The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior
Abstract
During 1953 and 1954 two different experiments designed to determine the comparative effectiveness of personalized and impersonalized propaganda techniques were conducted in Ann Arbor. Although “scientific” in orientation, both of them were carried out in conjunction with the teaching of a political science course in public opinion. This not only provided a unique pedagogical opportunity but also made possible the execution of a particularly difficult type of research. In the report following the first year's experiment, the class procedure used and the drawbacks resulting from the use of students were discussed. Here we will present the major findings and interpretations of two years of such experimental work. Personal contact in political campaigns in the United States today receives a prominent emphasis in the thinking and planning of party strategists. Despite technological improvements in the mass media, especially television, there is today no diminution in attention to programs for personalized appeals to “get out the vote,” unsystematic though such programs may often be. Successful political campaigners in recent years invariably relate their success in part, at least, to the volume of their handshaking, their extensive itineraries, and the intensity of personalized organizational work. In November, 1954 President Eisenhower made history with his initiation of a Republican “talkathon” by telephoning ten party workers around the nation just before election day.
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
Cited by
The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2585837 · Cited by 1,380
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
Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments
Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00354.x · Cited by 309
Metadata
- Authors
- Eldersveld, S. J.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1956-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 154-165
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2102254801
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.84
- 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: Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1951603
- The paper
- Eldersveld, S. J. (1956). Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951603
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.