The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment
Open accessAbstract
Do better‐informed people vote more? Recent formal theories of voter turnout emphasize a positive effect of being informed on the propensity to vote, but the possibility of endogenous information acquisition makes estimation of causal effects difficult. I estimate the causal effects of being informed on voter turnout using unique data from a natural experiment Copenhagen referendum on decentralization. Four of fifteen districts carried out a pilot project, exogenously making pilot city district voters more informed about the effects of decentralization. Empirical estimates based on survey data confirm a sizeable and statistically significant causal effect of being informed on the propensity to vote.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Participation and Democratic Theory
Pateman, C. (1970) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511720444 · Cited by 6,159
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1994) · doi:10.3386/t0151 · Cited by 5,302 · cited 1×
“19A rule of thumb in the IV-estimation literature on weak instruments (Staiger and Stock, 1997) suggests that first-stage F -values of excluded instruments in two-stage least squares estimation should be larger than 10.”
BackgroundThe analysis of household surveys: A microeconometric approach to development policy
Deaton, A. (1997) · doi:10.1596/0-8018-5254-4 · Cited by 4,877
Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902 · Cited by 4,230
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
Voting May Be Habit‐Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Shachar, R. (2003) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00038 · Cited by 717
Cited by
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992
Gentzkow, M. (2006) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.121.3.931 · Cited by 842
Radio's Impact on Public Spending
Stromberg, D. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839560 · Cited by 729
Political institutions and policy choices: evidence from the United States
Besley, T. (2002) · Working Paper Series · doi:10.1920/wp.ifs.2002.0213 · Cited by 577
Metadata
- Authors
- Lassen, D. D.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-12-03
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-118
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W1971398141
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 55.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00113.x
- The paper
- Lassen, D. D. (2005). The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00113.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
