Why This Question Matters
Politicians face a constant stream of information but limited time and attention. Roman Senninger and Henrik Seeberg ask which kinds of information elected and aspiring politicians actually pay attention to—public concern, rival-party attention, news stories, or statistical problem indicators—and why those choices matter for agenda-setting and accountability.
How the Test Was Run
The authors conducted a field experiment in Denmark with more than 6,000 political candidates. Each candidate received an email inviting them to view a tailored report; the reports were randomly designed so that one of the four information types was highlighted for each recipient. The experiment therefore measures real-world information-seeking behavior under randomized exposure.
What the Evidence Shows
- Statistical indicators and public-opinion cues were the most likely to prompt candidates to access the report: 26.9% of candidates in the statistical-indicator condition and 26.5% in the public-opinion condition clicked through.
- Reports that emphasized rival-party attention or news coverage attracted less interest than the statistical and public-opinion treatments.
- Multiple elite interviews conducted alongside the experiment help interpret these choices and shed light on why different types of information appeal to politicians.
Why It Matters
These findings suggest that numbers and measures of public concern are particularly effective at drawing politicians’ attention. For advocates, journalists, and scholars interested in agenda-setting and political responsiveness, the results indicate which types of evidence are more likely to reach and engage political actors. The combination of a large-scale field experiment and elite interviews provides both behavioral measurement and qualitative insight into how politicians prioritize information when resources are scarce.
