A psychological block

According to Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won a Nobel prize in economics, and other psychologists, optimistic overconfidence is one important factor that impedes successful negotiation.

This is because, among rivals, each strongly believes he can impose resolution on the other party. Applied to our conflict, we could say that the People's Alliance for Democracy has overconfidence in its demand for the resignation of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and the government. At the same time, Somchai and his Cabinet have the confidence that they can force the PAD to accept their authority.

The other factor is that each party tends to overvalue certain outcomes that can be enforced immediately, while undervaluing uncertain outcomes such as goodwill offered to, or by, rivals.

Applied to our conflict situation, the PAD is not satisfied with the government's recent vague offer that it would not seek amendment of the Constitution. And the PAD is not satisfied with Somchai's promise that he would take responsibility for the death of a protester on October 7 if an investigation pointed to mistakes by the government in handling the street protests.

The vague promise has a lower value than a concrete offer, or what is perceived to be concrete, such as the government's immediate resignation. Psychologists argue that an uncertain outcome is no less important than a certain one. It may not be wise for rival parties to undervalue goodwill or other uncertain promises because prolonged conflict poses a higher risk. They point to the unending internal conflict in Lebanon, or the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, due partly to rivals undervaluing uncertain factors, such as goodwill.

Research on individual decision-making has identified a major bias in consideration assigned to probabilities, certainties and perceived certainties of advantage, according to Kahneman and Almos Tversky.

Another factor is loss aversion. According to the two, losses generally loom larger than corresponding gains. For example, people are more upset about losing Bt1,000 than they are happier about gaining Bt1,000. This can lead to a rival not willing to make a concession while at the same time undervaluing an offered concession.

There are other interesting psychological aspects, such as the tendency to seek evidence that confirms an initial stance, leading to a rejection of opposing views.

As rivals engage in gambles to achieve the ultimate goal, both sides face the higher risk of greater economic burden and social instability.

The cost of the escalating conflict has unfolded before our eyes since 2006, from the governments of Thaksin, Samak and Somchai (some might say it is only the same Thaksin government). Now, with the seizure of Suvarnabhumi Airport, the cost of the conflict has probably risen beyond our capacity to calculate.

At the macro level, tourism, exports, imports, investment and consumption will be adversely affected. At the micro level, those who are depressed by the ongoing political conflict risk heart attacks and mental illness.

The political crisis combined with the global financial crisis has taken all of us down. Who can save us? If we're optimistic, we might believe that our predicament will end soon, because the rivals will realise that they have both done huge damage to our common interests. But psychological barriers suggest otherwise.