Abstract
In today's political era, interest groups are infamous for their ability, both real and perceived, to affect political outcomes. Because interest groups are so influential, it is all the more important to understand how exactly they function and influence politics. One set of influence strategies deals in mobilizing their members to take political action, which is called outside lobbying. However, the existing literature does not have an answer as to what interest groups can do to maximize their mobilizational effectiveness. For this reason, this thesis seeks to answer the question of what tactics and strategies that are available to interest groups are the most effective at inducing political mobilization. This thesis seeks to answer this question through an in-depth comparative case study of the NRA and Everytown by analyzing what incentives they offer to their potential and existing members and how those offerings affect mobilization. The findings showed that because the NRA offers more types of incentives, including the offering of a shared social identity, they are able to utilize two special mobilizational tactics called shifting and urgency, which consistently boost their mobilizational efficacy to a very high level. In contrast, Everytown is less consistently effective at mobilization because they, for the most part, only offer purposive incentives, and as such are unable to use shifting and urgency. These findings show that what a group offers to its potential and existing members has immense effects on a group's mobilizational efficacy.