The document discusses a proposed experiment on the voting behaviors of young voters. It aims to test whether exposing young voters to facts about political candidates affects how they vote based on logic rather than popularity. The experiment would have three groups: a control group exposed to candidate biographies and a post-test, and two treatment groups additionally exposed to alternating facts about candidates' policies and given a post-test. The experiment hopes to show that with more information, young voters will make informed choices at the ballot box. Previous research discussed found that young voters with less life experience and knowledge tended to vote based more on popularity than issues.

1. Adams-Wiley1
Ana M. Adams-Wiley
Dr. Glen Smith
Research paper/2600
11/30/2015
Young Voters
With the growth of the United States’ population, the growth rate of young voters has
begun to increase in 2004. It is important to know how and why the new generation places their
vote for a candidate to represent their country. The relevance of knowing how and why they vote
can help candidates to persuade the young society to vote for their candidacy. By their vote it can
shape the future by how that elected official creates laws for the people. It is important because if
the laws have a negative impact on the country then they chose the wrong candidate.
The experiment that will be conducted involves three groups. This experiment will try
and prove that if the young voters are exposed to facts on the candidates then they could vote on
what is logical rather than what is popular. So how informed is our young society before they
arrive at the ballot boxes?
A research done by Meghan Condon and Matthew Holleque on voting behavior on the
young voters, found based on, “…general psychological attitudes and personality traits…” were
“…developed outside of that domain to determine behavioral choices…” (Condon and Holleque;
pg 168). Their research showed that low social economic status played a role on their voting
behavior. However, the same was said about young voters with a high social economic status
that had little life experience causing them to vote based on their “…internal political efficacy in

2. Adams-Wiley2
part on their observations of older family or community members’ participation” (Condon and
Holleque; pg. 170). Their hypothesis stated as follows:
H1: Holding demographic factors constant, young
people with higher general self- efficacy will be
more likely to vote.
We also expect the effect of general self-efficacy to
be greater for some young people than others.
General self-efficacy tends only to play a large role
in behavioral choices when the relevant specific
efficacy is poorly developed or uncertain. We
believe that young people from low socioeconomic
status (SES) family backgrounds will have less
well-developed internal political efficacy attitudes
and will therefore be more likely than their
advantaged peers to make turnout decisions based
on general self-efficacy.
H2: Young people from disadvantaged social
backgrounds will rely more on general self-efficacy
to determine their turnout than their more
advantaged peers.
We expect this heterogeneity because, though few
young adults have had opportunities to build their
political efficacy through their own experiences in
actual electoral politics, more advantaged youth
have greater opportunity to develop a solid sense of
political efficacy through traditional socialization
experiences
These disadvantaged youth are also less likely to
observe adults participating in politics, a point that
is key within the framework of efficacy theory.
When personal experience is limited, people can
build a sense of specific efficacy from vicarious
experience, in this case observation of others’
political involvement. (Condon and Holleque; pg.
170)
This research did prove that exposing political information to a young voter can increase better
choices in how they vote. Condon and Holleque gathered a sample of respondents ages ranged
from 20 to 33. They asked them a series of questions to see “…how much control they have over

3. Adams-Wiley3
their own lives” (Condon and Holleque; pg. 172). They used the “…Pearlin Mastery index (PMI)
to measure general self-efficacy” (Condon and Holleque; pg. 172). They wanted to measure
whether socio-economic classes had any correlation with the young society’s voting behavior.
They discovered that the young voters with less knowledge and life experience contributed to
their decisions on whether or not they voted in an election.
Scott D. Wells and Elizabeth A. Dudash created an experiment with the question on how
“…to understand young voters’ information-seeking habits…” (Wells and Dudash; pg. 1281).
They discovered in their research after conducting studies from thirteen focus groups “…at six
colleges and universities located in Ohio, California, Kansas, and Missouri” (Wells and Dudash;
pg. 1281) that the young voters were not only less informed but not as politically involved as
their results concluded. The research results concluded that “young citizens seemed to note that
knowledge should lead to increased civic activity and participation” (Wells and Dudash; pg.
1285). The theory that is proposed in this experiment is that exposure to the candidates’
biography and what these candidates can offer the public can give the young voter a better
understanding in what they want in a candidate. The expectation of this experiment is the student
will leave with more knowledge of the candidates running for office. Therefore, they will choose
a candidate based on facts and not what is popular.
The experiment conducted will be a between subjects design. The sample for this study
will be a convenient sample drawn from the students of the University of North Georgia by using
the university’s e-mail data base. After talking to the president of the university with approval by
the departments, the e-mails will address an extra credit incentive if they chose to participate in
the experiment. Before testing, the students will be told there are voter registration forms
available if they would like to register after the experiment. If a student registers to vote after the

4. Adams-Wiley4
test, this should signify that the experiment had an impact on the students. There will be three
groups separated in three different meeting rooms at the student center of the university. Each
group will be given an IRB approved consent form by the University of North Georgia before the
group enters the experiment. The first group will be the control group that will be exposed to a
biography of two candidates with a post test. The additional two groups will be the treatment
groups. Both treatment groups will be given a biography of those candidates with altercating
facts on their policies and given a post test. The positive effects of this experiment by testing the
three groups should give results of a higher reliability. However, the negative effects of this
experiment could happen if the students knew the exact question. Since they are being tested on
how informed they are on the candidates, they will be given information before the candidates’
literatures and post-tests stating this experiment is for an opinion poll based on candidate
information. This is to reduce bias in how well they are familiar with the candidates’ biographies
and polices.
By using the between subjects design helps to reduce bias within the students mind.
Choosing three groups raises the reliability and consistency in the results. The negative to this
design is if there is a low turn-out in participation in the experiment there will not be enough
information to evaluate the research question. However, since most students enjoy extra credit
options for their classes, the expectation rate should be a good turn-out in participation. In the
end, this experiment should prove that with enough information, the student with be
knowledgeable in how they vote in the future.

5. Adams-Wiley5
Work Cited
Condon, M., & Holleque, M. (2013). Entering Politics: General Self-Efficacy and Voting
Behavior Among Young People. Political Psychology, 34(2), 167-181.
doi:10.1111/pops.12019
Georgia Politics, Campaigns, and Elections for September 11, 2014 - Georgia Politics,
Campaigns and Elections - GaPundit. (2014, September 11). Retrieved December 6,
2015, from http://gapundit.com/2014/09/11/georgia-politics-campaigns-elections-
september-11-2014/
IRB forms. (n.d.). Retrieved December 6, 2015, from http://ung.edu/search.php?q=irb forms
Milwaukee Theater. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://2016.presidential-
candidates.org/
Wells, S. D., & Dudash, E. A. (2007). Wha'd'ya know?: Examining young voters' political
information and efficacy in the 2004 election. The American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9),
1280-1289. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/214764255?accountid=159965