Wishful Thinking in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

In elections, political preferences are strongly linked to the expectations of the electoral winner—people usually expect their favorite candidate to win. This link could be driven by wishful thinking (a biasing influence of preferences), driven by a biasing influence of expectations on one’s wishes, or produced spuriously. To examine these competing possibilities in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, a longitudinal study assessed uncommitted young voters’ electoral expectations and preferences over four time points during the month before the election. The findings indicated clear support for wishful thinking: Over time, people’s preferences shaped their expectations, but the reverse was not the case. Moreover, these relations were larger among those more strongly identified with their political party and held even when perceptions of general candidate popularity were taken into account. Finally, changes in electoral expectations were consequential, as they shaped disappointment in the electoral results even after taking candidate preferences into account.

[1]  Steven E. Finkel,et al.  Causal Analysis With Panel Data , 1995, SAGE Research Methods Foundations.

[2]  S. Ceci,et al.  Jumping on the Bandwagon with the Underdog: The Impact of Attitude Polls on Polling Behavior , 1982 .

[3]  Ian Fenwick,et al.  Classifying Undecided Voters in Pre-Election Polls , 1982 .

[4]  F. W. Irwin,et al.  Stated expectations as functions of probability and desirability of outcomes. , 1953, Journal of personality.

[5]  Ilan Fischer,et al.  Desirability and hindsight biases in predicting results of a multi-party election. , 1995 .

[6]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Information processing and public opinion , 2007 .

[7]  J. I. Kim,et al.  Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Z. Križan,et al.  The influence of outcome desirability on optimism. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  S. P. Hayes,et al.  The Predictive Ability of Voters , 1936 .

[10]  Jean-Paul Caverni,et al.  Contributions to decision making , 1995 .

[11]  Aaron C. Kay,et al.  Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo , 2002 .

[12]  Robert Navazio.  An Experimental Approach to Bandwagon Research , 1977 .

[13]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. , 1996 .

[15]  Elisha Y. Babad,et al.  WISHFUL THINKING AMONG VOTERS: MOTIVATIONAL AND COGNITIVE INFLUENCES , 1997 .

[16]  Robert A. Olsen.  Desirability bias among professional investment managers: some evidence from experts , 1997 .

[17]  O. Tykocinski,et al.  I Never Had a Chance: Using Hindsight Tactics to Mitigate Disappointments , 2001 .

[18]  R. L. Henshel,et al.  The purposes of laboratory experimentation and the virtues of deliberate artificiality. , 1980 .

[19]  Edward Brent,et al.  When prophecy bends: The preference–expectation link in U.S. presidential elections, 1952–1980. , 1983 .

[20]  J. Locascio,et al.  The Cross-Lagged Correlation Technique: Reconsideration in Terms of Exploratory Utility, Assumption Specification and Robustness , 1982 .

[21]  H. Cantril.  Prediction of Social Events , 1937 .

[22]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign , 1968 .

[23]  S. Greene.  Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach , 1999 .

[24]  Thomas M. Holbrook,et al.  Knowing Versus Caring: The Role of Affect and Cognition in Political Perceptions , 2001 .

[25]  H. Simon,et al.  American Association for Public Opinion Research Bandwagon and Underdog Effects and the Possibility of Election Predictions , 2009 .