An Experimental Test for “Backlash” Against Social Pressure Techniques Used to Mobilize Voters

Abstract

This research explores the possibility of psychological reactance, or “backlash,” against political candidates who use social pressure to mobilize voters. There is a compelling theoretical argument and solid empirical evidence suggesting social pressure substantially increases voter turnout. There is, however, equally noteworthy evidence suggesting social pressure frequently stimulates a negative reaction in targets. This research uses a lab-in-the-field experimental design that employs a hypothetical social pressure message to evaluate whether a candidate’s use of social pressure to turnout voters may increase anger and hostility toward that candidate, possibly to the point it increases the likelihood a citizen will actually vote against that candidate. Our findings indicate social pressure mobilization techniques evoke consequential psychological reactance against their sponsor. Until future research can further assess these effects, we suggest social pressure mobilization techniques should be used by campaigns only after careful consideration.

Labor Unions and Political Mobilization: Diminishing Returns of Repetitious Contact

“…Complementing considerations of voter fatigue is the concept of reactance, which argues that individuals may not respond in a uniformly positive manner when messages are delivered, particularly when those messages are forceful (Brehm 1966;Brehm and Brehm 1981). Research has challenged the conventional wisdom that mobilization is an exclusively positive endeavor (Mann 2010;Matland and Murray 2013), and reactance has been explored outside the political context (Burgoon et al [2002] provides a review). Evidence indicates that mobilization can lead to negative behavior, particularly when canvassers employ social pressure (Matland and Murray 2013).…”

“…Research has challenged the conventional wisdom that mobilization is an exclusively positive endeavor (Mann 2010;Matland and Murray 2013), and reactance has been explored outside the political context (Burgoon et al [2002] provides a review). Evidence indicates that mobilization can lead to negative behavior, particularly when canvassers employ social pressure (Matland and Murray 2013). However, theories of reactance have not been applied longitudinally across multiple elections and contacts.…”

Is Voting Habit Forming? New Evidence from Experiments and Regression Discontinuities

“…A possible exception, however, is GOTV campaigns that employ what Gerber, Green, and Larimer () call “social pressure”: messages that forcefully assert the norm of doing one's civic duty and promise that compliance with this norm will be verified using public records and publicized. A series of experiments (Abrajano and Panagopoulos ; Davenport ; Gerber, Green, and Larimer ; Panagopoulos ; Mann ; but see Matland and Murray ) has shown these messages to be much more influential than conventional GOTV appeals, perhaps because they are especially memorable. Evidence that social pressure effects endure, therefore, is not necessarily evidence of habit formation.…”

Pro‐peace or anti‐war: The effect of emotions primed by protest songs on emotions toward in‐group and out‐group in conflict

“…It is interesting to note that in the PS political orientation had no significant contribution to prediction of decision, whereas it had a negative significant contribution in the NS. One possible explanation for this finding might be reactance, or “backlash”: when faced with counter‐attitudinal positions, in some cases messages are rejected, leading to bolstering of initial attitudes (Matland & Murray, ). As mentioned above, the PS does not directly criticize the in‐group.…”