Bandwagon Effect

A BANDWAGON EFFECT is the phenomenon of people doing or believing things because they perceive others are doing or believing those same things. In the political domain, bandwagon effects most often refer to people supporting candidates or policies that their fellow citizens support. People can learn about the opinions of others in many ways: conversing with friends in social settings, reading news media stories quoting the opinions of political elites and ordinary citizens, reading the results of surveys of public opinion or from prior elections such as presidential primaries, and watching early results and exit polling figures on television on the day of an election. The reverse phenomenon—people supporting unpopular candidates and policies—is referred to as the underdog effect.

Bandwagon effects are of great interest to political psychology scholars who are interested in how individuals' perceptions of mass collectives shape their attitudes and behaviors. Observers worry that pre-election survey results (or even early election results on the day of the election) may influence the outcomes by altering decisions regarding turnout and candidate choice. By hinting at the final outcome of the election, some worry that pre-election surveys and exit polls may hinder the process of democracy by demobilizing participation and capriciously changing attitudes.

There are several potential mechanisms for bandwagon effects. First, polls (or other means through which citizens learn about mass opinion) may exert normative social influence; people may conform to gain rewards and avoid punishment from the larger group. Alternatively, polls may lead to informational social influence; an individual may look to collective opinion to get accurate information about the candidates. That is, a candidate's standing in the polls may signal to voters his or her real competence. Third, learning about the attitudes of their fellow citizens may cause people to consider arguments for why the majority believes what it does, thereby leading to self-persuasion. Pre-election polls may also influence candidate strength through indirect mechanisms other than bandwagon effects as leading candidates receive greater support from contributors, volunteers, and the news media.

Academic researchers have found support for the existence of bandwagon effects. George Gallup attempted to discredit the bandwagon phenomenon by pointing out [Page 59]that candidates who are trailing in the polls generally do better than expected on the day of the election. However, subsequently researchers argued that it is difficult to make individual-level inferences based on aggregate data, and increasingly relied on experimental methods to isolate the causal effects of perceptions of mass beliefs on individual attitudes. In these studies, one group of subjects is shown a poll result on an election or policy issue, and another group no poll, comparing the differences between the groups on expressed attitudes such as candidate preference. Galen Irwin and Joop Van Holsteyn's meta-analysis of these studies found that most researchers detect the presence of a bandwagon effect.

A related research agenda has examined how preelection polls and information about the outcome of the race on Election Day affect turnout. If an individual believes a race to be extremely close, then he or she is more likely to expend the effort to vote in hopes of being pivotal. Conversely, perceived lopsided races are considered forgone conclusions, and not worth the effort. However, a competing argument is that in a race perceived to be lopsided, a valence effect may exist whereby supporters of the leading candidate are motivated to turn out, and supporters of the underdog are discouraged by the poll, thereby becoming politically detached and less likely to participate.

...