IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i1p114-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of pollsters in the United States: Experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy P. Johnson
  • Henning Silber
  • Jill E. Darling

Abstract

Objective: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the term “pollster” has, in recent years, become stigmatized in the United States. We explore this and a subsequent question as to whether negative perceptions of pollsters affect people's perceived trustworthiness of survey findings. Methods: Survey experiments were administered to national probability‐based samples after the 2016 and 2020 elections. Results: In each study, pollsters obtained significantly more negative ratings when compared to “survey researchers” and “public opinion researchers,” suggesting that the general public views pollsters, who are more likely to be viewed as partisan, as being less honest/ethical. In line with social identity theory, interaction models revealed that those rating pollster critic Donald Trump most favorably had the most negative ratings of pollsters and public opinion researchers, compared to survey researchers. Yet, the vignette experiment showed that negative perceptions of pollsters did not affect the perceived trustworthiness of survey result reports. Conclusions: We conclude that while there appears to be a stigmatization of pollsters, those negative perceptions do not translate into less trust in the findings of public opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy P. Johnson & Henning Silber & Jill E. Darling, 2024. "Public perceptions of pollsters in the United States: Experimental evidence," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(1), pages 114-127, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:1:p:114-127
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13324
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13324?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:1:p:114-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.