CogBlog

I think that it is really very obvious that people are effected by what they hear and see politicians do rather than the issues they support. People in general are more tuned in to the mistakes people make rather than the point of their messages. People would much more likely remember a slip-up made by a famous individual rather than a good deed they once did. In addition to this, and on a slightly smaller scale, people also will be more likely to have an affinity for a politician who is confident and humorous and relates to them. It is much easier to remember people who we feel a similar connection too. This also goes along the lines of the idea that many people like certain candidates just because they are likable, while they cannot determine specifically why they support them.

With television and the internet, politicians are under the gun to act appropriately 24-7 because at any one point they may commit an error like Howard Dean that could ruin a campaign. I agree with the previous posts about how average Americans cannot know everything about a candidate, so they base their votes on images and basic information such as voting on issues or even voting on which candidate looks better in a suit. One woman I talked to said she was voting for Hillary because, "she stuck with her husband through all that nonsense." This is somewhat scary to think that a person votes based on such an unrelated issue; however, this woman probably feels that Hillary Clinton reflects some of her values to stay married "for better or worse." The article talks about gut instinct as well, which I have experienced when going into a voting booth. Most of the time its just easy to vote straight ticket, because I have no idea who some of the candidates are running for obscure positions in city council or state government.

I think the most important part of this article is the consideration of the voters who associate certain candidates with certain topics or actions. I remember when Howard Dean was running for president last election and did that scream during his speech, and could never shake that image from his campaign. From that point on, it did not matter what his positions where on any topic, people just thought of that speech and his popularity quickly declined. So I think that the last statements made by each candidate that hit on a personal level with the voters decide what the majority of votes will be. However, I do believe that there are those of the population who are extremely into the election and know much more about each candidate than the normal citizen which this theory does not apply to.

Although the article makes a compelling point that many people vote based on their "gut level instincts," I think that the article lacks the important distinction between what I like to think of as the "aloof/lazy voter" and the "interested/educated voter." When I began reading this article, I starting to apply their steps of voting to myself. They say that 60% of voters vote based on party affiliation - and true to form, I have "voted" republican each time based of the party that my family have always supported. The next deciding factor is single issue voters - again, I think of the election between Bush and Kerry, who I strongly supported Bush because of his anti-abortion stance. And finally, so far in this election, in which I know very little about, I am currently in support of McCain, based on a "cognitive shortcut" provided by my roommate. She told me a story about how McCain was a POW in war, and based on his fathers position in the U.S. he could have come home, but instead, as an "honorable American" should, decided to remain with his troops. Is this really something that I should base my decision on on who will run my country? Nope. Although these are very honorable traits, it would be silly to vote primarily on how he identifies with my morality. that is why, I consider myself the aloof/lazy voter. Its not that I do not care about the future of my country, but I am not very interested in politics and do not get involved enough in the process to make an informed and educated decision (but since I will be voting this year, hopefully that will change!) Therefore, I believe that voting is only emotional for the uninvolved, because there are many people I know that will rigorously research the candidates and their stances on all of the issues to make a well informed decision.

As an analogy, I like to compare this with picking a doctor for an important and complicated surgery. If I was about to undergo heart surgery, I would research intensely every doctor possible in order to find the best one, and my decision would not be based upon his personality, values, or beliefs. They would be based on pure talent and experience in the field. Therefore, in this situation I would be like the interested and educated voter, because what is really important in the end is what the doctor/president is going to accomplish, and not their personality or morality.

I also completely agree with this article. As a first time voter, it is impossible for me to know everything about a candidate much less all of them. We all get a gut feeling when we first meet someone and those feelings tend to stick. First impressions of people last a long time. If we get a bad first impression of a candidate no matter their stance on issues and get a good feeling from the other candidate, I know I would pick the second candidate. People have different levels on the cognitive scales. Much like someone who does not know much about a team picks the more "attractive" team or the one more likely to win, some people will also base their decision on more superficial terms, while others, who like to be more cognitively involved, will want to know more deeply about each candidate and base their opinions on that. Also, like Katie said, we are drawn to those who are like us and want to surround ourselves with those people, so we most likely will also be drawn to the candidate that most resembles us in appearance and attitudes.

I completely agree with this article and the previous posts. The average American cannot recite the candidates' voting records, positions on crucial issues, or which PACs funded their campaign, yet they can probably quote verbatim an emotionally charged political advertisement. As human beings, evolution has wired us to resolve our fear and anxiety. For this reason, we chose candidates with the most persuasive ads or the most suave answers to tough questions. If their argument sounds intelligent and makes one feel safe in turbulent times, the candidate has pretty much gained that voter's support.

We also choose candidates based on their similarities to us. If they are the same gender, race, religion, or just seem like a nice, all-American guy (or girl now!), we generally assume that they stand for the same principles as we do as members of the same group. We don't bother looking into the issues, because we assume that they must agree with us. After all, we have so much in common.

Today at lunch, we were discussing Tuesday's primaries when a friend stated, "I agree with him on more issues than with any other candidate, but he just doesn't seem like a nice guy. I could never vote for him for that reason." This comment demonstrates perfectly our use of "gut reaction" in choosing candidates. If they make us feel safe, we like them, regardless of their views. If they make us feel uneasy, we don't like them, regardless of their views. Facts do not play nearly as much of a role in our political process as anxiety, similarity, and likeability do.

I definitely agree with the article's claims. I read another article on msnbc.com stating that people will continue to support a candidate even if they are presented with negative information about that candidate. It seems that people would rather ignore bad information than change their support. I also think emotions probably play a bigger part in decision making in those who are not completely in tune with candidates issues but still want to vote. If one doesn't know a lot about a candidate's goals then he or she has nothing else to base opinions on other than his or her feelings about that person.

I think it's completely plausible that those emotional responses like enthusiasm and anxiety play a huge part in issues like elections. Many people will support a candidate because he or she "sounds" smart, even though they know little or nothing about the candidate's actual education, experience, etc. Good charisma and personality are pretty big selling points also. Young people love Barack Obama, but do they actually give good reasons for doing so besides that he "seems" impressive, charismatic, etc.?

I think these are not always conscious choices, but we do tend to support people who incite these kind of responses. Of course, a responsible voter will actually take time to learn about the issues, but the majority of people are not likely to do that.

During the campaign and election seasons, Americans are bombarded with facts and figures regarding everything from a candidate’s voting record and platform positions to his/her religious convictions and family dynamics. Our cognitive-processing limitations make it impossible for us to ever know everything there is to know about a candidate. Our lack of concrete information thus must be supplemented by our “gut rationality.” In a situation where candidates have similar ideologies and elements like party affiliation or position on a pivotal issue get us no closer to a decision, we rely on how the candidate makes us feel. This decision-making mechanism illuminates why commercials and speeches that elicit strong emotional reactions can have such profound effects on voting. People are not “dispassionate information-processing machines.” We can’t accurately know a politician’s complete history, but we are very capable of experiencing an emotional response to his/her actions and words. Evolution explains why our most powerful responses are to fear and a yearning for security, as these elements are crucial to survival. A candidate who can assuage these worries during turbulent times and make promises of a hopeful future appeals most to a voter’s gut instinct. When the message is primed by events (such as sudden economic decline or a terrorist attack) the effect is even more salient. In this way, Hillary Clinton’s skydiving ad is very effective. Voters feel anxious as the skydiver plummets against a backdrop of negative economy-related headlines, but soon experience a rush of hope as a parachute billows open to reveal Clinton’s face, and of course, save the day. This ad plays upon our emotions as concerned voters and leaves us with the idea that Hillary has what it takes to protect us, even if we have no additional knowledge of her economic policies.