Why did people vote for Trump? It's all in our heads.
The USA election result came as a surprise to some. When, on paper, one candidate had so many marks against their name, it seems improbable they would be able to gather enough votes to win against another opponent with all the credentials, and none of the legal issues.
So what happened?
There's always going to be biases that our brains grab onto when trying to make a decision. It's how our brains work to make decision-making easier.
In the case of the USA election, I'd argue there's a few key biases that came into play and that swung the vote towards Republicans:
Let's take a quick look at each.
Availability Bias
The availability bias (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) means we reach for the most-recent experience in our memory and use that to make a decision.
For example, you go to the supermarket and try to choose between five different types of cereal. You remember hearing something on a podcast recently about Brand X having less sugar than Brand Y, so you choose Brand X. You do this without even checking the labels on any other packets.
The same thing happens in elections - basically, we have short memories. And our memories are inherently flawed, and our recollections get worse over time.
Rather than thinking back to what life was like from 2016-2020, people draw on the availability of their most-recent experiences.
If, in the last 6-12 months, you've struggled to make ends meet or your grocery and fuel bills have increased, that's the experience you're drawing on.
It doesn't matter if it was the result of tax policies put in place by the previous administration, or if these issues are the result of other global issues, or even if life was just as tough 'back then'. It's your current experience.
This bias is also linked to Present Bias ... it's hard for us to look to the future and make decisions on what could be, rather than what is. That's why issues like climate change are so hard to communicate.
Consistency Bias
The second major bias that comes into play is the consistency bias (Sadler & Woody, 2003). For the most part, we all want to be seen as consistent with our beliefs and actions. Consistency is considered a good thing!
For example, let's say you're approached by a fundraiser in a shopping centre. The first question they ask you is, 'Are you a generous person?'. You respond in the affirmative. So when they then ask you to make a donation, it's likely you'll feel compelled to donate, because it's consistent with a value you made public.
The same thing occurs with political ideology. Once we subscribe to one ideology we tend to stay consistent to it, even if we start to think differently. We don't want to appear inconsistent, or, god forbid, admit we might have been wrong!
领英推荐
So if you've always held beliefs that align with the Republicans or Democrats, it's very likely you'll continue to vote that way, even if you no longer agree with some policy positions.
Waning consistency, for some people, is akin to showing vulnerability. But to paraphrase the great researcher Brene Brown, being vulnerable is being courageous.
Confirmation Bias
Say hello to the echo chamber! Confirmation bias (Wason, 1960) happens when we make up our mind about an issue, and then tend to disregard any information that may be contrary to that point of view.
For example, let's say you've been told numerous times in the past that truffles have MSG in them, and MSG is bad for you, and you now believe you feel sick when you eat truffles. Then, someone shares scientific information with you that shows that, compared with other foods like tomatoes, truffles have very little MSG ... but you eat tomatoes all the time and you're fine. In fact, MSG is a naturally-occurring substance with no evidence to say it's harmful.
The consistency bias kicks in, and all of a sudden you're discounting the scientific evidence, and you instead look for information that confirms your belief. You remain convinced MSG is bad for you, and that's why truffles make you feel ill.
The same thing happens in politics, especially around hot-topic issues like abortion and climate change.
Once we've made up our minds, we will tend to elevate the value of information that confirms our beliefs, and discount information that is in opposition.
It's not hard to see where this might have come into play in the recent USA election... or the recent Queensland election, for that matter!
Unfortunately, social media algorithms only serve to amplify this bias, by selectively promoting content to you that aligns with other content you've liked or shared. It's a one-sided world out there.
Familiarity Bias
The familiarity bias - or the mere exposure effect - means we often choose something simply because we're familiar with it (Zajonc, 1968).
Let's say you're visiting a foreign country, and as you're out walking around you're looking for a place for lunch. All of the food is unfamiliar to you, but in the distance, you spy the 'golden arches' of McDonalds. Despite the fact you're travelling precisely to have new experiences, you head to the safety and familiarity of the cheeseburger ...
The same principle often applies in politics. If a candidate is more familiar to you, simply because they've been around for longer or been more active in your community, you're more likely to vote for them. Even if you don't know them or don't particularly like them!
Similarly, if you're seeing more of one candidate through the media you choose to tune into, you'll be more familiar with them and more likely to vote in their favour.
Trump is a familiar face. He's been in the spotlight for a very long time. So even if people don't like him, he's potentially more familiar to you than other candidates.
So ... what can we do about it?
Independent Communications Consultant | Speaker
3 个月Good summary Mel Loy, though I think we’d be remiss not to add authority biais and implicit biases to the list, and even more so not to mention that our interpretation is biased ??