*This article originally came out on Undercurrent, my weekly column for the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Access to the full archives could be found here: https://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/eleanor-pinugu
Every election season, my close friends and I like to compare the names of the senatorial candidates we plan to vote for along with brief reasons for our choices—citing their stance on a particular issue or a bill they helped pass. We like to imagine ourselves as well-informed voters, carefully weighing each candidate’s qualifications before drawing up a final list.
Research shows, however, that a person’s voting brain is not as rational as we’d like to think. Drew Westen, in his 2007 book “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” stressed that when reason and emotions collide in political contexts, emotions invariably win. In recent years, this perspective has been reinforced by a growing body of evidence that people’s political choices are dictated more by their emotions often unconscious—than by logical reasoning.
Political strategists, of course, have long been aware of this. A candidate’s slogan, the anecdotes they share about their humble beginnings, and the music they play at rallies are all meticulously curated to trigger emotional responses among voters. It’s not just what a candidate says that matters, but also how they make us feel.
Even how a candidate looks also plays a powerful role. “Pretty privilege” is a form of cognitive bias referring to the preferential treatment received by individuals who are considered by society as conventionally attractive. An unearned advantage this gives political candidates is people’s unconscious tendency to associate physical beauty with trustworthiness and competence.
For candidates who did not win the genetic lottery, the solution is to craft an image that voters find relatable and reassuring. We see this in how politicians are integrating TikTok and other social media apps into their electoral strategy. Rather than using the platform to elevate political discourse, most choose to use it for “politainment”—displaying their personal life and riding on viral trends to enhance their political persona. It seems that in today’s landscape, the ability to appear approachable by taking on a viral dance craze can be just as valuable as a well-communicated platform.
Developments in neuroscience in the past decade help provide better insight into how emotions could significantly affect our voting choices. A study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans found that negative images and statements led to heightened stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—the region of the brain that is also associated with decision-making. This suggests that political advertisements whose messages trigger fear and anxiety are more likely to resonate and effectively sway voters.
This is further confirmed by a large-scale study published in American Psychology which analyzed data from over 150 countries. It highlighted how negative emotions, like fear, anger, and sadness, strongly correlate with support for populist candidates. The more turbulent the political climate, the more these emotions can be leveraged by populist leaders to achieve electoral success.
Take for example the “war on drugs” battlecry that former president Rodrigo Duterte used in 2016. Throughout his campaign, Duterte vowed that he would end the drug problem in three to six months, even promising to resign if he failed. By framing the drug problem as a critical threat to national stability and progress, his campaign was able to effectively capitalize on public fears surrounding drug-related crime, and appeal to the people’s desire for security and order.
Producing negative content against political opponents is also found to be a potent way to get votes. In theory, negative campaigning is seen as a healthy part of modern democracy that could help voters make more informed decisions by highlighting legitimate issues about an opponent’s track record. However, the lack of effective regulation of online disinformation has degraded negative campaigning from substantive criticism (e.g. questioning one’s opponent’s stance on key issues) to troll-led smear tactics and character assassinations on social media.
As voters, we must become more aware of these dynamics. Rather than think that we are fully immune to these tactics, we must acknowledge that while we strive to be rational, extreme emotions that certain campaigns may try to manipulate, could potentially limit our ability to assess a situation more objectively. Effective voter’s education then should not just focus on giving citizens access to information about the different candidates who are running, but also to empower citizens to critically analyze the emotional undercurrents in their political messaging.
What is important to remember is that politicians are not driven by the same emotional impulses that define voters. During elections, they are strategically and singularly focused on one thing: Winning. And to win, many candidates will not hesitate to do whatever it takes, including exploiting the emotions that drive us.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/177348/how-emotions-shape-votes#ixzz8t9b3WuNa
