Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:44:35.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Samuel J. Eldersveld
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Extract

During 1953 and 1954 two different experiments designed to determine the comparative effectiveness of personalized and impersonalized propaganda techniques were conducted in Ann Arbor. Although “scientific” in orientation, both of them were carried out in conjunction with the teaching of a political science course in public opinion. This not only provided a unique pedagogical opportunity but also made possible the execution of a particularly difficult type of research. In the report following the first year's experiment, the class procedure used and the drawbacks resulting from the use of students were discussed. Here we will present the major findings and interpretations of two years of such experimental work.

Personal contact in political campaigns in the United States today receives a prominent emphasis in the thinking and planning of party strategists. Despite technological improvements in the mass media, especially television, there is today no diminution in attention to programs for personalized appeals to “get out the vote,” unsystematic though such programs may often be. Successful political campaigners in recent years invariably relate their success in part, at least, to the volume of their handshaking, their extensive itineraries, and the intensity of personalized organizational work. In November, 1954 President Eisenhower made history with his initiation of a Republican “talkathon” by telephoning ten party workers around the nation just before election day.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Eldersveld, S. J. and Dodge, R. W., “Personal Contact or Mail Propaganda? An Experiment in Voting Turnout and Attitude Change,” in Katz, Daniel, Cartwright, Dorwin, Eldersveld, Samuel, and Lee, Alfred McClung (eds.), Public Opinion and Propaganda (New York, 1954), pp. 532–42Google Scholar.

2 Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren, The Voter Decides (Evanston, Ill., 1954), pp. 3133Google Scholar.

3 Janowitz, Morris and Marvick, Dwaine, Competitive Pressure and Democratic Consent: An Interpretation of the Politics of the 1952 Presidential Election (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1956)Google Scholar.

4 Later we found that some of these individuals had left the city, moved to another ward, or died.

5 The chi-square test was used to test the statistical significance of our principal findings in the 1953 and 1954 studies. The voting turnout (Table II) results of each of these studies were found significant at least at the .05 level, i.e., the probability of obtaining these results by chance is less than one in twenty. The findings presented in other tables here do not achieve this level of significance because the number of cases in most of the cells of the tables is small. The fact that larger frequencies might yield statistically significant results serves to emphasize the desirability of future replications.

6 It should be borne in mind that political information may have been secured by those contacted during the personal contact.