IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v95y2014i3p882-893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Google Insights and U.S. Senate Elections: Does Search Traffic Provide a Valid Measure of Public Attention to Political Candidates?

Author

Listed:
  • C. Douglas Swearingen
  • Joseph T. Ripberger

Abstract

type="main"> To propose a new indicator of public attention to electoral candidates based on the relative pattern of Internet queries for opposing candidates. To demonstrate the validity of this measure, we use ordinary least squares regression and an F-ratio test. We find that this measure, based on Google Insights data, behaves in a manner consistent with a valid measure of public attention. Moreover, this finding holds when the measure is included in a standard model used to explain U.S. Senate election outcomes. The Google Insights measure of relative public attention shows the shifts in public attention as the campaign is waged and is consistent with how we would expect to see such a measure behave. This research opens numerous avenues for research in the campaigns and elections subfield.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Douglas Swearingen & Joseph T. Ripberger, 2014. "Google Insights and U.S. Senate Elections: Does Search Traffic Provide a Valid Measure of Public Attention to Political Candidates?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 882-893, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:95:y:2014:i:3:p:882-893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ssqu.12075
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher P. Scheitle, 2011. "Google's Insights for Search: A Note Evaluating the Use of Search Engine Data in Social Research," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 92(1), pages 285-295, March.
    2. Abramowitz, Alan I., 1988. "Explaining Senate Election Outcomes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 385-403, June.
    3. Zhi Da & Joseph Engelberg & Pengjie Gao, 2011. "In Search of Attention," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1461-1499, October.
    4. Hyunyoung Choi & Hal Varian, 2012. "Predicting the Present with Google Trends," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(s1), pages 2-9, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelsey E. Gonzalez & Rina James & Eric T. Bjorklund & Terrence D. Hill, 2021. "Conservatism and infrequent mask usage: A study of US counties during the novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2368-2382, September.
    2. Vera Z. Eichenauer & Ronald Indergand & Isabel Z. Martínez & Christoph Sax, 2022. "Obtaining consistent time series from Google Trends," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 694-705, April.
    3. Douglas O. Cook & Shikong (Scott) Luo, 2022. "Does perception of social issues affect portfolio choices? Evidence from the #MeToo movement," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 51(2), pages 613-634, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Borah, Abhishek & Rutz, Oliver, 2024. "Enhanced sales forecasting model using textual search data: Fusing dynamics with big data," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 632-647.
    2. Perroni, Carlo & Scharf, Kimberley & Talavera, Oleksandr & Vi, Linh, 2022. "Does online salience predict charitable giving? Evidence from SMS text donations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 134-149.
    3. Ronald MacDonald & Xuxin Mao, 2015. "An Alternative way of Predicting the Outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum: The Information in the Ether," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-69, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Abay,Kibrom A. & Hirfrfot,Kibrom Tafere & Woldemichael,Andinet, 2020. "Winners and Losers from COVID-19 : Global Evidence from Google Search," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9268, The World Bank.
    5. Dimitris Bertsimas & Nathan Kallus, 2020. "From Predictive to Prescriptive Analytics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1025-1044, March.
    6. Ronald MacDonald & Xuxin Mao, "undated". "An Alternative way of predicting the putcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum: the information in the Ether," Working Papers 2015_05, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    7. Abay, Kibrom A. & Ibrahim, Hosam, 2020. "Winners and losers from COVID-19: Evidence from Google search data for Egypt," MENA policy notes 8, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Stig Vinther Møller & Thomas Pedersen & Erik Christian Montes Schütte & Allan Timmermann, 2024. "Search and Predictability of Prices in the Housing Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(1), pages 415-438, January.
    9. Juan Camilo Anzoátegui-Zapata & Juan Camilo Galvis-Ciro, 2020. "Disagreements in Consumer Inflation Expectations: Empirical Evidence for a Latin American Economy," Journal of Business Cycle Research, Springer;Centre for International Research on Economic Tendency Surveys (CIRET), vol. 16(2), pages 99-122, November.
    10. Donadelli, Michael & Gerotto, Luca, 2019. "Non-macro-based Google searches, uncertainty, and real economic activity," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 111-142.
    11. Enoksen, F.A. & Landsnes, Ch.J. & Lučivjanská, K. & Molnár, P., 2020. "Understanding risk of bubbles in cryptocurrencies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 129-144.
    12. Coble, David & Pincheira, Pablo, 2017. "Nowcasting Building Permits with Google Trends," MPRA Paper 76514, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Zhou, Siwen, 2018. "Exploring the Driving Forces of the Bitcoin Exchange Rate Dynamics: An EGARCH Approach," MPRA Paper 89445, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Qadan, Mahmoud & Nama, Hazar, 2018. "Investor sentiment and the price of oil," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 42-58.
    15. Zhang, Yongjie & Feng, Lina & Jin, Xi & Shen, Dehua & Xiong, Xiong & Zhang, Wei, 2014. "Internet information arrival and volatility of SME PRICE INDEX," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 399(C), pages 70-74.
    16. Fabio Milani, 2021. "COVID-19 outbreak, social response, and early economic effects: a global VAR analysis of cross-country interdependencies," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 223-252, January.
    17. Hamid, Alain & Heiden, Moritz, 2015. "Forecasting volatility with empirical similarity and Google Trends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 62-81.
    18. Tariq Aziz & Valeed Ahmad Ansari, 2021. "How Does Google Search Affect the Stock Market? Evidence from Indian Companies," Vision, , vol. 25(2), pages 224-232, June.
    19. Hantzsche, Arno, 2022. "Fiscal uncertainty and sovereign credit risk," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    20. Dean Fantazzini & Tamara Shangina, 2019. "The importance of being informed: forecasting market risk measures for the Russian RTS index future using online data and implied volatility over two decades," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 55, pages 5-31.

    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:95:y:2014:i:3:p:882-893. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.