A whole array of studies has shown that the physical appearance of candidates running for elective office matters. However, it is unclear whether attractiveness or perceived competence is the source of such electoral advantage. In addition, the gender of candidates might interact with perceptions of physical appearance. With the help of Canadian student coders and through the use of a web-based survey, we measure the threefold link between physical attractiveness, perceived competence, and gender for all races in the 2008 U.S. House of Representatives elections. We find that both the attractiveness and perceived competence of candidates matter for candidates’ electoral successes; the former having an important effect in intra-gender races and the latter in inter-gender races.
ArmstrongJ. S.GreenK. C.JonesR. J.Jr.WrightM. J. (2010). Predicting elections from politicians’ faces. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 511-522.
5.
BanducciS. A.KarpJ. A.ThrasherM.RallingsC. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29, 903-917.
6.
BanducciS. A.ThrasherM.RallingsC.KarpJ. A. (2003). Candidate appearance cues in low-information elections. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, 27-31.
7.
BarberN. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.
8.
BerggrenN.JordahlH.PoutvaaraP. (2007). The looks of a winner: Beauty, gender, and electoral success (CESifo Working Paper No. 2002). Paper accessed on April 22, 2014, from http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_2002.html.]
BowmanA. (1984). Physical attractiveness and electability: Looks and votes. Women & Politics, 4, 55-65.
11.
BrewerG.ArcherJ. (2007). What do people infer from facial attractiveness?Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 39-49.
12.
BuckleyF.CollinsN.ReidyT. (2007). Ballot paper photographs and low-information elections in Ireland. Politics, 27, 174-181.
13.
BussD. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books.
14.
CarlsonJ.BoringM. K. (1981). Androgyny and politics: The effects of winning and losing on candidate image. International Political Science Review, 2, 481-491.
15.
ChiaoJ. Y.BowmanN. E.GillH. (2008). The political gender gap: Gender bias in facial inferences that predict voting behaviour. PLoS ONE, 3(10), 1-7.
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CoxG. W.KatzJ. N. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow?American Journal of Political Science, 40, 478-497.
18.
CreweI. (1981). Electoral participation. In ButlerD.PennimanH. R.RanneyA. (Eds.), Democracy at the polls: A comparative study of competitive national elections. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. 213-263.
19.
CunninghamM. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
20.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
21.
EaglyA. H.AshmoreR. D.MakhijaniM. G.LongoL. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, But . . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
22.
EfranM. G.PattersonE. W. J. (1974). Voters vote beautiful: The effect of physical appearance on a national election. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 6, 352-356.
23.
EriksonR. S. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3, 395-405.
24.
EriksonR. S.WrightG. C. (1997). Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. In DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. I. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
25.
GelmanA.KingG. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 1142-1164.
26.
GoodliffeJ. (2001). The effect of war chests on challenger entry in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 830-844.
27.
GreenD. P.KrasnoJ. S. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: Reestimating the effects of campaign spending in house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 884-907.
28.
HamermeshD. S.BiddleJ. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor-market. The American Economic Review, 84, 1174-1194.
29.
HassebrauckM. (1998). The visual process method: A new method to study physical attractiveness. Evolution & Human Behavior, 19, 111-123.
30.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 6, 107-128.
31.
JacobsonG. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946-86. The American Political Science Review, 83, 773-793.
32.
JohnR.ShephardM. (2011). Facing the voters: The potential impact of ballot paper photographs in British elections. Political Studies, 59, 636-658.
LaddE. C. (1981). The brittle mandate: Electoral dealignment and the 1980 presidential election. Political Science Quarterly, 96, 1-25.
35.
LawsonC.LenzG.BakerA.MyersM. (2010). Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62, 561-593.
36.
LeighA.SusiloT. (2009). Is voting skin-deep? Estimating the effect of candidate ballot paper photographs on election outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 61-70.
37.
LenzG. S.LawsonC. (2011). Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidate’s appearance. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 574-589.
38.
LewisK.BierlyM. (1990). Toward a profile of the female voter: Sex differences in perceived physical attractiveness and competence of political candidates. Sex Roles, 22(1-2), 1-12.
39.
LittleA. C.BurrissR. P.JonesB. C.RobertsS. C. (2007). Facial appearance affects voting decisions. Evolution of Human Behavior, 28, 18-27.
40.
LuskinR. C.BullockJ. G. (2011). Don’t know “means” don’t know: DK responses and the public’s level of political knowledge. Journal of Politics, 73, 547-557.
41.
MattesK.SpezioM.KimH.TodorovA.AdolphsR.AlvarezR. M. (2010). Predicting election outcomes from positive and negative trait assessments of candidate images. Political Psychology, 31, 41-58.
42.
MayhewD. (1974). Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 6, 295-317.
43.
NorrisP. (2004). Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83-110.
45.
PrainoR.StockemerD. (2012a). Tempus Edax Rerum: Measuring the incumbency advantage in the U.S. House of representatives. The Social Science Journal, 49, 270-274.
46.
PrainoR.StockemerD. (2012b). Tempus fugit, incumbency stays: Measuring the incumbency advantage in the U.S. Senate. Congress & the Presidency, 39, 160-176.
47.
PrainoR.StockemerD.MoscardelliV. G. (2013). The lingering effect of scandals in congressional elections: Incumbents, challengers, and voters. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 1045-1061.
48.
RhodesG.ProffittF.GradyJ. M.SumichA. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 659-669.
49.
RosarU.KleinM.BeckersT. (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 Research, 47, 64-79.
50.
RosenbergS.KahnS.TranT. (1991). Creating a political image: Shaping appearance and manipulating the vote. Political Behaviour, 13, 345-367.
51.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1975). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
52.
SchwarzJ. E.FenmoreB. (1977). Presidential election results and congressional roll-call behavior: The case of 1964, 1968, and 1972. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2, 409-422.
53.
SigelmanC. K.SigelmanL.ThomasD. B.RibichF. D. (1986). Gender, physical attractiveness, and electability: An experimental investigation of voter biases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 229-248.
54.
SigelmanL.SigelmanC. K.FowlerC. (1987). A bird of a different feather? An experimental investigation of physical attractiveness and the electability of female candidates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 32-43.
55.
SilbeyJ. H. (1991). Beyond realignment and realignment theory: American political eras, 1789–1989. In ShaferB. E. (Ed.), The end of realignment? Interpreting American electoral eras. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. 3-23.
56.
SquireP. (1995). Candidates, money, and voters: Assessing the state of congressional elections research. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 891-917.
57.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (1993). Human facial beauty. Human Nature, 4, 237-269.
58.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA.GorenA.HallC. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626.
59.
TodorovA.SaidC. P.EngellA. D.OosterhofN. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 455-460.
60.
WattenbergM. P. (1991). The rise of candidate-centered politics: Presidential elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
WattenbergM. P. (1998). The decline of American political parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
WhiteH. (1980), “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity”, Econometrica48 (4): 817–838;
63.
WillisG.TodorovA. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after 100 Ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598.
64.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT.CattyS. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799-806.
65.
WinstonJ. S.StrangeB. A.O’DohertyJ.DolanR. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 277-283.
