irrelevant at best: celebrity endorsements and voter mobilization in the run-up to the 2009 european...
DESCRIPTION
Celebrity Endorsements are a standard feature of modern election campaigns. Mostly used to boost turnout, we test to what extent such endorsed campaigns are effective. Our experimental findings indicate that they are irrelevant at best.Recent European Elections were plagued by a notoriously low turnout, throughout Europe, but especially in Germany. In 2004, only 43 per cent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote there – the lowest turnout ever reported in a nationwide German election. A strategy to boost turnout in the 2009 European election (employed – among others – by the European Parliament) was the endorsement of turnout by celebrities. Some scattered findings from the U.S. suggest that such endorsed GOTV-campaigns have the potential to mobilize voters, but the designs usually employed is far from optimal and hence, the issue of the effectiveness of such campaigns (and their underlying mechanisms) is far from settled. Making use of design combining an experimental element with a three-wave panel design (based on an online access panel), we put the effectiveness of endorsed GOTV-campaign to a rigorous test (employing a total of eight experimental conditions) – and we find, that they are irrelevant at best. In one case (based on a “polarizing” celebrity), we even find some detrimental effects on turnout. Hence, GOTV-campaigns endorsed by celebrities are by no means a perfect solution to boost turnout.TRANSCRIPT
Landau, October 8th, 2009
Thorsten Faas, Harald Schoen
Email: [email protected]
Symposium ÊCampaigning for Europe. Parties, Campaigns, Mass Media and the European Parliamentary Elections 2009”
Irrelevant at BestCelebrity Endorsements and Voter Mobilization in the Run-Up to the 2009 European Election in Germany
1Some recent examples …
2Some recent examples …
3Even more common: Turnout
4Even more common: Turnout
DoesDoes itit workwork??
5ÊAnswers“ Given in the Literature
• Some work done in the US
– Mixed results
– Underlying Mechanisms far from resolved
– ÊBrute Force“-Designs
• Hardly any (if any) work done in Germany
Our Starting Point: Our Starting Point: Cover Germany, but also extend existing Cover Germany, but also extend existing literature by improving research designsliterature by improving research designs
Data
7Online Survey Experiment
• Online survey experiment conducted (in cooperation with YouGovPsychonomics, based on their online panel)
• Survey was fielded from June 3-6, n=1.351, including eight experimental conditions
• Dependent Variable (Baseline Version):
– ÊThe European Election will take place on June 7th. How likely is it that you will turnout to vote?“
– Possible answers ranging from 0 (Êwill definitely not vote“) to 10 (Êwill definitely vote“)
8Experimental Condition 1 (Control Group):
ÊThe European Election will take place on June 7th. How likely is it that you will turnout to vote?“
9Experimental Condition 2/3:
ÊThe European Election will take place on June 7th. Celebrities –
like Oliver Kahn [Johanna Klum]–have called on people to cast
their vote. How likely is it that you will turnout to vote?“
10Experimental Condition 4/5:
ÊThe European Election will take place on June 7th. How likely is it that you will turnout to vote?“
ÊÊBRUTE FORCEBRUTE FORCE““--APPROACHAPPROACH
11Unobtrusive Experimental Condition 6/7/8:
Results
13Results: Likelihood of Voting by Exp. Condition
6,0
6,5
7,0
7,5
8,0
Cont
rol
Kahn
ver
bal
Klum
ver
bal
Kahn
visu
alKl
um v
isual
Kahn
hid
den
Klum
hid
den
Neut
ral h
idde
n
Sig. Difference p<0,05Sig. Difference p<0,05
Data II
15Online Survey Experiment
• Panel Survey
• In a first wave, we have a baseline measurement of the likelihood of turnout, in addition we have ratings for the celebrities in terms of ...– ... Fame (in the sense of being known)– ... Popularity (in the sense of being liked)
• We also have a third wave after the election to test for the stability of possible effects.
• The experimental conditions were part of the second wave
16Results: Difference in the Likelihood of Voting
-0,5
-0,3
0,0
0,3
0,5
Con
trol
Kah
n ve
rbal
Klum verba
l
Kah
n visu
al
Klum visua
l
Kah
n hidd
en
Klum h
idde
n
Neu
tral h
idde
n
Condition 4 is the only one to yield a Condition 4 is the only one to yield a significant difference from zerosignificant difference from zero
17Stability of Effects (Reported Turnout from Wave 3)
60,0
65,0
70,0
75,0
80,0
Cont
rol
Kahn
ver
bal
Klum
ver
bal
Kahn
visu
alKl
um v
isual
Kahn
hid
den
Klum
hid
den
Neut
ral h
idde
n
18Further Research
• Subgroup Analysis
– … by age
– … by popularity of celebs
– ... by prior level of certainty
– … by response latencies
• Additional experiments in the run-up to the federal election (with celebrities endorsing parties)
• Thanks a lot for your attention!