Skip to main content

Does the Content of Political Appeals Matter in Motivating Participation? A Field Experiment on Self-disclosure in Political Appeals

Abstract

Although robust citizen participation is fundamental to a healthy democracy, we still lack a clear sense of how to motivate participation. This paper presents the results of an experimental study designed to see if the content of political appeals matters in motivating participation. Previous research in this area has had mixed results. This paper finds that political appeals that include some self-disclosure about the person making the request triggers a liking heuristic that causes subjects to be more likely to comply with a request for action. Subjects receiving the treatment appeal are significantly more likely to donate money to support a political cause.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    A related body of literature examines whether the content of television advertisements matters. For example, Brader (2006) finds that emotional appeals used in television advertisements are more likely to motivate participation than appeals that lack emotional content. Research debating whether negative advertising affects turnout (e.g. Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1994; Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995; Finkel and Geer 1998) has also examined whether the tone of the advertisements makes them more or less motivating. These television advertisements are a particular type of political appeal because they can use visual cues that other types of appeals cannot. Get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns, door-to-door canvassing, and phone banking are examples of widely used organizing techniques that cannot vary visual content. More research is necessary on the motivating characteristics of written, verbal, or interpersonal appeals.

  2. 2.

    Research on survey design confirms this idea, as written appeals which are personalized with the target’s name or other personal information are more likely to generate compliance than impersonal written requests (Dillman 2007, 152).

  3. 3.

    A second experimental condition designed to test the effect of personal threats was also implemented alongside this study of self-disclosure. The sixty subjects receiving this condition heard an appeal that highlighted the personal effect of proposed policy changes. The appeal said, “The quality of your drinking water could be endangered by the administration's proposed rollback…” However, an examination of manipulation checks showed that this appeal did not have the intended effect. The literature on threat argues that personal, specific threats should arouse greater anxiety in respondents, prompting a stronger emotional reaction and greater likelihood to take action (e.g. Marcus 2002; Brader 2006). Subjects hearing this appeal, however, were no more likely to feel worried (t215 = 1.3) or angry (t200 = 0.73). This condition may not have worked because the threat was not sufficiently different from the implicit threat in the control condition. Because this condition was completely independent of the other conditions, and had no effect on the results presented here, it is not discussed further. A helpful reviewer suggested, however, running the analyses treating these subjects as an additional control group. If we do that, t-tests show that subjects receiving the self-disclosure appeal are still more likely to find the interviewers likeable (t215 = 2.36) and more likely to make the donation (t217 = 2.40) than the combined control group. A saturated logit model mirroring the analysis in Table 2 also shows that subjects receiving the self-disclosure appeal are statistically significantly more likely make the donation (p = .009). In sum, the results are identical whether or not this group is included as part of the control group.

  4. 4.

    I also ran the model controlling for political interest and standard demographic variables (age, income, education, gender, and minority status) and found that the results did not change. As the t-tests in Table 1 show, the treatment and control groups did not statistically differ on these dimensions. Thus, even when those variables are included in a multivariate analysis, the effect of the disclosure appeal still holds. Neither political interest nor any of the demographic variables were statistically significant and the coefficient on the disclosure appeal hardly changed (b = .765, s.e. = .397).

  5. 5.

    The predicted probabilities are calculated by estimating the effect of hearing the disclosure appeal for each interviewer in each hour and averaging across them. The effect ranged from 17.3% for interviewer 3 in hour 1 to 19.6% for interviewer 1, 2, and 4 in hour 2.

  6. 6.

    This phrase is borrowed from Sidney Verba, “Political Equality: What is It?”, Herbert Munro Lecture, Stanford University, May 9, 2002.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. (1997). Positive theory and voice and equality. American Political Science Review, 91(2), 421–423.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues-the joint effects of advertising and new coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 22(fall), 335–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds, how emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brady, H. E. (1999). Political participation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., & Somervell, E. (2001). The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1578–1586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence, science and practice (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, Noah. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys, the tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1395–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). Spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 573–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fiorina, M. P. (2003). Parties, participation, and representation in America: Old theories face new realities. In I. Katznelson & H. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline. New York: W·W. Norton&Co.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher, D. R. (2006). Activism, Inc.: How the outsourcing of grassroots campaigns is strangling progressive politics in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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(3), 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2001). Do phone calls increase voter turnout? Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2001). Getting out the youth vote: Results from randomized field experiments. New Haven: Yale University/Pew Charitable Trusts.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organizations. American Sociological Review, 53(3), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leighley, J. (2001). Strength in numbers? the political mobilization of racial and ethnic minorities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marcus, G. E. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Miller, J. M. (2005). Why do individuals participate in politics? Paper read at Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, at Chicago, IL.

  23. Miller, J. M., Krosnick J. A, Holbrook A, & Lowe L. (2004). The impact of policy change threat on financial contributions to interest groups. University of Minnesota.

  24. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(4), 507–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mutz, D. (1998). Impersonal influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman., L. S. (1999). Measures of political attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schlozman, K. L. (2003). Citizen participation in America: What do we know? Why do we care? In I. Katznelson & H. Milner (Eds.), Political science, state of the discipline. New York: W·W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (1995). Participation’s not a paradox: The view from American activists. British Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Trivedi, N. (2005). The effect of identity-based GOTV direct mail appeals on the turnout of Indian Americans. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601, 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organizations. Basic Books, Inc: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to John Bullock, Tom Burke, Cordelia Chansler, Anamarie Farr, Hunter Gehlbach, Aysha Gregory, Matthew Levendusky, Aline Sayer, Nancy Scherer, Victoria Starrett, Emily Sy, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors for their help with this paper. This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wellesley College.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hahrie C. Han.

Appendix: Measures

Appendix: Measures

  • Regularity of following current events: Some people are very active in politics and their communities while others are not. In general, how regularly do you follow current events? 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Somewhat regularly; 5 = Very regularly.

  • Regularity of discussing current events with others: Some people are very active in politics and their communities while others are not. In general, how regularly do you discuss current events with others? 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Somewhat regularly; 5 = Very regularly.

  • Political Interest: Five point scale based on mean of questions asking respondents how regularly they follow current events, discuss current events with others, and volunteer time to political causes. 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Somewhat regularly; 5 = Very regularly.

  • Partisan Strength: Coded based on questions asking respondents for their party affiliation on a 7 point scale. This partisan identification scale is recoded to reflect partisan strength as follows: 0 = Independent; 1 = Independent, Leaning Democrat or Republican; 2 = Democrat or Republican; 3 = Strong Democrat or Republican.

  • Education: Which category best describes the highest level of education you completed? 1 = Less than high school; 2 = High School graduate; 3 = Some college; 4 = College graduate; 5 = Post-graduate training or degree.

  • Income: What was the total household income you reported on your 2005 taxes? (Please take your best guess if you are uncertain). 1 = under $30,000; 2 = $30,000-$49,000; 3 = $50,000-$74,999; 4 = $75,000-$99,999; 5 = $100,000 or more.

  • Female: What is your gender? 0 = Male, 1 = Female

  • Age: What is your year of birth? Age = 2006-year reported by respondent.

  • Minority: What racial or ethnic category best describes you? 0 = White; 1 = Hispanic, Black/African-American, Asian, Other

  • Interviewer Enthusiasm/Likeability/Sincerity: Circle the answer that best describes your impression of the interviewer. To me, the interviewer seemed: 1 = Not at all enthusiastic/likeable/sincere; 2 = Slightly enthusiastic/likeable/sincere; 3 = Somewhat enthusiastic/likeable/sincere; 4 = Fairly enthusiastic/likeable/sincere; 5 = Extremely enthusiastic/likeable/sincere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, H.C. Does the Content of Political Appeals Matter in Motivating Participation? A Field Experiment on Self-disclosure in Political Appeals. Polit Behav 31, 103 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9066-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Political participation
  • Political appeals
  • Canvassing
  • Self-disclosure
  • Field experiment