The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Can biased polls distort electoral results? Evidence from the lab

Can biased polls distort electoral results? Evidence from the lab
Can biased polls distort electoral results? Evidence from the lab
We introduce a new methodological approach for studying the effect of biased
polls on election outcomes and apply it to a set of new experiments with 375 participants. Voters may observe and learn about the bias by playing multiple voting rounds. While in control conditions, polls are unbiased, in treatment conditions, participants view only poll results where a particular candidate’s vote share is the largest. This candidate is consistently elected more often in the treatments than in the controls, because biased polls robustly distort voters’ expectations about vote shares. This effect holds after eighteen election rounds, out of which the first three are practice rounds, but somewhat more weakly in our main treatment where voters are explicitly informed about the bias.
Beliefs, Biased polls, Lab experiment, Voting
Boukouras, Aristotelis
d55eb8b6-af70-4536-bc6e-29d3b97d7932
Jennings, William
2ab3f11c-eb7f-44c6-9ef2-3180c1a954f7
Li, Lunzheng
7d699bd6-0aec-458f-9ed6-76a42c4893ae
Maniadis, Zacharias
70ffa309-94c9-487c-982f-778294ea2a13
Boukouras, Aristotelis
d55eb8b6-af70-4536-bc6e-29d3b97d7932
Jennings, William
2ab3f11c-eb7f-44c6-9ef2-3180c1a954f7
Li, Lunzheng
7d699bd6-0aec-458f-9ed6-76a42c4893ae
Maniadis, Zacharias
70ffa309-94c9-487c-982f-778294ea2a13

Boukouras, Aristotelis, Jennings, William, Li, Lunzheng and Maniadis, Zacharias (2023) Can biased polls distort electoral results? Evidence from the lab. European Journal of Political Economy, 78, [102383]. (doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2023.102383).

Record type: Article

Abstract

We introduce a new methodological approach for studying the effect of biased
polls on election outcomes and apply it to a set of new experiments with 375 participants. Voters may observe and learn about the bias by playing multiple voting rounds. While in control conditions, polls are unbiased, in treatment conditions, participants view only poll results where a particular candidate’s vote share is the largest. This candidate is consistently elected more often in the treatments than in the controls, because biased polls robustly distort voters’ expectations about vote shares. This effect holds after eighteen election rounds, out of which the first three are practice rounds, but somewhat more weakly in our main treatment where voters are explicitly informed about the bias.

Text
BJLM2022_Biased polls - Accepted Manuscript
Download (1MB)
Text
1-s2.0-S0176268023000277-main - Proof
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 March 2023
e-pub ahead of print date: 5 March 2023
Published date: June 2023
Additional Information: Funding Information: We are greatly indebted to Daniel Zizzo, John Hey and Alexandros Karakostas for their support and assistance. This work was supported by BA/Leverhulme small grant SG162362 and the project “SInnoPSis” funded by Horizon 2020 under grant agreement ID: 857636 . We would like to thank David K. Levine, Adriana Bunea, Philippos Louis, David Rahman, Joel Sobel, Erik Gahner Larsen, seven anonymous referees, seminar participants at the Universities of Portsmouth, Southampton, Leicester, King’s College London, as well as participants at the Second Cherry Blossom Workshop on Experimental Economics in Wuhan, China; the 2018 and 2019 CRETE conferences in Tinos, Greece; the 2018 Workshop on Perceptions and Public Policies, Bar Ilan, Israel, the 2019 Cyprus Meeting on Behaviours and Algorithms, Cyprus, and the Central European Programme on Economic Theory 2019, Italy. Funding Information: We are greatly indebted to Daniel Zizzo, John Hey and Alexandros Karakostas for their support and assistance. This work was supported by BA/Leverhulme small grant SG162362 and the project “SInnoPSis” funded by Horizon 2020 under grant agreement ID: 857636. We would like to thank David K. Levine, Adriana Bunea, Philippos Louis, David Rahman, Joel Sobel, Erik Gahner Larsen, seven anonymous referees, seminar participants at the Universities of Portsmouth, Southampton, Leicester, King's College London, as well as participants at the Second Cherry Blossom Workshop on Experimental Economics in Wuhan, China; the 2018 and 2019 CRETE conferences in Tinos, Greece; the 2018 Workshop on Perceptions and Public Policies, Bar Ilan, Israel, the 2019 Cyprus Meeting on Behaviours and Algorithms, Cyprus, and the Central European Programme on Economic Theory 2019, Italy. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors
Keywords: Beliefs, Biased polls, Lab experiment, Voting

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 476142
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/476142
PURE UUID: 24b70d66-3d1b-4b9f-9d31-ec9e07f31c1a
ORCID for William Jennings: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9007-8896
ORCID for Zacharias Maniadis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3225-0835

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 12 Apr 2023 16:52
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:29

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Aristotelis Boukouras
Author: Lunzheng Li

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×