Home » News » Facebook Boosts Election Turnout

Facebook Boosts Election Turnout

Facebook Boosts Election TurnoutAbout one-third of a million more people voted in the United States in 2010 because of a single Facebook message on Election Day, according to a new study.

The massive experiment by researchers at the University of California, San Diego, shows that peer pressure helps get out the vote, while also demonstrating that online social networks can affect real-world behavior.

“Voter turnout is incredibly important to the democratic process. Without voters, there’s no democracy,” said lead author Dr. James Fowler, professor of political science.

“Our study suggests that social influence may be the best way to increase voter turnout. Just as importantly, we show that what happens online matters a lot for the ‘real world.'”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, voter participation was about 53 percent of the voting-age population for the presidential election in 2008. For the Congressional election in 2010, the turnout was just 37 percent.

The numbers don’t lie: A lot of people who could vote in the United States don’t.

In the study, more than 60 million people on Facebook saw a social, nonpartisan “get out the vote” message at the top of their news feeds on Nov. 2, 2010.

The message featured a reminder that “Today is Election Day,” a clickable “I Voted” button, a link to local polling places, a counter displaying how many Facebook users had already reported voting, and up to six profile pictures of their own Facebook friends who reported voting.

About 600,000 people, or 1 percent, were randomly assigned a modified “informational message,” which was identical in all respects except for pictures of friends.

An additional 600,000 served as the control group and received no Election Day message from Facebook at all.

Fowler and colleagues then compared the behavior of recipients of the social message, recipients of the informational message, and those who saw nothing.

Users who received the social message were more likely than the others both to look for a polling place and to click on the “I Voted” button.

While measuring clicks can give you a pretty good sense of how people behave online, it doesn’t tell you how many people really got out and voted, the researchers admit, noting that other studies have shown that a desire to conform to social expectations causes many people to claim they vote when they don’t.

To estimate how many people actually voted, the team used publicly available voting records. In their analyses, they say they developed a technique that prevented Facebook from knowing which users actually voted or registered.

But it allowed the researchers to compare rates of turnout between users who saw the message and users who didn’t. What they discovered was about 4 percent of those who said they had voted hadn’t.

The numbers also showed that the rates of actual voting were highest for the group that got the social message, the researchers report.

Users who got the informational message — who didn’t see photos of friends — voted at the same rates as those who saw no message at all. Those who saw photos of friends, on the other hand, were more likely to vote.

“Social influence made all the difference in political mobilization,” Fowler said. “It’s not the ‘I Voted’ button, or the lapel sticker we’ve all seen, that gets out the vote. It’s the person attached to it.”

The researchers estimate that the effect of the Facebook social message generated an additional 60,000 votes in 2010. But the effects of the social network — of “social contagion” among friends — yielded another 280,000 more, for a total of 340,000, they claim. “The social network yielded an additional four voters for every one voter that was directly mobilized,” Fowler said.

The researchers also show that the message affected people at two degrees of separation: the friends of the friends of social-message recipients were also more likely to click on the “I voted” button, yielding an additional 1 million votes.

“If you only look at the people you target, you miss the whole story,” said Fowler. “Behaviors changed not only because people were directly affected, but also because their friends (and friends of friends) were affected.”

Most of the increase in actual voting, according to Fowler, was attributable to “close friends,” people with whom users were most likely to have a close relationship outside the online network, too. The researchers established this by asking some users about their closest friends and then measuring how often they interact on Facebook. The researchers showed that Facebook interactions could be used to predict which Facebook friends were also close friends “in real life,” and it was these close relationships that accounted for virtually all the difference in voting.

Research is now continuing on what kinds of messages work best for increasing voter participation and what kinds of people are most influential in the process.

And the process has the ability to change things. While the effect of one message per friend was small, when you multiply that across the millions of users and billions of friendships in online social networks, you quickly get to numbers that make a difference, according to Fowler.

“The main driver of behavior change is not the message — it’s the vast social network,” he said. “Whether we want to get out the vote or improve public health, we should not only focus on the direct effect of an intervention, but also on the indirect effect as it spreads from person to person to person.”

Source: University of California-San Diego

Facebook Boosts Election Turnout

Janice Wood

Janice Wood is a long-time writer and editor who began working at a daily newspaper before graduating from college. She has worked at a variety of newspapers, magazines and websites, covering everything from aviation to finance to healthcare.

APA Reference
Wood, J. (2018). Facebook Boosts Election Turnout. Psych Central. Retrieved on October 27, 2020, from
Scientifically Reviewed
Last updated: 8 Aug 2018 (Originally: 13 Sep 2012)
Last reviewed: By a member of our scientific advisory board on 8 Aug 2018
Published on Psych All rights reserved.