Wishful thinking in response to events: Evidence from the 2021 German federal election

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Matthew Barnfield , Joseph Phillips , Florian Stoeckel , Vittorio Mérola , Sabrina Stöckli , Benjamin Lyons , Jack Thompson , Paula Szewach , Jason Reifler
{"title":"Wishful thinking in response to events: Evidence from the 2021 German federal election","authors":"Matthew Barnfield ,&nbsp;Joseph Phillips ,&nbsp;Florian Stoeckel ,&nbsp;Vittorio Mérola ,&nbsp;Sabrina Stöckli ,&nbsp;Benjamin Lyons ,&nbsp;Jack Thompson ,&nbsp;Paula Szewach ,&nbsp;Jason Reifler","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2025.102940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When making uncertain judgments about the political future, people consistently see desired outcomes as more likely. But when major events reduce uncertainty about what is possible in the future, how do people's expectations respond? In a panel study conducted during the 2021 German federal election, we find that citizens' predictions of likely coalitions converge after the election takes place, but even after this convergence those expectations remain marked by significant partisan gaps. The election result substantially reduces uncertainty about coalition formation—decreasing, but far from eliminating, differences in expectations between groups with different preferences. Our findings provide a clear case of static wishful thinking (contemporaneous association between preferences and expectations) without dynamic wishful thinking (divergence over time in expectations in line with preferences), suggesting that citizens' expectations of the future, regardless of their prior commitments, respond accordingly to events, but wishful thinking persists even in contexts of dramatically reduced uncertainty.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 102940"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379425000460","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When making uncertain judgments about the political future, people consistently see desired outcomes as more likely. But when major events reduce uncertainty about what is possible in the future, how do people's expectations respond? In a panel study conducted during the 2021 German federal election, we find that citizens' predictions of likely coalitions converge after the election takes place, but even after this convergence those expectations remain marked by significant partisan gaps. The election result substantially reduces uncertainty about coalition formation—decreasing, but far from eliminating, differences in expectations between groups with different preferences. Our findings provide a clear case of static wishful thinking (contemporaneous association between preferences and expectations) without dynamic wishful thinking (divergence over time in expectations in line with preferences), suggesting that citizens' expectations of the future, regardless of their prior commitments, respond accordingly to events, but wishful thinking persists even in contexts of dramatically reduced uncertainty.
对事件的一厢情愿:来自2021年德国联邦选举的证据
在对政治未来做出不确定的判断时,人们总是认为预期的结果更有可能出现。但是,当重大事件减少了对未来可能性的不确定性时,人们的期望会如何反应?在2021年德国联邦选举期间进行的一项小组研究中,我们发现公民对可能的联盟的预测在选举发生后趋于一致,但即使在这种趋同之后,这些预期仍然存在显著的党派差距。选举结果大大降低了联合政府组建的不确定性——减少了(但远未消除)不同偏好群体之间的期望差异。我们的研究结果提供了一个明确的静态一厢情愿(偏好和期望之间的同步关联)的案例,而没有动态一厢情愿(期望随时间的变化与偏好一致),这表明公民对未来的期望,无论他们之前的承诺如何,都会对事件做出相应的反应,但一厢情愿即使在不确定性大大降低的情况下也会持续存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信