Making sense of voting “habits”: Applying the process model of behavior change to a series of large-scale get-out-the-vote experiments

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1017/xps.2023.25

John Ternovski

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract I apply a new theoretical framework to voting to more cohesively bridge the economic cost-benefit model of voting with the psychology-motivated voting-as-a-habit literature. This new theoretical frame gives greater clarity as to how a vote in one election might beget a vote in another election, while yielding testable predictions as to which circumstances are more favorable for developing turnout persistence. To test these predictions, I make use of a novel dataset consisting of nine large-N, door-to-door voter mobilization field experiments in various election contexts (with ∼1.8 million voters in total). Consistent with prior empirical research, my analysis finds that being nudged to vote in one election leads to increased turnout four years later. But the main contribution of this paper is that the theoretical framework’s predictions and the corresponding empirical results make sense of turnout persistence heterogeneities that have been detected in certain prior empirical studies but not others.

查看原文本刊更多论文

理解投票“习惯”:将行为改变的过程模型应用于一系列大规模的动员投票实验

本文将一个新的理论框架应用到投票中，将投票的经济成本效益模型与心理动机的投票作为一种习惯的文献更紧密地联系起来。这一新的理论框架更清楚地说明了一次选举中的投票如何可能引发另一次选举中的投票，同时也给出了可检验的预测，即哪种情况更有利于培养投票率的持久性。为了测试这些预测，我使用了一个新的数据集，该数据集由不同选举背景下的9个大n，挨家挨户的选民动员现场实验组成(总共有180万选民)。与之前的实证研究一致，我的分析发现，在一次选举中被推动投票会导致四年后的投票率增加。但本文的主要贡献在于，理论框架的预测和相应的实证结果使投票率持续异质性在某些先前的实证研究中发现，而在其他实证研究中没有发现。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.