The Behavioral Impact of Technology on American & British Elections

I recently returned from teaching a business class in London, a trip that also involved a circuitous return from France due to irate transportation workers going on strike. Frustration abounds, regardless which side of the Atlantic you reside.

In the U. K., the American presidential election is a bemused distraction for most, whose primary concern and heated debates center around the upcoming June 23^rd “Brexit” vote. At stake? Whether or not the United Kingdom should leave the European Union and regain its total political sovereignty. Both sides, staying and going, have strong cases to argue.

This was an interesting situation to helicopter into. Here I had just left America’s stirring cauldron of rising voter emotion—presidential primaries fueled by name-calling discontent—and arrived in Europe to immerse into a political climate that seemed alarmingly similar. Parallel frustration on both continents has mushroomed into massive discontent. The stakes are huge: the political and social futures of the world’s number one and five economies.

The question, of course, is “Why the similarities?”

From a behavioral perspective, there are three big reasons for this summer of discontent:

1. Technology’s hidden effect on influencing the emotions of the keyboard masses.
2. The increasing value of negative, trash-talking, distorted message conveyance upon a crowded-head, feeding-frenzy populace.
3. The rigid manner in which the mind processes opinion-based decision-making.

Let’s examine these one at a time:

1. Technology’s hidden effect on influencing the emotions of the keyboarding masses. Whether it is butts in seats tapping keys for endless hours or noses glued to phone screens, what was once a digital tease has mushroomed into reliance, dependence, and addiction. Technology has driven, and will continue to drive, behavioral change with unprecedented velocity and remarkable scope. Some of these changes are for the better. Others are not. Social media, digital addiction, and emotional neediness have shaped negative emotional experiences worldwide, not just in the USA and U. K. Extended digital interaction is not a cathartic experience, but rather a navigational maze of juxtaposed emotional pluses and minuses. Over time, the minuses accumulate, just as stacked rocks, over time, build a wall. Much of my recent research in this field maps myriad causes of frustration, which individually and collectively negatively impact happiness. Tap into frustration—which both political high stakes games are doing—and you can stoke the emotions of the voting populace. This strategy is being orchestrated effectively in both America and the United Kingdom.

2. The increasing value of negative, trash-talking, distorted message conveyance upon a crowded-head, feeding-frenzy populace. Reading has been abandoned in deference to page skimming. Page views are supplanting thought-processed, fact-based information accumulation and archival. On a typical web page, roughly half of what is written is read. As a result, video’s immediacy is exploding in popularity. Two things motivate a voter’s decision-making: He or she will seek something better, or choose to avoid something bad. Since humans react more strongly to fear than reward, negative campaigning mortar shelling will remain the weapon of choice for generations. Logic cannot overlay emotion, so campaigns are designed to stoke discontent. Avoiding a negative consequence strengthens the emotion of fear. Since the Internet has no rules (or decency boundaries) that demand decorum or fact-based accuracy, whoever yells the loudest is heard, hence the bombastic shouting. Campaigns do not compete for unemotional comparison; they troll tag lines and sound bites and see what snags an audience. The primary goal is to shape fear-stoking negative perceptions that disparage the opposition to the extent that the voter is not voting for anything, but rather against something worse. Facts are secondary.

3. The rigid manner in which the mind processes opinion-based decision-making. Once the mind forms an opinion, an interesting behavioral truth takes hold: In future interactions we seek supportive evidence—reasons to reaffirm that what we believe to be true is, in fact, correct—rather than contrary evidence to prove ourselves wrong. Influencing an opinion in the first place is far easier than changing one already made. This is why the battleground in both elections—the U. S. presidential race and the U. K. Brexit vote—is over the undecideds. Both sides of both campaigns know there will be little movement in personal opinion once a choice has been made. They bank on this; and invest more aggressive negative energy and campaigning to sway the voters still in play.

It seems ages ago now but Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was the first to leverage the power of the Internet to persuade and influence an electorate. What we see today is digital streetfighting taking place at a sadly subterranean level. Whereas Obama sold hope and change (positive rewards), today’s candidates tap into an emotionally spent and frustrated electorate impatient with what is perceived to be a sloth-paced status quo.

The battle is to stoke your emotions and the weapon is digital media. A smart voter recognizes this and takes ownership of making a smart, fact-based choice based upon the issues that matter most.

Take the time to sift through the mountainous garbage dump of bombast and rhetoric and find those facts. Make a smart, educated decision—and act upon it. Every vote matters, especially yours.

 

 

For more information on interactive corporate and collegiate learning seminars that delve more deeply into research based behavioral insight such as “The Impact of Technology on Behavior & Happiness,” please contact me at ted@oceanpalmer.com.

Thank you.