(Forbes) -- In 2015, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for U.S. president, he quickly became a serious contender, beating out politicians with years of political experience such as Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. It was a turn that surprised many, given that he had no military experience and an extremely polarizing political platform.
Despite his inexperience, Trump beat out Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton in the majority of states, the voters swayed by his promise to create jobs and bolster the economy.
Last month, in anticipation of the 2020 election, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz tweeted that he was “seriously considering” running for president as an independent candidate.
His qualifications? Like Trump, he has few that would render him fit for the US presidency – except for being a natural born citizen with enough money to launch a national campaign.
The fact that news outlets were so quick to cover Schultz implies that his tweets have some credibility. But instant credibility of someone with no political experience is a curious thing. Why are voters and media outlets so quick to believe and trust rich people – particularly wealthy, white men?
“There are three well-known cognitive biases that come into play in situations like this,” said Dr. Peggy Sue Loroz, consumer psychologist and professor of marketing at Gonzaga University. The first, she explained, is called the “halo effect.” In other words, when we see a person with one positive quality we tend to attribute other (often unrelated) positive qualities to them as well. “When we have limited information about a person, our brains try to fill in the blanks quickly and make sense of a situation,” Loroz said.
Success can be like that, too, said Loroz: “If we know someone's successful, we might also assume they must be intelligent, fair-minded, and politically savvy. We know one positive thing about them, so others must also carry over.”
The second cognitive bias is called the mere-exposure effect, a phenomenon where people develop preference for things only because they are familiar.
“Schultz or Trump, they're more known to us than other political candidates might be,” Loroz said. “Our brain doesn't do the hard work of evaluating experience and being careful in our judgement of others. Our brains just say, well, I know this person and I just feel more comfortable.”
The mere-exposure effect might also explain why actress and media mogul Oprah Winfrey is so implicitly trusted, too – and why her Book Club and Favorite Things recommendations consistently sell like hotcakes, thanks to her influence. Loroz said: “With Oprah, she's a wealthy person and that might influence our perceptions of her from a halo standpoint. But we're also very familiar with her because she comes into fans homes every day. We feel like we have a real connection with her.”
The third bias people have is called the fundamental attribution error. In looking at a person's success, consumers tend to discount situational factors that led to that person's success and attribute it all to the person himself.
Donald Trump was born into a wealthy family and gifted some of that wealth in order to start his first business – but thanks to the fundamental attribution error, people attribute his wealth to being innately intelligent and savvy alone.
What's worse: Not only do consumers tend to think that rich people are inherently more trustworthy due to the “halo effect” and other cognitive biases, but that the opposite is also true. Nicknamed the “horn effect,” people tend to clump together and amplify a person's perceived negative traits as well.
One study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, found that people were more likely to trust others who they considered conventionally attractive, and less likely to trust those they thought were ugly. Research also shows that “unattractive defendants” get longer, harsher sentences than conventionally attractive criminals.
Fortunately, our cognitive biases don't completely run the show, according to Loroz: If consumers are highly motivated, with time to evaluate decisions carefully – whether they're in the voting booth or in the supermarket – celebrity endorsement or influence is less likely to factor into their choice. But people making lower-risk decisions, or decisions they're not personally invested in, might use “the credibility or attractiveness of a celebrity endorsement as a shortcut for really carefully considering information,” Loroz said.
From book club recommendations to presidential platforms, it seems our brain is constantly trying to trick us into following the lead of rich people, regardless of what they're selling. The solution?
Take your time before you make a decision, do your research, and be careful who you trust.
