Department of Public Expenditure and Reform

Questions: 1. Why can this study be viewed as a social science experiment? 2. What is the sample frame used in this study? 3. What is the function of the control group in this experimental study? 4. The experiment entailed mailing out four different types of letters to potential voters (in experimental design, this would be categorized as the treatment). Explain the rationale underlying the message of each of the four categories of letters. Why were each of the letters articulated the way they were? 5. After reviewing the results of the experiment on voting behavior, articulate a theory of voting behavior that explains the results achieved. 6. What ethical questions can be raised about the way this study was carried out? Answer: 1. A social science experiment is one that is conducted on human subjects in the real world scenario to research and understand the effects of a policy intervention. Unlike laboratory or medical experiments, in social experiments the researchers have only control of the randomization of the subjects (Augenblick, 2016). The given experiment stands true to this definition. The researchers have randomized the letters that would be sent to the groups and have not really controlled any of the other situations of the subjects. The idea was to understand which of the ideas implemented would motivate people to vote more and why the turn out for election voting was low (Kumar, 2013). 2. A sampling frame is one from which the sample is drawn. In simpler words it is the source of the sample. This frame provides the list of population that can be sampled and is usually dependent on the survey planner (Marsh, 2012). In our case, the sample frame was the 180,000 voters of Michigan that were used as the source by the political scientists Alan Gerber, Donald Green and Christopher Larimer to conduct the social science experiment. The sampling frame hence is the electoral register that has the list of all the voters (Razman, 2016). And also the records that maintain the participation of voting of each individual. 3. Control group is used as a measuring parameter in any experimental study. The members of the control group are excluded of the testing scenario but however are observed. They act as the benchmark to understand how the group that is being tested is performing. The function of the control group in this scenario is to help the scientists understand how the population would have reacted if they have not received the letters (Costa, 2015). This helped them analyse the change in behavioural pattern on the groups that received letters which was then compared to the control group 4. The experiment in question was more on the psychological front of the voters mind. It was an attempt to understand why the voting population has drastically reduced. To increase the number of voters it was also necessary to understand what would push the voters to enrol and be an active part of the elections. This study has hence divided the test group in to 4 and provided a different treatment for each. The first group was reminded of their civic duty, showing them voting was a responsibility (Gerber, 2013). The design on the letter suggests a mere transmission of information. The second group where told that they were under radar crumbing them to a small amount of social pressure. The style of writing and the plain design of the letter would here act a little intimidating. The third group was much more informed than the second. They were told about their own voting patterns. Highlighting the fact that they have not voted earlier could mean that the voters were made aware of the possible action that they could take. The design of the letter here is a informative yet not overwhelming study. The fourth group however were given a letter that let them know that their neighbours knew if they voted before and will know they voted in the present election (Wafula, 2015). This was more of a provocative message that has indeed seen maximum results given that the voting pattern increased by 27%. The idea behind the survey itself is to find what motivates the voters to actively participate in the polls 5. Being publically watched can be a strong motivator especially in casting votes. Truly stated in the article, there was a time when voting was public and supporting a leader in public is considered a pride. The steps of the survey are also on similar lines. The more the voters are told that voting would be a public record the more they are likely to vote. A Theory of Voting Equilibria by Roger B. Myerson and Robert J. Weber may not directly respond to this but is indeed an understanding of how the voters potential to vote varies in a potential environment. 6. One of the prime issues with the study is that the subjects were not informed clearly about the research in question, the purpose, the motive and the reason of the same. The subjects were made aware that their information is being tracked but not that their reaction would be tracked too. It is true indeed that informing the subjects of the same would be against the motive of the research as the subjects may try to control the output (Nielsen, 2014). However, the same is still an ethical issue. One other problem ethically is that voting information was informed to neighbours of the subject in question and vice-versa without the consent of the subject. Utilitarianism theory of ethics supports the fact that the research was not disclosed to the subjects for greater good but from the subject point of view it is still an issue. References Augenblick, N. and Nicholson, S., 2016. Ballot Position, Choice Fatigue, and Voter Behaviour. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), pp.460-480. Costa, P. and Ferreira da Silva, F., 2015. The impact of voter evaluations of leaders traits on voting behaviour: Evidence from seven European Countries. West European Politics, 38(6), pp.1226-1250. Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C.M., 2013. Is there a secret ballot? Ballot secrecy perceptions and their implications for voting behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 43(01), pp.77-102. Kumar, S. and Rai, P., 2013. Measuring Voter Behaviour in India. Sage. Marsh, M., Suiter, J. and Reidy, T., 2012. Report on reasons behind voter behaviour in the Oireachtas inquiry Referendum 2011. Dublin: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Filling the void, 49. Nielsen, J.H., 2014. Why use experiments in EU studiesquest. Comparative European Politics. Razman, M.R., Ramli, Z. and Zakaria, S.Z.S., 2016. Behaviour Analysis of General Election in the Province of Riau, Indonesia. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 19(7A), p.2565. Wafula, J.O., 2015. Voter Behaviour in General Elections in Kenya, 1992-2007: Implications for the Development of Liberal Democracy (Doctoral dissertation, Kenyatta University).