19 Sep “No” vote for Scottish Independence shows the power of instinctive bias

As a company with 2 émigré Scots amongst the founders, we’ve been following events north of the Border with a keen interest – especially as the electoral rules meant we weren’t able to vote.

Deep down, we always knew “No” was the most likely outcome, through our knowledge about people’s mental biases and here’s why:

1) Status quo bias and Risk aversion – we’re all hugely biased in favour of the status quo, and to avoid risk. That’s why the “No” campaign ceaselessly talked about the step into the unknown and the risks of independence (to pensions, jobs, security). And why the question of the currency mattered so much.  Securing a majority “yes” vote against that backdrop would have required a hugely powerful countervailing force. Talking up the magnitude of the choice also helped to heighten the  perceived risk of making the “wrong” decision – and the safe thing to do in those circumstances is to stick with the status quo.

2) Language is really important in framing people’s responses – The question that was asked “Should Scotland be an Independent country” was arrived at as a substitute for the original proposed by the Scottish Government – “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country”. The latter more naturally leads to a “yes” answer – it’s easier to agree than disagree, particularly as “independence” in general sounds like a good thing. So the change in the wording (rightly) made it harder to unconsciously vote “yes”. We can also see the power of language when we look at the way in which the Better Together kept referring to “separation” (sounds like a bad thing, like divorce) rather than “independence” (clearly a good thing, like freedom).

3) Social norming is hugely important – Any recent visitor to Scotland can’t help but be impressed with the mushrooming of “yes” and “no” banners in windows, gardens, fields – proclaiming the allegiance of the residents.  This visible sign of widespread engagement in turn has produced the strongest voter turnout since 1951 – because “people like me” are engaged in the debate and going to vote, so I should too. Interestingly enough, turnout in Glasgow (one of the few  clear “yes” votes) was 75%, 10 points behind the average for the whole country, and the same is true for Dundee – another “yes” with a 78% turnout.  So perhaps the large turnout favoured the “better together” campaign and the status quo in the end. The larger the voting body the larger the natural bias held sway.

This is not just our “hindsight bias” talking. We can also strongly endorse those commentators who say that this was still a vote for change – the fact that almost 45% of the people in Scotland were willing to vote “yes” yesterday despite the manifest risks and uncertainties is a clear indication of the degree of dislocation and depth of feeling across the nation.  Let’s hope that this is now harnessed into a new era of political engagement across the whole of the UK, and a considered discussion about the kind of society we all want to build – together!