STEVE INSKEEP, host:
We talk of the debt ceiling debate in terms of numbers, but it's really about people; how people persuade one another, how they behave around a conference table.
There's a lot of psychology involved and NPR's Shankar Vedantam has been following that side of the story.
INSKEEP: Good morning.
SHANKAR VEDANTAM: Good morning, Steve.
INSKEEP: When you talk to experts, do they think this debt ceiling process is set up is set up in such a way to encourage good decision-making?
VEDANTAM: Well, I think psychologists have two key insights to share with all of us about the debt ceiling debate. The first comes from Richard Thaler at the University of Chicago.
Professor RICHARD THALER (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago): Congress would be better off dancing the hokey-pokey than debating the debt limit.
INSKEEP: Thats what it's all about.
(Soundbite of laughter)
VEDANTAM: Put your right foot in. Put your right foot out.
INSKEEP: Oh, my goodness.
VEDANTAM: So what the Richard Thaler argues is that we tend to make much better decisions when we are deciding things about our future selves, rather than our present selves. And so when the dessert tray rolls around, it's very hard to resist, you know, taking the desert. But if I were to ask you can you give up an ice cream a year from now, it's pretty easy to do that. Right?
INSKEEP: Well, it's easy to promise to do that, I suppose.
(Soundbite of laughter)
VEDANTAM: Well, I think Thaler's point is that when you're trying to make big and important decisions, it's much better to be making big and important decisions about things that are happening two years away or three years away, rather than things that are happening right now.
INSKEEP: Are you saying that there's something inherently dangerous about having this debt ceiling debate it's last minute, we're being warned of possible catastrophe, and yet the debate is really the long-term debate here, is about how America is spending money a year from now, five and ten years from now.
VEDANTAM: You got it. Now the reason we're using the debt ceiling debate as a way to have that larger conversation, is because the debt ceiling debate gives us a deadline. The problem is that it's the kind of deadline that if we blow it, we bring down collective catastrophe on all of us. Now there are things that might actually be much better ways to organize the kind of incentives that could get legislators to act quickly.
Mr. THALER: Well, if the budget isn't reduced, Congress isn't paid anymore. Worse yet, suppose they lose their parking spots. All of the sudden you're going to see all kinds of self control adopted.
INSKEEP: Wait a minute. Is he serious about that, that a privileged parking spot, the threat of losing that might cause a lawmaker to focus their minds in a different way?
VEDANTAM: You know, in the interview that I had with him, he said if there's one thing to take away today, it's about the parking spots, because I'm dead serious about it. And his point really is that because we're so focused on the present, we're disproportionately biased to focus on present temptations. If you link a balanced budget to parking spots, you're much more likely to get action than if you focus on much grander things.
INSKEEP: OK. There's also the matter of round-the-clock negotiations, because time is so short. Is that conducive to good decision making?
VEDANTAM: Well, we often think that the people who sit around the table, all they're bringing to the table are their political views, their ideologies, their party loyalties and so on. But they're also guys. I mean literally the people who sit around a lot of these negotiating tables are guys. The sex ratio of the people in a given place plays a huge role in how those people behave and how they negotiate with one another.
INSKEEP: Meaning that men negotiate differently than women and a group of men will negotiate differently than a group of men and women?
VEDANTAM: Well, I think it really comes down to how many men and how many women there are in a given space. I had a chat with Vladas Griskevicius who was a psychologist at University of Minnesota, and here's what he had to say.
Mr. VLADAS GRISKEVICIUS (Psychologist, University of Minnesota): Any places where there are more men than women, the men are becoming more aggressive with each other and they're competing with each other to attract women.
INSKEEP: OK. We're talking in general terms here. We're not making any allegations about any particular lawmaker.
VEDANTAM: We're not suggesting that Barack Obama and John Boehner are trying to catch Nancy Pelosi's eye. But what Griskevicius has found is that if you look at consumer spending in different places - so he looked at two cities in Georgia for example, Macon and Columbus, one of those cities has a consumer level debt that is $3,500 more than the other. Now these are comparable cities with about the same kinds of economy. One of those cities also has a lot more men and one of them has a lot more women. Now which would you guess is the city that has more consumer debt?
INSKEEP: Im sorry, are you going to tell me that the city where men would have a harder time finding a woman, they're more likely to spend more than they have?
VEDANTAM: That is exactly what I'm trying to tell you. In an experiments when men feel there are lots of other men around, they tend to pose more, they tend to talk tough, they become shortsighted, they take bigger bets. Any of that sound familiar?
INSKEEP: You're talking about unconscious psychology. Do you see evidence of people consciously using psychology in these debt negotiations as well?
VEDANTAM: I think the difference between what's conscious and unconscious, is that we generally know that Congress is playing games of chicken with one another. What they're not aware of are these underlying dynamics that are affecting the outcomes without anyone being aware of it.
INSKEEP: NPR's Shankar Vedantam, thanks very much.
VEDANTAM: Thanks, Steve.
(Soundbite of music)
INSKEEP: It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.