Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-09T03:12:28.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

DAVID W. NICKERSON
DAVID W. NICKERSON*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
*
David W. Nickerson is Professor, University of Notre Dame, Department of Political Science, 217 O'Shaughnessy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556 (dnickers@nd.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Members of the same household share similar voting behaviors on average, but how much of this correlation can be attributed to the behavior of the other person in the household? Disentangling and isolating the unique effects of peer behavior, selection processes, and congruent interests is a challenge for all studies of interpersonal influence. This study proposes and utilizes a carefully designed placebo-controlled experimental protocol to overcome this identification problem. During a face-to-face canvassing experiment targeting households with two registered voters, residents who answered the door were exposed to either a Get Out the Vote message (treatment) or a recycling pitch (placebo). The turnout of the person in the household not answering the door allows for contagion to be measured. Both experiments find that 60% of the propensity to vote is passed onto the other member of the household. This finding suggests a mechanism by which civic participation norms are adopted and couples grow more similar over time.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 49 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1996. “Identification of Casual Effects Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91 (June): 444–55.Google Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen. 1991. “Voters Intermediation Environments in the 1988 Presidential Contest.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (Fall): 371–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., Greene, Steven, and Huckfeldt, Robert. 2002. “The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices.” American Political Science Review 96 (March): 57–73.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1964. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russel J., and Wattenberg, Martin P., eds. 2002. Parties without Partisans: Political Processes in Advanced Industrialized Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2005. “Turnout in a Small World.” In The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior, ed. Zuckerman, Alan S.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (September): 653–63.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Gerber, Alan S., and Nickerson, David W.. 2003. “Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments.” Journal of Politics 65 (November): 1083–96.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identity of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bernadette C., and Bean, Clive S.. 1992. “The Impact of Spousal Characteristics on Political Attitudes in Australia.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (Winter): 524–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1991. “Discussant Effects on Vote Choice: Intimacy, Structure, and Interdependence.” Journal of Politics 53 (February): 122–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu. 1957. “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an Hypothesis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 21 (1): 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu, and Lazarsfeld, Paul F.. 1955. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, Christopher B. 1994. “The Microenvironment of Attitude Change.” Journal of Politics 56 (August), 715–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A. 2007. “Talk Leads to Recruitment: How Discussions about Politics and Current Events Increase Civic Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (June): 180–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoke, David H. 1990. Political Networks: A Structural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1994. “Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–1991.” World Politics 47 (October): 42–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1993. “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem.” Review of Economic Studies 60 (July): 531–42.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott D. 2004. “Indirect Mobilization: The Social Consequences of Party Contacts in an Election Campaign.” American Politics Research 32 (July): 406–43.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael P., and Popkin, Samuel L.. 2001. “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science Review 95 (December): 963–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, Melissa. 2003. “Getting Out the Latino Vote: How door-to-door canvassing influences voter turnout in rural Central California.” Political Behavior 25 (September): 247–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., and Martin, Paul S.. 2001. “Facilitating Communication Across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media.” American Political Science Review 95 (March): 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Daniel J. 1997. “Racial Rioting in the 1960S: An Event History Analysis of Local Conditions.” American Sociological Review 62 (February): 94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2005. “Scaleable Protocols Offer Efficient Design for Field Experiments.” Political Analysis 13 (Summer): 233–52.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2006. “Volunteer Phone Calls Can Increase Turnout: Evidence from Eight Field Experiments.” American Politics Research 34 (May): 271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007. “Quality is Job One: Volunteer and Professional Phone Calls.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (April): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W., Friedrichs, Ryan K., and King, David C.. 2006. “Partisan Mobilization Campaigns in the Field: Results from a Statewide Mobilization Campaign in Michigan.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (March): 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G. 1974. How Family Members Perceive Each Other. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., Hedges, Roman, and Kent Jennings, M.. 1977. “The Similarity of Husbands' and Wives' Political Views.” American Politics Quarterly 5 (2): 133–48.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2001. Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Howard, Rosenthal. 1983. “A Strategic Calculus of Voting.” Public Choice 41 (1): 7–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 2002. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Pickering, W. S. F., and Walford, Geoffrey. 2000. Durkheim's Suicide: A Century of Research and Debate. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. “A theory of the calculus of voting.” The American Political Science Review, 62 (March): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, John P. 1976. “Interpersonal Influence in Election Campaigns: Two Step-Flow Hypotheses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (Summer): 304–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Sacerdote, Bruce I. 2001. “Peer Effects With Random Assignment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (May): 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, Laura, and Jennings, M. Kent. 2005. “Political Similarity and Influence between Husbands and Wives.” In The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior, ed. Zuckerman, Alan S.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Adison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wilson, John, and Musick, Marc. 1997. “Who Cares? Toward an Integrated Theory of Volunteer Work.” American Sociological Review 62 (October): 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Rosenstone, Steven J.. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., Dasovic, Josip and Fitzgerald, Jennifer. 2007. Partisan Families: The Social Logic of Bounded Partisanship in Germany and Britain. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., Fitzgerald, Jennifer, and Dasovic, Josip. 2005. “Do Couples Support the Same Political Parties? Sometimes: Evidence from British and German Household Panel Surveys.” In The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior, ed. Zuckerman, Alan S.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., and Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A.. 1998. “Politics and Society: Political Diversity and Uniformity in Households as a Theoretical Puzzle.” Comparative Political Studies 31 (August): 464–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.