New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Sports Results Affect Voter Behavior

Local college football wins before elections upped incumbents' vote totals, and college basketball wins influenced presidential ratings. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When it comes to elections, sometimes we vote with our heads and sometimes with our hearts. But scientists at Stanford say we might also be voting with our pompoms. Because they’ve found that our behavior at the polls is influenced by the results of local sporting events, work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Andrew Healy, Neil Malhotra and Cecilia Hyunjung Mo, http://bit.ly/cURQ2E]

Humans are emotional creatures. And our strong feelings about one thing can spread to another. So the Stanford scientists wondered whether events that are unrelated to government performance might sway the way people feel about their elected officials. And what could be less relevant to the workings in Washington or your state capital than college football?

The researchers looked at the election results from 20 years’ worth of presidential, senatorial and gubernatorial races. And they found that a home-team win before the election gave the incumbent a boost of almost two percentage points. The more beloved the team, the bigger the bounce.

And it’s not just football. In a separate survey, the scientists found that NCAA college basketball results affected presidential approval ratings. So next election day, you might think about practicing a little separation of stadium and state.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe