IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsaxx/v39y2023i3p213-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Putin’s popularity (still) real? A cautionary note on using list experiments to measure popularity in authoritarian regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Frye
  • Scott Gehlbach​
  • Kyle L. Marquardt
  • Ora John Reuter

Abstract

Opinion polls suggest that Vladimir Putin has broad support in Russia, but there are concerns that some respondents may be lying to pollsters. Using list experiments, we revisit our earlier work on support for Putin to explore his popularity between late 2020 and mid-2022. Our findings paint an ambiguous portrait. A naive interpretation of our estimates implies that Putin was 10 to 20 percentage points less popular than opinion polls suggest. However, results from placebo experiments demonstrate that these estimates are likely subject to artificial deflation – a design effect that produces downward bias in estimates from list experiments. Although we cannot be definitive, on balance our results are consistent with the conclusion that Putin is roughly as popular as opinion polls suggest. Methodologically, our research highlights artificial deflation as a key limitation of list experiments and the importance of placebo lists as a tool to diagnose this problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Frye & Scott Gehlbach​ & Kyle L. Marquardt & Ora John Reuter, 2023. "Is Putin’s popularity (still) real? A cautionary note on using list experiments to measure popularity in authoritarian regimes," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 213-222, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsaxx:v:39:y:2023:i:3:p:213-222
    DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2023.2187195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1060586X.2023.2187195
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1060586X.2023.2187195?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.

    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:taf:rpsaxx:v:39:y:2023:i:3:p:213-222. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpsa .

    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.