Testing Overall and Synergistic Campaign Effects in a Partisan Statewide Election

• Author: Daron Shaw,Christopher Blunt,Brent Seaborn
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912917738577
• Published date: 01 June 2018
• Date: 01 June 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917738577

Political Research Quarterly

2018, Vol. 71(2) 361 –379

© 2017 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912917738577

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Introduction

Since the late 1990s, political science research has shed

considerable light on the influence of common modes of

campaign communication—mail, telephones, and in-per-

son contacting—on U.S. voters and elections. But the

effects of the dominant modes—broadcast and online

advertising—as well as the synergistic and overall effects

of electioneering, remain a matter of dispute. The main

reason for this is straightforward: American campaigns

are noisy, and it is difficult to isolate the independent

impact of singular forms of outreach. More generally,

calculating the sum of these impacts and offering esti-

mates of the interactive and total effects of the campaign

is close to impossible.

Still, the allure of learning more about this essential

element of democratic functioning is compelling. As

many have observed, campaigns are the connective tissue

between voters and elected officials (Campbell 2008).

Campaigns are where candidates convey promises and

commitments that bind them to specific policy acts as

public officials. They establish the basis for accountabil-

ity and, in no minor way, democracy.

Beyond their importance for democratic theory, we are

also fascinated with campaigns because of the time, energy,

and money they consume. Are they worth the effort we

invest in them? Indeed, the disbelieving reaction of practi-

tioners and pundits to findings of “minimal effects” on the

part of some campaign scholars is no doubt caused by the

assumption that smart, rational people could not possibly

spend so much for so negligible an effect.

Against this backdrop, we want to know if campaigns

successfully persuade and mobilize voters. To engage this

question, the primary goals of this study are (1) to gauge

the distinct and synergistic effects of different forms of

campaigning, as designed and executed by real-life prac-

titioners and (2) to estimate the cumulative effects of a

campaign. To attain these goals, we rely on a field experi-

ment testing the simultaneous effects of several distinct

forms of campaign communication in a statewide, parti-

san campaign for governor of Texas.1

Theorizing about Campaign Effects

When considering the impact of electioneering, we distin-

guish between “modes” of outreach. Different campaign

modes vary on two salient dimensions: frequency and tar-

geting precision. Frequency refers to the number of times

738577PRQXXX10.1177/1065912917738577Political Research QuarterlyShaw et al.

research-article2017

1University of Texas at Austin, USA

2Overbrook Research, Leslie, MI, USA

3TargetPoint Consulting, Alexandria, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

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

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

Email: dshaw@austin.utexas.edu

Testing Overall and Synergistic

Campaign Effects in a Partisan

Statewide Election

Daron Shaw1, Christopher Blunt2, and Brent Seaborn3

Abstract

Although studies based on field experiments and large-N surveys have enhanced our understanding of how campaigns

affect U.S. elections, few of these projects have (1) considered the synergistic effects of distinct aspects of the campaign,

(2) focused on statewide, partisan elections, or (3) considered the durability of any estimated campaign effects. We

rely on a massive field experiment from the 2014 Texas gubernatorial campaign to assess the individual, synergistic,

and collective impact of a variety of outreach modes on the electorate. The data demonstrate some durable synergistic

and overall campaign effects on voters’ attitudes toward the sponsoring candidate, with lesser effects on turnout. In

addition, while the results indicate that television is rightly considered the most effective mover of voters, radio and

Internet advertising also have notable effects and may, in fact, deliver a better return on investment.

Keywords

campaigns, elections, field experiments, mobilization, persuasion

362 Political Research Quarterly 71(2)

that an individual voter is exposed to a campaign message.

Targeting precision refers to the match between the cam-

paign message and the attitudes of individual voters.

Campaign effects are most likely when receptive voters

are repeatedly exposed to persuasive messages.

To the chagrin of practitioners, campaign modes that

offer the greatest potential with respect to frequency and

repetition (television and radio) are also broadcast to

many unreceptive voters. Conversely, campaign modes

that offer the greatest potential for precise and personal

targeting (digital, mail, phones, and face-to-face) are the

most easily discarded, blocked, or refused by voters. This

conundrum is borne out by empirical analyses, which

show substantial but temporary effects for television

advertising (Gerber et al. 2010) and small effects for digi-

tal, mail, and phones (Gerber and Green 2004; Huber and

Arceneaux 2007).

Additional leverage can be gained on the question of

aggregate campaign effects by considering voter (or

“receiver”) characteristics. Previous studies demon-

strate that the ability of campaigns to persuade is sub-

stantially conditioned by the attitudinal predispositions

of the audience. Most notably, political awareness

increases the likelihood of “reception” (Zaller 1992),

but it also leads to greater stores of information and

thus lessens the likelihood that voters will “yield” to

additional information. High intensity election cam-

paigns experienced by low awareness voters are there-

fore often regarded as the most likely to produce an

impact (e.g., Ridout and Franz 2011).2

Besides political awareness, partisanship should

moderate how voters react to campaign information.

Independents, who lack a partisan filter that causes

them to resist messages coming from certain sources,

should be most receptive to this information. Partisans,

on the contrary, should be moved by messages coming

from their side, but will resist information coming from

the other side.3

But while it is important to understand that campaign-

ing has distinct forms and that voters come with various

levels of political interest and attachment to the parties, it

is equally important to acknowledge that both campaigns

and voters are evolving. Campaigns have gotten better at

identifying voters who are relatively more receptive to

specific issue appeals (through large-N surveys and data

analytics performed on registered voter lists) while cam-

paign modes have been refined and expanded to improve

their reach (through the proliferation of Internet access,

as well as through the prevalence of cable and Internet

television and satellite radio). Quite simply, campaigns

have improved tactically. This improvement has been

most apparent since the 2000 election, just as voters have

polarized in their views of the two major parties (e.g.,

Iyengar and Westwood 2015).

These twin developments are consequential for our

understanding of campaign effects. For example, in a

race with a polarized electorate and precise targeting,

we would expect significant effects through the activa-

tion or mobilization of partisans. We suspect that most

statewide partisan elections of today—presidential,

gubernatorial, and U.S. senate races—fall into this cat-

egory. But many other election contests fall outside this

category. For instance, some lower profile statewide

races and many local elections feature a polarized envi-

ronment but campaigning with less reach or with less

precise targeting; these should result in less substantial

mobilization. Conversely, in a less polarized environ-

ment with wide-spread yet targeted electioneering—for

example, some mayoral or city council elections—cam-

paigns should have significant persuasive effects on

what is likely to be a relatively independent, open-

minded electorate.

Research Expectations for the Texas Study

Assuming the posited relationship between reach, target-

ing precision, and voter receptivity, we have several

attendant expectations. First, campaigning ought to affect

vote choice. The theoretical literature discussed earlier

and most empirical studies (e.g., Hillygus and Jackman

2003; Shaw 2006) suggest that campaigns can influence

attitudes toward the candidates, so our focus is on con-

firming this conventional wisdom.

Second, campaigning should also affect turnout.

Unlike studies of campaign persuasion, many turnout

studies suggest that effects are small or nonexistent (e.g.,

Krasno and Green 2008). But recent research on aggre-

gate campaigning and turnout is more positive (Issenberg

2012) and one study of battleground states in the 2012

presidential election estimated a mobilization effect of

between 7 and 8 points (Enos and Fowler 2016).

Furthermore, there is also the specter of increased polar-

ization, which suggests mobilization is perhaps the most

likely campaign effect. Consequently, we focus here on

adding something new to a rather fulsome debate.

Our third (but perhaps most important) expectation is

that campaigns have synergistic effects on voters. The

notion that campaign effects are synergistic has only

occasionally been tested, with little supportive evidence

being proffered (Cardy 2005; Fieldhouse et al. 2013;

Gerber and Green 2004). But these tests have largely

been incidental to the studies, and they have focused on

the interactive effects between direct mail and paid phone

calls. We think the “reach versus targeting precision”

conundrum makes it probable that campaigns use an “all

of the above” approach. More to the point, we think the

combination of different forms of outreach is likely to

affect voters.