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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    2. 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.
    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. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0193985 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe RiaÔøΩo, 2017. "I evade taxes, and so what? A new database and evidence from Colombia," Documentos CEDE 15444, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. María del Mar García Rueda & Pier Francesco Perri & Beatriz Rodríguez Cobo, 2018. "Advances in estimation by the item sum technique using auxiliary information in complex surveys," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 102(3), pages 455-478, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. Abate, Gashaw T. & Abay, Kibrom A. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Sebsibie, Samuel, 2024. "Measuring land rental market participation in smallholder agriculture can survey design innovations improve land market participation statistics?," IFPRI discussion papers 2255, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Sophia Hatz & Hanne Fjelde & David Randahl, 2024. "Could vote buying be socially desirable? Exploratory analyses of a ‘failed’ list experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2337-2355, June.
    17. 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).
    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. Elisabetta de Cao & Clemens Lutz, 2015. "Measuring attitudes regarding female genital mutilation through a list experiment," CSAE Working Paper Series 2015-20, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    20. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    21. Heiko Groenitz, 2018. "Analyzing efficiency for the multi-category parallel method," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 76(2), pages 231-250, August.

    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.degruyterbrill.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.