Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6f8dk Total loading time: 0.353 Render date: 2021-03-04T11:06:22.800Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
PS: Political Science & Politics PS: Political Science & Politics

Article contents

Political Scandal and Bias in Survey Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Nicholas Goedert
Nicholas Goedert
Affiliation:
Lafayette College
Corresponding
E-mail address:
goedert@lafayette.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides evidence for bias in the polling of American political candidates who are accused of personal or financial scandal, wherein the support of the accused candidate is understated. Evidence for this phenomenon is found in the analysis of a dataset of district-level polls of US House elections during the 2002–2012 election cycles. This bias helps to explain several unanticipated outcomes in recent American legislative elections, in which scandal-tarred incumbents unexpectedly were reelected or defeated by surprisingly narrow margins. The article also finds evidence of a smaller bias, previously observed by practitioners, wherein support is overstated for incumbents who are not accused of scandal.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 813 - 818
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Barone, Michael et al. . 2002–2012 editions. Almanac of American Politics, Washington, DC: National Journal Group.Google Scholar
Basinger, Scott. 2013. “Scandals and Congressional Elections in the Post-Watergate Era.” Political Research Quarterly 66(2): 385–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam. 1999. “The Two Faces of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 1209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Matthew, Iacus, Stefano, King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2008. “CEM: Coarsened Exact Matching in Stata.” The Stata Journal 9: 524–46.Google Scholar
Bowers, Chris. 2004. “Incumbent Rule Research Update.” Available at http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4852.
Campbell, James. 2000. The American Campaign. College Station: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2008. “Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors?” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven, Guterbock, Thomas, and Borg, Marian. 1991. “Race-of-Interview Effects in a Pre-election Poll, Virginia 1989.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 313–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, David, Hudes, Esther, and Donovan, David. 1999. “Estimating and Correcting for Response Bias in Self-Reported HIV Risk Behavior.” Journal of Sex Research 35: 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, David, Jackson, Robert, and Mondak, Jeffrey. 2009. “Abramoff, Email, and the Mistreated Mistress: Scandal and Character in the 2006 Elections.” In Fault Lines: Why the Republicans Lost Congress, ed. Mondak, Jeffrey et al. . New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirano, Shigeo, and Snyder, James M.. 2012. “What Happens to Incumbents in Scandals?” International Quarterly Journal of Political Science 7(4): 447–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel. 2009. “No More Wilder Effect, Never a Whitman Effect.” Journal of Politics 71: 769–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, Stefano, King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2009. “Matching for Causal Inference without Balance Checking.” Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/cem-abs.shtml.
Kaufmann, Karen, Petrocik, John, and Shaw, Daron. 2008. Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and Myths about American Voters. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Mellman, Mark. 2006. “Incumbent Rule Broken Sometimes.” The Hill, October 11, 2006. Available at http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/incumbent-rule-broken-sometimes-2006-10-11.html.
Panagakis, Nick. 1989. “Incumbent Races: Closer Than They Appear.” The Polling Report, February 27, 1989. Available at http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Steiger, Darby, and Wilson, David. 2001. “Self-Administered Questions by Telephone: Evaluating Interactive Voice Response.” Public Opinion Quarterly 66(2): 265–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, and Yan, Ting. 2007. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” Psychological Bulletin 133: 859–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van de Ven, Niels, Gilovich, Thomas, and Zeelennberg, Marcel. 2010. “Delay, Doubt, and Decision.” Psychological Science 21: 568–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winters, Matther, and Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2011. “Lacking Information or Condoning Corruption? Voter Attitudes Toward Corruption in Brazil.” Presented at the 4th Annual NYU–CESS Conference on Experimental Political Science, March 2011.
Wyner, Gordon. 1980. “Response Error in Self-Reported Number of Arrests.” Sociological Methods and Research 9: 161–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goedert supplementary material

Supplementary appendix

File 227 KB

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 136 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Political Scandal and Bias in Survey Responses
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Political Scandal and Bias in Survey Responses
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Political Scandal and Bias in Survey Responses
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *