Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Fowler and Montagnes (1) independently replicate one finding in Healy et al. (2): that college football wins increase incumbent vote share. Although we interpret this result as evidence of irrelevant events impacting voters’ decisions, which is consistent with established theory in the psychological and decision sciences literatures, Fowler and Montagnes (1) conclude that chance is responsible. False-positives can occur. Consequently, we performed several tests to address that possibility (2), but Fowler and Montagnes (1) surprisingly ignore these analyses. Although replication and reanalysis are important to scientific discovery, one cannot selectively consider pieces of evidence when evaluating past research. Our consideration of the totality of evidence [the full results in Healy et al. (2) and the new results in Fowler and Montagnes (1)] leads us to conclude that college football games influence elections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Healy et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: