Beyond Formal Oversight: Contested Issues, Digital Traces, and the Justificatory Consequences of Felt Accountability

Abstract

Public officials and elected politicians are held accountable by various audiences, beyond generally recognized and authorized stakeholders, such as courts and auditors. However, previous studies on felt accountability—that is, individuals’ perception that their actions will be evaluated by salient audiences who may reward or sanction them—do not yet focus on such multiplicity of audiences in digitally mediated public accountability settings. This study investigates how anticipated digital scrutiny shapes individuals’ justificatory orientation, particularly when deliberating on controversial policy debates. We draw on a mixed‐methods study of Brazilian local legislators and find that digital traces, enabled by live‐streaming and recording technologies, are associated with a stronger orientation toward interest‐group‐based justifications, particularly when policy issues are morally and epistemically contested. We argue that heightened digital visibility is embedded in architectures that enable interactivity, create persistent traces, and facilitate the circulation and public evaluation of political speech under polarized and contested conditions. As a result, legislators’ justificatory practices become more attuned to anticipated reactions from salient audiences whose evaluative power can be strengthened by digital traces, even when these audiences lack formal sanctioning authority. We conclude by highlighting theoretical and managerial implications.