Social mobility and cognitive biases

Perhaps it’s our suspicions of a lingering class system, or maybe it’s our ingrained sense of fair play, but social mobility is a subject that always gets the British chattering classes in a tizzy. This week we can expect a new bout of hand-wringing when the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Social Mobility publishes a report entitled ‘Seven Truths about Social Mobility’. Due for release tomorrow, the report will focus on the UK’s relatively poor record on social mobility compared to similar developed nations, concluding that the ‘success’ of a child in the UK is determined long before they even enter the education system.

Although the APPG is cross-party in nature, the report will almost certainly be used as a brick-bat by politicians to bash their rivals. Already Hazel Blears, a Labour member of the APPG has said “…We need to ensure that young people from working-class backgrounds, whose parents don't have the same exclusive networks as some in the City of London, are given the opportunities to achieve. This means ending unpaid internships and opening up opportunities as well as education and support.” A less than subtle dig at the Government’s internships programme and perceived cosiness with the City perhaps?

But other less traditional critics have also been quick to put the boot into Government. Conservative MP Nadine Dorries recently described David Cameron and George Osborne as “Two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others.” For many this was a visceral attack based simply on personal and professional differences. But for others, this was further proof of the Conservatives being out-of-touch and unconcerned with improving the lot of Britain’s working class. Labour in contrast continues to be seen in a much more favourable light, and despite a brief blip in 2009, has regularly polled higher than the other parties on the issue of which party is seen as the champion of the poor. Undoubtedly its working class-roots have helped in this sense, but does New Labour really have a better record on improving social mobility?

Maybe statistics can cut through the bluster and highlight the true political champion of the working classes and social mobility? Well, no, and most accounts of social mobility in the UK make pretty grim reading all round. In fact, a London School of Economics report in 2007 concluded that low social mobility in the UK has not improved in 30 years. Clearly, no governing party has covered themselves in glory.

Despite this, social mobility remains a significant communications challenge for the Conservatives; to a much greater extent than it does for Labour, and long after the supposed ‘de-toxification’ of the Tory brand was completed. This points to the difficulties organisations in all industries face when confronted with the need to overturn entrenched views – it takes time and patience. Moreover, it takes very little for people to revert to old perceptions and ideas. Numerous studies have shown peoples’ cognitive biases when interpreting political messages. Considerable evidence suggests people presented with balanced arguments place greater weight on those they already agree with, exhibiting what is termed confirmation bias. This confirmation bias is perhaps seen in people’s perceptions of the relative strengths of the political parties in improving social mobility.

There are other communications forces at work here as well, and they were highlighted in a recent Financial Times (FT) article on effective spokespeople for the relative political parties. The article suggested some Conservative MPs felt they lacked a regional presence compared to the Labour party, with fewer MPs with regional accents willing and able to deliver difficult messaging to regional audiences. This points to another communications challenge, the fact people are more likely to trust messages delivered by those who ‘speak their language’. For Conservative MPs from the South East discussing social mobility issues in Northern cities, the message is sometimes not as important as the voice in which it is being delivered.

Few politicians have resisted the urge to criticise their opposite number on the subject of social mobility, and this practice is unlikely to end this week. But determining who comes out on top when the mud begins to fly can often be as simple as understanding our inate communications biases.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com