|
|
 bandwagon effect الله يستر من عقلية القطيع!!!
|
Quote:
If John McCain’s supporters are hoping for a “Bradley effect” bounce on Election Day, some pollsters and strategists say they may have another thing coming.
Beware of the “bandwagon effect.”
While the Bradley effect posits that some white voters who tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate often have second thoughts in the voting booth, the “bandwagon effect” suggests that a small but significant number of persuadable voters will decide at the last minute to go with the winner.
As with the Bradley effect, the “bandwagon effect” is hard to measure or prove.
Pollster John Zogby is skeptical of the bandwagon theory and says voters always say it’s someone else who votes that way.
"'No, no, no, not me,'” he said they say. "’It's the stupid people across the street.’"
But it's not quite that simple.
Academics who have spent years researching the nexus of polling and voter behavior say that it takes a change in poll numbers to get voters jumping on board — or at least thinking about it. If the tide turns toward a candidate, persuadable — but previously unpersuaded — voters begin to ask what they’ve been missing.
"The original bandwagon theory is that people don't want to miss the party," said Samuel Popkin, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego and the author of “The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.”
"There will be somebody in the end who says, 'I don't want to vote for him because he's black, but McCain's going to lose so I'll vote for him to tell my grandkids I did,'" Popkin said.
But, he added: "I think what's more likely is if you see a poll that says people in your congressional district have changed, you're going to say, 'What's going on?' ... If you read in the paper [that] Obama's crowds are bigger than ever, his lead is growing, you think, 'I better double check. What have I missed? What's new that I didn't know?’”
Popkin said Obama's rise in the polls is just the kind of movement that would cause a voter to reevaluate, creating a positive feedback loop where more support begets more support. The reverse is true on John McCain's side: The more he drops, the more people reassess him.
On the other hand, if McCain surges in the polls in the last few days before the election, the bandwagon effect could have voters reconsidering and jumping off the Obama train.
Of course, voters are unpredictable, and a theory doesn’t always survive real-world tests.
To analyze the nuances of the bandwagon theory, Diana C. Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, presented study subjects with descriptions of candidates and then told them that they had varying levels of popularity. Told that a candidate was popular, the theoretical voters would explain the popularity by focusing on the candidate's strengths. "We naturally try to explain our environment," said Mutz.
Given the current environment, swing voters may now find themselves explaining to themselves why Obama seems so popular. The campaign is ready with the outlines of an answer: He's cool under pressure, represents change, etc.
To encourage the bandwagon effect, Popkin said that a campaign should send a signal to voters that others like them have made the change, too. One example: an ad for Republican candidate William Russell currently running in Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha's Pennsylvania district. In it, a woman says, "Dear Mr. Murtha. I've always voted for you, but not this time.”
Mutz said that in a "high information" race like this year’s presidential contest, voters are unlikely to jump mindlessly on a bandwagon.
However, she said that when people “learn of a candidate's popularity, they are prompted to reconsider their own views in light of the kinds of explanations for this popularity that they can obtain from their environments.”
If the explanation for a candidate’s rise lacks substance, she said, then it's unlikely to influence a voter. For example, she suggested that if voters perceive that Obama’s rise is due to a huge influx of money, they’re not likely to be persuaded. But if they sense that his surge is founded on a well-run campaign and a smooth temperament, then they might be.
If Obama were sinking in the polls, voters would be looking for negative characteristics about him — and positive ones about McCain — to explain that environment. The McCain campaign would be ready with both: Obama's too liberal, too inexperienced, etc., while McCain's a hero, a straight-talker and a leader.
Editors and reporters, being human, are not exempt from the phenomenon. When a candidate is surging, editors might lean toward assigning stories that explain the rise in popularity. A flagging candidate comes in for rougher treatment as reporters look to explain the new climate. As Obama has performed better in the polls, he's been on the receiving end of a significantly greater number of positive stories than McCain.
"Information about who is leading or gaining ground simply serves as a catalyst to cause people to mentally rehearse more positive arguments than they otherwise would have,” Mutz said.
“I’ve actually seen the opposite reaction,” said Republican strategist Ed Goeas. “Every time it seems like Obama’s definitely going to win, it narrows, almost like there’s a buyer’s remorse.”
While the politically savvy may scoff at the idea that people are voting based on popularity, Mutz says the notion of being influenced by others isn’t so unusual when taken out of the context of politics.
"It's not at all stupid to rely on consensus," she said. "If everyone's saying that a particular restaurant is horrible, are you going to insist on going there yourself? The idea that we shouldn't turn to others for help in decision making is kind of dumb in some ways."
Even if we won’t admit it.
"Some people are proud of being a racist," said a Democratic strategist. "Nobody's proud of being a lemming."
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
jini
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست