IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268640.html

A cash lottery increases voter turnout

Author

Listed:
  • Raymond J La Raja
  • Brian F Schaffner

Abstract

Reform efforts to improve turnout typically focus on reducing the costs of participation or strengthening appeals to civic duty. While these efforts generate modest effects, this paper explores whether citizens might respond to extrinsic rewards to encourage voting. We conduct a field experiment offering lottery prizes to undergraduate students in conjunction with a student government election at a major public university. We find that extrinsic rewards appear to boost voting significantly in these low turnout elections and that the effects of a lottery appear to be especially strong among those of lower socio-economic status.

Suggested Citation

  • Raymond J La Raja & Brian F Schaffner, 2022. "A cash lottery increases voter turnout," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268640
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268640
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268640&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2008. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 33-48, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kornhauser, Lewis & Lu, Yijia & Tontrup, Stephan, 2025. "Why Incentives Don't Crowd Out Prosocial Motivation When Behavior is Driven by Mixed Motives," EconStor Preprints 335207, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cantoni, Enrico & Gazzè, Ludovica & Schafer, Jerome, 2021. "Turnout in concurrent elections: Evidence from two quasi-experiments in Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    3. Mitchell Hoffman & Gianmarco Leon, 2011. "Social Networks and Voting," Working Papers 11-08, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    4. Bamieh, Omar & Cintolesi, Andrea, 2021. "Intergenerational transmission in regulated professions and the role of familism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 857-879.
    5. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    6. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    7. Patricia Funk, 2012. "How accurate are surveyed preferences for public policies? Evidence from a unique institutional setup," Economics Working Papers 1334, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Nov 2013.
    8. Bloem, Michael D. & Holbein, John B. & Imlay, Samuel J. & Smith, Jonathan, 2025. "Voting Among Siblings," IZA Discussion Papers 17962, IZA Network @ LISER.
    9. Donald P. Green & Shang E. Ha & John G. Bullock, 2010. "Enough Already about “Black Box†Experiments: Studying Mediation Is More Difficult than Most Scholars Suppose," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 200-208, March.
    10. repec:ehu:ikerla:6417 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Hoffman, Mitchell & León, Gianmarco & Lombardi, María, 2017. "Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: Evidence from Austria," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 103-115.
    12. Idunn Nørbech, 2024. "Does policy context matter for citizen engagement in policymaking? Evidence from the European Commission's public consultation regime," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 130-150, March.
    13. Hillman, Arye L. & Metsuyanim, Kfir & Potrafke, Niklas, 2015. "Democracy with group identity," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 274-287.
    14. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    15. Bhanot, Syon P., 2017. "Rank and response: A field experiment on peer information and water use behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 155-172.
    16. Kaytlynn Clemons & David B. Johnson & Amy Kiger & Janice Putnam, 2018. "Decreasing Campus Smoking With Punishments And Social Pressures," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 629-643, October.
    17. repec:unl:unlfep:wp2503 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Kai Jäger, 2020. "When Do Campaign Effects Persist for Years? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 836-851, October.
    19. Hager, Anselm & Hensel, Lukas & Hermle, Johannes & Roth, Christopher, 2020. "Does Party Competition Affect Political Activism?," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 488, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    20. Eric Beerbohm & Ryan Davis & Adam Kern, 2020. "The democratic limits of political experiments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(4), pages 321-342, November.
    21. Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "Selective Recognition: How to Recognize Donors to Increase Charitable Giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1489-1496, July.
    22. Anya Savikhin Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2014. "Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268640. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.