Hosting the Olympics or not: how individuals decide

This dissertation investigates the individual-level determinants of public support for hosting the Olympic Games, offering a comprehensive analysis of attitudes toward large-scale public projects in democratic societies. Through a combination of cross-national survey data, experimental methods, and voter turnout analysis, the research identifies the psychological, social, and economic factors that shape individual decision-making in the context of Olympic hosting referenda and public debates. The first paper addresses the central question: Is it the economy, or something else? Using data from 12 democratic countries, it analyzes whether public support for hosting the Olympics is driven more by economic expectations or social and symbolic factors, such as national pride and community spirit. Contrary to the dominant narrative that economic costs and benefits are the primary considerations, the findings suggest that social identity, perceived prestige, and emotional attachment to the Games play a stronger role in shaping public attitudes. The second paper explores the role of anticipated emotions in individual support for mega-projects. Drawing from psychological theories of affective forecasting, the paper develops and tests hypotheses about how people’s expectations of positive feelings (e.g., joy, pride) or negative consequences (e.g., regret, frustration) influence their preferences. Experimental evidence shows that anticipated emotional responses significantly mediate support, often overriding objective economic or political considerations. This reveals a strong affective component in public decision-making, especially for projects with symbolic and national significance. The third paper shifts focus to voter behavior in referenda concerning Olympic bids. Again using data from 12 democratic countries, it examines the factors that influence voter turnout, including institutional settings, issue salience, and individual characteristics. The analysis finds that people are more likely to vote when they perceive high personal or communal stakes, when campaign narratives trigger strong emotions, or when they identify with the city or nation’s image. These results highlight that civic engagement in such referenda is not solely based on rational cost-benefit analysis, but also on identity, values, and emotions. Taken together, the dissertation makes a significant contribution to understanding how and why individuals support or oppose hosting the Olympics, and by extension, other major public projects. It challenges conventional assumptions of rational economic voting by demonstrating the importance of psychological and symbolic factors, and offers insights into the design of future public engagement and policymaking processes. For decision-makers and city planners, the findings underscore the need to address citizens’ emotional and identity-based motivations, rather than relying solely on technical or economic arguments.