Political Decision Making¶
Jaden Abas & Anshul Gupta
In Abraham Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, the 16th President underscored the importance of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, a phrase now used religiously by politicians and civic teachers alike. But how do the people select a government that represents them? How do the representatives make decisions ‘for the people’? We know that voting is not as simple as whichever candidate sounds the most polished and that decision making is not as simple as determining which side of an issue the majority of voters support. Furthermore, decisions on who leads the country and how they do so have dramatic consequences on all of society. Government plays a massive role in every aspect of our lives, from taxes to welfare to regulation to healthcare. Because of this monumental impact, there are a variety of influences on decision-making, including individual morals, party affiliation, special interests, bureaucratic concerns, and economic constraints. As a result, we believe a chapter on political decision-making in this larger book on judgement and decision making is crucial. We will first analyze how an individual, as part of the mass public, makes decisions on voting and then will focus on how political elites, empowered by the social contract with the citizenry, navigate through the complexities of governing. What research shows is that these individuals largely rely on heuristics, which have concrete effects on optimality of outcomes.
Voter decisions¶
While some of the most engaged citizens directly campaign or volunteer for various organizations, the most important and direct participation an average person has is in choosing his or her preferred candidate at a local, regional, or national level. There are many theories on how individuals make this incredibly important decision. From a philosophical level, Mansbridge et al. find that in addition to being self-interested, we ought to also think through principles such as equality and reciprocity which require critical thinking and the ‘negotiation of conflicting interests’ as individuals and as a society. The reality however is that political knowledge as well as the time to be well-read and sophisticated on a litany of issues and decide which candidates and parties best carry out these interests is quite limited. In fact, a variety of research suggests that voters’ beliefs suggest a lack of the critical thinking that Mansbridge discusses. For example, Bartels discusses an instance after a tax cut passed under George W. Bush in which a majority of voters surveyed had supported the tax cuts but also disapproved of measures that increased wealth inequality. However, the tax cut was regressive in nature with provisions such as a repeal of an estate tax, which primarily affected the wealthy rather than the poor. Being able to make nuanced distinctions and develop sophisticated positions on which candidate to support is even more difficult in an era of ‘fake news’ and misinformation that has exploded in conjunction with social media. Problematically, Nyhan and Reifler find evidence that misperceptions about candidates or topics (which can be perpetuated by ‘fake news’) tend to persist and that corrections after the fact do not substantially influence people’s beliefs. So how do voters decide what they believe and who to support then? Samuel Popkin of UCSD attributes these notions to ‘low information rationality’, which refers to the use of shortcuts and heuristics to make choices amongst candidates. These tend to be gained via daily interactions, media, and social networks.
What are some core heuristics that voters use? The most obvious one is partisanship, as shown by Angus Campbell et al. in 1960, which refers to the notion that a candidate’s party affiliation generally provides the voter enough information about the candidate’s beliefs and values. That is very similar to the heuristic of ideology, which refers to the ability of terms such as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ as a proxy for understanding a candidate’s views on a variety of positions, such as limited government and equality respectively. Historically, class/race and religion have even played a significant role as well (Campbell et al. 2011). But what is the effect of using these heuristics? Lavine, Johnston, and Steenbergen find that blind partisan loyalty can actually cause voters to believe their party’s actions are closely aligned to their own beliefs, even though they may not be. This is problematic because then true accountability becomes more difficult if politicians have ‘blind’ followings. However, in all, heuristics exist for a reason. Even though they may create biases, there is no definitive research suggesting that a more holistic, critical approach yields ‘better’ outcomes, especially if this causes additional confusion (Gigerenzer & Pachuk, 2011).
Political elite decisions¶
The judgments and decisions made by the political elite have a major effect on the natural world and the overall well-being of our society. The elite are a select group of individuals who hold a disproportionate amount of power over government legislation and foreign affairs. The elite are trained politicians that are seen as best equipped to optimize the community making the most efficient decision. They must be able to accurately interpret what policies the population needs/wants and predict how the mass public will view the policy after it is implemented. Their sole goal is to optimize expected utility, bettering the community they are designated to manage. Regarding implementing policies, the mass public lack the necessary expertise to figure out the most effective decision. The elite generally carry the imperative knowledge to make the best judgement when dealing with such complex decisions having an effect on such a vast amount of people. Politics is not a simple topic and deciphering what systems should be in place to maximize society should only be a task for the most informed.
According to Ivan Cerovac’s paper titled “Elite Decision Making,” the elite are less prone to loss aversion and are better at utilizing heuristics in an effective manner when given complex topics (Cerovac, 2016). Heuristics are cognitive techniques that allow the individual to reach a quick and efficient judgement during decision-making. Heuristics are necessary for decision making, especially among the political elite, because it allows one to take an excess of information to derive the appropriate decision. Not only do the political elite have to come up with decisions regarding complex situations, they also must consider a surplus of information that would take a substantial amount of time to consider all options in the decision.
Some may think that the political elite don’t follow the principles of heuristics as much as the ordinary citizen due to their expertise in the subject, however the elite often use heuristics when dealing with prominent decisions. The heuristics that are often seen among the elite in political decision-making are availability, anchoring and adjustment, and representativeness.
Availability¶
The availability heuristic, like other heuristics, is a mental shortcut to derive a decision but differs from other heuristics by relying on immediate ideas that come to the individual when evaluating their judgment of a situation. Essentially the examples that we more readily recall are the ones our cognition views as most important. An example of this that relates to society and politics today is the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Political elite may predict the necessary steps to address the social movement however fail to execute the appropriate policy. If a far-left politician was told to address the BLM movement, they might instantly think of the passing of George Floyd and the multiple instances of police brutality. However, if a far-right politician was asked about their thoughts toward the BLM movement their initial thought would bring up the violent protests and riots members of the movement committed. The initial thought that they retrieve from memory proves what values they hold closest to them and how they feel about the topic. These two politicians would propose significantly opposing policies when addressing the issue which creates an even greater divide in the world.
Anchoring and adjustment¶
Anchoring and adjustment is another cognitive heuristic where an individual starts with an initial idea, which is the anchor, and then makes adjustments based on the anchor until they reach their decision. Anchoring and adjustment is used by the political elite when negotiating with foreign countries. The politicians that participate in foreign affairs might negotiate with more drastic offers to trick their counterpart into proposing a more agreeable offer, one that the initial politician was striving for. Based on the evidence we would propose that politicians that are less prone to anchoring are better equipped to consider different perspectives and are generally more effective at executing their desires.
Representativeness¶
The representativeness heuristic occurs when the similarity of ideas influences the final judgment. Essentially the decision maker compares the likelihood of a judgment to their perception of an existing prototype for that event. This is seen in politics when the political elite classifies officials of other countries. A politician would be more likely to jump to the judgment of a foreign leader being a dictator if all the signs in their perception point to it being so. In an occurrence where an elite political group examines strict leadership and extreme control of a leader of a foeign country, due to the representative heuristic, they might be more likely to classify this leader as a dictator disregarding other necessary evidence (Steenbergen & Colombo, 2018). This heuristic is used in our day to day lives more than we could imagine, and in politics this is often the case with disputes between opposing parties.
Effects of Heuristics¶
One might expect that legislative elites strive to effectively utilize heuristics to make the most accurate and efficient decisions that would benefit the majority. However, in scenarios where information is unrepresentative of the truth, which it often is, the judgment of the elite is often misled. The accessibility heuristic allows elites to make decisions in a manageable way, but may conflict with the majority of constituents’ policy interests. A 2009 study conducted by psychologist Kristina Miler and her team at ‘The International Society of Political Psychology’ found that political leaders account for only a small portion of the relevant constituents in their district to whom an issue is important, namely those who tend to be active and wealthy constituents (Miler et al. 2009) The study findings also argue that there are psychological factors that come into play even before a legislator engages in political policy decision-making. This step before the elite engage in a decision is the judgment of the importance of the values of constituency representation. The International Society of Political Psychology also provided new evidence to further exploit the biases in constituency representation by the legislative elites being misinformed about the views of the constituents. With a better understanding of the psychology of heuristics, we would be better equipped to optimize our judgments, ultimately allowing the elite politicians to come up with the best decision for the whole population.
Conclusion¶
Ultimately, political judgement and decision making has massive consequences on day-to-day livelihood as well as societal and global trajectories. As a result, focusing on how the governed and those who govern make decisions is incredibly important. As the research shows, individuals and elites, amidst an incredibly complex, rapidly evolving, and incentive misleading environment, tend to largely rely on heuristics for decision making. Clearly, political elites are tasked with a challenging task, and self-interest and many mental shortcuts definitely play a key role as we show via multiple examples.
Bibliography¶
Bartels, Larry M. 2005. “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind.” Perspectives on Politics 3 (1): 15–31.
Campbell, A., & University of Michigan. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Cerovac, I. (2017). Elite Decision Making. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483391144.n110
Ganti, A. (2021, May 19). Rational Choice Theory . Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rational-choice-theory.asp.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Ralph Hertwig, and Thorsten Pachuk. 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lavine, Howard G., Christopher D. Johnston, and Marco R. Steenbergen.
The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, David Estlund, Andreas Føllesdal, Archon Fung, Christina Lafont, Bernard Manin, and José L. Marti. 2010. “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 64–100.
Miler, K. C. (2009). The Limitations of Heuristics for Political Elites. Political Psychology, 30(6), 863–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00731.x
Nyhan, Brendan, and Jason Reifler. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior 32 (2): 303–330.
Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, L., & Fraser, I. (2020). Economics of Environmental Policy. SOAS. https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P521_EEM_K3736-Demo/module/topindex.htm.
Steenbergen, M. R., & Colombo, C. (2018). Heuristics in Political Behavior. The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190634131.013.9
Vis, B. (2018). Heuristics and Political Elites’ Judgment and Decision-Making. Political Studies Review, 17(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917750311
1.