Social  Pressure,  Social  Media,  and  Voter  Turnout  

Kevin  Collins  Director  of  Research,  Analyst  Ins>tute  

Overview    

•  Diffusion  of  social  pressure  language  in  direct  mail  voter  mobiliza>on  shows  strength  of  social  pressure  for  GOTV    

•  Tests  on  social  media  suggest  that  messages  from  one  medium  don’t  necessarily  work  in  another  

DIFFUSION  OF  SOCIAL  PRESSURE  VOTER  MOBILIZATION  

&RQJUDWXODWLRQV«RQ«\RXU«¿UVW«9RWHU«5HSRUW«&DUG�Who you vote for is your secret. But

whether you vote is public record.The Voter Report Card on the back shows

your voting attendance record. It’s designed to help you keep track of how you’re doing.

All citizens should have a voice in their government. Our democracy works best

when everyone is a voter—including you.

That’s why we’ve selected you for this important research project. In the future,

we hope to send you an updated Voter Re-port Card before each election.

If you’re not sure where to vote, visit Vote411.org, an independent website. And

ask about early voting options in your area.

As a voter this year, you’ll be joined by millions of fellow citizens. Many con-

tests, though, will be so close that just a tiny number of votes will determine the outcome.

One of those crucial votes could be yours—but only if you’re a voter.

%H«D«YRWHU«RQ«7XHVGD\�«1RY�«� — or ask about early voting.

Source:  hKps://twiKer.com/kbenker/status/527627603373735936    

VOTER  MOBILIZATION  THROUGH  FACEBOOK  ADS  Joint  work  with  Josh  Kalla  (UC-­‐Berkeley)  and  Lauren  Keane  

Research  Ques>ons  

•  What  is  the  average  treatment  effect  of  online  GOTV  adver>sing  at  mobilizing  voters?  

•  Are  there  par>cular  kinds  of  voters  that  are  more  responsive  to  online  ads,  based  on  behavioral  trace  data?  

•  How  do  these  effects  compare  to  other  GOTV  strategies  in  the  same  electoral  context  

2012  Experimental  Condi>ons  

•  Voters  were  randomly  assigned  to  one  of  two  experimental  condi>ons:  

– A  control  group  that  was  not  assigned  to  receive  GOTV  Facebook  adver>sements    (n  =  365,668)    

– A  treatment  group  that  was  assigned  to  receive  GOTV  Facebook  adver>sements  (n  =  365,900)  

•  Used  “Custom  Audiences”  tool  to  upload  targeted  list  

Examples  of  Ads  

02

46

8

Trea

tmen

t Effe

ct(P

erce

ntage

Poin

ts)

Full Sample Registered Online Online Ad Facebook Ad

2012  Condi>onal  Average    Treatment  Effects  

(N=731,568)   (N=152,059)   (N=26,948)   (N=1,839)  

2013  Experimental  Condi>ons  

•  Voters  were  randomly  assigned  to  one  of  two  experimental  condi>ons:  – A  control  group  that  was  not  assigned  to  receive  GOTV  Facebook  adver>sements    (n  =  46,540)  

– A  treatment  group  that  was  assigned  to  receive  GOTV  Facebook  adver>sements  (n  =  46,513)  

•  In  Virginia  only,  this  experiment  was  orthogonally  assigned  with  another  experiment  on  volunteer  phone  banks  

 

2013  Condi>onal  Average    Treatment  Effects  

(N=93,053)  Control  Group  

Turnout  =  14.56%  

(N=90,786)   (N=12,539)   (N=1,410)  

Virginia  Overlapping  Experiments  

•  Only  Virginia  •  Volunteer  phone  calls  made  through  online  call  tool  

•  Used  modified  “rolling”  protocol  (Nickerson  2005)  

•  Contact  rate  in  volunteer  phone  condi>on  was  23%    

    No  FB  Ad  

FB  Ad  

No  Volunteer  

Call  

9,458   9,335  

Volunteer  Call  

2,444   2,537  

Intent  to  Treat  Effects  (VA)  

Key  Takeaways  

•  Poli  sci  research  adopted  and  adapted      •  Context  maKers  more  than  content    •  Match  the  message  to  the  medium    

•  More  tes>ng  needed  

Thank  You!  

Kevin  Collins  Email:  kcollins@analys>ns>tute.org    

TwiKer:  @kwcollins