↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0018154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin J. Davis, Jeffrey S. Bowers, Amina Memon

Abstract

A recent innovation in televised election debates is a continuous response measure (commonly referred to as the "worm") that allows viewers to track the response of a sample of undecided voters in real-time. A potential danger of presenting such data is that it may prevent people from making independent evaluations. We report an experiment with 150 participants in which we manipulated the worm and superimposed it on a live broadcast of a UK election debate. The majority of viewers were unaware that the worm had been manipulated, and yet we were able to influence their perception of who won the debate, their choice of preferred prime minister, and their voting intentions. We argue that there is an urgent need to reconsider the simultaneous broadcast of average response data with televised election debates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
Hong Kong 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 38 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 28%
Social Sciences 12 26%
Computer Science 4 9%
Arts and Humanities 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 6 13%