Suchergebnisse

Get‐out‐the‐vote mailers using explicit social pressure consistently increase electoral turnout; however, they often generate a negative reaction or backlash. One approach to increase turnout, yet alleviate backlash, may be to use implicit social pressure. An implicit social pressure technique that has shown promise is to display a set of eyes. Researchers contend eyes generate a feeling of being watched, which cues subjects to act in more prosocial ways to demonstrate compliance with social norms. Several studies support this argument, including two voter mobilization studies. The technique has not been widely tested, however, in the political context. In five randomized field experiments, we test the impact on turnout of mobilization mailers using eye displays. We extend previous research by testing for differences in effects between male and female eyes and across political cultures. The effects are substantively and statistically weak at best and inconsistent with previous findings.

We use field experiments in Texas and Wisconsin to address voter mobilization and turnout by evaluating nonpartisan get-out-the-vote (GOTV) messages delivered via mail during 2010 gubernatorial campaigns. We manipulate three factors in the messages: social pressure, descriptive- and injunctive-voting norm consistency, and message timing. The results present an initial field-based confirmation that norm-consistent messages increase turnout; demonstrate significant message timing effects, which are mediated by state election rules; and indicate social pressure's effectiveness varies significantly more than previously found. These diverse findings suggest researchers place a greater emphasis on context when evaluating experiments and the effects of mobilization messages. Adapted from the source document.

We use field experiments in Texas and Wisconsin to address voter mobilization and turnout by evaluating nonpartisan get-out-the-vote (GOTV) messages delivered via mail during 2010 gubernatorial campaigns. We manipulate three factors in the messages: social pressure, descriptive- and injunctive-voting norm consistency, and message timing. The results present an initial field-based confirmation that norm-consistent messages increase turnout; demonstrate significant message timing effects, which are mediated by state election rules; and indicate social pressure's effectiveness varies significantly more than previously found. These diverse findings suggest researchers place a greater emphasis on context when evaluating experiments and the effects of mobilization messages.

This research explores the possibility of psychological reactance, or "backlash," against political candidates who use social pressure to mobilize voters. There is a compelling theoretical argument and solid empirical evidence suggesting social pressure substantially increases voter turnout. There is, however, equally noteworthy evidence suggesting social pressure frequently stimulates a negative reaction in targets. This research uses a lab-in-the-field experimental design that employs a hypothetical social pressure message to evaluate whether a candidate's use of social pressure to turnout voters may increase anger and hostility toward that candidate, possibly to the point it increases the likelihood a citizen will actually vote against that candidate. Our findings indicate social pressure mobilization techniques evoke consequential psychological reactance against their sponsor. Until future research can further assess these effects, we suggest social pressure mobilization techniques should be used by campaigns only after careful consideration. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

This research explores the possibility of psychological reactance, or "backlash," against political candidates who use social pressure to mobilize voters. There is a compelling theoretical argument and solid empirical evidence suggesting social pressure substantially increases voter turnout. There is, however, equally noteworthy evidence suggesting social pressure frequently stimulates a negative reaction in targets. This research uses a lab-in-the-field experimental design that employs a hypothetical social pressure message to evaluate whether a candidate's use of social pressure to turnout voters may increase anger and hostility toward that candidate, possibly to the point it increases the likelihood a citizen will actually vote against that candidate. Our findings indicate social pressure mobilization techniques evoke consequential psychological reactance against their sponsor. Until future research can further assess these effects, we suggest social pressure mobilization techniques should be used by campaigns only after careful consideration.

This article describes a field experiment designed to test the efficacy of get-out-the-vote (GOTV) techniques in a new context and for an understudied population. It evaluates the effectiveness of nonpartisan GOTV messages delivered via personal contact and mail in a heavily Latino community during the 2004 presidential campaign. It proposes and tests an alternative model of voter turnout based on Zaller's receive-accept-sample model of public opinion. The findings are consistent with the authors' predictions; mobilization efforts increase turnout, but mobilization effects vary across citizens based on their propensity to vote. There is a large increase among episodic voters but little increase among habitual or registered nonvoters. Adapted from the source document.

This article describes a field experiment designed to test the efficacy of get-out-the-vote (GOTV) techniques in a new context and for an understudied population. It evaluates the effectiveness of nonpartisan GOTV messages delivered via personal contact and mail in a heavily Latino community during the 2004 presidential campaign. It proposes and tests an alternative model of voter turnout based on Zaller's receive–accept–sample model of public opinion. The findings are consistent with the authors' predictions; mobilization efforts increase turnout, but mobilization effects vary across citizens based on their propensity to vote. There is a large increase among episodic voters but little increase among habitual or registered nonvoters.

Two decades of turnover data were collected for the national legislature of 25 industrialized countries. After a discussion of turnover's significance, we compare turnover rates across countries. A set of variables expected to influence turnover rates is described & multiple regression is used to test the hypotheses developed. Results show that frequency of elections, opportunity for double listings, electoral volatility, & legislative institutionalization have statistically significant effects on turnover. In addition the type of electoral system (majoritarian vs proportional representation) is shown to have a statistically & substantively significant effect, with turnover much greater in the latter. Possible explanations for this effect are explored. 3 Tables, 1 Appendix. Adapted from the source document.

Two decades of turnover data were collected for the national legislature of twenty-five industrialized countries. After a discussion of turnover's significance, we compare turnover rates across countries. A set of variables expected to influence turnover rates is described and multiple regression is used to test the hypotheses developed. Results show that frequency of elections, opportunity for double listings, electoral volatility and legislative institutionalization have statistically significant effects on turnover. In addition the type of electoral system (majoritarian versus proportional representation) is shown to have a statistically and substantively significant effect, with turnover much greater in the latter. Possible explanations for this effect are explored.