Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 865–882 | Cite as

Are Voters Mobilized by a ‘Friend-and-Neighbor’ on the Ballot? Evidence from a Field Experiment

  • Costas PanagopoulosEmail author
  • Jan E. Leighley
  • Brian T. Hamel
Original Paper


In his seminal work on Southern politics, V.O. Key observed that voters disproportionately support local candidates at the ballot box. While empirical analyses have confirmed “friends-and-neighbors” voting across numerous electoral contexts, no one has directly examined voter turnout as the mechanism linking place of residence to vote choice. We argue that place of residence is a social identity that incentivizes citizens to turn out to vote on behalf of the local candidate. We test this mobilization mechanism using a randomized field experiment conducted during a 2014 state legislative primary election. Our results show that county ties between candidates and voters likely boost turnout. Our findings contribute to our understanding of the importance of place identity for turnout decisions in low-information elections.


“Friends-and-neighbors” voting Localism Turnout Social identity Field experiments 



We thank Marc Meredith, Donald Green and conference participants at MPSA 2015 for helpful comments on earlier drafts. We are also grateful to Maryann Draine and Diane Packer for providing us with validated voter turnout data and to Meagan Snow for research assistance. This study was approved by the Office of the Institutional Review Board at Fordham University (ID: IRB-14-08-CP-010). Brian Hamel acknowledges the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program for support. Replication data can be found at

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9383_MOESM1_ESM.docx (153 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 152 kb)


  1. Alvarez, M. R. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ames, B. (1995). Electoral rules, constituency pressures, and pork barrel: Bases of voting in the Brazilian congress. Journal of Politics, 57(2), 324–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arzheimer, K., & Evans, J. (2012). Geolocation and voting: Candidate-voter distance effects on party choice in the 2010 UK general election in England. Political Geography, 31(5), 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aspin, L. T., & Hall, W. K. (1987). The friends and neighbors effect in judicial retention elections. Political Research Quarterly, 40(4), 703–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banducci, S. A., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29(6), 903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreto, M. (2007). ¡Sí se puede! Latino candidates and the mobilization of Latino voters. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barreto, M. (2010). Ethnic cues: The role of shared ethnicity in Latino political participation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Snipp, J. (1993). Local sources of information and voter choice in state elections. American Politics Research, 21(4), 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunk, G. G., Ramesh, S., & Adams, J. (1988). Contagion-based voting in Birmingham. Alabama. Political Geography Quarterly, 7(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, D. P., Esterling, K. M., & Lazer, D. M. J. (1998). The strength of weak ties in lobbying networks: Evidence from healthcare politics in the United States. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham, R. (1971). The impact of a local candidate in Canadian federal elections. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 4(2), 287–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudley, R. L., & Rapoport, R. B. (1989). Vice-presidential candidates and the home state advantage: Playing second banana at home and on the road. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 537–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferejohn, J. A. (1974). Pork barrel politics: Rivers and harbors legislation, 1947–1968. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Garand, J. C. (1988). Localism and regionalism in presidential elections: Is there a home state or regional advantage? Western Political Quarterly, 41(1), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Gimpel, J. G., Karnes, K. A., McTague, J., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2008). Distance-decay in the political geography of friends-and-neighbors voting. Political Geography, 27(2), 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimmer, J., Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2012). How words and money cultivate a personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hand, J. (2014). Attleboro’s Reynolds narrowly loses Democrat state senate nomination to Hayre. The Sun Chronicle. Accessed 2 July 2016.
  24. Heersink, B., & Peterson, B. D. (2016). Measuring the vice-presidential home state advantage with synthetic controls. American Politics Research, 44(4), 734–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holbrook, T. M. (1991). Presidential elections in space and time. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnston, R. J. (1974). Local effects in voting at a local election. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(3), 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Key, V. O., Jr. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  33. Kirkland, J. H. (2011). The relational determinants of legislative outcomes: Strong and weak ties between legislators. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kjar, S. A., & Laband, D. A. (2002). On the ‘home grown-ness’ in politics: Evidence from the 1998 election for Alabama’s third congressional district. Public Choice, 112(1/2), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawless, J. L. (2012). Becoming a candidate: Political ambition and the decision to run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Rice, T. W. (1983). Localism in presidential elections: The home state advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 27(3), 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lublin, D. I., & Tate, K. (1995). Racial group competition in urban elections. In P. G. Peterson (Ed.), Classifying by race (pp. 245–261). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Matson, M., & Fine, T. S. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: Ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 6(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKee, S. C., Hood, M. V., III, & Hill, D. (2012). Achieving validation: Barack Obama and black turnout in 2008. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 12(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meredith, M. (2013a). Heterogeneous friends-and-neighbors voting. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  43. Meredith, M. (2013b). Exploiting friends-and-neighbors to estimate coattail effects. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 742–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mixon, F. G., & Tyrone, J. M. (2004). The ‘home-grown’ presidency: Empirical evidence on localism in presidential voting, 1972-200. Applied Economics, 36(16), 1745–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parker, A. J. (1982). The ‘friends and neighbours’ voting effect in the Galaway West constituency. Political Geography Quarterly, 1(3), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rice, T. W., & Macht, A. A. (1987a). Friends and neighbors voting in statewide general elections. American Journal of Political Science, 31(2), 448–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rice, T. W., & Macht, A. A. (1987b). The home town advantage: Mobilization or conversion? Political Behavior, 9(3), 257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sokhey, A. E., & McClurg, S. D. (2012). Social networks and correct voting. Journal of Politics, 74(3), 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  54. Tatalovich, R. (1975). ‘Friends and neighbors’ voting: Mississippi, 1943-73. Journal of Politics, 37(3), 807–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tate, K. (1991). Black political participation in the 1984 and 1988 presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1159–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tate, K. (1994). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  58. Washington, E. (2006). How black candidates affect voter turnout. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(3), 973–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Costas Panagopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan E. Leighley
    • 2
  • Brian T. Hamel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFordham UniversityBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of GovernmentAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations