As accusations of ideological inconsistency fly back and forth during the Republican primary, it seems to us that a change in position is one of the great sins of American politics. Why does a little variability bother us so much? In a recent NPR story, commentators discussed why we prize consistency among politicians and loathe flip-flopping.
First, we are reminded that the brain is a prediction machine, with this function so deeply wired that we get a hit of dopamine when our predictions turn out to be correct. Our social predictions are doubly important, as they could have meant life or death to our ancestors. A mismatch between our prediction of a politician’s behavior and his or her actual behavior thus hits the brain hard. The prediction machine doesn’t like to be proven wrong, so inconsistency hurts.
Says Johns Hopkins neuroscientist David Linden
“We’re extremely attuned to the veracity, and the predictability, and the group spirit and the motivations of those around us. When we feel deeply betrayed, either by a leader, or by someone in our social circle, or by our beloved, that pain really is similar to physical pain.”
Other researchers have noted that, as social beings, our tribal affiliations also impact how we perceive inconsistency. To a group of students with both Democratic and Republican identified members, they put forward the behavior of a hypothetical political fundraiser named Mike: he had a drunk driving accident and a month later delivered a radio screed against drunk driving. Was he a hypocrite or a changed man? The researchers had the students evaluate the situation, with Mike identified as a Democrat to half of the students and Republican to the other half. Unsurprisingly, when they thought Mike was from the opposing party, they were more than twice as likely to judge him a hypocrite than if he was one of their own. Our tribal affiliations create bias that affects how we perceive others.
The commentators also noted studies into whether consistent “hedgehogs” or flexible “foxes” were better leaders, finding that ideologically consistent people tended to do better in elections, but that ideological flexibility helped to make better decisions overall. It turns out that flip-floppers might actually be more effective at government. So the next time you turn on election coverage railing against hypocrisy (or fume about it yourself), consider what, deep down, might really be making you mad.