IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hrv/hksfac/8052150.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Motivating Voter Turnout by Invoking the Self

Author

Listed:
  • Rogers, Todd T

Abstract

Three randomized experiments found that subtle linguistic cues have the power to increase voting and related behavior. The phrasing of survey items was varied to frame voting either as the enactment of a personal identity (e.g., “being a voter†) or as simply a behavior (e.g., “voting†). As predicted, the personal-identity phrasing significantly increased interest in registering to vote (experiment 1) and, in two statewide elections in the United States, voter turnout as assessed by official state records (experiments 2 and 3). These results provide evidence that people are continually managing their self-concepts, seeking to assume or affirm valued personal identities. The results further demonstrate how this process can be channeled to motivate important socially relevant behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Rogers, Todd T, 2011. "Motivating Voter Turnout by Invoking the Self," Scholarly Articles 8052150, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:hrv:hksfac:8052150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8052150/Rogers-MotivatingVoter.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kettle, Stewart & Hernandez, Marco & Sanders, Michael & Hauser, Oliver & Ruda, Simon, 2017. "Failure to CAPTCHA Attention: Null Results from an Honesty Priming Experiment in Guatemala," Scholarly Articles 33490945, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Katherine Farrow & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2018. "What in the Word! The Scope for the Effect of Word Choice on Economic Behavior," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 557-580, November.
    3. Syon P. Bhanot & Gordon Kraft-Todd & David Rand & Erez Yoeli, 2018. "Putting social rewards and identity salience to the test: Evidence from a field experiment with teachers in Philadelphia," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 1(1).
    4. repec:bri:cmpowp:13/334 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Felix Koelle & Tom Lane & Daniele Nosenzo & Chris Starmer, 2017. "Nudging the electorate: what works and why?," Discussion Papers 2017-16, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Gosnell, Greer, 2018. "Communicating resourcefully: a natural field experiment on environmental framing and cognitive dissonance in going paperless," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 89815, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Ni Huang & Gordon Burtch & Yumei He & Yili Hong, 2022. "Managing Congestion in a Matching Market via Demand Information Disclosure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1196-1220, December.
    8. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2019. "Voter motivation and the quality of democratic choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 241-259.
    9. Ajzenman, Nicolás & Bertoni, Eleonora & Elacqua, Gregory & Marotta, Luana & Méndez, Carolina, 2020. "Altruism or Money?: Reducing Teacher Sorting Using Behavioral Strategies in Peru," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 10576, Inter-American Development Bank.
    10. Patrick, Vanessa M. & Hagtvedt, Henrik, 2012. "How to say “no”: Conviction and identity attributions in persuasive refusal," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 390-394.
    11. Maferima Touré-Tillery & Lili Wang, 2022. "The Good-on-Paper Effect: How the Decision Context Influences Virtuous Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 1004-1024, September.
    12. Michael Sanders & Elspeth Kirkman, 2014. "I've booked you a place. Good luck. A field experiment applying behavioural science to improve attendance at high-impact recruitment events," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 14/334, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    13. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    14. McCarthy, Julie M. & Bauer, Talya N. & Truxillo, Donald M. & Campion, Michael C. & Van Iddekinge, Chad H. & Campion, Michael A., 2017. "Using pre-test explanations to improve test-taker reactions: Testing a set of “wise” interventions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 43-56.
    15. Walid Merouani & Rana Jawad, 2022. "Political Attitudes and Participation among Young Arab Workers: A Comparison of Formal and Informal Workers in Five Arab Countries," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, October.
    16. Nicolás Maloberti, 2021. "Nudges for better voters," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 271-283, June.
    17. Goette, Lorenz & Tripodi, Egon, 2020. "Does positive feedback of social impact motivate prosocial behavior? A field experiment with blood donors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 1-8.
    18. Grady, Christopher & Iannantuoni, Alice & Winters, Matthew S., 2021. "Influencing the means but not the ends: The role of entertainment-education interventions in development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Raisa Sherif, 2022. "Why do we vote? Evidence on expressive voting," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-04, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    20. Touré-Tillery, Maferima & Light, Alysson E., 2018. "No self to spare: How the cognitive structure of the self influences moral behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 48-64.
    21. Charles Delmotte & Malte Dold, 2022. "Dynamic preferences and the behavioral case against sin taxes," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 80-99, March.
    22. Rogers, Todd & Aida, Masa, 2013. "Vote Self-Prediction Hardly Predicts Who Will Vote, and Is (Misleadingly) Unbiased," Working Paper Series rwp13-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    23. Michael Sanders & Elspeth Kirkman, 2019. "I've booked you a place, good luck: A field experiment applying behavioral science to improve attendance at high impact recruitment events," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    24. Nichola J Raihani & Katherine McAuliffe, 2014. "Dictator Game Giving: The Importance of Descriptive versus Injunctive Norms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, 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:hrv:hksfac:8052150. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Office for Scholarly Communication (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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.