First impressions formed after seeing someone’s face or hearing their voice can affect many social decisions, including voting in political elections. Despite the many studies investigating the independent contribution of face and voice cues to electoral success, their integration is still not well understood. Here, we examine a novel electoral context, student representative ballots, allowing us to test the generalizability of previous studies. We also examine the independent contributions of visual, auditory, and audiovisual information to social judgments of the candidates, and their relationship to election outcomes. Results showed that perceived trustworthiness was the only trait significantly related to election success. These findings contrast with previous reports on the importance of perceived competence using audio or visual cues only in the context of national political elections. The present study highlights the role of real-world context and emphasizes the importance of using ecologically valid stimulus presentation in understanding real-life social judgment.
BallewC. C.TodorovA. (2007). Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17948-17953. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705435104
2.
BenjaminD. J.ShapiroJ. M. (2009). Thin-slice forecasts of gubernatorial elections. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 523-536. doi:10.1162/rest.91.3.523
3.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57, 289-300. doi:10.2307/2346101
4.
BerggrenN.JordahlH.PoutvaaraP. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 8-15. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.002
5.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.22) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
6.
BurtonC. M.RuleN. O. (2013). Judgments of height from faces are informed by dominance and facial maturity. Social Cognition, 31, 672-685. doi:10.1521/soco.2013.31.6.672
7.
CampanellaS.BelinP. (2007). Integrating face and voice in person perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 535-543. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.001
8.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
CollinsS. A.MissingC. (2003). Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women. Animal Behaviour, 65, 997-1004. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2123
10.
DeanD. H. (2017). The benefit of a trustworthy face to a financial services provider. Journal of Services Marketing, 31, 771-783. doi:10.1108/JSM-06-2016-0221
11.
DollL. M.HillA. K.RotellaM. A.CárdenasR. A.WellingL. L. M.WheatleyJ. R.PutsD. A. (2014). How well do men’s faces and voices index mate quality and dominance?Human Nature, 25, 200-212. doi:10.1007/s12110-014-9194-3
12.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11. doi:10.3758/BF03203630
13.
FruhenL. S.WatkinsC. D.JonesB. C. (2015). Perceptions of facial dominance, trustworthiness and attractiveness predict managerial pay awards in experimental tasks. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1005-1016. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.001
14.
HallC. C.GorenA.ChaikenS.TodorovA. (2009). Shallow cues with deep effects: Trait judgments from faces and voting decisions. In BorgidaE.FedericoC. M.SullivanJ. L. (Eds.), The political psychology of democratic citizenship (pp. 583-605). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
HanC.KandrikM.HahnA. C.FisherC. I.FeinbergD. R.HolzleitnerI. J.JonesB. C. (2017). Interrelationships among men’s threat potential, facial dominance, and vocal dominance. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1-4. doi:10.1177/1474704917697332
16.
Hodges-SimeonC. R.GurvenM.PutsD. A.GaulinS. J. C. (2014). Vocal fundamental and formant frequencies are honest signals of threat potential in peripubertal males. Behavioral Ecology, 25, 984-988. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru081
17.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
18.
KlofstadC. A. (2016). Candidate voice pitch influences election outcomes. Political Psychology, 37, 725-738. doi:10.1111/pops.12280
19.
KlofstadC. A. (2017). Looks and sounds like a winner: Perceptions of competence in candidates’ faces and voices influences vote choice. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4, 229-240. doi:10.1017/XPS.2017.19
20.
KlofstadC. A.AndersonR. C. (2018). Voice pitch predicts electability, but does not signal leadership ability. Evolution & Human Behavior, 39, 349-354. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbe hav.2018.02.007
21.
KlofstadC. A.AndersonR. C.PetersS. (2012). Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 2698-2704. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0311
22.
LindhJ. (2006). Preliminary F0 statistics and forensic phonetics. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics Conference. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University.
23.
LittleA. C.BurrissR. P.JonesB. C.RobertsS. C. (2007). Facial appearance affects voting decisions. Evolution & Human Behavior, 28, 18-27. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.002
24.
MassaroD. W.EganP. B. (1996). Perceiving affect from the voice and the face. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 215-221. doi:10.3758/BF03212421
25.
McAleerP.TodorovA.BelinP. (2014). How do you say “hello”? Personality impressions from brief novel voices. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e90779. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090779
26.
MilevaM.TompkinsonJ. A.WattD.BurtonA. M. (2018). Audiovisual integration in social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 128-138. doi:10.1037/xhp0000439
27.
MillerA. H.WattenbergM. P.MalanchukO. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521-540. doi:10.2307/1958272
28.
OlivolaC. Y.FunkF.TodorovA. (2014). Social attributions from faces bias human choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 566-570. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.09.007
29.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83-110. doi:10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1
30.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087-11092. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805664105
31.
PutsD. A.JonesB. C.DebruineL. M. (2012). Sexual selection on human faces and voices. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 227-243. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.658924
32.
ReD. E.DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C.PerrettD. I. (2013). Facial cues to perceived height influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace contexts. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 89-103. doi:10.1177/147470491301100109
33.
RezlescuC.PentonT.WalshV.TsujimuraH.ScottS. K.BanissyM. J. (2015). Dominant voices and attractive faces: The contribution of visual and auditory information to integrated person impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39, 355-370. doi:10.1007/s10919-015-0214-8
34.
RhodesG. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208
35.
RobertsonD. M. C.SchweinbergerS. R. (2010). The role of audiovisual asynchrony in person recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 23-30. doi:10.1080/17470210903144376
36.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2008). The face of success. Psychological Science, 48, 109-111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x
37.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN.AdamsR. B.OzonoH.NakashimaS.YoshikawaS.WatabeM. (2010). Polling the face: Prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 1-15. doi:10.1037/a0017673
38.
SaxtonT. K.BurrissR. P.MurrayA. K.RowlandH. M.CraigR. S. (2009). Face, body and speech cues independently predict judgments of attractiveness. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 23-35. doi:10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.4
39.
SaxtonT. K.CarylP. G.CraigR. S. (2006). Vocal and facial attractiveness judgments of children, adolescents and adults: The ontogeny of mate choice. Ethology, 112, 1179-1185. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01278.x
40.
SchweinbergerS. R.RobertsonD.KaufmannJ. M. (2007). Hearing facial identities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1446-1456. doi:10.1080/17470210601063589
41.
SmithH. M. J.DunnA. K.BaguleyT.StaceyP. C. (2016). Concordant cues in faces and voices: Testing the backup signal hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(1), 1-10. doi:10.1177/1474704916630317
42.
SussmanA. B.PetkovaK.TodorovA. (2013). Competence ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in Bulgaria. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 771-775. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.003
43.
TigueC. C.BorakD. J.O’ConnorJ. J. M.SchandlC.FeinbergD. R. (2012). Voice pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33, 210-216. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.09.004
44.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626. doi:10.1126/sci ence.1110589
45.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519-545. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143831
46.
TodorovA.SaidC. P.EngellA. D.OosterhofN. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455-460. doi:10.1037/a0027950
47.
TrentJ. S.MongeauP. A.TrentJ. D.KendallK. E.CushingR. B. (1993). The ideal candidate: A study of the desired attributes of the public and the media across two presidential campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 225-239. doi:10.1177/0002764293037002010
48.
TsankovaE.KrumhuberE.AubreyA. J.KappasA.MölleringG.RosinP. L. (2015). The multi-modal nature of trustworthiness perception. In Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Facial Analysis and Auditory-visual Speech Processing (pp. 147-152). Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/avsp15/index.html
49.
WellsT. J.DunnA. K.SergeantM. J. T.DaviesM. N. O. (2009). Multiple signals in human mate selection: A review and framework for integrating facial and vocal signals. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 111-139. doi:10.1556/JEP.7.2009.2.2
50.
WillisJ.TodorovA. T. (2013). Making up your mind after 100-ms exposure to face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x
51.
WilsonJ. P.RuleN. O. (2015). Hypothetical sentencing decisions are associated with actual capital punishment outcomes: The role of facial trustworthiness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 331-338. doi:10.1177/1948550615624142
52.
XuY. (2013). ProsodyPro—A tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. In Proceedings of Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody (pp. 7-10).
53.
ZebrowitzL. A.McDonaldS. M. (1991). The impact of litigants’ baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603-623. doi:10.1007/BF01065855
54.
ZebrowitzL. A.MontepareJ. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 23, 1497-1517. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
