IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v21y2026ip-_4.html

Wishful thinking in the 2020 U.S. presidential election: Does perspective taking mitigate the preference–expectation link?

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Andrew
  • Windschitl, Paul
  • Crawley, Jackson

Abstract

People’s expectations about the outcomes of elections often match their preferences, suggesting that people engage in wishful thinking. This often-documented link between people’s preferences and expectations is particularly pervasive and difficult to debias. One recent exception was a study by Rose and Aspiras (2020, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(4), 411–426), where participants who went through a brief perspective-taking intervention showed a reduced preference–expectation link when making predictions about the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We used a similar intervention and extended their research to the 2020 U.S. presidential election. In contrast to Rose and Aspiras, the link between people’s preferences and their expectations was not affected by the perspective-taking intervention. Regardless of whether participants took the perspective of another person or not, they exhibited a strong tendency to predict that their preferred candidate would win. Differences between our study and the study by Rose and Aspiras are discussed, as are the implications of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Andrew & Windschitl, Paul & Crawley, Jackson, 2026. "Wishful thinking in the 2020 U.S. presidential election: Does perspective taking mitigate the preference–expectation link?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21, pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:21:y:2026:i::p:-_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297526100291/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:judgdm:v:21:y:2026:i::p:-_4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.