Think Twice before Jumping on the Bandwagon: Clarifying Concepts in Research on the Bandwagon Effect
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929919870691 |
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| Author | Matthew Barnfield |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919870691
Political Studies Review
2020, Vol. 18(4) 553 –574
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929919870691
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Think Twice before Jumping
on the Bandwagon: Clarifying
Concepts in Research on the
Bandwagon Effect
Matthew Barnfield
Abstract
The potential influence of perceived popularity of political parties or candidates on individual vote
choice is most commonly studied in terms of a ‘bandwagon effect’. However, there is confusion
over exactly what the bandwagon effect is. In this article, I seek to remedy this confusion by
providing a clear definition and typology of bandwagon effects, grounded in a review which
reappraises existing scholarship. I argue that the bandwagon effect is a distinct social phenomenon
involving an individual-level change in vote choice or turnout decision towards a more or
increasingly popular candidate or party, motivated initially by this popularity. I then break this
down employing a typology which draws on distinctions made in the literature between static
and dynamic, and conversion and mobilisation effects. This conception of the bandwagon effect
leaves it open to the operation of a variety of possible underlying processes. Scholars should
apply such clear concepts as are proposed here in bandwagon research, to situate and clarify their
contributions theoretically and offer a more nuanced understanding of whether, how and why
bandwagon effects occur across different political contexts.
Keywords
bandwagon effect, strategic voting, underdog effect, polls
Accepted: 24 July 2019
Introduction
The possibility that opinion polls influence voters has been used to justify legal restric-
tions on their conduction and publication in many democracies (Donsbach and Hartung,
2008). A recent report found such restrictions before elections in more than half of the
countries covered (Frankovic et al., 2018). Academic study of this purported influence
has primarily considered a bandwagon effect, arguing typically that candidates, parties or
issue opinions performing better in polls can attract support from people who are exposed
to them. This raises normative questions about the democratic credentials of publishing
Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Corresponding author:
Matthew Barnfield, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.
Email: m.barnfield@qmul.ac.uk
870691PSW0010.1177/1478929919870691Political Studies ReviewBarneld
research-article2019
Article
554 Political Studies Review 18(4)
polls, especially during campaigns. Particularly problematic is the fact that the predic-
tions of the polls by which voters are supposedly influenced are often incorrect.1
This notion of a bandwagon effect remains concerned with the effects of polls, but has
grown to encompass a greater range of theoretical considerations, mostly from social
psychology, as it has become tied to theories about conformity (Asch, 1952), the spiral of
silence (e.g. Glynn and McLeod, 1985; Noelle-Neumann, 1977) and impersonal influ-
ence (Mutz, 1992, 1997, 1998). As such, it has to some extent become a broader question
about the effect of popularity or mass support of opinions, parties or election candidates
on individual attitudes and behaviour. The polls, however, arguably remain the most sali-
ent signal of this support.
There seems to be confusion over exactly what the bandwagon effect is (Hardmeier,
2008; Irwin and Van Holsteyn, 2000; Moy and Rinke, 2012). Conceptions have varied, rang-
ing from equating it with any influence of candidate popularity on voter preferences (Dizney
and Roskens, 1962), to limiting it to the operation of one potential mechanism – usually the
‘gratification’ mechanism, whereby individuals side with a ‘winner’ for the gratification of
being on the winning side (Mutz, 1998). The presence of other apparent effects also makes
identifying bandwagon effects difficult, most prominently the underdog effect, occurring
when voters favour candidates performing badly in the polls, and strategic voting, where
individuals vote for a candidate other than their preferred option in order to prevent an unde-
sirable outcome. While the former can act as a countervailing force preventing the identifica-
tion of bandwagon effects in aggregate data, the latter can be inaccurately mistaken for the
bandwagon effect (Chung et al., 2018; Gherghina and Chiru, 2012).
As Glynn and McLeod (1985: 64) have said about other similarly ill-defined concepts
in the study of public opinion, ‘it is no wonder that results from studies of public opinion
are less than satisfactory . . . researchers should strive to meet on more common ground
theoretically before major advances in this area can ever be achieved’. In this review
article, I argue that this is true of bandwagon research, and seek to remedy this confusion
by reviewing the literature and providing a clear conceptualisation of bandwagon effects.
Based on a review of 67 peer-reviewed journal articles, I define the bandwagon effect
as a distinct phenomenon characterised by a positive individual-level change in vote
choice or turnout decision towards a more popular or an increasingly popular candidate
or party, motivated initially by this popularity. This definition is the most succinct and
coherent way of reconciling the existing evidence without being excessively proscriptive,
while also clearly distinguishing the bandwagon effect from other phenomena with which
it is often conflated. The first section of the article is devoted to explicating this definition,
with constant reference to the literature.
The second section proposes a typology of bandwagon effects drawing on pertinent
distinctions made in this literature between static and dynamic independent variables, and
between conversion and mobilisation as outcomes (Marsh, 1985; Morton et al., 2015).
This typology allows this research to be clearly situated and furthers our understanding of
bandwagon effects beyond the current tendency to offer up theoretically thin empirical
evidence of an ultimately elusive concept. The static–dynamic distinction builds on
important arguments put forward by scholars of bandwagon effects in proportional repre-
sentation contexts about the ambiguity of ‘winning’ in such systems (Meffert et al., 2011;
Van der Meer et al., 2016). It also serves to acknowledge the presence and evidence of
both effects in the bandwagon literature. The conversion–mobilisation distinction, mean-
while, notes that the behavioural outcome of the bandwagon effect can differ depending
on the relationship between the voter and the party or candidate whose popularity is
To continue reading
Request your trial