December 11, 2000:
New Research Explains Dilemma in 2000 Presidential Election

A Ph.D. study carried out by Dr. Alison Brause has shown that the ability of presidential candidates to handle level of complexity is a powerful factor in determining which candidate wins in presidential elections. The study analyzed the information processing complexity of the candidates in eight elections. In seven such elections the candidate with the highest level of complexity won; in the eighth case, the candidates were spot on equal, and that case was the current election!

The ability to handle complexity shows clearly when people are heavily engrossed in argument, as in the case of candidates engrossed in debate or in responding to intensive interviewing. It is observable by listening not to the content of a person's argument, but by the complexity of the process the person uses in organizing the information used in the argument.

The findings were obtained by an analysis of records of debates and unprepared interviews in the following campaigns: Lincoln manifested higher complexity than Douglas; Kennedy than Nixon; Carter than Ford; Reagan than Carter; Bush than Dukakis; Clinton than Bush; and Clinton than Dole. Then in the current election, George W. Bush and Al Gore came out dead even.

The evidence is strong that when people listen to others who are engrossed in argument, they intuitively and accurately judge who is able to use the more complex information processes. This intuitive judgement showed in the general response to the Vice Presidential debate, in which commentators, political cartoonists and members of the public, all had the sense that Cheney and Lieberman were somehow "bigger" than their running mates. In fact, they both displayed processing at higher levels of complexity than the two presidential candidates.

The method of observing complexity that was used in the study was developed by Dr. Elliott Jaques, M.D., Ph.D., F.R.C.P., Visiting Research Professor at George Washington University, and Kathryn Cason, President of the Requisite Organization International Institute. Dr. Alison Brause's research was carried out under the supervision of Professor Oscar Mink at the University of Texas.

Background Summary

In a presidential election, what makes the winner a winner? How do people decide whom to vote for? In presidential elections there are people who always vote issues. No matter who the candidates are, the issues are more important. Therefore the candidate who espouses their position on the issues is the one they vote for. This is the basis for the two party system. And each political party has a core of followers based on that party's position on the issues.

Also in presidential elections there are people who vote for the candidate. They listen and watch until they decide how to vote. Sometimes they vote for one party's candidate and sometimes the other party's candidate. These initially "undecided" voters somehow find a way to discriminate between the two candidates. They have heard something or see something that makes them become "decided" voters.

What do people see and hear and feel that makes them decide to vote for a particular candidate? Or put another way — In a presidential election, what distinguishes one candidate from the other besides party affiliation? One factor would be the policies they argue for. But another possible factor would be that of the experience of hearing how capably they are able to argue their case.

One of the principle functions of a president of the United States is to argue for a particular position on an issue. It seems reasonable then that somehow the "undecided" voters may use their judgement of that ability as a factor that influences their vote. The undecided voter, consciously or unconsciously, feels that one candidate is more capable than the other candidate and is influenced to vote for that candidate.

It was the aim of the present research to study how much if any influence this factor of capability had in influencing the election of U.S. Presidents. One way of looking at how capably a person argues a position is to look at the complexity that he/she uses in the argument. Elliott Jaques and Kathryn Cason have developed a model for this process which is called the Complexity of Mental Processing. Their definition of Complexity of Mental Processing is stated below.

"The maximum scale and complexity of the world that you are able to pattern and construct and function in, including the amount and complexity of information that must be processed in doing so." (Jaques, Cason 1996)

In their studies, Jaques and Cason found that there were only four ways in which we process information when engrossed in argument. Going from the least complex to the most complex, these methods are:

Declarative (or, or):

I think that so and so could be true because of this, or this, or this other reason.

 

Cumulative (and, and):

I think that so and so is true because of this, and this, and this other reason taken together.

 

Serial (If then):

I think that so and so is true because if we do it, it will lead to X, and that will then lead to Y, and that will then cause Z.

 

Parallel (If, and only if):

I know that if we do X it will lead to Y, and then to Z but we have to consider that if we do not do X but rather do A, that will lead to B, and then to C. So we have to consider both possibilities and relate them.

The maximum complexity used in arguments by the candidates was determined by analyzing transcripts of their spontaneous and engrossed arguments in terms of the maximum complexity of process they used.

Copyright © December 2000, Cason & Co., Ltd, Requisite Organization International Institute. All rights reserved.

For further information concerning Dr. Brause's research contact:

Kathryn Cason:
Email: kcason@requisite.org
Tel: 410-837-3429
 

Alison Brause:
Email: abrause@requisite.org
Tel: 410-837-3429
 

Back to top

Dr. Alison Brause

For a detailed summary of her research, click here.  This file is a Microsoft Word Document.