Why Obama Got the Prize: A Psychologist Weighs In

This isn't what it seems. It's not really a Nobel Prize. It's a "Thank-God-You're-Not-Bush" Prize. We're witnessing what research psychologists call a "contrast" effect, occurring in a grand way in an unlikely place.

Yes, many of us at home have mixed feelings about Obama because our economy is still sinking (although more slowly, of course!) and because our young men and women are still dying almost every day in Afghanistan and Iraq. But to people in other countries, such as some dowdy old folks sitting in a posh drawing room in Stockholm, Obama is the greatest thing since Saab introduced the heated driver's seat in 1972.

Even though, unlike Nobel laureate Mother Teresa - who toiled helping the poor of India for 30 years before getting the prize - Obama hasn't actually accomplished anything yet, he is, following George Bush, a Great Relief to the World, especially the Bush-bashed world outside the U.S.

The contrast effect is a real and powerful phenomenon that has fascinated psychologists for more than a century. The basic idea is simple: a prolonged experience with a stimulus that has strong negative or strong positive value distorts the way we view new stimuli of the same sort. If we've had prolonged experience with a strong positive stimulus, we'll tend to view new related stimuli negatively. And if we've had prolonged experience with a strong negative stimulus, we'll tend to view related new stimuli positively.

This powerful phenomenon has been demonstrated in hundreds of laboratory experiments, and it's also easy to demonstrate in every day life. I'll demonstrate the effect sometimes in a psychology class by having a volunteer keep his or her left hand in a bucket of cold water and his or her right hand in a bucket of warm water for a few minutes. Then I'll have the student dip both hands into a third bucket, containing room-temperature water. The result is bizarre: the student's left hand feels the water as hot, while at the same time the student's right hand feels the very same water to be cold.

When I was editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, one of the most popular articles we ran - "Why I Hate Beauty," by Hara Marano and publicist Michael Levine - was about how the contrast effect distorts our perception of beauty. Bombarded by images of gorgeous Hollywood stars and starlets and New York models, we often perceive the perfectly attractive people around us to be unattractive - a frustrating phenomenon that's brutal on our relationships.

The contrast effect works in many domains, including the political. And yes, it can even cause intelligent, well meaning people to confuse bringing peace to people with giving inspirational speeches about bringing peace to people.

It's not a Nobel Prize. But now that he has it, maybe he'll live up to it.

Comments

[Mriana]

I am an Obama supporter and while I am happy for him, I have no clue exactly what he has done towards peace yet, to have earned it. Supposedly he has gotten countries to cut down on their nuclear weapons and alike, but I don't see anything moving towards peace per se. I am inclined to agree it is a case of "You're not Bush", but that isn't anything to award a peace prize to a person. IMHO, it is a bit soon in his presidency to award him this award, but it may just be an award to encourage him. I don't know. Hopefully he does earn it. There is still time.

[ejhickey]

This award to Obama and all the praise he is getting for its receipt, remind me of the story of Dionysius and the Sword of Damocles.

[StillweRise]

by this tortured logic,

MCCAIN would have won as well.....

NOT.

[RedDogBear]

A contrast effect eh? In other words Obama looks so much better compared to the previous war mongering idiot? Gee, glad I had a psychiatric expert to explain that for me, could never have figured it out on my own.

[Hillrick]

He may be correct but I do not believe this is the reason for the pick.

[skippypicasso]

It seems you've chosen this 'explanation' because it best fits your world view.

[Hillrick]

Right. I think it may be an explanation but not the reason.

[relevancematters]

I find the tone of all these "he doesn't deserve it" articles to be mean, petty and patronizing. I am 60 years old and I have never before seen a Nobel Prize granted for any area of endeavor denigrated like this--and believe me there have been some in the arts over the years where you just kind of thought to yourself: "Whoa! Really?"

Have we no manners left at all in this country? Obama understands the discrepancy of years and works, of course, and he moved quickly to define the award for what it was intended to be--but for God's sake, what is wrong with the rest of us?

Shut the hell up and be glad we've elected a man that at least the rest of the world recognizes as a brilliant statesman and a powerful force for good. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Hillrick]

Well said and thank you for doing so.

[drreader]

When a dear friend married a divorced man, he thought she walked on water. Actually, she didn't, she was quite normal..But she didn't scream, or cheat, and she cooked a meal quite nicely, in contrast to the very difficult first wife.. Contrast is powerful.

[MurCal]

"Unlike Mother Terresa, he hasn't accomplished anything yet?" Really? Like a Phoenix arising out of the ashes, just the fact that he's here, freely elected to the most powerful job in the world after eight years of that job being occupied by neo-con economic imperialists is a sign that greed, exploitation, and fear don't own the universe and that good people everywhere have a chance to take back what's theirs.

If the international community of leaders thinks that's worthy of the prize, then there's not much a talk show psychologist can really add to the picture. So thanks for your contribution to the flow of negativity, but no thanks.

[akababs]

Where do people get off saying he hasn't accomplished anything. Obviously, he accomplished something in the eyes of these judges, so deal with it. Moreover, why must everything be about Bush? Obama has and can accomplish things in his own right, not just in contrast to some white man. Dam!

[Daksian]

An interesting and plausable theory, albeit highly cynical. As with all psychological evaluations, it's worth bearing in mind that even Freud intimated that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." As has been mentioned in numerous other articles on this very site, there are a multitude of other potential reasons, including the ones actually given by the panel.

[Kevins]

PS,
American voters agreed with the Nobel Prize committee:
63.25 million people voted for President Obama--more than any candidate in US history.
And voted Bush's party out of every branch of American government.

Even if it's a contrast principle, it's a huge contrast.

[Klimb]

Spot on...any reason to devalue POTUS' achievements. If they had ever known he was going to Harvard Law Sch...they'd have campaigned against and objected it...not news!

[Kevins]

And yet:
The bigger contrast you are to the "worst US President ever",
The more wonderful a US President you are.

[dumbunny]

Barack Obama may not have stopped any wars this year, but the world really is a safer place because of the sociological impact of the "contrast" effect. If nihilism brings about chaos, then hope brings about peace. Every young person in the world who rejects extremism because they no longer see America as an immediate threat makes this world a safer place. I'm willing to bet that the Doomsday Clock moved back a minute or two simply due to the regime change in this country.

Obama may have won the prize, but he should accept it on behalf of the true agents of change, the American voters who put Obama in office. By rejecting neo-conservatism and giving a mandate to a diplomacy-oriented leader, we have profoundly altered our chances for survival through this century.

[nk007]

Before you go about trying to psycho analyze the reasons why Obama won the Nobel prize wouldn't it better to pay attention to the reasons that may have influenced the Nobel Committee for why they chose the President for the award? Obama pledged to Close Guantanamo; he outlawed torture, secret renditions and CIA secret detentions; he announced a special envoy, George Mitchell, to pursue aggressive peace between Israel and Palestinians; he revoked the so called missile shield from Eastern Europe which had been viewed as provocative by Russians; he enlisted Russians to join in confronting Iranian on her intent to produce nuclear weapons; and, unlike previous presidents, he has refused to recognize the military coup in Honduras that overthrew a democratically elected President. On top of that , Obama has pledged, unlike the previous administration, to be actively engaged in multinational efforts to combat global warming, climate changes, reducing poverty and disease, and promoting diplomacy to solve conflicts. I think the Nobel Committee hand ample reasons to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was not George W. Bush! But Hey, look at this way, psycho-analysts have a right to make some money providing us with answers to everything; even those things they may have absolutely no idea about!

[sunprince]

if the contrast effect were accurate then one would have to argue that any U.S. president post-Bush would be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize this year. And we all know that would not have happened for McCain or Clinton.