While existing studies have shown that more attractive candidates running for office have an electoral advantage, very little has been written on how this advantage relates to different institutions. We theorise that formal institutions mediate the positive effect from which attractive candidates benefit. More in detail, we focus on the type of electoral system, hypothesising that physical attractiveness plays a more important role in majoritarian, first-past-the-post systems than in list proportional systems. We test this stipulation using the German federal elections’ two-tier electoral system, together with data collected in Australia on the physical attractiveness of German federal election candidates in 2013. A series of bivariate and multivariate statistics show that physical attractiveness is a significant factor explaining a candidate’s likelihood to win in the FPTP tier, but not in the list proportional representation (PR) tier.
AbramowitzAI (1991) Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in the U.S. house elections. The Journal of Politics53(1): 34–56.
2.
AlbrightLMalloyTEDongQ. (1997) Cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology72(3): 558–569.
3.
AndersonSHabelP (2009) Revisiting adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. Congress, 1947–2007. Political Analysis17(1): 83–88.
4.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJMStewartC (2001) Candidate positioning in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science45(1): 136–159.
5.
AtkinsonMDEnosRDHillSJ (2009) Candidate faces and election outcomes: Is the face-vote correlation caused by candidate selection?Quarterly Journal of Political Science4(3): 229–249.
6.
BanducciSAKarpJAThrasherM. (2008) Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology29(6): 903–917.
7.
Barelds-DijkstraPDickBPH (2008) Do people know what they want: A similar or complementary partner?Evolutionary Psychology Journal6(4): 595–602.
8.
BerggrenNJordahlHPoutvaaraP (2010) The looks of a winner: Beauty, gender, and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics94(1–2): 8–15.
9.
BrewerC (2000) The Death of Kings. London: Abson Books.
10.
BrewerCArcherJ (2007) What do people infer from facial attractiveness?Journal of Evolutionary Psychology5(1–4): 39–49.
11.
BrockingtonD (2004) The paradox of proportional representation: The effect of party systems and coalitions on individual’s electoral participation. Political Studies52(3): 469–490.
12.
BrusattinL (2011) Candidate visual appearance as a shortcut for both sophisticated and unsophisticated voters: Evidence from a Spanish online study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(1): 1–20.
13.
CampbellJL (2004) Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
15.
CoxGWKatzJN (1996) Why did the incumbency in U.S. elections grow?American Journal of Political Science40(2): 478–497.
16.
De VreeseCHBanducciSASemetkoHA. (2006) The news coverage of the 2004 European parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries. European Union Politics7(4): 477–504.
17.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
EfrainMGPattersonEWJ (1974) Voters vote beautiful: The effect of physical appearance on a national election. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement6(4): 352–356.
22.
FoxRLLawlessJL (2010) If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment and political ambition. Journal of Politics72(2): 310–336.
23.
FraileM (2013) Do information-rich contexts reduce knowledge inequalities? The contextual determinants of political knowledge in Europe. Acta Politica48(2): 119–143.
24.
GalstonWA (2001) Political knowledge, political engagement and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science4: 217–234.
HartWOttatiVCKrumdickND (2011) Physical attractiveness and candidate evaluation: A model of correction. Political Psychology32(2): 181–203.
27.
HoboltSBWittrockJ (2011) The second-order election model revisited: An experimental test of vote choices in European parliament elections. Electoral Studies30(1): 29–40.
28.
HoeggJLewisM (2011) The impact of candidate appearance and advertising strategies on election results. Journal of Marketing Research48(5): 895–905.
29.
IndridasonIHKamC (2008) Cabinet reshuffles and ministerial drift. British Journal of Political Science38: 621–656.
30.
JacksonLHunterJHodgeC (1995) Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly58(2): 108–122.
31.
JohannD (2012) Specific political knowledge and citizens’ participation: Evidence from Germany. Acta Politica47(1): 42–66.
32.
KatzRS (1980) A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
33.
KerbyM (2011) Combining the hazards of ministerial appointment and ministerial exit in the Canadian federal cabinet. Canadian Journal of Political Science44(3): 595–612.
KorteK-R (2009) Wahlen in Deutschland, Zeitbilder. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
36.
LauRRRedlawskDP (1997) Voting correctly. American Political Science Review91(3): 585–598.
37.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 951–971.
38.
LawlessJLPearsonK (2012) The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Re-evaluating the conventional wisdom. The Journal of Politics70(1): 67–82.
39.
LawsonCLenzGBakerA. (2010) Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics62(4): 561–593.
40.
LenzGSLawsonC (2011) Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. American Journal of Political Science55(3): 574–589.
41.
LutzG (2010) The electoral success of beauties and beasts. Swiss Political Science Review16(3): 457–480.
42.
MattilaM (2003) Why bother? Determinants of turnout in the European elections. Electoral Studies22(3): 449–468.
43.
MilazzoCMattesK (2016) Looking good for election day: Does attractiveness predict electoral success in Britain?British Journal of Politics & International Relations18(1): 161–178.
44.
MondakJJ (1993) Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior15(2): 167–192.
45.
NorthMSTodorovAOshersonDN (2010) Inferring the preferences of others from spontaneous, low-emotional facial expressions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology46(6): 1109–1113.
46.
OlivolaCYTodorovA (2010a) Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior34(2): 83–110.
47.
OlivolaCYTodorovA (2010b) Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology46(2): 315–324.
48.
PalmerBSimonD (2001) The political glass ceiling: Gender, strategy, and incumbency in US House elections, 1978–1998. Women & Politics23(1–2): 59–78.
49.
PetrocikJRDesposatoSW (2004) Incumbency and short-term influences on voters. Political Research Quarterly57(3): 363–373.
50.
PopkinSL (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
51.
PrainoRStockemerD (2012a) Tempus edax rerum: Measuring the incumbency advantage in the U.S. house of representatives. The Social Science Journal49(3): 270–274.
52.
PrainoRStockemerD (2012b) Tempus fugit, incumbency stays: Measuring the incumbency advantage in the U.S. senate. Congress & the Presidency39(2): 160–176.
53.
PrainoRStockemerD (2016) The career length and service of female policymakers in the U.S. house of representatives. Government and Opposition. Epub ahead of print 18October. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2016.37.
54.
PrainoRStockemerDRatisJ (2014) Looking good or looking competent? Physical appearance and electoral success in the 2008 congressional elections. American Politics Research42(6): 1096–1117.
55.
PriorM (2014) Visual political knowledge: A different road to competence?The Journal of Politics76(1): 41–57.
56.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections—A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–44.
57.
RosarUKleinM (2014) The physical attractiveness of front-runners and electoral success. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft8(2): 197–209.
58.
RosarUKleinMBeckersT (2008) The frog pond beauty contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North Rhine-Westphalia state election of 2005. European Journal of Political Research47(1): 64–79.
59.
RosarUKleinMBeckersT (2012) Magic majors: Predicting electoral success from candidates’ physical attractiveness under the conditions of a presidential system. German Politics21(4): 372–391.
60.
SandersonWCScherbovS (2007) A near electoral majority of pensioners: Prospects and policies. Population and Development Review33(3): 543–554.
61.
ScarrowSE (2001) Germany: The mixed member system as a political compromise. In: ShugartMSWartenbergMP (eds) Mixed Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.55–69.
62.
SchaffnerBFStrebMJ (2002) The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly66(4): 559–581.
63.
SchuckARTXezonakisGElenbaasM. (2011) Party contestation and Europe on the news agenda: The 2009 European parliamentary elections. Electoral Studies30(1): 41–52.
64.
SkocpolT (1985) Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In: EvansPBRueschemeyerDSkocpolT (eds) Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–43.
65.
StockemerDPrainoR (2012) The incumbency advantage: A roller-coaster relationship. Politics32(3): 220–230.
66.
StockemerDPrainoR (2015) Blinded by beauty? Physical attractiveness and candidate selection in the U.S. house of representatives. Social Science Quarterly96(2): 430–443.
67.
StudlarDTDianneLAJoannaCE. (2000) A social and political profile of Canadian legislators, 1996. Journal of Legislative Studies6(2): 93–103.
68.
TodorovAMandisodzaAGorenA. (2005) Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science308(5728): 1623–1626.
69.
TodorovAOlivolaCYDotschR. (2015) Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology66(1): 519–545.
70.
TodorovAPakrashiMOosterhofNN (2009) Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition27(6): 813–833.
71.
TomzMWittenbergJKingG (2003) Clarify: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software8: 1–30.
72.
TremblayMStockemerD (2013) Women’s ministerial careers in cabinet, 1921–2010: A look at socio-demographic traits and career experiences. Canadian Public Administration56(4): 523–541.
73.
VilelaBBGonzalezJAVFerrinPF. (2007) Impression management tactics and affective context: Influence on sales performance appraisal. European Journal of Marketing41(5–6): 624–639.
74.
WatkinsLMJohnstonL (2000) Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment8(1): 76–84.
75.
WillisJTodorovA (2006) First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-Ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science17(7): 592–598.
76.
WinkielmanPHalberstadtJFazendeiroT. (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science17(4): 799–806.
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.
