The social psychology of cash for peerages

I can't improve on Guido Fawkes's taunting, mischievous coverage of the cash for peerages saga, but what I can do is look at the social psychology.

So here goes.

For a moment, let's accept that peerages were not sold. In other words, there was no explicit agreement to give a peerage in return for money. But no one can deny that peerages were given to donors. The arrangement then was reciprocal. A feeling of obligation to the donor was established without a word being said explicitly.

There is a copious literature on reciprocity. But I think Robert Cialdini's experiment with towels provides the most powerful example.

Cialdini persuaded the Holiday Inn to allow him to experiment with the words on the little sign they put in rooms encouraging you to reuse your towels. Which words would encourage most people to reuse?

The whole study is fascinating, but here's just one of the results. One card promised a donation to a charity for every reused towel, another said that a donation had already been given and asked the guest to help recoup the money.

Now, if I asked you which worked better I am sure you thought it was the first approach. But you thought wrong. The second message was considerably more effective. Why? Because of the power of reciprocity.

There is a whole chapter on this in Cialdini's magnificent book Influence, but in a couple of sentences it is this - we have learnt to reciprocate favours and feel strongly compelled to do so. We reciprocate even when we didn't want the favour.

Now, cash for peerages.

Reciprocity suggests that a sense of obligation can often be as strong, or even stronger, than an explicit deal. In other words, getting donations and giving peerages later without a word being said, is not only more likely to avoid criminal investigations, it is also a powerful way to get money.

But, actually, there is a better way.

Reciprocity is so strong that you could have given the peerages first and collected the money later.

Comments

[Mark]

This poor Yank is quite puzzled. Help me please. Doesn't the value of an honor flow solely from the deeds done to earn it? A Victoria Cross is much esteemed because the exceptional heroism prerequite to its award. If they were sold, even if for a lot of money, they would be worth far less; to me they would signify no honor wahtsoever. Since I assume that those who have essentially purchased peerages are known to the public aren't they essentially worthless relative to ones earned through exceptional service to the country? Seems to me the buyers were actually cheated, though I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. I don't mean to be snide but why does not the above logic which seems so self-evident to me not prevail in the UK. It doesnt seem to.

[Guido Fawkes]

My dictionary says reciprocity is "a mutual exchange of privileges or advantages".

That is illegal under the law in the case of honours.

I think that you are right, there was probably no explicit deala but a sense of reciprocity. This is how things are done.

But the process related documentary evidence will probably be damning. It will not be the principal-to-principal discussions that will do for the players. It will be the emails or memos from staff in Downing Street "such and such has made a donation of £x,xxx,xxx, we really should give him something back."

That will be it.

[John Boler]

Fascinating. Is it the Cialdini thesis that persuades multi-million pound charities to enclose dreadful ball-point pens with their begging letters? If so, I've got news for them: all it tells me is that any donation of mine would be wasted on yet more useless pens.

[John Hirst]

I know that the House of Lords is situated in that place South of Watford called London. And, that it is a shame it was not blown up along with the House of Commons by Guy Fawkes. There is a similarity between the men in the dirty mac brigade buying a ticket to sit in a West End cinema to watch porn films, and buying a seat in the House of Lords.

I don't suppose that Robert Cialdini's experiment extended to Germans and beach towels?

As for the poor Yank in our former colony, the Victoria Cross became somewhat devalued by Margaret Thatcher dishing them out like confetti during the Malvinas War. To give one to Colonel H, simply for foolishly sticking his head above the parapet and getting a bullet in it, had nothing to do with honour and everything to do with PR and politics.

I think all those peers who bought their peerages should wear their price tags on their robes. Naming and shaming the corrupt for what they are. There should be a Sale of Peerages Act, those not fit for purpose should be removed from the shelf and put down in the cellar next to the barrels of gun powder. And Tony Blair should be given an apartment in the Bloody Tower, and the liberty of the gardens until his execution. This will be followed by a fair trial...