New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Lose the Election? Looks May Be to Blame

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Split-second judgments about a politician's competence can predict an election's outcome better than chance alone, a new study reveals. The results indicate that superficial inferences can contribute to voting choices, a process hoped to be rational and deliberative.

Alexander Todorov and his colleagues at Princeton University showed more than 800 people pictures of two candidates who competed against each other in races for either the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. The researchers asked subjects to rate the politicians on characteristics such as age, trustworthiness, charisma and competence, based on a glance that lasted less than a second. Analysis of the data showed that the rankings of competence correlated with election outcomes: nearly 70 percent of the time the candidate thought to appear more competent was the race's winner. "Although the study doesn't tell us exactly what competence is---there are many kinds, including physical strength, social dominance and intellectual shrewdness--baby-faced people are perceived to be lacking in all these qualities," explains Leslie A. Zebrowitz of Brandeis University, who penned a commentary that accompanied the study in today's issue of the journal Science.

Judging a nuanced character trait such as competence solely on facial features uses a decision-making method known as System 1 processes. As a rule, these choices are fast, unreflective and effortless. A second kind of evaluation that has been implicated in voting choices uses System 2 processes, which are slow, deliberate and require more effort. Conclude Zebrowitz and co-author Joann M. Montepare of Emerson College: "Understanding the nature and origins of appearance biases has real-world value, not the least of which may be identifying electoral reforms that could increase the likelihood of electing the most qualified leaders rather than those who simply look the part."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe