IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of Voter Persuasion Efforts


  • Bailey, Michael

    (Georgetown University)

  • Hopkins, Daniel J.

    (Georgetown University)

  • Rogers, Todd

    (Harvard University)


Can randomized experiments at the individual level help assess the persuasive effects of campaign tactics? In the contemporary U.S., vote choice is not observable, so one promising research design involves randomizing appeals and then using a survey to measure vote intentions. Here, we analyze one such field experiment conducted during the 2008 presidential election in which 56,000 registered voters were assigned to persuasion in person, by phone, and/or by mail. Persuasive appeals by canvassers had two unintended consequences. First, they reduced responsiveness to the follow-up survey, lowering the response rate sharply among infrequent voters. Second, various statistical methods to address the resulting biases converge on a counterintuitive conclusion: the persuasive canvassing reduced candidate support. Our results allow us to rule out even small effects in the intended direction and illustrate the backlash that attempts at inter-personal persuasion can engender.

Suggested Citation

  • Bailey, Michael & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Rogers, Todd, 2013. "Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of Voter Persuasion Efforts," Working Paper Series rwp13-034, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp13-034

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Hersh, Eitan, 2012. "Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(04), pages 437-459, September.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna & Matthew Gentzkow, 2010. "Persuasion: Empirical Evidence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 643-669, September.
    3. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Mitali Das & Whitney K. Newey & Francis Vella, 2003. "Nonparametric Estimation of Sample Selection Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 33-58.
    5. Siddique, Juned & Belin, Thomas R., 2008. "Using an Approximate Bayesian Bootstrap to multiply impute nonignorable missing data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 405-415, December.
    6. repec:cup:apsrev:v:95:y:2001:i:01:p:49-69_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. David C. Wyld, 2010. "ASecond Life for organizations?: managing in the new, virtual world," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 33(6), pages 529-562, May.
    8. repec:cup:apsrev:v:101:y:2007:i:04:p:637-655_07 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Moore, Ryan T., 2012. "Multivariate Continuous Blocking to Improve Political Science Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(04), pages 460-479, September.
    10. Cranmer, Skyler J. & Gill, Jeff, 2013. "We Have to Be Discrete About This: A Non-Parametric Imputation Technique for Missing Categorical Data," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(02), pages 425-449, April.
    11. Glynn, Adam N. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2010. "An Introduction to the Augmented Inverse Propensity Weighted Estimator," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(01), pages 36-56, December.
    12. Kosuke Imai & Gary King & Elizabeth A. Stuart, 2008. "Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 481-502.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ecl:harjfk:rwp13-034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.