UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Effectiveness of Campaign Messages On Turnout and Vote Choice A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Sylvia Yu Friedel 2013 ©Copyright by Sylvia Yu Friedel 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Effectiveness of Campaign Messages On Turnout and Vote Choice by Sylvia Yu Friedel Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor Lynn Vavreck, Chair In this dissertation, I study campaign effects on turnout and vote choice. I analyze different campaign messages and the way they affect voters across various situations. First, through an online survey experiment, I study the impact of campaign messages and ideological cues on voters as they make inferences on candidates. Next, through a field experiment, I test whether microtargeted messages or general messages on the economy have any effect on turnout. Lastly, using online survey data, I examine how cross-pressured voters behave electorally when holding an opposing party’s position on social issues. These three studies indicate that different messages do, in fact, matter. Furthermore, voters are not fools—they are reasoning and rational. While partisanship does continue to heavily impact voting decisions, voters do consider issue positions and different voting dimensions (i.e., social, economic, moral). In light of this, campaigns should continue their efforts to persuade and inform the electorate. ii The dissertation of Sylvia Yu Friedel is approved. John Zaller David O. Sears Tim Groeling Lynn Vavreck, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2013 iii To my parents iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures vi List of Tables vii Acknowledgements viii Vita/Biographical Sketch ix Chapter One: Introduction 1 References 5 Chapter Two: Republican Female Candidates: A Survey Experiment about Ideology and Candidate Gender 6 Being A “Woman” 7 Information Shortcuts and Gender Stereotypes 8 Candidate Gender, Gender Biases, and Voter Inferences 9 Voter Inferences: Ideological Perceptions of Candidates Based on Candidates’ Gender 10 Hypotheses 11 Experimental Design 12 Results 16 “How well does the term ‘conservative’ describe the candidate?” 17 Groupings by Gender and Groupings by Presence of Ideological Cue 17 Republican Female Advertisement and Republican Male Advertisement 18 “Conservative” Republican Female Advertisement and “Conservative” Republican Male Advertisement 18 Differences Due to Ideological Cue 19 Levels of Political Awareness 20 With and Without the Ideological Cue by Levels of Awareness 21 Low Awareness Respondents Versus High Awareness Respondents 21 Republican Female Advertisement and Republican Male Advertisement by Levels of Awareness 22 Low Awareness Respondents Versus High Awareness Respondents 22 “Conservative” Republican Female Advertisement and “Conservative” Republican Male Advertisement by Levels of Awareness 24 Low Awareness Respondents Versus High Awareness Respondents 24 Differe nces Due to Ideological Cue 25 Discussion 28 Appendix 31 References 33 Chapter Three: Microtargeting and Mobilization: A Field Experiment In CA-36 36 Description of the Experimental Setting 38 Microtargeting Jewish Voters 41 v Expectations 45 Experimental Design 48 Results 55 Discussion 61 References 63 Chapter Four: Stealing Partisans and Independents: A Worthy Campaign Tactic? 67 What Affects Voting Decisions? 69 Expectations 74 Defining a Cross-Pressured Partisan and an Independent With Mixed Issue Profiles 75 Effects of Being Cross-Pressured or Having Mixed Issue Profiles 78 Microtargeting Measures 98 References 101 Chapter Five: Conclusion 104 References 106 vi List of Figures 3.1 California's 36th Congressional District 2011 39 3.2 Treatments 46 3.3 Experiment Design 49 3.4 Treatment 1: Microtargeted Letter 53 3.5 Treatment 2: General Appeal Letter 54 vii List of Tables 2.1 Experimental Radio Advertisement Design 16 2.2 Effects of Gender on Candidate’s Perceived Ideology by Levels of Awareness 23 2.3 Effects of Ideological Cue on Candidate’s Perceived Ideology by Levels of Awareness 27 A.2.1 Sample Statistics 31 A.2.2 Political Radio Advertisements Effects on Candidate's Perceived Ideology 32 3.3 Descriptive Statistics 51 3.4 Turnout Results 55 3.5 Effect of Microtargeted and Macrotargeted Letters on Turnout Among Jewish Voters 56 3.6 Effect of Microtargeted and Macrotargeted Letters on Turnout Among Non-Jewish Voters 56 3.7 Effect of Microtargeted Letters and No Letters on Turnout Among Jewish Voters 57 3.8 Effect of Microtargeted Letters and No Letters on Turnout Among Non-Jewish Voters 57 3.9 Effect of Macrotargeted Letters and No Letters on Turnout Among All Voters 58 3.10 Effect of Macrotargeted Letters and No Letters on Turnout Among Jewish Voters 59 3.11 Effect of Macrotargeted Letters and No Letters on Turnout Among Non-Jewish Voters 59 3.12 Effect of Microtargeted Letters on Turnout Among All Voters 60 3.13 Effect of Macrotargeted Letters on Turnout Among Jewish and Non-Jewish Voters 60 4.1 Percentage of Democrats by Number of Social Issues in Disagreement with Party in 2008 79 4.2 Percentage of Republicans by Number of Social Issues in Disagreement with Party in 2008 79 4.3 Percentage of Independents by Number of Social Issues in Disagreement with Economic Party in 2008 79 4.4 Percentage of Democrats by Number of Social Issues in Disagreement with Party in 2012 80 4.5 Percentage of Republicans by Number of Social Issues in Disagreement with Party in 2012 80 4.6 Percentage of Independents by Number of Social Issues in Disagreement with Economic Party in 2012 80 4.7 2008 Logistic Regression Results for Democrats 85 4.8 2008 Logistic Regression Results for Republicans 86 4.9 2008 Logistic Regression Results for Independents 87 4.10 2012 Logistic Regression Results for Democrats 88 4.11 2012 Logistic Regression Results for Republicans 89 4.12 2012 Logistic Regression Results for Independents 90 4.13 2008 Predicted Probabilities for Democrats: Likelihood of Voting for Obama 91 4.14 2008 Predicted Probabilities for Republicans: Likelihood of Voting for Obama 92 4.15 2008 Predicted Probabilities for Independents: Likelihood of Voting for Obama 92 4.16 2012 Predicted Probabilities for Democrats: Likelihood of Voting for Obama 93 viii 4.17 2012 Predicted Probabilities for Republicans: Likelihood of Voting for Obama 93 4.18 2012 Predicted Probabilities for Independents: Likelihood of Voting for Obama 94 ix Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been possible without the following people. I would first like to thank my committee members, Lynn Vavreck, John Zaller, David Sears, and Tim Groeling. As my mentor and dissertation chair, Lynn provided countless instances of professional guidance and academic suggestions. Her dedication to my research and career has been unquestionable. While Lynn influenced the way I thought about research puzzles and arguments, John taught me how to support those arguments with statistical findings. His simple explanations of how to interpret statistical results carried me through my graduate program. David stretched my boundaries and enabled me to consider the psychological underpinnings of political behavior. When I struggled to find a dissertation topic, his constructive criticism was immensely helpful. Finally, Tim’s background in political communication along with his encouragement shaped my research ideas. He also provided access to the Communications department’s survey pool for an online survey experiment, which provided research results that are presented in Chapter 2 of this dissertation. I would also like to thank my colleagues at UCLA: Brian Law, Carrie LeVan, Darin Dewitt, Emily Ekins, Emily Hallock, Hovannes Abramyan, James Lo, Kristen Kao, and Seth Hill. Sharing and brainstorming project ideas, editing each other’s papers, and supporting our research endeavors were regular activities, and without these, my dissertation would not be as sharp. We pushed each other to succeed especially when it seemed impossible, and for this, I will be grateful. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends. I owe thanks to my lifelong friends, Ali, Catherine, Dan, Elysia, Michael, Rax, and my brother, Michael, for always listening, offering useful advice, and providing the mental distractions that reenergized me to continue my research. I also would like to thank my parents to whom I dedicate this dissertation. Without their open-mindedness and support, I would not be where I am today. Finally, I thank my husband Lou for his unwavering confidence in me. In the course of my graduate career at UCLA, we got married, welcomed our beloved dog Bam Bam into our lives, bought a house, and celebrated the joyous arrival of our son, Max. I have serious doubt that I could have finished this dissertation without him nor would I have had as much fun along the way. x Vita/Biographical Sketch 1999: Northern Highlands Regional High School 2003: B.S. Economics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 2005: M.G.A., Government Administration, Fels Institute, University of Pennsylvania 2009: M.A., Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles ADDITIONAL TRAINING Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Workshop on Designing, Conducting, and Analyzing Field Experiments, Yale University, 2010 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND ACHIEVEMENTS UCLA Political Science Department Funding, 2012-2013 UCLA Political Science Department Summer Funding, 2011,