Three to ten percent of recently polled voters are undecided. Some have made a choice but want privacy (or attention?); others don't intend to vote, but won't admit it. These are votes (or non-votes) already in the bag. More interesting, at least to me, are those voters who can't make up their minds because they are politically unaligned, intellectually unable to evaluate candidates' positions, or temperamentally indecisive. These are voters who could still go either way, but how will they ever make up their minds?
In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell posits that we "blink" when we think without thinking. Using "thin slices" of information, we are able to make surprisingly accurate judgments about complex situations. One amazing example: Ratings of teachers by students shown three 10-second soundless videotapes of a lecture matched teacher ratings from students taking the course for an entire semester.
Undecided voters may be in a Blink scenario. Given "thin slices" of information about the candidates, they are being asked to make a complex decision that could determine who is elected President on November 4th.
Follow me below the fold for one way these voters might already be "blinking" their way to a choice.
I thought about Blink when undecided-voter reactions to the third debate tilted so strongly to Obama. I had scored the debate as many pundits did immediately afterward: McCain was assertive, effective, made up ground. But as a relatively high-information (read: obsessed) voter, I focused on content. I kept thinking of all the points Obama could have made.
Now consider the undecided average- or low-information voter. Not obsessed enough to try to make sense of the economic meltdown and proposed fixes, and lacking a philosophical framework or political affiliation in which to place current affairs, this voter is left looking for another guide.
I nominate The Face.
In the 1960's and '70's, psychologist Paul Ekman explored the primacy of the face in human interaction in cross cultural studies of facial expressions of emotion. Gladwell writes about a time when Ekman asked his friend Silvan Tomkins to assess the characteristics of two tribal groups based only on footage of facial closeups with all context removed.
At the end,[Tomkins] went up to the screen and pointed to the faces of the South Fore. "These are a sweet, gentle people, very indulgent, very peaceful," he said. Then he pointed to the faces of the Kukukuku. "This other group is violent...." Even today...Ekman cannot get over what Tomkins did. "My God! Silvan, how on earth are you doing that?" Ekman recalls [saying]. "[Tomkins] went up to the screen and, while we played the film backward, in slow motion, he pointed out the particular bulges and wrinkles in the face that he was using to make his judgment. That's when I realized, 'I've got to unpack the face.' It was a gold mine of information that everyone had ignored. This guy could see it, and if he could see it, maybe everyone else could, too."
Link to Gladwell site
Now think about televised coverage of the debate, much of it focused on the face. Obama's respectful, unlined countenance -- with the hint of a smile, brows up, no furrow, earnest eye contact -- stands in such stark contrast to McCain's eye rolls, scowls, compressed jaw, gaze avoidance.
The effect of these facial expressions is cumulative and subliminal. Research inspired by Ekman & Friesen documents the mechanism by which the facial expressions of emotions instigate parallel facial expressions AND feelings in others, via a largely unconscious process. Thus, we look at Obama's relaxed face (South Fore) and not only understand intellectually that he is calm, but also feel calmer ourselves. We look at McCain's clenched jaw (Kukukuku), and we feel tense. It may be just that simple.
I am grateful that Barack Obama had a contented childhood and a loving family, because I think it gave him the extraordinary gift of a happy face. I believe that face will bring the undecided voters home and clinch the deal.