Penn Arts & Sciences Magazine: Democracy May Be Less Deliberative Than You Think

Eighteenth-century philosopher Adam Smith referred to individual self-interest as the “invisible hand” of the market. Robert Kurzban, professor of psychology and departmental director of undergraduate studies, and senior researcher Jason Weeden believe that the same impulse has a significant influence on political decisions made by individuals and groups.

Their new book, The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind: How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions and Why We Won’t Admit It, challenges the popular perception that one’s own beliefs emanate altruism and opposing positions are self-serving. Kurzban and Weeden contend that neither premise is accurate.

Building on their earlier collaborative work examining how socio-economic status and lifestyle choices predict political views across a variety of domains, the authors conclude that race and ethnicity account for the greatest divergence in contemporary American voting patterns. They also examine how such factors as religiosity, lifestyle, sexual orientation, education, and income divide voters on potentially polarizing issue like abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, legalization of marijuana, and income redistribution.

“Although self-interest may not be a variable in domains distant from everyday concerns, it is otherwise a much bigger explanatory factor than many people realize,” says Kurzban, who is also founder and co-director of the Pennsylvania Laboratory for Experimental Evolutionary Psychology (PLEEP), where Weeden is based. “There is often a strategic element to what people want, but decisions based on self-interest can benefit others. I think our work has the potential to discourage people from dismissing self-interest as readily as has often been the case.”

“Conscious explanations have a lot less to do with political decisions that you might think,” says Weeden. “Most people, most of the time, take positions that are pretty convenient. In general politics, people care more about defending their own positions than about making unbiased observations.”

While acknowledging that their conclusions may be perceived as pessimistic, Kurzban and Weeden provide valuable insight into reasons for the ideological divisions and demographic splits that characterize contemporary American politics.

Noting that data illustrate that individuals do not invariably agree with groups with which they identify, Weeden says, “We didn’t use “liberal” or “conservative” as generic labels, because most people are issue-oriented. What was really important to us was trying to talk about politics in terms of what is at stake. People tend to care more about defending their own positions than about taking in the big picture. As voters, we get caught up in abstract arguments and forget that political decisions affect real people, real lives. Our book focuses attention on that.”

Kurzban concurs that the book’s arguments can be applied across the political spectrum. “Our arguments apply as much to the Left as to the Right,” he notes. “Positions adopted by either side are not necessarily driven by purely ideological motives, but by protecting and advancing the interests of people like themselves.

“Self-interested actions sometimes benefit others, and we hope the book will cause scholars and educated lay-people to entertain the notion that self-interest can have some effect on political views.”