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

Andrew Smith et al.

Judgment and Decision Making2026https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2026.10029article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

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.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2026.10029

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{andrew2026,
  title        = {{Wishful thinking in the 2020 U.S. presidential election: Does perspective taking mitigate the preference–expectation link?}},
  author       = {Andrew Smith et al.},
  journal      = {Judgment and Decision Making},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2026.10029},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

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

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.