Skip to main content

Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Voter Mobilization

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Gerber et al. (2008) report that mailings including individual vote history along with the vote history of all registered voters in a household as well as the vote history of neighbors, including a warning that voting behavior will be revealed publicly, increase turnout by 8.1 % points on average.

  2. See, for example, Gerber et al. (2008), Mann (2010), and Panagopoulos (2010).

  3. Despite resource limitations that constrained the sizes of our experimental treatment samples, we note that our experiment was designed to be adequately powered (at the power = .80 level) to detect treatment effects in the 2-percentage point range.

  4. Though many studies of descriptive norms in the psychological literature employ stronger treatments, with perfect or nearly perfect compliance, we were concerned about compromising the credibility of the turnout message. Rather than deploy artificial or inflated turnout rates, we use actual turnout levels from two recent elections in Hawthorne, CA: 70 % of registered voters cast ballots in the November 2008 elections, and 35 % voted in November 2006, based on reported turnout in the voter file obtained for this study. We note further that the 70 % compliance figure is also comparable to the level (71 %) Gerber and Rogers (2009) use in their California study.

  5. As we note above, the actual turnout levels used in this study were selected and assigned by the researchers. Notwithstanding our efforts to randomly manipulate subjects’ perceptions about turnout level norms in their community, we acknowledge that some subjects may have been more precisely aware of actual turnout patterns in recent or comparable election cycles. Such awareness would have been randomly distributed across conditions.

  6. We acknowledge that a substantial portion of California voters are signed up for permanent vote-by-mail (absentee) status. We did not exclude these voters from the experiment we conducted, but we expect, given random assignment, absentee voters to be evenly distributed across experimental conditions. As expected, we detect no differences in the rates of absentee voting across experimental conditions in our experiments (Scheffe multiple-comparison test is insignificant, p > F = .35; details available upon request). However, if subjects had voted by absentee ballot in advance of our treatments, they could not have been affected by the intervention. Such failure-to-treat would only magnify the estimated intent-to-treat effects we report.

  7. We acknowledge that some subjects assigned to be treated may not have been successfully contacted, but reliable estimates of contact rates for direct mailings are unavailable. Thus, we report intent-to-treat effects throughout, noting these are likely conservative estimates of the treatment effects. Taking contact rates into account would only magnify the treatment effects we report.

  8. We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

References

  • Burden, B. C. (2000). Voter turnout and the national election studies. Political Analysis, 8(4), 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. (2008). Get Out the Vote (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

  • 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.

  • Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mann, Christopher B. (2010). Is there a backlash to social pressure? A large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Behavior, 32, 307–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • McDonald, M. P. (2003). On the over-report bias of the national election study. Political Analysis, 11(2), 180–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos, C. (2011). Thank you for voting: Gratitude expression and voter mobilization. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 707–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos, C. (forthcoming). I’ve got my eyes on you: Implicit social pressure cues and prosocial behavior. Political Psychology.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Costas Panagopoulos.

Appendix: Treatment Mailings

Appendix: Treatment Mailings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panagopoulos, C., Larimer, C.W. & Condon, M. Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Voter Mobilization. Polit Behav 36, 451–469 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9234-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9234-4

Keywords

  • Randomized field experiments
  • Social pressure
  • Descriptive norms
  • Injunctive norms
  • Voter mobilization