Social pressure, surveillance, & voter registration

traditional registration tactics focus on college campuses and young voters

"fuck the nay-sayers" stickers

electronic voter registration-->young ppl don't go to the post office

Green, Gerber, and Grebner (2010) social pressure

your vote is public record, and ppl tend to lie about it

Craig: it pisses people off

non-profit sponsor the mailing bc cheaper postage, but then ppl email the non-profit to ask to be removed from mailing lists

over time, might get updates that might influence

Cialdini-->velocity might have an effect

if you see an upward trend, that could be motivating

students can register at home or at dorm

the more specific, the more effective is social proof

may not be able to pinpoint specific location

young ppl might not be bothered by the idea of voter registration being public

Shlomi: if you focus, it would be a lot easier online; flipside, there are distractions when doing things online

variables: level of surveillance, sender of the email, content of the email

send it from the quarterback-->peer influence Cornell
the ppl who are more popular, closer in age, peers

would FB be the natural place--within your FB network

should the content be shame-inducing? or positive reinforcement? Caitlyn suggests positive, but Craig and tk disagree

positive reinforcement is good for repeated behavior

have to frame it in a way that's not so shaming, but somehow lets them know that they're going to get feedback

competition bt dorms or schools

constant contact has testing built in for doing exactly this sort of stuff

how to control for existing efforts-->

randomizing on the level of dorms

shlomi: don't want to compare sororities and fraternities, you don't have so many dorms that you would randomize; randomize by floor or hallway within the dorm

through the RAs

what if you did it across companies?