PHOENIX β Theyβre often seen as simple affirmations of support by backers.
And some say theyβre little more than visual blight.
But thereβs a new report that shows those lawn signs for candidates that pop up before every election actually can sway a few votes β perhaps just enough to change the outcome of a close election. And that surprised the researchers who conducted the experiment.
Alexander Coppock, one of the five researchers in the projects, said he and his colleagues started with the presumption that those small signs are likely a waste of money by candidates.
βTheyβre probably just preaching to the choir,β said Coppock, a doctoral candidate in American Politics at New Yorkβs Columbia University.
So they decided to test that theory by working with candidates in Virginia who agreed to let them put up extra 18-by-24-inch signs in some areas β above and beyond what the candidates had planned β but not in others. That included one statewide race and three local races.
And they chose the precinct to βtreatβ at random.
What they found, overall, was that the vote for the candidate who was sponsoring the signs β or in one case, against the candidate who was the target of a negative sign β was 1.7 percent higher in the βtreatedβ precincts than it was in the others.
Potentially more significant, Coppock said there was no statistical difference in total voter turnout.
βBut there was an effect on vote share,β he said.
βOur best guess is that the lawn signs actually persuaded people,β Coppock continued. βInstead of voting for one candidate, they voted for a different candidate.β
The βwhyβ behind that, however, remains unclear β and subject to some future studies.
One of those, Coppock said, will be whether the placement of the signs is a factor. He speculates that those placed on the front lawns of homes have a more substantial effect than those simply placed in highway medians.
βOne sort of says this person has specific support in this neighborhood,β he explained.
βMaybe I can infer about the kind of person that supports Donald Trump because itβs in a particular kind of neighborhood,β Coppock continued. βOr I could infer about who is supporting Hillary Clinton in my community by where they live.β
By contrast, he said, signs along the highway appear largely to promote name identification rather than actually persuade individuals to change their minds.
Arizona political consultant Constantin Querard, who works for Republican candidates β and uses yard signs β said the results of the study are not surprising.
And Querard said his own experience convinces him that Coppock and his colleagues are onto something in believing that where a sign is plays a role in its political effectiveness.
βIf you have them scattered out on the highways and byways, they can be helpful from a name ID standpoint,β Querard explained. But he said they tend to disappear in a sea of similar signs.
Ditto, he said, for signs on street corners.
βOn your street, maybe thereβs one or two,β Querard said.
But itβs not even that simple. He said the higher the profile of the race β and the more people already know of candidates β the less politically useful a yard sign will be.
βIf you put your yard sign out because youβre telling your friends youβre voting for Romney or youβre voting for Obama, youβre not trying to persuade people,β he said.
βItβs like putting a Cubs flag out when theyβre in the playoffs,β Querard continued. βYouβre just telling your neighbors which side youβre on.β
The dynamics are different, he said, on βdown ticketβ races, things toward the end of the ballot like state legislator or county assessor.
βThese are races where your neighbors maybe arenβt tracking the race as close as you are,β Querard said.
βYour endorsement is valuable only because they assume you know the person or pay attention to this. And in the absence of any other deciding factor, the personal endorsement from your neighbor actually, I think, carries weight.β
Now, Querard admitted he canβt prove it.
βI donβt have any science to back me up,β he conceded.
Coppock said he hopes to provide that with the next study.
One thing the research did prove is that going negative apparently works.
He said three of the races studied each had positive signs for the candidates, while a fourth attacked a foe in another race.
βThatβs where we saw the strongest effect,β Coppock said.
While he canβt specifically explain the difference, βitβs possible the negative signs were more memorable.β