Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T01:53:12.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response Bias in Survey Measures of Voter Behavior: Implications for Measurement and Inference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Claire Adida Open the ORCID record for Claire Adida [Opens in a new window] ,
Jessica Gottlieb ,
Eric Kramon  and
Gwyneth McClendon
Claire Adida*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
Jessica Gottlieb
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Eric Kramon
Affiliation:
George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Gwyneth McClendon
Affiliation:
New York University, New York, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: cadida@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This short report exploits a unique opportunity to investigate the implications of response bias in survey questions about voter turnout and vote choice in new democracies. We analyze data from a field experiment in Benin, where we gathered official election results and panel survey data representative at the village level, allowing us to directly compare average outcomes across both measurement instruments in a large number of units. We show that survey respondents consistently overreport turning out to vote and voting for the incumbent, and that the bias is large and worse in contexts where question sensitivity is higher. This has important implications for the inferences we draw about an experimental treatment, indicating that the response bias we identify is correlated with treatment. Although the results using the survey data suggest that the treatment had the hypothesized impact, they are also consistent with social desirability bias. By contrast, the administrative data lead to the conclusion that the treatment had no effect.

Keywords

Field experimentsurveyelectionvotingsocial desirability biasaccountabilityAfrica
Type
Short Report
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Winter 2019 , pp. 192 - 198
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Support for this research was provided by the Evidence in Governance and Politics Metaketa I. The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article (Adida et al. 2018) are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CXWIPM. This study is part of the larger Metaketa initiative to accumulate knowledge about the relationship between information and accountability across country contexts. We thank Amanda Pinkston for sharing 2011 legislative election data and Ana Quiroz and Charles Hintz for excellent research assistance. This research was conducted in collaboration with the Centre de Promotion de la Démocratie et du Développement (CEPRODE), and we thank Adam Chabi Bouko for leading the implementation effort. Our project received ethics approval from the authors’ home institutions. We also obtained permission to conduct the study from the President of the National Assembly of Benin. In each study village, permission to conduct research was obtained from the chief and consent was obtained from each surveyed participant in the study. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Adida, Claire, Gottlieb, Jessica, Kramon, Eric and McClendon, Gwyneth. 2017. Breaking the clientelistic voting equilibrium: the joint importance of salience and coordination. AIDData Working Paper 48.Google Scholar
Adida, Claire L., Gottlieb, Jessica, Kramon, Eric and McClendon, Gwyneth. 2018. Replication Data for: Response Bias in Survey Measures of Voter Behavior: Implications for Measurement and Inference. Harvard Dataverse V3. (doi: 10.7910/DVN/CXWIPM).Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2000. Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies. Political Analysis 8(4): 389–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, Jared, Castillo, Marco and Petrie, Ragan. 2014. What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning. The Economic Journal 124(574): F293–F326CrossRefGoogle 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. The Public Opinion Quarterly 63(1): 90–108.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(4): 751–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E., Kalla, Joshua L. and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2017. The Design of Field Experiments with Survey Outcomes: A Framework for Selecting more Efficient, Robust, and Ethical Designs. Political Analysis 25(4): 435–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, Aage R. 1968. Response Validity: Vote Report. The Public Opinion Quarterly 32(4): 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De LaO, Ana L. and Rodden, Jonathan A.. 2008. Does Religion Distract the Poor? Income and Issue Voting Around the World. Comparative Political Studies 41(4–5): 437–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Kenneth F. 2011. Campaign Persuasion and Nascent Partisanship in Mexico’s New Democracy. American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Carnot, Catherine G., Beach, Rebecca and Young, Barbara. 1987. Increasing Voting Behavior by Asking People if they Expect to Vote. Journal of Applied Psychology 72(2): 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2010a. Measuring Voter Turnout by Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence Calling into Question the Method’s Validity. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(2) :328–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2010b. Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports: Tests using the Item Count Technique. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(1): 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A. and Brockington, David. 2005. Social Desirability and Response Validity: A Comparative Analysis of Overreporting Voter Turnout in Five Countries. The Journal of Politics 67(3): 825–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin-Chassé, Alexandre. 2018. How to Survey About Electoral Turnout? Additional Evidence. Journal of Experimental Political Science 5:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mvukiyehe, Eric and Samii, Cyrus. 2017. Promoting Democracy in Fragile States: Field Experimental Evidence from Liberia. World Development 95: 254–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Noah L. 2016. Local Ethnic Geography, Expectations of Favoritism, and Voting in Urban Ghana. Comparative Political Studies 49(14): 1896–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, Brian D., Anderson, Barbara A. and Abramson, Paul R.. 1986. Who Overreports Voting? American Political Science Review 80(2): 613–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeglovits, Eva and Kritzinger, Sylvia. 2013. New Attempts to Reduce Overreporting of Voter Turnout and Their Effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26(2): 224–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Adida et al. supplementary material

Adida et al. supplementary material 1

Download Adida et al. supplementary material(File)
File 272.3 KB