Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-rz424 Total loading time: 0.58 Render date: 2021-03-02T22:59:14.989Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Voter Mobilization, Experimentation, and Translational Social Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2016

Abstract

Field experiments on voter mobilization enable researchers to test theoretical propositions while at the same time addressing practical questions that confront campaigns. This confluence of interests has led to increasing collaboration between researchers and campaign organizations, which in turn has produced a rapid accumulation of experiments on voting. This new evidence base makes possible translational works such as Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout that synthesize the burgeoning research literature and convey its conclusions to campaign practitioners. However, as political groups develop their own in-house capacity to conduct experiments whose results remain proprietary and may be reported selectively, the accumulation of an unbiased, public knowledge base is threatened. We discuss these challenges and the ways in which research that focuses on practical concerns may nonetheless speak to enduring theoretical questions.

Type
Praxis
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adams, William C. and Smith, Dennis J.. 1980. “Effects of Telephone Canvassing on Turnout and Preferences: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44(3): 389–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D. and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2010. “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24(2): 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronow, Peter M. 2012. “A General Method for Detecting Interference between Units in Randomized Experiments.” Sociological Methods and Research 41(1): 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronow, Peter M. and Middleton, Joel A.. 2013. “A Class of Unbiased Estimators of the Average Treatment Effect in Randomized Experiments.” Journal of Causal Inference 1(1): 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, Brian M. 1978. “Circumstances of Justice and Future Generations.” In Obligations to Future Generations, ed. Sikora, Richard I. and Barry, Brian M.. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, Olav Dahlgaard, Jens, Hedegaard Hansen, Jonas, and Hansen, Kasper M.. 2014. “The (Lack of) Effect of Door-to-Door Canavassing in Denmark.” Working Paper. University of Copenhagen.
Bhatti, Yosef, Olav Dahlgaard, Jens, Hedegaard Hansen, Jonas, and Hansen, Kasper M.. 2016. “How Voter Mobilization from Short Text Messages Travel within Households and Families: Evidence from two Nationwide Field Experiments.” Working Paper. Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research and the University of Copenhagen.CrossRef
Blydenburg, John C. 1971. “The Closed Rule and the Paradox of Voting.” Journal of Politics 33(1): 5771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Robert M., Fariss, Christopher J., Jones, Jason J., Kramer, Adam D. I., Marlow, Cameron, Settle, Jaime, and Fowler, James H.. 2012. “A 61-Million Person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization.” Nature 489: 295–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bositis, David A. and Steinel, Douglas. 1987. “A Synoptic History and Typology of Experimental Research in Political Science.” Political Behavior 9(3): 263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Munger, Michael C.. 1989. “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections.” American Political Science Review 83(1): 217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubbison, William. 2015. “The Marginal Effects of Direct Mail on Vote Choice.” Presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September 3–6.
Cutts, David, Fieldhouse, Edward, and John, Peter. 2009. “Is Voting Habit Forming? The Longitudinal Impact of a GOTV Campaign in the UK.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19(3): 251–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, Tiffany C., Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., Larimer, Christopher W., Mann, Christopher B., and Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. “The Enduring Effects of Social Pressure: Tracking Campaign Experiments over a Series of Elections.” Political Behavior 32(3): 423–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 50(1): 154–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J. and Dodge, Richard W.. 1954. “Personal Contact or Mail Propaganda? An Experiment in Voting and Attitude Change.” In Public Opinion and Propaganda, ed. Katz, Daniel, Cartwright, Dorwin, Eldersveld, Samuel, and Lee, Alfred M.. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan D. and Fowler, Anthony. 2014. “Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election.” Political Science Research and Methods 2(2): 309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., Fowler, Anthony, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. “Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate.” Journal of Politics 76(1): 273–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, Mary. 2005. “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout: The Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the United States.” American Politics Research 33(6): 842–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsetlund, Louise, Chalmers, Iain, and Bjørndal, Arild. 2007. “When Was Random Allocation First Used to Generate Comparisons in Experiments to Assess the Effects of Social Interventions?” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16(5): 371384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Bedolla, Lisa and Michelson, Melissa R. 2009. “What Do Voters Need to Know? Testing the Role of Cognitive Information in Asian American Voter Mobilization.” American Politics Research 37(2): 254–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Bedolla, Lisa and Michelson, Melissa R. 2012. Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Green, Matthew N.. 2003. “The Effects of Partisan Direct Mail on Voter Turnout.” Electoral Studies 22(4): 563–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., Kaplan, Edward H., and Kern, Holger L.. 2010. “Baseline, Placebo, and Treatment: Efficient Estimation for Three-Group Experiments.” Political Analysis 18(3): 297315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102(1): 3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2010. “An Experiment Testing the Relative Effectiveness of Encouraging Voter Participation by Inducing Feelings of Pride and Shame.” Political Behavior 32(3): 409–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Shachar, Ron. 2003. “Voting May Be Habit Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 540–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertzog, Irwin N. 1970. “The Electoral Consequences of a Local Party Organization’s Registration Campaign: The San Diego Experiment.” Polity 3(2): 247–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. 1927. Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. 1930. Why Europe Votes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. 1935. Negro Politicians: The Rise of Negro Politics and Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. 1937. Machine Politics: The Chicago Model. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P. and Gerber, Alan S.. 2004. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. 1st ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P. and Gerber, Alan S.. 2008. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P. and Gerber, Alan S.. 2015. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.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(4): 1083–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P. and Kern, Holger L.. 2012. “Modeling Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Survey Experiments with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 491511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., McGrath, Mary C., and Aronow, Peter M.. 2013. “Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 23(1): 2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P. and York, Erin A.. Forthcoming. “Field Experiments in Political Behavior.” Routledge Handbook of Public Opinion and Voting Behaviour (Fisher, Justin et al., eds.). New York: Routledge.
Grenzke, Janet and Watts, Mark. 2005. “Hold the Phones: Taking Issue with a Get-Out-the-Vote Strategy.” Campaigns & Elections 25 (December/January): 8183.Google Scholar
Grey, Lawrence. 1999. How to Win a Local Election: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide. Lanham, MD: M. Evans.Google Scholar
Hartmann, George W. 1936. “A Field Experiment on the Comparative Effectiveness of ‘Emotional’ and ‘Rational’ Political Leaflets in Determining Election Results.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 31(1): 99114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert and Sprague, John. 1992. “Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization: Political Structure, Social Structure, and the Party Canvass.” American Political Science Review 86(1): 7086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, de la Sierra, Raul Sanchez, and van der Windt, Peter. 2013. “Fishing.” Political Analysis 21(1): 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke and Strauss, Aaron. 2011. “Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects from Randomized Experiments, with Application to the Optimal Planning of the Get-Out-The-Vote Campaign.” Political Analysis 19(1): 119.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke and Ratkovic, Marc. 2013. “Estimating Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Randomized Program Evaluation.” Annals of Applied Statistics 7(1): 443–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2015. “Inside the GOP’s Effort to Close the Campaign-Science Gap with Democrats. Bloomberg. Available at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-07-08/inside-the-gop-s-effort-to-close-the-campaign-science-gap-with-democrats.
John, Peter and Brannan, Tessa. 2008. “How Different are Telephoning and Canvassing? Results from a ‘Get Out the Vote’ Field Experiment in the British 2005 General Election.” British Journal of Political Science 38 :565–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1970. “The Effects of Precinct-Level Canvassing on Voter Behavior.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34(4): 560–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. and Nagler, Jonathan. 2013. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma.” American Political Science Review 91(1): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupfer, Michael and Price, David E.. 1972. “On the Merits of Face-to-Face Campaigning.” Social Science Quarterly 53(3): 534–43.Google Scholar
Macedo, Stephen, Alex-Assensoh, Yvette, Berry, Jeffrey M., Brintnall, Michael, Campbell, David E., Fraga, Luis Ricardo, Fung, Archon, Karpowitz, Christopher F., Levi, Margaret, Levinson, Meira, Lipsitz, Keena, Niemi, Richard G., Putnam, Robert D., Rahn, Wendy M., Reich, Rob, Rodgers, Robert R., Swanstrom, Todd, and Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do about It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Malchow, Hal. 2003. The New Political Targeting. Washington, DC: Campaigns and Elections.Google Scholar
Mann, Christopher B. 2010. “Is There a Backlash to Social Pressure? A Large-scale Field Experiment on Voter Mobilization.” Political Behavior 32(3): 387407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Christopher B. and Klofstad, Casey A.. 2015. “The Role of Call Quality in Voter Mobilization: Implications for Electoral Outcomes and Experimental Design.” Political Behavior 37(1): 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Michael. 2012. The Political Campaign Desk Reference: A Guide for Campaign Managers, Professionals and Candidates Running for Office. 2nd ed. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles and Gosnell, Harold F.. 1924. Non-Voting: Causes and Methods of Control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R. 2003. “Getting Out the Latino Vote: How Door-to-Door Canvassing Influences Voter Turnout in Rural Central California.” Political Behavior 25(3): 247–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R. 2014. “Memory and Voter Mobilization.” Polity 46: 591610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milbrath, Lester W. 1965. Political Participation. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy E., Bositis, David A., and Baer, Denise L.. 1981. “Stimulating Voter Turnout in a Primary: Field Experiment with a Precinct Committeeman.” International Political Science Review 2(4): 445–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Ryan T. and Schnakenberg, Keith. 2015. “blockTools: Blocking, Assignment, and Diagnosing Interference in Randomized Experiments.” R package version 0.6–2.
Nickerson, David W. 2005. “Scalable Protocols Offer Efficient Design for Field Experiments.” Political Analysis 13: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007. “Quality Is Job One: Volunteer and Professional Phone Calls.” American Journal of Political Science 51(2): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 102(1): 4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009. “Partisan and Nonpartisan Message Content and Voter Mobilization: Field Experimental Evidence.” Political Research Quarterly 62(1): 7077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. “Affect, Social Pressure, and Prosocial Motivation: Experimental Evidence of the Mobilizing Effects of Pride, Shame, and Publicizing Voting Behavior.” Political Behavior 32(3): 369–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2013a. “Extrinsic Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Voting.” Journal of Politics 75(1): 266–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2013b. “Positive Social Pressure and Prosocial Motivation: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment on Voter Mobilization.” Political Psychology 34(2): 265–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Samuel C. and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 1983. “Getting Out the Vote: Participation in Gubernatorial Elections.” American Political Science Review 77(3): 675–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, Vincent. 2016. “Will a Five-Minute Discussion Change Your Mind? A Countrywide Experiment on Vote Choice in France.” Technical Report. Harvard Business School Working Paper.
Ramiro, Luis, Morales, Laura, and Jimenez-Buedo, Maria. 2012. “The Effects of Party Mobilization on Electoral Results: An Experimental Study of the 2011 Spanish Local Elections.” Presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the International Political Science Association, Madrid, July 8–12. Available at http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/view/15950.
Reback, G.L. 1971. “The Effects of Precinct Level Voter Contact Activities on Voter Behavior.” Experimental Study of Politics 1: 6597.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J. and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J. and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1978. “The Effect of Registration Laws on Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 72(1): 2245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Arthur M. and Eriksson, Erik McKinley. 1924. “The Vanishing Voter.” The New Republic, October 15.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Verba, Sidney, and Brady, Henry E.. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Catherine. 2000. The Campaign Manager: Running and Winning Local Elections. 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Catherine. 2014. The Campaign Manager: Running and Winning Local Elections. 5th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shea, Daniel M. and Burton, Michael John. 2001. Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics, and Art of Political Campaign Management. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Sides, John and Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. The Gamble: Chance and Choice in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Green, Donald P.. 2012. “Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science 56(4):10551069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Green, Donald P.. 2013. “Local Canvassing: The Efficacy of Grassroots Voter Mobilization.” Political Communication 30(1): 4257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 1998. “Should Election Day be a Holiday?” The Atlantic Monthly 282(4): 4246.Google Scholar
Wielhouwer, Peter W. and Lockerbie, Brad. 1994. “Party Contact and Political Participation, 1952–1990.” American Journal of Political Science 38(1): 211–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Rosenstone, Steven J.. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 87
Total number of PDF views: 457 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 2nd March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

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.

Voter Mobilization, Experimentation, and Translational Social Science
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.

Voter Mobilization, Experimentation, and Translational Social Science
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.

Voter Mobilization, Experimentation, and Translational Social Science
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *