Study: Political persuasion cuts across party lines

New research from North­eastern Uni­ver­sity indi­cates that politi­cians do in fact have the power to per­suade their constituents—but not just those who share their party affiliation.

In a new paper pub­lished Monday in the early online edi­tion of the journal Pro­ceed­ings of the National Academy of Sci­ences, North­eastern Dis­tin­guished Pro­fessor of Polit­ical Sci­ence and Com­puter and Infor­ma­tion Sci­ence David Lazer and his col­lab­o­ra­tors report that con­stituents who par­tic­i­pated in online town halls with their U.S. rep­re­sen­ta­tive or U.S. sen­ator increased their inten­tions of voting for them in an upcoming election. Also, par­tic­i­pants’ posi­tions on an impor­tant policy issue dis­cussed during the forums moved sig­nif­i­cantly toward the politi­cians’ stance, while the con­stituents rated them as more trust­worthy, qual­i­fied, and acces­sible after par­tic­i­pating in the events.

What’s more, the researchers found that the per­sua­sion was broadly ecu­menical, with mem­bers of Con­gress being roughly as per­sua­sive to con­stituents from the opposing party as those in their own party. There were also ripple effects to that persuasion—namely, that after con­stituents par­tic­i­pated in the town halls, they were more likely to dis­cuss pol­i­tics with others and try to per­suade them to vote for the elected official.

What was par­tic­u­larly inter­esting here is that they were equally per­sua­sive across the board,” said Lazer, who co-​​authored the paper. “They weren’t just per­suading the choir.”

Lazer noted that these find­ings chal­lenge con­ven­tional wisdom that pol­i­tics is all about tar­geting your base and tip­toeing around the oppo­si­tion. “That’s not what you really want in a democ­racy,” he said. “Mem­bers of Con­gress rep­re­sent people in their dis­trict with both sim­ilar and opposing view­points, and our research sug­gests that it is a viable strategy to engage both sides. It’s a good strategy for them and it’s good for our democracy.”

The research, which was funded by the National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion, is the first to examine whether per­sua­sion occurs as a result of direct, inter­per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion between politi­cians and their con­stituents. Lazer col­lab­o­rated with polit­ical sci­ence pro­fes­sors at Ohio State Uni­ver­sity and the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­fornia, River­side. Their work marks the cul­mi­na­tion of a series of pub­li­ca­tions focused on studying how democ­racy can work better than appear­ances suggest.

As Lazer put it, “We wanted to study democ­racy in a test tube.”

Lazer’s research focuses on com­pu­ta­tional social sci­ence, 21st-​​century democ­racy, and polit­ical net­works, among other areas, and he is co-​​director of the NULab for Texts, Maps, and Networks.

For this paper, he and his research col­leagues con­ducted two studies. The first, in 2006, included 19 online town halls with a member of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and about 15 to 20 of his or her con­stituents. A total of 12 U.S. Rep­re­sen­ta­tives par­tic­i­pated, five Repub­li­cans and seven Democ­rats. These town halls focused on one spe­cific policy issue: immigration.

The second study, in 2008, fea­tured an online town hall meeting between U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, a Demo­crat from Michigan, and about 175 of his con­stituents. That dis­cus­sion focused on the treat­ment of ter­rorist detainees, specif­i­cally the issues of water­boarding and closing the Guan­tá­namo Bay mil­i­tary prison.

All the town halls were about an hour long, including a lightly mod­er­ated Q&A and an open dis­cus­sion period, and throughout the events par­tic­i­pants across the board demon­strated a high level of civility.

For both studies, con­stituents were ran­domly chosen and com­pen­sated for par­tic­i­pating. The researchers noted that the par­tic­i­pants were not “polit­ical junkies” nor those with an axe to grind—in fact, an analysis found that the par­tic­i­pants were actu­ally more rep­re­sen­ta­tive of eli­gible voters in their dis­trict than were actual voters.

In follow-​​up inter­views, the researchers found a 13.8 per­cent increase in con­stituents intending to vote for their rep­re­sen­ta­tive after par­tic­i­pating in the town hall com­pared to how they felt before­hand. During a final round of inter­views fol­lowing the November elec­tion, they found a 9.8 per­cent increase in those who voted for that person. They found sim­ilar results fol­lowing the larger town hall meeting with Levin: There was a 10.5 per­cent increase in the intent to vote for him shortly after the town hall, and that number increased to 13.1 per­cent after the election.

Lazer noted with interest that the con­stituents’ atti­tudes and behav­ioral changes rel­a­tively remained the same sev­eral months after the town halls. On the whole, he said, the con­stituents reported paying more atten­tion to the upcoming elec­tion as a result of par­tic­i­pating in the town halls.

All leaders must decide whether it is worth their time to meet directly with their fol­lowers, rather than com­mu­ni­cate solely via broad­cast (e.g., through mass media),” the researchers wrote in their paper. “Our find­ings pro­vide reason to think that it is worth it.”

Substack subscription form sign up
The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.