Sarah Palin was not chosen as a decoy to distract the media, or a decoy to deflect shots at McCain (although both are bonuses for the old man). Sarah Palin is a decoy in the propagandist's, the social psychologist's and the marketer's sense of the word.
In the battle of contrasts, McCain was clearly behind. Any contrast made, be it on issues, age, ideals, momentum, appeal - even if the contrast was made by McCain himself - it only served to make John McCain look more like Bush. There was only one contrast where McCain had an edge: experience. But it wasn't resonating strongly enough with the swing voters to overshadow all the others.
The McCain Camp's Solution: Introduce Sarah Palin as a pseudo-alternative Decoy, inferior to the other candidates, to contrast John McCain's experience over Barack Obama.
From "Age Of Propaganda" By Anthony Pratkanis, Elliot Aronson
We can clarify the process by looking at an experiment we conducted with our colleagues Peter Farquhar, Sarah Silbert, and Jennifer Hearst. In our study, students were asked to make decisions such as the following:
Which would you select (a or b)?
a. Nutri-burger: a tofu burger that is very good on nutrition but only average on taste
b. Tasti-burger: a hamburger that is very good on taste but only average on nutrition.
Or, in our case...
a. Barack Obama: a candidate that is very popular on most issues but not as strong on experience
b. John McCain: a candidate that is strong on experience but weaker on most issues.
For some decisions, a decoy was given as an additional option. A decoy is an alternative that is inferior to other possible selections. For example:
Which would you prefer (a, b, or c)?
a. Nutri-burger: the tofu burger described above
b. Tasti-burger: the hamburger described above
c. Bummer-burger: a hamburger that is only good on taste and only average on nutrition.
Or...
a. Barack Obama: a candidate that is very popular on most issues but not as strong on experience
b. John McCain: a candidate that is strong on experience but weaker on most issues.
c. Sarah Palin: a candidate that is potentially popular on some issues but also not as strong on experience
In this case, the decoy is option c - the hamburger that is only good on taste (as opposed to very good). No reasonable person would select this inferior burger. If you wanted a lunch that tasted great, you would select option b, the very-good-tasting Tasti-burger. If you wanted nutrition, you wold go for the Nutri-burger. Indeed, in our study the decoy was almost never selected.
But that doesn't mean that its presence as an option wasn't influential. Our study investigated decisions about nine common consumer products; we found out that, on average, including a decoy increased the popularity of the people's selecting the products that were similar but superior to the decoy, such as the Tasti-burger over the Nutri-burger, by 6.7%. Does 6.7% seem like a small amount? To put this in perspective, a 1% change in market share for a small brand manufactured by a company like Procter & Gamble or General Motors could mean an annual increase in sales of more than $10 million. In short, extrapolating into the real world, our decoys might have produced a $67-million effect!
How did this relatively worthless decoy change our students' choices? The answer in a nutshell: contrast effects. To contrast means to make differences apparent. When an object is contrasted with something similar but not as good, or not as pretty, or not as tall, it is judged to be better, prettier, taller than would normally be the case.
"But McCain and Palin are on the same side", you may be thinking. Or, "She's not the one running for president."
I would argue this two ways. First, she very well could become president and therefore will (and should) be compared with everyone in the race; and second, the P.T. Barnum-esque quality of the pick, coupled with the surprise and rushed timing of the announcement, (and a big boost from the media) propelled her to such a level of awareness in such a short period of time that, for several news cycles, the one question on all the critics' minds was, "What is McCain thinking, this woman has no experience." And that was precisely the point of the decoy.
In our study on consumer decision making, two contrast effects occurred that made the Tasti-burger look more attractive. The presence of a decoy made the very-good-tasting Tasti-burger appear to be even better-tasting and the average-tasting Nutri-burger to be even worse-tasting. In other words, the decoy "spread apart" the Tasti- and Nutri-burgers on the dimension of taste. With this change in the perception of tastiness, the choice became much clearer for our subjects.
Sarah Palin "spread apart" Obama and Mccain on the only issue where McCain had an edge. And in so doing, quelled the contrasts on everything else.
The lesson to be learned from research on decoys is that context makes a difference. Judgement is relative, not absolute. Depending on the context, objects and alternatives can be made to look better or worse. Often we do not pay much attention to the influence of context, much less question the validity of the alternatives presented. This greatly enhances the power of "context-makers," such as politicians, advertisers, journalists, and sales agents. The context they set can pre-persuade us by influencing our perceptions and judgments; we are thus lulled into decisions what we would not normally make.
While I strongly believe Obama should immediately go on the offensive (for many other reasons), this tactic alone will not suffice. The Obama Campaign has no choice other than to re-contextualize this race.
Bring back Joe Biden! He's been conspicuously absent for the last few cycles. He needs to make an impact, throw a little caution to the wind - he certainly knows how to get the media's attention. The two republicans/one democrat trio is not working for Obama at all.
Keep attacking the tactics of the McCain campaign. Keep comparing them with Bush's tactics. The Bush campaign that lied and smeared to get elected certainly didn't stop lying and smearing once they got elected. While "rough politics" may be a given, Americans should be reminded of what happened the last time we voted for someone on the basis of, "which one would I rather have a beer with".
I will also echo what many in the blogosphere have said: Do not acknowledge Sarah Palin's narrative, instead make her part of John McCain's narrative. In other words, don't attack Sarah Palin directly.
Don't make Sarah Palin's experience an issue. Take experience out of the contextual debate completely and go after Palin's Republican business-as usual-record.
"McCain says he's against pork barrel projects, so why did he choose the biggest recipient of pork barrel projects in the country as his running mate?" etc.
And finally, we must assume that John McCain is sincere and honest about putting "Country First". But it does beg the question:
"Mr. McCain, of all the great and distinguished public servants in this country, many of whom you have met and worked with, consider your personal friends, advisers and confidantes, please tell us why you think Sarah Palin, who you only met once before offering her the job, is the most qualified person in America to succeed you as President of the United States."
In the meantime, we all need to do what we can. If you don't know 20 people personally who are voting for Obama, you're not working hard enough.