Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- 23 The Political Psychology of Inequality
- 24 How Social Class Influences Political Choices
- 25 Fear and Loathing in American Politics
- 26 Political Extremism
- 27 The Politics of Hate
- 28 Populism
- 29 A Cultural Theory of Autocracy-vs-Democracy
- 30 Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
- 31 Collective Action for Social Change
- 32 Opinion Formation and Polarisation in the News Feed Era
- 33 Conspiracy Theory Belief and Conspiratorial Thinking
- 34 Political Psychology and the Climate Crisis
- 35 The Political Psychology of Cyberterrorism
- 36 Reconciliation in the Aftermath of Collective Violence
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- Index
- References
30 - Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
from Part III - Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- 23 The Political Psychology of Inequality
- 24 How Social Class Influences Political Choices
- 25 Fear and Loathing in American Politics
- 26 Political Extremism
- 27 The Politics of Hate
- 28 Populism
- 29 A Cultural Theory of Autocracy-vs-Democracy
- 30 Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
- 31 Collective Action for Social Change
- 32 Opinion Formation and Polarisation in the News Feed Era
- 33 Conspiracy Theory Belief and Conspiratorial Thinking
- 34 Political Psychology and the Climate Crisis
- 35 The Political Psychology of Cyberterrorism
- 36 Reconciliation in the Aftermath of Collective Violence
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- Index
- References
Summary
Research on persuasion and social influence suggests that crafting effective persuasive and influential appeals is not only feasible but can be done fairly reliably with appropriate guidance from the relevant theories.With the advent of large-scale experiments conducted in field settings, key propositions about persuasion and social influence can be evaluated on a grand scale. In this chapter we assess whether well-known psychological insights work in practice, reviewing efforts related to political mobilisation and persuasion. We argue that in many cases field tests generate an estimated effect that is much smaller than highly influential psychological studies might lead us to expect. The implications of large-scale testing are profound, not only because of the guidance they offer for political campaigns, but also because of their implications for prominent psychological theories.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology , pp. 476 - 491Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Political Communication, 30(2), 213–231.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K., & Kolodny, R. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 755–770.Google Scholar
Barton, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2014). What persuades voters? A field experiment on political campaigning. The Economic Journal, 124(574), F293–F326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, A. B. (2012). Engaging celebrity? Measuring the impact of issue-advocacy messages on situational involvement, complacency and apathy. Celebrity Studies, 3(2), 213–231.Google Scholar
Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L., & Sekhon, J. S. (2017). The design of field experiments with survey outcomes: A framework for selecting more efficient, robust, and ethical designs. Political Analysis, 25(4), 435–464.Google Scholar
Bryan, C. J., Walton, G. M., Rogers, T., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(31), 12653–12656.Google Scholar
Bryan, C. J., Yeager, D. S., & O’Brien, J. M. (2019). Replicator degrees of freedom allow publication of misleading failures to replicate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(51), 25535–25545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.Google Scholar
Cantoni, E., & Pons, V. (2016). Do interactions with candidates increase voter support and participation?: Experimental evidence from Italy. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 16-080.Google Scholar
Cho, D. (2008). Acting on the intent to vote: A voter turnout experiment. Available at SSRN 1402025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D., & Junn, J. (2011). Politics from the perspective of minority populations. In Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 320–336). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72–81.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A., & Green, D. P. (2016). Is voting habit forming? New evidence from experiments and regression discontinuities. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1044–1062.Google Scholar
Coppock, A., Hill, S. J., & Vavreck, L. (2020). The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: Evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Science Advances, 6(36), Article eabc4046.Google Scholar
Dawson, M. C. (1995). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Eldersveld, S. J. (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 50(1), 154–165.Google Scholar
Foos, F. (n.d.). First impressions – lasting impressions? The short-and long-term effects of candidate contact on voting intentions. http://www.florianfoos.net/resources/Foos_persuasion.pdfGoogle Scholar
Foos, F. (2018). The parliamentary candidate as persuader: Evidence from randomized candidate-voter interactions. http://www.florianfoos.net/resources/Candidate_as_persuader_Foos.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fraga, B. L. (2018). The turnout gap: Race, ethnicity, and political inequality in a diversifying America. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, A., Huber, G., & Fang, A. (2018). Do subtle linguistic interventions priming a social identity as a voter have outsized effects on voter turnout? Evidence from a new replication experiment. Political Psychology, 39(4), 925–938.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2017). Field experiments on voter mobilization: An overview of a burgeoning literature. In Banerjee, A. V. & Duflo, E. (Eds.), Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 1, pp. 395–438). North-Holland.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(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Small cues and large effect: The results from a collection of simultaneous field experiments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 17 April 2015.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2016a). Reply to Bryan et al.: Variation in context unlikely explanation of nonrobustness of noun versus verb results. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), E6549–E6550.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2016b). A field experiment shows that subtle linguistic cues might not affect voter behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(26), 7112–7117.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011a). Personality traits and the consumption of political information. American Politics Research, 39(1), 32–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011b). The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265–287.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Big five personality traits and responses to persuasive appeals: Results from voter turnout experiments. Political Behavior, 35(4), 687–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Fang, A. H. (2019). Voting behavior unaffected by subtle linguistic cues: Evidence from a psychologically authentic replication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1–15.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Fang, A. H., & Gooch, A. (2017). The generalizability of social pressure effects on turnout across high-salience electoral contexts: Field experimental evidence from 1.96 million citizens in 17 states. American Politics Research, 45(4), 533–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Fang, A. H., & Reardon, C. E. (2016). The comparative effectiveness of communicating positive versus negative descriptive norms on turnout. Yale University Working Paper.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.Google Scholar
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2002). The downstream benefits of experimentation. Political Analysis, 10(4), 394–402.Google Scholar
Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2016). Voter mobilization, experimentation, and translational social science. Perspectives on Politics, 14(3), 738–749.Google Scholar
Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2019). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Green, D. P., & Zelizer, A. (2017). How much GOTV mail is too much? Results from a large-scale field experiment. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(2), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Carnot, C. G., Beach, R., & Young, B. (1987). Increasing voting behavior by asking people if they expect to vote. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 315–318.Google Scholar
Gross, A. E., Schmidt, M. J., Keating, J. P., & Saks, M. J. (1974). Persuasion, surveillance, and voting behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(5), 451–460.Google Scholar
Hartmann, G. W. (1936). A field experiment on the comparative effectiveness of ‘emotional’ and ‘rational’ political leaflets in determining election results. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 31(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, H. J., & Wyler, E. E. (2019). Negative descriptive social norms and political action: People aren’t acting, so you should. Political Behavior, 41(1), 231–256.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. J., & Darrow, T. I. A. (2005). The influence of celebrity endorsements on young adults’ political opinions. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(3), 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, K. H., & Hardy, B. W. (2009). Media, endorsements, and the 2008 primaries. In Smith, S. S. & Springer, M. J. (Eds.), Reforming the presidential nomination process (pp. 64–84). Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148–166.Google Scholar
Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4(1), 3–60.Google Scholar
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 350–364.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morin, D. T., Ivory, J. D., & Tubbs, M. (2012). Celebrity and politics: Effects of endorser credibility and sex on voter attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. The Social Science Journal, 49(4), 413–420.Google Scholar
Murray, G. R., & Matland, R. E. (2014). Mobilization effects using mail: Social pressure, descriptive norms, and timing. Political Research Quarterly, 67(2), 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, D. W. (2007). The ineffectiveness of e-vites to democracy: Field experiments testing the role of e-mail on voter turnout. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 494–503.Google Scholar
Nickerson, D. W., & Rogers, T. (2010). Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychological Science, 21(2), 194–199.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, C., Larimer, C. W., & Condon, M. (2014). Social pressure, descriptive norms, and voter mobilization. Political Behavior, 36(2), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, T., Green, D. P., Ternovski, J., & Young, C. F. (2017). Social pressure and voting: A field experiment conducted in a high-salience election. Electoral Studies, 46, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settle, J. E., Dawes, C. T., Loewen, P. J., & Panagopoulos, C. (2017 ). Negative affectivity, political contention, and turnout: A genopolitics field experiment. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1065–1082.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Green, D. P., Gimpel, J. G., & Gerber, A. S. (2012). Do robotic calls from credible sources influence voter turnout or vote choice? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Political Marketing, 11(4), 231–245.Google Scholar
Sherman, S. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. K., Gerber, A. S., & Orlich, A. (2003). Self-prophecy effects and voter turnout: An experimental replication. Political Psychology, 24(3), 593–604.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Trivedi, N. (2005). The effect of identity-based GOTV direct mail appeals on the turnout of Indian Americans. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601(1), 115–122.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, A. A., & Michelson, M. R. (2016). Turnout, status, and identity: Mobilizing Latinos to vote with group appeals. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 615–630.Google Scholar
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by