IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v49y2020i4p1133-1162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Turnout Gap in Surveys: Explanations and Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew DeBell
  • Jon A. Krosnick
  • Katie Gera
  • David S. Yeager
  • Michael P. McDonald

Abstract

Postelection surveys regularly overestimate voter turnout by 10 points or more. This article provides the first comprehensive documentation of the turnout gap in three major ongoing surveys (the General Social Survey, Current Population Survey, and American National Election Studies), evaluates explanations for it, interprets its significance, and suggests means to continue evaluating and improving survey measurements of turnout. Accuracy was greater in face-to-face than telephone interviews, consistent with the notion that the former mode engages more respondent effort with less social desirability bias. Accuracy was greater when respondents were asked about the most recent election, consistent with the hypothesis that forgetting creates errors. Question wordings designed to minimize source confusion and social desirability bias improved accuracy. Rates of reported turnout were lower with proxy reports than with self-reports, which may suggest greater accuracy of proxy reports. People who do not vote are less likely to participate in surveys than voters are.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:4:p:1133-1162
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124118769085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124118769085
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124118769085?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. Silver, Brian D. & Anderson, Barbara A. & Abramson, Paul R., 1986. "Who Overreports Voting?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 613-624, June.
    2. McDonald, Michael P., 2003. "On the Overreport Bias of the National Election Study Turnout Rate," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(02), pages 180-186, March.
    3. Christopher Mann, 2005. "Unintentional voter mobilization: Does participation in pre-election surveys increase voter turnout?," Natural Field Experiments 00305, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. 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.
    5. Granberg, Donald & Holmberg, Sören, 1992. "The Hawthorne Effect in Election Studies: The Impact of Survey Participation on Voting," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 240-247, April.
    6. Hanmer, Michael J. & Banks, Antoine J. & White, Ismail K., 2014. "Experiments to Reduce the Over-Reporting of Voting: A Pipeline to the Truth," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 130-141, January.
    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. Jonathan Rose & Cees van der Eijk, 2022. "The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Christopher L. Foote & Tyler Hounshell & William D. Nordhaus & Douglas Rivers & Pamela Torola, 2021. "Measuring the US Employment Situation Using Online Panels: The Yale Labor Survey," Current Policy Perspectives 93422, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    3. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Richard B. Freeman, 2003. "What, Me Vote?," NBER Working Papers 9896, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. John Robert Warren & Andrew Halpern-Manners, 2012. "Panel Conditioning in Longitudinal Social Science Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(4), pages 491-534, November.
    4. Hans Andersson & Donald Granberg, 1997. "On the validity and reliability of self-reported vote: validity without reliability?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 127-140, May.
    5. Stephen Ansolabehere & Eitan Hersh, 2013. "Gender, Race, Age and Voting: A Research Note," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 132-137.
    6. 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.
    7. Römer, Ulf & Weber, Ron & Mußhoff, Oliver & Turvey, Calcum G., 2017. "Truth and consequences: Bogus pipeline experiment in informal small business lending," DARE Discussion Papers 1702, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. 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.
    9. Gharad Bryan & Dean Karlan & Scott Nelson, 2009. "Commitment Contracts," Working Papers 980, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    10. Andrew Halpern-Manners & John Warren, 2012. "Panel Conditioning in Longitudinal Studies: Evidence From Labor Force Items in the Current Population Survey," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(4), pages 1499-1519, November.
    11. Harka, Elona & Rocco, Lorenzo, 2022. "Studying more to vote less. Education and voter turnout in Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. Anna L. Harvey, 2001. "Partisanship As A Social Convention," Rationality and Society, , vol. 13(4), pages 462-504, November.
    13. Richard B. Freeman, 2003. "What Do Unions Do ... to Voting?," NBER Working Papers 9992, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Elena Costas-Pérez, 2014. "Political corruption and voter turnout: mobilization or disaffection?," Working Papers 2014/27, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    15. Valev, Neven, 2004. "No pain, no gain: market reform, unemployment, and politics in Bulgaria," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 409-425, September.
    16. Tom W. Smith & Jibum Kim, 2013. "An Assessment of the Multi-level Integrated Database Approach," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 185-221, January.
    17. Mori, Yuko & Kurosaki, Takashi, 2011. "Does Political Reservation Affect Voting Behavior? Empirical Evidence from India," PRIMCED Discussion Paper Series 17, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2615-2660.
    19. Bach, Ruben L. & Eckman, Stephanie, 2017. "Does participating in a panel survey change respondents' labor market behavior?," IAB-Discussion Paper 201715, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    20. 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.

    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:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:4:p:1133-1162. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.