New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Deeper-Voiced Women Have Election Advantage

In mock elections between female candidates the deeper voice carried the vast majority of the votes. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

You vote for politicians based on their views, right? That's how it works in theory. But other factors can sway your vote. Like a politician's voice. Because studies show that the deeper the voice, the more electable the candidate. And not just for men. Deeper voiced women have an advantage over other women, even when they're running for positions traditionally held by women, like the school board or PTA president. So says a study in the journal PLoS ONE. [Rindy C. Anderson and Casey A. Klofstad, Preference for Leaders with Masculine Voices Holds in the Case of Feminine Leadership Roles]

Researchers played undergrads recordings like this. [Women’s voices.] Then they asked the students to vote for one of them for the school board or the PTA. In each mock election, the deeper voiced woman snagged about 70 percent of the votes.

Women's voices naturally deepen with age, so the researchers say we might be biased to select older women as leaders. And previous studies have shown that women with deeper voices are seen as more competent, trustworthy and strong. Margaret Thatcher used that to her advantage—she was famously coached to deepen her voice. Other politicians might do well to follow her lead, when they make their pitch to voters.


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.


—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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