The ultimate Political Psychology
Why do some people vote for same candidates even though they
are cheaters?
Why do some people keep voting for the same parties or
candidates even after they repeatedly lie to them or waste their tax dollars?
This sorry state of affairs can be explained in part by a) voter apathy and
ignorance; b) discomfort with or fear of the unknown (hence the saying, “better
the devil you know”); c) severe dislike for the alternative choices; or d) the
rigid and narrow-minded tradition of automatically endorsing the same party or
candidate no matter what.
However, another fascinating psychological phenomenon can
help account for many types of seemingly irrational decisions: cognitive
dissonance reduction (CDR). This theory has undergone several revisions since
its introduction in the 1950s but the most relevant aspects of CDR with respect
to the current discussion are:
1. Typical North Americans or people from other
individualistic cultures such as the UK and Germany, but not collectivist
cultures such as traditional Japan and India, want to maintain a positive
self-image.
2. Their positive self-image includes the beliefs that they
are “good” and “smart.”
3. When they do something that could contradict these
beliefs or otherwise challenge their positive self-image, they feel an inner
tension, conflict or “dissonance.”
4. This cognitive dissonance can be very psychologically
uncomfortable.
5. People in this state of cognitive dissonance are highly
motivated to reduce their unpleasant feelings.
6. Because they cannot deny to themselves that they
committed the act that is making them feel not so good or smart, they need to
convince themselves that what they did was not really “bad” or “foolish” at
all. Other related ways people can reduce their cognitive dissonance is by
telling themselves that they had no choice in the matter and/or some other
person or factor outside of their control was responsible for what they did or
for the outcome
of their actions.
CDR theory is not perfect and does not apply to everyone.
Also, it is really just a slightly reformulated version of the Freudian defence
mechanism, rationalization. However, a lot of research on CDR has turned some
common assumptions on their head: namely, instead of acting rationally in line
with their beliefs or opinions, many people will actually modify their beliefs
of opinions after the fact in order to conform to their decisions and actions.
How
cognitive dissonance reduction can be applied to voting
One can apply this concept to seemingly irrational voting
choices: people overlook or downplay unrealistic election promises for a
variety of reasons, particularly those mentioned above. When the politicians or
party do things that disrespect or hurt the electorate, those who voted for
them are faced with having to admit that they made a bad choice. Or, they can
unconsciously and somewhat consciously modify their opinions, belief systems,
or perceptions of what the politicians or party did so that they don’t feel so
foolish for having voted for them.
When the next election comes around, voters often choose the
same politicians or party because otherwise they would need to admit to
themselves that they had made a bad decision during the previous election—why
else would they change their vote? This process continues until the politician
or party’s actions are so obviously egregious that no amount of spin can reduce
the voter’s cognitive dissonance.
The best way to prevent CDR from enabling politicians or
parties to maintain their reign of ineffectiveness, incompetence and/or
corruption is for voters to find the intellectual or psychological strength to
realize that making a bad decision does not make the person bad. Research shows
that, in certain countries, admitting to and reflecting on one’s shortcomings
is more likely to lead to self-improvement rather than the distress, depression
or anxiety that many North Americans fear will accompany such honesty. In those
same countries, acknowledging one’s mistakes is seen as a way to help create a
stronger and better populace, not weaker. It is no coincidence that CDR does
not seem to occur in countries with such an adaptive mindset, even if their
political systems might still leave a lot to be desired.
Post a Comment