Latent Target Groups – A Methodological Contribution of Social Identities to Policy Design Research

Researchers have traditionally studied target groups as homogenously constructed groups. Thereby, the groups of interest were assigned single social identities, such as, e.g., people in unemployment. However, it can be questioned whether a singular identity approach is appropriate for studying populations of interest, and in turn, designing effective policies. The authors in this article argue that the internal characteristics of at first sight, and from a traditional policy design perspective, homogenous groups are internally highly heterogenous and respond differently to policies based on their overlapping identities. These concerns have prompted the authors to explore the concept of “latent” target groups, or the idea that individuals have multiple competing identities to analyze the extent of subgroup diversity within these target populations.

Theoretical Arguments

The authors establish two primary arguments to guide their investigation of latent target groups in their study:

  1. Target groups are not homogenous and as a result, their heterogeneity must be considered in policy design.
  2. Social identities serves as a useful conceptual backdrop for target group diversity by structuring how they are composed of different subgroups and identities.

Methodology

This study applies Latent Class Analysis (LCA) as the primary methodological tool to uncover individual attributes through a person-centered design. An original dataset of 2,042 German adult respondents was used, specifically examining two groups: non-vegetarians and car users. The authors focused on these groups due to the consequences of their behaviors on the environment and contributions to increased carbon emissions. To identify hidden social identities, the demographic, local, and organizational identities of the respondents were measured through LCA. Furthermore, the authors utilized regression modeling to predict policy preferences toward specific types of nutrition and mobility policies within the subgroups.

Key Findings

Non-Vegetarians and Car Users are not Monolithic Identity Groups

The results of the LCA, as shown in Figure 1 demonstrated that four hidden subgroups existed within the broader population of non-vegetarians and car users examined. These latent groups consisted of four classes: Wealthy and status-seeking people of the rural and provincial upper class (Class 1); politically engaged men in metropolitan areas influenced by monetary incentives (Class 2); a disengaged subset of women expressing minimal social or political engagement (Class 3); and socially/politically active citizens (Class 4). These discoveries confirm the authors’ expectations that seemingly cohesive groups are distinctly characterized by various identity groups making up their composition. Unique to non-vegetarians and car users, these groups are clearly not monolithic and instead shaped by various socioeconomic and political experiences.

Figure 1. Probability of membership in classes.

Hidden Groups Only Predict Policy Preferences for Car Use

Table 3 shows that the observed latent classes exhibit a higher probability of predicting preferences toward mobility policy. In particular, citizens who are socially and politically active (Class 4) are the most likely subgroup to promote car usage policies. This indicates that underneath the broad socially constructed identity groups, specific subgroup identity cohorts drive support or opposition toward policy preferences. Effectively, this revelation confirms that receptiveness to policy designs is a complex phenomenon heavily influenced by conflicting and salient identity factions.

Table 3. Results of logistic regression analyses.

Why It Matters

This article thoughtfully reevaluates how policymakers should approach the design of policy measures and/or programs intended to serve specific target populations. The understanding of identity transcends the traditionally broad social construction of groups into a defined category, as shown in the article. Complex policy issues such as environmental restrictions can spark multiple conflicting identities that create unique policy preferences that differ from others in the demographic segment. Future research directions suggested by the authors include examining how the internal cohesiveness of subgroup identities are affected by policy instruments such as regulations or incentives. By continuing to study latent target groups, policymakers can begin to transition away from “one-size-fits-all” policy approaches and instead pursue tailored design frameworks that align with the behaviors, identities, and values of diverse subgroups.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Hornung, Johanna, Nils C. Bandelow, and Madita Olvermann. 2025. “Latent Target Groups—A Methodological Contribution of Social Identities to Policy Design Research.” Policy Studies Journal 53(3): 774–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70028.

About the Article’s Author(s)

Dr. Johanna Hornung is an assistant professor in Public Policy at the University of Lausanne. She is co-editor-in-chief of the Review of Policy Research (RPR) and the European Policy Analysis (EPA) journal. Her research interests lie in public policy research, particularly health policy, and the integration of psychological perspectives in actor-centered explanations of policy processes. 

Dr. Nils C. Bandelow is professor Political Science and Head of the Institute of Comparative Politics and Public Policy (CoPPP) at the TU Braunschweig. He is co-editor-in-chief of the journals Review of Policy Research (RPR) and European Policy Analysis (EPA). He is interested in policy process research, particularly health policy and infrastructure policy, and integrating psychological perspectives in actor-centered explanations of policy processes.

Dr. Madita Olvermann is an Innovation Manager at the Project House of the TU Braunschweig. She earned her PhD at the Chair of Industrial/Organizational and Social Psychology at the TU Braunschweig. She is passionate about interdisciplinary research and focuses on applying individual-level insights from the psychological field to emerging transition pathways. 

What lessons do professionals learn about government from implementing policy?

by Patricia Strach

A professional on a recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) webinar that we participated in noted that stigma doesn’t just affect people who use drugs (the clients), it also affects the professionals providing services to them. We weren’t surprised. In our interviews, focus groups, and participant observation of roughly 200 professionals, we heard the same frustration, which was backed up with examples of lower salaries, less respect, and few opportunities to use professional discretion.

While researchers have shown that clients or even community members learn lessons about how government works from their direct or indirect interactions, we don’t know what effect policies have on another invested group: professional implementors. Yet professionals in substance-use disorder services—including general healthcare, drug treatment, and harm reduction (such as syringe exchange) programs—are very aware that they have a different experience from professionals working with other clients.

Substance-use disorder services, then, offer a window into how policies designed for marginalized and negatively constructed populations affect the advantaged, policy professionals administering them with broader implications for the true effects of public policy.

In our research, we find that policy implementors learn by proxy: they witness a government that does not care about people who use drugs; they experience a government that is not committed to providing positive care services to their clients and does not value the professionals who work with them; and in witnessing and experiencing together, they learn that the disadvantaged status of people who use drugs affects the benefits and burdens on the professionals who administer them too.

One treatment provider summed up the effect of extensive and proscriptive rules that punish clients at the same time they remove clinical discretion from well-qualified providers as having “less to do …with whether or not they believe the patient. It’s really how much they respect the opinion or the information provided by the clinician. So I think that stigma follows not only the clients and patients that we see, but I think they don’t always believe us.”

These lessons shape implementors’ views of government. They believe government does not care and has chosen not to take meaningful action in ways that are at odds with what their advantaged status—as counselors, nurses, doctors, managers, and executives in health systems—might suggest. They do not see government as supportive, or politics as winnable. Instead, their status as professionals allows them to compare their experience to other professionals’ and their clients’ experience with other clients’, and they recognize the unfairness in how government treats clients and professionals.

Our article, “Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors Views of Government,” suggests that policy affects more than clients or community members. It spills over to the professionals who implement them, shaping their experience and perspective of government too. Our research offers lessons for scholars of drug policy, policy feedback, administrative burdens, and social construction of target populations.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Strach, Patricia, Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués and Katie Zuber. 2024. “ Learning by Proxy: How Burdensome Policies Shape Policy Implementors’ Views of Government.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12554.

About the Author

Patricia Strach, PhD is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Public Administration & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY) and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, SUNY. With Katie Zuber and Elizabeth Pérez-Chiqués, she examines the opioid epidemic in local communities, engaging people on the frontlines including judges, lawyers, sheriffs, service providers, elected officials, community activists, and people who use drugs and their families. She is the author most recently of The Politics of Trash: How Governments Used Corruption to Clean Cities, 1890–1929 (Cornell 2023) as well as articles published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Policy Studies Journal, and the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. She has presented her findings to federal and state policymakers and has appeared on panels across New York State. Strach received the Outstanding Public Engagement in Health Policy Award from the American Political Science Association’s Section on Health Politics and Policy in 2020 and was a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at Harvard (2008-2010).