What does an AfD ban bring? Questions for the psychologist Roland Pfister

Enlarge image

Demonstration for the AfD ban in front of the Federal Chancellery in Berlin

Photo:

Christian Ditsch / epd

SPIEGEL:

More and more politicians are in favor of banning the AfD.

Do you think a ban is a good way to protect our democracy?

Pfister:

When I hear “bans,” alarm bells immediately go off for me as a psychologist.

Bans are a double-edged sword.

If you impose bans in everyday life, you often achieve the opposite of what you actually wanted to achieve.

SPIEGEL:

Why?

Pfister:

Because a ban first makes the behavior we don't want visible to us and we only secondarily think about the fact that we're not allowed to do that.

So when someone tells me you can't smoke, I first think about smoking.

So I activate the forbidden behavior in my head, and only in the second step do I start to work against it.

SPIEGEL:

Does that mean bans can lead us astray?

Pfister:

Basically yes, but bans are usually associated with sanctions and penalties.

And that then helps us to work harder against it.

Our problem is that we can't handle the word 'not'.

It's difficult because it describes something that is intangible.

Our brain needs things that can be imagined.

Prohibition always says what cannot be done, but not what one should do instead, and that creates an emptiness in our brain that cannot be filled.

You come up with stupid ideas.

SPIEGEL:

What is the alternative?

Pfister:

From a psychological perspective, commands are always better than bans because commands describe desired behavior and have a much more motivating effect.

If, for example, we had fewer prohibitions in road traffic and instead had commandments, if instead of signs with a certain maximum speed that must not be exceeded, we had signs listing the desired speeds, more people would adhere to the road traffic regulations.

SPIEGEL:

Instead of banning the AfD, it would be better to formulate commandments: Do you vote for the SPD?

Pfister:

Theoretically yes, but that is not possible in a liberal democracy.

They can only prohibit or allow certain things.

There are no other alternatives.