Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 111–117 | Cite as

The Attractiveness Halo: Why Some Candidates are Perceived More Favorably than Others

  • Brad VerhulstEmail author
  • Milton Lodge
  • Howard Lavine


Olivola and Todorov (Elected in 100 milliseconds: appearance-based trait inferences and voting. J Nonverbal Behav, 2010) provide a convincing demonstration that competence ratings based on 1-second exposures to paired photos of US congressional candidates predict election outcomes at better than chance levels. However, they do not account for variation in competence judgments. In their analysis, Olivola and Todorov show that attractiveness, familiarity, babyfacedness and age are proximal predictors of vote choice, but find that after controlling for competence these factors no longer reliably influence the margin of electoral victory. Drawing on well-documented halo effects of attractiveness on character-based inferences and the extensive literature on mere exposure effects, we re-organize Olivola and Todorov’s analysis into a simple path model to explore the causal ordering of these factors. We find that spontaneous assessments of attractiveness and familiarity occur prior to attributions of competence, and thus exert a downstream effect on judgments of competence.


Election Outcome Vote Share Facial Attractiveness Political Candidate Mere Exposure Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play!. Science, 323, 1183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailenson, J. N., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N. A. (2008). Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 935–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, B. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudouin, J., & Tiberghien, G. (2004). Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychologica, 117, 313–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin, D. J., & Shapiro, J. M. (2009). Thin-slice forecasts of gubernatorial elections. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 523–536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  10. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ishai, A. (2006). Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortex. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 181–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahn, K., & Kenney, P. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93, 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M. A., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University press.Google Scholar
  19. O’Doherty, J., Winston, J., Critchley, D., Perrett, D., Burt, D. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Beauty in a smile: The role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 41, 147–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Olivola, C., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1.
  21. Perrett, D. I., Burt, M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rosenberg, S. W., & McCafferty, P. (1987). The image and the vote: Manipulating voters’ preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Winston, J. S., O’Doherty, J., Kilner, J. M., Perrett, D. I., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Brain systems for assessing facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 45, 195–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations