Using live worms as bait: Voters swayed by interactive 'worm' graph during election debate

Mar 30, 2011

Research from Royal Holloway, University of London and the University of Bristol calls into question people's ability to form their own judgements about their preferred election candidate after finding voters could be heavily swayed by 'the worm' - a continuous response tracking measure this is increasingly being used in live election debates around the world.

The study " in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy" is published today (30 March) in the journal .

Televised election debates were introduced in the United States in 1960, and now play a prominent role in the election campaigns of many countries. The United Kingdom held its first televised election debates between the leaders of the main parliamentary parties in 2010. To help viewers evaluate voter response to the issues discussed in the debates, broadcasters including ITV and the BBC made use of a sampling methodology often referred to as 'the worm'; a similar methodology has been used by CNN in the United States and by broadcasters in Australia and New Zealand.

Unlike the sample sizes of hundreds or thousands of voters that are standard in political polls, the worm is based on a very small sample of (sometimes as few as 12). These voters watch the debate live and record their satisfaction with what the leaders are saying using a handset. Their averaged responses result in a time series of data – the "worm" – that is superimposed over the video of the debate.

The researchers carried out their study by manipulating the worm and superimposing it on a live broadcast of the third UK election debate, which was viewed by the study subjects. The experimenters successfully convinced the majority of the viewers taking part in the study that they were watching an authentic audience response to the live debate. Two groups of 75 viewers took part; in one group, the worm favoured the incumbent Prime Minister, in the other group it favoured the leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg.

Professor Colin Davis, from the Department of Psychology at Royal Holloway explains: "We were amazed by the size of the effect that our worms had on viewers' opinions of who won the debate, and even on their choice of preferred Prime Minister. If our results were to generalise to the population at large, a biased worm in a debate shortly before polling day could determine the result of a close election.

He added: "In theory, an election debate should be an opportunity for the public to listen to the candidates and form independent opinions that are unfiltered by spin and commentary. The introduction of the worm compromises that possibility.

"The squiggly worm is certainly interesting to watch – sometimes more interesting than the candidates – but there's a real danger that we can get sucked in by the worm and allow it to sway, or even determine, our opinion. Results like ours force us to reconsider to what extent 'our' opinions really are our own."

Explore further: Liberal democracy is possible in Muslim-majority countries

More information: Davis CJ, Bowers JS, Memon A (2011) Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy. PLoS ONE 6(3): e18154. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018154

Related Stories

MU professor analyzes presidential debates

Oct 21, 2008

Now that the general election debates are over, University of Missouri Professor of Communication Willliam Benoit has analyzed the content of the three encounters between Senators McCain and Obama. He found that, overall, ...

Recommended for you

Feeling bad at work can be a good thing

22 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Research by the University of Liverpool suggests that, contrary to popular opinion, it can be good to feel bad at work, whilst feeling good in the workplace can also lead to negative outcomes.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

88HUX88
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2011
How strange, people alter their opinions based on what others think rather than drawing their own conclusions from the content of the debate. And many people borrow money to buy things they don't need to impress people they don't like. Humans eh?