Polit Behav
DOI 10.1007/s11109-008-9066-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Does the Content of Political Appeals Matter
in Motivating Participation? A Field Experiment
on Self-disclosure in Political Appeals
Hahrie C. Han
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Although robust citizen participation is fundamental to a healthy
democracy, we still lack a clear sense of how to motivate participation. This paper
presents the results of an experimental study designed to see if the content of
political appeals matters in motivating participation. Previous research in this area
has had mixed results. This paper finds that political appeals that include some selfdisclosure about the person making the request triggers a liking heuristic that causes
subjects to be more likely to comply with a request for action. Subjects receiving the
treatment appeal are significantly more likely to donate money to support a political
cause.
Keywords Political participation Political appeals Canvassing Self-disclosure Field experiment
Crafting an effective political appeal is central to the work of political parties,
campaigns, and other advocacy organizations. All of these organizations face the
normative and practical challenge of motivating participation. To be successful,
political organizations and campaigns must motivate people to engage in myriad
political activities, such as voting, making calls on behalf of their candidate or
cause, canvassing, recruiting others for participation, and donating money. As such,
the success of these organizations can depend on their ability to craft an appeal that
successfully motivates participation.
What makes some political appeals more effective at motivating participation
than others? In studying the art of persuasion, social psychologists argue that a key
H. C. Han (&)
Department of Political Science, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Polit Behav
factor in persuading people to comply with requests is likeability—people are more
likely to comply with requests when they like the person making the request (see
e.g. Cialdini and Goldstein 2004 for a summary of this research). The logic is
simple. Human beings have a fundamental desire to affiliate with others. This desire
leads people to take actions to cultivate social relationships with people they like.
One way to cultivate these relationships is to comply with requests from people they
like. This idea is consistent with a wealth of research in political science showing
that social and relational desires often underlie participation (Wilson 1973; Miller
2005; Leighley 2001; Mutz 1998; Knoke 1988; Schlozman et al. 1995; Cialdini and
Goldstein 2004). The challenge for political appeals, however, is that the person
delivering the appeal is generally a stranger. Whether it is a phone-banker calling
someone’s home, a canvasser knocking at the door, or an organization televising an
advertisement, strangers are often asking other strangers to participate. Under these
circumstances, is it possible to craft political appeals that make targets treat phonebankers, canvassers, and other strangers making requests as friends or
acquaintances?
This experimental study shows that changing two sentences in the text of a
political appeal triggers a liking heuristic that makes people more likely to take
political action. As a field experiment, the study closely simulates typical
canvassing activity of actual political organizations. Study participants are stopped
in the middle of a busy metropolitan area to listen to a political appeal about the
need for greater environmental protection. Some people receive a basic political
appeal that is typical of many advocacy organizations while others receive an
experimental appeal in which the person making the appeal reveals a bit of personal
information designed to trigger a liking heuristic. Then, participants are asked to
donate money to support the work of an environmental advocacy organization.
Asking people to donate money allows us to observe on the spot how people
respond to the appeal and whether or not they choose to engage in this authentic act
of political participation. This procedure mirrors the kind of street canvassing that
many political organizations do, ranging from political parties seeking to register
voters, to organizations like PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) seeking to
mobilize people on behalf of political causes, to political campaigns seeking
signatures to get a candidate’s name on the ballot. Although the experimental
manipulation is small, the results show that people receiving the experimental
appeal are significantly more likely to donate money to support the cause than
people who receive the basic appeal.
This study contributes to our understanding of what motivates political
participation in two main ways. First, the study identifies a clear condition under
which the content of political appeals matters in motivating participation. Despite
the centrality of political appeals to politics, previous research on this topic has
been limited and the findings that have emerged are mixed. Some research has
found that appeals containing political threats (Miller and Krosnick 2004) and the
specter of social pressure (Gerber et al. 2008) are more likely to motivate
participation. In contrast, other research finds that appeals focusing on civic duty,
the closeness of the election, neighborhood solidarity, or national and ethnic
identities have no effect on increasing participation (Gerber and Green 2000;
123
Polit Behav
Trivedi 2005).1 This study argues that the content of political appeals can matter.
Second, the study enriches our understanding of the processes by which political
motivation operates. Scholars generally agree that motivation is the least
understood and most under-theorized of the different factors known to impact
political participation (Fiorina 2003; Brady 1999; Aldrich 1997). This study
provides experimental evidence for one theoretical mechanism that can motivate
participation. Because it is such a simple manipulation, the results from this study
can be widely applied to a range of different kinds of political appeals. Almost
any written, visual, or interpersonal appeal can be slightly altered to reveal some
personal information about the person making the request and thereby trigger the
likeability heuristic.
What Kinds of Political Appeals are Most Motivating?
Central to the effort to motivate participation is the ability to craft a persuasive
appeal. Political organizations use multiple methods to motivate support for their
cause, including leaflets, telephone calls, door-to-door canvassing, television and
radio commercials, and small group meetings. In one form or another, all of these
methods involve an appeal for support. Whether it is a written, verbal, visual, or
interpersonal appeal, one person asks another person to take action on behalf of a
political cause or candidate. Successful appeals motivate greater participation, while
unsuccessful appeals do not. The strength of the appeal can thus be a crucial
determinant of the organization’s success.
Yet political science research provides little guidance as to what kinds of appeals
may be more motivating than others, particularly with respect to written, verbal, or
interpersonal appeals. Much research has found that people who receive an appeal
for support are more likely to participate (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Verba et al.
1995; Gerber and Green 2000; 2001; Green and Gerber 2001). Yet, researchers have
only recently begun to examine the processes by which these appeals work, or what
kinds of appeals are most effective. Research examining the differential effect of
appeals has found more evidence for the idea that the mode of interaction matters—
interpersonal appeals are more motivating than impersonal appeals (e.g. Gerber and
Green 2000)—but only limited evidence that content of the appeal matters (Miller
and Krosnick 2004; Gerber et al. 2008; Gerber and Green 2000; Trivedi 2005).
The baseline approach to crafting a political appeal is to provide targets with
information about the candidate or cause they are being asked to support (Fisher
1
A related body of literature examines whether the content of television advertisements matters. For
example, Brader (2006) finds that emotional appeals used in television advertisements are more likely to
motivate participation than appeals that lack emotional content. Research debating whether negative
advertising affects turnout (e.g. Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1994; Ansolabehere and Iyengar 1995; Finkel
and Geer 1998) has also examined whether the tone of the advertisements makes them more or less
motivating. These television advertisements are a particular type of political appeal because they can use
visual cues that other types of appeals cannot. Get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns, door-to-door
canvassing, and phone banking are examples of widely used organizing techniques that cannot vary visual
content. More research is necessary on the motivating characteristics of written, verbal, or interpersonal
appeals.
123
Polit Behav
2006). Typically, this involves outlining the problem that needs to be solved and a
proposed solution (which could involve anything from voting for a particular
candidate, to signing a petition, to supporting a piece of legislation), along with a
request for action from the target. Very often, in outlining the problem to be solved,
the appeal includes a general threat of (presumably unwanted) political change.
Previous experimental research has shown that appeals containing these general
threats are more likely to generate financial contributions than appeals that do not
contain any threat (Miller and Krosnick 2004; Miller et al. 2004). Indeed, this is a
widely-used technique. An informal investigation of calls to action posted online by
a range of political campaigns and advocacy organizations (including, but not
limited to, current presidential campaigns, political parties, and advocacy organizations like the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, and Common Cause)
demonstrates that most of these organizations pitch their appeals around the threat
of unwanted policy or political change.
Research demonstrating the importance of people’s social and relational desires
in facilitating political action (e.g. Wilson 1973; Miller 2005; Gerber et al. 2008;
Mutz 1998; Leighley 2001; Knoke 1988; Schlozman et al. 1995) implies that
mechanisms other than threat may also motivate participation. Political appeals that
trigger targets’ social and relational desires should be more motivating than appeals
that do not. In studying compliance, or the likelihood of a target acquiescing to a
request, Cialdini (2001) argues that a central motivation of human beings is the goal
of affiliation, or the desire to create social relationships with others. People are thus
likely to desire social relationships with people they like. This desire leads people to
take action—such as complying with requests—that helps cultivate relationships
with people they like. Given the typically short interactions that people making
political appeals have with the target, however, it is difficult to generate fondness or
liking. Some research shows, however, that in situations where a stranger is making
a request, certain heuristics can cause people to respond to strangers as if they were
friends (Burger et al. 2001; Dolinski et al. 2001). Thus, the more the person making
the request can create situational conditions that simulate closer relationships, the
more likely the person is to generate compliance.2
A key feature of close relationships is self-disclosure. In their meta-analytic
review of the social psychological literature on the relationship between selfdisclosure and liking, Collins and Miller (1994) find that, ‘‘People who engage in
intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than people who disclose at lower levels’’
(457). Similarly, disclosure characterizes relationships between friends, as people
are more likely to disclose information to people they like. Self-disclosure leads to
greater liking through one of two ways (see Collins and Miller 1994, pp. 458-459
for a summary). Social exchange theory argues that acts of disclosure are viewed
positively because they communicate the discloser’s liking for the target. Because
people tend to like people who like them, the target views disclosure as a positive
social outcome. An alternate information-processing model argues that people like
2
Research on survey design confirms this idea, as written appeals which are personalized with the
target’s name or other personal information are more likely to generate compliance than impersonal
written requests (Dillman 2007, 152).
123
Polit Behav
those about whom they have positive beliefs. People who engage in self-disclosure
are more likely to be perceived as open, trusting, and friendly. In this model, the
effect of self-disclosure on liking is mediated by positive beliefs about the discloser.
Although they hypothesize different pathways, both theoretical paradigms predict
that self-disclosure leads to greater liking.
Together, these strands of research imply that political appeals which disclose
some information about the person making the appeal should be more effective
because they trigger a liking heuristic that makes strangers treat each other more
like friends or acquaintances. Because people are more likely to comply with
requests from people they like, appeals with self-disclosure should be more likely to
generate acquiescence with a request for political action. These appeals are more
likely to play on people’s inherent desires for social relations or affiliation, thus
motivating them to take action.
Study Design
The study assessed the effectiveness of a political appeal containing self-disclosure
in motivating people to take political action against a control condition that
contained no self-disclosure.3 In the study, researchers simulated canvassing by
asking targets to support an environmental cause by donating money. Four research
assistants memorized two different appeals. On a weekend afternoon of October
2006, the research assistants stood in a busy pedestrian area in a major metropolitan
city asking adult pedestrians to stop. All four research assistants were females
wearing blue jeans and plain white shirts. To solicit participants, they approached
passers-by and said, ‘‘Hi, I am an undergraduate at Wellesley College. Do you have
a couple minutes to help me with a study?’’ If the pedestrian stopped, the research
assistants would continue:
‘‘I am working with Professor Hahrie Han of Wellesley College to do a study
of political organizing. I am going to make a 30 second appeal to you. After
the appeal, I am going to ask you if you will make a $1 donation to support
3
A second experimental condition designed to test the effect of personal threats was also implemented
alongside this study of self-disclosure. The sixty subjects receiving this condition heard an appeal that
highlighted the personal effect of proposed policy changes. The appeal said, ‘‘The quality of your drinking
water could be endangered by the administration’s proposed rollback…’’ However, an examination of
manipulation checks showed that this appeal did not have the intended effect. The literature on threat
argues that personal, specific threats should arouse greater anxiety in respondents, prompting a stronger
emotional reaction and greater likelihood to take action (e.g. Marcus 2002; Brader 2006). Subjects
hearing this appeal, however, were no more likely to feel worried (t215 = 1.3) or angry (t200 = 0.73). This
condition may not have worked because the threat was not sufficiently different from the implicit threat in
the control condition. Because this condition was completely independent of the other conditions, and had
no effect on the results presented here, it is not discussed further. A helpful reviewer suggested, however,
running the analyses treating these subjects as an additional control group. If we do that, t-tests show that
subjects receiving the self-disclosure appeal are still more likely to find the interviewers likeable
(t215 = 2.36) and more likely to make the donation (t217 = 2.40) than the combined control group. A
saturated logit model mirroring the analysis in Table 2 also shows that subjects receiving the selfdisclosure appeal are statistically significantly more likely make the donation (p = .009). In sum, the
results are identical whether or not this group is included as part of the control group.
123
Polit Behav
work I will describe in my appeal. You are completely free to donate the
money or refuse. No matter what you decide, we will ask you to complete this
one-page, completely anonymous survey. Your answers will be used for
research purposes only. Your participation in the study is completely
voluntary. Do you have about 3 min to do this?’’
If the subject said no, then the researchers thanked them and moved on to the
next subject. If the subject said yes, the researchers delivered one of the following
two appeals. Each research assistant canvassed pedestrians for 2 h and delivered one
appeal for the first hour and another appeal for the second hour. A random number
generator was used to determine the order in which each research assistant would
deliver her appeals. Thus, the four research assistants were not delivering the same
appeal at the same time. The key question is whether people responded differently
to different kinds of appeals.
The basic appeal, based on literature from the national environmental organization Clean Water Action, read as follows:
[Many lakes and rivers in America are] endangered by the administration’s
proposed rollback of parts of the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, 218
million people still live within 10 miles of waters that are damaged by
pollution. A bi-partisan coalition in Congress has proposed legislation to stop
this rollback. Clean Water Action, a national citizens’ group, is lobbying
Congress to pass this bill. But they need your help. With the 2006 elections
just around the corner, now is the time to take action. [Will you make a $1
donation to support Clean Water Action?] I can make change if you only have
big bills and we will give this Save-the-Earth bracelet to anyone who wants to
make a donation.
The basic appeal closely mirrored typical appeals delivered by actual political
organizations. It provided targets with basic information they needed to assess the
magnitude of the problem and the nature of the proposed solution, and decide
whether or not they wanted to take action. An implicit policy threat is included in
this appeal. Like all political appeals, it starts by identifying a political problem that
needs to be solved (endangered lakes and rivers are threatened) and a potential
solution (donating to Clean Water Action). This basic version of the appeal
discloses no personal information about the person making the appeal.
The second condition, the disclosure appeal, was designed to cue heuristics for
liking that would cause the target to treat the requester more like a friend than a
stranger. This variation mirrored the basic appeal in all ways except for replacing
the previous bracketed text as follows (changes highlighted in italics):
I grew up in [insert interviewer’s home state] near a lake where I frequently
played with my siblings and learned to swim and canoe. I have seen this lake,
and many other lakes and rivers in America, become endangered by the
administration’s proposed rollback of parts of the Clean Water Act. According
to the EPA, 218 million people still live within 10 miles of waters that are
damaged by pollution. A bi-partisan coalition in Congress has proposed
legislation to stop this rollback. Clean Water Action, a national citizens’
123
Polit Behav
group, is lobbying Congress to pass this bill. But they need your help. With the
2006 elections just around the corner, now is the time to take action. Will you
make a $1 donation to support Clean Water Action’s efforts to protect lakes
and rivers like the one I grew up around? I can make change if you only have
big bills and we will give this Save-the-Earth bracelet to anyone who wants to
make a donation.
Unlike the basic appeal which only provides information about society or the
community at large, the disclosure appeal provides personal information about the
requester. This condition was designed to create situational cues that trigger the
liking heuristic and cause the target to treat the requester more as a friend or
acquaintance.
It is worth noting that the participatory task was an authentic task. Solicitations
for money are frequently part of political canvassing and subjects had to decide on
the spot whether or not they were willing to donate the dollar. Although it was a
relatively small amount of money, it nonetheless forced participants into deciding
whether they were willing to take action to support the cause or not. Subjects did
know that this was part of a research study, but since that did not vary across the
treatment and control groups, it should not have a differential effect on the
effectiveness of the different appeals.
Once subjects decided whether or not to buy the bracelet, interviewers said:
‘‘Thank you. Could you please take a minute to complete this survey? To maintain
complete anonymity, I’m going to ask you to put it directly in this box after
finishing it.’’ Subjects then received a one-page survey to complete on a clipboard.
Upon completion, subjects inserted the survey through a narrow slit in a sealed box
so that interviewers could not see their responses. If subjects asked any questions
during the interaction, research assistants said, ‘‘I’m very sorry, but for the purposes
of the study, we need you to complete the survey before we can answer any
questions. We are more than happy to address any questions after the survey,
however.’’
Participants
The study included 166 subjects and raised $90 for Clean Water Action (which was
donated to the organization). 93 subjects received the basic appeal, and 73 subjects
received the disclosure appeal. Interviewer A conducted 39 interviews with a 56%
donation rate, interviewer B conducted 33 interviews with a 55% donation rate,
interviewer C conducted 43 interviews with a 56% donation rate, and interviewer D
conducted 42 interviews with a 62% donation rate. There were no statistically
significant differences in the participation rates across interviewers.
To ensure that there were no systematic differences between subjects across
conditions, Table 1 compares the groups on key demographic and political
characteristics generally thought to be predictors of participation (see Appendix
for a detailed description of all the measures). T-tests show that there are no
statistically significant differences across the different groups. Subjects receiving
123
Polit Behav
Table 1 Comparison of donation rate, interviewer ratings, and respondent characteristics across types of
appeals
Basic appeal (control
condition)
Disclosure appeal
(treatment condition)
T-test
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
Made Donation
88
48.9%
(0.50)
69
68.1%
(0.47)
t(150) = -2.47*
Interviewer likeability
92
4.04
(0.91)
70
4.37
(0.73)
t(160) = -2.55*
Interviewer enthusiasm
92
3.88
(0.92)
70
4.03
(0.83)
t(155) = -1.07
Interviewer sincerity
88
4.00
(0.92)
69
4.04
(0.93)
t(146) = -0.29
Political interest
91
3.71
(0.85)
71
3.83
(0.86)
t(149) = -0.90
Follow current events regularly 93
4.18
(0.94)
73
4.30
(0.86)
t(160) = -0.84
Discuss current events regularly 93
4.20
(0.85)
73
4.21
(0.85)
t(155) = -0.01
Partisan strength
88
1.60
(1.07)
70
1.47
(1.11)
t(145) = 0.75
Education
87
4.01
(1.02)
70
4.03
(1.08)
t(144) = -0.10
Income
86
2.43
(1.50)
63
2.89
(1.72)
t(122) = -1.69
Female
92
42.4%
(0.50)
71
50.7%
(0.50)
t(150) = -1.05
Age
92
30.52
(11.07)
72
33.44
(13.65)
Minority
82
22.0%
(0.42)
66
18.2%
(0.39)
t(135) = -1.48
t(143) = 0.57
* p \ .05
the control condition were likely to be as politically interested, informed, and
partisan as subjects receiving the treatment conditions. Likewise, the groups were
quite similar in terms of education, income, gender, age, and minority status. Much
like any laboratory experiment, however, the sample is not representative of the
population at large. Nonetheless, the key question is not whether the sample
represents the population at large, but instead whether the treatment and control
groups systematically differ from one another prior to hearing the appeal. T-tests
show that they do not. The study thus maintains the internal validity necessary to
examine whether the experimental treatment has any effect on motivating
participation.
Results
The study asks whether appeals triggering a liking heuristic are more motivating
than a control condition. The results show that the disclosure appeal was statistically
significantly more likely to motivate participation than the control condition.
Figure 1 shows the rate of participation across both types of appeals. With the basic
appeal, subjects were almost equally likely to make the donation (49%) as not make
the donation (51%). With the disclosure appeal, however, subjects were twice as
likely to make the donation as not make it. 68% of subjects donated the dollar, while
only 32% of subjects did not. To examine whether these differences are statistically
significant, I estimated a saturated logit regression model shown in Table 2.
Because the experimental design necessitated that respondents were ‘‘clustered’’ in
123
Polit Behav
80%
68%
70%
60%
51%
50%
49%
40%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Did Not Make Made Donation
Donation
Basic Appeal (Control)
Did Not Make Made Donation
Donation
Disclosure Appeal (Treatment)
Fig. 1 Rate of participation by type of appeal. Bars represent the percentage of respondents who did and
did not donate
time and by interviewer, I examined a model that included dummy variables for the
appeals, dummy variables for the interviewers, and dummy variables for time. The
results in Table 2 show that even controlling for potential interviewer and time
effects, the disclosure appeal was statistically significantly more likely to generate
donations than the control condition.4 Predicted probabilities show that hearing the
disclosure appeal made subjects, on average, 18.9% more likely to make the
donation than if they did not hear the disclosure appeal.5
I hypothesized that appeals with some self-disclosure would lead to higher rates
of donations because they triggered a liking heuristic. By revealing some personal
information about the interviewer, the disclosure appeal created situational
conditions that simulated closer relationships. To further examine this hypothesized
mechanism, the survey included a question about how likeable the interviewer
seemed to the subject. Subjects could respond that the interviewer seemed ‘‘not at
all likeable,’’ ‘‘slightly likeable,’’ ‘‘somewhat likeable,’’ ‘‘fairly likeable,’’ or
‘‘extremely likeable.’’ If the disclosure appeal was successful at triggering the liking
heuristic, subjects receiving that appeal should perceive the interviewer to be more
likeable than subjects receiving the basic appeal. T-tests (results in Table 1) show
that this was true. Subjects who received the disclosure appeal were more likely to
4
I also ran the model controlling for political interest and standard demographic variables (age, income,
education, gender, and minority status) and found that the results did not change. As the t-tests in Table 1
show, the treatment and control groups did not statistically differ on these dimensions. Thus, even when
those variables are included in a multivariate analysis, the effect of the disclosure appeal still holds.
Neither political interest nor any of the demographic variables were statistically significant and the
coefficient on the disclosure appeal hardly changed (b = .765, s.e. = .397).
5
The predicted probabilities are calculated by estimating the effect of hearing the disclosure appeal for
each interviewer in each hour and averaging across them. The effect ranged from 17.3% for interviewer 3
in hour 1 to 19.6% for interviewer 1, 2, and 4 in hour 2.
123
Polit Behav
Table 2 Logit regression of
whether respondent made
donation on type of appeal,
interviewer, and time of
interview
B
Std. Error
Disclosure appeal
0.80
(0.34)*
Interviewer 1
0.04
(0.46)
Interviewer 2
-0.09
(0.47)
Interviewer 3
0.27
(0.46)
Hour 2
0.37
(0.34)
Constant
-0.29
(0.40)
N
157
-2 Log likelihood
206.68
Adjusted R2
0.06
* p \ .05
say that the interviewer was likeable. Interestingly, this was true even though
subjects who received the disclosure appeal did not perceive interviewers to be more
enthusiastic or sincere than subjects receiving the basic appeal. A potential
confounding factor would exist if, for example, the interviewers demonstrated more
enthusiasm or other affect when delivering the disclosure appeal—then the
differences detected in participation may not be due to the content of the appeal, but
the delivery. Table 1 shows the ratings of the interviewers across the two different
types of appeals in terms of how likeable, enthusiastic, and sincere they seemed.
Interviewers were statistically different only in terms of how likeable they were.
Clearly, the subjects did not perceive the interviewers to be more or less enthusiastic
or sincere based on what type of appeal they were delivering.
Together, these results provide evidence consistent with the idea that people are
more likely to donate money to a cause when the person making the request
discloses some personal information. This self-disclosure can create conditions
where the subject is more likely to feel fondly towards the interviewer, thus being
more likely to comply with her request. Importantly, these results point to a way that
political appeals can be altered to motivate more participation in politics.
Discussion and Conclusions
This paper tested two different political appeals to see if certain appeals are more
motivating than others. Only a few studies have examined whether the content of
written, verbal, or interpersonal appeals matters in motivating participation and
those studies have had mixed results (Miller and Krosnick 2004; Gerber et al. 2008;
Gerber and Green 2000; Trivedi 2005). This study found that simply changing two
sentences in the appeal statistically increased the likelihood that targets would
donate money to support an environmental cause. The successful appeal was one
that built on targets’ social and relational motivations. By revealing something
personal about the canvasser, the disclosure condition was designed to cue heuristics
that would cause the target to treat the canvasser more like a friend or acquaintance,
and thus be more likely to comply with the request. This finding is consistent with a
123
Polit Behav
large literature indicating the importance of relational motivations in participation
(e.g. Wilson 1973; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Leighley 2001; Mutz 1998), and
also work showing that people are more likely to comply with requests if they like
the person making the request (e.g. Cialdini and Goldstein 2004).
As a field experiment, this study examined targets in a natural environment that
mirrored the kind of work political canvassers actually must do. Targets were passing
quickly by, trying to get where they were going, and canvassers were forced to
interrupt them. The appeals were delivered in a bustling environment with multiple
distractions for targets. Nonetheless, a subtle manipulation of the appeal showed that
the disclosure appeal was more likely to motivate participation than the control
condition. As a field experiment, the study does have some important limitations that
are worth noting. One cost of conducting a field experiment in a natural setting was that
the sample was not representative of any particular population. Because previous
literature does not provide any guidance as to whether relational cues should be more
important for certain types of populations than others, the study focused instead on
maintaining internal validity to see if respondents varied in their response to different
types of appeals. Future research, however, could examine different populations to see
if certain types of people are more or less responsive to relational cues.
Despite this limitation, these findings have important implications for how
political organizations can structure motivational appeals to enhance participation.
Political appeals are a widely used tactic in political organizing, but we previously
had only limited knowledge about what kinds of appeals are more or less effective.
This paper builds on theories in existing research on participation and social
psychology to examine what kinds of appeals are most effective. In particular, the
results highlight the importance of relational goals in participation—appeals that
cause targets to feel more affiliation with the requester are more effective than appeals
that are primarily focused on conveying information about general policy change.
These findings also have important implications for the study of participation
because they highlight the importance of better understanding motivation. Insofar as
politics is about the interaction of human beings to achieve a set of collective goals,
motivation is at the heart of all of our theories about politics. Whether we are
theorizing about the choices voters make in an election, the reasons legislators behave
the way they do, or the ways political institutions develop over time, we make
assumptions about what the individuals want and/or what they are hoping to achieve.
These micro-level assumptions guide the logic that leads to other micro- or even more
macro- theories of individual and institutional behavior. In this sense, motivation is
fundamental to our understanding of many different political phenomena. Ironically,
it is one of the most under-researched aspects of political behavior.
Although a long tradition of research reflects the importance of motivation in
facilitating political participation, many scholars agree that it is the most undertheorized of the three major sources of participation (Aldrich 1997; Fiorina 2003;
Brady 1999). Conventional wisdom argues that people do not participate because
‘‘they can’t, they were not asked, or they do not want to.’’6 Though it oversimplifies
6
This phrase is borrowed from Sidney Verba, ‘‘Political Equality: What is It?’’, Herbert Munro Lecture,
Stanford University, May 9, 2002.
123
Polit Behav
the many factors that enter into an individual’s decision of whether or not to
participate, this statement identifies the three main factors political scientists
generally use to explain participation: resources, recruitment, and motivation (e.g.
Schlozman 2003; Verba et al. 1995; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993). People who do
not participate either cannot (they lack the resources), were not asked (they were not
recruited), or did not want to participate (they lack motivation). Most studies of
participation conceptualize motivation as some combination of general levels of
political interest, knowledge, efficacy, and party identification. (Wolfinger and
Rosenstone 1980; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Verba et al. 1995; Plutzer 2002;
Verba and Nie 1972; Robinson et al. 1999). These variables focus on the observable
characteristics of people who are motivated to participate in politics, but tell us very
little about the psychological goals and motivations that underpin participation
(Miller and Krosnick 2004; Aldrich 1997; Fiorina 2003; Brady 1999). As a result, we
are left with a good understanding of the factors that enable participation, rather than
the factors that motivate it. We understand the ‘‘necessary conditions for
participation [such as resources and recruitment], such that in their absence,
participation is unlikely’’ (Aldrich 1997, 423). What we lack, however, is a good
understanding of what drives individuals to become active in the political system. By
examining how likeability and self-disclosure can motivate participation, this study
takes a step towards better understanding the factors that motivate political action.
More research is necessary on the psychological motivations that underpin
people’s choice to participate in politics. Arguably, understanding how motivation
is constructed, and the processes by which motivation develops can help us better
understand what those motivations are. This study is thus just the beginning of a
potentially fruitful line of research examining the role that motivation plays in
participation, and the way motivational theories of participation can be applied to
enhancing participation.
Acknowledgements I am grateful to John Bullock, Tom Burke, Cordelia Chansler, Anamarie Farr,
Hunter Gehlbach, Aysha Gregory, Matthew Levendusky, Aline Sayer, Nancy Scherer, Victoria Starrett,
Emily Sy, two anonymous reviewers, and the editors for their help with this paper. This study is approved
by the Institutional Review Board of Wellesley College.
Appendix: Measures
•
•
•
Regularity of following current events: Some people are very active in politics
and their communities while others are not. In general, how regularly do you
follow current events? 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Somewhat regularly; 5 = Very regularly.
Regularity of discussing current events with others: Some people are very active
in politics and their communities while others are not. In general, how regularly
do you discuss current events with others? 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Somewhat regularly; 5 = Very regularly.
Political Interest: Five point scale based on mean of questions asking
respondents how regularly they follow current events, discuss current events
123
Polit Behav
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
with others, and volunteer time to political causes. 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely;
3 = Occasionally; 4 = Somewhat regularly; 5 = Very regularly.
Partisan Strength: Coded based on questions asking respondents for their party
affiliation on a 7 point scale. This partisan identification scale is recoded to
reflect partisan strength as follows: 0 = Independent; 1 = Independent, Leaning
Democrat or Republican; 2 = Democrat or Republican; 3 = Strong Democrat
or Republican.
Education: Which category best describes the highest level of education you
completed? 1 = Less than high school; 2 = High School graduate; 3 = Some
college; 4 = College graduate; 5 = Post-graduate training or degree.
Income: What was the total household income you reported on your 2005 taxes?
(Please take your best guess if you are uncertain). 1 = under $30,000;
2 = $30,000-$49,000; 3 = $50,000-$74,999; 4 = $75,000-$99,999; 5 =
$100,000 or more.
Female: What is your gender? 0 = Male, 1 = Female
Age: What is your year of birth? Age = 2006-year reported by respondent.
Minority: What racial or ethnic category best describes you? 0 = White;
1 = Hispanic, Black/African-American, Asian, Other
Interviewer Enthusiasm/Likeability/Sincerity: Circle the answer that best
describes your impression of the interviewer. To me, the interviewer seemed:
1 = Not at all enthusiastic/likeable/sincere; 2 = Slightly enthusiastic/likeable/
sincere; 3 = Somewhat enthusiastic/likeable/sincere; 4 = Fairly enthusiastic/
likeable/sincere; 5 = Extremely enthusiastic/likeable/sincere.
References
Aldrich, J. (1997). Positive theory and voice and equality. American Political Science Review, 91(2),
421–423.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize
the electorate. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues-the joint
effects of advertising and new coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 22(fall), 335–357.
Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds, how emotional appeals in political ads work.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brady, H. E. (1999). Political participation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures of political attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., & Somervell, E. (2001). The effect of fleeting
attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1578–1586.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence, science and practice (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, Noah. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual
Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys, the tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1395–1406.
Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). Spot check: Casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack
advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 573–595.
123
Polit Behav
Fiorina, M. P. (2003). Parties, participation, and representation in America: Old theories face new
realities. In I. Katznelson & H. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline. New
York: WW. Norton&Co.
Fisher, D. R. (2006). Activism, Inc.: How the outsourcing of grassroots campaigns is strangling
progressive politics in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter
turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2001). Do phone calls increase voter turnout? Public Opinion Quarterly,
65, 75–85.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a
large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.
Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2001). Getting out the youth vote: Results from randomized field
experiments. New Haven: Yale University/Pew Charitable Trusts.
Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organizations. American Sociological Review, 53(3),
311–329.
Leighley, J. (2001). Strength in numbers? the political mobilization of racial and ethnic minorities.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marcus, G. E. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Miller, J. M. (2005). Why do individuals participate in politics? Paper read at Annual Meeting of the
Midwest Political Science Association, at Chicago, IL.
Miller, J. M., Krosnick J. A, Holbrook A, & Lowe L. (2004). The impact of policy change threat on
financial contributions to interest groups. University of Minnesota.
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment.
Political Psychology, 25(4), 507–523.
Mutz, D. (1998). Impersonal influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood.
American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman., L. S. (1999). Measures of political attitudes. New York:
Academic Press.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Schlozman, K. L. (2003). Citizen participation in America: What do we know? Why do we care? In I.
Katznelson & H. Milner (Eds.), Political science, state of the discipline. New York: WW. Norton
and Company.
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (1995). Participation’s not a paradox: The view from American
activists. British Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 1–36.
Trivedi, N. (2005). The effect of identity-based GOTV direct mail appeals on the turnout of Indian
Americans. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601, 115–122.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New
York: Harper and Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American
politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organizations. Basic Books, Inc: New York.
Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.
123