This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Abstract
This is a follow up study to a 2000 report, which gauged Illinois legislators'
perceptions and attitudes toward e-mail communication. Since the 2000 
study, advances
have been made in e-mail technology, which could alter legislators' 
perceptions and
attitudes. The current study includes a panel comparison consisting of 59% of
respondents who participated in both the 2000 and the 2004 study. The 
2000 study
revealed that legislators' inability to determine the origin of 
e-mail negatively affected
constituent e-mail's impact on legislators' personal political 
agendas. Advances in e-mail
technology could alleviate this problem, thus impacting legislators' 
perceptions and use
of e-mail as a political tool of communication. Despite e-mail's 
minimal impact,
legislators indicated a strong future reliance on it as a form of 
communication. This
paper, therefore, measures and compares state legislators' perception 
of the importance of
e-mail communication.
1
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Introduction
This paper presents evidence that the role of e-mail communication is 
impacting state
legislators' political agendas. Furthermore, this paper also gauged 
changes in state
legislators' attitude and perception toward the use of e-mail as a 
political tool of
communication. According to the findings, Illinois state legislators' 
have begun to
embrace e-mail communication and implement its use as a viable 
political tool of
communication.
It is clear that although the use of the Internet as a vehicle for 
public communication is
little more than a decade old, its implications for democratic 
discourse are staggering. In
particular, e-mail has the potential for forging an unprecedented 
communication link
between elected officials and their constituencies that is 
unprecedented. While legislators
have always been sensitive to the concerns of their constituents as 
expressed through
traditional modes of communication, such as postal mail and phone calls, the
proliferation of e-mail users is likely to increase the volume of 
such contacts, as well as
diversify the demographic profile of citizen-participants.
A survey conducted in February 2000 (Sheffer 2003) of Illinois 
legislators' use of email
suggested that future reliance on e-mail, as a political tool of 
communication, was
inevitable. Despite this future predicted reliance on e-mail, 
legislators in the 2000 study
indicated that they were not shifting agendas based on constituent 
e-mails. That lack of
e-mail's impact on legislative agendas was attributed to lack of 
geographic location of the
sender. Improvements in e-mail technology like Echo-mail, however, 
have solved this
dilemma. As a sequel to the 2000 study of Illinois legislators, this 
study sought to
2
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
measure and compare Illinois legislators' attitudes and perceptions 
toward constituent email
as well as the impact of developing technology on these perceptions 
and attitudes.
Several theoretical perspectives are examined to try and explain the 
changes revealed
by the research that actually have taken place regarding the 
political use of e-mail by
Illinois state legislators. One theory analyzes the stages or phases 
of individuals'
acceptance of new innovations. A second group of theories focuses on 
legislative
agendas: specifically the impact of constituent communication on 
state legislators'
agendas and decisions making process. Traditional agenda setting 
theory argues that the
press has the greatest impact on what the public thinks is important. 
However, the
plethora of information available via the Internet could alter the 
power of the press,
allowing constituents a greater say in the democratic process.
This paper summarizes the results of a survey of the Illinois General 
Assembly. It
addresses four issues. First, has increased constituent e-mails 
received on a specific topic
caused legislators to shift his or her agenda to focus on that topic? 
Second, do legislators
respond quicker to constituent e-mail than constituent postal mail? 
Third, does
experience in using e-mail equate to a higher rating of e-mail as an 
effective means of
communicating? These questions will be more formally stated as 
hypotheses in a later
section.
Background
Communication between the elected and the electorate is an essential 
element in a
democratic society. For a dialogue to occur, a link between the 
public and its leaders
must exist, thus allowing representatives the opportunity to reflect 
their constituencies
(Luttbeg 1968). Therefore, representatives must make an effort to 
understand the wants,
3
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
needs, and demands of their district (Fenno 1978). Early research 
(Dexter 1956;
Kefauver and Levin 1947) showed that "the mailbag is the secret of 
success" (Dexter
1956, p. 18). Despite the passage of time, personal letters from 
constituents still remains
influential. A former Arizona Congressman states, "On several 
occasions I can testify
that a single thoughtful, factually persuasive letter did change my 
mind or caused me to
initiate a review of a previous judgment" (Frantzich 1986, p. 65). 
The form of that
personal contact, however, has expanded to include e-mail.
Through the world of computer technology, people are finding new ways to
communicate, especially through the Internet. The number of 
households connected to
the Internet is increasing at an astonishing rate. According to an 
April 2002 survey by
Nua (an online survey group own by Scope Communication), 
approximately 165 million
people (or 59% of the population) in the U.S. were connected to the 
Internet, and the rate
of growth is 2 million new Internet users per month (NTIA, Nation 
Online, 2002). By
2004, a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project revealed 
that almost 70%
of all American adults were active online.
As early as 1999, researchers were attributing online growth to 
increased reliability
and ease of access, especially with respect to e-mail (Romm, 1999, p 
7). Of all the
applications available through the Internet, e-mail has emerged as 
the most popular
(Ascribe Newswire, 2003). Nearly 80% of all Internet activity is 
attributed to e-mail
("Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion" October, 2000). 
Although statistics
showed that the public had embraced e-mail as a viable form of 
communication, a 2000
survey (Sheffer 2003) showed this was not the case with Illinois 
state legislators. Similar
to findings regarding the federal level, Illinois legislators 
witnessed a significant increase
4
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
in the amount of e-mails received. This increase in e-mail 
communication, however, led
to a sense of being overwhelmed, which caused legislators to ignore 
this form of
communication.
Recent technological software, such as Echo-mail and E-mail Exception Handler,
which filters unwanted e-mail, could alleviate the issue of e-mail 
overload. Echo-mail
and E-mail Exception Handler disseminates or re-routes e-mails to their proper
destination, thus helping to relieve legislative e-mail overload 
(Congress Online Project,
2002; Greenberg, 2001; Cornfield, 1999). A variation of this software 
requires e-mails to
include postal codes, information that is vital in determining 
whether the sender is a
constituent (Congress Online Project, 2002; Greenberg, 2001; Carter, 1999).
Based on parameters an office defines, Echo-mail also has the ability 
to condense,
group and summarize numerous e-mails giving the legislator an 
"overview of what's on
the minds of voters" (Greenberg, 2001, p. 26). In addition 
Echo-Mail's "sophisticated
technologies enables it to identify the tone and meaning of messages" (George
Washington University Study, 2001), further enhancing legislators 
ability to classify emails.
E-mail Exception Handler gives congressional offices the ability to isolate
incoming e-mail by keywords and route them to the right staffers, 
thus filtering "nut
cases, VIP's and non-constituents" from constituents (Cornfield, 1999, p. 45).
Legislators' fear of responding instantaneously via e-mail is 
combated by another
aspect of Echo-mail, Autoresponder. Through this software, 
legislators have the option
of automatically sending a standard response or creating a more 
individualized response
(Greenberg, 2001; Simmons, 2001). "Echo-mail will sort through the 
Senator's position
papers on those issues, string together prefabricated paragraphs from 
its data bank, and
5
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
then fuse them into a coherent seemingly personalized whole that 
would be sent as a
response" (Greenberg, 2001, p. 26). Some legislators are using 
Autoresponse as a
filtering device by sending an automated form letter requesting 
geographic locations,
mailing address and phone numbers (Greenberg, 2001). Since the 
development of this
technology, the majority of legislative offices that receive e-mail, 
at the federal level,
have begun to reply via e-mail indicating a fuller response via 
postal mail (Congress
Online Project, 2002, Carter, 1999, p. 475).
Literature Review
The issue of whether legislators are using e-mail might lie in 
Everett Rogers' diffusion
of innovation theory. Acceptance of innovation, according to Rogers, 
requires five steps:
(1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and 
(5) confirmation.
Today's state legislator is somewhere between implementation, through which an
innovation is put to use, and confirmation (approval or disapproval 
of innovation).
Rogers (1995, p. 5) defines diffusion as "the process by which an 
innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social
system." In this social system, opinion leaders (early adopters) set 
the trend for the rest
of the group. These leaders are the first to embrace and use new 
technology; in essence,
they become the "role models" for other members of their society 
(Rogers, 1983, p. 249).
To maintain a central position within this communication system, 
early adopters must
make "judicious innovation decisions" (Rogers, 1983, p. 249). 
Therefore, politicians
who take the initiative and feel the most comfortable using new 
technology will become
the opinion leaders or early adopters. There also is some indication 
that age may play a
role in who becomes the opinion leader or innovator. Rogers states 
that younger people
6
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
are more likely to implement and accept new technologies than older 
ones. "The general
evidence seems to indicate that innovators are younger than laggards" 
(Rogers, 1962, p.
174). Gauging Rogers' laggards simply by age, younger legislators are 
more likely to
implement e-mail than older legislators.
Incorporating a contextual theory of home style is another way to 
analyze whether
legislators implement computer-mediated communication. Typically, 
scholars suggest
three reasons why legislators change their home style: description of 
district (including
economic, social, and geographic characteristics), personal 
conditions, and strategic
factors (Fenno, 1978; Parker, 1986; Yiannakis, 1982). In regard to 
resource allocation
that deals with a district's make-up, it is possible to assume that 
legislators base their email
use on constituent use. In other words, legislators who represent 
computer-literate
districts are more likely to implement commuter-mediated 
communication (e-mail) than
legislators whose constituency is less likely to use the Internet 
(Adler et al. 1998).
Furthermore, a member's age, ideology and personal interest all 
contribute to the
adoption process. Legislators who are familiar with the Internet or 
computers are likely
to impact or influence fellow members' decisions to alter their home 
styles and
implement e-mail as a political tool of communication (Adler et al., 
1998; Casey, 1996;
Browning, 1995). This change in home style thus coincides with Rogers' theory.
Agenda Setting
The concept of agenda setting is not new. The root of its definition 
is grounded in the
principle that by repeated coverage "over time the priorities of the 
press become the
priorities of the public" (Weaver, Garber, McCombs and Eyal, 1981 p. 
4). This is
particularly true when dealing with politics. Prior research has 
determined a definite
7
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
correlation between what the media think and what concerns the public 
and politicians
(Weaver et. Al, 1981, p. 76). In other words, "agenda setting is the 
ability of news
coverage to affect the compositions of the political agenda – that 
is, to influence those
issues, events, themes, or persons that the public considers 
important enough to think and
talk about" (Joslyn, 1984, p. 164).
Perhaps Cohen (1963, p. 13) described agenda setting best when he 
said, "The mass
media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are 
stunningly
successful in telling us what to think about." The media, through 
repeated coverage,
raise the "importance of an issue in the public's mind" (Severin and 
Tankard, 1997, p.
249). With the Internet, however, the role of the media as gatekeeper 
shifts to the user.
Through the Internet, constituents (users) have some control over what type of
information they receive. In some respect, they have more control 
over the actual content
of political information (Browning, 1996). In fact, the 2004 
elections highlighted the
Internet's ability to engage and mobilize the public, as well as 
encourage the democratic
idea of many-to-many communication (Gelman 2004; Pope 2004). The Internet
continued to empower citizens and served to increase the marketplace 
of ideas (Pope
2004).
This new instant, virtually free channel of communication among 
constituents and
legislators could have an effect on the legislative process, one that 
causes legislators to
change their political agenda by forming new laws or policies. Thus, 
through this new
open line of communication, political agenda setting might be 
affected. It is not longer a
question of whether the Internet will change American politics, "but 
who will utilize the
new technology best, and when its full impact will become known" 
(Marre, 2003, p 5).
8
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
There is evidence, says researcher Russell Neuman (1991), that 
computer networks
help to empower citizens and encourages discussion between citizens 
and leaders.
Concurring with Neuman, researchers Stromer-Galley and Foot believe 
the Internet
offers potential for increased political participation (2002). And 
still other researchers
argue the Internet will free citizens and their representatives, 
opening the line of
communication and eliminating the media as gatekeeper (Shah et. al, 
2001; Conhaim
2000; Bennett et. al, 1999; Norris 1999; and Carter 1999). Again, 
this could impact the
origin of agenda setting. Until recently, even agenda setting studies 
were based on
aggregate data (media coverage, public opinion surveys) that often 
overlooked the
individual-and-personal network level of analysis (Brosius and 
Weimann, 1998, p. 562).
After reviewing the literature, several questions still remain 
unanswered, thus
indicating the need for further research. Therefore, the following 
hypotheses and
research question were developed.
H1: The more constituent e-mail received on a specific topic, the more
likely a politician is to report a shift in his or her agenda to focus on
that topic.
H2: The instantaneous nature of e-mail will cause politicians to respond
faster to constituent e-mail than constituent postal mail.
H3: Legislators who have more experience using e-mail are more likely to
view electronic mail as an effective means of communicating with
constituents.
RQ1: How have legislators' perceptions and attitudes toward constituent e-mail
changed over time?
Methodology
To answer these questions a survey measuring the attitudes and 
responses of Illinois
legislators was conducted on February 24, 2004. To gauge changes in 
state legislators'
perceptions and attitudes, a follow-up analysis using data from a 
2000 survey of Illinois
9
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
legislators was compared with this survey. This study also includes a 
panel comparison
made up of 59% of legislators who participated in the 2000 and 2004 
studies. There were
29 overall incumbents (15 senators and 14 representatives) within the 
2004 survey. Of
those 29 incumbents, five senators (34%) and 12 representatives (86%) 
were resurveyed.
There are 59 senators and 118 representatives in the state of 
Illinois, making the total
population 177. Although the population is limited, in this case, the 
increase in
politicians' response was deemed more important.
The study was limited to Illinois for several reasons. Past research 
has deemed Illinois
as a "political microcosm of the nation" and worthy of study (Herbst, 
1998, p. 10).
According to researcher David Everson (1990), Illinois represents 
both agricultural and
industrial cultures along with having a diverse population reflecting 
both southern and
northern demographics. With communities ranging in population from roughly 800
(Ullin) to more than 3 million (Chicago), Illinois reflects both 
small town rural America
along with major urban dwellings (e-Podunk, 2003). In addition, since 
this study
includes a panel analysis the data should include the same population 
as the original 2000
survey.
Results
There are 59 Senators and 118 Representatives in the state of 
Illinois, bringing the
total population to 177. A total of 51 surveys were received from the 
house and a total of
26 surveys were received from the senate. Given the census size of 
177, this yielded an
overall response rate of 43%.
Responses to the questionnaire supported much of the literature, in 
that legislators felt
an added sense of pressure to respond quicker to e-mail than direct 
mail (H2); and that
10
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
perception of e-mail's effectiveness as a political tool of 
communication depended on
length of experience in using e-mail (H3). In addition, similar to 
the 2000 study, there
was limited support for H1. Results indicated that perception of 
e-mail, instead of
volume of constituent e-mail received correlated to reported shifts 
in legislators' agendas.
Based on prior research, constituent feedback is a contributing factor when
determining political agendas. Correlations were used to determine 
the strength of this
relationship at the state level. The findings indicated that 
correlations among reported
shifts in legislators' agendas caused by constituent e-mail with 
legislators who chose
constituent feedback as the most influential factor in deciding 
political agendas (r= .418,
p< .01), and with legislators who indicated that overall constituent 
feedback impacts
agendas (r= .675, p< .01) were significant. Since this study focused 
on the perceptions of
state legislators, a further correlation regarding legislators' 
perception of e-mail as an
important political tool (r= .351, p< .01) with reported shifts in 
agendas caused by
constituent e-mail was performed and was found significant.
A regression was run to account for the simultaneous interactions among these
bivariate relationships, including the original set of demographic 
controls that address
Rogers' theory (see Table 1.0). While holding other variables 
constant, there remains a
positive relationship between shifts in agendas caused by increased 
e-mails with
legislators who regard e-mail as important and overall shift their 
agenda based on strong
constituent feedback. The volume of e-mail received, however, did not 
cause legislators
to reportedly shift agendas. In fact, an inverted relation exists in 
that increased volume of
e-mails received was negatively related to shifts in agendas. So that 
the more e-mail
received, the less likely legislators were to shift their agendas. 
Instead, legislators'
11
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
perception of e-mail as a political tool, rather than the volume of 
e-mail received,
positively impacted changes in agendas. The basic premise of H1 that increased
constituent feedback would positively impact legislators' agendas was 
not supported.
However, results to question 17, which directly asked if legislators 
would shift their
agenda depending on the amount of constituent e-mail received, were 
mixed. On a scale
from one to seven with one representing strongly agree, most 
respondents (36%) chose
the neutral "four" position for this question. Overall, however, 35% 
of those responding
chose agree and 28% chose disagree; indicating a 20% increase in 
agree from the 2000
study. Furthermore, 77% of legislators responding indicated that in 
general they
infrequently changed their political agenda, which could explain why 
36% of legislators
chose neutral for question 17.
The regression does, however, support Rogers' innovation theory, in 
that younger
legislators indicated a greater shift in agendas based on increased 
constituent e-mails than
older legislators. In addition, the insignificant difference between 
the sexes indicates the
gender gap has lessened and women are no longer the "laggards."
E-mail and Response Time
The results of the survey showed support for H2. Questions one and two asked
legislators how quickly they respond to direct mail and e-mail 
respectively. A Chi
Square of 9.96 showed a significant difference between the two responses. Most
respondents (68%) agreed that constituents communicating via e-mail 
expected a quicker
response than other forms of communication; overall, 11% disagreed 
while 18% chose
the neutral position. In addition, a positive correlation (r= .510, 
p< .01) between
legislators who perceive e-mail as a timelier means of communicating 
with those
12
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
legislators who respond faster to e-mail than direct mail was 
significant. Since timeliness
of e-mail, e-mail's importance and effectiveness were highly 
correlated in revealing
legislators' perceptions of e-mail (Cronbach alpha = .79), these 
variables were collapsed
into one, e-mail characteristics.
A regression considering the impact of legislators' perceptions of 
constituents' desire
to receive a quicker response when using e-mail communication on 
legislators' response
time further supports these findings. As seen in Table 1.1, 
legislators with higher levels
of education and who believe e-mail is a timelier form of 
communication and regarded email
as both effective and important were more likely to respond more 
quickly to e-mail
than postal mail. In addition, a positive relationship exists between 
legislators who
overall respond more quickly to postal mail and e-mail.
Constituent expectation, however, had a negative impact on 
legislators' response time.
In other words, constituent expectation regarding e-mail response 
time did not make
legislators respond more quickly. Even though this seems counter 
intuitive, it appears
response time to e-mail depended more on the importance legislators 
place on e-mail
communication rather than on constituent expectations. In addition, a positive
correlation (r= .422, p< .001) between legislators who felt 
constituents communicating
via e-mail expected a quicker response and with those legislators who 
respond to
constituent e-mail via e-mail. Thus indicating that legislators were 
using e-mail to
respond more quickly.
According to the regression results, a negative relationship also 
existed between the
two chambers. In other words, representatives significantly responded 
slower to e-mail
than senators.
13
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
So far, we have found that legislators' response time to constituent e-mail is
associated with legislators' perception of the importance and 
effectiveness of e-mail.
Developments in e-mail technology, however, suggest that other 
variables might cause
legislators to respond more quickly to e-mail than postal mail. 
Filtering systems and
auto response systems allow legislators to send an instant message to 
constituents, which
could lead to increased perceptions of e-mail's importance in 
constituent communication
and cause legislators to respond quicker to e-mail than other forms 
of communication.
A regression including: use of filter system, e-mail characteristics 
(importance and
effectiveness of e-mail and e-mail timeliness), postal response time, 
a set of demographic
controls, and constituent expectation was run to test these 
propositions (see Table 1.1,
Model 2). In this analysis, legislators who use filtering systems 
respond quicker to e-mail
than postal mail, thus supporting assumptions made in the literature review.
Furthermore, e-mail response time remained positively associated with 
perceptions of email's
importance in communicating. Constituent expectations also remained negatively
related to legislators' e-mail response time, indicating that 
legislators' perception and not
constituent expectations determine response time to e-mails.
In both models, level of education also had a significant positive 
relationship to the
overall speed in responding to constituent e-mail. In other words, 
legislators with higher
levels of education tend to respond more quickly to e-mail than 
postal mail. Adding the
variable filter system to the equation had a significant impact on 
race, in that white
legislators significantly indicated that they respond more quickly to 
e-mail than black
legislators (see Model 2 Table 1.1). Female legislators also appeared 
to respond more
quickly to e-mail than male legislators, albeit the difference was 
not significant. Since
14
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
the majority of respondents indicated positive responses, it was 
concluded that the
preponderance of results supported H2.
E-mail Experience
To test relations between experiences in using e-mail with 
perceptions of e-mail's
effectiveness, e-mail's effectiveness was compared with length of 
using e-mail. A
positive relationship, albeit a weak one (r= .196, p< .10) indicates 
that the longer
legislators use e-mail the more they believe it is effective. Further 
analysis of how
legislators' use e-mail revealed additional significant factors 
impacting legislators'
perceptions of e-mail's effectiveness. Correlations among e-mail's 
effectiveness with the
use of e-mail both privately and professionally (r= .535, p< .01), 
and with the volume of
e-mail received in the last year (r= .272, p< .01) were significant. 
The first finding
indicates that the more experience in using e-mail leads to an 
increased belief in e-mail's
effectiveness in communicating with constituents, thus supporting H3.
The second finding also indicates a positive relationship between the 
two variables, in
that legislators who have witnessed an increase in constituent e-mail 
in the last year
believed e-mail was an effective means of communicating. In addition, 
a cross-tabulation
showed that 46 of 52 legislators responding who witnessed an increase 
in the amount of
e-mails received agreed that e-mail is an effective means of 
communication. A Chi
Square of 5.67 adds statistical support to this finding.
To further test the significance of these relations, a regression 
including e-mail's
effectiveness, volume of e-mail received, use of e-mail both 
privately and professionally,
the same set of demographic variables, and future reliance was run 
(see Table 1.2).
Because use of e-mail both privately and professionally was 
correlated with future
15
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
reliance on e-mail (Cronbach Alpha .63), the two variables were 
formed into a single
variable, use/future reliance.
The results indicate that the use of e-mail both privately and 
professionally positively
impacted legislators' perception of e-mail's effectiveness. The 
significance of this
relationship lends support to H3 in that increased use of e-mail 
enhanced legislators'
positive perception of e-mail's effectiveness. The correlation 
between e-mail volume
and perceived effectiveness of e-mail, however, no longer remained 
significant. Thus
indicating that individual use of e-mail determined the effectiveness 
of e-mail and not the
volume of e-mail received. In other words, the more legislators used 
e-mail, the more
they perceived e-mail to be effective.
RQ1: Attitude Changes
Findings regarding RQ1, which asked how legislators' perceptions and attitudes
toward constituent e-mail changed over time, were interesting. Overall, 72% of
legislators in the 2004 study regarded e-mail as an important 
political tool of
communication, an increase of 31% from the 2000 study. Increased 
percentages also
occurred in regard to e-mail's impact on political agendas and 
overall influence of
constituent e-mails on legislators (as seen in table 1.3).
To test whether these percentage differences were significant, a 
regression based on
changes in agendas caused by constituent e-mail, response from 2000 
and 2004, the same
set of demographic controls, the private/professional use of e-mail, 
and importance of email
as a political tool was run. Again, use of e-mail both privately and 
professionally
was highly correlated to perceptions of e-mail as an important tool 
of communication
(Cronbach alpha .88). Therefore, the variables were combined into one 
(use/importance).
16
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
As seen in Table 1.4, legislators in the 2004 survey were 
significantly more willing to
shift agendas based on constituent e-mails. Also, use of e-mail and 
belief in its
importance as a political tool positively impacted shifts in 
legislators' agendas.
Consistent with prior findings, younger legislators were willing to 
report they were
influenced the most by constituent e-mail. Although not significant, 
male democrat
representatives indicated a greater willingness to shift agendas 
based on constituent emails
than other legislators. A correlation between legislators' perception 
of e-mail as an
important political tool with legislators' perceptions of available 
resources in using email
effectively (r = .484, p< .001) was significant.
When directly asked if legislators believed that e-mail has helped to 
provide a better
service to their constituents, 63% agreed while 13% chose disagree 
(24% chose unsure).
A cross-tabulation between this question and legislators' perception 
of the importance of
e-mail indicated strong support of e-mail's use as a political tool 
of communication. A
regression, based on the 2004 data alone, was run to test the 
strength of legislators'
perception of e-mail's importance against these variables (see Table 
1.5 Model 1). The
second model regressed variables that were included in both the 2000 
and the 2004
surveys, while incorporating the variable year.
As seen in Table 1.5 Model 1, the 2004 data showed that in addition 
to believing that
e-mail helped to better serve constituents, senate democrats were 
significantly more
likely to regard e-mail as an important tool of communication. This 
finding, however,
did not hold true when year was added to the equation (as seen in 
Table 1.5 Model 2).
Use of e-mail both privately and professionally, however, was 
significantly positively
associated with legislators' perception of the importance of e-mail 
in both models.
17
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Again, this finding indicated that legislators' perception of 
e-mail's importance depended
on individual use and experience with e-mail. In addition, a 
significant positive relation
existed between legislators who believed e-mail helped to provide a 
better service to
constituents and with the overall importance of e-mail as a political tool of
communication. Although not significant, the regression revealed a 
negative relationship
between legislators who believed they had the resources to best use 
e-mail and the
importance of using e-mail to communicate.
Filtering E-mail
Fifty-three percent of legislators responding agreed that they are 
using advanced
technology to filter constituent e-mail from non-constituent e-mail, 
while 26% chose
disagree and 22% remained neutral. Although 31% of legislators 
responding agreed that
they proactively send e-mails to constituents, the majority (65%) 
disagreed while 4%
chose not sure. A correlation comparing the relationship between 
these two variables,
however, was not significant at the .05 confidence level. In 
addition, a correlation
between coping with e-mail volume and filter systems was also not 
significant. A
significant relationship, however, was found between legislators' 
belief in e-mail's
effectiveness with perceptions of coping with the volume of e-mail 
received (r = .390, p<
.001). Thus indicating a possible connection between the impact of 
advanced e-mail
technology on legislators' perception of e-mail communication. The causational
relationship, however, still remains unclear.
The ability to distinguish constituent e-mail from non-constituent 
e-mail has had a
positive impact on legislative response and perception of e-mail's 
effectiveness. A
regression including filtering e-mail, a set a demographic controls, 
resources available, e-
18
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
mail training, and e-mail's effectiveness was run to test the 
significance of coping with email
and developing technology. As seen in Table 1.6, while controlling for other
variables, e-mail effectiveness remained significant, indicating 
those who believe e-mail
was effective believe they were coping well with the volume of e-mail 
received.
A positive relationship, although not significant, also existed 
between availability of
resources to best use e-mail and perception of coping well with the 
volume of e-mail
received. In addition, white male democrats indicated that they were 
not coping well
with the volume of e-mail received. Contrary to references made in 
the literature review,
a negative relationship existed among legislators who filter e-mail 
and received e-mail
training with perception of coping with e-mail; however, the 
relationships were not
significant.
Aggregate Panel Analysis
Panel comparisons produced significant findings regarding all the 
hypotheses and
RQ1. As seen in Table 1.7, a significant shift in constituent 
e-mail's impact on
legislators' agenda occurred between the 2000 data and the 2004 data 
(t = 2.61, df=30, p<
.01). Legislators indicated that increased constituent e-mail on a 
specific topic resulted in
an increased reported shift in their political agenda, thus 
supporting H1. Furthermore,
legislators within the panel significantly considered e-mail as an 
important political tool
more in the 2004 survey than in the 2000 survey (t = 4.485, df=34, p< 
.000), thus lending
support to H1 and indirectly answering RQ1.
In addition, in regard to H2, legislators reported a significant 
increase in the amount of
constituent e-mail received per day between the 2000 survey and the 
2004 survey (t =
2.90, df=33, p< .007, see Table 1.8). Increases in constituent 
e-mail, however, did not
19
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
result in legislators responding more quickly to e-mail (t = -.452, 
df=33, p< .655); rather
e-mail response time is better gauged by legislators' ranking of 
e-mail as a political tool
of communication.
According to H3, experience in using e-mail should positively relate 
to a stronger
belief in the effectiveness of e-mail communication. Experience was 
defined through
years of use along with implementation of e-mail in both legislators' 
private and
professional lives. Group comparisons of these two issues produced 
significant results
(see Table 1.8).
Correlations between panel legislators' use of e-mail privately and 
professionally with
perceptions of e-mail as an important political tool (r= .755, p< 
.000) and with changed
perceptions of e-mails' effectiveness (r= .691, p< .001) were also 
significant, thus adding
support to H3 and indirectly answering RQ1. This finding indicated 
that legislators who
participated in the 2000 survey had significantly shifted their 
perception of e-mail to a
more positive one.
Discussion
This study sought to investigate and measure both the overall effect 
of constituent email
on political communication at a state level, as well as measure 
changes in state
legislators' perception and attitude toward mediated communication. 
Based on research,
the study had three hypotheses and one research question. The more 
e-mail received on a
specific topic, the more likely a politician is to shift his or her 
agenda to focus on that
topic (H1), the instantaneous nature of e-mail will cause legislators 
to respond faster to email
than postal mail (H2), and the more experience in using e-mail, the 
more likely
legislators will view e-mail as an effective means of communication 
(H3). The research
20
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
question dealt with overall changes in legislators' perceptions of 
e-mail as a political tool
of communication.
Data showed support for hypothesis two and three with limited support 
for H1. In
regard to H1, 76% of legislators reported a significant increase in 
the amount of
constituent e-mail received in the past year. Furthermore, 
legislators were receiving an
equal amount of e-mail and postal mail. In fact, in some cases 
legislators were actually
receiving more e-mail than postal mail. Although this increase may 
not seem important,
it adds credence to H1. That is, if constituents were not 
increasingly communicating via
e-mail than the likelihood of this medium impacting legislators 
agenda would be minimal
at best.
Overall, data comparisons between the 2000 survey and the 2004 survey 
revealed a
30% increase in reported shifts in agendas caused by increased 
constituent e-mails.
Furthermore, panel comparisons also showed that increased constituent e-mails
significantly impacted legislators' agendas, which led to reported 
shifts reflecting these emails.
Volume of constituent e-mail by itself, however, was negatively 
related to reported
shifts in agendas. Instead, perceptions of e-mail importance 
positively correlated to
reported shifts in agendas. In addition, legislators who were overall 
influenced by
constituent feedback were significantly more willing to report a 
shift in agendas based on
constituent e-mail. In other words, the data revealed that 
constituent e-mail's impact on
legislators' agenda depended on legislators' attitude toward e-mail 
communication and
not the volume of constituent e-mail received.
21
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Researchers have espoused that shared values has the greatest impact 
when evaluating
constituent communication (Squire, 1993; Fenno, 1978; Hedund et al., 
1972). According
to the findings, this shared value extends to, or correlates to, the 
value placed on different
types of communication. One elder legislator solidified this finding 
by stating, "I'm old
school and not very computer savvy. I try to avoid computers and 
rarely respond to email
communication." This legislator's opinion, however, was not the norm. In fact,
overall legislators significantly regarded e-mail as an important 
political tool of
communication. In other words, constituent e-mail had a greater 
impact on those
legislators who placed a higher value on e-mail communication.
Perceptions of e-mail communication also greatly affected 
legislators' response time
(H2). In fact, despite constituent expectation, the data showed that 
legislators' perception
and attitude of e-mail's importance determined the speed of response. 
E-mail, though,
was the communication of choice for those legislators who responded 
within two days.
In addition, there was a positive relationship between legislators 
who filter e-mail and
quicker response time. In essence, this finding indicated that 
filtering systems, which
include auto response systems, allowed legislators to respond more 
quickly to e-mail than
other forms of communication. Education and office held were reliable 
predictors for email
response time and evaluation of e-mail's effectiveness as a political tool of
communication.
Legislators' perceptions of e-mail were more positive in the 2004 survey. Some
legislators even felt that e-mail opened new avenues of 
communication, which allowed
constituents to voice opinions that might otherwise go unsaid. This 
ideology follows that
of researchers Kamarck and Nye. "It is possible that, once there, 
candidates will be able
22
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
to engage in direct conversations with voters-conversations that 
change the role of
traditional intermediaries such as the press and make the democratic 
process more
deliberative" (1999, p. 122). According to one legislator, this is 
exactly what has
happened. "E-mail helps me provide a better service to my 
constituents and it keeps me
more in touch" (Survey, February 24, 2004).
As in the 2000 study, the geographic location of where e-mail 
originated from greatly
affected the overall impact of e-mail on legislators' agendas and 
perceptions. Illinois
legislators conveyed that they base their agendas on issues that 
either happened within
their districts or on issues that affect their district. Because 
legislators were not able to
distinguish constituent e-mail from non-constituent e-mail in the 
2000 survey, H1 was
not supported. However, advances in e-mail technology, specifically 
filtering systems,
alleviated this problem. More than half of the legislators in the 
2004 survey had begun to
filter their e-mails. Therefore, a possible explanation for the 
current positive shift in
perceptions, which led to the support of the hypotheses, lies in 
advances in e-mail
technology.
Consistent with Rogers' theory, legislators who shifted their agendas 
were typically
younger. Also reflecting Rogers' theory was the fact that 43% of 
younger legislators
filter e-mail compared to only 17% of older legislators. In addition, 
younger legislators
rated all forms of media communication more effective, with e-mail as 
the most effective.
What becomes hard to explain, however, is the fact that older 
legislators also rated e-mail
more effective than any other form of mediated communication. Perhaps 
legislators feel
they have more control over e-mail than other forms of communication.
23
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
It is true that not all legislators have embraced e-mail 
communication, but this
percentage is fading. Factors like spamming, non-constituent e-mail 
and form e-mails
negatively impacted legislators' overall perception of the importance 
of e-mail
communication. These factors, however, also negatively impact 
legislative perceptions
of other forms of communication. What makes e-mail different is the 
ability to filter
these negative factors, thus overcoming these obstacles of 
acceptance. Interestingly, the
majority (95%) of legislators who devalued e-mail communication 
indicated that they do
not use e-mail filtering systems.
Through the Internet, more constituents are becoming involved in the political
process; even at the state level as witnessed by the significant 
increase in the amount of email
Illinois legislators received. Traditional agenda setting theories 
argue the media
influence what the public and politicians believe is important. In 
other words, the media
sets the political agenda as well as the public agenda. Current 
findings, however,
indicates a possible shift in the agenda setting role. The data 
showed legislators were
willing to sift agendas based on constituent e-mail. If the media 
still influence what the
public thought was important than shifts in legislators' agendas 
would not be necessary.
24
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Table 1.0: Regression of Agenda Shifts Based on Increase Constituent
Email Communication
Variable B (t-value)
Demographics
Party .428 (1.347)
Education -.008 (-.448)
Age -.388 (-1.288)
Sex .195 (.516)
General Assembly -.004 (-.135)
Race .388 (.719)
Independent Variables
Constituent Feedback=Changed Agenda .495 (4.365)***
E-mail Important .162 (1.916)*
E-mail Volume -.427 (-2.369)*
Constant 3.687 (2.380)
R-Square .511
Note: *Asterisks denotes significance level of confident *=.05, 
**=.01, ***=.001(two
tailed test). See Appendix B for definition of variables. Dependent 
variable ranged from
low (disagree) to high (agree).
Table 1.1: Regression of E-mail Response Time
Variables B (t-values) B (t-values)
Demographics Model 1 Model 2
Party -.002 (-.140) -.009 (-.482)
Education .002 (.381)* .004 (.669)*
Age .104 (.604) .198 (1.094)
Sex -.248 (-1.253) -.265 (-1.249)
General Assembly -.380 (-1.982)* -.388 (-1.884)**
Race .228 (.632) .727 (1.844)*
Independent Variables
Email Characteristics .008 (3.974)**** .009 (4.298)****
Postal Response Time .471 (4.238)**** .412 (3.518)****
Constituents Expect Quicker Response -.184 (-2.702)*** -.254 (-3.363)***
Filter System .572 (2.176)**
Constant 1.615 (1.959) .973 (1.106)
R-Square .502 .599
Note: *Asterisks denotes significance level of confident *=.10, 
**=.05, ***=.01,
****=.001(two tailed test). See Appendix B for definition of 
controlled variables.
Dependent variable ranged from low (slow) to high (fast). E-mail 
characteristics =
timeliness, effectiveness and importance.
25
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Table 1.2: Regression of Legislators Evaluation of E-mail's Effectiveness
Variable B (t-value)
Model 1
Demographics
Party -.147 (-.396)
Education -.246 (-1.993)**
Age -.070 (-.205)
Sex -.624 (-1.606)
General Assembly .375 (.962)
Race -.959 (-1.543)
Independent Variables
E-mail Volume .329 (1.501)
Use/Future Reliance .286 (4.998)****
Constant 3.631 (2.160)
R-Square .482
Note: *Asterisks denotes significance level of confident *=.10, 
**=.05, ***=.01,
****=.001 (two tailed test). See Appendix B for controlled variables 
definitions.
Table 1.3: Comparison of E-mail's Impact on Legislators' Perceptions
Year of Survey
2004
72% Email important political tool
Email impacting agenda
Email feedback most influential
32%
5%
N=74
2000
41%
22%
0%
N=89
Note: Percentages rounded off to nearest whole number.
26
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Table 1.4: Regression of Agenda Shifts Based on Constituent E-mail
Variable B (t-values)
Demographics
Party .233 (1.261)
Age -.370 (-2.05)**
Sex .287 (1.297)
General Assembly .203 (1.025)
Independent Variables
Year 1.218 (4.436)****
Factor Influencing Agenda .330 (1.776)*
Use/Importance .081 (2.253)***
Constant 1.208 (1.821)
R-Square .477
Note: *Asterisks denotes significance level of confident *=.10, 
**=.05, ***=.01,
****=.001 (two tailed test). See Appendix B for definition of 
controlled variables.
Dependent variable ranged from low (strongly disagree) to high 
(strongly agree).
Table 1.5: Regression of Legislators Perception of the Importance
of E-mail
.384 (1.581) .003 (.396)
.456 (5.618)**** .605 (11.84)***
2.740 (1.974) .017 (.027)
.799
Variable B (t-value) B (t-value)
Demographic Model 1 Model 2
Party .672 (1.875)* .242(1.474)
Education -.001 (-.110) .002 (.025)
Age .381 (1.301) .081 (.510)
Sex -.445 (-1.375) .003 (.019)
General Assembly -.393 (-1.065) .030 (.177)
Race -.476 (-.796)
Independent Variables
E-mail Provide Better Service 2.373 (5.013)****
Resources to Best Use E-mail -.002 (-.079)
Year 1.837 (9.292)***
Length of Using E-mail
Use E-mail Privately and Professionally
Constant
R-Square .805
Note: *Asterisks denotes significance level of confident *=.05, 
**=.01, ***.001(two
tailed test). See Appendix B for controlled variables definitions. 
Dependent variable
ranged from low to high.
27
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Table 1.6: Regression of Coping with E-mail Volume
Variable B (t-value)
Demographics
Party -.177 (-.483)
Education -.275 (-2.112)**
Age .171 (.540)
Sex -.347 (-1.011)
General Assembly .017 (.048)
Race .376 (.477)
Independent Variables
E-mail Effectiveness .182 (2.155)**
E-mail Training -.226 (-.944)
Resources to Best Use E-mail .145 (.577)
Filter E-mail -.123 (-1.423)
Constant 5.069 (3.795)
R-Square .349
Note: *Asterisks denotes significance level of confident *=.10, 
**=.05, ***=.01,
****=.001 (two tailed test). See Appendix B for controlled variables 
definitions.
Dependent variable ranges from low to high.
Table 1.7: Panel comparison of agenda shifts caused by increased
constituent e-mails received
E-Mail Factors 2004
Mean
2000
Mean
3.00 (.69) Reported Agenda Shift 2.27 (.92)
t-score = 2.61 df = 30 p< .01
3.06 (.64) Amount of E-mail Received 3.71 (.69)
t-score = 2.90 df = 33 p< .007
Note. First response ranged from "one" meaning "strongly disagree" to 
"four" meaning
"strongly agree." Second response ranged from "one" meaning declined 
significantly" to
"four" meaning "increased significantly."
28
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Table 1.8: Panel comparison of e-mail's effectiveness between 2000
survey and 2004
E-Mail Factors 2004
Mean
2000
Mean
3.44 (.86) Effective Communication 2.83 (1.02)
t-score = 1.922 df=34 p< .03
3.61 (.61) Important Political Tool 2.50 (.86)
t-score = 4.485 df=34 p< .000
Privately/Professional Use 2.75 (.81) 3.44 (.78)
t-score = 2.51 df=33 p< .000
Note. First two factors response ranged from "one" meaning "not very 
effective" to
"four" meaning "very effective." The last factor response ranged from 
"one" meaning
"strongly disagree" to "four" meaning "strongly agree."
29
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Variable definitions
________________________________________________________________________
Variable Description
________________________________________________________________________
Party
Education
Age
Gender
Race
General Assembly
Constituent Feedback
E-mail Feedback/Agenda Shifts
E-mail Important
E-mail Volume
E-mail Timeliness
E-mail Effectiveness
E-mail Characteristics
0= republican; 1 = democrat
Six-point scale representing number of
years of formal education completed,
ranging from 1 (less than high school)
to 6 (graduate degree).
0 = 49 and under; 1 = 50 and above
1 = female; 2 = male
1 = white; 0 = all other respondents
1 = senator; 2 = representative
Seven-point scale of overall constituent
feedback impacting agenda, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
Seven-point scale of overall constituent
feedback impacting agenda, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
Seven-point scale of strength of e-mail as a
political tool of communication, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
Five-point scale of volume of e-mail
received within the last year, 1 = declined
significantly; 2 = declined marginally; 3 =
no change; 4 = increased marginally;
5 = increased significantly.
Seven-point scale of e-mail timeliness over
other forms of communication, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
Seven-point scale of strength of e-mail as
an effective tool of communication,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Seven-point scale of combined strength of
e-mail as an effective tool, importance,
and timeliness; ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
30
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Constituents Expect Quicker Response
Constituent E-mail Use
Coping with E-mail
Filter System
Postal Response Time
E-mail Response Time
Daily Postal Mail Received
Daily E-mail Received
Respond All Forms of Constituent Feedback
Respond to Known Constituent E-mail
Use of E-mail Privately and Professionally
Future Reliance on E-mail
Resources to Best Use E-mail
E-mail Training
E-mail Provide Better Service
Seven-point scale representing
respondents' perception of constituent
expectation of legislators response time to
e-mail, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
Seven-point scale representing respondents' perception of
increase use of e-mail by constituents, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Five-point scale representing respondents'
Perception of coping with the volume of
e-mail received, ranging from 1 (badly
being swamped) to 5 (very well).
1 = yes; 0 = no
1 = week or more; 2 = 3 to 6 days; 3 = 1 to 2
days; 4 = same day.
1 = week or more; 2 = 3 to 6 days; 3 = 1 to 2
days; 4 = same day.
1 = 1-10; 2 = 11-25; 3 = 26-50; 4 = 51 and up.
1 = 1-10; 2 = 11-25; 3 = 26-50; 4 = 51 and up.
1 = likely; 0 = unlikely
Seven-point scale representing the
likelihood of response to known
constituent e-mail, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Seven-point scale representing the use of
e-mail, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
Seven-point scale predicting the future
reliance on e-mail, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
0 = not sure; 1 = no; 2 = yes.
0 = not sure; 1 = no; 2 = yes.
Seven-point scale representing the degree
to which e-mail has helped to provide a
better service to constituents, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
31
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Length of Using E-mail
Length in Office
Geographic Location
Year
Factor Influencing Agenda
Three-point scale representing the number
of years respondent maintained an e-mail
account, 1 = less than a year; 2 = 1 to 2
years; 3 = more than 3 years.
1 = freshmen; 0 = incumbent.
1 = suburbs; 0 = all other respondents.
1 = 2004 respondents; 0 = 2000 respondents
1 = constituent feedback as most
influential factor in setting agenda; 0 = all
other respondents (personal belief,
legislative agenda, and media).
32
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Reference
(2003, March 20). E-mail is now a main channel for politics, but 
campaigns must
fine-tune to connect better with citizens. Ascribe Newswire (Washington).
Bennett, D. & Fielding, P. (1999). The Net Effect How Cyberadvocacy 
is Changing
the Political Landscape. Merrifield, VA: e-advocates Press.
Brosius, Hans-Bernd, & Weimann, G. (1996, October). Who sets the agenda?:
Agenda-setting as a two-step flow. Communication Research, p. 561-581.
Browning, Graeme. (1995). The risk in an open door policy. National 
Journal, v2, p.
119.
Browning, Graeme. (1996). Electronic democracy usning the Internet to 
influence
American politics. Wilton, CT: Pemberton Press.
Carter, M. (1999, July). Speaking up in the Internet age: Use and 
value of constituent
e-mail and congressional web-sites. Parliamentary Affairs, 52, n3, 464-479.
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Cornfield, Michael. (1999, December). Constituent e-mail: Ready or 
not? Campaigns
& Elections, v20, i10 p.45.
Dexter, L. A. (1960). Sociology and the Politics of Congress. 
Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
(2003, September). e-Podunk [Online]. Available: http://www.epodunk.com/cgibin/
genInfo.php?locIndex=6738
Fenno, R. E. Jr., (1974). Home Style: House Members in Their 
Districts. Boston:
Little, Brown.
33
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Frantzich, Stephen. (1986). Write Your Congressman: Citizen Communication and
Representation. New York, NY: Praeger.
Gellman Lauren. (2004, January). Does Howard Dean's third-place finish in Iowa
rebut the "Internet Election" concept? Don't count on it. Yurica Report: News
Intelligence Analysis [Online]. Available:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2004/HowardDeanInternetLaurenGelman.html
George Washington University and the Congressional Management Foundation.
(2002, August). Congressional E-mail Volume: Daunting but 
stabilizing. Congress
Online Project [Online]. Available
http://www.congressonlineproject.org/080702volume.html
Greenberg, Pam. (2001, March). Legislators: You've got mail. State 
Legislatures,
v27 i3, p. 25.
Hedlund, Ronald., & Friesema, H. Paul. (1972, August). Representatives'
perceptions of constituency opinion. The Journal of Politics, v34, 
n3, p. 730-752.
Joslyn, R. (1984). Mass media and elections. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kamarck, E. C. & Nye, J. S. Jr. (1999). democracy.com? Governance in a
Networked World. Hollis, New Hampshire: Hollis Publishing.
Kefauver, & Levin. T. (1947). A Twenieth Century Congress. New York, NY:
Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
Luttbeg, Norm. R. (1968, Fall). The structure of beliefs among leaders and the
public. Public Opinion Quarterly, v32, 3, p. 398.
34
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Marre, Klaus. (2003, October 15). Grassroots growing fast in 
cyberspace: Web adds
pressure on U.S. lawmakers. The Hill. Com [Online]. Available:
http://www.thehill.com/news/101503/grassroots.aspx
Neuman, R. (1991). The Future of the Mass Audience. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Norris, P. (1999). Who surfs?: New technology, old voters and virtual 
democracy in
the 1996 and 1998 US election [Online], 1-40. Available:
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/people/pnorris.
NTIA. (2000, October). Executive Summary. Falling through the net: 
Toward digital
inclusion [Online]. Available: 
http://www.nita.doc.gov/nitahome/fttn00.htm/#t31
NTIA. (2002, February). A Nation Online: How Americans are expanding their use
of the Internet [Online]. Available:
http://www.nita.doc.gov/nitahome/dn/anationonline2.pdf
NUA. (2002, October). Internet how many online [Online]. Available:
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/n.america.html
Parker, Glenn. (1986). Homeward Bound: Explaining Changes in Congressional
Behavior. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2004). Latest Trends: Internet Adoption
[Online]. Available:
http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/DemographicsofInternetUseres.htm
Pope, Charles. (2004, August). Potomac watch: Internet's impact on 
campaigns stirs
lively debate. Seattle Post-Intelligencer [Online]. Available:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource 

35
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe, New York: The 
Free Press.
(1986). Communication Technology: The New Media in Society. New
York, N.Y.: The Free Press.
(1994). A history of communication study: A biographical approach. New
York, N.Y.: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where 
has it been,
where is it going? Communication Yearbook 11, 555-594.
Romm (Livermore), C. T. (1999). Virtual politicking: Playing politics in
electronically linked organizations. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Severin, W. J. & Tankard, J. W., Jr. (1997). Communication Theories: Origins,
Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Shah, D., Kwak, N., and Holbert, L. (2001). Connecting and 
disconnecting with civic
life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political
Communication, v18, p. 141-162.
Sheffer, M. L. (July, 2003). State Legislators' Perceptions of the 
Usage of E-mail in
Constituent Communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8 (4).
Simmons, A. (2001, April). EchoMail: Solutions to the Senate 
communication crisis:
George Washington University and the congressional management 
foundation conduct
study on behalf of Congress [Online]. Available:
http://www.interactive.com/flash/press/release/congress.html
Stromer-Galley, J. & Foot, K. A., (2002, October). "Citizen 
perceptions of online
interactivity and implications for political campaign communication". 
Journal of
36
Constituent E-mail: Its Impact on State Legislators' Perceptions and Agendas
Computer Mediated Communication, [Online] p. 1-21. Available:
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol18/issue1.
Squire, Peverill. (1993, May). Professionalization and public opinion of state
legislatures. The Journal of Politics, v55, no. 2, p 479-491.
Weaver, D., Garber, D. A., Mc Combs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). 
Media agendasetting
in a presidential election. New York: Praeger.
Yiannakis, Diana Evans. (1982). House members' communication styles:
Newsletters and press releases. Journal of Politics, v 44, p. 1049-1071.
37