Political Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 387–407 | Cite as

Is There Backlash to Social Pressure? A Large-scale Field Experiment on Voter Mobilization

Original Paper

Abstract

Using social pressure to mobilize voters has generated impressive increases in turnout (Gerber et al. Am Polit Sci Rev 102:33–48, 2008). However, voters may have negative reactions to social pressure treatments that reduce their effectiveness. Social psychologists have observed this ‘reactance’ to persuasive pressure about other behavior, but it has been overlooked in voter mobilization. Using a large-scale field experiment, we find treatments designed to reduce reactance are just as effective as heavy-handed social pressure treatments in mobilizing voters. The success of gentler social pressure treatments should make the use of social pressure more palatable to voter mobilization organizations.

Keywords

Voting Voter mobilization Field experiment Social pressure Reactance 

References

  1. Albarracin, D., Cohen, J. B., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). When communications collide with recipients’ actions: Effects of post-message behavior on intentions to follow the message recommendation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 246–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, K. (2005). Using cluster randomized field experiments to study voting behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009). Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of eleven field experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote? The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (p. 874). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davenport, T. (2010). Public accountability and participation: The effects of a feedback intervention on voter turnout in a low salience election. Political Behavior, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  12. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  14. Edlin, A., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. (2007). Voting as a rational choice: Why and how people vote to improve the well-being of others. Rationality and Society, 19, 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feller, A., & Holmes, C. C. (2009). Beyond toplines: Heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized experiments. Working Paper, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/feller.pdf.
  16. Funk, P. (2009). Social incentives and voter turnout: Evidence from the swiss mail ballot system, 24 Nov 2008. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=917770.
  17. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2005). Correction to Gerber and Green (2000), replication of disputed findings, and reply to Imai (2005) (Vol. 99, p. 301, 2005). American Political Science Review, 99, 301–313.Google Scholar
  19. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2010). An experiment testing the relative effectiveness of encouraging voter participation by inducing feelings of pride or shame. Political Behavior, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  21. Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. Journal of Politics, 71, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, D. P. (2009). Regression adjustments to experimental data: Do david freedman’s concerns apply to political science? Annual meeting of the society for political methodology, July 23–25, 2009, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  24. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2008). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grose, C. R., & Russell, C. A. (2008). Avoiding the vote: A theory and field experiment of the social costs of public political participation, 3 Dec 2008. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1310868.
  26. Harbaugh, W. T. (1996). If people vote because they like to, then why do so many of them lie? Public Choice, 89, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillygus, D. S. (2005). Campaign effects, the dynamics of turnout intention in election 2000. The Journal of Politics, 67, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kivetz, R. (2005). Promotion reactance: The role of effort-reward congruity. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klofstad, C. A. (2009). Civic talk and civic participation: The moderating effect of individual predispositions. American Politics Research, 37, 856–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knack, S. (1992). Civic norms, social sanctions, and voter turnout. Rationality and Society, 4, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knack, S., & Kropf, M. E. (1998). For shame! The effect of community cooperative context on the probability of voting. Political Psychology, 19, 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malchow, H. (2003). The new political targeting. Washington, DC: Campaigns and Elections Magazine.Google Scholar
  33. Malchow, H. (2008). Political targeting (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Predicted Lists, LLC.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240.Google Scholar
  35. Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niven, D. (2004). The mobilization solution? Face-to-face contact and voter turnout in a municipal election. The Journal of Politics, 66, 868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panagopoulos, C. (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  38. Parry, J., Barth, J., Kropf, M., & Jones, E. T. (2008). Mobilizing the seldom voter: Campaign contact and effects in high-profile elections. Political Behavior, 30, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Posner, R. A., & Rasmusen, E. B. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rains, S. A., & Mitchell Turner, M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33, 241–269.Google Scholar
  41. Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rind, B., & Benjamin, D. (1994). Effects of public image concerns and self-image on compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ringold, D. J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25–36.Google Scholar
  46. Schultz, P., Wesley, N., Jessica, M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stewart, D. W., & Martin, I. M. (1994). Intended and unintended consequences of warning messages: A review and synthesis of empirical research. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13, 1–19.Google Scholar
  48. Wendlandt, M., & Schrader, U. (2007). Consumer reactance against loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whatley, M. A., Webster, J. M., Smith, R. H., & Rhodes, A. (1999). The effect of a favor on public and private compliance: How internalized is the norm of reciprocity? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations