{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

KNT Presentation Notes

KNT Presentation Notes - Motivation Empirical model...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Motivation Empirical model Experimental design Reduced-form results Model estimation Conclusion How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign Chad Kendall °UBC Tommaso Nannicini °Bocconi University, IGIER & IZA Francesco Trebbi °UBC, CIFAR & NBER February 2014 Kendall, Nannicini & Trebbi (2014): °How Do Voters Respond to Information?±
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Motivation Empirical model Experimental design Reduced-form results Model estimation Conclusion Campaign information and voters²behavior Large body of literature in political science on whether campaign information matters, but still relevant questions Gentzkow & DellaVigna (2009): ±The consensus that communication had ²minimal e/ects³dominated research in political science, psychology, and communications for decades. (Gerber et al., 2007)´. Early studies of political communication µnd little e/ect on voters³ choice of candidates. Kendall, Nannicini & Trebbi (2014): °How Do Voters Respond to Information?±
Background image of page 2
Motivation Empirical model Experimental design Reduced-form results Model estimation Conclusion Campaign information and voters²behavior cont²d Large body of literature in political science on whether campaign information matters in the lab, but still relevant questions Are voters learning anything from campaign ads? Do they update their beliefs in real elections? What substantive messages a/ect them (if any)? What candidates³attributes are most valued by voters: valence (Stokes 1963) or ideology/policy ? We tackle these issues in a real world randomized campaign (empirical research outside the lab can³t address correlation of determinants of vote choice & variation in communication treatments). Kendall, Nannicini & Trebbi (2014): °How Do Voters Respond to Information?±
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Motivation Empirical model Experimental design Reduced-form results Model estimation Conclusion What we do Our approach in a nutshell: In collaboration with the reelection campaign of incumbent mayor , we split a city in four groups Send di/erent messages by both direct mail & phone calls : (1) valence, (2) ideology, (3) double, (4) none This allows us to look at true vote shares at precinct level We also surveyed eligible voters just before/after election We propose methodology to elicit voters³multivariate joint priors & posteriors We estimate a structural model based on rational information updating & random utility voting This allows us to evaluate the role of both belief updating & preferences w.r.t. campaign information Kendall, Nannicini & Trebbi (2014): °How Do Voters Respond to Information?±
Background image of page 4
Motivation Empirical model Experimental design Reduced-form results Model estimation Conclusion Related literature Large literature on persuasion (DellaVigna & Gentzkow, 2009) but mainly focused on: Turnout Self-reported votes Small-scale experiments Gerber et al. (2011): Randomization over intensity of TV ads (not message) Self-declared choices They µnd short-lived e/ects inconsistent with Bayesian updating Kendall, Nannicini & Trebbi (2014): °How Do Voters Respond to Information?±
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Motivation Empirical model Experimental design
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}