Image: Mark Jarman
With the 2012 presidential election looming on the horizon in November, consider these two crucial questions: Who looks more competent, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Who has the deepest and most resonant voice? Maybe your answer is, “Who cares? I vote for candidates based on their policies and positions, not on how they look and sound!” If so, that very likely is your rational brain justifying an earlier choice that your emotional brain made based on these seemingly shallow criteria.
Before the election, I urge you to read Leonard Mlodinow's new book, Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior (Pantheon). You will gain such insights as that higher-pitched voices are judged by subjects as more nervous, less truthful and less empathetic than speakers with lower-pitched voices and that speaking a little faster and louder, with fewer pauses and greater variation in volume, leads people to judge someone to be energetic, intelligent and knowledgeable. Looks matter even more. One study presented subjects with campaign flyers featuring black-and-white photographs of models posing as Democrats or Republicans in fictional congressional races; half looked able and competent, whereas the other half did not, as rated by volunteers before the experiment. The flyers included the candidate's name, party affiliation, education, occupation, political experience and three position statements. To control for party preference, half the subjects were shown the more suitable-looking candidate as a Democrat, and the other half saw him as a Republican. Results: 59 percent of the vote went to the candidate with the more capable appearance regardless of other qualifications. A similar study in a mock election resulted in a 12-percentage-point advantage for the more authoritative-looking politician.
To test these effects in real elections, Princeton University psychologist Alexander Todorov and his colleagues had volunteers rate for “competence” black-and-white head shots of all the candidates in 600 contests for the U.S. House of Representatives and 95 races for the Senate from 2000, 2002 and 2004. Results: candidates rated as more competent won 67 percent of the House races and 72 percent of the Senate ones. In a follow-up study published in 2007 the psychologists conducted the face-evaluation process before the 2006 elections, predicting the winners in 72 percent of Senate runs and 69 percent of gubernatorial competitions based on the candidates' appearances alone.
These data—and others—confirm what was perceived the night of September 26, 1960, during the first televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. Well rested and tan from campaigning in California, Kennedy was radiant, like an “athlete come to receive his wreath of laurel,” journalist Howard K. Smith noted. In contrast, Nixon had been campaigning right up to the debate and had been hospitalized for a knee infection that had left him with a 102-degree fever and looking pale and haggard, worsened by his notoriously heavy five o'clock shadow. Seventy million people watched the event. Millions more listened on the radio. According to a study published in the trade journal Broadcasting, those who saw the debate thought Kennedy won, whereas those who heard it gave Nixon the nod. For example, when New York Herald Tribune writer Earl Mazo first observed reactions to the debate at a conference, he observed, “Nixon was best on radio simply because his deep, resonant voice conveyed more conviction, command, and determination than Kennedy's higher-pitched voice and his Boston-Harvard accent. But on television, Kennedy looked sharper, more in control, more firm.” These conclusions were replicated in a 2003 study in which subjects who viewed the debate were more likely to think Kennedy won than those who listened to it.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentDoes the existance of shallow voters make psychologists feel important?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why people submit to surveys designed to prove them incapable of thinking intelligently.
Sometimes the impression a speaker leaves his audience with is the right one, despite what his supporters may prefer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe. the Kennedy vs. Nixon debate, perhaps those watching television had more information available than those listing only to the voices on radio. Perhaps Nixon's shifty eyes and sweaty forehead betrayed his paranoid delusions, which later betrayed him and the American people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, candidates today are so thoroughly groomed and polished to portray only the optimal characteristics of an idealized president that there is no real information available to voters they can use make an informed choice.
Slightly different tack, same fundamental issue:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/#comment-211
and Mythusmage, yes, definitely. The voice carries a message that goes deeper than the look, regardless of the elegance the message.
jayjacobus, you should design an experiment to determine if your hypothesis is correct. It may be that psychology is all about the psychologists' egos and not about discovering all we can about human behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you can empirically determine that your hypothesis is correct, then your corollary that psychologists design studies to prove that most humans are unintelligent, just may be true.
Oh, nevermind, YOU would become one of 'those psychologists' if you did that research, and by your own rationale, no one should listen to you, nor participate in your egotistical 'surveys'.
You do understand that this is a science magazine, don't you? The authors probably aren't real impressed with your dismissal of their objectivity, and your implied ignorance of the scientific method.
That instinctual behaviors are also part of the human makeup, does not make us unintelligent. The whole point of this article is to understand that we sometimes take cognitive shortcuts to avoid analyzing an over-whelming amount of information, and that by understanding this propensity, we can hopefully make more rational decisions than if we are ignorant of our instincts.
You raised some fair point, Michael, but you are confused. "Well, maybe a private military could work, we just have never seen one," you have said... but, what?! You are very confused in a broad sense... come to the good side, ethics isn't a delusion, come to us, Michael.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo get an honest view of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll prejudice comes from the ego, yet some "science" proves that one type of person is better than another type of person.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it the quest for superiority that underlies some scientific studies? In some cases it is.
All people come equipped with a rational mind. To prove oltherwise is arrogant.
these surveys are given online sometimes. I work for Amazon doing small jobs sometimes they are surveys for colleges I actually remember taking one similar to this .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow no one tells you what the survey is really about and we get paid a small fee to do them that would be why people do them and since i am an independent and not voting for either I wonder if they liked m results.. lol
@jay: you failed to comprehend the meaning of the results if you think this is just about the existence of shallow voters. The point is that you can accurately predict the results of the majority of elections based just on these shallow traits. That clearly shows that this isn't just about the fact that shallow voters exist. Voters who wear eye patches and call all their friends "matey" exist too. But their voting patterns don't predict elections...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<All people come equipped with a rational mind. To prove otherwise is arrogant.>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether that is true or not, proof as such is never arrogant.
There is actually a far better way of predicting elections. Swiss researcher predicts a +90% accurate election result from votes by submitting the electoral lists to first- and secondgraders. Not kidding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope one of you knows this work, it's from two or three years ago, can't find anymore, been looking anywhere. I remember it was a french-swiss guy and I lost the digital report. Since the Swiss aren't internationally reputed, not many paid attention to his research but I've seen it shortly at the time. If you know whom I'm talking about, do by all means post a connection. Thank you.
I can't speak for others, but I find comprehension of subject, facts, and accuracy far more persuasive than loudness and rapidity of speech.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy guess is that your criteria are not shared by the majority of voters
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this article is further evidence of the myth of democracy. The idea that people vote for a candidate based on rational decisions gained from genuine unbiased evidence is highly questionable. Not only are there the intrisic biases outlined in this article there are the insane overload of the bias media gushing one sided unsubstanciated rubbish to banbozal the hapless voter. No wonder so many just don't vote. Democracy is a sad joke....pity we can't come up with a better way to organise those who govern. Perhaps finding a 'better' system could be the holy grail for science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember that within that Swiss research some politicians who were firmly convinced that they had been elected on objective grounds felt quite devastated when they learned that primary school kids had "predicted" their success.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI concur with you, democracy is far less to do with intelligence that people like to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Antonakis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle 'Swiss kids predict election results' and it's the 4th entry down.
The title of the article is "Why Your Brain Is Irrational about Obama and Romney."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you saying that in your own case the premise is true?
Lately, elections have been won or lost due to voters who makes their decision based on a single issue such as gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration or taxes. Whichever candidate is perceived to have the same view as the voter on that one issue gets the vote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbrublr, your help is most appreciated
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the researcher works in French Switzerland and I had read the original in French, I always googled this in French and never got a result.
Speak for yourself, Michael Shermer! Don't presume to tell me what my brain is doing. Furthermore, I am not one of your "our" since I refuse to vote at all, not wanting to sanction and promote the harm done by all political processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlternative explanation: the cultural influences on us throughout our life determine our political orientation. If you've come to believe that society should promote fairness and empathy, you're a liberal. Or if you believe society should promote self-interest, a.k.a. self-reliance, you're an economic conservative. If you believe that society's primary role is maintaining stability, including looking out for the group, then you're a social conservative. That's why every major election starts out with 80% or so of the voters already spoken for, and the candidates fighting over the 20% of people in the middle. For more, read (self-plug) "Why Liberalism?", available on ebook sites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer is usually dead on so I was surprised that he would use such an extremely dubious explanation from evolutionary psychology for why we're influenced by trivial charactoristics. While evolutionary psychology/sociobiology can indeed offer new insights the kind of "Just So" story that Shermer ends his piece with deserve our highest skepticism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for not voting. It makes my evil plot for world domination one step closer to success! Just don't whine when the death squad comes for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA question raised here is whether the sound and appearance of competence are fair indicators of same. If true to some extent, then voters are less dumb than they are made to seem. Go study that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA word I do not see in Shermer's piece is "values". I have no ambiguity about the nature of my values. To me, actions speak much louder than words. In his life, Romney has clearly acted to make himself extremely wealthy. His campaign makes it clear that he wants to make rich people even richer. Obama has acted in his life to gain political power. His actions reveal a consistent motive to empower women and minorities. His actions are much more in alignment with my values than Romney's actions are. There is no irrationality in my choice for president. For me, actions really do speak louder than words, and actions are far less ambiguous than are words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect I got to ask something: does anyone assume (and on what basis if yes) a relationship between the vote of the citizens and the suitability of a candidate for an office? Were the ones judged as superior better Presidents? Were they better or more desirable than others with respect to what: economic success, unemployment, welfare state, health situation, war outcomes, wars initiated? Unless you can reasonably identify some links, the study is completely useless and the subjects should decline cooperation. Observations in mice would be equally relevant. My own shallowness sinks me in hopeless despair
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this