This research tested the conventional wisdom that interactive voice recognition (IVR; also known as robocalls or auto calls) are not listened to by receivers. The study found that three out of four people (75%) listen to over 19 s of a message, which equates to over 40 words. The vast majority of people, 97%, listen to at least 6 s. This innovative, unobtrusive field approach for measuring actual listening time eliminates self-report bias. The unique data set, provided by a third-party vendor, consisted of 156 call projects with a total of 389,588 live answered phone calls from the last week of the 2012 election.
BroockmanD. E.GreenD. P. (2013). Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9239-z
2.
FulfordC. P.ZhangS.Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
3.
GerberA. S.GimpelJ. G.GreenD. P.ShawD. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135-150.
4.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.LarimerC. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33-47.
5.
GreenD. (2003). Get-out-the-vote: What works. Social Policy, 34, 60-62.
6.
GreenD.KarlanD. (2006). Effects of robotic calls on voter mobilization. Unpublished manuscript, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
7.
HillS. J.LoJ.VavreckL.ZallerJ. (2012). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.
8.
ImaiK. (2005). Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 283-300.
9.
KumkaleG. T.AlbarracinD. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 143-172.
10.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
11.
McNultyJ. E. (2002, August/September). Get-out-the-vote drives and turnout. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
12.
NickersonD. W. (2002, August/September). Hunting the elusive young voter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
13.
NickersonD. W.RogersT. (2010). Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychological Science, 21(2), 194-199.
14.
NivenD. (2004). The mobilization solution? Face-to-face contact and voter turnout in a municipal election. Journal of Politics, 66(3), 868-884.
15.
OlivolaC.TodorovA. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83-110. doi:10.1007/ s10919-009-0082-1
16.
PattersonT. E.McClureR. D. (1977). The unseeing eye. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group.
17.
RamirezR. (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 Science, 601, 66-84.
18.
StokesD. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368-377.
VerhulstB.LodgeM.LavineH. (2010). The attractiveness halo: Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 111-117.
21.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6). doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00154
