IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/statpp/v8y2017i1p29-40n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did Shy Trump Supporters Bias the 2016 Polls? Evidence from a Nationally-representative List Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Coppock Alexander

    (Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA)

Abstract

Explanations for the failure to predict Donald Trump’s win in the 2016 Presidential election sometimes include the “Shy Trump Supporter” hypothesis, according to which some Trump supporters succumb to social desirability bias and hide their vote preference from pollsters. I evaluate this hypothesis by comparing direct question and list experimental estimates of Trump support in a nationally representative survey of 5290 American adults fielded from September 2 to September 13, 2016. Of these, 32.5% report supporting Trump’s candidacy. A list experiment conducted on the same respondents yields an estimate 29.6%, suggesting that Trump’s poll numbers were not artificially deflated by social desirability bias as the list experiment estimate is actually lower than direct question estimate. I further investigate differences across measurement modes for relevant demographic and political subgroups and find no evidence in support of the “Shy Trump Supporter” hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Coppock Alexander, 2017. "Did Shy Trump Supporters Bias the 2016 Polls? Evidence from a Nationally-representative List Experiment," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 29-40, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:29-40:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/spp-2016-0005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2016-0005
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/spp-2016-0005?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imai, Kosuke, 2011. "Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 407-416.
    2. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    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. Christopher W. Blair & Jonathan A. Chu & Joshua A. Schwartz, 2022. "The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 677-703, May.

    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. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Henry Cust & Aurélia Lépine & Carole Treibich & Timothy Powell‐Jackson & Rosalba Radice & Cheikh Tidiane Ndour, 2024. "Trading HIV for sheep: Risky sexual behavior and the response of female sex workers to Tabaski in Senegal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 153-193, January.
    3. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    4. M. Niaz Asadullah & Elisabetta De Cao & Fathema Zhura Khatoon & Zahra Siddique, 2021. "Measuring gender attitudes using list experiments," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 367-400, April.
    5. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Richard Traunmüller & Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, 2019. "The Silent Victims of Sexual Violence during War: Evidence from a List Experiment in Sri Lanka," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2015-2042, October.
    7. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    8. Carolina Castilla & David M. A. Murphy, 2023. "Bidirectional intimate partner violence: Evidence from a list experiment in Kenya," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 175-193, January.
    9. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Ruben Enikolopov & Maria Petrova, 2019. "Social Media and Xenophobia: Evidence from Russia," NBER Working Papers 26567, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Jouni Kuha & Jonathan Jackson, 2014. "The item count method for sensitive survey questions: modelling criminal behaviour," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 321-341, February.
    11. Ahmad, Syedah & Lensink, Robert & Mueller, Annika, 2023. "Religion, social desirability bias and financial inclusion: Evidence from a list experiment on Islamic (micro-)finance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    12. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    13. Bulte, Erwin & Lensink, Robert, 2019. "Women's empowerment and domestic abuse: Experimental evidence from Vietnam," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 172-191.
    14. Heiko Groenitz, 2018. "Analyzing efficiency for the multi-category parallel method," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 76(2), pages 231-250, August.
    15. Lépine, Aurélia & Treibich, Carole & D’Exelle, Ben, 2020. "Nothing but the truth: Consistency and efficiency of the list experiment method for the measurement of sensitive health behaviours," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    16. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2019. "Consumers as VAT “Evaders”: Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 21-67, April.
    17. Marine JOUVIN, 2021. "Addressing social desirability bias in child labor measurement : an application to cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2021-08, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    18. David Boto‐García & Federico Perali, 2024. "The association between marital locus of control and break‐up intentions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 83(1), pages 35-57, January.
    19. Tadesse, Getaw & Abate, Gashaw T. & Zewdie, Tadiwos, 2020. "Biases in self-reported food insecurity measurement: A list experiment approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2018. "I Sell My Vote, and So What? Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates of Clientelism in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2018), pages 181-218, November.
    21. Carole Treibich & Aurélia Lépine, 2019. "Estimating misreporting in condom use and its determinants among sex workers: Evidence from the list randomisation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 144-160, January.

    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:bpj:statpp:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:29-40:n:3. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.