Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-pr6g6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-07T00:22:55.927Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English

Experiments to Reduce the Over-Reporting of Voting: A Pipeline to the Truth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Michael J. Hanmer ,
Antoine J. Banks  and
Ismail K. White
Michael J. Hanmer*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, 3140 Tydings Hall, College Park, MD 20742
Antoine J. Banks
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, 3140 Tydings Hall, College Park, MD 20742 e-mail: abanks12@umd.edu
Ismail K. White
Affiliation:
Ohio State University, 2008 Derby Hall, 154 N Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 e-mail: white.697@polisci.osu.edu
*
e-mail: mhanmer@umd.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Voting is a fundamental part of any democratic society. But survey-based measures of voting are problematic because a substantial proportion of nonvoters report that they voted. This over-reporting has consequences for our understanding of voting as well as the behaviors and attitudes associated with voting. Relying on the “bogus pipeline” approach, we investigate whether altering the wording of the turnout question can cause respondents to provide more accurate responses. We attempt to reduce over-reporting simply by changing the wording of the vote question by highlighting to the respondent that: (1) we can in fact find out, via public records, whether or not they voted; and (2) we (survey administrators) know some people who say they voted did not. We examine these questions through a survey on US voting-age citizens after the 2010 midterm elections, in which we ask them about voting in those elections. Our evidence shows that the question noting we would check the records improved the accuracy of the reports by reducing the over-reporting of turnout.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Winter 2014 , pp. 130 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: For helpful comments, we thank Fred Conrad, Jenna Fulton, Christina Heshmatpour, Karen Kaufmann, Vince Hutchings, Roger Tourangeau, Candace Turrito, Nick Valentino, and Eric Wish and his staff at the Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR) at the University of Maryland. We also thank the TESS PIs, reviewers, and staff. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site. For replication data see Hanmer, Banks, and White 2013.

References

Abelson, Robert P., Loftus, Elizabeth F., and Greenwald, Anthony G. 1992. Attempts to improve the accuracy of self-reports of voting. In Questions about questions, ed. Tanur, Judith M., 138–53. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1982. Interpreting and using regression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Llewellyn, Morgan H. 2008. Are Americans confident their ballots are counted? Journal of Politics 70: 754–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hersh, Eitan. 2012. Validation: What big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis 20: 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belli, Robert F., Moore, Sean E., and VanHoewyk, John. 2006. An experimental comparison of question forms used to reduce vote overreporting. Electoral Studies 25: 751–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belli, Robert F., Traugott, Santa, and Rosenstone, Steven J. 1994. Reducing over-reporting of voter turnout: An experiment using a source monitoring framework. NES Technical Reports Number 35 (see available technical reports at http://www.umich.edu/∼nes/~.Google Scholar
Belli, Robert F., Traugott, Michael W., Young, Margaret, and McGonagle, Katherine A. 1999. Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure, and source monitoring. Public Opinion Quarterly 63: 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belli, Robert F., Traugott, Michael W., and Beckmann, Matthew N. 2001. What leads to voting overreports? Contrasts of overreporters to validated voters and admitted nonvoters in the American National Election Studies. Journal of Official Statistics 17(4): 479–98.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2005. The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States. American Politics Research 33: 471–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Robert, Chadha, Anita, and Montjoy, Robert. 2001. Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly 65: 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenner, Philip S. 2011. Identity importance and the overreporting of religious attendance: Multiple imputation of religious attendance using the American Time Use Study and General Social Survey. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 50: 103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2000. Voter turnout and the National Elections Studies. Political Analysis 8: 389–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2003. Internal and external effects on the accuracy of NES turnout: Reply. Political Analysis 11: 193–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassel, Carol A. Overreporting and electoral participation research. American Politics Research 31: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Jackson, Robert A. 2001. Misreport of vote choice in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1: 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John P., and Tifft, Larry L. 1966. Polygraph and interview validation of self-reported deviant behavior. American Sociological Review 31: 516–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausen, Aage. 1968. Response validity: Vote report. Public Opinion Quarterly 32: 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corstange, Daniel. 2009. Sensitive questions, truthful answers? Modeling the list experiment with LISTIT. Political Analysis 17: 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deufel, Benjamin J., and Kedar, Orit. 2010. Race and turnout in U.S. elections: Exposing hidden effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 286–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, Brian, Hanmer, Michael J., Park, Won-ho, and White, Ismail K. 2007. Good excuses: Understanding who votes with an improved turnout question. Public Opinion Quarterly 71: 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Hurley, Patricia A. 1984. Nonvoters in voters' clothing: The impact of voting behavior misreporting on voting behavior research. Social Science Quarterly 65: 199–206.Google Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., Banks, Antoine J., and White, Ismail K. 2013. Replication data for: Experiments to reduce the over-reporting of voting: A pipeline to the truth. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/22893UNF:5:eJOVAjDU0E0jzSQ2bRCg9g==IQSS Dataverse Network [Distributor] V1 [Version] (accessed October 15, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., and Krosnick, Jon A. 2010. Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Edward E., and Sigall, Harold. 1971. The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin 76: 349–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Brockington, David. 2005. Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries. Journal of Politics 67: 825–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1993. On behalf of an experimental political science. In Experimental foundations of political science, eds. Kinder, Donald R. and Palfrey, Thomas R. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael P. 2003. On the over-report bias of the National Election Survey. Political Analysis 11: 180–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, Michael D. 2003. Comment on “Voter turnout and the National Election Studies.” Political Analysis 11: 187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presser, Stanley. 1990. Can context changes reduce vote over-reporting? Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 586–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxe, Leonard. 1991. Lying: Thoughts of an applied psychologist. American Psychologist 46: 409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuessler, Alexander A. 2000. A logic of expressive choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert. 1996. Cognition and communication: Judgement biases, research methods, and the logic of conversion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Silver, Brian D., Anderson, Barbara A., and Abramson, Paul R. 1986. Who overreports voting? American Political Science Review 80: 613–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stryker, Sheldon, and Serpe, Richard T. 1994. Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, and Yan, Ting. 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin 133: 859–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tourangeau, Roger, Smith, Tom W., and Rasinski, Kenneth A. 1997. Motivation to report sensitive behaviors on surveys: Evidence from a bogus pipeline experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27: 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Michael W., and Katosh, John P. 1979. Response validity in surveys of voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly 43: 359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, Blair T. 1975. The distortion of voter recall. American Journal of Political Science 19: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wish, Eric D., Gray, Thomas, Sushinsky, Jonathan, Yacoubian, George S. Jr., and Fitzgerald, Nora. 2000. An experiment to enhance the reporting of drug use by arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues 30: 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1993. Errors in measuring vote choice in the National Election Studies, 1952–88. American Journal of Political Science 37: 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hanmer et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Hanmer et al. supplementary material(File)
File 149 KB