The five sexiest ideas in politics

Yesterday the Sunday Times twigged to the idea of social norms.

The article wasn't quite right. They ascribed David Cameron's interest in that topic to a new book called Nudge by Sunstein and Thayler - when in fact it came from Robert Cialdini's book Influence.

But it was still an important piece.

The Sunday Times is very good at spotting intellectual trends. When they print an entire piece on some new thinking, it is an important sign that a change is taking place.

In a nutshell, thirty years ago there was a intellectual revolution centred on economics. Now the change in the debate is being powered by social psychology.

It helps explain how we can change society without increasing burdensome regulation.

Here are five of the hottest intellectual ideas now making an impact on politics. Dry as they sound, they are the sexiest ideas on the political scene:

1. Social Norms:  This is based on a simple observation - people copy each other. We take cues from others in our peer group about how to behave. This is a more powerful social force than legal restrictions. Could we, for instance, increase the amount given to charity simply by telling people how much more everyone else is giving? Want to know more? Read Influence by Robert Cialdini, Herd by Mark Earls and The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris or my article.

2. Reciprocal Altruism: Why do we help those who are not blood relations? Surely this wouldn't be a good evolutionary strategy? Well, it turns out that it is. We help others because we believe they will reciprocate. In order for this to work, game theory demonstrates, we have to believe we will be interacting with the same people repeatedly. Reciprocal altruism makes the argument for strengthening local institutions. Want to know more? Read The Oakshott lecture by David Willetts, and Natural Justice by Ken Binmore or my article.

3. Situationism: Is there such a thing as society? It is not just reciprocal altruism that shows that there is. It is also situationism. People behave differently when in different situations. They conform to expectations and group norms. Individuals have different dispositions but this is only part of the reason they behave as they do. Phil Zimbardo's famous Stanford prison experiment, while hardly a conclusive scientific experiment, showed how telling individuals they were guards or prisoners changed the way they behaved. This idea is, for instance, helping change Tory ideas on crime. Want to know more? Read The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo or my article.

4. Prospect Theory: Thirty five years ago, innocent A level economics students would ask their teachers "but what if the consumer isn't rational?". It would patiently be explained to them that rationality was a modelling assumption, that could very easily be relaxed. It turns out that relaxing the assumption has produced the most interesting work in economics over the last three decades, winning a Nobel Prize for Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Prospect theory considers how people actually make decisions. It looks at, for instance, the ways people weigh up risks. It leads to a richer understanding of the way consumers respond to the design of policy. Want to know more? Read Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely and Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein or my article.

5. Cognitive Dissonance: In 1957 the psychologist Leon Festinger first put forward this idea explaining how people cling on the commitments they have made, twisting the truth round in their head to make it consistent with their existing view. Its importance for social policy is that individuals try incredibly hard to fulfill commitments they have made, verbally or in writing. Particularly when made in public. Cognitive dissonance is part of the reason why married couples stay together (in order to make good their commitment). Want to know more? Read Yes! by Noah Goldstein, Steve Martin and Robert Cialdini and When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger or my articles on political strategy and marriage.

Comments

[Bod Notbod]

Unwise to have all those links to "my article". I assumed they were all links to the same place given the way they were presented. You ought to give each one link text that makes it plain each is a gateway to different content.

[Tim]

Yuk - just another attempt to use science to control people's behaviour. Where are the theories saying that most policy trial-runs are unreliable because they don't use double-blind trials? Or what about the theory suggesting that conservative people are more afraid of death than liberals? Or that once society is out of poverty, the main factor determining happiness is social status and relative wealth (ie, having a valuable place in society is more important than having high standard of living)?

What about the idea that politicians are just as likely to allow their personal predjudices, religious beliefs and indoctrinated dogmas to distort their logic as the rest of us, and that they cherry-pick scientific ideas that agree with their beliefs, rather than altering their beliefs in line with scientific understanding?

A scientific understanding of the nature of the human brain will only be useful to humanity when politicians apply the same cold, harsh logic, reason and empiricism to theirmselves as the scientists they admire do to society.

[Christine T]

Great article but please get the name of Zimbardo's study right. It was the Stanford Prison Experiment, not Stamford. Easy mistake but such a great man deserves his work to be quoted accurately.
Christine T

[Barry W]

This article was nondescript except until it posted idea #5. Then it explained George Bush in a nutshell.

[Simon]

So the news is: politicians are excited about ways to manipulate people? That's what it seems to pretty much boil down to.

As for "Social Norms" in particular, isn't this just what used to be called "peer pressure"?

I wonder what Orwell would make of this stuff...

[Peter Thompson]

None of these theories are new! The point of the commentary should be to explain WHY they are ostensibly the most influential theories at this moment...
For my tuppence- hal'pennyworth, the most influential theoretical ideas are usually those so well ingrained into our thinking that we take them for granted as common sense, rather than regarding them as contingent accounts of reality which could be invalidated.
For example,despite the global 'credit crunch', nobody seems to have considered whether this might have something to do with the entirely arbitrary and anomalous arrangement which permits private financial institutions to create money through issuing (and securitising)credit.

[Kieran Lee Marshall]

Should your title not read, 5 sexist ideas in Psychology?

Almost all aspects of your mentioning are study components for Psychology grads.

Good piece.

[James]

Tim and Simon - that's one way to look at it. But the other is that by understanding how people actually think and act we can have better laws, which achieve what they set out to do rather than leading to unintended consequences. This would also likely result in less intrusive laws (by working more naturally with people's inclinations rather than relying on the state's power for effectiveness). See Daniel's article on charity as an example.

Bob - true, but most of the lawyers/teachers/union leaders who make up the bulk of the Cabinet appear blissfully ignorant of them (and probably of economics too). As for why these ideas are becoming more mainstream, I'm not sure but perhaps this is due to the large number of laws passed in recent years with relatively little to show for them, which would prompt thoughts as to how to make them more effective.

[James]

PS for my comment above (11:54), I meant Peter instead of Bob. No idea why I said Bob. Argh.

[Andrew Towell]

The Governments have always controlled its people via Sigmund Freud style tactics!

To educate yourself and possibly save your life watch the BBC Documentary called "A Century of Self" by Adam Curtis for a full explanation of this.

Another excellent watch is again Adam's work called "The Power of Nightmares", it’s about the cause and effect of Terrorism or “The war of terror” etc.

Also, "Why We Fight" is another great documentary by Eugene Jarecki's in regards to War and Foreign Policy.
Open your eyes and see the world for what it is, it's never too late to inform and educate yourself! Open your eyes before you pass!

As one great man said:
"Government ties are really why the Government lies, Read it yourself instead of asking the Government why, because then the Cause of Death will cause the propaganda to die"

[sohbet]

Hi , thank you for sharing the informations.

[darkfall gold]

This would also likely result in less intrusive laws (by working more naturally with people's inclinations rather than relying on the state's power for effectiveness).