David W. Nickerson
Temple University
61 Papers
301 Citations
David W. Nickerson is an academic researcher from Temple University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Turnout & Get out the vote. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 57 publications. Previous affiliations of David W. Nickerson include University of Notre Dame & Ryerson University.
Chat about Author
Papers
Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments
TL;DR: This article found that 60% of the propensity to vote is passed onto the other member of the household, suggesting a mechanism by which civic participation norms are adopted and couples grow more similar over time.
647
Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua
Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos,Chad Kiewiet de Jonge,Carlos Meléndez,Javier Osorio,David W. Nickerson +4 more
TL;DR: This paper conducted a survey after the 2008 Nicaraguan municipal elections and found that 24% of registered voters in Nicaragua were offered a gift or service in exchange for their vote, whereas only 2% reported the behavior when asked directly.
Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments
TL;DR: In this paper, randomized voter mobilization experiments were conducted in Bridgeport, Columbus, Detroit, Minneapolis, Raleigh, and St Paul prior to the November 6, 2001 elections, and the results indicated that face-to-face voter mobilization was effective in stimulating voter turnout across a wide spectrum of local elections.
Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment ∗
TL;DR: Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment as mentioned in this paper showed that learning constituency opinion can affect how legislators vote, but not how they vote.
285
Do You Have a Voting Plan? Implementation Intentions, Voter Turnout, and Organic Plan Making
David W. Nickerson,Todd Rogers +1 more
TL;DR: A field experiment during the 2008 presidential election is presented showing that facilitating the formation of a voting plan can increase turnout by 4.1 percentage points among those contacted, but a standard encouragement call and self-prediction have no significant impact.