Assessing the Effects of Friend-to-Friend Texting onTurnout in the 2018 US Midterm Elections

Recent mobile app technology lets people systematize the process of messaging their friends to urge them to vote. Prior to the most recent US midterm elections in 2018, the mobile app Outvote randomized an aspect of their system, hoping to unobtrusively assess the causal effect of their users’ messages on voter turnout. However, properly assessing this causal effect is hindered by multiple statistical challenges, including attenuation bias due to mismeasurement of subjects’ outcomes and low precision due to two-sided non-compliance with subjects’ assignments. We address these challenges, which are likely to impinge upon any study that seeks to randomize authentic friend-to-friend interactions, by tailoring the statistical analysis to make use of additional data about both users and subjects. Using meta-data of users’ in-app behavior, we reconstruct subjects’ positions in users’ queues. We use this information to refine the study population to more compliant subjects who were higher in the queues, and we do so in a systematic way which optimizes a proxy for the study’s power. To mitigate attenuation bias, we then use ancillary data of subjects’ matches to the voter rolls that lets us refine the study population to one with low rates of outcome mismeasurement. Our analysis reveals statistically significant treatment effects from friend-to-friend mobilization efforts ( 8.3, CI = (1.2, 15.3)) that are among the largest reported in the get-out-the-vote (GOTV) literature. While social pressure from friends has long been conjectured to play a role in effective GOTV treatments, the present study is among the first to assess these effects experimentally.

[1]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[2]  T. Davenport Public Accountability and Political Participation: Effects of a Face-to-Face Feedback Intervention on Voter Turnout of Public Housing Residents , 2010 .

[3]  D. Rubin Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test Comment , 1980 .

[4]  D. Green,et al.  Get Out the Vote!: How to Increase Voter Turnout , 2004 .

[5]  Skipper Seabold,et al.  Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python , 2010, SciPy.

[6]  Lindsey Cormack Leveraging Peer‐to‐Peer Connections to Increase Voter Participation in Local Elections , 2019, Politics & Policy.

[7]  Arthur Lewbel,et al.  Estimation of Average Treatment Effects With Misclassification , 2007 .

[8]  J. Stock,et al.  Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments , 1994 .

[9]  Richard K. Crump,et al.  Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10]  P. Kristensen Bias from Nondifferential but Dependent Misclassification of Exposure and Outcome , 1992, Epidemiology.

[11]  Katherine Haenschen Social Pressure on Social Media: Using Facebook Status Updates to Increase Voter Turnout , 2016 .

[12]  Larry Wasserman,et al.  All of Statistics , 2004 .

[13]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[14]  Sharp bounds for complier average potential outcomes in experiments with noncompliance and incomplete reporting , 2013 .

[15]  Wired to mobilize: The effect of social networking messages on voter turnout , 2015 .

[16]  Teppei Yamamoto,et al.  Causal Inference with Differential Measurement Error: Nonparametric Identification and Sensitivity Analysis , 2010 .

[17]  Larry Wasserman,et al.  All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference , 2004 .

[18]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion , 2008 .

[19]  Donald P. Green,et al.  Detecting Spillover Effects: Design and Analysis of Multilevel Experiments , 2012 .

[20]  David M. Rothschild,et al.  Non-Representative Surveys: Modes, Dynamics, Party, and Likely Voter Space , 2017 .