Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Do Get-Out-the-Vote Calls Reduce Turnout? The Importance of Statistical Methods for Field Experiments

  • KOSUKE IMAI (a1)

In their landmark study of a field experiment, Gerber and Green (2000) found that get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout by five percentage points. In this article, I introduce statistical methods that can uncover discrepancies between experimental design and actual implementation. The application of this methodology shows that Gerber and Green's negative finding is caused by inadvertent deviations from their stated experimental protocol. The initial discovery led to revisions of the original data by the authors and retraction of the numerical results in their article. Analysis of their revised data, however, reveals new systematic patterns of implementation errors. Indeed, treatment assignments of the revised data appear to be even less randomized than before their corrections. To adjust for these problems, I employ a more appropriate statistical method and demonstrate that telephone canvassing increases turnout by five percentage points. This article demonstrates how statistical methods can find and correct complications of field experiments.

Corresponding author
Kosuke Imai is Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton NJ, 08544 (kimai@Princeton.Edu;
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

AdamsWilliams C., and Dennis J.Smith. 1980. “Effects of Telephone Canvassing on Turnout and Preferences: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly44: 38995.

AngristJoshua D., and Guido W.Imbens. 1995. “Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity.” Journal of the American Statistical Association90: 43142.

AngristJoshua D., Guido W.Imbens, and Donald B.Rubin. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables (with Discussion).” Journal of the American Statistical Association91: 44455.

BalkeAlexander, and JudeaPearl. 1997. “Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance.” Journal of the American Statistical Association92: 117176.

BoundJohn, David A.Jaeger, and Regina M.Baker. 1995. “Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak.” Journal of the American Statistical Association90: 44350.

DehejiaRajeev H., and SadekWahba. 1999. “Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs.” Journal of the American Statistical Association94: 105362.

EldersveldSamuel J.1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review50: 15465.

GerberAlan S., and Donald P.Green. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review94: 65363.

GerberAlan S., and Donald P.Green. 2001. “Do Phone Calls Increase Voter Turnout? A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly65: 7585.

HeckmanJames, HidehikoIchimura, JeffreySmith, and PetraTodd. 1998. “Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica66: 101798.

HollandPaul W.1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference (with Discussion).” Journal of the American Statistical Association81: 94560.

ImaiKosuke, and David A.van Dyk. 2004. “Causal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Theory and Methods99: 85466.

McCullaghPeter, and John A.Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd Ed. London: Chapman & Hall.

MillerRoy E., David E.Bositis, and Denise L.Baer. 1981. “Stimulating Voter Turnout in a Primary: Field Experiment with a Precinct Committeeman.” International Political Science Review2: 44560.

RosenbaumPaul R., and Donald B.Rubin. 1983. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika70: 4155.

RosenbaumPaul R., and Donald B.Rubin. 1985a. “The Bias Due to Incomplete Matching.” Biometrics41: 10316.

RosenbaumPaul R., and Donald B.Rubin. 1985b. “Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score.” American Statistician39: 3338.

WantchekonLeonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” World Politics55: 399422.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 43 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 155 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.