Politicians are prone to pulling various tricks in order to garner support from voters. When researchers from the University of Amsterdam explored our vulnerability to such tactics, they found that some of us are more prone to falling for such tricks than others.

The researchers tested how people respond to meaningless statements, such as “For better and stronger Gonfel!” (a fictitious country) or To politically lead the people means to always fight for them”. They found that neoliberals were particularly receptive to such statements.

Meaningless statements

While there has been considerable attention devoted to the spread of misinformation by politicians, but rather less attention given to abstract statements that are designed to engage and mobilize voters.

“That is, politicians tell things that seem to mean nothing and everything at the same time,” explain the authors. “For example, when politicians state to ‘believe in people or country’, or ‘promise to fight for a better future’. Such very vague statements we often see during political elections and political campaigns.”

After analyzing the endorsement of such vague political statements and slogans, the researchers developed three tests to estimate just how receptive an individual might be to them. They were then able to relate these to their personal political ideology and their voting behavior.

The results show that supporters of free markets were most inclined to endorse the vague non-statements, with supporters of both social and economic conservativism far less so.

“In the U.S., the Netherlands, and all countries combined, increased receptivity … was associated with a higher probability to vote for right-wing candidates/parties,” the researchers explain. “Especially neoliberals are more receptive to these statements.”

It’s not entirely clear why that is, nor indeed whether any particular party uses such tactics more than another. The researchers believe it’s something that is probably widespread, not least due to the structural requirements of political communications, but it seems that neoliberals perhaps get more bang for their buck from the approach.