STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Researchers applying psychology to the realm of politics are finding that giving voters a few strategic nudges can push far more people in the direction of polls on election day.

Old standard get-out-the-vote phone call scripts made by volunteers simply asked people to participate in the election and reminded callers that voting was important. But now, using insights on how people make decisions, political parties and other organizations are finding that subtle changes in language even from a verb to a noun can make a substantial difference in how many people cast ballots.

Studies presented at Stanford on March 30 showed that more voters are motivated to go to the booths when they are told turnout will be high and when they are provoked to discuss plans for getting there. Moreover, they also are more likely to vote when they are threatened with personal accountability and when they are encouraged to see voting as an intrinsic part of their identity, rather than just something they do.

Since the 2006 election, in fact, organizations have doubled or tripled the efficiency of their get-out-the-vote budgets by including such messages, according to Todd Rogers, a Harvard professor and former founding executive director of the political research organization Analyst Institute. Rogers presented the work to nonprofit and corporate leaders assembled for The Science of Getting People to Do Good briefing, sponsored by the Center for Social Innovation at the Graduate School of Business.

Typical voter campaign telephone scripts just encouraging people to vote, Rogers said, end up being a total waste of time and have no impact on voting behavior. What works in such calls, instead, is getting people to form a voting plan.

In a controlled study of voter mobilization phone calls in the 2008 Pennsylvania presidential primary, which pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, researchers discovered that differences in scripts affected turnout. Scripts that guided people to think through the logistical details of their plans for voting such as when they intended to head to the polls, how they would get there, and what they would be doing beforehand were more than twice as effective as the standard scripts that simply asked people if they intended to vote.

This shows that cognitive planning and mechanical logistics, not just motivation, are part of the voting decision, Rogers noted. But the plan-making only affected single-voter households. Voters who live alone are less likely to have a plan than people who live in groups or families, where discussing the next days events are a natural part of life. So the intervention has much more impact on those who live alone, Rogers said.

Personal accountability matters, too. In a study of the 2010 general election, researchers sent one group of potential voters a psychologically sophisticated mailing encouraging them to vote. Another group received the same mailing, plus in the top right corner a box saying: We may call you after the election to talk about your voting experience. Adding that box increased the effectiveness of the mailing in terms of the voting it stimulated by almost half. The effect was especially strong among those who were the most civically engaged, based on their answers to a post-election survey of civic questions like: How many amendments are there in the Bill of Rights?

Join the Trend or Buck the Trend?

A common tactic used by press, politicians, and pundits to get people to vote has simply been to lament low voter turnout. But, Rogers has conducted research showing that such messages actually demotivate voting. This is because people are fundamentally social beings, and so the behavior of others influences their behavior, he explained.

The rest is here:
Getting Out the Vote