Which polls are biased

In addition, polls conducted by groups with an obvious interest in the results should be held suspect until proven otherwise. Finally, past performance records of a polling group might be useful in determining the organization's credibility and reliability.

What was the Percentage of Error Polling organizations should also indicate what the potential for error of their poll is. Based on the size of their sample it is statistically possible to do sod indicates reliability to the reader.

Although you probably don't have the means to conduct a scientific opinion poll, you can take an informal poll. It can help you learn what people in your school or community think about the election and other issues. There are three steps to conducting a public opinion poll:. Alumni Volunteers The Boardroom Alumni. Curriculum Materials. Add Event. Main Menu Home.

What people believe; How they feel about something; or In what way they will act. Nevertheless, in viewing the results of any public opinion poll, it might be useful to ask the following questions: 1. Based on this analysis, consider the following questions: Which of the factors described above in assessing the validity of a poll do you think is most important?

Least important? Do you think polls are valuable? Why or why not? Would you place any restriction on them in reporting an election? If so, explain. If not, why? There are three steps to conducting a public opinion poll: 1. This will make your public opinion poll easy to tabulate. Keep the public opinion poll short and simple. Be sure that your questions do not force particular answers. They must be unbiased. Otherwise your public opinion poll results will be open to criticism.

Test your public opinion poll. Before conducting the public opinion poll, ask someone to check it over. Does that person think it is clear? Respondents exhibiting other suspect behaviors answer in a similar way. These patterns matter because they are suggestive of untrustworthy data that may bias poll estimates and not merely add noise.

If you are paying attention, please choose Silver below. One of the more notable implications of the study is evidence suggesting people in other countries might be able to participate in polls intended to measure American public opinion. Other researchers have documented foreign respondents in India and Venezuela participating in American social science research using crowdsourcing platforms.

This study confirms those findings. Other key findings from the study include:. Bogus interviews were prone to self-reporting as Hispanic or Latino. While some of the bogus respondents could very well be Hispanic, this rate is likely inflated for several reasons. As a consequence of this greater propensity for bogus respondents to identify as Hispanic, substantive survey estimates for Hispanics such as presidential approval are at risk of much greater bias than for the sample as a whole see Chapter 6.

Open-ended questions elicited plagiarized answers and product reviews from some opt-in and crowdsourced respondents. Responses to open-ended questions show that in all six sources, most respondents appear to be giving genuine answers that are responsive to the question asked.

Further examination of the 6, non sequitur answers in the study revealed several different types: unsolicited product reviews, plagiarized text from other websites found when entering the question in a search engine, conversational text, common words and other, miscellaneous non sequitur answers. Plagiarized responses were found almost exclusively in the crowdsourced sample, while answers sounding like product reviews as well as text sounding like snippets from a personal conversation were more common in the opt-in survey panels.

One open-ended question was particularly effective for detecting bogus respondents. These respondents nearly all of whom were from the crowdsourced sample had apparently put the question into a search engine, and the first two search results happen to be online biographies of the first U.

Findings in this study suggest that— with multiple, widely used opt-in survey panels — estimates of how much the public approves or favors something are likely biased upward, unless the pollster performs data cleaning beyond the common checks explored here.

Online polls recruited offline using samples of addresses do not share this problem because the incidence of low-quality respondents is so low. In absolute terms, the biases documented in this report are small and their consequences can be viewed several ways:. Fraudulent data generated by survey bots is an emergent threat to many opt-in polls. Survey bots are computer algorithms designed to complete online surveys automatically. Bots are not a serious concern for address-recruited online panels because only individuals selected by the researcher can participate.

They are, however, a potential concern for any opt-in poll where people can self-enroll or visit websites or apps where recruitment efforts are common.

There are numerous anecdotal accounts of bots in online opt-in surveys. Rigorous research on this issue, by contrast, is scarce. One major difficulty in such research is distinguishing between bots and human respondents who are simply answering carelessly. For example, logically inconsistent answers or nonsensical open-ended answers could be generated by either a person or a bot. This report details the response patterns observed and, where possible, discusses whether the pattern is more indicative of a human or an algorithm.

Categorizing cases as definitively bot or not a bot is avoided because typically the level of uncertainty is too high. On the whole, data from this study suggest that the more consequential distinction is between interviews that are credible versus those that are not credible or bogus , regardless of the specific process generating the data.

The study finds that no method of online polling is perfect, but there are notable differences across approaches with respect to the risks posed by bogus interviews. The crowdsourced poll stands out as having a unique set of issues.

Nearly all of the plagiarized answers were found in that sample, and about one-in-twenty respondents had a foreign IP address. Furthermore, the presence of foreign respondents was just one of several data quality issues in the crowdsourced sample.

For online opt-in survey panels and marketplaces, concerns about data quality are longstanding. Perhaps the most noteworthy finding here is that bogus respondents can have a small, systematic effect on questions offering a positively valanced answer choice. This should perhaps not come as a surprise given that many if not most surveys conducted on these platforms are market research assessments of how much people approve or disapprove of various products, advertisements, etc.

But it is unclear which public pollsters have routine, robust checks in place and how effective they are. West Virginia Research Center. Arthur J. Bainbridge Media Group.

California State University, Bakersfield. Concord Public Opinion Partners. Craciun Research Group. Diamond State Consulting Group. Diversified Research Inc. Global Marketing Research Services. Great Lakes Strategies Group. Lauer Johnson Research. Lauer, Lalley, Victoria. Liberty Opinion Research. Long Island University. MarketAide Services Inc. New Mexico State University. Old Dominion University. Park Street Strategies.

Public Religion Research Institute. Riggs Research Services. Schoen Cooperman Research. Southern Research Group. TeleResearch Corporation. Thirty-Ninth Street Strategies. University of Georgia Survey Research Center. University of Illinois at Chicago. University of Maryland.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. USC Schwarzenegger Institute. Vox Populi Communications. Blumenthal Research Daily. OurProgress The Progress Campaign. Show more pollsters Show fewer pollsters. Banned by FiveThirtyEight. Read more » Download this data as an Excel spreadsheet or get it on GitHub. Send us feedback. Related Stories. Get more FiveThirtyEight.

All rights reserved. Public Policy Polling. Quinnipiac University. Emerson College. Marist College. Gravis Marketing. Monmouth University. Change Research. Suffolk University. Trafalgar Group. Data for Progress. Morning Consult. We Ask America. Siena College. RT Strategies. Los Angeles Times. Research Co. Muhlenberg College. Angus Reid Global. Tarrance Group. Grove Insight.

Mellman Group. Pete Polls. Global Strategy Group. Market Shares Corp. Pew Research Center. RMG Research. Google Surveys. MRG Research. Columbus Dispatch. KRC Research. Elway Research. GfK Group. ALG Research.

Ciruli Associates. Critical Insights. New England College. PSB Research. Vox Populi Polling. Loras College.

Magellan Strategies. Roanoke College. Pan Atlantic Research. Hendrix College. Rutgers University. Financial Dynamics.

National Research Inc. DHM Research. Harper Polling. The Tyson Group. Data Orbital. Hamilton Campaigns. JMC Analytics. Brown University. Citizen Data. Clarity Campaign Labs. Humphrey Institute.

Moore Information. National Journal. OnMessage Inc. Norbert College. Dixie Strategies. Glengariff Group. Richard Day Research. Stockton University. Victory Research. Abt Associates. Big Ten. DFM Research. FM3 Research. The Winston Group. Hays Research Group. Insights West. RRH Elections. Strategies American Viewpoint.

Clemson University. Datamar Analytics. Elon University. Marketing Workshop. Potomac Incorporated. Valley Research. Y2 Analytics. Constituent Dynamics. Frederick Polls.