Survey researchers have long been concerned with the question of whether participation in preelection surveys increases voter turnout. This article presents findings from three large-scale field experiments conducted during the 2002 general election in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Unlike early studies, which found that participation in preelection surveys increased voter turnout, this study finds no significant effect. The author argues that the rigorous experimental methodology and large sample size in these three experiments should allay concern that survey participation affects turnout.
Clausen, A. R.1968. Response validity—Vote report. Public Opinion Quarterly32 (4): 588-606.
2.
Deane, C., and R. Morin. 2003. Polls in black and white: Examining the differences in the demographics of RDD and RBS surveys in Maryland. Paper presented at the American Association of Public Opinion Research annual conference, Nashville, TN.
3.
Gerber, A. S., and D. P. Green. 2000. The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review94 (3): 653-663.
4.
Gerber, A. S., and D. P. Green. 2001. Do phone calls increase voter turnout? A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly65 (1): 75-85.
5.
Gerber, A. S., D. P. Green, and E. H. Kaplan. 2004. The illusion of learning from observational research. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, ed. I. Shapiro, R. M. Smith, and T. E. Masoud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Granberg, D., and S. Holmberg. 1992. The Hawthorne effect in election studies—The impact of survey participation on voting. British Journal of Political Science22:240-247.
7.
Green, D. P., and A. S. Gerber. 2003. Enough already with random digit dialing: Using registration-based sampling to improve pre-election polling. Paper presented at American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Nashville, TN.
8.
Greenwald, A. G., C. G. Carnot, R. Beach, and B. Young. 1987. Increasing voting-behavior by asking people if they expect to vote. Journal of Applied Psychology72 (2): 315-318.
9.
Kraut, R. E., and J. B. McConahay. 1973. How being interviewed affects voting—Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly37 (3): 398-406.
10.
Mann, C. B. 2003. Getting pre-election surveys right: The effects of advance letters on pre-election forecasting. Paper presented at American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Nashville, TN.
11.
Mann, C. B.2005. Do advance letters improve pre-election forecast accuracy? Working papers of the Institute for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
12.
Schwartz, D., and C. Richards. 2003. The big east two: A comparison of RBS and RDD polls in the 2002 elections in New York and Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the American Association of Public Opinion Research annual conference, Nashville, TN.
13.
Sherman, S. J.1980. On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39 (2): 211-221.
14.
Smith, J. K., A. S. Gerber, and A. Orlich. 2003. Self-prophecy effects and voter turnout: An experimental replication. Political Psychology24 (3): 593-604.
15.
Spangenberg, E. R., and A. G. Greenwald. 1999. Social influence by requesting self-prophecy. Journal of Consumer Psychology8 (1): 61-89.
16.
Sprott, D. E., E. R. Spangenberg, and R. Fisher. 2003. The importance of normative beliefs tothe self-prophecy effect. Journal of Applied Psychology88 (3): 423-431.
17.
Yalch, R. F.1976. Pre-election interview effects on voter turnout. Public Opinion Quarterly40(3): 331-336.
