No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Drowned Out by the Noise? The Downstream Mobilisation Effects of Party Campaigning between Local and General Elections
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2019
Abstract
Campaign experiments often report positive effects on voter turnout. But do these effects endure at subsequent elections? Existing studies provide mixed evidence on downstream effects, and the rate at which initial mobilisation effects decay. This paper contributes to existing research by presenting a pre-registered analysis of downstream effects in a unique experimental setting. I test whether effects from a UK partisan experiment in a low turnout election in May 2017 persisted at the high turnout general election a month later. The findings show that in this short space of time, the original turnout effects virtually disappeared, suggesting that downstream effects resulting from campaign experiments can be quickly subsumed by the high saliency of subsequent elections.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019
Footnotes
*
The author has no conflict of interest to declare. The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: doi: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PI2CBB.
References
Arceneaux, Kevin and Nickerson, David. 2009. Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re-analysis of 11 Field Experiments. American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Matthew and Fowler, Anthony. 2011. Social Capital and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Saint’s Day Fiestas in Mexico. British Journal of Political Science 44(1): 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBC. 2017. Election 2017: Bury St Edmunds. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000613, accessed 14 November 2018.Google Scholar
Bedolla, Lisa Garcia and Michelson, Michele. 2012. Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through Get-Out-The-Vote Campaigns. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cowley, Philip and Kavanagh, Dennis. 2018. The British General Election of 2017. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cutts, David
, Fieldhouse, Edward and John, Peter. 2009. Is Voting Habit Forming? The Longitudinal Impact of a GOTV Campaign in the UK. Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties 19(3): 251–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, Tiffany
, Gerber, Alan
, Green, Donald
, Larimer, Christopher
, Mann, Christopher and Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. The Enduring Effects of Social Pressure: Tracking Campaign Experiments Over a Series of Elections. Political Behavior 32(3): 423–30.Google Scholar
Davenport, Tiffany. 2010. Public Accountability and Political Participation: Effects of a Face-to-Face Feedback Intervention on Voter Turnout of Public Housing Residents. Political Behavior 32: 337–68. doi:10.1007/slll09-010-9109-x.Google Scholar
Electoral Commission
. 2017. Voting in 2017. Electoral Commission. Retrieved from https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/234893/Voting-in-2017-Final.pdf (last accessed: 13th November 2018).Google Scholar
Green, Donald and Gerber, Alan. 2002. The Downstream Benefits of Experimentation. Political Analysis 10(4): 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald and Gerber, Alan. 2015. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout (3rd ed.). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald and Shachar, Ron. 2000. Habit Formation and Political Behaviour: Evidence of Conseutude in Voter Turnout. British Journal of Political Science 30(4): 561–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan and Green, Donald. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan
, Green, Donald and Shachar, Ron. 2003. Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 540–50.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan
, Green, Donald and Larimer, Christopher. 2008. Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from Large-Scale Field Experiment. American Political Science Review 102(1): 33–48.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan
, Green, Donald and Larimer, Christopher. 2010. An Experiment Testing the Relative Effectiveness of Encouraging Voter Participation by Inducing Feelings of Pride or Shame. Political Behavior 32(3): 409–22. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9110-4.Google Scholar
Hill, Seth and Kousser, Thad. 2015. Turning Out Unlikely Voters? A Field Experiment in the Top-Two Primary. Political Behavior 38(2). doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9319-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Peter and Brannan, Tessa. 2008. How Different Are Telephoning and Canvassing Results from a Get Out the Vote Field Experiment in the British 2005 General Election? British Journal of Political Science 38(3): 565–74.Google Scholar
Mann, Christopher. 2010. Is There Backlash to Social Pressure? A Large-Scale Field Experiment on Voter Mobilization. Political Behavior 32(3): 387–407. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9124-y.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. Affect, Social Pressure and Prosocial Motivation: Field Experimental Evidence of the Mobilising Effects of Pride, Shame and Publicizing Voting Behaviour. Political Behavior 32(3): 369–386.Google Scholar
Townsley, Joshua. 2018. Is It Worth Door-knocking? Evidence from a UK-Based GOTV Field Experiment on the Effect of Party Leaflets and Canvass Visits on Voter Turnout. Political Science Research and Methods, 1–15. doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.39.Google Scholar
Townsley supplementary material
Online Appendix
File
2 MB