Mobilizing Peripheral Partisan Voters: A Field Experimental Analysis From Three California Congressional Election Campaigns

• Author: Daron R. Shaw,Lindsay Dun,Sarah Heise
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221094295
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221094295

American Politics Research

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221094295

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Introduction

In studies of whether or not campaigns “matter” in American

elections, political science research tends to cast doubt on the

value of persuasive efforts while affirming the efficacy of

mobilization efforts. For example, a recent article presents

overwhelming empirical research showing that persuasive

efforts have almost no effect on voters, while also observing

that “campaigns clearly . . . influence whether voters bother

to vote at all” (Kalla & Broockman, 2018, p. 163). Campaigns

seem to understand this strategic reality and allocate time

and money towards mobilizing their electoral base rather

than towards persuading voters who are “on the fence”

(Panagopoulos, 2016).

Beyond the consensus that “get-out-the-vote” (GOTV)

efforts can increase turnout, however, there is debate over

which sorts of campaigning work and under what circum-

stances. The well-known field experiments of the early 2000s

compared the influence of various GOTV tactics and con-

cluded that face-to-face (or door-to-door) canvassing is the

most effective mobilization technique because it is the most

personal form of campaign contact (for an overview, see

Green & Gerber, 2019). Meta-analyses of canvassing experi-

ments indicate that this remained true through the mid-2010s

(see Green & Gerber, 2019: Table A1).1 Some recent studies,

however, posit that “personalized contacting” may not be the

only—or even the best—pathway to successfully mobilizing

voters. Instead, they suggest that in-person contacting could

be unnecessary for those already interested in or committed

to voting, and that turnout reminders that are difficult to

ignore—especially text messages—might be equally effec-

tive among that group of voters (Dale & Strauss, 2009). This

possibility is given further credibility by findings which

show that following up on the phone with individuals who

have already expressed an intention to vote can be highly

mobilizing, with effect sizes rivaling those of canvassing

(Michelson et al., 2009). To our knowledge, almost no one

has directly compared the merits of noticeable reminder

modes of contact, like text messages, with modes said to

increase social connectedness, like face-to-face canvassing.2

Furthermore, there is little to no research comparing the

influence of both of those methods combined with each

other and other common forms of campaign contacting, like

direct mail.3

1094295APRXXX10.1177/1532673X221094295American Politics ResearchShaw et al.

research-article2022

1Government Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Daron R. Shaw, Government Department, University of Texas at Austin,

1 University Station, A1800, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

Email: dshaw@austin.utexas.edu

Mobilizing Peripheral Partisan Voters:

A Field Experimental Analysis From

Three California Congressional Election

Campaigns

Daron R. Shaw1, Lindsay Dun1, and Sarah Heise1

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, an array of experimental research has demonstrated that face-to-face canvassing is the most effective

form of get-out-the-vote campaigning. Recent scholarship, however, suggests that text messaging can also have powerful

mobilization effects. Can the effects of text messaging match those of canvassing? We present a field experiment gauging the

effects of text messaging, canvassing, mail, and phone calls among medium propensity evangelical Christian voters in three

California battleground congressional districts for the 2018 midterm election. The results show significant turnout effects

associated with texting as well as any form of outreach followed by a late-October text message. This challenges the widely

held notion that personalized contacting is required to get voters to the polls; rather, we find that peripheral voters—often

targeted by campaigns for mobilization—may be receptive to anonymous but timely outreach.

Keywords

campaigns, voting, turnout, mobilization, evangelicals

2022, Vol. 50(5) 587–602

588 American Politics Research 50(5)

We aim to address this deficiency by analyzing a large-

scale GOTV effort targeting evangelical Christians from the

2018 congressional elections. More specifically, we conducted

field experiments that allow a comparison of canvassing

effects to text messaging, both on their own and in combina-

tion with other methods of campaign outreach. This more

closely approximates a typical campaign experience and thus

increases the external validity of our field experiment. It also

helps provide theoretical clarity to our understanding of why

and when particular mobilization techniques are effective.

We begin by first reviewing criticisms of the existing lit-

erature on campaign mobilization effects and explaining

how our study of evangelical Christian mobilization helps

address several of those critiques. We then discuss our con-

tribution to both the “Social Occasion Theor y” (Green &

Gerber, 2004, Dale & Strauss, 2009) and “Noticeable

Reminder Theory” (Dale & Strauss, 2009). Both theories

substantively inform the conceptualization and execution of

our field experimental design, and we discuss and compare

both in our results. Our findings support the nuance stressed

by Dale and Strauss: noticeable reminders to vote, delivered

close to an election, appear to be a critical component of

mobilization for evangelical Christian voters. Following

Malhotra et al. (2011), these effects can extend to casual vot-

ers in a high salience election.4 Surprisingly, stand-alone

canvassing effects are minimal compared to text message

effects, though canvassing can be mobilizing in combination

with some other GOTV modes. Although there are reasons to

be somewhat skeptical of the stand-alone canvassing results,

they do call into question if the “personal” nature of canvass-

ing, said to increase social connectedness among voters, is

doing all of the causal work in campaign mobilization efforts.

As Dale and Strauss note, this is not to say that social con-

nectedness is unimportant in mobilization for all voters;

rather, it may not be the most important factor for voters who

are already registered and simply need a reminder of their

commitment to voting.5

What We Know (and Don’t Know)

about Campaign Mobilization Effects

After decades in which correlational studies dominated anal-

yses of campaign effects, field experiments have become

prevalent among recent analyses of campaign mobilization.

These newer studies are axiomatically better at inferring cau-

sality than their predecessors and many appear to be exter-

nally valid. Green & Gerber (2019) offer a comprehensive

review of the most recent mobilization studies, concluding

that:

x Friend-to-friend communication about an upcoming

election can significantly raise voter turnout;

x Text messages from public officials or grass roots

organizations increase voter turnout (by an average of

0.29 percentage points, or one vote per 345 targeted

voters);

x Direct mail has only a minor positive effect on voter

turnout, with meta-analyses suggesting an average

boost of about 0.75 percentage points;

x Phone calls can increase turnout, but only high-qual-

ity, professional calls;

x Social media information campaigns consisting of

prominently displayed banner ads and “I voted” wid-

gets have no effect on turnout; such campaigns raise

turnout only when users are also presented with news

showing which of their friends have voted;

x Advertisements on social media platforms such as

Facebook produce little or no increase in turnout;

x E-mail designed to encourage voter participation has

negligible effects on voter registration, and E-mail

messages rarely increase voter turnout (Green &

Gerber, 2019: 118–119).

Despite the careful nature of most of the field experiments

and the plausibility of the findings, there are some limita-

tions to the inferences one can draw from this research.

Indeed, several pertinent criticisms of these studies inform

our research and merit delineation.

Critique #1: Existing studies mostly rely on non-partisan

and mild mobilization treatments. Although a few projects

have dipped their toes into the waters of partisan elections

(e.g., Cardy, 2005; Doherty & Adler, 2014; Gerber et al.,

2011; Green et al., 2016), the vast majority focus on the

effects of a small number of campaign “touches” in local and

(usually) non-partisan races (for an overview, see Green

et al., 2013; Green & Gerber, 2019; Kalla & Broockman,

2018). This neglects the most common and important mobi-

lization efforts in U.S. campaigns.

Critique #2: To the extent political science studies test

partisan mobilization treatments, they focus on racial and

ethnic minorities who lean decidedly to the left politically

(e.g., Michelson, 2006; Green, 2004; Ramírez, 2005; 2007;

Wong, 2005). Given that these are historically under-served

and under-mobilized groups, this is undoubtedly an impor-

tant area of research. It is unclear, however, how generaliz-

able results from these projects are to the broader electorate,

or to right-leaning groups.

Critique #3: Existing studies do not often test the interac-

tive effect of various forms of contacting. Rather, they tend

to offer singular and stand-alone mode tests, such that we

come away with a better sense of how much face-to-face

canvassing, direct mail, telephone calls, and email or other

digital contacting—by themselves—affect voters’ likeli-

hood to turn out to vote. Moreover, to the extent that differ-

ent combinations of campaign modes are tested, their

volume and timing rarely approximates what we see in

actual campaigns. The failure of existing studies to test the

interactive effects of campaign outreach is probably the