后见之明偏见与选举结果:满意度比输赢地位更重要

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
M. Bertolotti, P. Catellani
{"title":"后见之明偏见与选举结果:满意度比输赢地位更重要","authors":"M. Bertolotti, P. Catellani","doi":"10.1521/SOCO.2021.39.2.201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The tendency to perceive outcomes as more foreseeable once they are available is a well-known phenomenon. However, research on the cognitive and motivational factors that induce individuals to overestimate the foreseeability of an electoral outcome has yielded inconsistent findings. In three studies based on large-scale electoral surveys (ITANES, Italian National Election Studies), we argued that the tendency to perceive an electoral outcome as foreseeable is positively and consistently associated with satisfaction with the outcome. Across all studies, satisfaction with the outcome was significantly and positively associated with retrospective foreseeability, above and beyond voters’ preference for a “winning” or “losing” party. In Study 3, a measure of memory distortion of pre-electoral forecasts was included, which was only weakly associated with retrospective foreseeability, but not with satisfaction for the outcome, supporting the notion of different levels of hindsight bias associated with different cognitive and motivational factors.","PeriodicalId":48050,"journal":{"name":"Social Cognition","volume":"39 1","pages":"201-224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hindsight Bias and Electoral Outcomes: Satisfaction Counts More Than Winner-Loser Status\",\"authors\":\"M. Bertolotti, P. Catellani\",\"doi\":\"10.1521/SOCO.2021.39.2.201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The tendency to perceive outcomes as more foreseeable once they are available is a well-known phenomenon. However, research on the cognitive and motivational factors that induce individuals to overestimate the foreseeability of an electoral outcome has yielded inconsistent findings. In three studies based on large-scale electoral surveys (ITANES, Italian National Election Studies), we argued that the tendency to perceive an electoral outcome as foreseeable is positively and consistently associated with satisfaction with the outcome. Across all studies, satisfaction with the outcome was significantly and positively associated with retrospective foreseeability, above and beyond voters’ preference for a “winning” or “losing” party. In Study 3, a measure of memory distortion of pre-electoral forecasts was included, which was only weakly associated with retrospective foreseeability, but not with satisfaction for the outcome, supporting the notion of different levels of hindsight bias associated with different cognitive and motivational factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Cognition\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"201-224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.2021.39.2.201\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.2021.39.2.201","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

一旦结果可用,就会认为结果更可预见,这是一种众所周知的现象。然而,对导致个人高估选举结果可预见性的认知和动机因素的研究得出了不一致的结果。在三项基于大规模选举调查的研究(意大利国家选举研究)中,我们认为,将选举结果视为可预见的倾向与对结果的满意度呈正相关。在所有研究中,对结果的满意度与回顾性可预见性显著正相关,高于选民对“获胜”或“失败”政党的偏好。在研究3中,包括了对选举前预测的记忆扭曲的测量,该测量仅与回顾性可预见性弱相关,但与对结果的满意度不相关,支持了与不同认知和动机因素相关的不同程度的事后偏见的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hindsight Bias and Electoral Outcomes: Satisfaction Counts More Than Winner-Loser Status
The tendency to perceive outcomes as more foreseeable once they are available is a well-known phenomenon. However, research on the cognitive and motivational factors that induce individuals to overestimate the foreseeability of an electoral outcome has yielded inconsistent findings. In three studies based on large-scale electoral surveys (ITANES, Italian National Election Studies), we argued that the tendency to perceive an electoral outcome as foreseeable is positively and consistently associated with satisfaction with the outcome. Across all studies, satisfaction with the outcome was significantly and positively associated with retrospective foreseeability, above and beyond voters’ preference for a “winning” or “losing” party. In Study 3, a measure of memory distortion of pre-electoral forecasts was included, which was only weakly associated with retrospective foreseeability, but not with satisfaction for the outcome, supporting the notion of different levels of hindsight bias associated with different cognitive and motivational factors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Cognition
Social Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: An excellent resource for researchers as well as students, Social Cognition features reports on empirical research, self-perception, self-concept, social neuroscience, person-memory integration, social schemata, the development of social cognition, and the role of affect in memory and perception. Three broad concerns define the scope of the journal: - The processes underlying the perception, memory, and judgment of social stimuli - The effects of social, cultural, and affective factors on the processing of information The behavioral and interpersonal consequences of cognitive processes.
×
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