How Experiments Help Campaigns Persuade Voters: Evidence from a Large Archive of Campaigns’ Own Experiments

Luke Hewitt, David E. Broockman, Alexander Coppock, Ben M. Tappin, James Slezak, Valerie Coffman, Nathaniel Lubin, Mohammad Hamidian
{"title":"How Experiments Help Campaigns Persuade Voters: Evidence from a Large Archive of Campaigns’ Own Experiments","authors":"Luke Hewitt, David E. Broockman, Alexander Coppock, Ben M. Tappin, James Slezak, Valerie Coffman, Nathaniel Lubin, Mohammad Hamidian","doi":"10.1017/s0003055423001387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political campaigns increasingly conduct experiments to learn how to persuade voters. Little research has considered the implications of this trend for elections or democracy. To probe these implications, we analyze a unique archive of 146 advertising experiments conducted by US campaigns in 2018 and 2020 using the platform Swayable. This archive includes 617 advertisements produced by 51 campaigns and tested with over 500,000 respondents. Importantly, we analyze the complete archive, avoiding publication bias. We find small but meaningful variation in the persuasive effects of advertisements. In addition, we find that common theories about what makes advertising persuasive have limited and context-dependent power to predict persuasiveness. These findings indicate that experiments can compound money’s influence in elections: it is difficult to predict ex ante which ads persuade, experiments help campaigns do so, but the gains from these findings principally accrue to campaigns well-financed enough to deploy these ads at scale.","PeriodicalId":505279,"journal":{"name":"American Political Science Review","volume":"124 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423001387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Political campaigns increasingly conduct experiments to learn how to persuade voters. Little research has considered the implications of this trend for elections or democracy. To probe these implications, we analyze a unique archive of 146 advertising experiments conducted by US campaigns in 2018 and 2020 using the platform Swayable. This archive includes 617 advertisements produced by 51 campaigns and tested with over 500,000 respondents. Importantly, we analyze the complete archive, avoiding publication bias. We find small but meaningful variation in the persuasive effects of advertisements. In addition, we find that common theories about what makes advertising persuasive have limited and context-dependent power to predict persuasiveness. These findings indicate that experiments can compound money’s influence in elections: it is difficult to predict ex ante which ads persuade, experiments help campaigns do so, but the gains from these findings principally accrue to campaigns well-financed enough to deploy these ads at scale.
实验如何帮助竞选活动说服选民:来自大型竞选活动自身实验档案的证据
政治竞选活动越来越多地通过实验来学习如何说服选民。很少有研究考虑过这一趋势对选举或民主的影响。为了探究这些影响,我们利用 Swayable 平台分析了美国竞选团队在 2018 年和 2020 年进行的 146 次广告实验的独特档案。该档案包括 51 个竞选团队制作的 617 个广告,并对 50 多万名受访者进行了测试。重要的是,我们分析了完整的档案,避免了出版偏差。我们发现广告的说服效果存在微小但有意义的差异。此外,我们还发现,关于广告说服力的常见理论在预测广告说服力方面的作用有限,且取决于具体情况。这些发现表明,实验可以使金钱在选举中的影响复合化:事前很难预测哪些广告具有说服力,实验可以帮助竞选活动做到这一点,但这些发现的收益主要归于那些资金充足、能够大规模投放这些广告的竞选活动。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信