Christopher W. Larimer

Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment

Voter turnout theories based on rational self-interested behavior generally fail to predict significant turnout unless they account for the utility that citizens receive from performing their civic duty. We distinguish between two aspects of this type of utility, intrinsic satisfaction from behaving in accordance with a norm and extrinsic incentives to comply, and test the effects of priming intrinsic motives and applying varying degrees of extrinsic pressure. A large-scale field experiment involving several hundred thousand registered voters used a series of mailings to gauge these effects. Substantially higher turnout was observed among those who received mailings promising to publicize their turnout to their household or their neighbors. These findings demonstrate the profound importance of social pressure as an inducement to political participation.

Evolutionary Theory and Political Leadership: Why Certain People Do Not Trust Decision Makers

Central to social systems are the attitudes of the rank and file toward those who make political decisions (leaders), and attitudes toward leaders are known to be characterized by two fundamental features. First, the modal attitude is acceptance of the necessity of leaders coupled with acute aversion to leaders who are believed to be motivated by ambition and avarice; second, people are highly variable with some being markedly more sensitive than others to the traits of leaders. But the theoretical basis for these empirical facts has yet to be fully elucidated. In this article, we offer such a theory by drawing on biological evolution and then, using a series of laboratory experiments, provide an empirical test of it. Results are fully consistent with evolutionary theory in showing that people are indeed generally sensitive to leadership traits threatening to the larger group even as certain, expected individuals are a good deal more sensitive than others.

Balancing Ambition and Gender Among Decision Makers

In this article, we use an original laboratory experiment to test how people react to ambitious decision makers, allowing for interactions with gender. In the experiment, participants are told two decision makers will be dividing some valuable resource on their behalf. One decision maker (either high or low in ambition) is “appointed.” Participants vote from a slate of candidates, about whom they have information on gender and ambition, for the second decision maker. We find that people tend to associate high ambition with male and self-interested behavior and that the selection of the second decision maker depends on the level of ambition of the first decision maker as well as perceptions of gender of that decision maker. We conclude by suggesting important implications for research on vote choice and representation.

Gender differences in follower behavior An experimental study of reactions to ambitious decision makers

Abstract This study investigates whether observers react negatively to overly ambitious leaders, focusing on whether women are more sensitive than men in their perceptions of the traits of decision makers and whether men and women behave differently as a result of such perceptions. Results from two laboratory experiments show how participants react to ambitious decision makers in simple bargaining scenarios. The results indicate that observers tend to equate ambition for decision-making authority with self-interested, unfair, male behavior. Moreover, observers tend to be less satisfied with a decision made by an ambitious decision maker compared to the same decision made by an unambitious decision maker. That is, people generally dislike ambitious decision makers independent of the actual decision that is made. Further, there are important differences in male and female expectations of what decision makers will do that, when combined with perceptions of decision-maker gender, have more nuanced implications for outcome satisfaction and our understanding of “follower behavior.”

The American Public's View of Congress

Congress has long been unpopular with the American public, with approval numbers above fifty percent serving as the exception rather than the norm. In this essay we argue that such disapproval stems not from calculated reaction to policy outcomes or partisan attachments. Rather, people tend to disapprove of Congress for exactly the thing it was designed to be: an open and deliberative lawmaking body. The more Congress does its job, the more the public tends to disapprove.

Partisan Social Pressure and Voter Mobilization

Social voting norms persistently impel citizens to the polls. To date, most research in this field has focused on norms coming from the community at large rather than voters’ particular social groups. But pressure to conform to in-group norms may have an even stronger effect; inquiry across disciplines repeatedly demonstrates that group identity can be an important moderator in the relationship between norms and behavior. We apply this lesson to political behavior, testing the effect of partisan social pressure on turnout. We report the results of a randomized field experiment conducted during the 2012 Iowa primary election, comparing the mobilization effects of partisan and nonpartisan direct mail messages. We test the interaction between social pressure and the partisan nature of the message and find that partisan direct mail messages alone do not effectively mobilize voters. When partisan and social pressure elements are combined, turnout increases, but no more so than when communitarian and social pressure elements are combined. We conclude that simply referencing a voter’s party does not seem to render mobilization messages more effective.

Iowa First Congressional District: Anomaly or New Normal?

A Republican representing northeast Iowa in Congress is a political anomaly. Almost immediately after Rod Blum’s initial election in 2014, he was viewed as vulnerable. Blum did not match the dynamics of Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, where Democrats have consistently outnumbered Republicans by four to five percentage points and President Obama won by 14 points in 2012. To understand this mismatch, this chapter draws on an original survey sent to 1‚500 randomly selected voters in the district. Blum’s success was in part due to independent voters seeing him as neither too hot nor too cold. Given the district’s support for Donald Trump, it is still an open question on whether Blum’s representation of the district is truly anomalous, or whether it is a new normal.

Sex differences, personality, and ideology: a deeper investigation via contexts in a study of local politics

There is a puzzle in existing research literatures. Some studies suggest that sex differences impact political attitudes and behaviors, others contend there are sex differences in personality, and still other research implies that personality underpins political attitudes and behaviors. Despite empirical trends and studies suggesting tendencies that underpin behavior, there is no theory to suggest how sex, personality, and ideology are related to political behavior. We attempt to wrestle with this puzzle utilizing data from a study of men and women serving on local boards and commissions. Our findings suggest that, indeed, there appear to be types of people in terms of sex, personality, and ideology who gravitate to service on certain types of boards and commissions, but many of the relationships we identify require an understanding of local context and culture that the existing literatures on sex difference and personality do not speak to. This sets the stage for more nuanced studies of why sex, personality, and ideology may matter for political behavior (and why they may not), as well as the trouble with taking a particular approach to studying political behavior – namely one that focuses on correlations between traits in lieu of a focus on persons and their choices in local contexts.

The “Big Wide-Mouthed Frog” Theory of Iowa Politics

To be a successful governor in Iowa, and retain the confidence of voters, one has to establish a personal connection with voters. This chapter concludes that the stranglehold on power enjoyed by Governors Ray and Branstad (and could have been enjoyed by Vilsack had he not voluntarily stepped down) had as much to do with perceptions of their personal character as it did about the electoral context and economic conditions. This chapter gets the reader to think about how the case of Iowa applies more generally to not just candidates for governor, but also candidates for any office, including the presidency given Iowa’s unique role in the presidential process. Emphasis here is on the fact that while this book is about Iowa governors specifically, the results speak to a larger audience on the relationships candidates develop with voters and how voters evaluate candidates for elected office.

The “Personal” Power of Iowa Governors Since 1969

This chapter provides an overview of existing research on gubernatorial popularity and how this framework applies to recent governors in Iowa. Iowa governors faced declining economic conditions, shared party affiliation with unpopular presidents and, at times, had unified control of state government. Yet, when applied to the case of Iowa, these factors, while significant, do not fully explain the strong incumbency bias observed in the state. Considerable attention is given to expanding Beyle’s notion of the “personal” power of governors as well as consideration of the strength of the challenger when examining gubernatorial popularity. This chapter concludes by asking what explains the discrepancy between observed electoral outcomes in Iowa and what existing research says should happen.