Elections are about choice
Image: iStock/Lise Gagne
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Choice is a fundamental American value that often lies at the center of heated political discussions. For example, disputes about the Affordable Healthcare Act have hinged on whether buying health insurance should be a personal choice. Recent research suggests that thinking about our lives in terms choices may reduce our support for public policies that promote greater equality in society. By emphasizing free will over the situational factors that shape people’s life experiences, thinking about choice may lead us to view inequality as less bothersome.
For example, thinking about choices may lead us to feel less concerned about the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor. In a recent paper published in Psychological Science, Krishna Savani of the National University of Singapore Business School and Aneeta Rattan of Stanford University asked some of their participants to list five things they did during the previous day at various time points. Other participants were asked to list five “choices” instead of things. Then, all participants were asked how disturbed they were by 10 facts regarding wealth inequality, such as “The richest 20% of people in the United States own 85% of all wealth in this country.” Those participants who had thought about their actions in terms of choices were less likely to feel alarmed. Choice may lead us to focus on how people’s freely chosen actions lead to either poverty or wealth, making wealth inequality seem like a reasonable result rather than a public problem that needs to be solved.
Although political orientation is related to the degree to which people support policies designed to promote equality, Savani and Rattan found that the idea of choice influenced the opinions of both liberals and conservatives. In another experiment, they had participants watch a short video of a person doing mundane activities in an apartment, such as opening mail or reading a magazine. Some participants were asked to press a button whenever they saw the person in the video touch an object. Other participants were asked to press the button whenever they perceived that the person in the video was making a choice. Later all participants were asked to read about public policies designed to redistribute educational resources in a community in order to make things more equal between the wealthy and the poor. Those who had been prompted to think about choices, regardless of their own political leanings, expressed less support for the equalizing policies.
The results from these studies may have something to do with how closely Americans associate choice with freedom. When Americans are made to think about choice, they may shift their attitudes in favor of policies that promote individual freedom rather than restrict it. In 2011 Savani and his colleagues published a set of studies demonstrating that thinking about choice decreases people’s support for laws that limit individual freedoms, such as banning violent video games or levying environmental taxes on fuel-inefficient cars. Thinking about choice also led people to feel more positively towards laws that uphold individual freedoms, such as laws legalizing marijuana.
Unfortunately, they found that thinking about choice also had a downside: it led people to feel less empathy towards others who have experienced negative life events. For example, participants who had thought about choices, were more likely to blame people who had experienced car accidents, physical abuse, or a loss of their home due to a building collapse.
Since choice and freedom are emphasized to a greater degree in Western countries, Savani and his colleagues wanted to know whether their results would hold up in a different culture. They designed a study where American or Indian participants were asked to either choose small items for themselves (e.g. a pen or keychain) or simply describe items that somebody else already chose. Then, all participants were shown a picture of an African child who was described as desperately poor and facing starvation. They were asked how much money they would be willing to donate to the child and how upset they were by the child’s situation.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add Comment"If cooperation and helpfulness are framed as expressions of choice and free will, Americans may become even more charitable than others."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuh!
I choose to think the researchers need to look a bit deeper at what is really going on, look at demography of the participants, maybe an look at how the researchers preconceived notions are messing with the results and consequent conclusions.
And what evidence leads you to believe they did not in this case? Does what you "choose to believe" change what is actually true? Just curious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with this study and with the idea that choosing is simply an act of freedom, just considers that someone is always with the capacity to do it. And what we should avaliate is wether one should give it to someone more capable of doing it, that will represents him somehow, or from the point of view of the study, we would be giving up the capacity to do it? The right idea would rather be that we live in a representative society, and we are asked all the time about what should be right or wrong. The government will not be passing over one's ability to do it, but the working force which deflagrates more promptly the idea we have, are ( or should be) administered this way. The central idea of democracy is concerned with the choice of the individual after all. So, I don't really know what contradictions this search is looking for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis piece lacks careful consideration on several points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Why should we accept the premise that income (or wealth) equality is good? Of course, one can argue that such equality is fair, and fairness is good, but that conclusion begs the question. I would think that a loving family, good friends, a secure community, and such are goods far surpassing financial equality.
2. There is a huge difference between equality and providing for the poor. We don’t need the extreme of equality to insure the poor are fed. Yet this distinction is clouded throughout the article.
3. If we assume that conservatives favor choice and liberals do not, then why are conservatives more charitable than liberals? According the article, those who are concerned with choices are less charitable, so we ought to find that conservatives are less charitable.
4. If giving up choice is a public good, then shouldn’t we be anxious to give up the pro-choice stance regarding abortion? After all, central control of reproduction can help ensure equality and ensure that there will be sufficient resources for future generations.
Wow what a biased article. The conclusion is we evil americans because we hold the freedom of individual choice to be important, we somehow feel less charitable toward others? Would that be the billions we sent to the indonesian tsunami victims, to Japan, to haiti, to everywhere there is calamity and death as a result of natural or man made disaster? And somehow Indians who do not view choice as important because of centuries of being forced to follow government rule, they somehow feel the plight of others better? How much charity do they toss around when it is needed? They cant even hold a candle to the charity Americans freely CHOOSE to give all around the world, every single year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is biased in its attempt to make American concepts of freedom seem alien and somehow wrong or bad for the world. When in fact it is the rest of the world and their religions, traditions and governments forcing their people to have no choices that causes all of the poverty, violence, slavery and complacency in the world.
Choice is overemphasized by Americas? It is not emphasized enough as we Americans are having our freedom slowly chipped away. As for the rest of the world, places I have visited and enjoyed or places you read about, all of them would be better off if the peoples of those countries would wake up to the fact they are individuals and do in fact have the freedom to choose everything about their life. Everything is a choice, it is how life IS shaped contrary to the message of this ridiculous article. And for the rest of the world, the choice to allow some idiot politician or priest rule your life is a choice as well.
I agree the article is biased, and probably beneath SciAm's standards Quotes such as, "Even a minor focus on small choices can activate these ideals, leading Americans to overemphasize the role that choice has in shaping our life outcomes" show the author has a preconceived notion of how much choice matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the rants of commenters on things like how much the rich pay in taxes is just plain silly. Let's not let the author's relatively minor overstepping lead to a slew of clearly biased comments. It will not help the matter or correct the error.
Now I know why I really do not want to live in the USA, but I am stuck here. The key is, that a German cares somewhat for another Germany out of a standpoint of being Germans, and the sames goes for most of the northern European countries. There is a certain loyalty among people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmericans do not give a rat's ass about other Americans, me, me, me and only me counts. (This is thirty years of observations). No one is willing to give up some "freedom" for someone else. No one understands that freedom first brings with it obligations.
Where to begin; The fist finding implies that the proposed policies to "equalize wealth" were good policies. It might very well be that thinking about choice stimulated the subjects to be more critical of proposal thus rejecting it more frequently due to its flaws. The second finding flies in the face of what is well documented. The American public and its focus on choice has been the more generous society the world has ever seen. By all measures, as a populace we donate and contribute more than any other country by magnitudes. Clearly, there is a wide gulf between this coffee table data and the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI make choices as we all do I have the right to make these choices.I am not wealthy yet give to others.I help where I can.I like many at times chose wrong and I pay for those choices at times life is not fair..as if life cares about fairness.People make wrong choices all the time,more times then not they do.the rich do not make me poor more times then not The wrong choice makes you poor,not getting an education being a criminal, have a child at a young age.I can go on and on but i will not belabor the point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only add my voice is to the others that this is so beneath the usual quality of Sci Am, it is hard to believe it passed the smell test. America is the most charitable nation on Earth. What is this author thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope the authors are meaning Americans as North Americans, we all know the kind of persons they are and the way the let inequality to be a part of human rights cosidering that being poor is your fault because you decided to be poor as your choice in freedom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy advise for North Americans is to wide their spectrum of information and give a look to the Euro Zone crisis. Transnsnationals,bankers,rich investors, etc...made the choice ...they chose what was better to increase their fortunes...they never considered or cared about the millions of hard and good workers they already pushed into poverty. Ask every unemployed there if that was his choice in freedom.
I am a South American and we still believe in liberty, equality and fraternity as well as in a healthy, responsable and incorrupt Free Market Economy.
"1. Why should we accept the premise that income (or wealth) equality is good?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Please read the following article:
Inequality: Of wealth and health
New Scientist - 30 July 2012 by Liz Else
The rising affluence of the 1 per cent may not only mean there is less for everyone else. What does inequality mean for your health?
"There may be economists who argue that inequality isn't bad for the health of the economy, but it is becoming more difficult to make the case that it doesn't harm the health of humanity.
Growing evidence shows that greater inequality brings with it more crime, worse public health and social ills that affect every tier of society."
Full text can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=335395009882249&set=a.110253705729715.24955.108777202544032&type=1&relevant_count=1
"2. There is a huge difference between equality and providing for the poor."
2. What is the difference?
"3. If we assume that conservatives favor choice and liberals do not, then why are conservatives more charitable than liberals?"
3. Do you have peer reviewed evidence to support this view?
"4. If giving up choice is a public good, then shouldn’t we be anxious to give up the pro-choice stance regarding abortion?"
4. This argument is a pure logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
There is no such thing as *choice* in a world inundated with advertisement and run by corporations - especially when the so-called 'choices' are limited by these corporations. We are limited by what big business wants to sell us and what they make available to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example: Fuel efficient autos are not made available to us. Why?
Electric cars? Forget it! Can you imagine what would happen if everyone plugged their cars into the grid at the same time? We don't have the infrastructure to support it. When we can't even support incandescent light bulbs I'd say the power grid is in trouble already. We are not being mandated to switch from incandescent light bulbs because it's good for the environment. No. If we were concerned about the environment we would be mandated to stop using fossil fuels in our cars as that would make the most sense.
Sadly, our power grids are too old and antiquated to support the strain of electric cars.
Can you imagine what could have been accomplished (since the year 2000) if we did not have the greedy oil industry in politics? What would the world be like had we spent this money on shoring up our power grid, rather than making war with oil rich nations?
http://costofwar.com/
But did we, as individuals, really have a *choice* in this matter?
No. But those in power DID have a choice and they chose to lie to us all in order for us to support their agenda.
And the last thing we need is psychiatrists (shills for the pharmaceutical industry) to tell us this!
Sciam has become a spokesman for the left, for progressive UnAmerican views
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is very sad.
I have looked at SCIAM for years for facts
I see more and more propoganda
Hail Government
Supress the people
So here is my two cents on some choices I made:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- I chose to go to high school.
- Result: obtained a diploma.
- I chose to go to a community college.
- I chose to get a job to pay for community college.
- I chose to go to class and do the coursework.
- Result: I obtained an associates degree.
- I chose to go on to a 4 year university.
- I chose to apply for student loans.
- I chose to go to class and do the coursework.
- Result: I obtained a bachelors degree.
- I chose to pay back the student loans
- Result: no debt and a better credit rating.
- I chose to pursue an advanced degree (masters).
- I chose to work as a teching assitant to pay expenses.
- I chose to go to class and do the coursework.
- Result: I obtained a master's degree with little/no debt
- I chose to look for an entry level job
- Result: I found one and was paid every two weeks
- I chose to look for a better job with a better future
- Result: I found a better job with higher pay
Now each of these choices also entailed some sacrifices such as: (1) not staying out until all hours partying, (2) studying hard, (3) working for days on end without sleep outside in the elements, and on and on.
So what is the benefit of the choices and sacrifices that I have made in my life? The benefit(s) are that I now can make just about whatever choice I please when it comes to my life, in terms of buying the things that I want (be it health care, a new car, a new tv, etc). The idea of an equitable society is a pile of horse dung. Quite simply: I am not going to pay for other people's lack of ambition (laziness). I got off my ass and I epxect you to do so as well. I do not need a nanny state holding my hand and neither should you. That is not to say that if there is a legitimate need (disability and/or unfortunate circumstances) that I am not going to pitch in and help out. That is called charity which is yet another choice that I make quite regularly.
The US declaration of independance states: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'. The constitution goes on to re-enforce this statement through the bill of rights. Nowhere I can find that a citizen of the United States should expect an equitable share of what others produce for themselves. As a matter of fact that directly violates the right to others life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Thank you, Daisy, for your illuminating article. It helps to explain why so many Americans are undisturbed by our grotesque disparity in incomes. I have wondered for years why we are so bombarded with empty choices, like the long rows of over-sugared cereals in our supermarkets. One reason I shop at Costco is that it usually carries no more than three versions of any item, such as microwaves., differing in features and price but all of acceptable quality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the commenters above assume that any attempt to reduce our extreme inequality in incomes is equivalent to advocating complete equality, which of course you do not do. Many of them seem not to have read your article at all. They seem merely to have noted that you are criticizing our obsession with choice and translated that into a flaw in your argument.
Thank you, HX and 86, for your illuminating article. It helps to explain why so many Americans are undisturbed by our grotesque disparity in incomes. I have wondered for years why we are so bombarded with empty choices, like the long rows of over-sugared cereals in our supermarkets. I prefer to shop at stores that carry only a few versions of any item, such as microwaves., differing in features and price but all of acceptable quality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the commenters above assume that any attempt to reduce our extreme inequality in incomes is equivalent to advocating complete equality, which of course you do not do. Many of them seem not to have read your article at all. They seem merely to have noted that you are criticizing our obsession with choice and translated that into a flaw in your argument.
OK, let me see if I get it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we think too much and make choices, we will not be good members of the collective. We will be bothered by the claim that others will make on the rewards of our choices, our effort, because we will think that we made life choices to earn the rewards and have a right to keep them. And this is BAD.
No, this is full of... stuff.
Yes, people who feel that they have the ability to choose and direct their lives will, indeed, be more likely to work toward goals through their choices. Many goals will result in monetary rewards. If you feel that your making choices resulted in rewards, maybe you will feel that those who did not make the same hard choices don't deserve the rewards of your effort.
On the other hand, if you don't feel you can make choices that will help you in life, you will remain a 'victim of circumstance'. You will be one of the masses who will feel that those who have more owe some to you because they could not have possibly have earned their rewards. Their wealth is 'unfair' and should be distibuted.
Again, this is so full of... stuff.
Americans have shown, more than any other country, that we are givers if we feel that we are helping those who are trying. Germany & Japan after WW2. A myriad of examples of aid to other countries in need. Not just govt. either. The Gates Foundation and many others - all American based. All because we choose to give of our success. I challenge anyone to name a country where people voluntarily give more to others than we do.
I have, in the past, called this publication "Popular Scientific American" because of the loss of scientific meat in the articles. Because of the change from scientist writers to science writers. Frankly, I understood that because the publishers are trying to survive in an America where scientific knowledge is fading from the ken of the average citizen. But, please, don't turn this into "Popular Socialist American" as well!
If you don't like SciAm then why are you here commenting or the forums? Sounds kinda stupid to me. Go do something you enjoy instead of deliberately finding things you hate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@evosburgh - Your life story mirrors mine except that you have more education than I do. What you are missing that completely destroys your point is that employers make a profit off of the work of their employees. The typical Fortune 500 company generates about $600,000 in revenue from each employee. A lot of that goes back into operating expenses and materials but a fairly big chunk goes to profit. This is exploitation. The employee starting out with nothing has no way to make a decent living so they must choose exploitation or starvation. Many of them are in situations where they have no option of college based on location and income. High unemployment areas don't have abundant jobs just laying around. Small population centers are frequently far from both jobs and colleges. Relocating to a strange city when you have no job, money or place to stay is a high risk option that quite frequently fails to pay off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps if workers were paid an equitable share of the value of their work we would have far fewer poor and the ultra-rich would be less rich and far less widely hated. You say the constitution doesn't support people getting an equitable share of what others produce but that is exactly what the wealthy do. This makes them enemies of American and violators of the constitution.
We know that extreme socialism destroys motivation and leads to stagnation but so does extreme exploitation. All most people want is reasonable limits to how much they are exploited. This country was founded on the premise that there is no "noble/royal" class of person and that people should rise based on merit. Inherited wealth and silly tax breaks for the rich completely violates that concept.
Add in the frequent failure of the various levels of the govt. to prosecute the many blatant incidents of fraud, particularly by elected officials and large campaign donors and you get a severe problem.
Funny that you choose a liberal charity funded primarily by ultra-rich liberals as your example of how liberals are wrong. Did you know that this study parallels a study written about in this same magazine a couple of months ago where people of higher incomes and/or more prestigious jobs were more likely to commit crimes and endanger others because they thought they were better than the law?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocialism gave us the highways, schools, flood control and a variety of things that you apparently hate. Abraham Lincoln was the most Socialist president in the history of America, going so far as to violate the constitution to preserve the union and eliminate slavery. These are 2 very Socialist ideals. Funny that he was Republican.
1. I guess I should have thrown in the Mormans & Evangelical Churches as well. My point was that, liberal or conservative, Americans are generous givers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. I did not read the article on who was more likely to commit crimes but I'd be willing to guess that the study did not compare the 'people who have higher incomes' against East LA gang memebers (lower income and less prestigious 'jobs') on who were more likely to commit crimes & endanger others. Look, my beef with this junk science (my definition) which comes out with results which seem designed to further political points of view rather than move understanding forward.
3. I feel that you are confusing Socialism with collective action on common issues (for example some defined in our Constitution - not very much a socialist document). Even (most) Libertarians agree that highways, schools etc. are necessary functions of a govt. I'd hardly call them Socialists based on those beilefs.
I'm having a hard time here with the ideas of the more liberal members of our society who extol the virtues of self esteem and 'you can be what you want' in our children but excoriate the ideals of American Exceptionalism (self esteem on a national level) and the critical importance of choice in making your way to a happy life (how can you be what you want if you don't make choices to get there?).
I'm confused and disheartened as the ability to raise questions about these issues leads to bombast and exageration rather than scientific / rational debate. Especially here in an SA forum.
Imagine what we could do if politicians 'chose' to not start a war costing TRILLIONS of dollars so their buddies would get no-bid contracts and line their pockets with the country's wealth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine what we could do if jobs weren't sent overseas.
Imagine what we could do if we had healthcare (without the insurance industry taking a HUGE cut) for those people who can't possibly 'choose' to go to school because of health reasons. If there were decent health care Big Business would not be sending jobs overseas. As it is now, Big Business is sending what jobs they can overseas and hiring *independent contractors* stateside so they don't have to pay them decent wages or healthcare costs and retirement costs.
When the "haves" insist they need more and more money and exploit the poor, THEY ARE violating the rights to others' life, liberty and happiness.
And it has always been this way in this country. from. day. one.
This fact is even stated point-blank in the Declaration of Independence. Forth paragraph up from the bottom ... there is a line there, that shows without doubt, that violating others' rights was absolutely the mind-set of the "Founding Fathers."
here:
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the INHABITANTS of OUR FRONTIERS, the MERCILESS INDIAN SAVAGES, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
WHOSE frontiers were being inhabited by "savages"? What? Did the "Founding Fathers" expect the Native Americans to just move over and not try to defend their land?
Look at who have been fighting terrorists since 1492.
http://www.cafepress.com/shovelbums/630201
And let's not forget an entire race of people shipped over here in chains as slaves. Weren't they deprived of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Let's hope your job is not one that can be sent overseas or that can be taken from you before you get a chance to retire.
gail ra,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your post # 13 you said: "There is no such thing as *choice* in a world inundated with advertisement and run by corporations - especially when the so-called 'choices' are limited by these corporations. We are limited by what big business wants to sell us and what they make available to us."
In the post I think you were replying to (#15), evosburgh filled his/her post with "I chose to"'s with accomplishments.
This really illistrates what I was trying to say in my post about there are those who feel they have a choice in the direction of their lives versus those who will always remain helpless 'victims of circumstance'.
Thanks.
In the triage which is charity giving, wherein noone has enough to give to all of lessor resources, choices as to where it will be of best use have to be made. I believe that 'Choicers' are not less giving, but rather they feel giving will be best used by other 'Choicers' rather than 'Victims'; just as a battlefield medic will treat those best able to survive due to their help rather than all wounded.
The real issue to be debated, as I see it, is the morality of such actions not the question of the generosity of 'Choicers'.
The article as written is suggestive, but not conclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe criticisms in the comments section are questioning the methodology, so the article should have, in my opinion, more of the methodology written into the article itself.
I would like to see a study where the same people, or people who've scored relatively the same on some measure of political stance, are scored twice, once after experiencing a display of choice, and once without. This would help make the distinction between a cultural or a psychological phenomenon.