There is no doubt that voters often get swayed by the emotional appeal that politicians make during campaigning. Some of these appeals are based on sensitive issues, such as protecting religious identity and alleviating poverty. A question then comes to light: how do politicians form their views regarding socio-political issues prevalent in society? The field of political psychology includes various approaches to answer this intriguing question.
One such approach is the cognitive approach, which studies mental processes like perception and decision-making to understand political behavior. However, social scientists have rarely attempted to study Indian politics using psychological methods.
India, a multiparty and parliamentary democracy, witnesses significant political behavior where major policies are drafted by politicians of the incumbent government, and these policies are debated thoroughly by the opposition. As a result of this political system, it is clear that politicians play a vital role in impacting society. When there is a significant gap between politicians’ decisions and citizens’ needs, there can be dangerous consequences for democracy. Hence, it is necessary to understand the cognitive dynamics of people in power because of their direct impact on policy-making.
To fulfill this research gap, a study was undertaken to explore the cognitive biases of members of mainstream Indian parties. Cognitive biases are errors in thinking patterns that deviate people from rational thinking. These biases can often influence decisions in life, such as investing in a scheme just because of its popularity. Four cognitive biases were selected for this study, which is frequently measured concerning political behavior: Bandwagon effect, Confirmation bias, In-group favoritism, and Negativity Bias.
Members from far left-wing and far right-wing political parties, such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Student Federation of India, and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad were interviewed for this study. Biases were assessed through members’ perspectives on the following issues: Nationalism, the Kashmir dispute, and changing of names of cities by the Uttar Pradesh government. In addition to these general perspectives, personal preferences of members were also explored, such as their tendency to help people with similar ideological views and rating speeches of politicians they dislike.
Results indicated traces of biases in responses of both left-wing and right-wing party representatives. For instance, the bandwagon effect is a type of bias where members are likely to affiliate with a political party and form their views based on the party’s popularity. In this case, members of both parties believed that the personality of the leader is an important indicator to align with a political party regardless of the ideology. Social media also plays an important role in influencing the decision to align with a party. According to the members, a popular party or a candidate is likely to attract more supporters who want to be on the winning side.
Next came the confirmation bias, wherein it was expected that members would pay selective attention to views that validate their pre-existing beliefs and reject views that appear invalidating to them. Members indicated that they would be able to better recall the speech of the politician that they liked and aligned with versus a speech by the politician they disliked. Furthermore, political behavior among members is manifested by paying selective attention to views that are consistent with their respective ideologies. Hence, members are less likely to support narratives that are inconsistent with their ideological beliefs. For instance, members of left-wing parties do not see any positives for the use of force in resolving the Kashmir crisis and stick to the dialogue approach under any circumstance. Similarly, members of right-wing parties believe that no religious group is targeted by changing the name of cities to ancient Hindu names, and it is rather done to retrieve the culture.
For the in-group favoritism bias, it was proposed that in different circumstances, members would favor people, who they perceive as ideologically similar, more often than people who are ideologically different. Results indicated that members showed clear partiality towards people and leaders who hold similar views as them. They believed they would have greater understanding and cooperation with ideologically similar people. In a situation where they held the power to help one out of two people, members showed a willingness to help the person who held similar political views as them. Furthermore, it was seen that members tended to prefer leaders from their political parties to hold important political positions, despite perceiving them as less efficient than leaders from opposition parties.
Finally, it was expected that members would focus more on the negatives of opposition parties than having a neutral or positive outlook, in line with the negativity bias. Findings indicate that members of both political parties tend to focus on criticism and flaws of opposition parties for electoral victory. Members also suggested that their ideological inclination biases them towards finding negatives rather than positives in other parties. For instance, members of left-wing parties believed that right-wing ideology leads to hatred and violence and members of right-wing parties believed that left-wing ideology propagates anti-national views.
Overall, it was seen that members of mainstream Indian political parties exhibited different cognitive biases in their political ideology and political views. A study of this nature is crucial to understand the belief systems and cognitive mindset of people who we elect, in addition to knowing their religious and economic backgrounds. The cognitive profile of a politician can be used as an important predictor of the decisions and policies that they make to govern a diverse nation like India. In addition, this study opens avenues for research in the domain of political psychology in India, not only with citizenry but with political representatives. However, to arrive at more definitive conclusions, experimental and quantitative work needs to be done to explore the cognitive dynamics of political representatives’ minds.
Dhruv Beri
