Content deleted Content added
m →Effect on voters: update link |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: url, pages. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: issue, volume, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | #UCB_toolbar |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 9:
In 1916, ''[[The Literary Digest]]'' embarked on a national survey (partly as a circulation-raising exercise) and correctly predicted [[Woodrow Wilson]]'s election as president. Mailing out millions of [[postcard]]s and simply counting the returns, ''The Literary Digest'' also correctly predicted the victories of [[Warren Harding]] in 1920, [[Calvin Coolidge]] in 1924, [[Herbert Hoover]] in 1928, and [[Franklin Roosevelt]] in 1932.
Then, in [[1936 United States presidential election|1936]], its survey of 2.3 million voters suggested that [[Alf Landon]] would win the presidential election, but Roosevelt was instead re-elected by a landslide. [[George Gallup]]'s research found that the error was mainly caused by [[participation bias]]; those who favored Landon were more enthusiastic about returning their postcards. Furthermore, the postcards were sent to a target audience who were more affluent than the American population as a whole, and therefore more likely to have [[United States Republican Party|Republican]] sympathies.<ref name="squire">{{Cite web|last=Squire|first=Peverill|date=1988|title=Why the 1936 Literary Digest Poll Failed|url=https://issuu.com/chilesoc/docs/why-the-1936-literary-digest-poll |via=Issuu |access-date=2020-11-15|work=Public Opinion Quarterly|language=en|archive-date=2022-01-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220104053033/https://issuu.com/chilesoc/docs/why-the-1936-literary-digest-poll|url-status=live}}</ref> At the same time, Gallup, [[Archibald Crossley]] and [[Elmo Roper]] conducted surveys that were far smaller but more scientifically based, and all three managed to correctly predict the result.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|last=Dietrich|first=Bryce J.|title=Crossley, Archibald (1896–1985)|date=2008|url=https://
In September 1938, [[Jean Stoetzel]], after having met Gallup, created IFOP, the [[Institut français d'opinion publique|Institut Français d'Opinion Publique]], as the first European survey institute in Paris. Stoetzel started political polls in summer 1939 with the question "[[Why Die for Danzig?|Why die for Danzig?]]", looking for popular support or dissent with this question asked by appeasement politician and future collaborationist [[Marcel Déat]].
[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] launched a subsidiary in the [[United Kingdom]] that was almost alone
Viewed from a long-term perspective, advertising had come under heavy pressure in the early 1930s. The Great Depression forced businesses to drastically cut back on their advertising spending. Layoffs and reductions were common at all agencies. The [[New Deal]] furthermore aggressively promoted consumerism, and minimized the value of (or need for) advertising. Historian Jackson Lears argues that "By the late 1930s, though, corporate advertisers had begun a successful counterattack against their critics." They rehabilitated the concept of consumer sovereignty by inventing scientific public opinion polls, and making it the centerpiece of their own market research, as well as the key to understanding politics. George Gallup, the vice president of Young and Rubicam, and numerous other advertising experts, led the way. Moving into the 1940s, the industry played a leading role in the ideological mobilization of the American people in fighting the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. As part of that effort, they redefined the "American Way of Life" in terms of a commitment to free enterprise. "Advertisers", Lears concludes, "played a crucial hegemonic role in creating the consumer culture that dominated post-World War II American society."<ref>{{cite book|author=Jackson Lears|title=Fables Of Abundance: A Cultural History Of Advertising In America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RgoXBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA235|year=1995|publisher=Basic Books|page=235|isbn=9780465090754}}</ref><ref>Jean M. Converse," ''Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1960'' (1987) pp: 114-24</ref>
Line 21:
Opinion polls for many years were maintained through telecommunications or in person-to-person contact. Methods and techniques vary, though they are widely accepted in most areas. Over the years, technological innovations have also influenced survey methods such as the availability of [[Ferranti MRT|electronic clipboards]]<ref>G. Rowley, K. Barker, V. Callaghan (1986) “''The Market Research Terminal & Developments in Survey Research''”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20 Issue: 2, pp.35 - 39.</ref> and Internet based polling. Verbal, ballot, and processed types can be conducted efficiently, contrasted with other types of surveys, systematics, and complicated matrices beyond previous orthodox procedures.{{citation needed|date=November 2012}}<!-- this is just a string of jargon imparting no useful information ... -->
Opinion polling developed into popular applications through popular thought, although response rates for some surveys declined. Also, the following has also led to differentiating results:<ref name="cantril"/> Some polling organizations, such as [[Angus Reid Public Opinion]], [[YouGov]], [https://findoutnow.co.uk Find Out Now] and [[Zogby International|Zogby]] use [[Internet]] surveys, where a sample is drawn from a large panel of volunteers, and the results are weighted to reflect the demographics of the population of interest. In contrast, popular web polls draw on whoever wishes to participate, rather than a scientific sample of the population, and are therefore not generally considered professional.
Recently, statistical learning methods have been proposed in order to exploit [[social media]] content (such as posts on the micro-blogging platform [[Twitter]]) for modelling and predicting voting intention polls.<ref name="lampos2013">{{Cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236142275 |title=Vasileios Lampos, Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro and Trevor Cohn. A user-centric model of voting intention from social media. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, pp. 993-1003, 2013 Retrieved 16-06-4 |access-date=2016-06-05 |archive-date=2015-11-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151111081513/http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236142275_A_user-centric_model_of_voting_intention_from_Social_Media |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="oconnor2010">Brendan O'Connor, Ramnath Balasubramanyan, Bryan R Routledge, and Noah A Smith. From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Press, pp. 122–129, 2010.</ref>
Line 147:
The second, first described by Petty and Cacioppo (1996), is known as "cognitive response" theory. This theory asserts that a voter's response to a poll may not line with their initial conception of the electoral reality. In response, the voter is likely to generate a "mental list" in which they create reasons for a party's loss or gain in the polls. This can reinforce or change their opinion of the candidate and thus affect voting behaviour. Third, the final possibility is a "behavioural response" which is similar to a cognitive response. The only salient difference is that a voter will go and seek new information to form their "mental list", thus becoming more informed of the election. This may then affect voting behaviour.
These effects indicate how opinion polls can directly affect political choices of the electorate. But directly or indirectly, other effects can be surveyed and analyzed on all political parties. The form of [[Framing (social sciences)|media framing]] and party ideology shifts must also be taken under consideration. Opinion polling in some instances is a measure of cognitive bias, which is variably considered and handled appropriately in its various applications. In turn, non-nuanced reporting by the media about poll data and public opinions can thus even aggravate political polarization.<ref>{{Cite journal |
=== Effect on politicians ===
| |||