The problem with power poses

Millions of people will have looked at the newspaper front pages this morning and wondered: why is Sajid Javid looking like an utter tool? The answer sheds light upon the nature of academic research and people’s attitudes to it.

The reason for his absurd stance can be found in a paper (pdf) by Amy Cuddy and colleagues. They claim that by using “expansive postures” a person can “embody power and instantly become more powerful”:

By simply changing physical posture, an individual prepares his or her mental and physiological systems to endure difficult and stressful situations, and perhaps to actually improve confidence and performance in situations such as interviewing for jobs, speaking in public, disagreeing with a boss, or taking potentially profitable risks.

There’s just one big problem with this. It’s that what scant evidence there ever was for such a claim has not been corroborated by later studies. What we have here, then, is yet more evidence for the replicability crisis.

The mistake that Javid and other Tories has made is to be too credulous about academic research. For me, a single scientific paper should be the start of an inquiry rather than a basis for immediate action. When we see an interesting claim such as Cuddy’s we must ask (at least) two questions: what other evidence do we have for it? And: what mechanisms might produce such an effect?

Power poses fail these tests. Possessing power is not merely a matter of what happens in your own head. It’s about how others see you. When we see someone adopting an expansive posture (such as manspreading) do we really think: this is an admirable person worthy of our deference?

No. This alone should have alerted Tories to a lack of external validity in that paper.

Then we have the second question: what’s the mechanism? Maybe it’s possible that spreading one’s legs like that releases testosterone. To most observers, however, it merely reminds them of Prince Regent in Blackadder. That is no way to win respect. And in fact in England at least we have a long tradition of laughing at people who think they can aspire to power by striking unconventional poses. As Bertie Wooster says in The Code of the Woosters:

The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting ”Heil, Spode!” and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: “Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?”

In not being aware of any of this, Tories such as Javid have demonstrated a tin ear for our cultural referents. They’ve done so, I fear, in part because of wishful thinking. The prospect of becoming “instantly more powerful” merely by standing in a particular way is a tempting one. And politicians – like other people – have always been quick to believe what they want to believe.

In truth, though, in acting on a belief for which there is no evidence, Tories have merely made themselves look stupid. This, of course, is not just true of power posing.

Comments

[Anthony]

What evidence is there that those with conservative leanings are particularly susceptible to this compared to other humans? Not everyone who fell for Cuddy's power posing was a conservative. It was a widely shared TED talk. It had 47 million views.

There are other areas in the replication crisis and the application of other scientific findings that may be more appealing to left leaning individuals. The mis-use of implicit bias (not quite a replication crisis item, but over-sold in real world application) is one such example, which I would guess is more associated with the left. https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

[Steven Clarke]

"When we see an interesting claim such as Cuddy’s we must ask (at least) two questions: what other evidence do we have for it? And: what mechanisms might produce such an effect?"

A more important question might be what evidence do we have against it?

This seems to be the question you have answered later in the post.

[chris]

@Anthony - I'm not saying Tories are generally more susceptible to non-replicated research than others. It's just that in this particular case they seem to have fallen for it more than Labour.
@ Steven - you're right. That sentence was ill-phrased. I should have said "what other evidence, for and against, do we have?"

[sdeverson]

How sensitive was Cuddy’s original research to the consequences of what is (obviously ) the very real possibility of someone’s ending up just looking camp?

[Anthony]

Chris,

There are 47 million views of that TED Talk by Cuddy. This became a cultural thing, that people picked up on, and no doubt some charlatans have used in some leadership "training".

You say "This alone should have alerted Tories to a lack of external validity in that paper." The idea that any of them has come any where near the paper is amusing. And that applies to almost any politician in any party, all of whom will be subject to magical thinking on something or other.

In fact, this post is a perfect example of the confirmation bias we see in tribal politics itself.

None of them read the paper

[G]

I think it's true - it's just that they're not doing it right.

[MJW]

According to the BBC a photographer asked him to take a move to one side during the photo call and he was caught by a pap mid move, so it seems this "power pose" may not have been all it's cracked up to be!

[Dave Timoney]

Like MJW, I suspect this was briefly a thing (I think Osborne introduced it to the UK political scene as part of his makeover) that has since become a windup among press photographers.

Whenever I see it, I instinctivley start humming The Monkees theme tune.

[Steven Clarke]

The Prince Regent, Bertie Wooster... there’s an awful lot of Hugh Laurie playing upper class twits in this post

[Ralph Musgrave]

If power posing is not effective, the basic principle behind it is nevertheless valid: to win votes, don’t bother saying anything remotely intelligent. The best ploy is just to repeat the same phrases over and over till you’re blue in the face: e.g. “strong and stable”, “Sieg Heil”, “Allahu Akbar”, “Tory sleaze”, etc.

Hitler, Goering and several other politicians spelled out the importance of mindless repetition. Sticking one’s arm up at a 45 degree angle worked for Hitler. Who knows: pulling one’s pants down and displaying one’s bum might work, and power posing might work too.