Simone Lawson
Political campaigns spend millions of dollars on persuading voters, and it is well-known that these campaigns do affect voting decisions. However, it is less understood what specific element of campaigning sways voters—the content of the message or the method of delivery. To answer this question, Jared Barton, Marco Castillo, and Ragan Petrie conducted a field experiment during the 2010 general election for local office. The experiment, which involved the candidate either canvassing a household or leaving literature, revealed that voters are persuaded by personal contact with the candidate rather than the content of the message. This finding suggests that the costly signal of quality provided by personal contact is more effective than social pressure in influencing voting decisions.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Voters' persuasion | Personal contact with the candidate |
| How campaigns affect voting decisions | Candidate door-to-door canvassing |
| Elements of campaigning | Content of the message or the delivery method |
| Persuasive effects of advertisements | Small but meaningful variation |
| Theories about what makes advertising persuasive | Limited and context-dependent power to predict persuasiveness |
Explore related products
$3.99 $10.74
What You'll Learn
Personal contact with the candidate
In a field experiment conducted by Jared Barton, Marco Castillo, and Ragan Petrie, personal contact with the candidate was tested as a persuasive mechanism in a 2010 general election for local office. The candidate either canvassed door-to-door or left literature without meeting voters, and the literature varied in content. The results showed that voters were indeed persuaded by personal contact with the candidate, indicating that the delivery method, rather than the content of the message, is crucial in political persuasion.
This finding is further supported by a study conducted by Alan Gerber and Donald Green, which found that non-partisan face-to-face canvassing and phone calls were more effective than non-personalized methods. Additionally, Barton et al.'s research in two local races within the same county provided evidence that in-person canvassing can have an impact on voter turnout, further emphasizing the importance of personal contact with candidates.
The impact of personal contact with candidates extends beyond the immediate voting decision. A study on a revote campaign found that personal contact had long-lasting effects on both vote choice and broader security-sensitive behavior. Residents in the revote precinct were influenced to take additional security measures, such as installing more warning signs to deter burglars.
While the impact of personal contact is clear, it is important to note that the content of the message may still play a role. The evidence from mass media campaigning suggests that messages themselves can be influential, but the results are inconclusive, and it is challenging to determine if the content was ignored or insufficiently different in experiments.
Overall, personal contact with the candidate is a powerful tool in political campaigning, and campaigns should invest in direct interactions with voters to increase their chances of persuasion and influence voting behavior.
Setting Up a Call-In Campaign: Political Edition
You may want to see also
Face-to-face canvassing
The results of the experiment indicated that voters are primarily persuaded by personal contact with the candidate, suggesting that the delivery method is more influential than the content of the message. This finding aligns with prior research, which demonstrates that campaigning affects voting decisions, but the specific elements that sway voters remain less understood. Face-to-face canvassing, as a form of personal contact, provides a "costly signal of quality" that influences voters' choices.
Additionally, the effectiveness of face-to-face canvassing is supported by other studies. Alan Gerber and Donald Green's work in 2000 highlighted the impact of canvassing on voter turnout. Traditional approaches to understanding voter preferences include focus groups and face-to-face meetings, which provide qualitative insights into how voters react to different persuasive attempts.
Furthermore, face-to-face canvassing is not limited to meeting voters in person but can also involve direct telephone contact. This method has been the subject of experimentation, with studies like those by Imai in 2005, Arceneaux in 2007, and Nickerson in 2006, demonstrating its effectiveness compared to non-personalized methods such as flyers.
Overall, face-to-face canvassing, whether in-person or over the phone, plays a significant role in political campaigning by providing a personal connection between the candidate and the voter, which has been shown to be a persuasive factor in voting decisions.
Strategies Political Parties Employ to Win Elections
You may want to see also
Non-personalised methods
Non-personalised campaigning methods are those that do not involve direct, face-to-face contact with voters. These can include literature, flyers, direct mail, television and radio ads, and other forms of media. While these methods are less effective than personal contact, they still play a significant role in political campaigns, as they can reach a large number of people and convey information about the candidate or their policies.
One study, focusing on a 2010 general election for local office, found that literature left at voters' households without any personal contact had little persuasive effect. This suggests that non-personalised methods may be less effective at swaying voters' decisions. However, it is important to note that the content and delivery method of the message can also play a role in its effectiveness.
Another study by Gerber and Green in 2000 found that non-personalised methods such as direct mail were less effective than non-partisan face-to-face canvassing and phone calls. Similarly, Barton et al.'s research in 2014 confirmed that voters are more persuaded by personal contact than non-personalised methods like flyers.
Despite the apparent lower effectiveness of non-personalised methods, campaigns still invest significant resources in these techniques. This may be due to the ability to reach a wider audience and the potential for cumulative effects over time. Additionally, non-personalised methods can be used to test different messages and strategies, allowing campaigns to gather data and refine their approaches.
While the evidence suggests that non-personalised methods may be less persuasive, they still have a role in political campaigning. These methods can be used to complement personal contact, reach voters who may not be accessible through face-to-face interactions, and provide information to voters who prefer to gather information independently.
Voters' Concerns: City Funding and the Voice of the People
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$20.03 $28
$36.41 $60
Candidate door-to-door canvassing
Political campaigns spend millions of dollars each voting cycle on persuading voters, and it is well established that these campaigns do affect voting decisions. However, it is less understood which element of a campaign—the content of the message or the delivery method—sways voters.
A field experiment in a 2010 general election for local office was used to identify the persuasive mechanism behind a particular form of campaigning: candidate door-to-door canvassing. In the experiment, the candidate either canvassed a household or left literature without meeting the voters. The literature either contained information on the candidate or on how to vote. The results showed that voters are persuaded by personal contact (the delivery method), but there was no evidence supporting the importance of messages in political persuasion.
Barton et al. (2014) also looked at the role of candidate door-to-door canvassing. Their experiment confirmed that voters are persuaded by personal contact. This is also supported by Gerber and Green (2000), who found that non-partisan face-to-face canvassing and phone calls are more effective than non-personalized methods such as flyers.
Prior research indicates that campaigning affects voting decisions, but it is not fully understood which element of campaigning—the content or its delivery method—is most influential. Personal contact with the candidate provides a costly signal of quality rather than social pressure.
Campaigns and their consultants have many techniques to learn how to communicate with voters in any given election campaign. Traditional approaches include focus groups and face-to-face meetings, yielding qualitative insights into how voters react to different persuasive attempts. Over the last decade, campaigns have increasingly turned to randomized trials to understand what messages and advertisements are more or less effective.
Political Campaign Donations: Charity or Investment?
You may want to see also
Advertising and campaign contact
Political campaigns spend millions of dollars on persuading voters, and it is well-established that these campaigns do affect voting decisions. However, it is less understood which specific elements of a campaign—the content of the message or the delivery method—sway voters.
A field experiment in the 2010 general election for a local office was used to identify the persuasive mechanism behind a particular form of campaigning: candidate door-to-door canvassing. In the experiment, the candidate either canvassed a household or left literature without meeting the voters. The literature either contained information on the candidate or on how to vote. The results showed that voters are persuaded by personal contact (the delivery method), but there was no evidence supporting the importance of the message in political persuasion.
These findings are supported by non-partisan face-to-face canvassing (Gerber and Green, 2000) and phone calls (Imai, 2005; Arceneaux, 2007; Nickerson, 2006; Arceneaux and Nickerson, 2006), which are more effective than non-personalized methods such as flyers. This suggests that personal contact works by providing a signal of quality rather than through social pressure.
Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 40 field experiments found an average effect of zero in general elections, indicating that the persuasive effects of campaign contact and advertising on candidate choices may be minimal. However, the experiments also revealed that persuasive effects only emerge in two rare circumstances: when candidates take unusually unpopular positions, and when campaigns invest heavily in identifying persuadable voters.
While the specific mechanisms of persuasion in political campaigning remain complex and multifaceted, it is clear that personal contact and interaction with candidates play a significant role in influencing voter decisions.
Kamala Harris: Will She Run Again?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Research suggests that voters are most persuaded by personal contact with the candidate, rather than the content of the message.
Campaigns use a variety of techniques to learn how to communicate with voters, including focus groups, face-to-face meetings, and increasingly, randomised trials.
Little research has been done on the implications of this trend for elections or democracy. However, one source suggests that experiments can compound the influence of money in elections.
In a 2010 general election for local office, researchers conducted an experiment where the candidate either canvassed a household or left literature without meeting the voters. The literature either contained information on the candidate or on how to vote. The results showed that voters were persuaded by personal contact with the candidate.
