![]() ![]() Voters' behavior and attitudes suggest they consider it more important to be informed and to vote in Presidential election years than in midterm elections. Congressional Election but that increased to about $7 billion in the 2012 U.S. According to the Federal Election Commission, total spending on campaigns was about $4 billion in the 2010 U.S. Since more people participate in Presidential Elections, there are fewer people to mobilize, and the few who do not participate are bombarded by increased outreach from candidates, parties, and interest groups. It is well known that get-out-the-vote messages are less effective during high-stakes elections. The results provided evidence that online social networks could spur social influence offline and did so primarily by activating offline social relationships.Īn open question that remained after that study was whether such messages would result in similar effects in a U.S. This social influence effect was limited to “close friends” who interact frequently on Facebook and who likely also had strong, real-world, face-to-face relationships. The study also compared the voting behavior of the friends of those who received the message and the friends of those who did not and found that the message indirectly influenced an additional 280,000 people to vote. The results showed that the message directly influenced about 60,000 additional people to vote in 2010. That study randomized get-out-the-vote (GOTV) messages to 61 million Facebook users, 6 million of whom were matched to publicly available voter registration records. In particular, we previously conducted an experiment to measure social influence in the 2010 U.S. For this reason, scholars have complemented these observational studies with experimental studies that use randomization to ensure that what is being measured is, indeed, social influence. However, causal inference in observational data can be difficult because social influence, friendship selection, and contextual effects all generate similar patterns in network data. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.Ī number of observational network studies suggest that offline behaviors spread in networks via social influence. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. No changes were suggested by those reviewers. The manuscript was reviewed by multiple employees at Facebook, Inc., not involved in the research. Eytan Bakshy was an employee of Facebook, Inc., when the experiment was conducted and continues to be employed at Facebook. The specific roles of EB and DE are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.Ĭompeting interests: Dean Eckles was an employee of Facebook, Inc., when the experiment was conducted. Facebook, Inc., provided support in the form of salaries for authors EB and DE but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ![]() This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.ĭata Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript, supporting information files, and hosted at the Harvard Dataverse repository under the following DOI: 10.7910/DVN/J0VEYF.įunding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Received: SeptemAccepted: FebruPublished: April 26, 2017Ĭopyright: © 2017 Jones et al. ![]() Danforth, University of Vermont, UNITED STATES ![]() Citation: Jones JJ, Bond RM, Bakshy E, Eckles D, Fowler JH (2017) Social influence and political mobilization: Further evidence from a randomized experiment in the 2012 U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |