The experimental literature on voter mobilization establishes the efficacy of canvassing as a tool of voter mobilization. However, the current literature gives scant attention to the question of whether some types of canvassers may be more effective than others. This article takes the first step toward developing a positive theory of effective or ineffective canvassing. Using descriptive, qualitative data from 10 focus groups conducted in 2006, I find that voters have preferences for the types of campaign representatives they want to visit them. The results of these focus groups lay the groundwork for further experimental study and provide guidelines for practitioners instituting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts.
Adams, W.C., & Smith, D.J. ( 1980). Effects of telephone canvassing on turnout and preferences: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 389-395.
2.
Blumenthal, M. ( 2008, October 15). Bradley-Wilder: New data on interviewer race . Pollster.com [Online source]. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://www.pollster.com/blogs/bradleywilder_new_data_on_inte.php
3.
Blydenburgh, J.C. ( 1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning. Midwest Journal of Political Science , 15, 365-381.
4.
Downs, A. ( 1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
5.
Eldersveld, S.J. ( 1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior . American Political Science Review, 50, 154-165.
6.
Fisher, D.R. ( 2006). Activism, Inc: How the outsourcing of grassroots campaigns is strangling progressive politics in America. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
Gerber, A.S., & Green, D.P. ( 2000). The effects of canvassing, direct mail and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653-663.
8.
Gillespie, A. ( 2005). Community, coordination and context: A black politics perspective on voter mobilization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
9.
Gosnell, H.F. ( 1927). Getting out the vote: Experiments in the stimulation of voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Green, D.P., & Gerber, A.S. ( 2004). Get out the vote! How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
11.
Green, D.P., Gerber, A.S., & Nickerson, D. ( 2003). Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door experiments. Journal of Politics, 65, 1083-1096.
12.
Hopkins, D. ( 2008). No more Wilder effect, never a Whitman effect: When and why polls mislead about Black and female candidates. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf
13.
Knowledge Networks. (2008). The Associated Press-Yahoo poll. Wave 6. In partnership with Stanford University. Interview Dates: August 27, 2008-September 5, 2008 (N = 2227). Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
14.
Kramer, G.H. ( 1970). The effects of precinct-level canvassing on voter behavior . Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 560-572.
15.
Lafferty, B., & Goldsmith, R.E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109-116.
16.
LaPiere, R.T. ( 1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces , 13, 230-237.
17.
Lupfer, M., & Price, D.E. ( 1972). On the merits of face-to-face canvassing. Social Science Quarterly, 53, 534-543.
18.
Michelson, M. ( 2003). Getting out the Latino vote: How door-to-door canvassing influences voter turnout in rural central California. Political Behavior, 25, 247-263.
19.
Miller, R.E., Bositis, D.A., & Baer, D.L. ( 1981). Stimulating voter turnout in a primary: Field experiment with a precinct committeeman. International Political Science Review, 2, 445-460.
20.
Nickerson, D.W. ( 2007). Quality is job one: Professional and volunteer voter mobilization calls. American Journal of Political Science , 51, 269-282.
21.
Pew Research Center. (2007). Optimism about Black progress declines (Monograph). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
22.
Price, D.E., & Lupfer, M. ( 1973). Volunteers for Gore: The impact of a precinct-level canvass in three Tennessee cities. Journal of Politics, 35, 410-438.
23.
Rehman, S.U., Nietert, P.J., Cope, D.W., & Kilpatrick, A.O. (2005). What to wear today? Effect of doctor’s attire on the trust and confidence of patients. American Journal of Medicine, 118, 1279-1286.
24.
Rosenstone, S.J., & Hansen, J.M. ( 1993). Mobilization, participation and democracy in America . New York: Macmillan.
Sinclair, B., McConnell, M., & Michelson, M. (2009, February 12). Strangers vs. neighbors: The efficacy of grassroots mobilization (Working Paper). Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://home.uchicago.edu/~betsy/papers/SinclairStrangersvsNeighbors.pdf
27.
Spaccarelli, S., Zolik, E., & Jason, L.A. ( 1989-1990). Effects of verbal prompting and block characteristics on participation in curbside recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems, 19, 45-57.
