The actor Ben Stiller was recently asked why he supports Kamala Harris. There are a number of answers he might have provided—maybe her progressive stance on abortion, or on housing, or the environment. But Mr. Stiller mentioned none of those. His answer? “All the energy and excitement that is around this movement right now.” Stiller then added that it was time for a change, perhaps forgetting that Harris is the sitting vice president.
But don’t judge Stiller too harshly: This is the standard response of Harris supporters. Harris has so singularly relied on generating positive emotions that when she tentatively offers a policy position, it is with the half-hearted certainty that it will never become law, or just flagrantly copied from Trump.
Many of Trump’s voters are going to vote based on emotions, too, but the Harris campaign has cynically embraced a very specific view of human behavior—that our natural inclination to make decisions is largely based on emotion rather than substance and data. And she’s hoping it will carry her all the way to the White House.
Is she right?
In some sense, she is. There’s actually a deep tension between our emotional or “affective” systems and our intellectual or “cognitive” systems when we make decisions. And it turns out, we humans are cognitive misers when all is said and done. We’re intellectually lazy: Thinking is too effortful for most, so we rely on effortless, automatic mental shortcuts—in other words, emotions—to arrive at a decision.
Charles Rex Arbogast/AP Photo
That there are two pathways to persuasion is a fact well known to advertisers. They think of them as the peripheral routes of persuasion. The central route utilizes cognitive justifications to sell a utilitarian product (think, “Five things to consider when deciding if a reverse mortgage is right for you!”). On the other hand, the peripheral route uses cosmetic cues rooted in affective processing to sell you a hedonic product (think of an ad showing a sexy young woman running on the beach to sell cologne). When promoting a reverse mortgage, it is crucial to engage your cognitive system; when selling you a cologne, the advertiser wants to trigger your emotions.
It’s this peripheral, emotive route of persuasion that the Harris campaign has embraced with the “positive vibes” campaign rooted in joy, excitement, and fun. Her managers are willfully hijacking your decision-making process by ensuring that you focus only on your affective, peripheral system.
It’s deeply cynical, for the obvious reason that when selecting the leader of the free world, you should be engaging your cognitive system. A rational voter should evaluate the respective positions of the two candidates on fiscal policy, immigration policy, border security, foreign policy, criminal justice policy, commitment to the First and Second Amendments, the tension between the rights of biological women versus trans women (biological males), and their stance on meritocracy versus diversity, inclusion, and equity.
And yet, the great majority of voters are utterly oblivious about these issues, and prefer to love or hate a given candidate based on irrelevant affective processing.
Emotions are evolutionarily important, but only when properly deployed on the right target at the appropriate situation. It’s crucial not to let your emotions hijack your thinking, whether you are a voter or a policy maker. As American voters, you have the sacred task of choosing the person who will impact not just your country but the entire globe for the next four years.
I am Canadian. I will not be voting in the upcoming 2024 presidential elections. But I do care about the foundational values that define the West. I have seen what happens to a country when its voters are mesmerized by inconsequential emotional appeals. We ended up with Justin Trudeau serving for three consecutive terms.
Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you are in danger of making a crucial decision based on emotion. But only one of the campaigns is betting on that, betting on you succumbing to the weakest, laziest version of yourself. There’s a big chance it’s because that candidate has the weaker policies.
Do yourself a favor: Search for and process the relevant information. Vote with your intellect. Vote on the issues. The rest of us are relying on you to make the right choice—or at least, an informed one.
Dr. Gad Saad is Visiting Professor and Global Ambassador at Northwood University.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
