Why is the election so close? Experts say it’s all in your head

Given what we know about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, one might expect this election to be a blowout. After all, Clinton is running against a candidate with no political experience, who has offered hardly any actual policy details, besides that they will “make America great again.” And when Trump does release specifics, they are often quickly reversed, which was demonstrated by NBC when they summarized 117 major changes in positions.

Beyond policy issues, Donald Trump has also demeaned bona fide war hero John McCain, blasted the parents of an American soldier killed in Iraq, applauded Saddam Hussein for gassing his own people, continuously praises Vladimir Putin, has refused to disavow former Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader David Duke, and has made a litany of xenophobic, racist, and sexist comments.

By all accounts, Clinton should be clobbering Trump, especially with so many long-time Republicans abandoning their own nominee. And yet, polls indicate that the race is practically even, both nationally and in important swing states. FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast, considered by many to be the gold standard of prediction, has Trump with a 41% chance of winning, up from 21% back in August. A recent CNN poll shows the race is dead even.

So why is this race so close? 

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics for his groundbreaking work on how people make decisions in the real world. We like to think of our decisions as rational, thoughtful, and deliberate — what Kahneman calls System 2 thinking. However, the truth is most of our thinking is much more instinctual — what Kahneman calls System 1 thinking, which is characterized as automatic and emotional.

Our decision making is usually quick and dirty, occurring at an unconscious level using mental shortcuts, called heuristics. These heuristics are like stereotypes, simplifying the world around us. System 1 thinking can be extremely valuable. If confronted with a threat, we don’t have time for slow, analytical System 2 thinking, so we activate System 1 and call 911. System 1 helps us make decisions quickly, but it also fails to appreciate nuances and gradations.

Prior to this election, the stereotype of Donald Trump — the System 1 image — was of a highly successful businessman. After all, his name was plastered all over world class hotels and resorts. He was also the star of the Celebrity Apprentice, which garnered him widespread exposure based on the core premise that Donald Trump was a savvy and astute businessman who could discern great talent.

Much has been written about how Trump’s success is highly exaggerated. But to seek out and research all those facts is hard work. Our brains are like an internet connection with limited bandwidth. System 1 thinking is quick and easy, but System 2 thinking — the kind required to truly understand whether Trump’s successful businessman stereotype is true — takes a great deal of time and effort — and taxes our limited bandwidth.

And while the Trump stereotype is of success, Clinton enjoys a less favorable System 1 heuristic; distrust. Republicans have been consistently blasting Clinton as untrustworthy via the Benghazi and private email investigations. These ongoing hearings have succeeded in creating a negative stereotype of Hillary Clinton.

Back in October of last year, then Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy bragged to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.” Like any large brand that spends a boatload of money on advertising, the message of distrust has successfully cemented, with two-thirds of Americans saying they do not trust Hillary Clinton.

Once a stereotype has taken hold, it is extremely difficult to dislodge. We are all susceptible to confirmation bias, where we seek out information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs or stereotypes, and disregard information that is inconsistent. In the internet age, with so much information available, this has created an echo chamber, where we are most likely to surround ourselves with articles and opinions that confirm our System 1 thinking.

This echo chamber, or tendency to succumb to confirmation bias, is so prevalent and dangerous, it has been listed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as one of the main threats to our society. Making the conscious effort to incorporate and synthesize outside opinions is challenging, time consuming, and mentally exhausting. We are all cognitive misers who try to avoid clogging our available mental bandwidth. That is why stereotypes, whether Trump’s business success or Clinton’s distrust, endure and are so resilient.

The best way to avoid System 1 thinking is to be cognizant of its existence, and vigilant in defending against it. No matter which candidate you prefer, we should all be rooting for System 2 this November.

Allan Fromen is a research consultant, who uses market insights to help companies grow their business. He is Vice President of IDC’s Global Buyer Behavior Practice, holds a PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, and is a recipient of the Great Mind award from the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF). 

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.