IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v20y2012i04p437-459_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate

Author

Listed:
  • Ansolabehere, Stephen
  • Hersh, Eitan

Abstract

Social scientists rely on surveys to explain political behavior. From consistent overreporting of voter turnout, it is evident that responses on survey items may be unreliable and lead scholars to incorrectly estimate the correlates of participation. Leveraging developments in technology and improvements in public records, we conduct the first-ever fifty-state vote validation. We parse overreporting due to response bias from overreporting due to inaccurate respondents. We find that nonvoters who are politically engaged and equipped with politically relevant resources consistently misreport that they voted. This finding cannot be explained by faulty registration records, which we measure with new indicators of election administration quality. Respondents are found to misreport only on survey items associated with socially desirable outcomes, which we find by validating items beyond voting, like race and party. We show that studies of representation and participation based on survey reports dramatically misestimate the differences between voters and nonvoters.

Suggested Citation

  • Ansolabehere, Stephen & Hersh, Eitan, 2012. "Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 437-459.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:20:y:2012:i:04:p:437-459_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013152/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Hufe & Andreas Peichl, 2020. "Beyond Equal Rights: Equality of Opportunity in Political Participation," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 477-511, September.
    2. Whitaker, Stephan D., 2018. "Big Data versus a survey," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 285-296.
    3. Vincent Mahler & David Jesuit & Piotr Paradowski, 2015. "Electoral Turnout and State Redistribution: A Cross-National Study of 14 Developed Countries," LIS Working papers 633, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    4. Louis Kaplow & Scott Duke Kominers, 2020. "On the Representativeness of Voter Turnout," NBER Working Papers 26913, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Robert A. Jackson & Matthew Pietryka, 2022. "The influence of becoming a parent on political participation in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 565-580, May.
    6. Razvan Vlaicu, 2018. "Inequality, participation, and polarization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(4), pages 597-624, April.
    7. Jäckle, Annette & Johannes, Eggs, 2014. "Dependent interviewing and sub-optimal responding," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-32, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Hunnicutt, Patrick & Henderson, Geoffrey, 2023. "Particulates Matter: Policy Failures, Air Pollution, and Collective Political Participation in the United States," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt51h8846s, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    9. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    10. Caitlin E. Ahearn & Jennie E. Brand & Xiang Zhou, 2023. "How, and For Whom, Does Higher Education Increase Voting?," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(4), pages 574-597, June.
    11. Siim Trumm, 2015. "Voting Procedures and Parliamentary Representation in the European Parliament," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 1126-1142, September.
    12. Li, Weihao & Lamare, J. Ryan & Bruno, Robert, 2022. "Does union canvassing affect voter turnout under conditions of political constraint? Empirical evidence from Illinois," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125306, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. 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.
    14. Bailey, Michael & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Rogers, Todd, 2013. "Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of Voter Persuasion Efforts," Working Paper Series rwp13-034, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Jennifer Oser & Jan E. Leighley & Kenneth M. Winneg, 2014. "Participation, Online and Otherwise: What's the Difference for Policy Preferences?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1259-1277, December.
    16. David W. Nickerson & Todd Rogers, 2014. "Political Campaigns and Big Data," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 51-74, Spring.
    17. Matthew DeBell & Jon A. Krosnick & Katie Gera & David S. Yeager & Michael P. McDonald, 2020. "The Turnout Gap in Surveys: Explanations and Solutions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(4), pages 1133-1162, November.
    18. Rogers, Todd & Aida, Masa, 2013. "Vote Self-Prediction Hardly Predicts Who Will Vote, and Is (Misleadingly) Unbiased," Working Paper Series rwp13-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Stephen Ansolabehere & Eitan Hersh, 2013. "Gender, Race, Age and Voting: A Research Note," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 132-137.
    20. Adam Bonica & Nolan McCarty & Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal, 2013. "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 103-124, Summer.
    21. Yeaji Kim, 2023. "Absolutely Relative: How Education Shapes Voter Turnout in the United States," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 447-469, 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:cup:polals:v:20:y:2012:i:04:p:437-459_01. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.