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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    These correlations with vote share are equivalent to standardized regression coefficients in models with only one independent variable.

  2. 2.

    By contrast, perceived age does not influence perceptions of competence.

  3. 3.

    Perceived age of the candidate continues to affect the differential vote share but because perceived age was not related to competence, this effect is independent of competence.

References

  1. Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play!. Science, 323, 1183.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baudouin, J., & Tiberghien, G. (2004). Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychologica, 117, 313–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Benjamin, D. J., & Shapiro, J. M. (2009). Thin-slice forecasts of gubernatorial elections. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 523–536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 265–289.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ishai, A. (2006). Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortex. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 181–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2, 315–337.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brad Verhulst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verhulst, B., Lodge, M. & Lavine, H. The Attractiveness Halo: Why Some Candidates are Perceived More Favorably than Others. J Nonverbal Behav 34, 111–117 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0084-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Election Outcome
  • Vote Share
  • Facial Attractiveness
  • Political Candidate
  • Mere Exposure Effect