Even in an Election Year, Brains Are Bipartisan

A psychologist who is a frequent advisor to political campaigns and has written the book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation argues that Americans select their presidents and other elected officials essentially on the basis of emotion.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Emory University, presented his ideas at the winter meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association in New York City.

Since the 1960s, Westen said, studies have been conducted to determine what drives people to vote in national elections the way they do. Eighty percent of their decisions, these studies have revealed, is based on how they feel about political parties and principles and the remaining 20 percent of their decisions on how they feel about particular candidates. Yes, “it really comes down to partisan biases and whom people like,” Westen asserted.

Moreover, some research that Westen has conducted underscores the emotionality of people's voting decisions. Westen and his colleagues had subjects—a mix of Republicans and Democrats—defend their chosen candidates against threatening information. Meanwhile, the researchers imaged the subjects' brain activity.

The researchers found activation of three brain areas: the amygdala, which processes emotions; the orbital prefrontal cortex, which deals with the unconscious; and the anterior cingulate cortex, which manages conflict. The same brain regions were aroused regardless of whether subjects were Republican or Democrat.

Such findings, he continued, suggest that political ads that attempt to sway voters need to speak with emotion. For example, if an ad is advocating for universal health care, it won't be very effective if it uses only numbers—say, how many millions of people don't have health insurance—but will be very efficacious if it makes people feel the problem in their guts—if it says, for example, “Everyone who works deserves to take [his or her] children to a doctor when they are sick.”

Although he said he is a dedicated Democrat, Westen is of the opinion that Republican ads are generally better than Democratic ones in arousing voters' emotions. A 2004 ad for George W. Bush, for example, claimed that he was“ resolute and strong” and that he would “protect Americans against terrorism.”

Westen had his audience repeat these words: “Ocean, moon, and waves.” He then asked them: “What is the first laundry detergent that comes to mind?” Most everyone said “Tide.” The reason why nearly everyone said “Tide,” he explained, is because they had been prepped before-hand with words associated with the word“ tide.” In other words, they had been unconsciously exposed to a“ network of association.” Thus, political ads may deploy networks of association to get people to unconsciously connect certain emotionally charged words—say, “liberals” with “tax and spend.” Then, after that, when people hear the word“ liberal,” they will often associate it with “tax and spend.”

Emotion also plays a big role in political debates, Westen has observed. How candidates interact with each other and treat each other carries more sway with voters than do the facts and figures that candidates reel off, he asserted.

Emotion likewise packs a powerful punch on the political stump, he indicated. For instance, Hillary Clinton's teary eyes before the New Hampshire primary may have swayed a number of people to vote for or against her. Political speeches that play to people's emotions likewise have a greater impact than do those that simply deal with facts and figures, Westen noted. He then cited President Lyndon Johnson, who, during one of his campaign speeches, made these potent statements: “My first job was as a teacher in a Mexican-American school... .You never know what poverty can do until you see it in the face of a child.”

“LBJ knew that if you want to win the hearts and minds of the people, you have to start with the heart,” Westen said. ▪