Lobbies, communication, and public perception in Spain: characterization and sociodemographic influences

Lobbies, comunicación y percepción pública en España: caracterización e influencias sociodemográficas

Álvaro Serna-Ortega 

University of Malaga. Spain.

amso@uma.es

 

Andrea Moreno-Cabanillas

University of Malaga. Spain.

amorenoc@uma.es 

 

Antonio Castillo-Esparcia

University of Malaga. Spain.

acastilloe@uma.es 

 

 

Funding: This research is funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) and by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (Spain).

How to cite this article / Standard reference:

Serna-Ortega, Álvaro, Moreno-Cabanillas, Andrea, & Castillo-Esparcia, Antonio. (2026). Lobbies, communication, and public perception in Spain: characterization and sociodemographic influences. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 84, 1-24. https://www.doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2026-2538

Date Received: 29/05/2025 
Acceptance Date: 28/07/2025 
Date of Publication: 04/08/2025

ABSTRACT 

Introduction: The way society perceives a lobby plays a critical role in shaping its potential influence. With this in mind, the present research aims to explore the public perception of lobbies in Spain based on three criteria: attributes associated with their activities, organizational types, and interests defended (O1). Additionally, it seeks to analyze the influence of five sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies: gender, age, ideology, economic status, and education (O2). Methodology: The methodological approach is quantitative and exploratory. Data collection involves N=418 questionnaires, while data analysis encompasses a range of statistical procedures, including variance analysis, binary logistic regressions, and analysis of B regression coefficients, among others. Results: The examination of the results reveals a polarized scenario with lobbies showing a predominantly negative public perception, particularly concerning their transparency and ethics. However, responses tend to be more neutral or even slightly positive in certain cases, such as for organizations advocating for social interests. As for the influence of sociodemographic variables, individuals with right-wing ideology, higher economic status, and tertiary education tend to have a more positive perception of lobbies. Discussion and conclusions: These findings contribute to explaining one of the most decisive determinants in lobbies’ ability to influence policy-making processes and underscore the importance of addressing public concerns to enhance transparency and legitimacy in their activities.

Keywords: lobbying; public perception; Spain; influence; governance, democracy. 

1. INTRODUCTION

The determinants of lobbying influence have been widely studied in the academic literature. Research has focused on various determinants, including: economic resources (e.g., Stevens & de Bruycker, 2020; Woll, 2019), access to policymakers (e.g., Bouwen, 2002; Judd, 2023; Junk et al., 2022; Serna-Ortega et al., 2024), capacity to mobilize supporters (e.g., Lee & Stuckatz, 2024; Yates, 2023), willingness to form coalitions (e.g., Dwidar, 2022; Junk, 2020; Klüver, 2013), alignment of demands with prevailing social values (e.g., Raknes & Ihlen, 2020), communication strategies employed (e.g., Awad, 2024; de Bruycker & Beyers, 2019; Dür & Mateo, 2024; Lock & Davidson, 2024), stage of the policy-making process targeted for influence (e.g., Dockendorff & Lodato, 2024; Serna-Ortega et al., 2025; Truijens & Hanegraaff, 2024), and media coverage (e.g., de Bruycker and Beyers, 2015; Moreno-Cabanillas et al., 2024, 2025), among others.

One critical determinant, however, remains underexplored: public perception (e.g., Dür & Mateo, 2014; Kollman, 1998; Rasmussen et al., 2018). Despite its crucial role in shaping the influence of lobbies, few studies have examined how society views these organizations.

In the lobbying context, the significance of public perception can be understood through three aspects. First, its legitimizing function, which reinforces the credibility and authority of the organization’s claims (Rasmussen et al., 2018). Legitimacy strengthens its standing in policy debates, enhances the persuasiveness of its arguments, and ensures the long-term sustainability of its advocacy efforts. Second, the fact that politicians often respond to prevailing public sentiment (Lax and Phillips, 2012; Shapiro, 2011). Therefore, when public opinion opposes a lobby’s position, policymakers are generally less inclined to support its demands (Junk and Rasmussen, 2024; Smith, 2000), as they must balance the electoral risks of backing unpopular policies against the potential benefits a lobby provides (Bouwen, 2004). Conversely, favorable public opinion can be a decisive factor in shaping policy outcomes (Gray et al., 2004) and influence capacity (Kollman, 1998; Rasmussen et al., 2018). Third, given the interdependent nature of the determinants shaping lobbying influence, public perception directly affects an organization’s ability to leverage other determinants (Serna-Ortega et al., 2025). 

Consequently, studying public perception of lobbies is crucial for understanding the broader dynamics of their influence. This research aims to take a step in this direction, focusing on the Spanish context. On the one hand, it seeks to explore the public perception of lobbies in Spain based on three criteria: attributes associated with their activities, organizational types, and interests defended. On the other hand, it aims to analyze the influence of five sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies: gender, age, ideology, economic status, and education.

Thus, from a scientific perspective, this article contributes to filling the research gap in one of the least explored determinants of lobbying influence: public perception. However, the potential implications go beyond this, as the findings are relevant for political regulations related to advocacy, the development of communicative strategies aimed at educating the public on the topic, and the growth of sociological debates surrounding it.

The distinctive element of this study lies in the fact that it is the first of its kind conducted in the Spanish context. In addition, its integrated analytical approach, which examines three perceptual criteria, provides a detailed view based on each and allows for comparisons between them. The inclusion of sociodemographic variables in the analysis also introduces a novel line of research, which can help identify perceptual trends. 

1.1. Background on the public perception of lobbies

From the perspective of public perception based on attributes associated with lobbying activities, studies tend to link them with terms like opacity and corruption, projecting a negative evaluation (Campos & Giovannoni, 2007; Crepaz & Arikan, 2024; Kuzmova, 2011). Then, it is not surprising that transparency is often considered the most crucial factor for improving public perception of lobbies. It enhances trust in their activities (Crepaz & Arikan, 2024) and strengthens their perceived legitimacy within the political decision-making sphere (Kanol, 2018). In fact, policy-making processes that visibly incorporate input from external actors are often regarded as more legitimate (Bernauer & Gampfer, 2013; Beyers & Arras, 2021). Recent shifts toward proactive transparency, such as open data portals and public registers, equip citizens with direct tools to monitor lobbying activities (Dinan, 2021; Porumbescu et al., 2022). Access to this information allows society to evaluate lobbyists’ integrity, which can potentially reduce perceptions of corruption (Chari et al., 2020). 

In another line of thought, Crepaz (2024) notes that while transparency does not negatively impact the public perception of lobbies, it does not necessarily increase their trust or decrease perceptions of corruption. Its impact may be circumstantial and dependent on how information is presented and mediated, for instance, through the media.

Precisely, the impact of the media on the public perception of lobbies, while not addressed in this article, is a highly interesting and well-researched topic. Recent studies have increasingly highlighted the importance of media coverage for lobbying organizations, directly or indirectly (e.g., Castillo-Esparcia et al., 2022; Dyck et al., 2013; Moreno-Cabanillas et al., 2024, 2025; Sobbrio, 2009). Media representations often shape how influence actions are perceived in terms of legitimacy, transparency, and ethical alignment with broader societal values (Crepaz, 2024), influencing whether these actions are seen as serving collective goals or as self-interested maneuvers. One consequence of this is that the media’s framing of lobbying entities and their role in policy circles can foster polarized opinions, often reinforcing pre-existing beliefs (see e.g., Andina-Díaz, 2007; Hmielowski, 2020; Shehata et al., 2024). This phenomenon is intensified by the echo chambers found on social media, where selective exposure and confirmation bias can amplify both negative and positive views (Avin et al., 2024; Törnberg & Törnberg, 2024). 

On the subject of public perception of lobbies based on their organizational types or the interests they represent, the scientific literature suggests significant variations among groups. Non-business lobbies, such as trade unions, non-governmental organizations, or volunteer groups, tend to receive greater public trust due to their apparent focus on the general interest (Frangi et al., 2017; Holyoke, 2020; O’Neill, 2009). These organizations are viewed favorably because they advocate for social causes perceived as legitimate and aligned with the common good, carrying a moral weight that resonates with societal values and a sense of justice (Berry, 2015; Grose et al., 2022). Also, many of these lobbies emerge from community movements, providing them with added authenticity and popular support (Rich, 2020; Yates, 2023). 

In contrast, corporate lobbies, which primarily represent large companies or industry associations, often face skepticism and a negative public perception (Hrebenar et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2024; Kuzmova, 2011). Public opinion tends to view these groups as motivated solely by private interests and economic benefits, associating them with attempts to gain unfair advantages or evade regulations through ethically questionable influence (Crepaz, 2024; Koch & Schulz-Knappe, 2021). The belief that economic lobbies hold disproportionate power due to their financial resources also contributes to this distrust. Moreover, concerns raised about the lack of transparency in their activities heighten suspicions on their methods and intentions (Castillo-Esparcia et al., 2022; Crepaz & Arikan, 2024), perpetuating a negative public perception. Again, based on these two perceptual criteria, the role of the media is fundamental. There is a persistent tendency towards polarization and reinforcement of preconceived notions (Sobbrio, 2009). 

Although the general trend distinguishes differences in public perception based on interests advocated, other research indicates that citizens perceive the participation of these actors as more legitimate when there is a balance between representatives of economic and social interests (Aizenberg et al., 2024; Beyers & Arras, 2021; Rasmussen & Reher, 2023). This may indicate that including diverse voices in the lobbying influence process could help mitigate distrust toward corporate lobbies representing private interests, fostering a more equitable and legitimate perception of their influence on political decision-making.

1.2. Background on the influence of sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies

An intriguing aspect of lobbies perception is how individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics influence their views. However, the scientific literature on this topic is virtually non-existent. One of the few studies that can be linked is the doctoral thesis conducted by Kuzmova (2011), who explored the public perception of lobbies among Slovak citizens. Although the research did not explicitly analyze the relationship between the perception of lobbying and the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, some interpretations can be drawn from the data, particularly since the sample predominantly consisted of young men with university education. The analysis within this sample reveals a positive association between the level of education and favorable perceptions of lobbying groups.

In addition to these findings, there is relevant research that addresses other aspects of lobbying from a corporate perspective. For example, Rudy and Johnson (2016), in their study, analyze how CEO demographic characteristics influence corporate political participation. They find that the age, experience, functional profile, and educational background of leaders determine whether and how a company will invest in political activities. Complementarily, Unsal et al. (2016) investigate how the political orientation of CEOs affects their lobbying efforts. Their study shows that managers with right-wing leanings tend to invest more in lobbying. This is also reinforced in the research of Nalick et al. (2023).

2. OBJECTIVES

The article is structured around two objectives: 

• O1: Explore the public perception of lobbies in Spain based on three criteria: attributes associated with their activities, organizational types, and interests defended.
• O2: Analyze the influence of five sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies: gender, age, ideology, economic status, and education.

Based on the introduction, and despite the fact that research in this area is still in its early stages, a hypothesis is proposed for each objective: 

• H1: Public perception of lobbies varies according to the three criteria. Lobbies tend to be perceived more negatively when assessed in terms of their transparency and ethical standards, when they are associated with private sector entities, or when they defend political-economic interests. In contrast, perception is more positive when evaluated in terms of their democratic necessity or perceived social benefit, when they represent civil society organizations or research/educational institutions, or when they advocate for social interests.
• H2: The sociodemographic variables that influence the perception of lobbies are ideology, economic status, and education. Individuals with right-wing ideology, higher economic status, and tertiary education tend to have a more positive perception of lobbies.

3. METHODOLOGY

The methodological approach is quantitative. Also, given the limited research on this topic, especially within the Spanish context, the study is predominantly exploratory in nature. 

3.1. Data collection

The technique used for data collection is the survey, implemented through a questionnaire. Data collection occurs between October 2024 and January 2025. The process takes place within a single time frame, so the design is non-experimental and cross-sectional. To minimize sample bias and ensure maximum representativeness, the questionnaire is administered through phone calls.

3.1.1. Variables measured

Before proceeding with the variables measured in the questionnaire, it is necessary to clarify that participants are first asked about their understanding of what a lobby is, as this knowledge is essential for forming a perception about them. If a respondent did not know what a lobby is, the call is terminated; if they did, the questionnaire continued.

Concerning the variables measured, four blocks are established. Block I corresponds to the sociodemographic variables of the respondents, while Blocks II, III, and IV individually cover the criteria used to explore public perception of lobbies: attributes associated with their activities, organizational types, and interests defended. The variables included in each block, along with their operationalization, are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Operationalization of the variables measured in the questionnaire.

Block I. Sociodemographic variables (Category: General information)
Variable	Operationalization
Gender	Categorical: (Male/Female/Other)
Age	Categorical: (18-22/23-27/28-32/33-37/38-42/43-47/48-52/53-57/58-62/63-67/68-72/73-77/78-82/83+)
Ideology	Categorical: (Left/Center/Right)
Economic status	Categorical: (Lower/Lower-Middle/Middle/Higher-Middle/Higher)
Education	Categorical: (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary)
Block II. Perception of lobbies based on attributes (Category: Perception)
Variable (Association of lobbies with…)	Operationalization
Att 1. Opaque/Transparent	Numerical: Scale -3 (Opaque) to 3 (Transparent)
Att 2. Corrupt/Ethical	Numerical: Scale -3 (Corrupt) to 3 (Ethical)
Att 3. Unnecessary/Necessary	Numerical: Scale -3 (Unnecessary) to 3 (Necessary)
Att 4. Undemocratic/Democratic	Numerical: Scale -3 (Undemocratic) to 3 (Democratic)
Att 5. Detrimental/Beneficial	Numerical: Scale -3 (Detrimental) to 3 (Beneficial)
Block III. Perception of lobbies based on organizational types (Category: Perception)
Variable (Perception of…)	Operationalization
Private sector entities	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)
Public and mixed entities	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)
Civil society organizations	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)
Research/educational institutions	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)
Block IV. Perception of lobbies based on interests (Category: Perception)
Variable (Perception of lobbies defending…)	Operationalization
Political-economic interests	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)
Mixed interests	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)
Social interests	Numerical: Scale -3 (Negative) to 3 (Positive)

Source: Own elaboration. 

To determine the organizational types and interests measured in the variables included in Blocks III and IV, the European Union’s Transparency Register is consulted. Regarding the organizational types, the 13 categories from the platform’s affiliation form are divided into the four groups used. For the interests, the process involved two phases. First, the 40 interest categories available on the platform are classified into ten subgroups, which are then streamlined into the three main categories of interests used. The streamlined processes are available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RBASE7

3.1.2. Population and sample

The study population is defined as all individuals living in Spain who are over 18 years old: nearly 40 million people. Since it is impossible to encompass the entire population, a sample needs to be established. With a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%, it is determined that a representative sample should consist of at least n=380 randomly selected individuals. An additional 10% is added to ensure the validity of adjustments, resulting in a required sample size of N=418 individuals.

The sampling method used is random with an inclusion criterion. As mentioned, the criterion for participation is that individuals must know what a lobby is: 21.58% (N=418) of the total contacted individuals who were willing to respond were aware of what a lobby is.  

The final composition of the N=418 subjects in the sample included 203 men (48.56%) and 215 women (51.44%). The age distribution of the subjects shows a clear skew towards individuals over 40 years old. According to ideology, 131 identify as left-wing (31.34%), 135 as centrist (32.29%), and 152 as right-wing (36.37%). Regarding their economic status, 34 subjects consider themselves lower class (8.13%), 122 lower-middle class (29.19%), 206 middle class (49.28%), 36 higher-middle class (8.61%), and 20 higher class (4.79%). Lastly, 86 subjects have primary education (20.57%), 119 secondary education (28.47%), and 213 tertiary education (50.96%).

3.2. Data analysis

Given the numerical nature of the data, the technique employed for the research is statistical analysis. Its implementation involves a set of tools that include: descriptive statistical analysis, analysis of variance, independence tests, binary logistic regressions, and analysis of B regression coefficients.

3.2.1. Variables analyzed

In addition to the inherent variables from the questionnaire, which are self-explanatory and whose values are directly derived from participants’ responses, other variables are generated throughout the analysis by combining or transforming the original ones. These variables, each with their own identifier (ID), are:

• Average attributes perception (ID=atr_sc): numerical value between -3 and 3, derived from the average of the perception scores for the five pairs of attributes (Block II).
• Average organizational types perception (ID=org_sc): numerical value between -3 and 3, derived from the average of the perception scores for the four organizational types (Block III).
• Average interests’ perception (ID=int_sc): numerical value between -3 and 3, derived from the average of the perception scores for the three types of interests (Block IV).
• Average global perception (ID=per_sc): numerical value between -3 and 3, derived from the average of the perception scores for the three perceptual criteria (Blocks II, III and IV). Each block carries the same weight (33.33%).

In certain analytical procedures, it is necessary to code these four variables, or any included in the questionnaire, as categorical, numerical, or binary variables. The necessary changes in the variable coding for each statistical method are specified in the following section and in the relevant parts of the results.

3.2.2. Data analysis procedure

The structure of the results, and consequently the data analysis procedure, is organized around the research’s objectives, defining two sections.

The first section, related O1, focuses on exploring the public perception of lobbies in Spain. It includes a descriptive statistical overview that contextualizes the public perception results based on the three criteria. The means of each perceptual variable are evaluated both individually and collectively, with the perceptual averages of each block (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc) incorporated into the analysis.

To evaluate the perceptual differences based on the three criteria, an analysis is conducted using isolines to examine the means of each criterion (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc), comparing them in pairs. Complementarily, to determine the differences among the various criteria, a variance analysis is performed on the individual perceptual variables within each block, as well as on the average values (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc).

The second section, related to O2, focuses on analyzing the influence of the five sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies. The analysis begins with the execution of 60 independence tests using the chi-square statistic (χ2). All possible combinations between the five sociodemographic variables from Block I and the twelve perceptual variables measured in Blocks II, III, and IV are explored. To perform these tests, categorical variables are required. Therefore, all numerical variables are coded as categorical by assigning a category to each integer value. 

A binary logistic regression is then implemented. The purpose is to determine, based on a set of predictor variables, the likelihood of an event occurring (Peng et al., 2022); in this case, whether the overall perception of lobbies is positive or negative. The dependent variable is the mean general perception score (per_sc), coded as a binary. Negative perception scores (from -3 to 0) are assigned a value of 0, while positive perception scores (from 0.001 to 3) are assigned a value of 1. The five sociodemographic variables are included as independent potential predictor variables. 

After executing the regression and identifying the influential variables, the B coefficients are interpreted, indicating the direction and magnitude of the effect of each sociodemographic explanatory variable on the binary dependent variable. The interpretation is carried out in the final step of the regression and relative to the reference category within each sociodemographic variable. The reference categories are the last ones in the operationalization (gender: other; age: 83+; ideology: right; education: tertiary; economic status: high). 

It is important to acknowledge that the binary logistic regression and analyses up to this point only allow for an understanding of the overall influence of sociodemographic variables on the general perception of lobbies. To provide a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon, 15 additional binary logistic regressions are implemented, one for each of the perceptual variable in each block and their corresponding averages (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc). It is necessary to code each dependent variables as binary, following the same procedure as in the general regression. To determine the direction of the specific influences of sociodemographic variables within each of the 15 regressions, B regression coefficients are analyzed for each relevant variable. 

The software tools used for data analysis procedures include conventional spreadsheet programs, SPSS, and R.

3.3. Data availability

The dataset generated as a result of the data collection and used for the data analysis is available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RBASE7, and will be provided upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

4. RESULTS 

4.1. Public perception of lobbies in Spain (O1)

When evaluating the data corresponding to perception of lobbies based on attributes, a general trend towards those with negative connotations is observed. The pattern is particularly skewed in the first two pairs (opaque/transparent and corrupt/ethical), where the mean values are -0.667 and -0.541, respectively. In both cases, the median is -1. 

The only pair of the five that shows a positive mean score is unnecessary/necessary. The average score is 0.041, nearly neutral, with a median of 0. Similarly, the pairs undemocratic/democratic and detrimental/beneficial show mean values close to 0, but slightly negative (-0.031 and -0.036, respectively).  

As can be seen in the Sankey diagram provided in Figure 1, the distribution is far more polarized in the first two pairs of attributes, later converging toward the middle values of the scale. 

Figure 1. Sankey diagram of responses flows on the perception of lobbies based on attributes.

Source: Own elaboration. 

Regarding the analysis of the average value of the five pairs of attributes (atr_sc), the mean score is -0.247, with 176 individuals (42.10%) showing positive average values. 

Perception based on organizational types presents a different picture (see Figure 2). Only one of the four variables shows a negative average response: private sector entities. Although the median response is 0, the average score is -0.198, with a majority of respondents rating negatively (57.42%; n=240). The other three organizational types show average perceptual values above 0. The most notable case is that of research/educational institutions, which have a median of 1 and an average value of 0.856. Public and mixed entities, as well as civil society organizations, while also positive, present more neutral average values (0.349 and 0.009, respectively), with the median response being 0 in both cases. The average score of the perceptual ratings of the four types of lobbies (org_sc) is 0.254, with 240 subjects (57.42%) rating positively.

The analysis of perception based on interests defended shows a negative average response regarding organizations with political-economic interests. The average score is -0.383, with only 142 respondents (33.97%) providing a positive perceptual score. Lobbies with mixed or social interests show a positive perception among the subjects in the sample, with average scores of 0.129 and 0.139, respectively (see Figure 2). The mean score among the three groups of interests (int_sc) is -0.038, slightly negative.

Figure 2. Responses distribution on the perception of lobbies based on organizational types and interests defended.

Source: Own elaboration. 

Based on the statistical description provided, it can be stated that the analysis of the public perception of lobbies reveals differences depending on the criterion used. To further explore these differences, a comparison is conducted using isolines representing the average values across the three categories (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc). The graphical representation of the three possible pairwise combinations is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Analysis with isolines of the perceptual means of each criterion, comparing them in pairs.

Source: Own elaboration. 

The first two graphs, where the y-axis corresponds to response values based on attributes, present a negatively polarized scenario. In contrast, the graph linking perception according to organizational types and defended interests shows centrality and neutrality in the responses. To analyze this phenomenon more closely, variance analyses are conducted on both the individual responses to each variable and the average values of each block (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc).

In the five variables related to the association with attributes, the individual variance in responses is similar: σ2=3.373 (opaque/transparent), σ2=3.822 (corrupt/ethical), σ2=3.741 (unnecessary/necessary), σ2=3.464 (undemocratic/democratic), and σ2=3.368 (detrimental/beneficial). Correspondingly, the variance of the average value (atr_sc) is σ2=3.151. This suggests consistency in individual responses, meaning that those who rate lobbies negatively on one attribute are likely to do so on others as well.

However, in the variables related to perception based on organizational types and interests defended, there are substantial discrepancies between the variance in responses of individual variables and the variance of the overall means (org_sc and int_sc).

For instance, in the case of the variables related to perception based on organizational types, the variances are: σ2=4.265 (private sector entities), σ2=1.930 (public and mixed entities), σ2=3.204 (civil society organizations), and σ2=2.286 (research/educational institutions); while the variance of the average value (org_sc) is σ2=1.071. Considering the differences, it can be affirmed that the same individual is assigning different perceptual values depending on the type of organization, with the most pronounced differences observed in private sector entities and civil society organizations. 

Likewise, in variables regarding perception based on interests, the variances are: σ2=3.594 (political-economic interests), σ2=2.434 (mixed interests), and σ2=3.486 (social interests); and the variance of the average value (int_sc) is σ2=1.568. Thus, individuals who score their perception of organizations with political-economic interests positively tend to rate their perception of entities advocating for social interests negatively, and vice versa.

4.2. Influence of sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies (O2)

The first step in exploring the sociodemographic variables that influence the perception of lobbies involves conducting independence tests that analyze, through the chi-square statistic (χ2), the degree of association between the five sociodemographic variables and the individual variables that comprise the three perception criteria (categorically coded). Table 2 reflects the results of the independence tests.

Table 2. Independence tests between perceptual variables and sociodemographic variables.

Perceptual variables (categorically coded)	Sociodemographic variables
	Gender (df=6)	Age  (df=78)	Ideology  (df=12)	Economic status (df=24)	Education (df=12)
Criterion 1: Attributes (Block II)
Opaque/Transparent	χ2=3.792 p=0.705	χ2=75.909 p=0.546	χ2=99.124 p=0.000	χ2=59.104 p=0.000	χ2=36.734 p=0.000
Corrupt/Ethical	χ2=6.007 p=0.422	χ2=64.090 p=0.872	χ2=104.922 p=0.000	χ2=57.689 p=0.000	χ2=37.555 p=0.000
Unnecessary/Necessary	χ2=5.476 p=0.484	χ2=94.725 p=0.096	χ2=106.591 p=0.000	χ2=42.321 p=0.012	χ2=30.544 p=0.002
Undemocratic/Democratic	χ2=2.846 p=0.828	χ2=95.114 p=0.091	χ2=95.487 p=0.000	χ2=64.211 p=0.000	χ2=31.658 p=0.002
Detrimental/Beneficial	χ2=4.906 p=0.556	χ2=77.797 p=0.485	χ2=110.100 p=0.000	χ2=48.994 p=0.002	χ2=28.938 p=0.004
Criterion 2: Organizational types (Block III)
Private sector entities	χ2=4.614 p=0.594	χ2=75.928 p=0.545	χ2=122.455 p=0.000	χ2=84.789 p=0.000	χ2=32.839 p=0.001
Public and mixed entities	χ2=9.705 p=0.138	χ2=89.262 p=0.180	χ2=6.014 p=0.915	χ2=18.667 p=0.194	χ2=14.177 p=0.290
Civil society organizations	χ2=6.222 p=0.399	χ2=75.269 p=0.567	χ2=64.449 p=0.000	χ2=22.354 p=0.558	χ2=13.478 p=0.335
Research/educational institutions	χ2=1.972 p=0.922	χ2=88.243 p=0.201	χ2=16.753 p=0.159	χ2=19.160 p=0.743	χ2=6.986 p=0.859
Criterion 3: Interests  (Block IV)
Political-economic interests	χ2=2.838 p=0.829	χ2=63.422 p=0.884	χ2=85.923 p=0.000	χ2=68.200 p=0.000	χ2=28.593 p=0.005
Mixed interests	χ2=3.386 p=0.759	χ2=94.174 p=0.102	χ2=5.209 p=0.951	χ2=16.819 p=0.258	χ2=11.614 p=0.477
Social interests	χ2=1.663 p=0.948	χ2=66.967 p=0.809	χ2=34.994 p=0.000	χ2=42.814 p=0.010	χ2=24.176 p=0.019

Source: Own elaboration. 

Overall, neither gender nor age is linked to any of the perceptual variables. However, ideology, economic status, and education show clear associations.

The scenario related to ideology is particularly polarized. Based on attributes, no discrepancies are found, with dependence observed across all five cases (average p-value=0.000). However, dependence based on the organizational types and the interests defended is more complex. Statistically significant associations between variables are only identified on four occasions. For the organizational types of criterion, dependence appears in the perception of private sector entities (p-value=0.000) and civil society organizations (p-value=0.000), while no dependence is observed for public or mixed entities (p-value=0.915) or research/educational institutions (p-value=0.859). Similarly, regarding interests, dependence exists solely for political-economic (p-value=0.000) and social interests (p-value=0.000).

Concerning economic status and education, a similar trend emerges, albeit with some variations. Regarding the perception of attributes, a consistent dependence is observed, although it is less pronounced (average p-values=0.014 and 0.002, respectively). Examining the relationships according to the type of organization reveals dependence only in the case of private sector entities (p-values=0.000 and 0.001). Lastly, when evaluating the values regarding the interests represented, dependence is again noted for both political-economic interests (p-values=0.000 and 0.005) and social interests (p-values=0.010 and 0.019).

After assessing the initial associations, a binary logistic regression is implemented, using the general perception average (per_sc), coded as binary, as the dependent variable. This regression aims to determine, with sociodemographic variables as potential explanatory factors, whether an individual has a positive or negative perception of lobbies.

The first step of the regression is to identify the relevant variables, i.e., those with predictive power. Ideology, economic status, and education are statistically significant. An omnibus test confirms the regression’s validity (p-value=0.000), showing that the independent variables help explain the binary outcome. R-squared tests indicate explained variance, while the Hosmer-Lemeshow test shows good fit, as predicted and observed values do not differ significantly.

The classification table shows a correct prediction in 76.79% of cases (see Table 3). This value is derived from comparing the regression predictions with the actual data. Considering this value, it can be said that knowing a subject’s ideology, economic status, and education allows for a 76.79% accuracy in predicting whether their global perception of lobbies is positive or negative.

Table 3. Classification table of the binary logistic regression.

Step	Sociodemographic variables	Observed		Predicted
				per_sc		% Correct
				0 (per_sc<0)	1 (per_sc>0)
Step 1	Ideology	per_sc	0 (per_sc<0)	189	35	84.38
			1 (per_sc>0)	77	117	60.31
		General percentage		73.21
Step 2	Economic status Ideology	per_sc	0 (per_sc<0)	187	37	83.48
			1 (per_sc>0)	68	126	64.95
		General percentage		74.88
Step 3	Education Economic status Ideology	per_sc	0 (per_sc<0)	173	51	77.23
			1 (per_sc>0)	46	148	76.29
		General percentage		76.79

Source: Own elaboration. 

To explore the direction and magnitude of the effect of each relevant sociodemographic variable on the binary dependent variable, the B regression coefficients are analyzed in relation to the reference category within each variable. Regarding ideology, B (center)=-1.661 and B (left)=-2.399. For education, B (secondary)=-1.135 and B (primary)=-1.351. In terms of economic status, B (higher-middle)=-19.225, B (middle)=-20.582, B (lower-middle)=-21.146, and B (lower)=22.102. Therefore, considering the progression of these values and their negative direction, it can be concluded that individuals with right-wing ideology, higher economic status, and tertiary education are more likely to have a positive perception of lobbies.

This conditioning trend applies only to the analysis of general perception. To thoroughly understand how the influence of variables is distributed, it is necessary to explore the relation between sociodemographic variables and every individual perception criterion. 

For this purpose, the same process used for the general analysis (in which per_sc is used as the binary dependent variable) is applied to each specific perceptual variable and the means of their respective blocks (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc). To carry this out, the same variable conversion procedure is applied, coding the dependent variables as binary. The result is a binary logistic regression matrix complemented by an analysis of B regression coefficients (see Table 4).

Table 4. Binary logistic regressions between perceptual variables and sociodemographic variables, complemented by an analysis of B regression coefficients for relevant variables in each regression.

Perceptual variables (binary coded)	Statistical analysis
	Binary logistic regressions		B regression coefficients*
	% Correct	Relevant sociodemographic variables
Criterion 1: Attributes (Block II)
Opaque/Transparent	73.19%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=71.77%) Education (% Correct: Step 2=72.03%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 3=73.19%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4) –t–
Corrupt/Ethical	78.04%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=74.41%) Education (% Correct: Step 2=74.46%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 3=75.07%) Age (% Correct: Step 4=78.04%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4)  B>0 (10/13)
Unnecessary/Necessary	73.37%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=73.66%) Education (% Correct: Step 2=73.69%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 3=73.37%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4)
Undemocratic/Democratic	74.27%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=73.40%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 2=74.49%) Education (% Correct: Step 3=74.27%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4) B<0 (2/2) –t–
Detrimental/Beneficial	74.29%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=73.66%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 2=74.61%) Education (% Correct: Step 3=74.29%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4) B<0 (2/2) –t–
Average (atr_sc)	75.75%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=74.23%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 2=75.12%) Education (% Correct: Step 3=75.75%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4) B<0 (2/2) –t–
Criterion 2: Organizational types  (Block III)
Private sector entities	75.14%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=70.26%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 2=73.45%) Age (% Correct: Step 3=75.14%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4) B>0 (12/13)
Public and mixed entities	58.90%	Economic status (% Correct: Step 1=58.90%)	B<0 (3/4) –t–
Civil society organizations	59.32%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=59.32%)	B>0 (2/2) –t–
Research/educational institutions	-	-	-
Average (org_sc)	63.90%	Economic status (% Correct: Step 1=59.27%) Education (% Correct: Step 2=63.90%)	B<0 (3/4) –t– B<0 (2/2)
Criterion 3: Interests  (Block IV)
Political-economic interests	69.13%	Ideology (% Correct: Step 1=69.88%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 2=70.76%) Education (% Correct: Step 3=69.13%)	B<0 (2/2) –t– B<0 (4/4) B<0 (2/2) –t–
Mixed interests	-	-	-
Social interests	65.52%	Education (% Correct: Step 1=56.45%) Ideology (% Correct: Step 2=63.40%) Economic status (% Correct: Step 3=65.52%)	B<0 (1/2) B>0 (2/2) –t–  B<0 (3/4) –t–
Average (int_sc)	65.11%	Economic status (% Correct: Step 1=63.56%) Education (% Correct: Step 2=65.11%)	B<0 (3/4) –t–  B<0 (2/2)
* Note: The parentheses indicate the number of categories that meet the specified criterion (B<0/B>0) out of the total possible categories within the variable (total categories minus the reference category). If “–t–” is also included, it means that the effect increases positively or negatively in a consistent manner. The breakdown of the coefficients is available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RBASE7

Source: Own elaboration. 

In all three regressions based on average values (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc), the economic status and education show predictive potential regarding the perception of lobbies. Furthermore, in each case, the B regression coefficients (B<0) indicate a positive relationship: individuals with higher economic status or education tend to view lobbies more positively. 

The main differences between the general regression (per_sc), the regressions based on average scores for each block (atr_sc, org_sc, and int_sc), and those based on specific perceptual variables arise with the ideology variable. In the regression based on the average perception score in terms of attributes (atr_sc), ideology proves relevant because there is a relative uniformity in perceptual ratings regardless of the attribute pairs. However, in regressions for perceptions based on organizational types (org_sc) or interests (int_sc), ideology is not generally significant but becomes relevant for individual variables. For instance, when examining specific interests, ideology (coded from left to right) shows a direct relationship with positive perceptions of groups defending political-economic interests (B<0) and an inverse relationship with those advocating social interests (B>0). This indicates that right-wing individuals are more inclined to view positively lobbies that support political-economic interests, while left-wing individuals tend to favor those promoting social causes. The same pattern holds for private sector entities (B<0) and civil society organizations (B>0).

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

The results related to perception of lobbies based on attributes reveal two entirely different scenarios. The first scenario pertains to the two pairs of attributes tied to the operational activity of lobbies, where the scores clearly indicate a perceptual connection with lack of transparency and corruption. Thus, transparency is a critical element to improve for a positive public perception of lobbies (Chari et al., 2020; Crepaz & Arikan, 2024), as there remains a strong need for ongoing efforts to enhance accountability in interactions between lobbies and the institutions they seek to influence (Laboutková & Vymětal, 2023). The second scenario encompasses attributes regarding the democratic necessity or potential benefits of these organizations. Here, the observed pattern is much more neutral, suggesting some recognition of the need to include these organizations in public policy processes (Bernauer and Gampfer, 2013; Beyers and Arras, 2021). This gap between operational attributes and democratic justification may reflect deeper tensions in public opinion regarding their legitimacy. As suggested by theories of communicative legitimacy (Castells, 2007; Habermas, 1996), transparency and accountability are foundational to public acceptance, particularly in democratic contexts.

On the other hand, regarding perception of lobbies based on organizational types, the results reflect clear distinctions consistent with existing literature. Private sector entities are perceived most negatively. This aligns with studies suggesting corporate lobbies often face skepticism, being viewed as driven by private economic gains (e.g., Godwin et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2024). Moreover, this idea is reinforced by transparency concerns that contribute to doubts about the ethicality of their influence (Castillo-Esparcia et al., 2022; Crepaz & Arikan, 2024; Ron and Singer, 2020). Conversely, non-business entities, particularly research/educational institutions, show a positive perception. Public/mixed entities and civil society organizations also score positively or neutrally, indicating greater trust in groups perceived as advocating for collective rather than private interests (Frangi et al., 2017; Holyoke, 2020; O’Neill, 2009; Richan, 2013). This aligns with findings that non-profit organizations carry a sense of legitimacy that resonates with public values (Berry, 2015; Grose et al., 2022). These distinctions also resonate with broader theories of political representation (Pitkin, 1967). Lobbies act as representatives of particular segments of society. However, when these representatives are perceived to primarily serve private or elite interests, their legitimacy is challenged. This echoes contemporary concerns about the democratic deficit in interest intermediation (Young, 2002).

Similar patterns are revealed when examining the perception of lobbies based on the interests defended. Political-economic lobbies are rated negatively, while those with mixed or social interests receive positive ratings. This reinforces the idea that advocacy aligned with the common good is viewed more favorably (Holyoke, 2020; Koch & Schulz-Knappe, 2021). This may also be interpreted through the lens of input legitimacy (Scharpf, 1999). As outlined, some further studies suggest that when lobbying efforts are inclusive of both economic and social interests, they gain public legitimacy (Aizenberg et al., 2024; Rasmussen & Reher, 2023), hinting that a balanced representation can mitigate distrust toward corporate lobbies and foster a more equitable perception of their influence on policy. 

Therefore, considering these findings, it can be stated that H1 is largely supported by the research. The only caveat is that perceptual differences are much more pronounced based on the last two criteria.

The variance analysis of perceptual differences based on the three criteria shows notable results. For the attributes criterion, the variance of the general variable is high and consistent with individual variables. However, when analyzing variances based on organizational types and interests, the variances in the average response values for each block is low, contrasting with the higher individual variances. This shows that individual responses are inconsistent. The direct implication of this analysis is a landscape of perceptual polarization in the three cases. It can be related to the role of the media in shaping perceptions of lobbies, as media coverage tends to foster polarized opinions and reinforce pre-existing beliefs (Hmielowski, 2020; Shehata et al., 2024), particularly in political-related topics (Flamino et al., 2023). 

Delving into this polarized context, the analysis of the influence of sociodemographic variables on the perception of lobbies reveals three main influential variables: ideology, economic status, and education. People with right-wing ideology, higher economic status, and tertiary education tend to have a more positive perception of lobbies. Hence, H2 is fully confirmed. 

These results complement previous studies which also find that education plays a crucial role (e.g., Kuzmova, 2011; Rudy & Johnson, 2016). The association between variables may be due to a better understanding of the functions of these organizations and the recognition of their importance. Additionally, a marked perceptual polarization based on ideology is observed, both in the general analysis and in specific regressions. Individuals with right-wing ideology are more likely to value lobbies with political-economic interests and entities from the private sector. In contrast, those with left-wing ideology tend to favor lobbies oriented toward social interests and civil society organizations. This trend is also observed in studies like those of Nalick et al. (2023) and Unsal et al. (2016), which show how CEOs with right-wing inclinations tend to lead more extensive lobbying efforts. Precisely, the influence of ideology may be the most noteworthy finding of this part of the analysis. It aligns with affective polarization described in public opinion research. Such polarization can lead people to evaluate lobbies not by their function but by their perceived political alignment, also reflecting theories of motivated reasoning (Taber & Lodge, 2006).

In conclusion, the research conducted has successfully achieved its objectives through the proposed methodological approach, confirming both proposed hypotheses. The study reveals a highly polarized public perception of lobbying groups. Respondents generally exhibit a predominantly negative perception of lobbies, particularly regarding their transparency and ethical standards. However, there are differences based on organizational types and interests defended. Research/educational institutions tend to receive more positive evaluations compared to private sector entities, as do lobbies advocating for social interests rather than those focused on private interests. Regarding the influence of sociodemographic variables, ideology, economic status, and education emerge as significant predictors of individuals’ perceptions of lobbies. Those with right-wing ideological leanings, higher economic status, or advanced educational backgrounds tend to have more positive views.

The implications of these findings span multiple areas. In the scientific realm, this research contributes to the analysis of public perception as a determinant of lobbying influence. Beyond academia, the implications are numerous. In the political realm, they highlight the need to develop and implement regulations that promote more transparent and ethical lobbying practices. Similarly, they reveal educational needs, offering insights for designing communication strategies that enhance public understanding of the role, functions, and significance of lobbies in democratic processes. These findings could also serve as a foundation for sociological debates on the impact of these perceptions on social cohesion and political behavior.

To correctly interpret the article’s conclusions, it is essential to consider its limitations. Regarding data collection, several limitations must be considered. They can be grouped into three categories: respondent-related, design-related, and method-related. First, respondent-related limitations include the inherent subjectivity of perception responses and the potential social desirability bias in sensitive sociodemographic variables such as ideology or economic status. Additionally, requiring respondents to know what a lobby is has led to a sample with higher average age and education than a purely random sample, although this criterion is necessary to form a valid perception. Second, design-related limitations arise from the cross-sectional nature of the study, meaning perceptions may be influenced by recent events or specific contexts. Third, method-related limitations include the use of phone calls, which can lead to the underrepresentation of certain population groups; however, this method was chosen for its broad reach across a wide age range. 

In terms of data analysis, two main limitations should be noted. First, although the quantitative approach provides a broad and structured overview of public perception of lobbying, it lacks the depth to explore the underlying motivations behind respondents’ evaluations. Second, the geographic scope of the study, limited to Spain, which restricts the generalizability of the findings.

To address these limitations, future research could adopt a longitudinal approach to track how public perception evolves over time, considering specific events, legislative changes, or socioeconomic contexts. Besides that, complementing these results with qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, could help uncover the motivations behind the perceptions. A comparative approach would also be valuable, replicating this analysis in other countries to examine how different contexts shape public perception of lobbying groups. 

Finally, beyond research lines aimed at addressing the identified limitations, it would be relevant to explore the media’s role in shaping the public perception of lobbies. This includes examining its influence on polarization and the reinforcement of preexisting biases, as well as how specific interventions, such as transparency campaigns, impact public perception and contribute to strengthening the legitimacy and trust in lobbying activities.

6. REFERENCES

Aizenberg, E., Werner, H., & Van Geldere, S. (2024). Helping citizens to lobby themselves. Experimental evidence on the effects of citizen lobby engagement on internal efficacy and political support. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(11), 3561-3590. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2266459 

 

Andina-Díaz, A. (2007). Reinforcement vs. change: the political influence of the media. Public Choice, 131, 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9105-1 

 

Avin, C., Daltrophe, H., & Lotker, Z. (2024). On the impossibility of breaking the echo chamber effect in social media using regulation. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50850-6 

 

Awad, E. (2024). Understanding influence in informational lobbying. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 13(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-023-00197-0 

 

Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2013). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.01.001 

 

Berry, J. M. (2015). Lobbying for the people: the political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400867301 

 

Beyers, J., & Arras, S. (2021). Stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of regulatory decision‐making: a survey experiment in Belgium. Regulation & Governance, 15(3), 877-893. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12323 

 

Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: the logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760210138796 

 

Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: a comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x 

 

de Bruycker, I., & Beyers, J. (2015). Balanced or biased? Interest groups and legislative lobbying in the European news media. Political Communication, 32(3), 453-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.958259  

 

de Bruycker, I., & Beyers, J. (2019). Lobbying strategies and success: inside and outside lobbying in European Union legislative politics. European Political Science Review, 11(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773918000218

 

Campos, N. F., & Giovannoni, F. (2007). Lobbying, corruption and political influence. Public Choice, 131, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9102-4 

 

Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/46 

 

Castillo-Esparcia, A., Almansa-Martínez, A., & Gonçalves, G. (2022). Lobbies: the hidden side of digital politics. In B. García-Orosa (Ed.), Digital political communication strategies (pp. 75-93). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81568-4_5 

 

Chari, R. S., Hogan, J. W., Murphy, G., & Crepaz, M. (2020). Regulating lobbying: a global comparison. Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526117243 

 

Crepaz, M. (2024). Lobbying transparency and attitudes towards interest groups: a survey experiment. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 13(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-024-00201-1 

 

Crepaz, M., & Arikan, G. (2024). The effects of transparency regulation on political trust and perceived corruption: evidence from a survey experiment. Regulation & Governance, 18(3), 896-913. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12555 

 

Dinan, W. (2021). Lobbying transparency: the limits of EU monitory democracy. Politics and Governance, 9(1), 237-247. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i1.3936 

 

Dockendorff, A., & Lodato, S. (2024). When do interest groups lobby legislators in strong presidential systems? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 49(2), 289-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12419 

 

Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2014). Public opinion and interest group influence: how citizen groups derailed the ACTA. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1199-1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.900893 

 

Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2024). Lobbying in the face of politicisation: interest group strategies in trade policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(1), 212-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2203161 

 

Dwidar, M. A. (2022). Diverse lobbying coalitions and influence in notice‐and‐comment rulemaking. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 199-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12431 

 

Dyck, A., Moss, D., & Zingales, L. (2013). Media versus special interests. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(3), 521-553. https://doi.org/10.1086/673216 

 

Flamino, J., Galeazzi, A., Feldman, S., Macy, M., Cross, B., Zhou, Z., [...] & Szymanski, B. (2023). Political polarization of news media and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(6), 904-916. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01550-8 

 

Frangi, L., Koos, S., & Hadziabdic, S. (2017). In unions we trust! Analysing confidence in unions across Europe. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(4), 831-858. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12248 

 

Godwin, K., Ainsworth, S. H., & Godwin, E. (2012). Lobbying and policymaking: the public pursuit of private interests. CQ Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349336 

 

Gray, V., Lowery, D., Fellowes, M., & McAtee, A. (2004). Public opinion, public policy, and organized interests in the American states. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700306 

 

Grose, C. R., Lopez, P., Sadhwani, S., & Yoshinaka, A. (2022). Social lobbying. The Journal of Politics, 84(1), 367-382. https://doi.org/10.1086/714923 

 

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.

 

Hmielowski, J. D., Hutchens, M. J., & Beam, M. A. (2020). Asymmetry of partisan media effects? Examining the reinforcing process of conservative and liberal media with political beliefs. Political Communication, 37(6), 852-868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1763525 

 

Holyoke, T. T. (2020). Interest groups and lobbying: pursuing political interests in America. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003041795 

 

Hrebenar, R. J., McBeth, C. H., & Morgan, B. B. (2008). Interests and lobbying in Lithuania: a spectrum of development. Journal of Public Affairs, 8(1‐2), 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.281 

 

Judd, G. (2023). Access to proposers and influence in collective policy making. The Journal of Politics, 85(4), 1430-1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/723992 

 

Junk, W. M. (2020). Co-operation as currency: how active coalitions affect lobbying success. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(6), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1631377 

 

Junk, W. M., & Rasmussen, A. (2024). Are citizens responsive to interest groups? A field experiment on lobbying and intended citizen behaviour. West European Politics, 47(7), 1643-1669. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2023.2229710 

 

Junk, W. M., Crepaz, M., Hanegraaff, M., Berkhout, J., & Aizenberg, E. (2022). Changes in interest group access in times of crisis: no pain, no (lobby) gain. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(9), 1374-1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1968936 

 

Kanol, D. (2018). Knowledge of lobbying regulations and attitudes toward politics: findings from a survey experiment in Cyprus. Public Integrity, 20(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1303882 

 

Kim, J., Welbourne Eleazar, M. J., & Lee, S. H. (2024). The influence of media scrutiny on firms’ strategic eschewal of lobbying. Strategic Management Journal, 45(11), 2340-2367. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3633 

 

Klüver, H. (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199657445.001.0001 

 

Koch, T., & Schulz-Knappe, C. (2021). Corporate lobbying: role perceptions and perceived influence on political decisions of public affairs professionals. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102062 

 

Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691221472 

 

Kuzmova, J. (2011). Perception of political lobbying in Slovakia as a controversial issue: contrast between the public, lobbyists, and public officials. The roots, implications for present, and challenges for future [Doctoral Thesis]. Central European University. 

 

Laboutková, Š., & Vymětal, P. (2023). A black box assessment of institutional quality: the challenge of evaluating lobbying transparency. Policy Studies, 44(3), 336-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2053092 

 

Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00537.x 

 

Lee, J., & Stuckatz, J. (2024). Mobilization and strategies: comparing trade lobbying in the US and Canada. Comparative Political Studies, 57(2), 287-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193014 

 

Lock, I., & Davidson, S. (2024). Argumentation strategies in lobbying: toward a typology. Journal of Communication Management, 28(2), 345-364. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-09-2022-0111 

 

Moreno-Cabanillas, A., Castillo-Esparcia, A., & Castillero-Ostio, E. (2024). Lobbying and mass media. Analysis of media coverage of lobbying in Spain. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 82, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.4185/rlcs-2024-2059

 

Moreno-Cabanillas, A., Serna-Ortega, Á., & Castillero-Ostio, E. (2025). Análisis longitudinal de la cobertura mediática de los lobbies en la prensa generalista impresa española. Revista de Comunicación, 24(1), 343-366. https://doi.org/10.26441/RC24.1-2025-3710 

 

Nalick, M., Kuban, S., Ridge, J. W., Zardkoohi, A., Bierman, L., & Schijven, M. (2023). When not one of the crowd: the effects of CEO ideological divergence on lobbying strategy. Journal of Management, 49(3), 1106-1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211073690

 

O’Neill, M. (2009). Public confidence in charitable nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 237-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008326895 

 

Peng, C. Y. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598786 

 

Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503 

 

Porumbescu, G., Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Government transparency: state of the art and new perspectives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108678568 

 

Raknes, K., & Ihlen, Ø. (2020). Self‐interest in new wrapping: “appeal to the public interest” as a topos in lobbying. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(2), e2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2059 

 

Rasmussen, A., & Reher, S. (2023). (Inequality in) interest group involvement and the legitimacy of policy making. British Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123422000242 

 

Rasmussen, A., Mäder, L. K., & Reher, S. (2018). With a little help from the people? The role of public opinion in advocacy success. Comparative Political Studies, 51(2), 139-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017695334 

 

Rich, J. A. J. (2020). Organizing twenty-first-century activism: from structure to strategy in Latin American social movements. Latin American Research Review, 55(3), 430-444. https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.452 

 

Richan, W. C. (2013). Lobbying for social change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203051573 

 

Ron, A., & Singer, A. A. (2020). Democracy, corruption, and the ethics of business lobbying. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 9(1), 38-56. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00073-w 

 

Rudy, B. C., & Johnson, A. F. (2016). The Chief Political Officer: CEO characteristics and firm investment in corporate political activity. Business & Society, 58(3), 612-643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316675606

 

Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: effective and democratic? Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001 

 

Serna-Ortega, Á., Almansa-Martínez, A., & Castillo-Esparcia, A. (2025). Influence of lobbying in EU policy process phases. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, 1511918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1511918 

 

Serna-Ortega, Á., Gorostiza-Cerviño, A., & Moreno-Cabanillas, A. (2024). Interests groups access in the EU’s portfolio-based governance. Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, 14(28), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.5783/revrrpp.v14i28.879 

 

Shapiro, R. Y. (2011). Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 982-1017. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr053 

 

Shehata, A., Ekström, M., & Tryggvason, P. O. (2024). Selective exposure and new political cleavages: media use and ideological reinforcement over time. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 29(3), 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221112003 

 

Smith, M. A. (2000). American business and political power. Chicago University Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo3630093.html 

 

Sobbrio, F. (2013). Indirect lobbying and media bias. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6(3-4), 235-274. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00010087 

 

Stevens, F., & de Bruycker, I. (2020). Influence, affluence and media salience: economic resources and lobbying influence in the European Union. European Union Politics, 21(4), 728-750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520944572 

 

Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

 

Törnberg, P., & Törnberg, A. (2024). Inside a white power echo chamber: why fringe digital spaces are polarizing politics. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4511-4533. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221122915 

 

Truijens, D., & Hanegraaff, M. (2024). It ain’t over ‘til it’s over: interest-group influence in policy implementation. Political Studies Review, 22(2), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231162015 

 

Unsal, O., Hassan, M. K., & Zirek, D. (2016). Corporate lobbying, CEO political ideology and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 38, 126-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.04.001

 

Woll, C. (2019). Corporate power beyond lobbying. American Affairs, 3(3), 38-55. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/08/corporate-power-beyond-lobbying/ 

 

Yates, L. (2023). How platform businesses mobilize their users and allies: corporate grassroots lobbying and the Airbnb ‘movement’ for deregulation. Socio-Economic Review, 21(4), 1917-1943. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwad028

 

Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297556.001.0001 

 

AUTHORS

Álvaro Serna-Ortega

Universidad de Málaga. 

Research Staff in Training (FPU23). Lecturer in the Department of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising of the Faculty of Communication Sciences. Contracted researcher in the Research Project “Lobby and Communication”, funded by the State R+D+i Program (CSO2016-79357-R). Doctoral student of the Interuniversity Doctoral Program in Communication of the Universities of Cadiz, Huelva, Malaga and Seville in the line of Advertising and Public Relations. Degree in Advertising and Public Relations and Master in Strategic Management and Innovation in Communication. His lines of research focus on political communication, international relations and organizational communication.

amso@uma.es

Índice H: 2

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-4722 

Scopus ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=58714454800

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=SHDkmHEAAAAJ&hl=es

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alvaro-Serna-Ortega

Academia.edu: https://independent.academia.edu/%C3%81lvaroSernaOrtega

Dialnet: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=6152211

 

Andrea Moreno-Cabanillas

Universidad de Málaga. 

Contracted teaching and research staff of the Department of Advertising and Audiovisual Communication of the University of Malaga. She has been predoctoral researcher FPU 2019 and POP. PhD in Communication from the Universities of Cadiz, Huelva, Malaga and Seville in the line of Advertising and Public Relations. Graduate in Advertising and Public Relations from the University of Malaga and Master's Degree in Teacher Training in Secondary Education and Vocational Training from the University of Murcia. Author of more than 70 conference papers and 50 publications. Member of the Research Project Lobby and Communication, funded by the State Program of R+D+i (CSO2016-79357-R). Belongs to the EVAPROP network that integrates 45 researchers from 8 Ibero-American countries. Research focused on interest groups, lobbies in the European Union, with funded research stay at Universidade de São Paulo (Brazil) and RMIT University (Australia).

amorenoc@uma.es

Índice H: 4

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-1607 

Scopus ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57292058700

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?hl=es&user=sz766msAAAAJ

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea-Moreno-Cabanillas

Academia.edu: https://concepta-net.academia.edu/AndreaMorenoCabanillas/

Dialnet: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=5144748

 

Antonio Castillo-Esparcia

Universidad de Málaga. 

University Professor. With a degree and PhD in Communication from the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (UAB), he joined the University of Malaga as a lecturer in 1997, where he teaches public relations, political communication and communication in non-governmental organisations. He is the author of more than 150 publications including journal articles, books and book chapters in national and foreign publishing houses. Director of the Lobby and Communication Research Project, funded by the State R&D&I Programme (CSO2016-79357-R). Director of the Public Relations in Small and Medium Enterprises Research Group. President of the Association of Public Relations Researchers (AIRP). Currently, he is the director of the Department of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising and Coordinator of the Master's Degree in Strategic Management and Innovation in Communication. He also serves as an evaluator for the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA), the Agency for the Quality of the University System of Catalonia (AQU), the Basque University System Quality Agency (UNIBASQ) and the State Research Agency.

acastilloe@uma.es

Índice H: 30

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9751-8628 

Scopus ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55618587500

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=b541fg8AAAAJ&hl=es&oi=ao

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio-Castillo-Esparcia

Academia.edu: https://uma.academia.edu/AntonioCastillo

Dialnet: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=3545739

Artículos relacionados:

Astudillo González, C. (2025). Responsabilidad civil e inmunidad familiar. European Public & Social Innovation Review, 10, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2025-1387

Brandín, J. A. y Barquero, J. D. (2024). La confiabilidad: el lugar donde la confianza de ego y la promesa de alter pueden encontrarse. Revista de Ciencias de la Comunicación e Información, 29. https://doi.org/10.35742/rcci.2024.29.e298

García, J. A. (2024). Algunas notas sobre la regulación de los lobbies en España. Asamblea. Revista parlamentaria de la Asamblea de Madrid, 46, 63-101. https://doi.org/10.59991/rvam/2024/n.46/966

Lalaleo Analuisa, F. R., Chenet Zuta, M. E., Martínez Yacelga, A. P. y Bonilla Jurado, D. M. (2023). Imagen corporativa desde la perspectiva de la comunicación empresarial: caso Asociación Artesanal Cuero y Afines de Quisapincha. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 56, 265-281. https://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2023.56.e829

Moreno-Cabanillas, A., Serna-Ortega, Á., & Castillero-Ostio, E. (2025). Análisis longitudinal de la cobertura mediática de los lobbies en la prensa generalista impresa española. Revista de Comunicación, 24(1), 343-366. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9286757