“We are witnessing a revolution in thinking about thinking. Three decades of research in the cognitive sciences, backed by hundreds of well-crafted behavioral studies in social psychology and new evidence from the neurosciences, posit affect-driven dual process models of thinking and reasoning that directly challenge the way we political scientists interpret and measure the content, structure, and relationships among political beliefs and attitudes. Central to such models is the distinction between conscious and unconscious thinking, with hundreds of experiments documenting pervasive effects of unconscious thoughts and feelings on judgment, preferences, attitude change, and decision-making.”
Political scientists Milton Lodge and Charles Taber commenting on their book, The Rationalizing Voter
“The central question in the study of political psychology and public opinion is whether citizens can form and update sensible beliefs and attitudes about politics. Though previous research was skeptical about the capacities of the mass public, many studies in the 1980s and early 1990s emphasized the potential merits of simple heuristics in helping citizens to make reasonable choices. In subsequent years, however, motivated reasoning has been impossible to avoid for anyone who follows either contemporary politics or the latest developments in psychology and political science. . . . . it is increasingly difficult for observers to defend micro-level attitude formation and information processing as rational or even consistently reasonable. Evidence continues to mount that people are often biased toward their prior beliefs and prone to reject counter-attitudinal information in the domains of both opinions and politically controversial facts.”Political scientist Brendan Nyhan commenting on The Rationalizing Voter
GLOSSARY
Affect: A concept used in psychology to describe the experience of feeling or emotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology)
Affective state: The experience of feeling an emotional state, sometimes distinguished between the more diffused longer-term experiences (termed moods) and the more focused short-term experiences (termed emotions). https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/affective-state/42305
Attitude: An attitude refers to a set of emotions, beliefs, and behaviors toward a particular object, person, thing, or event arising from evaluations that are usually positive or negative, but sometimes uncertain; attitude usually results from experience or upbringing, less often from observation, and attitude can have a powerful influence over behavior; attitudes are long-lasting, but can change; attitudes form from personal experience or; social roles and norms can have a strong influence on attitudes; attitude can change to match behavior or to reduce cognitive dissonance
The three components of attitudes:
● Cognitive Component: your thoughts and beliefs about the subject.
● Affective Component: how the object, person, issue, or event makes you feel – feelings or emotions about the object.
● Behavioral Component: how the attitude influences your behavior.
People are more likely to behave according to their attitudes under certain conditions:
● When your attitudes are the result of personal experience.
● When you are an expert on the subject.
● When you expect a favorable outcome.
● When the attitudes are repeatedly expressed.
● When you stand to win or lose something due to the issue.
https://www.verywellmind.com/attitudes-how-they-form-change-shape-behavior-2795897 “. . . . we define attitude as an evaluative tally attached to an object in long-term memory.” – Lodge & Taylor, The Rationalizing Voter (p. 29-30)
Emotion:
1. Emotion is any conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a certain degree of pleasure or displeasure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
2. Emotion is an umbrella term for all innate feelings every person has and that most people reflect through their attitude; attitude can differ from emotions; attitude can influence emotions https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-thought-feeling-emotion-mood-and-attitude
Emotions vs feelings: Emotions and feelings are distinct but highly related; an emotion is a physical response to change that is hard-wired and universal, (i) it can be measured objectively by blood flow, brain activity, facial expressions and body stance, and (ii) is generally predictable and easily understood; feelings are mental associations and reactions to an emotion that are personal associations to emotions and often idiosyncratic and confusing; acquired through experience and are mental and cannot be measured precisely; emotion precedes feeling
Feelings are sparked by emotions via the thoughts and images that have become paired with a particular emotion. Feelings and emotions influence each other. While emotions are usually fleeting, the feelings they provoke may persist or grow over a lifetime. Because emotions initiate feelings, and feelings in turn initiate emotions, your individual feelings can prompt a never-ending cycle of painful and/or confusing emotions. Whereas emotions are inborn and common to everyone, the meanings they acquire and the feelings they prompt are very personal, e.g., (i) a bully can feel empowerment and/or anger in response to physiological fear, while (ii) a non-bully can feel fear in response to physical indicators of anger → the same emotional signals may cause very different feelings in dissimilar people. Feelings are shaped by individual temperament and experience; they vary enormously from person to person and from situation to situation.
http://emotionaldetective.typepad.com/emotional-detective/2012/04/emotions-vs-feelings.html Mood: An emotional state that, in contrast to emotion, feeling, or affect, is less specific, less intense and less likely to be provoked or instantiated by a particular stimulus or event; typically described as having either a positive or negative valence, i.e., a good mood or a bad mood; mood differs from temperament or personality traits which are longer-lasting, but personality traits such as optimism and neuroticism predispose certain types of moods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_(psychology)
Motivated reasoning: Motivated reasoning is a form of mostly unconscious reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion. The term motivated in motivated reasoning refers to the fact that people use reasoning strategies that allow them to draw the conclusions they want to draw (i.e., are motivated to draw). http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/attitudes/motivated-reasoning/
Motivated reasoning distorts perceptions of fact and conscious reasoning to make the world appear to be in accord with existing personal beliefs, morals and social identity (cognitive dissonance reduction). The term refers to the role of personal motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change, in part to reduce conflicts between incoming information and factors such as existing beliefs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Book review: The Rationalizing Voter: In their 2013 book, The Rationalizing Voter (TRV), political scientists Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (L&T) propose a model to test whether and how people form and change their beliefs and attitudes about politics. Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist who studies misinformation in politics, comments that the TRV “is the most important study of motivated reasoning about politics that has been published to date and arguably the most depressing.” Nyhan points out that TRV is based on politics-related research from psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience.
The book’s main focus is on the fundamentally unconscious and affect-based nature of how people evaluate information about politicians, and political groups and issues. L&T comment that “the first 100 milliseconds of thought matters” and TRV “is about rationalizing, rather than rational, citizens.”
The John Q Public model of political thinking & opinion formation TRV proposes a model that Lodge and Taber call the John Q Public (JQP) model of political thinking. JQP is a theory of the mechanisms that determine how, why and when unconscious memories, thoughts, feelings, and goals come to mind to guide downstream political behavior. Regarding the formation and expression of political attitudes, the JQP model posits that the process:
● Is mostly automatic information processing, characterized as spontaneous, unconscious, uncontrollable, and effortless
● Is infused with feelings, which are idiosyncratic responses to physiological emotions
● Is embodied in physiological systems including neurological emotional brain responses
● Is driven by affects, which are unconscious feelings that precede and shape conscious thinking
● Is responsive to the environment by ‘online updating’ processes, which is a primitive rule of thumb affect-infused mechanism the mind employs to form and change beliefs and attitudes in real time
● Builds momentum by unconscious affect transfer, which (i) links positive and negative feelings to objects in memory (persons, words, concepts), and (ii) acts first and heavily biases (anchors) later unconscious and then conscious mental processes
● Builds momentum by unconscious affect contagion, a biasing process that affects what memories are moved from unconscious long-term memory to conscious working memory, the effect being most pronounced among well-informed political partisans and ideologues, with such biased thinking referred to as motivated reasoning
As is apparent from the components operating in the JQP process, most of the process is unconscious. People providing verbal reports or descriptions of what is going on mentally when they evaluate evidence and make judgments or form beliefs and act in accord is generally ineffective and inaccurate.
Priming the mind & motivated reasoning: The model proposes that most people usually apply motivated reasoning and that colors the memories that come to mind when a person considers politics-related information. For the most part, unconscious thinking controls the memories that become conscious information. JQP posits that unnoticed priming effects dominates the process. Priming is ubiquitous and it arises when an input (a picture, word or sound) influences thinking, feelings, beliefs and behaviors in the political context. We can be unaware of priming effects because they often exert influence unconsciously. An example of a prime is the presence of a flag behind a politician giving a speech. Another prime is the cross the shelf forms in the background of a political ad by Mike Huckabee. The flag and the cross influence how the speaker’s message is perceived and how persuasive it will be.
Although Huckabee claimed the cross was not intended to be a Christian symbol, others saw it as a not so subliminal prime, for example, this neuroscience marketer https://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/huckabee-denies-cross.htm.
L&T write that “JQP posits that motivated reasoning and the ensuing rationalizations of beliefs, attitudes, and intentions is built into our basic neurocognitive architecture . . . . Our model brings affect center stage in proposing that all thinking, reasoning, and decision making is affectively charged . . . . The central tenet of JQP is that affect enters into the decision stream spontaneously at every stage of the process. Cognition is hot; . . . . social and political concepts evoke an instantaneous experience of positive and/or negative affect. At the moment an object is registered, an evaluative tally is automatically called up, triggering a series of largely unconscious, sometimes somatically embodied processes that drive the perception and evaluation of events in defense of one’s prior attitudes. . . . . we find no evidence of an even-handed integration of new-found information into evaluations, finding instead affect-driven systematic confirmation and disconfirmation biases leading to attitude polarization. . . . . Even when we ask participants to stop and think, to be even handed in their appraisal of evidence and arguments, we find precious little evidence that they can overcome their prior attitudes or override the effects if incidental primes.”
L&T describe the JQP model as a process where affective or emotional and cognitive reactions to various inputs are triggered unconsciously. That triggers a spontaneous activation of thoughts and feelings, which sets the direction for all subsequent mental processing or thinking. “It is only at the tail end of this processing that we become consciously aware of the associated thoughts and feelings generated moments earlier.” By moments earlier, L&T mean the preceding 0.5 to 1.5 seconds before full conscious awareness arises. L&T claim their data shows that initial emotions and feelings in response to an event or information can arise in as little as 0.013 seconds. That is too short a time for even partial consciousness to arise. (A detailed discussion of the timeline is here) In essence, L&T argue that unconscious processing is fast and effortless in the sense of not involving any conscious effort or control. Our brains are thinking unconsciously for us and that leads to a pre-formed basis from which conscious thinking starts.
Because affect, or emotions and feelings, arise early in the stream of mental processing, and affect is difficult or impossible to control, L&T consider affect to be a central force in the JQP theory of political belief formation, and behavior.
L&T’s mention of “incidental primes” refer to things seen or heard that consciously or unconsciously trigger mental processes that color what is perceived and how information is thought about. L&T comment that, whether they are relevant or not, “primes prove to be powerful influences on how people think about and evaluate political leaders, groups, and issues.” Priming events can change from moment to moment and they activate related concepts in long-term memory, e.g., patriot, liar, honest, and in turn, that activates related concepts. After long-term memory is activated, concepts become available in working memory, which is conscious. Unlike long-term memory, working memory is conscious and severely limited to dealing with about 5-9 concepts at any given time.
Primes rapidly activate both cognitive associations, e.g., Bush is a Republican, and spontaneous feelings, e.g., Republicans are evil, or Democrats are dumb. Those actions are habitual and learned over time, especially by repeated exposure. Regarding primes, L&T comment that they include “the feelings of pride and ingroup solidarity that arise when flags wave or patriotic music plays in the background of political events, the subtle confidence felt in the presence of tall political candidates or infatuation for attractive or charismatic ones, and the unease experienced by some voters at the prospect of African-American or women leaders all influence political thinking outside conscious awareness.”
They argue that people are usually unaware of the specific situational and contextual factors or primes that elicit thoughts, feelings, and intentions that, on introspection, appear to come from a conscious deliberative evaluation of the evidence. One point that needs to be kept in mind about the power of primes is that they are not always wrong.
There is evidence that unconscious mental processes that primes can trigger sometimes leads to sound decisions, and those are often better than decisions based on careful conscious thinking. An important point arises from that concern. Humans are easily overwhelmed by more information than the human brain (mind) can rationally deal with. Unconscious mental processing is evolution’s way of trying to deal with this problem. Thus, a balance of unconscious and conscious mental processing is can lead to optimal beliefs and choices. That accords with research showing that a mindset unencumbered by reality- and reason-distorting political ideology correlates with minds best capable of using conscious reason to critically assess unconscious mental thinking. An ability to balance the powerful fast, intuitive, emotional nature of unconsciousness with the weak slow, evidence-based logical nature of consciousness seems to be optimal for seeing and dealing with the real world.
Criticisms: One commenter pointed out that “Lodge and Taber concentrate strictly on individual-level processes. For example, their finding that opinion polarization increases with political sophistication and deliberation may indeed seem depressing, yet given that human history does not seem to suggest that we are monotonically increasing in polarization, some other processes must account for de-polarization. A possible answer may lie in social interactions that require individuals to obtain the support and cooperation of others, with diverging opinions, preferences, and interests.” That criticism is valid. People thinking and acting in groups are quite different than those people thinking and acting alone.
Brendan Nyhan raises a related criticism: “As Lodge and Taber note, the survey format is often sterile and artificial, especially when respondents are asked about unknown issues and political figures without realistic contextual cues. The same principle applies to the fictional stimuli and hypothetical scenarios that are often employed in political science and psychology experiments. . . . . However, the politics that real people engage with is typically far more evocative and emotional than we acknowledge in our research. The national debate is dominated by highly controversial political figures and groups who use charged arguments and symbols to debate the most controversial and important issues on the public agenda. In such a context, affective responses are likely to be both common and consequential. To the extent possible, our methodologies should reflect this reality.”
Implications for politics & political ideology: The JQP hypothesis of thinking and acting in politics paints a picture of often error-prone mental processes that are much more intuitive and affect-driven than consciously reasoned. If JQP is basically correct, it raises the question of whether it is possible for individuals, groups and entire nations to be more politically rational. L&T comment: “This focus on bias is a common theme throughout social and political psychology, and hundreds of cognitive strategies have been proposed to get people to be more critically responsive to the evidence.” L&T cite the currently dominant theory of political attitude change, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). ELM holds that attitude change is a function of thoughts that come to mind when consciously thinking about information or a message and attitude change occurs when pros outweigh cons. L&T comment: “The ELM is driven by belief biases and JQP is driven by affect biases.”
Experts prefer the ELM because it posits conscious reasoning based on assessment of facts and logic dominates the process. L&T criticize that and argue the memories and thoughts that wind up in consciousness are biased from the get go: “We see spontaneous affective responses, sometimes due to prior attitudes and sometimes driven by irrelevant cues [primes], systematically biasing the mix of thoughts that enter the decision stream.” They also point out that research shows that many people exhibit a ‘boomerang’ effect where thinking about additional evidence and logic leads to giving too much weight to the new inputs.
L&T conclude: “. . . . we have little confidence in such cognitively mediated strategies for changing strong attitudes and habits. Admittedly, we have not explored ways to correct the errors our participants make, in part because we have become increasingly pessimistic about the ability of citizens to override their biases when defending a strong prior attitude. Open-mindedness is possible, but it is not our natural inclination. . . . . Maybe JQP is as rational as we homo sapiens can be.”
Despite concerns for how rational that people can be in dealing with politics, there is no choice but to adapt politics to what humans are believed to be in terms of their innate cognitive and social traits and limitations. If one ignores the fundamental human condition, one’s approach to politics is doomed to be the mostly irrational, often bloody enterprise it has been for millennia. Lodge and Taber understand the arguably discouraging nature of what their model is based on. Nonetheless, existing data supports their hypothesis to a reasonable degree. If their hypothesis is ultimately found to be basically true, Lodge and Taber opine that “maybe JQP is as rational as we homo sapiens can be.”
Partial rationalization will require large scale social engineering to teach self-awareness about how the human mind works and how and why it is so easily deceived and misled by intelligent manipulation. Once widespread social awareness has been built, that will become a powerful source of pressure to elevate the role of objective fact and solid reason or logic in thinking about politics. The power of social institutions is undeniable and right now there is no social institution built on rational politics. As long as that remains true, rationalizing politics is likely to be socially impossible.
Building social awareness will probably require at least two generations of mandatory public education. That education must include teaching defense against the dark arts of lies, deceit and emotional manipulation and the effort it takes to become a less-deceived, responsible citizen and voter. Until then, we will remain rationalizing voters. Short of that, working to build a coalition of like-minded, pro-rationalist individuals and groups can be started now. Given political dangers that are growing daily, the human race remains rationalizing at its own long-term peril.
B&B orig: 10/31/18
