The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Persuasion: Empirical Evidence
Open accessAbstract
We provide a selective survey of empirical evidence on the effects as well as the drivers of persuasive communication. We consider persuasion directed at consumers, voters, donors, and investors. We organize our review around four questions. First, to what extent does persuasion affect the behavior of each of these groups? Second, what models best capture the response to persuasive communication? Third, what are persuaders' incentives, and what limits their ability to distort communications? Finally, what evidence exists on the way persuasion affects equilibrium outcomes in economics and politics?
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
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · cited 3×
“Also, non-informative dimensions may affect belief formation through channels such as framing, salience, and attention (Zaller 1992; Mullainathan, Schwarzstein, and Shleifer 2008), making the distinction between belief-based and preference-based models blurry.”
BackgroundLord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research
Geys, B. (2006) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2005.09.002 · Cited by 860
Gentzkow, M. (2006) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.121.3.931 · Cited by 842 · cited 1×
“This may be driven by both irrational confirmatory bias (Lord et al.1979) and rational inferences about quality by consumers with heterogeneous priors (Gentzkow & Shapiro 2006).”
Self-citationList, J. A., & Lucking‐Reiley, D. (2002) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/324392 · Cited by 535 · cited 1×
“Some have seen persuasion as a largely negative force, with citizens and consumers easily manipulated by those who hold political or economic power (Lippmann 1922, Robinson 1933, Galbraith 1967).”
Advertising, learning, and consumer choice in experience good markets: An empirical examination
Ackerberg, D. A. (2003) · International Economic Review · doi:10.1111/1468-2354.t01-2-00098 · Cited by 476
Cited by
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
Self-citationThe welfare effects of social media
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20190658 · Cited by 857
Self-citationDoes Diversity Matter for Health? Experimental Evidence from Oakland
Alsan, M., Garrick, O., & Graziani, G. (2019) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20181446 · Cited by 676
Media and Political Persuasion: Evidence from Russia
Enikolopov, R., Petrova, M., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.7.3253 · Cited by 568
Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media
Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 · Cited by 560
Metadata
- Authors
- DellaVigna, S., & Gentzkow, M.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Economics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2010-09-04
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 643-669
- ISSN
- 1941-1383 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-1391
- OpenAlex
- W2156209548
- Cited by
- 550
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 1.44
- 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: Persuasion: Empirical Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124309
- The paper
- DellaVigna, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2010). Persuasion: Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124309
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.
