This article estimates the extent to which nonpartisan phone calls from commercial phone banks increase voter turnout. Prior to the 1998 and 2002 elections, randomized field experiments were conducted in which more than 1 million subjects were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions. The results indicate that this type of phone calling campaign is ineffective.
Adams, William C., and Dennis J. Smith. 1980. Effects of telephone canvassing on turnout and preferences: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly44:389-395.
2.
Angrist, Joshua D., Guido W. Imbens, and Donald B. Rubin. 1996. Identification of casual effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association91:444-455.
3.
Cardy, Emily Arthur. 2005. An experimental study of the GOTV and persuasion effects of partisan direct mail and phone calls. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601:28-40.
4.
Eldersveld, Samuel J.1956. Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior. American Political Science Review50:154-165.
5.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review94:653-663.
6.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2001.Do phone calls increase voter turnout? A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly65:75-85.
7.
Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and David Nickerson. 2001. Testing for publication bias in political science. Political Analysis9:385-392.
8.
Green, Donald P.2004. Mobilizing African-Americans using direct mail and commercial phone banks: A field experiment. Political Research Quarterly57 (2): 245-255.
9.
Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Get out the vote! How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10.
Greenwald, Anthony G., C. G. Carnot, R. Beach, and B. Young. 1987. Increasing coting behavior by asking people if they expect to vote. Journal of Applied Psychology72:315-318.
11.
Kramer, Gerald H.1970. The effects of precinct-level canvassing on voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly34:560-572.
12.
McNulty, John E.2005. Phone-based GOTV—What’s on the line? Field experiments with varied partisan components, 2002-2003. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601:41-65.
13.
Miller, Roy E., David A. Bositis, and Denise L. Baer. 1981. Stimulating voter turnout in a primary: Field experiment with a precinct committeeman. International Political Science Review2:445-460.
14.
Morwitz, Vicki G., Eric Johnson, and David Schmittlein. 1993. Does measuring intent change behavior?Journal of Consumer Research20:46-61.
15.
Nickerson, David W.2004. Phone calls can increase turnout: Evidence from six field experiments. Manuscript, Institute for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
16.
Nickerson, David W., Ryan D. Friedrichs, and David C. King. Forthcoming. Mobilization campaigns in the field: Results from a statewide turnout experiment in Michigan. Political Research Quarterly.
17.
Ramírez, Ricardo. 2005. Giving voice to Latino voters: A field experiment on the effectiveness of a national nonpartisan mobilization effort. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601:66-84.
18.
Reams, Margaret A., and Brooks H. Ray. 1993. The effects of three prompting methods on recycling participation rates: A field study. Journal of Environmental Systems22 (4): 371-379.
19.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
