Public Choice

, Volume 124, Issue 3–4, pp 437–451 | Cite as

Self-deception as the root of political failure

Article

Abstract

I consider models of political failure based on self-deception. Individuals discard free information when that information damages their self-image and thus lowers their utility. More specifically, individuals prefer to feel good about their previously chosen affiliations and shape their worldviews accordingly. This model helps explain the relative robustness of political failure in light of extensive free information, and it helps explain the rarity of truth-seeking behavior in political debate. The comparative statics predictions differ from models of either Downsian or expressive voting. For instance, an increased probability of voter decisiveness does not necessarily yield a better result. I also consider political parties as institutions and whether political errors cancel in the aggregate. I find that political failure based on self-deception is very difficult to eliminate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (Spring 1989). The economics of illusion. Economics and Politics, 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
  2. Alloy, L. B. & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 108, 441–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ames, R. T. & Dissanayake, W. (eds. 1996). Self and Deception: A Cross-Cultural Philosophical Enquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle (1996). The politics and the constitution of Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aumann, R. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4(6), 1236–1239.Google Scholar
  6. Brennan, G. & Hamlin, A. (1998). Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice, 95, 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caplan, B. (2001a). Rational ignorance versus rational irrationality. Kyklos, 54, 1, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caplan, B. (2001b). The logic of collective belief. Unpublished manuscript, George Mason University.Google Scholar
  9. Cowen, Tyler & Hanson, R. (2002). Disagreement as evidence of self-deception about meta-rationality, unpublished manuscript, George Mason University.Google Scholar
  10. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  11. Edelman, M. (1967). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  12. Feigenbaum, S. & Levy, D. (1996). The technological obsolescence of scientific fraud. Rationality and Society, 8, 261–276.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, D. (1987). Cold houses in warm climates and vice versa: A paradox of rational heating. Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
  14. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Glazer, A. (1987). A new theory of voting: Why vote when millions of others do? Theory and Decision, 22(3), 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goleman, D. (1985). Vital lies, simple truths: The psychology of self-deception. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  17. Goode, E. (Sunday, March 10, 2002). Finding answers in secret plots. The New York Times, Sunday, WK3.Google Scholar
  18. Klein, D. B. (1994). If government is so villainous, how comes government officials don't seem like villains? Economics and Philosophy, 10, 91–106.Google Scholar
  19. Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (December 1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.Google Scholar
  20. Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Loomes, G. & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, M. W. (1986). Self-deception and morality. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  23. McLaughlin, B. P. & Rorty, A. O. (eds.) (1988). Perspectives on self-deception. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mele, A. R. (2001). Self-deception unmasked. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pears, D. (1984). Motivated irrationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rabin, M. & Schrag, J. (February 1999). First impressions matter: A model of confirmatory bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 37–81.Google Scholar
  27. Sartre, J.-P. (1972). Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schuessler, A. A. (2000). A logic of expressive choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Scott-Kakures, D. (March 1996). Self-deception and internal irrationality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56(1), 31–56.Google Scholar
  30. Sears, D. O. R. R., Lau, Tyler, T. R. & Allen Jr., H. M. (September 1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. The American Political Science Review, 74(3), 670–684.Google Scholar
  31. Sowell, T. (1995). The vision of the anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health, Psychological Bulletin, 103.Google Scholar
  34. Trivers, R. (2000). The elements of a scientific theory of self-deception. In D. LeCroy & P. Moller (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human reproductive behavior, Vol. 907, pp. 114–131, Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  35. Tullock, G. (1989). The economics of special privilege and rent seeking. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure: Why political institutions are efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations