Understanding How Voting Shapes Voter Perception
Written on
The Impact of Voting on Voter Optimism
In the context of the 1984 Presidential election, researchers aimed to investigate the hypothesis that casting a vote could evoke a sense of optimism akin to that experienced by gamblers after placing bets. Seven researchers from Cornell University conducted interviews with voters both entering and exiting polling stations.
The election featured President Reagan, a dominant frontrunner with a polling advantage of 17 to 20%, against former Vice President Walter Mondale, who was perceived as excessively liberal and had previously served under the unpopular Jimmy Carter. As anticipated, the interviews conducted before voting revealed that supporters of Reagan exhibited higher levels of optimism compared to those backing Mondale. However, the post-voting interviews yielded surprising results—Mondale supporters reported increased confidence in their candidate's chances, scoring almost a full point higher on a scale from 1 to 9, indicating a shift from a "fair" to a "good" chance of winning.
This phenomenon, known as post-decision dissonance, suggests that individuals adjust their attitudes and behaviors to align with their choices. Research spanning several decades has shown that this effect is not limited to politics or betting scenarios; it has been observed in various groups, including children and even amnesiac patients who are unable to recall their decisions.
The Connection Between Voting and Dissonance
In the realm of politics, post-decision dissonance amplifies voters' perceptions that their chosen candidate is not only more likely to win but also superior to their opponents. This mindset can persist for an astonishing two to four years, contributing to the electoral advantages enjoyed by incumbents. The irrationality of this belief is evident in its manifestation among young children and instinct-driven animals, indicating that it may stem from primitive cognitive processes and altered brain chemistry.
Investigating the Physiology of Dissonance
To examine the physiological underpinnings of post-decision dissonance, researchers from University College London employed MRI technology to monitor brain activity during decision-making tasks. Volunteers were presented with a list of 80 vacation destinations, asked to visualize each one, and then rated their anticipated happiness for each location. They were subsequently prompted to choose between two equally rated options.
Post-decision, participants exhibited a marked increase in their ratings for their chosen destination, while the appeal of the rejected option significantly diminished. Notably, brain scans revealed heightened blood oxygenation in the caudate nucleus—a region associated with dopamine production—when participants envisioned their selected location, contrasting with decreased blood flow when they considered the discarded choice. Prior to making their decisions, blood oxygenation levels were relatively equivalent for both options.
Dissonance Observed in Children and Animals
The primitive nature of post-decision dissonance is further evidenced by studies involving young children and capuchin monkeys. In one study, children rated colorful stickers, selected their top three favorites, and subsequently faced a choice between two of them. Remarkably, once they selected one sticker, their previous preference for the other diminished significantly. The monkeys displayed similar behavior, choosing between colored M&M's.
A notable finding emerged from research involving patients with anterograde amnesia, who lack the ability to form new memories. Despite their inability to remember their choices, these individuals exhibited a similar aversion to the option they had not selected, challenging the notion that dissonance relies on conscious reflection.
The Implications of Dissonance in Politics
The implications of post-decision dissonance in the political arena are concerning, particularly when attempting to unseat entrenched incumbents. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that voters are twice as likely to exhibit polarization—overvaluing their choices while undervaluing alternatives—compared to non-voters. This bias can persist for two to four years, even among individuals who are passionate about candidates but may not have voted.
In the United States, where incumbents enjoy a 93% reelection rate for House representatives and an 82% rate for senators, the challenge of displacing them becomes apparent. According to University of Kansas Professor Mark Joselyn, a significant shift in voters' perceptions of a candidate's competence is necessary to overcome the effects of dissonance.
"The dissonance created between a candidate’s consistency and the realization of their inadequacy must reach a critical point," Joselyn noted. "When this awareness gains traction, it can disrupt established preferences and lead voters to consider alternative candidates."
While this shift is more feasible for independent voters than for staunch partisans, the challenge remains formidable in the face of deeply ingrained voter biases.