Overreporting Voting

Bernstein, Robert A.; Chadha, Anita; Montjoy, Robert S.

doi:10.1086/320036

Cited by 324 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It seems therefore that the higher turnout in the samples is mostly because of the self‐reported nature of this figure, and not so much because of ‘self‐prophecy’ effects in the treatment group. Our finding is thus in line with the results of B ernstein , C hadha and M ontjoy (2001) and T raugott and K atosh (1979), who also find an over‐reporting gap of about 20% points (reported 70%, as opposed to real 50%). Our finding differs from that of G erber and G reen (2001), who do not find an indication that phone calls increase voter turnout.…”

Section: Datasupporting

confidence: 92%

Correcting for survey effects in pre‐election polls

Heij¹,

Franses²

2011

Statistica Neerlandica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pre-election polls can suffer from survey effects, causing biases in forecasted election outcomes. We advocate a simple methodology to estimate the magnitude of survey effects, by collecting data both before and after the election.This method is illustrated by means of a field study with data concerning the 2009 European Parliament elections in the Netherlands. Our study provides empirical evidence of significant positive survey effects with respect to voter participation, especially for individuals with low intention to vote. For our data, the overall survey effect on party shares is small. This effect can be more substantial, for example, if political orientation and voting intention are correlated in the sample.

show abstract

Section: Datasupporting

confidence: 92%

Correcting for survey effects in pre‐election polls

Heij¹,

Franses²

2011

Statistica Neerlandica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using voter lists for the study of turnout has some great virtues, but also limits. The single greatest advantage is that turnout is accurately recorded in the voter list—it is observed behavior and is therefore not plagued by the overreport problem inherent in surveys that ask individuals to self‐report their vote history (Clausen, 1968; Anderson and Silver, 1986; Bernstein, Chadha, and Montjoy, 2001), or by the ecological inference problem inherent in designs that look at aggregate turnout to make inferences about individual‐level behavior (King, 1997). Additionally, since we are computing statistical models on the population of registered voters, we have enough Level‐1 observations to allow for meaningful clustering within communities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections

Dyck

Seabrook

2010

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2) The percentage of people who do not vote is typically underestimated in both pre-election and post-election surveys (e.g., Bernstein, Chadha, & Montjoy, 2001). However, it has been shown that this does not substantially affect the predictive power of the explanatory variables, as comparisons of data that included self-reports and data that were validated using voter records revealed similar results (e.g., Katosh & Traugott, 1981).…”

Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can we learn from open questions in surveys? A case study on non-voting reported in the 2013 German longitudinal election study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open survey questions are often used to evaluate closed questions. However, they can fulfil this function only if there is a strong link between answers to open questions and answers to related closed questions. Using reasons for non-voting reported in the German Longitudinal Election Study 2013, we investigated this link by examining whether the reported reasons for non-voting may be substantive reasons or ex-post legitimations. We tested five theoretically derived hypotheses about respondents who gave, or did not give, a specific reason. Results showed that (a) answers to open questions were indeed related to answers to closed questions and could be used in explanatory turnout models to predict voting behavior, and (b) the relationship between answers to open and closed questions and the predictive power of reasons given in response to the open questions were stronger in the post-election survey (reported behavior) than in the pre-election survey (intended behavior).

show abstract

Overreporting Voting

Cited by 324 publications

References 29 publications

Correcting for survey effects in pre‐election polls

Correcting for survey effects in pre‐election polls

Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections

What can we learn from open questions in surveys? A case study on non-voting reported in the 2013 German longitudinal election study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About