¹ See, for example, Crossley, Archibald M. and Crossley, Helen M., “Polling in 1968,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXIII (Spring, 1969), 1–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gallup, George, “Polls and the Political Process—Past, Present, and Future,” Public Opinion Quarterly XXIX (Winter, 1965–1966), 544–549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, Louis, “Polls and Politics in the United States,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVII (Spring, 1963), 3–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lang, Kurt and Lang, Gladys Engel, Voting and Nonvoting (Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968)Google Scholar; Meier, Norman C. and Saunders, Harold W., eds., The Polls and Public Opinion (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1949)Google Scholar; and Mendelsohn, Harold and Crespi, Irving, Polls, Television, and the New Politics (Scranton, Pa.: Chandler Publishing Co., 1970)Google Scholar.

² Bernard C. Hennessy notes that the bandwagon effect must be distinguished from the mere inclination of partisans, in conventions or in primaries, to rally to the support of a candidate who appears to have the ability to win. As he explains, “The bandwagon effect is supposed to induce the voter, regardless of party or other factors, to support a candidate simply because he appears to be a winner.” See Hennessy, Bernard C., Public Opinion (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1965), p. 141 Google Scholar.

³ A more concise and mathematical delineation of the bandwagon and underdog phenomena is offered by Simon, Herbert A., “Bandwagon and Underdog Effects and the Possibility of Election Predictions,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XVIII (Fall, 1954), 245–253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ “Some General Characteristics of Nonpartisan Elections,” American Political Science Review, XLVI (09, 1952), 773 Google Scholar.

⁵ The subject of person perception is discussed in greater detail in Warr, Peter B. and Knapper, Christopher, The Perception of People and Events (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1948)Google Scholar.

⁶ Although the discussion in this paper uses such terms as underdog, frontrunner, and bandwagon, these words were carefully avoided by the experimenter in his instructions and announcements to the voters.

⁷ The classic study on conformity behavior was based on a series of experiments conducted by Solomon E. Asch dealing with perceptual judgments in a group setting. The findings of that study indicate that a personal commitment is not easily shaken until one finds himself standing against a near unanimous majority. The presence of even a modicum of support seems sufficient to bolster one's confidence in his own judgments. See Asch, Solomon E., “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority,” Psychological Monographs, LXX (1956), No. 9 (Whole No. 416)Google Scholar.

⁸ See Campbell, Angus, “Voters and Elections: Past and Present,” Journal of Politics, XXVI (11, 1964), 745–757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Converse, Philip E., “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (Winter, 1962), 578–599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ This finding is similar to that of another experimental study which found that a demagogic appeal is less effective in partisan than in nonpartisan conests. See Jaros, Dean and Mason, Gene L., “Party Choice and Support for Demagogues: An Experimental Examination,” American Political Science Review, LXIII (03, 1969), 100–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ See Laponce, J. A., “An Experimental Method to Measure the Tendency to Equibalance in a Political System,” American Political Science Review, LX (Deember, 1966), 982–993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schuman, Howard and Harding, ohn, “Sympathetic Identification with the Underdog,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVII (Summer, 1963), 230–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.