Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Voter Mobilization

Panagopoulos, Costas; Larimer, Christopher W.; Condon, Meghan

doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9234-4

Cited by 57 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is little danger of reactance with a consistent-norms message. Our findings, however, represent only one study, and other field experiments have failed to find that consistent norms messages have stronger effects (Nickerson and White 2013;Panagopoulos, Larimer, and Condon, forthcoming). Clearly, this is an area for further research.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Mobilization Effects Using Mail

Murray

Matland

2013

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bstractWe use field experiments in Texas and Wisconsin to address voter mobilization and turnout by evaluating nonpartisan get-out-the-vote (GOTV) messages delivered via mail during 2010 gubernatorial campaigns. We manipulate three factors in the messages: social pressure, descriptive-and injunctive-voting norm consistency, and message timing. The results present an initial field-based confirmation that norm-consistent messages increase turnout; demonstrate significant message timing effects, which are mediated by state election rules; and indicate social pressure's effectiveness varies significantly more than previously found. These diverse findings suggest researchers place a greater emphasis on context v/hen evaluating experiments and the effects of mobilization messages.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Mobilization Effects Using Mail

Murray

Matland

2013

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deciphering the psychology of voter mobilization is a complex task. In recent years, investigators have turned increasingly to randomized field experiments to study the nuances of the sociopsychological mechanisms that influence turnout decisions in elections (Druckman, Green, Kuklinski, & Lupia, 2011;Panagopoulos, 2011Panagopoulos, , 2013Panagopoulos, , 2014aPanagopoulos, , 2014bPanagopoulos, Larimer, & Condon, 2014). When properly implemented, randomized trials provide unbiased estimates of average treatment effects and enable reliable causal inference (Gerber & Green, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Closer Look at Eyespot Effects on Voter Turnout: Reply to Matland and Murray

Panagopoulos

2015

Political Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit social pressure, applied via exposure to eyespots in nonpartisan, direct‐mail blandishments to vote, has been shown using randomized field experiments to raise turnout in elections. Similar eyespot effects have been observed across a wide range of prosocial behaviors. A series of recent replications conducted by Matland and Murray (2015) have failed to consistently produce statistically significant eyespot effects on voter turnout, however, leading the authors to conclude the effects observed in previous research were likely illusory. In this article, I rebut this claim, arguing that an alternative, more circumspect interpretation of the authors’ key results points to a different conclusion that supports the notion that eyespots likely stimulate voting, especially when taken together with previous findings.

show abstract

“…One recent study found that 'most people are not subjected to strong injunctive pressure' and that 'descriptive norms seem to be even more important than injunctive norms' (Blais, Galais and Coulombe 2018, 10-11). By contrast, Panagopoulos, Larimer and Condon (2014) found evidence of injunctive norms but not descriptive norms, and no evidence of an interaction between the two. Others have found a moderating effect at the dyadic level: that the influence of injunctive norms is conditional on the presence of consistent descriptive norms (Bicchieri and Xiao 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 58%

Do as I Say or Do as I Do? How Social Relationships Shape the Impact of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms of Voting

Fieldhouse

Cutts

2020

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social norms play an important role in our understanding of why people vote, yet very little is known about the relative importance of descriptive and injunctive norms for voter turnout or how normative influence is affected by the political and social relationship between citizens. Using political discussion network data from the British Election Study, this article examines the joint effect of descriptive and injunctive norms on turnout. It demonstrates that citizens follow the example of those closest to them (descriptive norms), especially their partner, but they also respond to social approval of voting from political discussants regardless of the nature of their relationship.

show abstract

Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Voter Mobilization

Cited by 57 publications

References 22 publications

Mobilization Effects Using Mail

Mobilization Effects Using Mail

A Closer Look at Eyespot Effects on Voter Turnout: Reply to Matland and Murray

Do as I Say or Do as I Do? How Social Relationships Shape the Impact of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms of Voting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About