IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/net/wpaper/1108.html

Social Networks and Voting

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper uses a randomized experiment to study whether social networks affect vote choice. In a fiercely contested presidential election in Peru with ten candidates, only 35% of subjects were aware how their friends intended to vote. We compare people who were randomly informed how one of their friends intended to vote to people who were randomly informed how an un-named stranger intended to vote. We find no evidence that informing people how their friends intended to vote affects their vote choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Mitchell Hoffman & Gianmarco Leon, 2011. "Social Networks and Voting," Working Papers 11-08, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    • Handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:1108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.netinst.org/Hoffman_Leon_11_08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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.
    2. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang, 2009. "Observational Learning: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 864-882, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bhanot, Syon P., 2021. "Isolating the effect of injunctive norms on conservation behavior: New evidence from a field experiment in California," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 30-42.
    2. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    3. 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).
    4. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    5. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    6. Mayank Aggarwal & Anindya S. Chakrabarti & Chirantan Chatterjee, 2023. "Movies, stigma and choice: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1019-1039, May.
    7. Harry Pei, 2020. "Reputation Building under Observational Learning," Papers 2006.08068, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    8. Tingting Song & Jinghua Huang & Yong Tan & Yifan Yu, 2019. "Using User- and Marketer-Generated Content for Box Office Revenue Prediction: Differences Between Microblogging and Third-Party Platforms," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 191-203, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Grinstein, Amir & Bolderdijk, Jan Willem & Risselada, Hans, 2025. "From i-level to g-level to s-level change: New methods for a new mindset for consumer researchers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Engström, Per & Forsell, Eskil, 2018. "Demand effects of consumers’ stated and revealed preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 43-61.
    15. Kee, Jennifer Y. & Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A., 2023. "Slim or Plus-Size Burrito? A natural experiment of consumers’ restaurant choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Seul-Ki Kim & Young-Chul Kim, 2021. "Coed vs Single-Sex Schooling: An Empirical Study on Mental Health Outcomes," Working Papers 2103, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    17. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    18. Bloem, Michael D. & Holbein, John B. & Imlay, Samuel J. & Smith, Jonathan, 2025. "Voting Among Siblings," IZA Discussion Papers 17962, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. 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.
    20. Grohmann, Antonia Charlotte & Sakha, Sahra, 2015. "The Effect of Peer Observation on the Consumption of Temptation Goods: Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113084, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:net:wpaper:1108. 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: Nicholas Economides (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.NETinst.org/ .

    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.