Questioning scrutiny: the effect of Prime Minister’s Questions on citizen efficacy and trust in parliament

Alan Converya, Pavielle Hainesb, James Mitchella & David C. W. Parkerc* a School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKb Department of Political Science, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL, USAc Department of Political Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USAAlan Convery is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Edinburgh and Lead Editor of the British Journal of Politics and International Relations.Pavielle Haines is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rollins College.James Mitchell is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Edinburgh and co-editor of The Scottish Parliament at 20.David C.W. Parker is Professor and Head of Political Science at Montana State University.CONTACT David C. W. Parker dparker@montana.eduSupplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2020.1850010ABSTRACTIn most democratic regimes, the public often dislikes and distrusts parliamentarians. This should not surprise: the public likes neither compromise nor conflict, both of which are legislative hallmarks. One of the most famous examples of parliamentary conflict is Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the British House of Commons. It is the most viewed and commented upon part of the parliamentary week, but attracts strong criticism as a noisy charade promoting a poor image of politics. Does PMQs undermine individual levels of political efficacy and trust in Parliament, as some commentators suggest? We use an experimental design to answer this question and find evidence to suggest that, contrary to its negative reputation, PMQs does not adversely affect most citizens’ perceptions.