IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0060554.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the Polls Can Be Both Spot On and Dead Wrong: Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Hall
  • Thomas Strandberg
  • Philip Pärnamets
  • Andreas Lind
  • Betty Tärning
  • Petter Johansson

Abstract

Political candidates often believe they must focus their campaign efforts on a small number of swing voters open for ideological change. Based on the wisdom of opinion polls, this might seem like a good idea. But do most voters really hold their political attitudes so firmly that they are unreceptive to persuasion? We tested this premise during the most recent general election in Sweden, in which a left- and a right-wing coalition were locked in a close race. We asked our participants to state their voter intention, and presented them with a political survey of wedge issues between the two coalitions. Using a sleight-of-hand we then altered their replies to place them in the opposite political camp, and invited them to reason about their attitudes on the manipulated issues. Finally, we summarized their survey score, and asked for their voter intention again. The results showed that no more than 22% of the manipulated replies were detected, and that a full 92% of the participants accepted and endorsed our altered political survey score. Furthermore, the final voter intention question indicated that as many as 48% (±9.2%) were willing to consider a left-right coalition shift. This can be contrasted with the established polls tracking the Swedish election, which registered maximally 10% voters open for a swing. Our results indicate that political attitudes and partisan divisions can be far more flexible than what is assumed by the polls, and that people can reason about the factual issues of the campaign with considerable openness to change.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Hall & Thomas Strandberg & Philip Pärnamets & Andreas Lind & Betty Tärning & Petter Johansson, 2013. "How the Polls Can Be Both Spot On and Dead Wrong: Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-6, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0060554
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060554
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060554&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0060554?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. Mikael Elinder, 2012. "Correcting mistakes: cognitive dissonance and political attitudes in Sweden and the United States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 235-249, October.
    2. Lars Hall & Petter Johansson & Thomas Strandberg, 2012. "Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
    3. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    4. Leonard Lee & On Amir & Dan Ariely, 2009. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Cognitive Noise and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 173-187.
    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. Andrés Rieznik & Lorena Moscovich & Alan Frieiro & Julieta Figini & Rodrigo Catalano & Juan Manuel Garrido & Facundo Álvarez Heduan & Mariano Sigman & Pablo A Gonzalez, 2017. "A massive experiment on choice blindness in political decisions: Confidence, confabulation, and unconscious detection of self-deception," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Fumihiko Taya & Swati Gupta & Ilya Farber & O'Dhaniel A Mullette-Gillman, 2014. "Manipulation Detection and Preference Alterations in a Choice Blindness Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-7, September.
    3. Thomas Strandberg & Jay A Olson & Lars Hall & Andy Woods & Petter Johansson, 2020. "Depolarizing American voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally susceptible to false attitude feedback," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Lotta Stille & Emelie Norin & Sverker Sikström, 2017. "Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, March.

    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. Baghdasaryan, Vardan & Iannantuoni, Giovanna & Maggian, Valeria, 2019. "Electoral fraud and voter turnout: An experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 203-219.
    2. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    3. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:453-481 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Adam, Marc T.P. & Krämer, Jan & Müller, Marius B., 2015. "Auction Fever! How Time Pressure and Social Competition Affect Bidders’ Arousal and Bids in Retail Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 468-485.
    5. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    6. Reitmann, Ann-Kristin & Goedhuys, Micheline & Grimm, Michael & Nillesen, Eleonora E.M., 2019. "Measuring attitudes on gender equality and domestic violence in the Arab context : The role of framing, priming and interviewer effects," MERIT Working Papers 2019-027, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Aydinli, Aylin & Gu, Yangjie & Pham, Michel Tuan, 2017. "An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 746-760.
    8. Hollanders, David & Vliegenthart, Rens, 2011. "The influence of negative newspaper coverage on consumer confidence: The Dutch case," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 367-373, June.
    9. Lamberto Zollo, 2021. "The Consumers’ Emotional Dog Learns to Persuade Its Rational Tail: Toward a Social Intuitionist Framework of Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(2), pages 295-313, January.
    10. Paul A. Djupe & Andrew R. Lewis & Ted G. Jelen & Charles D. Dahan, 2014. "Rights Talk: The Opinion Dynamics of Rights Framing," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 652-668, September.
    11. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    12. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    13. Vardan, Baghdasaryan & Giovanna, Iannantuoni & Valeria, Maggian, 2015. "Electoral fraud and voter turnout," Working Papers 315, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 25 Nov 2015.
    14. Isoaho, Karoliina & Karhunmaa, Kamilla, 2019. "A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 930-942.
    15. Romain Espinosa & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Do people really want to be informed? Ex-ante evaluations of information-campaign effectiveness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1155, December.
    16. Hannah Smidt, 2020. "Mitigating election violence locally: UN peacekeepers’ election-education campaigns in Côte d’Ivoire," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 199-216, January.
    17. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
    18. Wadhwa, Monica & Zhang, Kuangjie, 2019. "When numbers make you feel: Impact of round versus precise numbers on preventive health behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 101-111.
    19. Patrick O. Waeber & Natasha Stoudmann & James D. Langston & Jaboury Ghazoul & Lucienne Wilmé & Jeffrey Sayer & Carlos Nobre & John L. Innes & Philip Fernbach & Steven A. Sloman & Claude A. Garcia, 2021. "Choices We Make in Times of Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Scott Radnitz, 2018. "Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: An experiment in Azerbaijan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 154-174, March.
    21. Schläpfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel & Roschewitz, Anna, 2008. "Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 574-589, April.

    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:plo:pone00:0060554. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.