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."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe