Judgement versus Choice

Judgement versus Choice

Ever read a line and it hits you as a WOW! moment?  You know a paragraph that when you read it clarifies something so well that it is embarrassing that you haven’t connected the dots on your own?

I had one of those moments this past week when reading How Voters Decide.  It is a good read that takes Behavior Decision Theory and applies it to politics in an attempt to look inside the black box of how people actually make a political/voting decision.

However, there was one paragraph that made me take notice.  I am not sure why this point struck me as so profound, but it did.

Eureka!

“Of course, one can make a judgement even when no choice is involved.  The evaluation of an incumbent between elections represents on such “choiceness” judgements in politics.” (Lau & Redlawsk 2006)

“Evaluation is about making a judgement on some dimension of interest about an object regardless of how many objects are being evaluated, while choice is inherently about selecting from a set of alternatives.” (Lau & Redlawsk 2006)

“Finally it becomes quite clear that global evaluations – at least in elections – do not have to translate directly to a vote.  Strategic voting, for example, might lead to a choice of a candidate with a lower evaluation if the voter believes that candidate has a better chance of winning, as might a vote made for other external reasons, such as based on group affiliation or please someone else.” (Lau & Redlawsk 2006)

Choosing one alternative from a set can invoke different psychological processes than judging alternatives, which are presumable evaluated one at a time.”  (Johnson & Russo 1988)

The separation and distinguishing of choice and evaluation is a major realignment of a framework for me.Judgement versus Choice

When you separate out the two functions, then you can develop distinct communication strategies to affect each process.  Once you place these two processes independent of each other, differing communication strategies start to percolate.

Evaluation happens between elections….choice happens at elections.  Off season communications versus campaign communications.

The processes of evaluation & judgement require different types and amounts of information.  Choice requires less information.Choice v Judgement

You can also see the ramifications of voters voting for some other candidate other than the one they evaluate the highest.

Finally, when you understand this distinction, you understand that the rational voter model doesn’t exist and you better tailor your communications properly to account for your audience and the communication process being employed.

I know, maybe not Earth-shattering, but still a significant framework structure to help organize your communication programs.

Do not ask for applause, format your speech for it!

Do not ask for applause, format your speech for it!

Ozean Media's political consultants gain applause

Rhetorical Design in Speech Making

Welcome to ‘science time’ with Ozean Media (Yes, it normally it is Science Friday, but I have recently become aware of NPR’s Science Friday so we must re-brand!)

While we re-brand, I came across some literature that I found interesting.  We are embarking on a messaging discovery phase for a client, and I began to wonder what studies are out there on structure of messaging and the reception of those messages .

Basically, does rhetoric influence reception of the message?  

This question lead me to Max Atkinson‘s research on the 7 rhetorical devices and the applause they generate.  This lead me to a paper by John Heritage and David Greatbatch from the University of Warwick who used Atkinson’s research.  This paper reviews Atkinson’s research and applies it to political speeches made in Britain.

It is an interesting read, and you can download the entire paper at the end of this post; however, in summary:

  • 70% of the applause produced is associated with 7 rhetorical constructions.
  • The relationship between the rhetoric and response is independent of party, status of speaker, and the popularity of the message.
  • Performance Factors (the speaker’s actions) are found to influence the likelihood of generating a response strongly.

What the findings are showing is that audience responses to political speeches are influenced by the verbal structuring of the statements that are being made.  Statements that use 1 of the 7 rhetorical devices were “between two and eight times as likely to be applauded as those who did not.”

In fact, the verbal structure had more to do with the applause and response generated than did the actual argument.

The 7 Rhetorical Devices to generate applause

1.  Contrast – This is the Daddy Mack of devices, the mother sauce if you will.  If you take away nothing else from this post, remember CONTRAST / ANTITHESIS.  It has been used since the Greeks for a darn good reason:  it works.  Contrast works so well because the core assertion is said twice – in the negative and the positive – and the audience knows exactly when to react.

2.  List, in three parts – This is the Daddy Mack, Jr. of devices.  In the use of item1, item2, and item3, the “AND” signals to the audience the conclusion of the point and primes them for applause.

3.  Puzzle-Solution – The speaker establishes a puzzle, and then provides the answer with the answer being the core message.

4.  Headline-Punchline – Similar to Puzzle Solution, but more simple and less potential for elaboration (think soundbite).

5.  Combination – combining all the devices above, with most combinations using contrast together with another device.

6.  Position Taking – describes a state of affairs that the speaker is expected to take a strong stance with the description containing little to no overt evaluation.  At the end, the speaker unequivocally praises or condemns the state of affairs.

7.  Pursuit – When all fails, if an audience fails to respond, speakers may actively pursue applause by simply priming the message and then restating.

The Results of the Study of Rhetoric

APPLAUSE

As you can clearly see, contrast by far is the greatest deliver of applause – the mother sauce.

In summary, the study states about the table above:

Taken as a whole, table 5 provides impressive general support for the hypothesis that political messages that are packaged in rhetorical formats embodying emphasis and projectability are more likely to be applauded than messages that are not so packaged. The distribution of applause in association with the various formats described is generally stable regardless of political party and type of speaker. This conclusion is qualified only by a slight tendency for more practiced political speakers to gain a higher proportion of their applause from rhetorical devices than run-of-the-mill conference participants. These results suggest that there is a fundamental tendency for audiences to respond to political statements that employ the rhetorical devices and that experienced political speakers use them more often, or more appositely, or deliver them more effectively.

Additional Finding

As you may guess, the politician’s skill at delivering the speech greatly affects the outcome.

Something as simple as eye contact was greatly noticed.  When a line failed to generate applause, the researchers were “struck by the repeated failure of many speaker to sustain eye contact with the audience when making significant points.”

Tucked into the study is the following conclusion: “while they (the audience) may have been able to recognize that a significant point was being made, were generally reluctant to respond to it in the absence of any additional signal from the speaker that the point was of real importance.”

Speakers can do this by the stress they place on their points, and speakers generate this defined stress in 5 main ways:

  • gazing at the audience at or near the completion point of the message
  • delivering the point more loudly than the surrounding speech passages
  • delivering the point with great pitch or stress variation
  • delivering the point with marked speeding up, slowing down, or some other rhythmic variation
  • delivering the point accompanied by the use of gestures

Conclusion

While every politician or aspiring politician may not be able to hire a full time speechwriter, there is no excuse NOT to learn the basics.

reagan-wall3

It is clear, The mere way one structures & delivers an argument has a huge impact on the effectiveness of an argument.

Any politician would improve their stature not with long, boring litanies of facts, but rather with an understanding of how to construct an argument using these 7 rhetorical devices.  Then one must practice, practice, practice delivering them.

OR

As my Mamma said, “Son, it is not what you say, but how you say it!”

Read the entire study:  Generating Applause:  A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences

What makes a good political candidate?

What makes a good political candidate?

I am asked all the time, what makes a good candidate?

While we all know a great candidate can get beat when the political environment and/or district are not in his/her favor or at least even, we will set this aside.

We will just look at the simple question, “What makes a good/great candidate?”

Secret-Sauce

The Secret Sauce

The ability to craft and tell a coherent story that emotionally connects with voters.  There it is – that is the secret sauce. 

While all political consultants are all excited about the latest scientific studies, big data, predictive analysis, and changes in media consumption, it still comes back to the basic building block of good ol’ fashion storytelling.

It begins with the Story

Before we write campaign plans, strategies, tactics, we need the story to tell.

When we first meet with a candidate, we ask them the basic question:  “Please, why you are running?”

If the candidate tells me that they are going to run an “issue-orientated” campaign and proceeds to rattle off 10 issues with solutions and facts, we know that we have a ton of work to do or that we should focus on other candidates.

What we really want to hear is:  “Thanks for asking Alex, you handsome devil, please allow me to tell you a story…..”

I dream to hear a candidate tell a story connecting with the values and emotions of most of the voters AND contains BOTH protagonists and antagonists.

storytellerWe need a story that defines who they are and what they stand for, and a critical element of the story is that it will be rejected by 20-30% of the voters.

If they tell us a story that attempts to attract 100% of the vote and never offends anyone, we want out or a really weak field.    Without conflict, there is no story!   Yes, the tone is up for discussion, but we must have conflict.

The dream candidate?  The dream candidate can make the difficult transition of constructing the story without themselves as the central character.  However, in the beginning, we will just take a story, any story.

Why?  This is not because I think it works.

It is science.

The Science of Story

Our brains need stories.  In fact, our brains actively search for stories, and when our brains have difficulty, our brains will just make stuff up to fill in the gaps.

It appears from all the research, our feeble brains must have stories to construct neat, little packages so that we can retain & understand.     It is why we have listened to and told stories since we were children, it is why Hollywood exists.

If I could, I would require the following reading list for candidates to include but not limited to:

  • McKee, Robert.  Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting.  HarperCollins Publishers, 1997.
  • Mark, Margaret, and Carol S. Pearson. The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands Through the Power of Archetypes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
  • Sachs, Jonah (2012-06-19). Winning the Story Wars: Why Those Who Tell (and Live) the Best Stories Will Rule the Future Harvard Business Review Press.

Summary of the Importance of Political Stories

I concede, it is probably asking too much to have candidates – especially first time candidates – approach campaigns with fully crafted stories.

However, instead of jumping right to numbers and strategies, political consultants need to spend more time upfront convincing our clients the importance of storytelling and then working with them developing their story.

Do not ask for applause, format your speech for it!

The case for negative campaigning

Science Friday:  Why negative campaigning works!  An Overview

As political consultants, we catch TONS of blow-back for negative campaigning.  blowback

However, when we are asked why we engage in negative campaigning, we don’t do ourselves any favors by flippant remarks such as “Well, negative campaigning just works!”

As professionals, we all know it just works.  We know it intuitively, we have been taught it by mentors’ rules of thumb, and we have seen the numbers tank 20 points when an explosive direct mail piece / issue hits.   We have the war stories.

We also know that we can pump out positive, fluff bio pieces by the truckloads and not interest the press one darn bit.  However, we send out one, small universe hit piece and the press goes NUTS!

However, let’s not just blame the press or just retort “It just works”.

Instead, let’s take a moment to explore the real culprit : the human mind.

Yep, it’s your brains’ fault that negative campaigning works.

It is your brain’s fault!

Principle #1 :  Bad Interactions have stronger, more pervasive, and longer lasting effects.  

In a 2001 study by Roy Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky and Catrin Finkenauer “Bad is Stronger Than Good”, the results are clear!  In their conclusion, “It appears to be a basic, pervasive fact of psychology that bad is stronger than good.”

The study performs a comprehensive review of different literature of “bad versus good”  It reviews everything from evolution to psychology to communication to relationships to emotions and moods to rewards and punishment to how we process information.

In fact, when speaking of processing information:

“Thus bad information does receive more thorough information processing than good information.  Bad information is more likely to seize attention, and it receives more conscious processing as well.”

It does not matter where you look, the human mind is wired – “Bad interactions have stronger, more pervasive, and longer lasting effects.”  PERIOD!

Read the complete study:  Bad is Stonger Than Good

Principle #2:  Loss Aversion – Losses loom larger than gains.

Human brains are wired to be loss averse, by a large margin.   When faced with potential losses, our brains become totally irrational and develop a blind spot … by a large spread.  JoyLoss

“The “loss aversion ratio” has been estimated in several experiments and is usually in the range of 1.5 to 2.5.” Kahneman, Daniel (2011-10-25). Thinking, Fast and Slow (p. 284).

Essentially, the human responses to loss is stronger than the response to corresponding gains.    This is commonly referred to as prospect theory, and this concept changeds Economics and how we think of human decision making.

Further suggested reading:  Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (it really is an almost must read)

Conclusion

In summary, our brains are wired to remember the bad.  It appears to an evolution trait developed so that we may live:  remember the bad tiger and survive the threat – OR – remember the good smelling flower and get eaten by the tiger.

In summary, we also know that if we can make you fearful of losing something, we can awaken emotions in your brain that you didn’t know you had.

In this cluttered, busy and fast moving world, is it any wonder of what breaks through?

We can motivate your brain with bad, scary information, and it is cheaper to do so.

However, it ain’t political consultants’ fault!  It is your brain’s fault!

The next time your neighbor or the press goes crazy about a negative piece do not reply “It just works”.

Instead tell them why it works:

“It’s your brain’s fault – your brain remembers & thinks about bad stuff more and your brain is loss averse by a 2:1 margin.  Change your brain, and I will change my campaign tactics.”

Do not ask for applause, format your speech for it!

Why you need a political consultant

The calls are starting – first time candidates and incumbents are starting to call in order to explore potential campaigns in 2014.

Awhile ago, I wrote a check list for first time candidates, and while I still stand by this simple checklist, I have something additional to add to the list.

You need a political consultant.

Why?  Let’s explore, because its Science Friday.

Why you need a political consultant

Setting aside hindsight bias, let’s begin with that fact that after 30 years in political consulting and political campaigns, I don’t know many things for certain, but I know the following to be absolutely true:

Our brains are designed to take shortcuts and often unwillingly and sometimes even willingly deceive us.

Our brains deceive & fail us

Our brains deceive & fail us

Let’s be honest, if you…or ‘someone you know’…is exploring a run for office, you most likely have a healthy ego. It is this healthy ego that allows you…or your friend… to feel like you have something to offer the public that they should “buy.”

Great.

The moment you verbalize your intention to possibly consider a run for office, people & your own brain begin to lie to you – even more than normal.

Why People Lie

Your friends lie because they like you and don’t want to have a candid conversation.

Your friends are not intentionally lying, but they will say thinks like “I think you would be great.”, “We need good people like you to run.”, “You would be leaps and bound better than the nit-wits we have now.”, and various other pleasant things.

People who do business with the office you seek lie because you may win.  

They are looking out for the own self interest and they will be very nice to you, especially in the early stages of exploration.

Your friends and people lie to you because they don’t know better.  

Your friends & others may give you an honest opinion that you may make a fantastic public official, but don’t know the first thing about political realities, political campaigns, or the campaign process.

Why Your Own Brain Lies to You

This entire Science Friday will be dedicated to the study of irrationality, heuristics and fallacies.

Let’s just state two things as facts as a summary of the entire field of research & literature:

  • Our brain has two parts, an emotional part and a rational part.  These parts must work together and are often in conflict.
  • Our brains take shortcuts (heuristics) in order to make order of the world and to survive.

If one does not have a meta experience and take the time to think about thinking, you are helpless to fight the shortcuts your brain is conditioned to take.

Even if you have a meta-experience, if you do not build deliberate systems to force yourself to fight your brain, you are helpless.

This is exactly why intelligence analysts who are dealing with far more complex issues other than “should I run for office?” build these critical thinking processes into their workflow.

Bottom line: our hunches, our guts, our thoughts are often just dead wrong.

Let’s explore some common issues:

Confabulation

As humans, we are often completely ignorant of why we make the decisions we do (like run for office).  We make the decision, then perform mental gymnastics to rationalize the decision.  It happens lighting quick, unconsciously and then we rationalize our decision by filling in our memories and just making stuff up.  We do this so often we are blissfully unaware that our brains are doing it.  We simply must rationalize the decisions we make.

Fun fact:  If you are asking about running for office, you want to run for office.  Most likely, you are asking around seeking a rational explanation to justify your decision.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

I don’t want to insult you, but all humans (even great political consultants) fall subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

This effect tells us that most of us are extremely poor at estimating our own competences and the difficulty of the complex tasks in front of us.   True, the effect is more pronounced among unskilled labor, but this makes the trap even more dangerous for aspiring politicians.

As David McRaney tells us, “The less you know about a subject, the less you believe there is to know in total. Only once you have some experience do you start to recognize the breadth and depth you have yet to plunder.”

“In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Russell

Political campaigns are complex operations that unless you have participated in them before, you can’t possibly know what it is like to be a candidate.

Here is another issue, just because you have participated in a campaign as a volunteer/manager/staffer, you can’t possibly know what it is like to be a candidate.  

Side note: This especially holds true when it comes to the area of raising money.   Remember there is a major difference between raising money for your favorite charity/business and raising money for your own political campaign.    I routinely take the amount a first time candidate tells me they can raise, cut it in half and cut it in half again.  More than likely, this is the amount they will raise.

Subjective Validation

Remember those encouraging words your friends tell you?  You are falling subject to subjective validation.

The subjective validation tells us that people are prone to believing vague statements and predictions are true, especially if they are positive and address you personally.

The point

These are just the tip of the iceberg

These are just the tip of the iceberg

These are just three of the cognitive traps that we as humans fall into.  Worse?  We fall prey to them all the time without noticing, and these are just the TIP of the iceberg.  (To see a more comprehensive list – look to Wikipedia or look at the additional reading listed at the bottom of this post.)

The Solution

Lucky for you and your brain, there is a solution: hire a great political consultant.

Any great political consultant must study brain function.  It is our job to understand the decision making process so that we can understand how voters make decisions, how political decisions are made, and how we can affect these processes.

Our job is not only to help you navigate to victory, but also to have the experience and courage to be the check against your brain.

At Ozean, we receive feedback after every campaign cycle that the number one thing our clients appreciate most is our ability to cut through the “fog of a campaign” and be candid – even when it hurts.

Ozean does this by building into our processes the systems to combat not only your cognitive biases but our own cognitive biases.  This takes effort, skill, and it takes an understanding of how our brains naturally deceive us.

We are continuously floored by the number of political consultants that are operating on their guts, their rules of thumb, and their own flawed thinking.

In closing, your friends lie to you & your brains lie to you.  You need a political consultant to help you navigate these waters, and you better make damn sure your consultant won’t tell you only what you want to hear.

If you would like to discuss your potential and use our critical thinking processes, please do not hesitate to contact Ozean.

 

Additional Reading

Ariely, Dan (2009-06-06). Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

Heuer, Richards (2012-01-17). Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Central Intelligence Agency.

McRaney, David (2011-10-27). You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You’re Deluding Yourself.

Silver, Nate (2012-09-27). The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don’t.

Sunstein, Cass R.; Richard H. Thaler (2008-04-08). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (p. 257). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Wikepedia, List of Cognitive Biases

 

 

Do not ask for applause, format your speech for it!

How much is a scandal worth politically?

scandal

 

Welcome to Science Friday.  A day when we look at some research and discuss the findings and/or implications.

When I was on my rant about Mark Sanford’s “win”, I came across this gem from Nate Silver :  Sanford and the Electoral Effect of Sex Scandals, which in turn lead me to this study:

The Impact of Incumbent Scandals on Senate Elections, 1974-2008

by Nicholas Chad Long of St. Edward’s University.

Scandals were categorized on the nature of scandal (abuse of office, financial, sex) to see if there were differences.

The results reveal that those senators seeking reelection while confronting a scandal suffered a six percent decrease from their expected vote. They also attracted higher quality challengers who spent more money against them

Scandals involving immoral behavior hurt incumbents the most, while financial improprieties hurt them the least.

Another KEY quote from the paper is as follows:

For a scandal to have any impact on an election, potential voters have to know about it and care about it. The former is the job of the press. Voters rely on journalists to provide vital information about candidates, so that informed decisions can be made at the ballot box. Though the sources for that information are changing, the valuable role that the press plays in providing it is not (Graber 2009; Iyengar and McGrady 2006).

The study is also worth reading for the review of the literature on the subject.  It covers party switching, voter turnout, campaign finance violations, corruption charges, and partisan differences.

Conclusions about Political Scandal

Scandal

How much is a political scandal worth?

“The coefficients are basically the same. Incumbents committing financial improprieties suffered the smallest decline (4.3%), while those displaying behavior seen as immoral suffered the largest decline (6.5%). This leads one to conclude that voters do not necessarily care about the nature of the transgression, but only that a transgression has occurred.”

“While there was essentially no difference in the number of Democrats or Republicans involved in scandals, the results reveal that voters did punish Republicans slightly more than Democrats. The results also show that incumbents, regardless of party, suffered most from objectionable behavior related to matters of morality, such as sexual indiscretions. The vast majority of incumbents were inclined to seek reelection, even in a hostile environment, rather than abandon their Senate careers. The evidence proves that, in fact, two-thirds were victorious in November. So while scandals blunt the incumbency advantage, they do not eradicate it.”

Gotta love science.

My hypothesis is that candidates not having the advantage of incumbency suffer much greater.