We took a promising new method of political polling – snap judgements of political candidates' facial appearance – from the lab to the real world with internet-enabled mobile phones. Using iPhones and online multimedia-rich surveys, we collected over 6000 snap judgements of political candidates' faces, providing proof of concept for a new method of candidate pre-testing and political polling. Consistent with prior research, we find that snap judgements by small samples (178) of politically naive respondents can accurately predict election outcomes. Further, we advance this method of research by testing design elements and providing practical details about the use of mobile technology to aid data collection.
ArmstrongJ.S., GreenK., JonesR., & WrightM. (forthcoming) Predicting elections from politicians’ faces.International Journal of Public Opinion Research.
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009) Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008–09.Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
4.
BakerK., CurticeJ., & SparrowN. (2003) Internet Poll Trial: Research Report.London: ICM Research.
5.
BallewC.C., & TodorovA. (2007) Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 46, pp. 17948–17953.
6.
BenjaminD.J., & ShapiroJ.M. (2006) The rational voter, thinly sliced: personal appeal as an election forecaster (seminar paper).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, pp. 1–41.
7.
BowlingA. (2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality.Journal of Public Health, 27, 3, pp. 281–291.
8.
CookeM., WatkinsN., & MoyC. (2009) A hybrid online and offline approach to market measurement studies.International Journal of Market Research, 51, 1, pp. 29–48.
9.
CrespiI. (1988) Pre-election Polling: Sources of Accuracy and Error.New York: Sage.
10.
DuffyB., SmithK., TerhanianG., & BremerJ. (2005) Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys.International Journal of Market Research, 47, 6, pp. 615–639.
11.
HallC.C., ArissL., & TodorovA. (2007) The illusion of knowledge: when more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 2, pp. 277–290.
12.
HerzogA.R., RodgersW.L., & KulkaR.A. (1983) Interviewing older adults: a comparison of telephone and face-to-face modalities.Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 3, pp. 405–418.
13.
HoekJ., & GendallP. (1993) A new method of predicting voting behaviour.Journal of the Market Research Society, 35, 4, pp. 361–373.
14.
HolbrookA.L., GreenM.C., & KrosnickJ.A. (2003) Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias.Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 1, pp. 79–125.
15.
JackmanS. (2005) Pooling the polls over an election campaign.Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 4, pp. 499–517.
16.
KellnerP. (2003) First among equals.Research, September.
17.
KellnerP. (2004) Can online polls produce accurate findings?International Journal of Market Research, 46, 1, pp. 3–21.
18.
KrysanM., SchumanH., ScottL.J., & BeattyP. (1994) Response rates and response content in mail versus face-to-face surveys.Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 3, pp. 381–399.
19.
LauR.R. (1994) An analysis of the accuracy of ‘Trial heat’ polls during the 1992 presidential election.Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 1, pp. 2–20.
20.
LittleA.C., BurrissR.P., JonesB.C., & RobertsS.C. (2007) Facial appearance affects voting decisions.Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 1, pp. 18–27.
21.
MannC.B. (2005) Unintentional voter mobilization: does participation in preelection surveys increase voter turnout?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601, 1, pp. 155–168.
22.
MartinD.S. (1978) Person perception and real-life electoral behavior.Australian Journal of Psychology, 30, 3, pp. 255–262.
23.
OkazakiS. (2007) Assessing mobile-based online surveys.International Journal of Market Research, 49, 5, pp. 651–675.
24.
OlivolaC.Y., & TodorovA. (2010) Elected in 100 milliseconds: appearance-based trait inferences and voting.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 2, pp. 83–110.
25.
PraxmarerS., & RossiterJ.R. (2009) How does the presenter's physical attractiveness persuade? A test of alternative explanations.Proceedings of the 2009 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC), 2009: 30 November-2 December, Melbourne, pp. 1–9.
26.
SmithT.W. (1990) The first straw? A study of the origins of election polls.Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 1, pp. 21–36.
27.
SpezioM.L., RangelA., AlvarezR.M., O'DohertyJ.P., MattesK., TodorovA. (2008) A neural basis for the effect of candidate appearance on election outcomes.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 4, pp. 344–352.
28.
TodorovA., MandisodzaA.N., GorenA., & HallC.C. (2005) Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes.Science, 308, 5728, pp. 1623–1626.
29.
TraugottM., & LavrakasP. (2008) The Voter's Guide to Election Polls (4th edn). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
30.
VisserP.S., KrosnickJ.A., MarquetteJ., & CurtinM. (1996) Mail surveys for election forecasting? An evaluation of the Columbus dispatch poll.Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 2, pp. 181–227.
31.
WillisJ., & TodorovA. (2006) First impressions: making up your mind after 100-ms exposure to a face.Psychological Science, 17, 7, pp. 592–598.
