'How Behavioural Psychology Can Explain Brexit' - SXSW 2017 Presentation - Michael Bodansky
•
2 gefällt mir•469 views
7 principles from Behavioural Psychology as applied to Brexit. This can be used as a case study to shed light on Trump, as well as the populist politics that is sweeping the world. First given at SXSW 2017.
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie 'How Behavioural Psychology Can Explain Brexit' - SXSW 2017 Presentation - Michael Bodansky
Ähnlich wie 'How Behavioural Psychology Can Explain Brexit' - SXSW 2017 Presentation - Michael Bodansky (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
'How Behavioural Psychology Can Explain Brexit' - SXSW 2017 Presentation - Michael Bodansky
- 1. Behavioural Psychology and Brexit SXSW 2017 Michael Bodansky - @mbodansky
- 2. freuds: A legacy of psychology?
- 3. • Post-Trump • Rise of populism: Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Pegida • About to trigger Article 50 and commence negotiations March: More relevant now than ever
- 4. System 1 vs System 2 7 Principles Hindsight bias Game theoryLoss aversion Status quo biasFairness Anchoring
- 5. • Beware of hindsight bias • It will be remembered as a knife-edge vote • Leave campaign was severely disadvantaged Was it a close call?
- 6. 6 • System 1 vs System 2 • Can psychology explain decision making? • Can this explain politics?
- 7. Is politics system 1 or system 2?
- 9. • “We’ve had enough of experts” • Translation: “We’ve had enough of system 2”
- 10. • Ultimatum game • Spite towards elites • Prisoner exchange Game theory
- 11. • “Bigoted woman” • Backlash against elites • Don’t ridicule the swing voters Politicians vs the people?
- 12. • Report author: Leave brands are “traditional, straightforward, simple, down-to-earth, good value, friendly” • “Remain brands are progressive, up-to-date, innovative, socially responsible, intelligent” • Leave brands mostly products • Remain brands are mostly services Is there a ‘metropolitan elite’?
- 14. • Marginal issues define us • Why are there few protests against Syria? • We focus on the minority at the expense of the majority Political correctness gone mad?
- 15. • Oxfam report: good or bad? • Does fairness matter? • How much unfairness can we tolerate? Fairness is an evolved instinct
- 17. Do we prefer a status quo?
- 18. • Anchoring sets the parameters of the debate • Important in negotiations • Hijacks the conversation The importance of anchoring
- 19. • Blackmail and ultimatums are unwise • EU to punish UK as deterrent? • Fear of loss vs potential gains Where do we go from here?
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Legacy of psychology at freuds We should make more of it freud museum in hampstead Edward Bernays Explain Behavioural Psychology – what is it and what’s it all about?
- Relevance of giving talk now – more important than ever. What has happened since I submitted this proposal? Three things that make this very topical: Trump has got in. lots of similarities Rise of populism around the world, particularly across Europe (e.g. marine Le Pen) We’re about to trigger article 50 --- Disclaimer: I’m not going to go through the whole of Brexit. This is an analysis of different aspects of what led up to and caused brexit from a beh. Psych. perspective ---
- 7 principles
- Central argument This was ostensibly a massively unequal campaign, with all the factors on the IN campaign’s side – in side had money, access to important people, power, access to resources (e.g electoral register), control of timing, regulation etc. Leave campaign was at a massive disadvantage. But they managed to leverage psychological principles effectively to give themselves an enormous advantage, and win. It might be tempting with hindsight to see it as two equal forces, given there were two sides, and that it came out as 48 vs 52%. But that was def not the case in the run up CF Dom Cummings blogs here IN started off way ahead in the polls. They had the status quo on their side. This is made easier by it being very complex. IN had loads of manpower on their side – downing street, cabinet office, government departments and agencies. Thousands of people and hundreds of press officers. LEAVE had a small handful of people and no access to the official machine or resources IN controlled the renegotiation and its timing. LEAVE was at the mercy of events and therefore reactionary IN controlled the timings of the referendum, meaning they could be prepared at the right time and allocate resources accordingly IN controlled the cabinet, so could use bribed and threats. LEAVE had to meet ministers in secret, and couldn’t guarantee them much (e.g. LEAVE couldn’t guarantee them any jobs). From a basic career perspective it was better for politicians to support the PM IN also had access to the most powerful forces in the world – from the CBI, to investment banks, to Obama, to the G8, to the UN, the IMF, etc........ IN had the support of most journalists and senior management at the major broadcasters. True, LEAVE had the support of powerful tabloids like The Sun and the Daily Mail etc, but IN had TV news on their side IN had access to huge amounts of electoral data IN was also helped by the strong presence of Nigel Farage, who put off millions of people (crucially the middle classes) who may have wanted to leave the EU but didn’t associate with Farage or UKIP values
- First principle – System 1 vs system 2 thinking Some examples of system 1 vs system 2 thinking System 1 - Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious see that an object is at a greater distance than another localize the source of a specific sound complete the sentence "war and ..." display disgust when seeing a gruesome image solve 2+2=? read a text on a billboard drive a car on an empty road come up with a good chess move (if you're a chess master) understand simple sentences connect the description 'quiet and structured person with an eye for details' to a specific job System 2 - Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious brace yourself before the start of a sprint point your attention towards the clowns at the circus point your attention towards someone at a loud party look out for the woman with the grey hair dig into your memory to recognize a sound sustain a higher than normal walking rate determine the appropriateness of a behaviour in a social setting count the number of A's in a certain text give someone your phone number park into a tight parking space determine the price/quality ratio of two washing machines determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning
- System 1 vs system 2 – “take back control” vs £4,300 and advantage of single market
- Explain principle of loss aversion and some of the experiments behind it People prefer not to lose £5 than to gain £5 – many studies suggest that losses are almost twice as powerful as gains This was employed on both sides Last (only?) chance to take Britain out of the EU The average household will lose money if we leave the EU Prospect theory explains why and when people are willing (or not) to take risks. Most people prefer to win a sure £50 rather than taking a risky bet – e.g. tossing a coin and either win £100 or nothing (statistically these two options are the same). But there are certain contexts in which people prefer risky options. This happens when people feel like they have lost something. After winning, people don’t want to gamble. After losing, people are much more likely to do so. Imagine you’ve just lost £50 on roulette on a 50/50 chance to double your money (i.e. make or lose £50). You’re now inclined to take a risk to try to recoup your losses. You would take a coin flip that could win you your £50 back. But of course, you could lose it, and be down £100 in total. But that’s the same situation as before you lost your £50 in the first place. How do we apply this to politics? If you perceive that you or your country has been losing recently, then you want to be risk seeking. Things (surely?) can’t get much worse, so you may as well roll the dice and see what comes up. If you think that things are going well, then you’re likely to be risk averse. Why risk throwing away a good, stable situation? This partly explains the IN/LEAVE divide. The growth of inequality, stagnation of wages, and job instability due to migration makes many people risk-seeking. And the slogans of “make america great again” and “take back control” play directly into this. It sets the references point as a previous state that was much better than the current one. ------ Clare Foges wrote a great article echoing a similar (but slightly different) sentiment. She argued that people are bored with the status quo. (Kate Fox in watching the English says that a very English demonstration might be – “WHAT DO WE WANT? GRADUAL CHANGE! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? IN DUE COURSE!” But the British are now rising up and populist politics is on the rise). Clare Foges says that in the 21st Century we are more impatient, and excitable, and need more things to happen, more of the time. We are addicted to sensation and stimulation. She says that a friend of hers knew that voting for Brexit would mean chaos but she voted LEAVE anyway because it was exciting. Psychological experiment last year that asked students to transcribe passages from a book. The ‘high boredom’ group had to write lots of pages. The ‘low boredom’ group only had to write out a few lines. They were questioned on their politics before and after the task. The group that had the more tedious task express stronger, more polarised political opinions afterwards. -----
- People have made a big thing of Emotional vs Rational arguments This was summed up by Michael Gove’s “We’ve had enough of experts” This could also be expressed by saying it’s system 1 hitting back at system 1
- Game theory – ultimatum game Briefcase Trying to screw over elites Prisoner exchange
- Dave trott piece Gordon Brown bigot Politicians perceived as elitist. Social media exacerbates this because we speak in an echo chamber. ----
- ‘Metropolitan elite’. Is this true? To an extent, yes – different attitudes and lifestyles (show Ashcroft polling attitudes as well as top 10 brands comparison – services vs products – different attitudes to life and outlook?) Even if it’s not true, people make it true for themselves – confirmation bias – hoover up evidence to fit with opinions
- ---- Political correctness on the left has focused attention on marginal issue. Pumpkin spice is cultural appropriation. Barack Obama mic drop. Intersex issues. Completely out of touch with white working classes. Ignored the majority to concentrate on the minority. So no wonder the minority now rejects you. Argument about people take up issues that others disagree with them on. This is shown in Syria / Israel. Why aren’t people protesting Syria every day? Everyone agrees it’s awful, so there’s no one to argue against. No point in protesting.
- Oxfam – 8 billionaires Not necessarily entirely bad But, yes, there are many problems. But even before you start analysing the reasons why it’s bad, it just feels instinctively unfair Monkey cucumber video – fairness is very deeply ingrained
- Monkey cucumber video Framing debate through control – “take back control” as well as argument about law being made in Brussels. People feel very strongly about autonomy Two opposing instincts in conflict: power of default against power of perceived autonomy: Default vs: People would rather have a bad situation they choose rather than a good one chosen for them Dan Ariely point on offices
- Status quo bias had to be overcome – BUT – this was different to different age groups. Show different demographics. Older people saw the status quo as being pre-EU https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/21/brexit-visceral-appeal-older-people-eu-referendum --- The proposed question for the referendum on EU membership, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” has been ruled unsatisfactory by the Electoral Commission. The changes, subject to parliamentary approval, will lead to “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union” being displayed to the ballot sheet instead of the Yes/No currently proposed. The reasoning for the change – the status quo bias. The status quo bias, a cognitive bias coined by Samuelson and Zeckhauser in 1988, is the tendency for people to be biased towards doing nothing or maintaining their current or previous decision; i.e. maintaining the status quo. The Electoral Commission ruled against the proposed question because it said the question favoured the status quo. Framing the question as a decision about staying in, with the option Yes/No on the ballot paper, favours staying in because the question you ask yourself is whether you agree with remaining in the EU; the focus is on the word remain. On the other hand, the alternate wording with the option Remain/Leave leads to the question being digested differently by the mind; it appears to be a different set of choices presented. The commission consulted members of the public, campaigners and academics, and concluded that “Whilst voters understood the question in the Bill some campaigners and members of the public feel the wording is not balanced and there was a perception of bias.” It found that the Yes/No option could lead to a bias towards the status quo – remaining in the EU. This could lead to a dispute over the legitimacy of the result by those campaigning to leave the EU, who may deem the question to induce a favourable result for the Yes camp. Upon reading this, I’m sure the obvious thought for many readers will be, well this behavioural stuff doesn’t really work then does it? The status quo bias would imply that in the face of the complete uncharted territory that a decision to leave would take us into, voters, especially those that were undecided, would go with the status quo and vote remain. But this didn’t happen, especially with older voters: “The older the voters, the more likely they were to have voted to leave the EU. Nearly three quarters (73%) of 18 to 24 year-olds voted to remain, falling to under two thirds (62%) among 35-44s. A majority of those aged over 45 voted to leave, rising to 60% of those aged 65 or over.” (Lord Ashcroft poll) In general terms, the older you become, the more risk-averse you become. Being more averse to risk would imply a person would be more likely to stick with the status quo in this referendum, because of large degree of uncertainty over the impacts on all aspects of our lives upon leaving the EU. But is the status quo the same to all voters? For anybody voting on Thursday that was born after 1973, they will never have experienced life when the UK was not a part of the EU. So the status quo is obviously remain. But for those older voters, they do have experience of that, and so their view is affected not solely by age, but the fact that they have experienced a different history to the rest of us. This is why ‘take back control’ was so effective in this campaign. This piece in the guardian last week, “Why Brexit makes a visceral appeal to the older generation’s psyche”, covers this very well: “We want our lives back, the restoration of personal dominion, so when Brexit tells us that if we leave, we will “get our country back” and restore its sovereignty, it hits the crumbly spot. In spite of its appeals to prejudice, its economy with the truth, its cavalier disregard for honesty, Brexit has been able to claim a sort of integrity. It has contrived to appear principled and patriotic. It’s got chutzpah.” The older voters were alive before the EU, and they still are now. The benefits of EU membership that we have all shared, and the inevitable costs we will all suffer from leaving, these are just some of the factors which this group of voters consider. I quote from the article above, “This menu of nostalgia and xenophobia is a toxic dish with a peculiar appeal to the elderly palate”. But each of us have different palates. Although I believe that leaving the EU will cause irrevocable harm to the UK across all facets of life (without explicitly telling you how I voted, your blogger is 25, lives in London, and has a masters degree in Economics..), and I do worry about the future of the country due to the way the campaign was fought, I do think it is also wrong for younger voters to blame older voters for the outcome of this referendum. We see the world very differently, and this affects how we feel, and the actions we take. Human behaviour is incredibly complex, and though many will be adamant that the way they voted was the right way and they would always vote that way, there are many factors, age being a big one, which could affect the way we would have voted in different circumstances.
- Anchoring – £350m a week to the EU promise on bus was a lie. But it didn’t matter. It anchored the debate. Give other examples of anchoring
- End – is this just a convenient way to look at the past? No – it’s also a useful toolbox for negotiating – government should bear these sorts of principles in mind over next two years of negotiations
- Warren hatter blog https://warrenhatter.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/the-brexit-referendum-through-a-behavioural-lens/