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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Asher, Herbert B. (1984).Presidential Elections and American Politics (3rd ed.) Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Black, Duncan (1958).The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boucher, J., and Osgood, C. (1969). The Pollyana hypothesis.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8:1–8.
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I. (1972). The assessment of policy voting.American Political Science Review 66:450–458.
Brown, C. (1982). A false consensus bias in 1980 presidential preferences.Journal of Social Psychology 118:137–138.
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.
Condorcet, Marquis de (1785).Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Decisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. Paris.
Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Festinger, Leo (1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson.
Fischoff, Baruch, Lichtenstein, Sarah, Slovic, Paul, Derby, Stephen L., and Keeney, Ralph (1981).Acceptable Risk. London: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, Carroll (1984). The performance of rational voter models in recent presidential elections.American Political Science Review 78(3, September):678–690.
Graber, Doris A. (1980).Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
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.
Grofman, Bernard (1975). A comment on “democratic theory: a preliminary mathematical model.”Public Choice 21(Spring):100–103.
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.
Grofman, Bernard (1983). Models of voter turnout: an idiosyncratic review.Public Choice 41:55–61.
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.
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.
Grofman, Bernard, Owen, Guillermo, and Feld, Scott L. (1983). Thirteen theorems in search of the truth.Theory and Decision 15:261–278.
Hayes, S. (1936). The predictive ability of voters.Journal of Social Psychology 7:183–191.
Heider, Fritz (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization.Journal of Psychology 21:107–112.
Heider, Fritz (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Jacobson, Gary C. (1983).The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little Brown.
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.
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice.American Political Science Review 73 (December): 1055–1070.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1984).Spiral of Silence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
Pomper, Gerald, with colleagues (1981).The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Prescott, Eileen (1984). Word of mouth: playing on the prestige factor.Wall Street Journal (Feb. 7).
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting.American Political Science Review 62:25–42.
Schum, David (1986). Concentrated inference. In B. Grofman and G. Owen (eds.).Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, forthcoming.
Sears, David O., and Freedman, Jonathan L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: a critical review.Public Opinion Quarterly 31(Summer): 194–213.
Taagepera, Rein (1973). Seats and votes: a generalization of the cube law of elections.Social Science Research 2(September): 257–275.
Theil, H. (1970). The cube law revisited.Journal of American Statistical Association 65:1213.
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
- Alternative Explanation
- Exogenous Variable
- Systematic Bias
- Presidential Election
- Election Outcome