975067

research-article2020
ABSXXX10.1177/0002764220975067American Behavioral ScientistPrado-Román et al.

Article
American Behavioral Scientist

Google Trends as a Predictor

1­–15
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
of Presidential Elections: The sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0002764220975067
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220975067
United States Versus Canada journals.sagepub.com/home/abs

Camilo Prado-Román1 , Raúl Gómez-Martínez1,

and Carmen Orden-Cruz1

Abstract
The media and election campaign managers conduct several polls in the days leading
up to the presidential elections. These preelection polls have a different predictive
capacity, despite the fact that under a Big Data approach, sources that indicate voting
intention can be found. In this article, we propose a free method to anticipate the
winner of the presidential election based on this approach. To demonstrate the
predictive capacity of this method, we conducted the study for two countries: the
United States of America and Canada. To this end, we analysed which candidate
had the most Google searches in the months leading up to the polling day. In this
article, we have taken into account the past four elections in the United States and
the past five in Canada, since Google first published its search statistics in 2004.
The results show that this method has predicted the real winner in all the elections
held since 2004 and highlights that it is necessary to monitor the next elections for
the presidency of the United States in November 2020 and to have more accurate
information on the future results.

Keywords
elections, Big Data, Google trends, political strategies

Introduction
The internet has become a great source of data. More than half of the world’s popula-
tion uses it (Internet World Stats, 2020) and there are more than 4.2 billion Google
searches every day (World Bank, 2016). Thus, data mining has become a tool of great
assistance to the academic and professional world, opening the possibility of working

1
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain

Corresponding Author:
Camilo Prado-Román, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Paseo de los Artilleros s/n, Madrid 28032, Spain.
Email: [email protected]
2 American Behavioral Scientist 00(0)

with a high volume of data with a single click. Given this high activity, search engines
have become predictors of consumers’ purchasing intention (Vosen & Schmidt, 2011),
macroeconomic variables (Ettredge et al., 2005), social indicators (Hagerty &
Veenhoven, 2003) or infectious diseases (Carneiro & Mylonakis, 2009). In addition,
and as would be expected, search engines have become predictors of future election
results.
New digital channels have focused the attention given to politicians as a com-
munication means, but also as a means of collecting electoral information, and have
become a key metric in the design and monitoring of election campaigns. The use of
the internet by citizens has changed the design of election campaigns, participation
in politics and how messages are conveyed. Dimitrova et al. (2014) point out that the
effect of social networks is stronger on participation than on political knowledge.
Zhang et al. (2010) explain the effect of the political engagement of new channels.
Westwood (2010) questions to what extent the power of the information available on
these channels reaches the formation of public opinion, questioning whether we are
dealing with Googleocracy or Googlearchy. Kreiss and McGregor (2018) point out
that technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Google have
become almost digital consultants for election campaigns following the experience
of the 2016 presidential elections in the United States, defining the strategy, con-
tents, and execution.
Ma-Kellams et al. (2018) state that Big Data in the form of Google search has
emerged as the most powerful predictor of political behaviour compared with other
aggregate measures. In this way, data generated on digital channels reflects citizens’
attitudes and intentions, and therefore have an explanatory and predictive nature.
Polls are becoming less credible in forecasting election results (Barnett et al., 2018).
Therefore, this work proposes using Google Trends as a prediction tool for election
results as an alternative, as it is a simple and effective method of measuring election
results (Gómez-Martínez & Prado-Román, 2014). Google is the predominant search
engine in most countries (World Bank, 2016). In addition, the registered and moni-
tored data and statistics are available to users for consultation and/or use, facilitating
their use.
In Canada, the last presidential elections took place in 2019, so the data are recent.
By collecting data since 2004, we will have the opportunity to validate the evolution
of candidate searches almost to the present date, allowing us to validate the tool. The
next presidential elections in the United States will be as soon as November 2020.
Taking into account the political instability and an unstable global environment, which
is a consequence of the pandemic produced by the COVID-19, having a fast and cred-
ible tool that provides more reliable information on election results is a great
opportunity.
The structure of this research is as follows. First, a theoretical review is carried out,
which sets the background on the use of data for predicting different election cam-
paigns. Second, the sample and methodology are presented, followed by the results.
Finally, the main implications and conclusions of this study are discussed.
Prado-Román et al. 3

Theoretical Framework
The use of polls and data analysis in politics and in election campaigns is nothing new.
Since the origin of elections, obtaining information to design and monitor campaigns
is a key tool for designing the electoral strategy. The key role of data in campaigns has
not changed, what has changed is the way of obtaining this information and the greater
certainty provided by obtaining data through different information sources, which
allows candidates to adapt their strategies and respond to their electorates’ reactions
(Trevisan et al., 2018).
As data has become more sophisticated and in particular, obtaining it, data’s predic-
tive capacity has been improving. Hence, in the past, it seemed that data were not
useful and now political parties have teams of professionals trained in data analysis
and intelligence systems. Early studies on the impact of information on campaigns
concluded that the effect on voting intention was minimal (Berelson et al., 1954;
Campbell et al., 1960). Currently, this opinion is shared by academics who base their
data on the context, claiming that not being in a stable environment (altered by an
electoral process) and the social nature makes obtaining data with sufficient certainty
complex; therefore, carrying out a campaign to alter the results is possible, but com-
plex (Stevenson & Vavreck, 2000; Wlezien & Erikson, 2002).
Subsequently, various studies in the field of journalism (Chaffee, 1981) and politi-
cal science (Graber, 1980; Rose & Mossawir, 1967) demonstrated the effect of the
mass media on election results. The most remarkable conclusion of these investiga-
tions was the quantification of the effect of these campaigns on voting intention.
Specifically, in the United States, the impact indicated that between 7% and 11% of
voters changed their voting intention from one party to another. In the case of voters
without a deep-rooted party identification, this percentage could be as high as 28%.
However, in several studies, the strong influence of personal contacts on changing the
voting intention was pointed out, evidence that has also been corroborated by other
studies such as those by Johann et al. (2018).
Since the emergence of digital media, academic interest has expanded to the study
of election campaigns and the effect on the internet and social networks, and with the
ability to identify what is happening at the present moment (Ginsberg et al., 2009), but
also with the ability to predict the future (Asur & Huberman, 2010). The assumption
that the volume of keywords searched on the internet or contained in chats on social
networks such as Twitter are revealing the current and future thinking of a significant
amount of the population (Romero et al., 2011) is what all these studies have in
common.
The Google search engine domain, according to different sources1, accounts for
80% of worldwide search, which has enabled its searches to enrich its databases and
become representative samples of the population for many studies (Trevisan, 2014).
Google has designed the Google Trends tool that processes the search carried out
according to the words inserted and analyses the total number of Google searches, that
is, it measures the relative search popularity (Google, sf). Thus, Google search
4 American Behavioral Scientist 00(0)

statistics have become a tool used in the academic field (Scharkow & Vogelsgang,
2011; Scheitle, 2011).
Several investigations have shown that it is an effective tool for making data pre-
dictions, as revealed by numerous studies in the social (Chai & Sasaki, 2011; Gunn &
Lester, 2013), economic (Ettredge et al., 2005; Kaeserbauer et al., 2012; Trevisan
et al., 2018), or health field (Hagerty & Veenhoven, 2003; Nuti et al., 2014).
In the political sphere, the results are mixed. Balz (2011) analysed the 2008 presi-
dential campaign of B. Obama and H. Clinton concluding that Clinton, despite being
searched less, got more engagement on the network, but Obama won. However, Arendt
and Fawzi (2019) point out that the conflicting communication techniques used by
Trump in the 2016 elections led to a greater internet search, but generated a negative
bias, which led to him being less voted. Even so, Trump won.
Following this trend, in a study carried out in the United States and the United
Kingdom, Trevisan et al. (2018) confirm how the information available on Google
Trends is an interesting indicator, so that candidates can adapt their programme and
adapt their campaign to attract indecisive people. Lui et al. (2011) points out that
Google Trends was not a good predictor of the 2008 and 2010 congressional elec-
tions compared with The New York Times polls, other polls, and even fate. However,
they point out that with an important and well-defined subset of data, they find that
Google Trends is a better predictor. Yasseri and Bright (2013) also identify that it is
necessary to review the predictive capacity of this tool. Graefe and Armstrong
(2010) analysed all the American presidential elections from 1972 to 2008 with
Google Insights for Search and concluded that it has a 97% predictive power
probability.
Mavragani and Tsagarakis (2016) and Askitas (2015) point out that Google Trends
has predictive capacity in short periods of time and even under a high-volatility sce-
nario such as the Greek referendum in 2015 on the approval or rejection of conditional
financial aid from the European Union. The predictive nature of Google Trends is
confirmed in the analysis on the national elections in Greece and Spain by Polykalas
et al. (2013a). Polykalas et al. (2013b) tested again with the German elections of 2005,
2009, and 2013 and demonstrated a strong correlation between potential voters’
searches and election results.
In addition, Gómez-Martínez et al. (2019) highlight the predictive capacity that was
shown in the 2011 Spanish general elections with at least the same precision as in the
preelection polls. The averages obtained from the search indexes carried out antici-
pated with some precision the real vote percentage results observed later. Gómez-
Martínez and Prado-Román (2014) also demonstrate, through an econometric panel
data model, that Google search statistics regarding that same election date were statis-
tically significant and had predictive power. The results indicated that a greater (lesser)
interest in the political party observed by greater (lesser) Google searches on it implied
a greater (lesser) voting intention and a higher (lesser) percentage of electoral roll
votes.
However, it is important to note that predicting winners with this type of tool is only
possible in democratic elections and in countries with freedom of online navigation
Prado-Román et al. 5

(Trevisan et al., 2018). Furthermore, there are also studies that point to the negative
effect and/or biases of using these indicators, since, as mentioned by Epstein and
Robertson (2015), a “search engine manipulation effect” may occur and directly affect
election results; minority or alternative political parties would be excluded (Hindman,
2009) due to the loop effect of the most relevant searches (Halavais, 2009); or submis-
sion to commercial agents such as Google (Mager, 2012).
In view of these criticisms, analysis of Google Trends searches makes it possible to
identify the temporal evolution of the electorate with a large amount of data and to
analyse trends (Trevisan et al., 2018). Useful information for predicting candidates
and identifying factors or actions that cause searches to increase and decrease can be
obtained with this tool. In this case, the effectiveness of policies during the campaign
could be identified and the penetration of actions be quantified.
Based on this background information, the aim of this article is to demonstrate the
ability of Google Trends as a predictor of the winner of the presidential elections in the
United States and Canada since 2004, and propose its use as an electoral predictor at
future polls. It is obvious that if the consumer behaves differently due to digital
changes, the voter will do the same, and as managers, we must obtain this information
so as to be more prepared.

Sample and Methodology

Sample
Taking into account the theoretical framework discussed and the research objective,
the following methodology is proposed. First, we downloaded Google Trends data for
the United States and Canada and compared the search for each candidate in the last
month, 2 months, and 3 months before the Election Day. Although the interest of elec-
tions is global, only the United States or Canadian citizens vote, so the search is lim-
ited to the geographical area of the United States of America or Canada.

Study 1: The United States. Figure 1 shows the information displayed on the screen
when the search is performed and shows Google searches in the three months prior
(from August 1 to November 1) to the 2004 elections in which George W. Bush was
reelected. The figure shows that Bush obtained an average search of 37 out of 100 in
those three months, while Kerry only reached 28. This would be a sign of victory for
Bush due to arousing more interest than his opponent, which is eventually what hap-
pened in the elections. Furthermore, the case of the elections to the presidency of the
United States of America in 2008 for the months of August, September, and October
of that year can also be seen. Barack Obama exceeds with a strong majority what had
already been anticipated by Google search differences.
In the 2012 presidential elections, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney, but with
a lower difference in votes and in 2016, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton
despite the polls forecasting Hilary Clinton as the winner, but Google had anticipated
the change to a Republican president.
6 American Behavioral Scientist 00(0)

Figure 1. Presidential elections USA 2004-2016.

Study 2: Canada. Figure 2 shows the search results for presidential candidates in the
elections since 2004. As in the case of the United States, Google searches indicated the
winners of the commissions.
Prado-Román et al. 7

Figure 2. Presidential elections Canada 2004-2019.

Methodology
Taking into account that Google Trends has been publishing statistics since January
2004, we analyse whether this pattern is repeated for the presidential elections available
8 American Behavioral Scientist 00(0)

and we demonstrate the predictive capacity that will be very useful for the next presi-
dential elections in the United States in 2020, and in Canada in 2024.
In addition, we repeated the analysis for different time intervals, 1 month, 2 months,
and 3 months, looking for pattern differences as the elections got closer. To this end, a
model of analysis of differences and correlations is applied to measure the search
impact and the votes obtained, as well as the relationship between Google searches
and election results.
The following variables are used for the study:

•• Google Trends searches: The data are provided on a 0 to 100 scale, that is, they
are standardised by Google on a scale that allows for search comparisons. For
this research, we use the average search value based on the time period.
•• Votes: The data are the election results quantified by seats won by each
candidate.
•• Difference in electoral votes resulting from the elections (blue candidate party
votes minus red candidate votes).
•• Xt: Difference in the Google search average for each of the candidates (G-Trends
average of the blue candidate minus G-Trends average of the red candidate).

Results
First, we show the results for the United States (Table 1). It is observed that if we pre-
dict the winner of the presidential elections to the United States, assuming that it will
be the candidate with the highest Google searches, the predictive capacity of this tool
would have predicted the winners since the 2004 elections. We also observe that the
prediction does not vary regardless of whether we take one, 2 or 3 months of observa-
tion. Therefore, we can assume that the candidate who will occupy the White House
from 2020 will be the one that arouses the greatest interest among the population of the
United States of America and generates the most Google searches. This is the case as
long as these searches are related with positive news and the environment remains
stable.
In Table 2, we confirm that the results obtained in the United States are repeated in
Canada. Thus, we validate the results of Google trends as an electoral predictor and we
include the year 2019, which would show the evolution of the use of digital devices
and tools.
Second, we performed an analysis of the search and vote variation, and a correlation
analysis to validate the predictive capacity of Google Trends (Table 3 and Table 4). As
verified in the table, the extra votes due to Google Trends searches increased consider-
ably in the nine presidential elections analysed. However, this value does not increase
as it approaches the present and digital media are more widely used. For example, in the
case of the 2012 U.S. presidential elections, those votes based on searches increased by
18, and in Canada a year earlier, in 2011, they increased by 10.50.
Third, Figure 3 shows the correlations between the difference in votes and the time
period. This figure shows a linear trend and a relationship between searches and votes,
Prado-Román et al. 9

Table 1. United States Results: Period 2004-2016.

Year 2016 2012 2008 2004

Election date 11/08/2016 11/06/2012 11/04/2008 11/02/2004
Blue candidate Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Barack Obama John Kerry
Red candidate Donald Trump Mitt Romney John McCain George W. Bush
1 Month: Blue average 22 15 48 42
1 Month: Red average 44 8 18 57
2 Months: Blue average 19 14 38 31
2 Months: Red average 34 8 16 43
3 Months: Blue average 15 14 32 28
3 Months: Red average 28 7 14 37
Prediction Red Blue Blue Red
Winner Red Blue Blue Red
Blue votes (I) 227 332 365 251
Red votes (II) 304 206 173 286

indicating that there is a relationship between both variables in the three time intervals
considered, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months before the elections.

Implications
Political marketing and the use of the media in election campaigns arises at the same
time as candidates must convince the electorate to vote for them. The presence of digi-
tal media and the use of internet search engines as a source of information for the
electorate have impacted the traditional way of campaigning. Election managers and
candidates must use these means as communication tools, but also as information tools
that allow them to make optimal decisions to win the elections. Furthermore, this is
particularly important in the case of presidential elections in which candidates’ person-
alism is greater and they are constantly judged and analysed by individuals who now
also use the internet to access information about them.
There is awareness of this search impact in the communication and marketing area,
since if candidates are not searched online, they are not there, they do not exist and it
will be more difficult to attract voters. In addition, these areas are aware of the useful
information that is generated on the network and that must be used, and obtaining this
information can be a click away, accessing search metrics, such as Google Trends.
This research confirms that the information available on the web and that shows
citizens’ concerns and interests is a reliable source for predicting voting intention
(Arendt & Fawzi, 2019; Balz, 2011; Graefe & Armstrong, 2010; Trevisan et al., 2018).
If we focus attention on the different sources of information available on the web, we
should mention Google, not only due to its number of users worldwide and in the
countries analysed but also for making the information extracted from searches avail-
able to users via Google Trends (Askitas; 2015; Gómez-Martínez et al., 2019;
Mavragani & Tsagarakis, 2016; Polykalas et al., 2013b).
10
Table 2. Canada Results: Period 2004-2019.

Year 2019 2015 2011 2008 2004

Election date 10/21/2019 10/19/2015 05/02/2011 10/14/2008 06/28/2004
Blue candidate Andrew Scheer Stephen Harper Stephen Harper Stephen Harper Stephen Harper
Red candidate Justin Trudeau Justin Trudeau Jack Layton Stéphane Dion Paul Martin
1 Month: Blue average 10 21 28 60 44
1 Month: Red average 23 43 23 34 38
2 Months: Blue average 4 15 21 42 32
2 Months: Red average 10 27 14 24 33
3 Months: Blue average 3 12 16 31 29
3 Months: Red average 8 21 10 18 35
Prediction Red Red Blue Blue Red
Winner Red Red Blue Blue Red
Blue votes (I) 121 99 166 143 99
Red votes (II) 157 184 103 77 135
Prado-Román et al. 11

Table 3. Variations Analysis Results: The United States: Period 2004-2016.

Year 2016 2012 2008 2004

Election date 11/08/2016 11/06/2012 11/04/2008 11/02/2004

Blue candidate Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Barack Obama John Kerry
Red candidate Donald Trump Mitt Romney John McCain George W. Bush
Dif. 1 Month −22 7 30 −15
Dif. 2 Months −15 6 22 −12
Dif. 3 Months −13 7 18 −9
Dif. votes (I-II) −77 126 192 −35
Extra votes by 5.92 18.00 10.67 3.89
search points

Table 4. Variations Analysis Results: Canada: Period 2004-2019.

Year 2019 2015 2011 2008 2004

Election date 10/21/2019 10/19/2015 05/02/2011 10/14/2008 06/28/2004

Blue candidate Andrew Scheer Stephen Harper Stephen Harper Stephen Harper Stephen Harper
Red candidate Justin Trudeau Justin Trudeau Jack Layton Stéphane Dion Paul Martin
Dif. 1 Month −13 −22 5 26 6
Dif. 2 Months −6 −12 7 18 −1
Dif. 3 Months −5 −9 6 13 −6
Dif. votes (I-II) −36 −85 63 66 −36
Extra votes by 7.20 9.44 10.50 5.08 6.00
search points

By extracting data from Google Trends, we analyse the election results since 2004
in the United States and Canada and confirm that, based on the analysis of Google
Trends data, we can anticipate who will be the winning candidate in the presidential
elections. According to the results of the empirical study, Google searches generate an
increase in the number of votes, which has led in all the analysed elections to predict
who the winner would be. Therefore, monitoring Google trends data would provide
extremely useful information to know who will win the elections, for example, the
next elections to preside over the White House.
From the point of view of electoral managers and political analysts, these results
pose new challenges to be faced and a new way of campaigning or monitoring infor-
mation. It is common to conduct and disseminate numerous polls on the days before
the election date, but could they be replaced by more profitable tools such as the one
discussed in this study? Would this investment be necessary if a free and accurate tool
to predict the outcome of the elections were available?
Despite the convincing nature of the results of this research, the conclusions should
be taken with caution, since it is necessary to validate these results in other countries
and elections, explore in more detail the use of the internet and expand the study
sample. However, we recommend that when monitoring the next elections for the
12 American Behavioral Scientist 00(0)

Figure 3. Correlations between Google Trends searches and votes.

United States presidency to be held next November 2020, in addition to following

traditional polls, voters, the media and political parties should take into account the
data collected by this indicator because it may still be the most accurate predictor.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iD
Camilo Prado-Román https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1540-0643

Note
1. See websites: Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-
search-engines/); 99FIRMS.COM (https://99firms.com/blog/search-engine-statistics/#gref);
Statcounter.GlobalStats (https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share).
Prado-Román et al. 13

References
Arendt, F., & Fawzi, N. (2019). Googling for Trump: Investigating online information seeking
during the 2016 US presidential election. Information, Communication & Society, 22(13),
1945-1955. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1473459
Askitas, N. (2015). Calling the Greek Referendum on the nose with Google Trends (RatSWD
Working Paper, No. 249). Rat für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsdaten (RatSWD). https://www.
konsortswd.de/wp-content/uploads/RatSWD_WP249.pdf
Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media. In 2010 IEEE/
WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology
(Vol. 1, pp. 492-499). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.63
Balz, J. (2011). The search is on: Googling “Barack Obama” and “Hillary Clinton” in the 2008
Democratic primary. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1-2), 139-164. https://doi.org/10.1
080/15377857.2011.540215
Barnett, S. B., Campero, A., Zilberman, R., Rose, C., Robinson, A., & Cerf, M. (2018). Trust
the polls? Neural and recall responses provide alternative predictors of political outcomes.
Advances in Consumer Research, 46. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2411403
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. & McPhee. (1954). Voting. University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter.
Wiley.
Carneiro, H. A., & Mylonakis, E. (2009). Google trends: A web-based tool for real-time sur-
veillance of disease outbreaks. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49(10), 1557-1564. https://doi.
org/10.1086/630200
Chaffee, S. (1981). Mass media in political campaigns: An expanding role. In R. E. Rice & W.
J. Paisley (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 181-198). Sage.
Chai, S., & Sasaki, N. (2011). Using online tools to assess public responses to climate change
mitigation policies in Japan. Future Internet, 3(2), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.3390/
fi3020117
Dimitrova, V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, W. (2014). The effects of digital media on
political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data.
Communication Research, 41(1), 95-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and
its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 112(33), E4512-E4521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
Ettredge, M., Gerdes, J., & Karuga, G. (2005). Using web-based search data to predict
macroeconomic statistics. Communications of the ACM, 48(11), 87-92. https://doi.
org/10.1145/1096000.1096010
Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., & Brilliant, L.
(2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457(7232),
1012-1014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07634
Gómez-Martínez, R., & Prado-Román, C. (2014). La actividad de búsquedas en Google anticipa
los resultados electorales. IDP: Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 18, 2-15. https://
doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i18.1941
Gómez-Martínez, R., Prado-Román, C., Paule Vianez, J., & Pascual Nebreda, L. (2019) A study
of the capability of Google Trends as an electoral results predictor. In J. R. Kamalipour
(Ed.), Global perspectives on media, politics, immigration, advertising, and social net-
working (pp. 79-96). Cambridge Scholars.
Graber, D. (1980). Mass media; social aspects; political aspects; United States. Congressional
Quarterly Press.
14 American Behavioral Scientist 00(0)

Graefe, A., & Armstrong, J. S. (2010). Predicting elections from the most important issue: A test
of the take-the-best heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(1), 41-48. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bdm.710
Gunn, J. F., III., & Lester, D. (2013). Using google searches on the internet to monitor sui-
cidal behavior. Journal of affective disorders, 148(2-3), 411-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jad.2012.11.004
Hagerty, M. R., & Veenhoven, R. (2003). Wealth and happiness revisited-growing national
income does go with greater happiness. Social Indicators Research, 64(1), 1-27. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1024790530822
Halavais, A. (2009). Search engine society. Polity Press.
Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9781400837496
Internet World Stats. (2020) Usage and population statistics. https://www.internetworldstats.
com/stats.htm
Johann, D., Königslöw, K. K. V., Kritzinger, S., & Thomas, K. (2018). Intra-campaign
changes in voting preferences: The impact of media and party communication. Political
Communication, 35(2), 261-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1339222
Kaeserbauer, M., Hohenstatt, R., & Reed, R. (2012). Direct versus search engine traffic: An
innovative approach to demand analysis in the property market. International Journal of
Housing Markets and Analysis, 5(4), 392-413. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538271211268538
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: The
work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S.
presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1058
4609.2017.1364814
Lui, C., Metaxas, P. T., & Mustafaraj, E. (2011). On the pre-dictability of the U.S. elections
through search volume activity. http://bit.ly/gJ6t8j
Ma-Kellams, C., Bishop, B., Zhang, M. F., & Villagrana, B. (2018). Using “Big Data” ver-
sus alternative measures of aggregate data to predict the U.S. 2016 presidential election.
Psychological Reports, 121(4), 726-735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117736318
Mager, A. (2012). Algorithmic ideology: How capitalist society shapes search engines.
Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 769-787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691
18X.2012.676056
Mavragani, A., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2016). YES or NO: Predicting the 2015 GReferendum
results using Google Trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 109(August),
1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.028
Nuti, S. V., Wayda, B., Runasinghe, I., Wang, S., Dryer, R. P., Chen, S. I., & Murugiah, K.
(2014). The use of Google Trends in health care research: A systematic review. PLOS ONE,
9(10), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109583
Polykalas, S. E., Prezerakos, G. N., & Konidaris, A. (2013a). A general purpose model for
future prediction based on web search data: predicting Greek and Spanish election. In
27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications
Workshops (pp. 213-218). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WAINA.2013.155
Polykalas, S. E., Prezerakos, G. N., & Konidaris, A. (2013b). An algorithm based on Goggle
Trends’ data for future prediction: Case study: German elections. In IEEE International
Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology, IEEE ISSPIT (pp. 69-73).
IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSPIT.2013.6781856
Prado-Román et al. 15

Romero, D. M., Galuba, W., Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2011). Influence and passivity
in social media. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge
Discovery in Databases (pp. 18-33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963192.1963250
Rose, R., & Mossawir, H. (1967). Voting and elections: A functional analysis. Political studies,
15(2), 173-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1967.tb01843.x
Scharkow, M., & Vogelsgang, J. (2011). Measuring the public agenda using search engine
queries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(1), 104-113. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ijpor/edq048
Scheitle, C. (2011). Google’s insights for search: A note evaluating the use of search engine
data in social research. Social Science Quarterly, 92(1), 285-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-6237.2011.00768.x
Stevenson, R. T., & Vavreck, L. (2000). Does campaign length matter? Testing for cross-national
effects. British Journal of Political Science, 30(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0007123400000107
Trevisan, F. (2014). Search engines: From social science objects to academic inquiry tools. First
Monday, 19(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.5237
Trevisan, F., Hoskins, A., Oates, S., & Mahlouly, D. (2018). The Google voter: Search engines
and elections in the new media ecology. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1),
111-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1261171
Vosen, S., & Schmidt, T. (2011). Forecasting private consumption: Survey-based indicators
vs. Google trends. Journal of forecasting, 30(6), 565-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.1213
Westwood, S. J. (2010). How to measure public opinion in the networked age: Working in
a Googleocracy or a Googlearchy? In IFIP International Federation for Information
Processing 2010, IFIP AICT 328 (pp. 150-160). Springer. https://link.springer.com/con-
tent/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-15479-9_14.pdf
Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R. S. (2002). The timeline of presidential election campaigns. Journal
of Politics, 64(4), 969-993. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00159
World Bank (2016). Digital dividens. World Development Report. http://documents.world-
bank.org/curated/en/896971468194972881/pdf/102725-PUB-Replacement-PUBLIC.pdf
Yasseri, T., & Bright, J. (2013). Can electoral popularity be predicted using socially generated
big data? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2818v1.pdf
Zhang, W., Johnson, T. J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. (2010). The revolution will be networked:
The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science
Computer Review, 28(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309335162

Author Biographies
Camilo Prado-Román associate professor of Finance at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid.
Secretary-General of the European Academy of Management and Business Economics
(AEDEM).
Raúl Gómez-Martínez associate professor of Finance at the Rey Juan Carlos University of
Madrid. Founding Partner of InvestMood Fintech.
Carmen Orden-Cruz associate professor of Finance at Rey Juan Carlos University of Madrid.