowledge (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996), it follows that their constitutional awareness is similarly limited Consequently, this ignorance could make the general population's support for constitutional principles easily swayed over time.
The effectiveness of periodic conventions is questionable, particularly if voters lack awareness of them, which undermines their role in allowing citizens to assess the political system's design Jefferson’s idea of regularly replacing constitutions appears unrealistic if most citizens are unaware of their ability to do so A more effective strategy might involve proposing singular amendments instead of comprehensive revisions, although this approach has also faced challenges, as evidenced by the less than 50% approval rate for amendments to the Michigan constitution since 1964 Additionally, priming voters about periodic conventions can yield inconsistent results, often influenced by uninformed citizens Both Madison and Jefferson would concur that a well-informed electorate is essential for effective constitutional revisions.
Building on these findings, future research should focus on replication studies to assess the generalizability of the experimental results to the broader population of American adults While some scholars, such as Druckman and Kam (2011), argue that framing and priming experiments do not raise generalizability issues when conducted with college student samples, it remains unclear whether these findings apply to adults of different age groups There may be generational differences, particularly among Millennials compared to their parents and grandparents, which could indicate a significant shift in perceptions of constitutional support Understanding these differences is crucial, as they may reveal why younger individuals respond uniquely to constitutional primes.