The (Political) Organism is Always Right #5: To Vote or Not To Vote

CEO & Founder, Dr. Natalie Inc. (Natalie@DrNatalieInc.com)

PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS SERIES

In the United States, every four years in November, we elect a President. This year, as November approaches, political discussions and campaign advertisements are flooding our daily lives. Text messages, emails, and social media timelines are inundated with politicians vying for our votes. Yard signs, bumper stickers, billboards, and t-shirts are everywhere to remind us who someone thinks we should vote for.

But how effective are these political campaigns? As behavior analysts, we possess the tools to answer such questions, yet we often shy away from examining these complex behaviors.

The Puzzle of Voter Non-Participation

One intriguing question is: What motivates typically non-participating individuals to cast their vote? While the answer isn’t simple, it likely involves a delicate balance of positive and negative reinforcement, combined with establishing operations that transform abstention into action.

Consider the case of two young adults in their early 20s who initially declared they wouldn’t vote. Their reasons included practical concerns (time off work, locating polling places) to a sense of civic responsibility to vote only when well-informed (though they made no effort to educate themselves further). When pressed by older, politically engaged adults, these young voters eventually agreed to participate. But was this truly a victory for civic engagement?

The Role of Reinforcement in Voting Behavior

Negative Reinforcement: A Short-Term Solution?

In the case above, negative reinforcement likely played a significant role. The young adults may have voted to escape the social pressure and disapproval from their elders. However, we know that when the aversive stimulus (in this case, social pressure) is removed, the behavior (voting) is likely to cease as well.

Negative reinforcement may also play a role in younger voters not voting; however. A poll of Millennial and Generation Z potential voters showed they were less likely to vote in 2024 than in the 2020 election. Additionally, 69% of these young adults who planned to vote stated they were doing so more in opposition to former President Donald Trump than they were voting for his opponent. This is another example of how negative reinforcement (avoidance of former President Trump) maintaining voting. Once the threat of a President you oppose is removed, it may be likely you will not vote again in the future until there is another threat.

Negative reinforcement also plays a role in the choice to not vote. A poll conducted in March 2024 found that about one third of Americans reported feeling anxious, stressed, nervous and/or angry on all or most of the previous 30 days when thinking about the upcoming presidential election. Only about one-fifth of those polled reported feeling happy and/or excited about the election. Unfortunately, many Americans who have reported negative feelings and emotions regarding the election are also stating they will not vote in the upcoming election.

In summary, voting could be at least partially maintained by negative reinforcement, but if the goal is to increase one’s voting behavior long term, this is not ideal. Alternately, negative reinforcement may be a strong contingency during election season, when there is so much negativity associated with the political process. While the negativity may be short lived, it is almost guaranteed to occur during the political season, meaning that escape from it or avoidance of it altogether may be a strong reinforcer. Maybe politicians should invest in learning how to attract people rather than drive them away from the “worser” candidate.

Positive Reinforcement: The “I Voted” Effect

On election day, we witness various forms of positive reinforcement:

“I voted” stickers
Social media posts and the resulting likes and comments
A sense of civic pride and accomplishment (which is likely an internal feeling created by an internal rule)

While these outcomes likely promote the act of voting, they only indirectly influence future voting behavior at best. It should also be noted that none of this occurs if we can’t get people to vote in the first place!

The Harvard Youth Poll (2023) found that two-thirds of young adults who plan to vote received specific high school education focused on the importance of their votes. Only about one-third reported their high school education taught them important voting deadlines, how to candidates and ballot issues, and how to request and submit ballots, and less than half were educated on how to register to vote. It may be beneficial to invest more time and resources into educating our youth on the voting process, and to increase reinforcement for voting-relevant experiences during K-12 education. For example, voting for Class President or in mock elections that mimic the larger civic process may both increase student knowledge of the voting process and reinforce election engagement generally, with positive spillover effects once those students reach the voting age of 18.

Extinction: My Vote Doesn’t Count

We can’t focus on voting and reinforcement without also recognizing that a lot of voting behavior goes without reinforcement. In other words, it is extinguished. In a recent poll a majority of non-voters (53%) reported that the President in office does not change much of anything. Thus, from their prrspecctive it matters not whether they vote or who they vote for.

Interestingly, as behavior analysts, we know that the actual act of voting has very little to do with the ultimate outcome of who becomes president. Culturally, it does, but individually, the behaviors of voting or abstaining from voting are directly related to the immediate contingencies in place. It would be interesting to trace the contingency of one thinking “my vote doesn’t count” or “nothing will change anyway.” We cannot discount the power of our own thoughts and the rules we create that govern our behavior outside of other contingencies.

The Sweet Spot: Combining Motivational Factors

To truly increase voter turnout, we need to find the right combination of motivational factors:

Positive reinforcement for the act of voting
Negative reinforcement in the form of social disapproval for not voting
Establishing operations that increase the value of voting

Interestingly, the candidates themselves play a crucial role in voter motivation. High turnout elections often feature:

A candidate that voters are excited about
A candidate that voters want to prevent from winning

When both of these factors are present, we see stronger establishing operations (EOs) in place. If one candidate signals reinforcement and the other signals punishment, there’s a dual EO that increases voter participation.

This “sweet spot” theory might explain why some elections see hours-long lines at polling places, while others have virtually no wait times. When candidates are significantly different from one another, it becomes difficult for voters to remain indifferent or unopposed to either option.

In contrast, past elections with more similar candidates or less polarizing figures may have had weaker EOs, allowing other factors (like convenience or apathy) to have a larger influence on voting behavior.

A Call to Action for Behavior Analysts

While this analysis doesn’t provide a definitive solution to increasing voter participation, it highlights the types of conversations behavior analysts should be having if we truly want to effect change in the world.

As experts in human behavior, we should:

Engage more deeply with complex social behaviors like voting
Analyze the various environmental variables influencing these behaviors
Develop strategies to create positive impacts on a larger scale
Determine if K-12 programs focused on increasing voting behavior have long-term impacts on voting

By applying our understanding of behavioral principles to civic engagement, we can contribute to a more informed and participatory democracy.

Conclusion

The psychology of voting behavior is complex, involving a delicate interplay of reinforcement, social pressure, and candidate dynamics. As we approach future elections, let’s continue to explore these factors and work towards creating a political environment that encourages widespread, informed participation.

By understanding the behavioral mechanisms at play, we can develop more effective strategies to engage citizens in the democratic process – not just as a one-time event, but as a lifelong commitment to civic responsibility.

Postscript: “I don’t like any of them. I’m not voting.”

This short video offers some thoughts on using verbal framing to manipulate the motivating operations for voting.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply