IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v34y2018i2p199-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day

Author

Listed:
  • Stiers, Dieter
  • Dassonneville, Ruth

Abstract

Citizens tend to overestimate the electoral success of their preferred party. We investigate the extent to which Belgian voters overestimate the result of the party that they vote for and the factors that explain which voters do so more than others. Our focus is on the impact of educational attainment and partisan attachment on the overestimation of one’s party’s result. Previous research in this field has relied on data gathered in the months before the elections, which introduces a substantial amount of uncertainty and variation over time into the measurements of citizens’ vote share estimations. As an alternative, we investigate voters’ estimations of their party’s electoral success by means of data gathered in an exit poll survey. Our results show partisan attachments to have a strong impact on overestimations, which suggests that a wishful thinking mechanism is in play. Furthermore, we find that the extent to which partisan attachments increase citizens’ overestimations depends on a voter’s level of education.

Suggested Citation

  • Stiers, Dieter & Dassonneville, Ruth, 2018. "Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 199-215.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:199-215
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2017.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207017301413
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2017.12.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. André Blais & Marc André Bodet, 2006. "How Do Voters Form Expectations about the Parties' Chances of Winning the Election?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(3), pages 477-493, September.
    2. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Skalaban, Andrew, 1989. "Citizen Forecasting: Can Voters See into the Future?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 146-153, January.
    3. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    4. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 425-441, June.
    5. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Tien, Charles, 1999. "Voters as forecasters: a micromodel of election prediction," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 175-184, April.
    6. Dimi Jottier & John Ashworth & Bruno Heyndels, 2012. "Understanding Voters' Preferences: How the Electorate's Complexity Affects Prediction Accuracy and Wishful Thinking among Politicians with Respect to Election Outcomes," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 340-370, August.
    7. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 425-441, June.
    8. Donald Granberg & Sören Holmberg, 2002. "A Mass–Elite Comparison of Wishful Thinking," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(4), pages 1079-1085, December.
    9. Jerome, Bruno & Jerome, Veronique & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 1999. "Polls fail in France: forecasts of the 1997 legislative election1," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 163-174, April.
    10. Arjan H. Schakel & Charlie Jeffery, 2013. "Are Regional Elections really ‘Second-Order’ Elections?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 323-341, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ron Johnston & Todd Hartman & Charles Pattie, 2019. "Predicting general election outcomes: campaigns and changing voter knowledge at the 2017 general election in England," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1369-1389, May.
    2. Garz, Marcel & Sood, Gaurav & Stone, Daniel F. & Wallace, Justin, 2020. "The supply of media slant across outlets and demand for slant within outlets: Evidence from US presidential campaign news," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leiter, Debra & Murr, Andreas & Rascón Ramírez, Ericka & Stegmaier, Mary, 2018. "Social networks and citizen election forecasting: The more friends the better," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 235-248.
    2. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg, 2009. "Are all crowds equally wise? a comparison of political election forecasts by experts and the public," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 1-18.
    4. John, Peter & Sjoberg, Fredrik M, 2020. "Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effect of a civic information portal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    6. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2006. "Are all crowds equally wise? A comparison of political election forecasts by experts and the public," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2006:9, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 08 Sep 2008.
    7. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.
    8. Temporão, Mickael & Dufresne, Yannick & Savoie, Justin & Linden, Clifton van der, 2019. "Crowdsourcing the vote: New horizons in citizen forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-10.
    9. A. Kamakura, Wagner & Afonso Mazzon, Jose & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2006. "Modeling voter choice to predict the final outcome of two-stage elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 689-706.
    10. Ashley Jardina & Robert Mickey, 2022. "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 79-89, January.
    11. Angeline G. A. Nariswari & Qimei Chen, 2016. "Siding with the underdog: is your customer voting effort a sweet deal for your competitors?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 701-713, December.
    12. Carolina Plescia & Jean-François Daoust & André Blais, 2021. "Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 94-113, March.
    13. Mayne, Quinton & Hakhverdian, Armen, 2016. "Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies," Scholarly Articles 25302405, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    15. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    16. Liu, Yezheng & Ye, Chang & Sun, Jianshan & Jiang, Yuanchun & Wang, Hai, 2021. "Modeling undecided voters to forecast elections: From bandwagon behavior and the spiral of silence perspective," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 461-483.
    17. Wagner, Alexander F. & Schneider, Friedrich & Halla, Martin, 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -- A panel analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 30-41, March.
    18. Franch, Fabio, 2021. "Political preferences nowcasting with factor analysis and internet data: The 2012 and 2016 US presidential elections," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    19. Granić, Đura-Georg, 2017. "The problem of the divided majority: Preference aggregation under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 21-38.
    20. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:199-215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.