The Single Vote Issue and the Prominence Effect
By Emiliano Rodriguez Nuesch and María Morena Vicente
The prominence effect is a cognitive bias that leads us to focus on the most prominent or emotionally striking issues, often overlooking equally important but less visible ones.
First, we fail to appreciate how narrow our span of attention is. Consider the concept of the attentional spotlight: when we are emotionally numb to tragedy, no matter how many lives are affected, our limited attentional capacity, like a spotlight with a very narrow beam, becomes captured by more imminent and tangible concerns, such as the physical, monetary, or political costs of trying to save lives that have little emotional meaning to us because of psychic numbing. Famed psychologist Daniel Kahneman had a name for our blindness to information that is not in the attentional spotlight: “What you see is all there is.” (Kahneman, 2011). We also cover this topic in this other article.
Second, it is cognitively difficult to integrate or make tradeoffs among multiple and sometimes inconsistent issues, so focusing on one or a few issues that grab your attention makes hard decisions easier and feels right.
As the saying goes, what is out of sight is out of mind. This bias can significantly influence our decisions in different contexts, including our voting behavior.
Overcoming prominence requires structuring the decision process or participants to force attention to non-prominent but important attributes, such as protecting large numbers of human lives.
Here, we explore this effect using examples from recent history.
Increased polarization
Single-issue voting has become increasingly prevalent in American politics, reflecting growing polarization and decreasing engagement with broader political platforms. Single-issue voting in the U.S. often occurs because voters prioritize specific, highly salient issues that resonate deeply with their values or fears. This is closely related to the prominence effect, as focusing on a single issue can amplify its importance and overshadow other relevant topics in the public discourse.
According to a 2023 NBC News survey, issues like abortion, constitutional rights, and immigration dominate voters' decisions. This focus on one issue not only hinders progress on other important matters but also reveals widespread distrust in Congress's ability to reach agreements. For example, many voters prioritize their stance on abortion over other policies due to a lack of confidence in their representatives.
Political campaigns often emphasize these single issues to garner support, as seen in Donald Trump's focus on abortion restrictions and Joe Biden's counter-arguments. This approach limits political discourse and reduces comprehensive engagement with candidates' platforms.
Let’s take a deep dive into one of the most polarizing and biased topics in the last few years.
Trump and the Mexican Wall
During his presidency, Donald Trump made the Mexican wall a central focus of his campaign and administration. His promises of building a 1,000-mile wall quickly captured public attention, with claims like "the wall is moving rapidly" and "many miles a week." However, much of the construction involved replacing existing fencing rather than constructing it as promised.
This focus on the wall illustrates how single-issue voting can shape political communication. By keeping the spotlight on the wall, Trump effectively diverted attention from other critical issues, such as healthcare and environmental regulations. His strategy leveraged the prominence effect, amplifying one topic to dominate public and electoral discourse.
Some 2016 studies showed that while Trump voters strongly supported building the wall, they were more divided on other immigration issues. About 79% of Trump supporters favored the wall, but only 32% supported a nationwide effort to deport all undocumented immigrants. This division underscores how single-issue focus can simplify complex debates and skew public perception.
In 2018, cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff analyzed how Trump used Twitter to keep the wall at the center of the national conversation. Through an us-versus-them approach and constant visual messaging about the wall, Trump managed to deflect criticism and shift focus away from additional problems, including the management of public funds. This tactic limited debate to a single issue, hindering discussions of other important policies and challenges.
What happens outside the US?
Boris Johnson and Brexit
Boris Johnson's tenure as Prime Minister was heavily marked by Brexit, the process of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, which dominated his agenda and media coverage. As seen before, this intense focus on Brexit overshadowed other pressing issues in the UK, such as the NHS crisis, social inequality, and housing shortages.
The prominence effect is evident here, as the relentless emphasis on Brexit not only shaped public discourse but also influenced voters' perceptions and priorities, often sidelining critical domestic challenges.
At the Democracy Alice Festival in Texel, Margrethe Vestager, EU’s executive vice-president (2019-2024) stated: "We have things to do! And we cannot allow Brexit to overshadow important things, because it keeps occupying our mind, our media, precious time that heads of states and government could use by discussing with one another."
Other critical topics have been overshadowed by the prominence of Brexit on Britain's agenda. This 2019 Al Jazeera video showcases how Brexit's overwhelming presence in political and media arenas detracted from addressing significant issues like poverty and homelessness.
Homelessness rates continued to rise. The NGO Shelter estimated that 280,000 people in England were homeless, including those living in temporary accommodation or on the streets.
Other indicators of social inequality had been eclipsed by the Brexit discussion. Child poverty in the UK increased, with over 4 million children affected, food bank usage reached record levels with a 19% increase in emergency food supplies distributed.
European lawmakers have criticized the UK's weakening of environmental rules post-Brexit, highlighting significant divergences in areas such as pesticide bans and carbon emissions. This gap is expected to widen, affecting both the environment and public well-being, particularly as the EU introduces new regulations and social climate funds that the UK lacks.
Could these consequences have been prevented if the focus had been on these pressing issues rather than the Brexit debate?
What can be done about it
Critical thinking is essential for overcoming the prominence effect. By encouraging individuals to evaluate issues based on evidence and broader context rather than media-driven focus or emotional appeal, it fosters more balanced and informed decision-making. To effect positive change, we must be actively involved. As responsible voters, it is crucial to consider a broader range of issues to avoid overshadowing the multifaceted nature of governance.
When it comes to media, outlets can diversify their coverage to include a broader range of pressing issues, fostering a more balanced public discourse. Promoting critical thinking can be achieved by encouraging analytical reporting and featuring expert opinions on varied topics. Highlighting the interconnections between overshadowed issues, such as how social inequality affects healthcare and housing, would help the public understand the broader implications. This approach ensures that important topics receive the attention they deserve, fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry.
To read more, see the following:
Voters See Democracy in Peril, but Saving It Isn't a Priority