Expectations: How They Form If Decision Makers Are Distant

Public expectations in politics are central to democratic governance. How public expectations form is interesting for decision governance because they concern decision situations in which there is considerable distance between stakeholders and decision makers, and at the same time, decisions will only have a chance of success if the stakeholders’ behaviour aligns with decisions. In politics, expectations shape voter behavior, determine public satisfaction with government performance, and affect trust in political leaders. The analogy in firms is that the expectations of staff determine trust in management, and eventually influence performance through motivation and credibility of goals, among others. If expectations are too high, they can lead to widespread disillusionment; if they are too low, they may weaken engagement and accountability. How do expectations form about distant decision makers?

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Mechanisms of Public Expectation Formation

Political science literature provides several mechanisms that explain how the public forms expectations about decision makers.

• Rational Updating: Individuals adjust their expectations based on new information, using Bayesian updating principles (Lupia & McCubbins, 1998). Citizens revise their beliefs about politicians based on their observed actions, external events, or media coverage.
• Partisan Filtering: People interpret political information through the lens of their partisan affiliations (Bartels, 2002). Partisanship biases perception, leading individuals to set different expectations for leaders based on political alignment rather than objective performance.
• Heuristics and Cognitive Shortcuts: Voters often rely on cognitive shortcuts, such as reputation, past performance, and party labels, to form expectations (Popkin, 1991). Instead of processing all available information, they use heuristics to make quick judgments about political decision-makers.
• Media Framing and Agenda-Setting: The way media present political events influences public expectations. Agenda-setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) suggests that the media shape the issues people consider important, while framing effects alter how individuals interpret those issues.
• Social Influence and Peer Effects: Public expectations are also shaped by social interactions. Social networks, family, and community discussions contribute to the formation and reinforcement of expectations about politicians and policies (Mutz, 2006).
• Institutional Performance and Economic Conditions: Historical institutional performance and economic conditions directly impact public expectations. Citizens develop expectations about governance based on prior experiences with economic management, corruption levels, and institutional effectiveness (North, 1990).

Variables Influencing Public Expectation Formation

Given the various mechanisms, it is clear that public expectations in politics are influenced by multiple variables. These can be categorized into four groups: (a) information about the past, (b) information about the present, (c) beliefs of members of the public, and (d) attitudes of members of the public. The table below summarizes these variables, including their definitions and examples.

Category	Variable	Definition	Example
Information about the Past	Historical Economic Performance	The record of economic indicators such as GDP growth, inflation, and unemployment.	Citizens expect future economic stability based on past GDP trends.
	Institutional Trust Levels	Historical public trust in political institutions, based on corruption, efficiency, and governance.	Countries with a history of corruption face low expectations for transparency.
	Previous Political Scandals	Incidents of corruption or misconduct that influence expectations of future political behavior.	A past scandal leads citizens to expect unethical behavior from politicians.
	Policy Continuity	Consistency in policy decisions across different administrations.	A government with a history of stable policies sets expectations for continued stability.
Information about the Present	Media Coverage	How the media presents political events and leaders.	A leader praised in the media raises public expectations about future performance.
	Current Economic Conditions	Present state of economic indicators like inflation and employment.	Rising inflation lowers expectations for economic recovery.
	Political Rhetoric	Statements made by politicians that shape public expectations.	A politician’s promise of tax cuts influences expectations about fiscal policy.
	Government Responsiveness	How quickly and effectively the government responds to crises or public demands.	Rapid disaster relief fosters expectations of future efficiency.
Beliefs of Members of the Public	Partisan Identity	Political affiliation influencing perception of government performance.	Democrats may expect better social policies from a left-leaning government.
	Ideological Commitments	Deeply held beliefs about governance and policy.	Libertarians expect minimal government intervention in the economy.
	Perceived Competence of Leaders	Beliefs about the intelligence and effectiveness of political leaders.	A leader perceived as highly competent raises expectations of successful governance.
	Nationalism or Patriotism	Belief in national superiority or collective identity shaping political expectations.	Strong nationalistic sentiments may lead to high expectations for military strength.
Attitudes of Members of the Public	Political Cynicism	General skepticism about politics and politicians.	A cynical public may expect politicians to break campaign promises.
	Engagement in Political Discourse	The extent to which individuals discuss and analyze politics.	Engaged voters may form more sophisticated expectations based on policy analysis.
	Emotional Reactions	Feelings of hope, anger, or fear influencing expectations.	Fear-based campaigns may lower expectations of political stability.
	Trust in Media Sources	Degree of trust in media as an accurate source of information.	High trust in media leads to stronger influence of news coverage on expectations.

Mechanisms Revisited

We can revisit the same mechanisms using these variables, and summarize the relationships each mechanism implies over the variables.

• Rational Updating:
  • Media Coverage –> Perceived Competence of Leaders
  • Government Responsiveness –> Trust in Political Institutions
  • Historical Economic Performance –> Expectations about Future Economic Policies
• Partisan Filtering:
  • Partisan Identity –> Perceived Competence of Leaders
  • Partisan Identity –> Trust in Media Sources
  • Ideological Commitments –> Expectations about Policy Outcomes
• Heuristics and Cognitive Shortcuts:
  • Previous Political Scandals –> Political Cynicism
  • Policy Continuity –> Expectations about Future Stability
  • Perceived Competence of Leaders –> Trust in Political Institutions
• Media Framing and Agenda-Setting:
  • Media Coverage –> Emotional Reactions
  • Trust in Media Sources –> Engagement in Political Discourse
  • Media Coverage –> Expectations about Government Responsiveness
• Social Influence and Peer Effects:
  • Engagement in Political Discourse –> Political Cynicism
  • Social Networks –> Nationalism or Patriotism
  • Political Cynicism –> Expectations about Government Effectiveness
• Institutional Performance and Economic Conditions:
  • Historical Economic Performance –> Expectations about Future Economic Stability
  • Current Economic Conditions –> Emotional Reactions

References

• Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.
• Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge University Press.
• McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Popkin, S. L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. University of Chicago Press.