The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Significant theories of democratic accountability hinge on how political campaigns affect Americans’ candidate choices. We argue that the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero. First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in general elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact tenfold. These experiments’ average effect is also zero. In both existing and our original experiments, persuasive effects only appear to emerge in two rare circumstances. First, when candidates take unusually unpopular positions and campaigns invest unusually heavily in identifying persuadable voters. Second, when campaigns contact voters long before election day and measure effects immediately—although this early persuasion decays. These findings contribute to ongoing debates about how political elites influence citizens’ judgments.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Adams, William C., and Smith, Dennis J.. 1980. “Effects of Telephone Canvassing on Turnout and Preferences: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (3): 389–95.Google Scholar

Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2006. “The Paradox of Minimal Effects.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Johnston, Richard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 29–44.Google Scholar

Anzia, Sarah F. 2011. “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups.” The Journal of Politics 73 (2): 412–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2005. “Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601 (1): 169–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2007. “I’m Asking for Your Support: The Effects of Personally Delivered Campaign Messages on Voting Decisions and Opinion Formation.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (1): 43–65.Google Scholar

Arceneaux, Kevin, and Nickerson, David W.. 2010. “Comparing Negative and Positive Campaign Messages: Evidence From Two Field Experiments.” American Politics Research 38 (1): 54–83.Google Scholar

Arceneaux, Kevin, and Kolodny, Robin. 2009. “Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 755–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bailey, Michael A., Hopkins, Daniel J., and Rogers, Todd. 2016. “Unresponsive, Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of Voter Persuasion Efforts.” Political Behavior 38 (3): 713–46.Google Scholar

Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid? ”American Political Science Review 104 (2): 226–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barton, Jared, Castillo, Marco, and Petrie, Ragan. 2014. “What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning.” The Economic Journal 124 (574): F293–F326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Berinsky, Adam J. 2009. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion From World War II to Iraq. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berinsky, Adam J. 2017. “Measuring Public Opinion with Surveys.” Annual Review of Political Science 20: 309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brady, Henry E., Johnston, Richard, and Sides, John. 2006. “The Study of Political Campaigns.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Johnston, Richard. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1–26.Google Scholar

Broockman, David, and Green, Donald. 2014. “Do Online Advertisements Increase Political Candidates’ Name Recognition or Favorability? Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 263–89.Google Scholar

Broockman, David E., and Kalla, Joshua L.. 2016. “Durably Reducing Transphobia: A Field Experiment on Door-to-door Canvassing.” Science 352 (6282): 220–4.Google Scholar

Broockman, David, Kalla, Joshua L., and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2017. “The Design of Field Experiments With Survey Outcomes: A Framework for Selecting More Efficient, Robust, and Ethical Designs.” Political Analysis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brox, Brian J., and Shaw, Daron R.. 2009. “Political Parties, American Campaigns, and Effects on Outcomes.” In Handbook of Party Politics, ed Katz, Richard S. & Crotty, William. London: Sage, 146–59.Google Scholar

Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cantoni, Enrico and Pons, Vincent. 2017. “Do Interactions with Candidates Increase Voter Support and Participation? Experimental Evidence from Italy.” MPSA Conference Paper.Google Scholar

Cardy, Emily Arthur. 2005. “An Experimental Field Study of the GOTV and Persuasion Effects of Partisan Direct Mail and Phone Calls.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601 (1): 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel. 2016. “Recruitment by Petition: American Antislavery, French Protestantism, English Suppression.” Perspectives on Politics 14 (3): 700–23.Google Scholar

Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N. 2007. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication 57 (1): 99–118.Google Scholar

Cunow, Saul, and Schwenzfeier, Meg. 2015. Working America 2014 Persuasion Experiments Results Memo. Technical Report Analyst Institute.Google Scholar

Deaton, Angus. 2010. “Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development.” Journal of Economic Literature 48 (2): 424–55.Google Scholar

DellaVigna, Stefano, and Gentzkow, Matthew. 2010. “Persuasion: Empirical Evidence.” Annual Review of Economics 2: 643–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doherty, David, and Adler, E. Scott. 2014. “The Persuasive Effects of Partisan Campaign Mailers.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (3): 562–573.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23 (3): 225–56.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2004a. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir) Relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 671–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2004b. “Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election.” Political Psychology 25 (04): 577–94.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (01): 57–79.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012a. “Is Public Opinion Stable? Resolving the Micro/Macro Disconnect in Studies of Public Opinion.” Daedalus 141 (4): 50–68.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012b. “Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 875–96.Google Scholar

Endres, Kyle. 2016. “The Accuracy of Microtargeted Policy Positions.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (4): 771–4.Google Scholar

Enos, Ryan D., and Hersh, Eitan D.. 2015. “Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem.” American Political Science Review 109 (2): 252–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Follman, Dean A., and Proschan, Michael A.. 1999. “Valid Inference in Random Effects Meta-analysis.” Biometrics 55 (3): 732–7.Google Scholar

Foos, Florian. 2017. “First Impressions - Lasting Impressions? The Short- and Long-term Effects of Candidate Contact on Voting Intentions During a High-salience Campaign.” MPSA Conference Paper.Google Scholar

Fowler, Erika Franklin, Ridout, Travis N., and Franz, Michael M.. 2016. “Political Advertising in 2016: The Presidential Election as Outlier?” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 4 (14): 445–69.Google Scholar

Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, and Simonovits, Gabor. 2014. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science 345 (6203): 1502–05.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When Votes Are so Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science 23 (4): 409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, Goel, Sharad, Rivers, Douglas, Rothschild, David et al. 2016. “The Mythical Swing Voter.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (1): 103–30.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S. 2004. “Does Campaign Spending Work? Field Experiments Provide Evidence and Suggest New Theory.” American Behavioral Scientist 47 (5): 541–74.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Kessler, Daniel P., and Meredith, Marc. 2011. “The Persuasive Effects of Direct Mail: A Regression Discontinuity Based Approach.” The Journal of Politics 73 (1): 140–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Karlan, Dean, and Bergan, Daniel. 2009. “Does the Media Matter? A Field Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political Opinions.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (2): 35–52.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102 (1): 33–48.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Gimpel, James, Green, Donald, and Shaw, Daron. 2011. “How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Experiment.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 135–50.Google Scholar

Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts & Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2015. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. 3rd ed. Brookings.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., Krasno, Jonathan S., Coppock, Alexander, Farrer, Benjamin D., Lenoir, Brandon, and Zingher, Joshua N.. 2016. “The Effects of Lawn Signs on Vote Outcomes: Results from Four Randomized Field Experiments.” Electoral Studies 41: 143–50.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., McGrath, Mary C., and Aronow, Peter M.. 2013. “Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 23 (1): 27–48.Google Scholar

Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hersh, Eitan D., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2013. “Targeted Campaign Appeals and the Value of Ambiguity.” The Journal of Politics 75 (2): 520–34.Google Scholar

Hill, Seth J., Lo, James, Vavreck, Lynn, and Zaller, John. 2013. “How Quickly We Forget: The Duration of Persuasion Effects from Mass Communication.” Political Communication 30 (4): 521–47.Google Scholar

Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Holbrook, Thomas M. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Issenberg, Sasha. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. New York: Crown.Google Scholar

Iyengar, Shanto, and Simon, Adam F.. 2000. “New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects.” Annual Review of Psychology 51 (1): 149–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Gary C. 2015. “How do Campaigns Matter?” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 31–47.Google Scholar

Johnston, Richard, Hagen, Michael G., and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2004. The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundation of Party Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kalla, Joshua L., and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2017. “Do TV Ads Persuade? A Randomized Experiment in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Working Paper.Google Scholar

Klapper, Joseph T. 1960. The Effects of Mass Communication. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar

Klar, Samara, and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2016. Independent Politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, and Rovner, Ivy Brown. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 1176–209.Google Scholar

Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2016. “Partisan Disagreements Arising from Rationalization of Common Information.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (3): 477–92.Google Scholar

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard R., and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Leeper, Thomas J., and Slothuus, Rune. 2015. “Can Citizens Be Framed? How Information, Not Emphasis, Changes Opinions.” Unpublished paper, Aarhus University.Google Scholar

Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Performance and Policies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Miller, Roy E., and Robyn, Dorothy L.. 1975. “A Field Experimental Study of Direct Mail in a Congressional Primary Campaign: What Effects Last Until Election Day.” Experimental Study of Politics 4 (3): 1–36.Google Scholar

Nickerson, David W. 2005. “Partisan Mobilization Using Volunteer Phone Banks and Door Hangers.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601 (1): 10–27.Google Scholar

Nickerson, David W. 2007 b. “Quality Is Job One: Professional and Volunteer Voter Mobilization Calls.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickerson, David W., and Rogers, Todd. 2010. “Do You Have a Voting Plan? Implementation Intentions, Voter Turnout, and Organic Plan Making.” Psychological Science 21 (2): 194–9.Google Scholar

Niven, David. 2013. “Hiding Racism from Ourselves: A Field Experiment on Race Effects in a Statewide Election.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 11–14, 2013.Google Scholar

Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, and Green, Donald P.. 2009. “Deference, Dissent, and Dispute Resolution: An Experimental Intervention using Mass Media to Change Norms and Behavior in Rwanda.” American Political Science Review 103 (4): 622–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Panagopoulos, Costas. 2016. “All about that base: Changing campaign strategies in US presidential elections.” Party Politics 22 (2): 179–90.Google Scholar

Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T.. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 19, ed Leonard Berkowitz. New York, NY: Academic Press, 123–205.Google Scholar

Rogers, Todd, and Middleton, Joel. 2015. “Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment Showing That They Are.” Political Behavior 37 (3): 567–93.Google Scholar

Sadin, Meredith L. 2014. “Campaigning with Class: Ambivalent Stereotypes and Candidate Wealth in U.S. Elections.” PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Schickler, Eric. 2016. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Sears, David O. and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1999. “Evidence of the Long-term Persistence of Adults’ Political Predispositions.” The Journal of Politics 61 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar

Shaw, Daron, Blunt, Christopher, and Seaborn, Brent. 2017. “Testing Overall and Synergistic Campaign Effects in a Partisan Statewide Election.” Working paper.Google Scholar

Shaw, Daron R., Green, Donald P., Gimpel, James G., and Gerber, Alan 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): 231–45.Google Scholar

Shaw, Daron R., and Gimpel, James G.. 2012. “What if We Randomize the Governor’s Schedule? Evidence on Campaign Appearance Effects From a Texas Field Experiment.” Political Communication 29 (2): 137–59.Google Scholar

Sides, John, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2013. The Gamble. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Simon, Paul. 1994. P.S.: The Autobiography of Paul Simon. Boulder, CO: Taylor Trade Publishing.Google Scholar

Smidt, Corwin D. 2017. “Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 365–81.Google Scholar

Sniderman, Paul M. and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, ed. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 133–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strauss, Aaron B. 2009. “Political Ground Truth: How Personal Issue Experience Counters Partisan Biases” PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Ternovski, John, Green, Jennifer, and Kalla, Joshua. 2012. Working America’s 2011 Persuasion Canvass Experiment on SB5 in Ohio. Technical report Analyst Institute.Google Scholar

Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” World politics 55 (3): 399–422.Google Scholar

Wlezien, Christopher, and Erikson, Robert S.. 2002. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 64 (4): 969–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar