Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Behavioral Consequences of Election Outcomes: Evidence From Campaign Contributions

  • Nicolas K. Dumas and Kyle Shohfi
Abstract

Existing research offers competing predictions as to whether election outcomes affect the future political behavior of individual supporters. Drawing on a dataset of millions of donors across thousands of candidates in different races, this study analyzes a series of regression discontinuities to estimate the effect of donating to a barely winning candidate as opposed to a barely losing one. It finds that winning donors were substantially more likely to donate in the future to that same office type. These effects are large and occur even when their original candidate was not up for re-election. The results show that the consequences of election outcomes extend beyond control of a particular seat, and affect the future behavior of ordinary citizens.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Behavioral Consequences of Election Outcomes: Evidence From Campaign Contributions
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Behavioral Consequences of Election Outcomes: Evidence From Campaign Contributions
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Behavioral Consequences of Election Outcomes: Evidence From Campaign Contributions
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Department of Political Science, MIT (email: ndumas@mit.edu); Sloan School of Business, MIT (email: shohfi@mit.edu). For their helpful suggestions and feedback, we would like to thank Adam Berinsky, Andrea Campbell, Danny Hidalgo, In Song Kim, Ariel White, Teppei Yamamoto, Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, James Dunham, and Dan de Kadt, as well as participants and discussants in our MPSA Junior Scholar Symposium in 2016. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 1122374. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QMBTPP and online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000771.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Aldrich, J. H., Montgomery, J. M., and Wood, W.. 2011. Turnout as a Habit. Political Behavior 33 (4):535563.
Ansolabehere, S., and Hersh, E.. 2012. Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate. Political Analysis 20:437459.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review 84 (2):191215.
Barber, M., Butler, D. M., and Preece, J.. 2016. Gender Inequalities in Campaign Finance: A Regression Discontinuity Design. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (2):219248.
Bendor, J., Diermeier, D., and Ting, M.. 2003. A Behavioral Model of Turnout. American Political Science Review 97 (2):261280.
Berinsky, A. J. 2004. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bonica, A. 2013. Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public Version 1.0 [computer file].
Bonica, A.. 2014. Mapping the Ideological Marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58 (2):367386.
Caughey, D., and Sekhon, J. S.. 2011. Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close us House Races, 1942–2008. Political Analysis 19 (4):385408.
Clarke, H. D., and Acock, A. C.. 1989. National Elections and Political Attitudes: The Case of Political Efficacy. British Journal of Political Science 19 (4):551562.
Coppock, A., and Green, D. P.. 2015. Is Voting Habit Forming? New Evidence from Experiments and Regression Discontinuities. American Journal of Political Science 60 (4):10441062.
CQ Press. Voting and Elections Collection. 2018. Available at http://library.cqpress.com/elections/.
Denny, K., and Doyle, O.. 2009. Does Voting History Matter? Analysing Persistence in Turnout. American Journal of Political Science 53 (1):1735.
Dumas, Nicolas, and Shohfi, Kyle. 2017. Replication Data for: The Behavioral Consequences of Election Outcomes: Evidence from campaign contributions, doi:10.7910/DVN/QMBTPP, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Eggers, A. C., Fowler, A., Hainmueller, J., Hall, A. B., and Snyder, J. M.. 2015. On the Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design for Estimating Electoral Effects: New Evidence from Over 40,000 Close Races. American Journal of Political Science 59 (1):259274.
Fowler, A., and Hall, A. B.. 2014. Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (4):501531.
Fowler, A., and Hall, A. B.. 2017. Long-Term Consequences of Election Results. British Journal of Political Science 47 (2):351372.
Fowler, J. H. 2006. Habitual Voting and Behavioral Turnout. Journal of Politics 68 (2):335344.
Francia, P. L., Green, J. C., Herrnson, P. S., Powell, L. W., and Wilcox, C.. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gerber, A. S., and Green, D. P.. 2012. Field Expriments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., and Shachar, R.. 2003. Voting May be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 47 (3):540550.
Green, D. P., and Shachar, R.. 2000. Habit Formation and Political Behaviour: Evidence of Consuetude in Voter Turnout. British Journal of Political Science 30 (4):561573.
Hainmueller, J., Hall, A. B., and Snyder, J. M.. 2015. Assessing the External Validity of Election RD Estimates: An Investigation of the Incumbency Advantage. Journal of Politics 77 (3):707720.
Hall, A. B., and Snyder, J. M.. 2015. How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off? Political Science Research and Methods 3 (3):493514.
Hill, S. J., and Huber, G. A.. 2017. Representativeness and Motivations of the contemporary Donorate: Results from Merged Survey and Administrative Records. Political Behavior 39 (1):329.
Holbein, J. B. 2016. Left behind? Citizen Responsiveness to Government Performance Information. American Political Science Review 110 (2):353368.
Holbein, J. B., and Hillygus, D. S.. 2014. Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on Youth Turnout. American Journal of Political Science 60 (2):364382.
Klarner, C., Berry, W. D., Carsey, T., Jewell, M., Niemi, R., Powell, L., and Snyder, J.. 2013. State Legislative Election Returns (1967–2010). hdl:1902.1/20401, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:5:q/n5C9RQGfjy6AjbLG6JWQ==.
Kraut, R. E., and McConahay, J. B.. 1973. How Being Interviewed Affects Voting: An Experiment. The Public Opinion Quarterly 37 (3):398406.
Lee, D. S. 2008. Randomized Experiments from Non-Random Selection in Us House Elections. Journal of Econometrics 142 (2):675697.
Madsen, D. 1987. Political Self-Efficacy Tested. American Political Science Review 81 (2):571581.
Meer, J. 2013. The Habit of Giving. Economic Inquiry 51 (4):20022017.
Meredith, M. 2009. Persistence in Political Participation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4 (3):187209.
Rosenstone, S., and Hansen, J. M.. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Skinner, E. A. 1996. A Guide to Constructs of Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (3):549570.
Skovron, C., and Titiunik, R.. 2015. A Practical Guide to Regression Discontinuity Designs in Political Science. Technical report. Working Paper, University of Michigan. Available from http://goo.gl/xwLDA5.
Thistlethwaite, D. L., and Campbell, D. T.. 1960. Regression-Discontinuity Analysis: An Alternative to the Ex Post Facto Experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology 51 (6):309317.
Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., and Groenendyk, E. W.. 2009. Efficacy, Emotions and the Habit of Participation. Political Behavior 31 (3):307330.
Wood, W., and Neal, D. T.. 2007. A New Look at Habits and the Habit-Goal Interface. Psychological Review 114 (4):843863.
Wood, W., Tam, L., and Witt, M. G.. 2005. Changing Circumstances, Disrupting Habits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (6):918933.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2013. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Mason, OH: South-Western Publishing.
Yalch, R. F. 1976. Pre-Election Interview Effects on Voter Turnout. Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (3):331336.
Recommend this journal

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

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Dumas and Shohfi Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
PDF
Supplementary materials

Dumas and Shohfi supplementary material
Appendix

 PDF (1.4 MB)
1.4 MB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 97 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 408 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 5th March 2018 - 21st June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.