Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 451–469 | Cite as

Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Voter Mobilization

  • Costas PanagopoulosEmail author
  • Christopher W. Larimer
  • Meghan Condon
Original Paper


Several recent field experimental studies show that social pressure raises the likelihood of turning out to vote in elections. Ratcheting up social pressure to show subjects their own as well as their neighbors’ prior voting history significantly increases the effectiveness of direct mail messages. A key component in stimulating this effect seems to be the presence of individual vote history. When voters are presented with less specific turnout information, such as vote history for the community at-large, the effects on turnout often dissipate. Sensitizing voters to such descriptive norms appears to do little to stimulate participation. To address this contrast, this study presents results from a voter mobilization field experiment conducted in Hawthorne, CA prior to the November 2011 municipal elections. The experiment is a fully crossed 2 × 3 factorial study in which subjects were randomly assigned to one of six conditions, in which they receive no mailing, a mailing with individual vote history only, a mailing with individual vote history and a message emphasizing high (or low) community-level turnout from a previous election, and a mailing emphasizing high (or low) community-level turnout only. County voter files were used to randomly assign voters to treatment and control and to report the effects of each mailing on voter turnout. We find that only messages that included information about subjects’ own voting histories effectively mobilized them to vote.


Randomized field experiments Social pressure Descriptive norms Injunctive norms Voter mobilization 



Funding for this study was provided by the Office of Research at Fordham University. We thank Dr. Nancy Busch and James Wilson. We are grateful to Donald Green, Rick Matland, and to the editor and anonymous referees for thoughtful comments and suggestions.


  1. Burden, B. C. (2000). Voter turnout and the national election studies. Political Analysis, 8(4), 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cialdini, R. R., Dermaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winters, P. L. (2006). Activating and aligning social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.Google Scholar
  5. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davenport, T., Gerber, A., Green, D., Larimer, C., Mann, C., & Panagopoulos, C. (2010). The enduring effects of social pressure: Tracking campaign experiments over a series of elections. Political Behavior, 32(3), 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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(February), 33–48.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 32(3), 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Göckeritz, S., Wesley Schultz, P., Rendón, T., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: The moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 514–523.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using norm-based appeals to motivate conservation behaviors in a hotel setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. (2008). Get Out the Vote (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. Green, D. P., Larimer C. W., & Paris C. (2010). When social pressure fails: The untold story of null findings. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 22–25, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Klofstad, C. A. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larimer, C. W. (2009). Analyzing the effectiveness of social pressure direct mail in competitive and uncompetitive elections: Evidence from a field experiment. Paper presented at the Annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL, April 2–5, 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Mann, Christopher B. (2010). Is there a backlash to social pressure? A large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Behavior, 32, 307–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matland, R. E., & Murray, G. R. (2011). Mobilization effects using mail: Social pressure, descriptive norms and timing. Paper presented at the Annual American Political Science Association Conference, Seattle, WA, September 1–4, 2011.Google Scholar
  19. McDonald, M. P. (2003). On the over-report bias of the national election study. Political Analysis, 11(2), 180–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nickerson, D., & White. I. (2009) The turnout consequences of hope and disillusionment: The effect of racialized get-out-the-vote messages on Black voter turnout. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, September 2–6.Google Scholar
  22. Nolan, J. M., Wesley Schultz, P., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, 32(3), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Panagopoulos, C. (2011). Thank you for voting: Gratitude expression and voter mobilization. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Positive social pressure and prosocial motivation: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Psychology, 34(2), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Panagopoulos, C. (forthcoming). I’ve got my eyes on you: Implicit social pressure cues and prosocial behavior. Political Psychology.Google Scholar
  27. Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Werch, C. E., Pappas, D. M., Carlson, J. M., DiClemente, C. C., Chally, P. S., & Sinder, J. A. (2000). Results of a social norm intervention to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college students. Journal of American College Health, 49(2), 85–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Costas Panagopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher W. Larimer
    • 2
  • Meghan Condon
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFordham UniversityBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA
  3. 3.Urban Affairs and Public PolicyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations