Verified by 
It seems like each election cycle we are faced with the same dilemma: we are forced to choose between two flawed candidates. We hear people (and ourselves) asking, “Is this the best that we can do?” This election, in particular, appears to be the proverbial, “choosing the lesser of two evils.” How did we get into this situation?
Sadly, we have only ourselves (and the political system we support) to blame. Our perceptual biases, our human tendencies, and the way campaigns are run all combine to affect both who we choose as leaders, and how we perceive them.
Here are the 4 primary psychological reasons that define our current political situation:
1. The We-They Effect. Sometimes called the in-group, out-group bias, this pervasive phenomenon makes us see in-group members (those we identify with) as positive and out-group members as negative. Unfortunately, U.S. political campaigning has terribly exploited this basic human tendency through dirty, mudslinging, political strategies. The result is a polarized, two-party system where each side sees the other as the enemy. This has led to a deadlocked Congress, and the strong divisiveness for no other reason than political party affiliation.
2. Person Perception Biases. Research on leadership shows a strong bias preferring strong, confident, and MALE leaders. We think “leader” and we think “male.” While that explains the paucity of women political leaders in the U.S., we are also drawn to powerful-appearing, confident, “tough guys.” The problem is that many tough guys are self-serving narcissists, and we often can’t discriminate between tough and benign and tough and dangerous.
3. Cognitive Laziness. We over-rely on our initial impressions of candidates, and move quickly to a sort of “blind support” for our chosen (and in-group) candidate. Our tendency to rely on our initial judgment means that we don’t do the work needed to properly and objectively investigate (i.e., fact-check) our preferred candidate. Moreover, our biased perceptual processes cause us to pay attention to information that supports our initial impression and ignore or discount contradictory information. As a result, we believe everything and anything a candidate tells us, once we are supporting her or him.
4. Power of Negative Information. In person perception it is well known that negative information is given greater weight than positive information. A candidate could have a great deal of experience and positive qualities, but finding out something negative about him or her, can quickly cancel out all the positives. Couple this bias with negative campaigning—with all sorts of founded and unfounded accusations of misbehavior—and we conclude that all candidates are bad. In the end, we feel like we are picking the lesser of two evils (“Is this the best that we can do?”).
So, how do we get things back on track?
First, we have to reject the negative campaigning—the dirty politics. Of course, that’s not easy, but there was, at least, some sense of decorum in politics a generation ago. Candidates have to learn to emphasize their virtues first, and focus on good versus better (“My opponent has a plan, but I have a better plan”) rather than slinging mud.
Second, carefully investigate what candidates say, their plans, and their background and qualifications. Don’t jump to blind support merely because a candidate is a member of the in-group, or based on initial impressions.
Finally, don’t give in to the “dark side” of the we-they effect. Realize that candidates have strengths and weaknesses—they are neither “all good” nor “all bad.”
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/ronriggio
