The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do You Have a Voting Plan?: Implementation Intentions, Voter Turnout, and Organic Plan Making
Abstract
Phone calls encouraging citizens to vote are staples of modern campaigns. Insights from psychological science can make these calls dramatically more potent while also generating opportunities to expand psychological theory. We present a field experiment conducted during the 2008 presidential election ( N = 287,228) showing that facilitating the formation of a voting plan (i.e., implementation intentions) can increase turnout by 4.1 percentage points among those contacted, but a standard encouragement call and self-prediction have no significant impact. Among single-eligible-voter households, the formation of a voting plan increased turnout among persons contacted by 9.1 percentage points, whereas those in multiple-eligible-voter households were unaffected by all scripts. Some situational factors may organically facilitate implementation-intentions formation more readily than others; we present data suggesting that this could explain the differential treatment effect that we found. We discuss implications for psychological and political science, and public interventions involving implementation-intentions formation.
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
Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.493 · Cited by 5,478
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
Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1 · Cited by 3,236
Cited by
Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing
Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad9713 · Cited by 798
Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems.
Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000115 · Cited by 617
Yates, J. F., & de Oliveira, S. (2016) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.003 · Cited by 308
Political Campaigns and Big Data
Nickerson, D. W., & Rogers, T. (2014) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.28.2.51 · Cited by 278
Self-citationApplying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design
Madrian, B. C. (2014) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041033 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Nickerson, D. W., & Rogers, T.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-01-08
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 194-199
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2106952633
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 63.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Do You Have a Voting Plan?: Implementation Intentions, Voter Turnout, and Organic Plan Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0956797609359326
- The paper
- Nickerson, D. W., & Rogers, T. (2010). Do You Have a Voting Plan?: Implementation Intentions, Voter Turnout, and Organic Plan Making. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609359326
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.