Jonah Berger
This passage is adapted from Jonah Berger, Contagious: Why
Things Catch On. ©2013 by Social Dynamics Group, LLC.
Although geography clearly matters in voting—the
East Coast leans Democratic while the South skews
Republican—few people would think that the exact
venue in which they vote matters.
But it does.
Political scientists usually assume that voting is
based on rational and stable preferences: people
possess core beliefs and weigh costs and benefits when
deciding how to vote. If we care about the
environment, we vote for candidates who promise to
protect natural resources. If we're concerned about
health care, we support initiatives to make it more
affordable and available to greater numbers of people.
In this calculating, cognitive model of voting behavior,
the particular kind of building people happen to cast
their ballot in shouldn't affect behavior.
But we weren't so sure. Most people in the United
States are assigned to vote at a particular polling
location. Polling locations are typically public
buildings—firehouses, courthouses, or schools—but
can also be churches, private office buildings, or other
venues.
Different locations contain different triggers.
Churches are filled with religious imagery, which
might remind people of church doctrine. Schools are
filled with lockers, desks, and chalkboards, which
might remind people of children or early educational
experiences. And once these thoughts are triggered,
they might change behavior. Could voting in a school
lead people to support educational funding?
To test this idea, Marc Meredith, Christian
Wheeler, and I acquired data from each polling place
in Arizona's 2000 general election. We used the name
and address of each polling location to determine if it
was a church, a school, or some other type of building.
Forty percent of people were assigned to vote in
churches, 26 percent in schools, 10 percent in
community centers, and the rest in a mix of apartment
buildings, golf courses, or even RV parks.
Then we examined whether people voted
differently at different types of polling places. In
particular, we focused on a ballot initiative that
proposed raising the sales tax from 5.0 percent to 5.6
percent to support public schools. This initiative had
been hotly debated, with good arguments on both sides.
Most people support education, but few people enjoy
paying more taxes. It was a tough decision.
If where people voted didn't matter, then the percent
supporting the initiative should be the same at schools
and other polling locations.
But it wasn't. More than ten thousand more people
voted in favor of the school funding initiative when the
polling place was a school. Polling locations had a
dramatic impact on voting behavior.
And the initiative passed.
This difference persisted even after we controlled for
things like regional differences in political preferences
and demographics. We even compared two similar
groups of voters to double-check our findings: people
who lived near schools and were assigned to vote at one
versus people who lived near schools but were assigned
to vote at a difference type of poling place (such as a
firehouse). A significantly higher percentage of the
people who voted in schools were in favor of increasing
funding for schools. The fact that they were in a school
when they voted triggered more school-friendly
behavior.
A ten-thousand-vote difference might not seem like
much. But it was more than enough to shift a close
election. In the 2000 presidential election the difference
between George Bush and Al Gore came down to less
than 1000 votes. If 1000 votes is enough to shift an
election, 10,000 certainly could. Triggers matter.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق