A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard has been disturbed by the rise of what we might call applied political psychology. More specifically, he's concerned about some of the political experiments described in the fascinating new book by Sasha Issenberg, The Victory Lab: The Science of Winning Campaigns, and a recent Obama campaign tactic that asks supporters to write down why they want to vote for Obama and then make a pledge to do so:
So if you're politically attuned and on Twitter, you've probably seen these disturbing photos of Obama supporters pledging allegiance to the president of the United States. . .
The [Obama] campaign is running a psychological experiment on its supporters to forge some sort of emotional commitment to the president, and to create an artificial sense of obligation to vote for him. . .
I find the grand experiments in behavioral manipulation insidious and just plain creepy. . .
. . . I find it actually disdainful of the autonomy and dignity that every American is supposed to feel when entering the voting booth. Democracy is important. It should not be viewed as an experiment in psychological manipulation . . .
There’s a lot bound up in all of this, so let’s unpack it a bit . . . First, the “pledge” tactic is a pledge to vote, not a pledge to Obama. Second, in what sense is it creating “an artificial sense of obligation to vote” if someone writes down the reasons voting is important to them and makes a public commitment to vote? Third, this tactic encourages greater thought and considered commitment to things one already believes. The result of that thought and public commitment is a greater sense of duty to do one’s part as a citizen. Now, these Obama voters are committed to things with which I vehemently disagree, but I fail to see how these actions and outcomes are negatives things per se.
Some of the experimentally-vetted mailers are creepy and push the bounds of ethics or at least propriety and good taste. Those will likely backfire with more widespread use, which is exactly why progressives have been running experiments to soften the “social threat” aspect of the social pressure campaigns.
But Democracy has always been a psychology experiment, just a large, uncontrolled, and messy one . . . it’s a system of governance wherein citizens with equal rights and equal votes attempt to persuade, cajole, bully and yes, manipulate each other to take up certain views and actions.
What's different now is that people are actually taking this process of persuasion and mobilization seriously. Some practitioners are using experimental science to build up a real and solid base of knowledge about how Democracy works, and how voters are persuaded to vote -- and vote for one’s side -- in an election.
At base, these experiments discover which means of contact and what kinds of content are more or less effective ways of communicating with citizens. Is that "insidious?" Is it “disdainful of the autonomy and dignity” of Americans to study how best to persuade or motivate them?
Democracy is exceedingly important, and the gravity of the issues we face today demands that we take the process of persuasion and mobilization just as seriously as the progressive groups that have outpaced us so tremendously in the science of communication recently.
Peer pressure is also an exceedingly useful thing to force people to conform to a preordained conclusion, which is why the Obama campaign has an app that allows you to see which of your neighbors are Democrats. Nothing disturbing about that at all, no siree.
Of course, it's not just Obama. Many high level campaigns in both parties are trying to employ behavioral psychology--in particular, they're sending a lot of seemingly odd and manipulative messages via direct mail these days.
Yes, peer pressure is often a very effective means of getting people to do things. But I wouldn’t say an email encouraging supporters to pledge to vote in November or even a list of their neighbor’s voting record will “force people to conform to a preordained conclusion.” In fact, I might call that notion itself “disdainful of the autonomy and dignity that every American is supposed to feel.”
But what should really disturb Hemingway and anyone else who cares about the future of our country is that the progressives are far, far beyond our side in this effort to understand how to communicate with and mobilize voters.
The Left has already institutionalized GOTV field experiments, and they have an army of academics working with unions and other grassroots organizations to carry them out. They have learned from hundreds of experiments over 4-5 election cycles. We are very much behind in this game. They have a huge advantage in institutional knowledge and best-practices that will give them a large edge in GOTV effectiveness this fall. But we can do this better and more efficiently if we recognize its value and move on it.
Field experiments are often cumbersome, messy and expensive. You need an election or referendum. It is difficult to identify heterogeneous effects conditional on the political/psych/demographic characteristics of treated voters. On their own, field experiments are inefficient.
An integrated testing protocol that begins online, with less expensive, more controlled and fine-grained PocketTrial makes field experiments more focused and efficient.
The election is simply the first step . . . afterward comes the more difficult task of navigating through health care, entitlement and other reforms mined with electoral hazards to achieve good policy with positive electoral results.
Understanding the political psychology of voters will be vital for winning these debates and elections, and a rigorous experimental approach is the means by which we can begin to achieve that understanding.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
The Progressives have created a rock star celebrity president. Was Reagan the same and Schwartzenegger? Would Clint Eastward have won? He would have beaten Obama hands down.
The answer is clear. The icon president is an easy vote. How does this tie in to brain washing of the masses? Will there be Hollywood roles created to build the narrative of that star so they becone the coolest President ever?
Do conservatives like this collective mindset of the Left? I would not have written a pledge to my favourite aunt, never mind a political figure. But growing up in central Africa means I despise politicians with even a whiff of Idi Amin.
The Canadian PM, Harper, did build his narrative for many years. He got two right wing parties to come together under his conservatives and he did get them to pledge to pursue the economics of the conservatives and leave the social issues out of politics. Religion, immigration, gay, abortion were put aside. The priority was jobs and helping families and sorting out the red tape for business owners.
I worked for a bank that used a psychiatrist specialized in Vietnam brainwashing to build its corporate culture. It works.
Edited on September 22, 2012 at 2:56pmRe: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
There are two things about this that are worrisome. It leads to there being a cult of personality. This is especially visible in the iconography of Obama's two Presidential campaigns. He really is The One, The Messiah.
The other matter that is worrisome is the tendency of the political parties to become parties of integration on the Weimar model -- i.e., parties that organize our lives for us and shut us off from conversation with folks on the other side. The Democratic Party was once a large tent. It is now an ideological part united by a cult of personality and designed to shut off its adherents from thinking and rethinking. Newspapers and national television networks that leaned left liberal have become propagandists and little more.
What you are describing is just one more step down the path to civil war and a suppression of public deliberation. As the fate of a certain Coptic Christian indicates, the liberals in this country are no longer defenders of the freedom of speech.
Re: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
Paul A. Rahe: There are two things about this that are worrisome. It leads to there being a cult of personality. . .
The other matter that is worrisome is the tendency of the political parties to become parties of integration on the Weimar model -- i.e., parties that organize our lives for us and shut us off from conversation with folks on the other side. . .
What you are describing is just one more step down the path to civil war and a suppression of public deliberation . . . the liberals in this country are no longer defenders of the freedom of speech.
I think these problems are entirely separate from the study of political behavior/psychology and the application of those findings. The cult of personality/ideology of the Democratic party are serious problems. But they aren't the consequence of science.
It's an expansion of knowledge that can be used for good or ill. But the pursuit of this knowledge is good in and of itself. Beyond that, it is necessary for our side to pursue, because otherwise we will be a terrible disadvantage to the Progressives.
What's gained by turning away from the pursuit of social science knowledge?
Nov '10
Re: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
Adam Schaeffer: First, the “pledge” tactic is a pledge to vote, not a pledge to Obama. Second, in what sense is it creating “an artificial sense of obligation to vote” if someone writes down the reasons voting is important to them and makes a public commitment to vote? Third, this tactic encourages greater thought and considered commitment to things one already believes. The result of that thought and public commitment is a greater sense of duty to do one’s part as a citizen. Now, these Obama voters are committed to thing with which I vehemently disagree, but I fail to see how these actions and outcomes are negatives things per se.
Thank you for expressing a refreshing view on this, instead of joining in the chorus that make every eyebrow raise and eye blink of the current administration have dark implications. This bombardment with negativity clouds the issues and increases defensiveness on all sides. I do not believe it convinces anyone.
I've been noticing on Ricochet that the right is guilty of spin and distortion as well.
While there are unhealthy expressions of admiration for the President, we keep our heads and keep talking sense about issues.
Oct '10
Re: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
Which is another reason it is important to destroy the MSM and the false narrative that all the reasonable people agree with the liberal agenda.
Just sayin'.
Re: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
Adam, you make some good points. And as I said in the original post, I'm not opposed to employing new cutting edge science for campaign purposes.
But my point was oters should be aware of exactly how campaigns would like to manipulate them. And I don't think the goal of Jim Messina and Stefanie Cutter is to encourage personal reflection about why individual voters exercise their Democratic rights. All they want is votes for Obama. For instance, when you say, "First, the 'pledge' tactic is a pledge to vote, not a pledge to Obama" -- I'm not sure that's accurate. Here's the actual tweet from Cutter that helped launch this nonsense:
No, they clearly want a pledge to vote for Obama, not just to vote. Still, your post has made me rethink a few things. But I remain very skeptical about the limits of social science. And it's not the results so much as the intent of such tactics that I find revealing.
Re: A Psychology Experiment Is Exactly What Democracy Is
Mark . . . thanks, and I should probably have emphasized a bit more my discomfort with the cult of The One and some of these tactics. You're right to forewarn voters of new horizons in potential manipulation . . . in the case of the Obama/vote pledge, they certainly don't want an increase in Republican turnout; its a base strategy.
But I'd be happy to see our side encouraging our side to write down why this election is so important and pledging to turn out and vote Obama out. It's a bit hokey/gimmicky, but when you write something down, make specific plans for it, and then publicly commit to it, then you are more likely to follow through (on the margin, on average of course).
I'd love to hear more about your skepticism and thoughts about the limits of social science . . . I think our side needs to catch up, double-time, but we do need to be thoughtful and aware of potential problems as we do so . . .