The race may be close but my horse is going to win: Wish fulfillment in the 1980 presidential election

Abstract

Using data from the 1980 U.S. presidential election, we investigate the extent to which voter expectations about candidate electoral success and margin of victory are subject to systematic biases. In particular, we examine the extent to which candidate supporters overestimate their choice's likelihood of success. After finding a rather dramatic bias in the direction of “wishful thinking,” we review alternative explanations of this phenomenon, including a model based on nonrandom contact networks and one based on preference-related differences in expectations about exogenous variables that could affect the election outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Asher, Herbert B. (1984).Presidential Elections and American Politics (3rd ed.) Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Black, Duncan (1958).The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boucher, J., and Osgood, C. (1969). The Pollyana hypothesis.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I. (1972). The assessment of policy voting.American Political Science Review 66:450–458.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, C. (1982). A false consensus bias in 1980 presidential preferences.Journal of Social Psychology 118:137–138.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carroll, J. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: an interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14:88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Condorcet, Marquis de (1785).Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Decisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. Paris.

  8. Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Festinger, Leo (1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fischoff, Baruch, Lichtenstein, Sarah, Slovic, Paul, Derby, Stephen L., and Keeney, Ralph (1981).Acceptable Risk. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Foster, Carroll (1984). The performance of rational voter models in recent presidential elections.American Political Science Review 78(3, September):678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Graber, Doris A. (1980).Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Granberg, Donald, and Brent, Edward (1983). When prophecy bends: the preference-expectation link in U.S. presidential elections, 1952–1980.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:477–491.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grofman, Bernard (1975). A comment on “democratic theory: a preliminary mathematical model.”Public Choice 21(Spring):100–103.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grofman, Bernard (1982). For single member districts, random is not equal. In B. Grofman, A. Lijphart, R. McKay, and H. Scarrow (eds.),Representation and Redistricting Issues, pp. 55–58. Boston: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grofman, Bernard (1983). Models of voter turnout: an idiosyncratic review.Public Choice 41:55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grofman, Bernard, Feld, Scott L., and Owen, Guillermo (1982). Evaluating the competence of experts pooling individual judgments into a collective choice and delegating decision and responsibility to subgroups. In Felix Geyer and Hans van der Zouwen (eds.),Dependence and Inequality, pp. 221–238. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grofman, Bernard, and Owen, Guillermo (1986). Condorcet models: avenues for future research. In Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen (eds.),Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grofman, Bernard, Owen, Guillermo, and Feld, Scott L. (1983). Thirteen theorems in search of the truth.Theory and Decision 15:261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hayes, S. (1936). The predictive ability of voters.Journal of Social Psychology 7:183–191.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Heider, Fritz (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization.Journal of Psychology 21:107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heider, Fritz (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jacobson, Gary C. (1983).The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard R., and Gaudet, Helen (1944).The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73 (December): 1055–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1984).Spiral of Silence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Page, Richard A., and Brody, Benjamin I. (1972). Policy voting and the electoral process: the Vietnam war issue.American Political Science Review 66(September): 979–995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Page, Richard A., and Jones, Calvin C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote.American Political Science Review 73(December): 1071–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Parducci, Allen, and Marshall, Louise M. (1962). Assimilation v. contrast in the anchoring of perceptual judgments of weight.Journal of Experimental Psychology 63: 426–437.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pomper, Gerald, with colleagues (1981).The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Prescott, Eileen (1984). Word of mouth: playing on the prestige factor.Wall Street Journal (Feb. 7).

  32. Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting.American Political Science Review 62:25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schum, David (1986). Concentrated inference. In B. Grofman and G. Owen (eds.).Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sears, David O., and Freedman, Jonathan L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: a critical review.Public Opinion Quarterly 31(Summer): 194–213.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Taagepera, Rein (1973). Seats and votes: a generalization of the cube law of elections.Social Science Research 2(September): 257–275.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Theil, H. (1970). The cube law revisited.Journal of American Statistical Association 65:1213.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uhlaner, C.J., Grofman, B. The race may be close but my horse is going to win: Wish fulfillment in the 1980 presidential election. Polit Behav 8, 101–129 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987179

Download citation

Keywords

  • Alternative Explanation
  • Exogenous Variable
  • Systematic Bias
  • Presidential Election
  • Election Outcome