Political Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 369–386 | Cite as

Affect, Social Pressure and Prosocial Motivation: Field Experimental Evidence of the Mobilizing Effects of Pride, Shame and Publicizing Voting Behavior

  • Costas PanagopoulosEmail author
Original Paper


Citizens generally try to cooperate with social norms, especially when norm compliance is monitored and publicly disclosed. A recent field experimental study demonstrates that civic appeals that tap into social pressure motivate electoral participation appreciably (Gerber et al., Am Polit Sci Rev 102:33–48, 2008). Building on this work, I use field experimental techniques to examine further the socio-psychological mechanisms that underpin this effect. I report the results of three field experiments conducted in the November 2007 elections designed to test whether voters are more effectively mobilized by appeals that engender feelings of pride (for reinforcing or perpetuating social and cultural values or norms) or shame (for violating social and cultural values or norms). Voters in Monticello, Iowa and Holland, Michigan were randomly assigned to receive a mailing that indicated the names of all verified voters in the November 2007 election would be published in the local newspaper (pride treatment). In Ely, Iowa voters were randomly assigned to receive a mailing that indicated the names of all verified nonvoters would be published in the local newspaper (shame treatment). The experimental findings suggest shame may be more effective than pride on average, but this may depend on who the recipients are. Pride motivates compliance with voting norms only amongst high-propensity voters, while shame mobilizes both high- and low-propensity voters.


Social pressure Voting Field experiment Pride Shame Emotions Prosocial behavior Public surveillance 



Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, 40th Anniversary conference, Yale University, November 14–15, 2008 and at the Fall Workshop on Political Psychology at Columbia University, October 25, 2008. I thank participants at both meetings, the editors and anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. I am especially grateful to Donald Green for invaluable feedback and support.


  1. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of American Statistical Association, 91, 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. (2009). Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of eleven field experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, K. C., & Campos, J. J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development II: A functionalist approach to emotions. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 555–578). Oxford, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bear, G., Manning, M., & Izard, C. (2003). Responsible behavior: The importance of social cognition and emotion. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 140–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. W., & Beckmann, M. N. (2001). What leads to voting overreports? Contrasts of overreporters to validated voters and admitted nonvoters in the American national election studies. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(4), 479–498.Google Scholar
  7. Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote?. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brader, T. (2005). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control (pp. 327–343). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bufacchi, V. (2001). Voting, rationality and reputation. Political Studies, 49, 714–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 592–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 91–115). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Curry, G. (2004). How to increase black voter turnout. Commentary, District Chronicles. August 26. Accessed online November 8, 2008 at
  17. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald, M. (2008). ‘Tennessee tribune’ list of non-voters stirs controversy. Editor & Publisher. October 16. Accessed online November 8, 2008 at
  19. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Funk, P. (2006). Modern voting tools, social incentives and voter turnout: Theory and evidence. Mimeo, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  21. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2005). Do phone calls increase voter turnout? An update. The Science of Voter Mobilization. Special Editors D. P. Green & A. S. Gerber. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601, 142–154.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 361–399). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knack, S. (1992). Civic norms, social sanctions and voter turnout. Rationality and Society, 4, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kropf, M., & Knack, S. (2003). Viewers like you: Community norms and contributions to public broadcasting. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 187–197.Google Scholar
  28. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  29. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Lowenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Effects of specific emotions on economic transactions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marcus, G., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in appraisals for pride, shame and guilt. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride (pp. 64–113). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, K., & Harris, N. (2007). Shaming, shame, and recidivism. British Journal of Criminology, 47(6), 900–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G., Cigler, A., & MacKuen, M. (Eds.). (2007). The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Niven, D. (2004). The mobilization solution? Face-to-face contact and voter turnout in a municipal election. Journal of Politics, 66, 868–884.Google Scholar
  36. Opp, K.-D. (2001). Why do people vote? The cognitive-illusion proposition and its test. Kyklos, 54, 355–378.Google Scholar
  37. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Parry, J., Barth, J., Kropf, M., & Jones, E. T. (2008). Mobilizing the seldom voter: Campaign contacts and effects in high-profile elections. Political Behavior, 30(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Posner, R., & Rasmusen, E. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19, 66–84.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Shachar, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1999). Follow the leader: Theory and evidence on political participation. American Economic Review, 89(3), 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, R., Webster, M., Parrott, W. G., & Eyre, H. (2002). The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 138–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tadelis, S. (2007). The power of shame and the rationality of trust. Available at SSRN:
  44. Waldersee, R., & Luthans, F. (1994). The impact of positive and corrective feedback on customer service performance. Journal of Organization Behavior, 15, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams, L., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1007–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFordham UniversityBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations