IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v2y2018i3d10.1038_s41562-018-0302-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asking about social circles improves election predictions

Author

Listed:
  • M. Galesic

    (Santa Fe Institute
    Max Planck Institute for Human Development)

  • W. Bruine de Bruin

    (Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds
    Carnegie Mellon University
    University of Southern California)

  • M. Dumas

    (Santa Fe Institute
    London School of Economics)

  • A. Kapteyn

    (University of Southern California)

  • J. E. Darling

    (University of Southern California
    VHA Greater Los Angeles Health Care System)

  • E. Meijer

    (University of Southern California)

Abstract

Election outcomes can be difficult to predict. A recent example is the 2016 US presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton lost five states that had been predicted to go for her, and with them the White House. Most election polls ask people about their own voting intentions: whether they will vote and, if so, for which candidate. We show that, compared with own-intention questions, social-circle questions that ask participants about the voting intentions of their social contacts improved predictions of voting in the 2016 US and 2017 French presidential elections. Responses to social-circle questions predicted election outcomes on national, state and individual levels, helped to explain last-minute changes in people’s voting intentions and provided information about the dynamics of echo chambers among supporters of different candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Galesic & W. Bruine de Bruin & M. Dumas & A. Kapteyn & J. E. Darling & E. Meijer, 2018. "Asking about social circles improves election predictions," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 187-193, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:2:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0302-y
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0302-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0302-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-018-0302-y?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hamish Greenop‐Roberts, 2022. "Forecasting Federal Elections: New Data From 2010–2019 and a Discussion of Alternative and Emerging Methods," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 55(1), pages 25-39, March.
    2. Olsson, Henrik, 2021. "Election polling is not dead: A Bayesian bootstrap method yields accurate forecasts," OSF Preprints nqcgs, Center for Open Science.
    3. Schönegger, Philipp & Verheyen, Steven, 2022. "Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Report (Stage 2 Registered Report)," OSF Preprints 9zvqj, Center for Open Science.
    4. Rajiv Sethi & Julie Seager & Emily Cai & Daniel M. Benjamin & Fred Morstatter, 2021. "Models, Markets, and the Forecasting of Elections," Papers 2102.04936, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    5. Malik, Muhammad Yousaf & Latif, Kashmala, 2021. "Impact of outbound tourism on outward FDI," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Sonja Radas & Drazen Prelec, 2019. "Whose data can we trust: How meta-predictions can be used to uncover credible respondents in survey data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.

    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:nat:nathum:v:2:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0302-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.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.