Change and identity

More from Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard by Chip Heath and Dan Heath:

"Rare's success [in the previous chapter the author's told about a conservation organiztion which saved the St. Lucia parrot by creating a sense of identity and responsibility for the parrot in the St. Lucia population] in motivating people in fifty countries suggests that something universal is at work here. Confirmation of that comes from the research of James March, a professor of political science at Stanford University. March says that when people make choices, they tend to rely on one of two basic models of decision making: the consequences model or the identity model. The consequences model is familiar to students of economics. It assumes that when we have a decision to make, we weigh the costs and benefits of our options and make the choice that maximizes our satisfaction. It's a rational, analytical approach. This is the approach that Paul Butler knew would fail with the St. Lucians, because there simply wasn't a strong cost/benefit case for the parrot.

In the identity model of decision making, we essentially ask ourselves three questions when we have a decision to make: Who am I? What kind of situation is this? What would someone like me do in this situation? Notice what's missing: any calculation of costs and benefits. The identity model explains the way most people vote, which contradicts our notion of the 'self-interested voter.' It helps to shed light on why an auto mechanic in Oklahoma would vote against a Democrat who'd give him health insurance, and why a Silicon Valley millionaire would vote against a Republican who'd cut her taxes.

Generally, when we use the word identity, we're talking about an immutable trait of some kind -- such as racial, ethnic, or regional identity. But that's a relatively narrow use of the term. We're not just born with an identity; we adopt identities throughout our lives. We aspire to be good mothers or fathers, devout Catholics or Muslims, patriotic citizens, and so on.

Or consider a professional identity, such as being a 'scientist.' Clearly, you're not born a scientist. It's an identity you seek out and one that others, such as your professors and mentors, consciously cultivate in you. As you develop and grow in that identity, it becomes an increasingly important part of your self-image and triggers the kind of decision making that March describes. For instance, imagine that as a science professor teaching chemistry, you had a lucrative opportunity to consult on the toxicity study of a new drug for a big pharmaceutical company. From a consequences point of view, the decision to accept the job would be a no-brainer -- the work might pay far more than your university salary. But from an identity point of view, the decision to accept the job would seem less clear-cut. You'd wonder what strings were attached, what subtle compromises you'd have to make to please the client. You'd wonder, 'What would a scientist like me do in this situation?'

Because identities are central to the way people make decisions, any change effort that violates someone's identity is likely doomed to failure." (pp. 153-154)

Anyone else as struck by this as I was? I have a lot of questions floating around in my head, but the one that I am currently pondering the most is: What if a group of people think they're voting from a consequences model, but in reality, are voting from an identity model? I'm still trying to make sense of what is happening in our country... specifically, how can a group of people be so upset by being called racist (among other things) when the man they voted for obviously is and claim that they were voting for lower grocery prices? Could one factor be a complete disconnect from what their identity actually is? This would also be a symptom of cult behavior.