Sleepy Politics: How Sleep Deprivation can Affect Political Decision Making
First, as described above, the major impairments of moderate sleep deprivation refer to basic cognitive functioning. However, in complex decision making situations, like negotiating financial rescue packages for a EU member state, such basic cognitive functions play only an inferior role. To illustrate, if a truck driver´s reaction times are increased due to sleep deprivation (and we are talking about a matter of milliseconds, Williamson & Feyer, 2000), this could have deadly consequences. In contrast, if reaction time is impaired in complex decision making, this should not have such severe consequences, since in these situations information is typically presented repeatedly, and is available in written form.
Second, the group setting in which many political decisions are made could help to dampen the negative effects of sleep deprivation. In a study on the effects of alcohol on cognitive functioning, Frings et al. (2008) found – not surprisingly – that alcohol had a negative effect on individual cognitive performance: participants in the alcohol condition made more errors, compared to participants in the placebo condition. Interestingly, there was no difference between the alcohol and placebo condition when the task was performed in a group. The authors describe this effect as group monitoring, which means that the group members are aware of each other’s reduced cognitive capacity and try to compensate for it. In other words, the group members monitor their mutual performance and try to overcome any obstacles that stem from individual reduced cognitive capacity. It is plausible to assume that group monitoring also occurs in the case of sleep deprivation, and there is preliminary data for that assumption. Baranski et al (2007) found that sleep-deprived groups could outperform sleep-deprived individuals, given two conditions: The group members have to be aware of each other’s impairments and the individual contribution to group performance must be visible and have an impact.
Third, a recent study (Häusser, Leder, Ketturat, Dresler, & Faber, 2016; http://www.nature.com/articles/srep24386) found that sleep-deprived individuals used more advice than well-rested individuals. In this study participants worked on a judgmental task (they had to estimate airline distances between European capital cities). In some trials they received advice from a highly competent advisor (who made very accurate estimates); in other trials, they received advice from a moderately competent advisor (who made less accurate estimates). In cases where the advice was of a high quality, the sleep-deprived individuals were able to redeem their poorer performance in a judgmental task, increasing their own accuracy. Hence, as long as good advice is available, sleep-deprived individuals may be able to compensate for cognitive impairments by relying on the advisor. However, this study also found a somewhat paradoxical effect: Sleep deprivation particularly increased advice taking when the advice was of only mediocre quality, and using this type of advice did not result in a better performance. Thus, sleep-deprived politicians – even more than well-rested ones – are dependent on the advice they receive being of high quality and coming from reliable sources.
Finally, and although I have no empirical data for this assumption, the likelihood of a strong survival bias in the political world is very high. Survival bias means, in this case, that only individuals who are less impaired by sleep deprivation will survive in the political world and will ultimately arrive at positions where they are forced to make important decisions in the night. If you cannot go without an 8-hour eleven-to-seven sleep you might have trouble getting into such a position. Hence, this selection process should result in a situation where primarily individuals who are less likely to suffer negative consequences from sleep deprivation are those who are faced with it. The political legends mentioned above and the fact that experience helps when coping with sleep deprivation (Horne, 2012) support this assumption.
To rein in enthusiasm, there are also good reasons to refrain from making political decisions while sleep deprived:
First, sleep-deprived individuals tend to be more rigid in their course of actions. They have more problems with information updating, with reacting to the unexpected, as well as with adapting plans and strategies to changing environmental demands (Horne, 2012). This becomes a problem when the decision is made in a dynamic environment, and it grows worse when the decision is made in a group. Decades of group-decision-making research (see Kerr & Tindale, 2004 for a comprehensive overview) show that groups show the increased rigidity that can also be observed in sleep-deprived individuals. Groups often tend to engage in information processing that reinforces existing preferences for courses of action, and they are poor in rerouting once a course of action gains momentum. For example, a classic concept in social psychology, groupthink (Janis, 1982), describes the tendency to prefer harmony and conformity within the group over critical thinking and controversy. Sleep deprivation could add fuel to this fire by making a group even more easily subject to groupthink.
Second, as discussed above, sleep deprivation can have negative motivational effects (Hoeksma-van Orden et al., 1998). This effect occurs when the individual contributions of the group members have only little impact and therefore increases with group size. Hence, when managing a sleep-deprived group, it is of particular importance to keep the spirits high (cf. Barnes, 2011; Faber et al., 2015).
