Most of us think we elect our leaders based on their politics. But new research reveals that it might be the candidates’ faces that count.
Anthony Little of the University of Stirling in Scotland and his colleagues modified the faces of candidates from eight different political races in the U.K., the U.S. and New Zealand. Using a computer, he combined the real faces with a picture of an “average” face made from a composite of several different people. The resulting images preserved the politicians’ important facial features but rendered the contestants unrecognizable.
Then, volunteers in the lab examined each new pair of runners and decided who would be a better leader based on the faces alone. In all eight races, they chose the face of the politician who had won the actual election—George W. Bush redefeated John Kerry, and Tony Blair upset John Major once again.
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.
Research has shown that people make a lot of judgments about others based on their faces and that most will agree about whether a face looks aggressive, intelligent or kind, for example. The tendency to judge individuals by their faces might have been useful early in human history, when our ancestors lived in small groups and chose leaders based entirely on personal characteristics, Little says. For instance, in dangerous times people tend to prefer dominant faces, as signaled by features such as a prominent chin and heavy brow.
Little says that it is unlikely that only the face counts in a political election. But the research does suggest that part of our gut feelings about candidates comes from unconscious assessments we make based solely on their faces.