IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i1p114-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of pollsters in the United States: Experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy P. Johnson
  • Henning Silber
  • Jill E. Darling

Abstract

Objective: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the term “pollster” has, in recent years, become stigmatized in the United States. We explore this and a subsequent question as to whether negative perceptions of pollsters affect people's perceived trustworthiness of survey findings. Methods: Survey experiments were administered to national probability‐based samples after the 2016 and 2020 elections. Results: In each study, pollsters obtained significantly more negative ratings when compared to “survey researchers” and “public opinion researchers,” suggesting that the general public views pollsters, who are more likely to be viewed as partisan, as being less honest/ethical. In line with social identity theory, interaction models revealed that those rating pollster critic Donald Trump most favorably had the most negative ratings of pollsters and public opinion researchers, compared to survey researchers. Yet, the vignette experiment showed that negative perceptions of pollsters did not affect the perceived trustworthiness of survey result reports. Conclusions: We conclude that while there appears to be a stigmatization of pollsters, those negative perceptions do not translate into less trust in the findings of public opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy P. Johnson & Henning Silber & Jill E. Darling, 2024. "Public perceptions of pollsters in the United States: Experimental evidence," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(1), pages 114-127, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:1:p:114-127
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13324
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13324?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henning Silber & Patricia Moy & Timothy P Johnson & Rico Neumann & Sven Stadtmüller & Lydia Repke, 2022. "Survey participation as a function of democratic engagement, trust in institutions, and perceptions of surveys," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(7), pages 1619-1632, December.
    2. Thomas M. Carsey & Geoffrey C. Layman, 2006. "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 464-477, April.
    3. Martin Binder, 2021. "Enhancing Democracy: Can Civic Engagement Foster Political Participation?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 47-68, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kehrberg Jason, 2020. "Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Support for Welfare Chauvinism in the United States," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212, December.
    2. Kevin Deegan-Krause & Zsolt Enyedi, 2010. "Agency and the Structure of Party Competition: Alignment, Stability and the Role of Political Elites," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 9, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    3. Arifovic, Jasmina & Eaton, B. Curtis & Walker, Graeme, 2015. "The coevolution of beliefs and networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 46-63.
    4. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    5. Charlotte Cavaillé & Karine van Der Straeten & Daniel L. Chen, 2023. "Willingness to Say? Optimal Survey Design for Prediction," Working Papers hal-04062637, HAL.
    6. Klatt, Nikolina, 2024. "Judicial rulings and political narratives: Analyzing the impact of Roe v. Wade's overturning on digital discourse using machine learning," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Transformations of Democracy SP V 2024-502, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Elizabeth U. Cascio & Na'ama Shenhav, 2020. "A Century of the American Woman Voter: Sex Gaps in Political Participation, Preferences, and Partisanship since Women's Enfranchisement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 24-48, Spring.
    8. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    9. Stephen Wu, 2018. "The Effects of Cueing and Framing on Youth Attitudes towards Gun Control and Gun Rights," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Pilar Rico-Bordera & José A. Piqueras & Victoria Soto-Sanz & Tíscar Rodríguez-Jiménez & Juan-Carlos Marzo & Manuel Galán & David Pineda, 2023. "Civic Engagement and Personality: Associations with the Big Five and the Dark Triad," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-13, January.
    11. Michael Peress, 2013. "Candidate positioning and responsiveness to constituent opinion in the U.S. House of Representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 77-94, July.
    12. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & João V. Ferreira, 2020. "Conflicted voters: A spatial voting model with multiple party identifications," Post-Print hal-02909682, HAL.
    13. Alan S. Gerber & Gregory A. Huber & Ebonya Washington, 2009. "Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 15365, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Paul Goren & Christopher M. Federico & Miki Caul Kittilson, 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 805-820, October.
    16. Mirko Seithe & Lena Calahorrano, 2014. "Analysing Party Preferences Using Google Trends," CESifo Working Paper Series 4631, CESifo.
    17. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    18. Barbara Gomez‐Aguinaga, 2021. "One Group, Two Worlds? Latino Perceptions of Policy Salience Among Mainstream and Spanish‐Language News Consumers," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 238-258, January.
    19. Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    20. Anja Neundorf & James Adams, 2014. "The Micro-foundation of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens' Issue Salience and Party Attachments," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 692, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    21. Eric Kaufmann, 2022. "The new culture wars: Why critical race theory matters more than cancel culture," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 773-788, July.

    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:105:y:2024:i:1:p:114-127. 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.