Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 777–791 | Cite as

Decomposing the Relationship Between Candidates’ Facial Appearance and Electoral Success

  • Lasse Laustsen
Original Paper


Numerous studies show that candidates’ facial competence predicts electoral success. However, a handful of other studies suggest that candidates’ attractiveness is a stronger predictor of electoral success than facial competence. Furthermore, the overall relationship between inferences from candidates’ faces and electoral success is challenged in two ways: (i) non-facial factors in candidate photos such as clothing and hair style as well as (ii) parties’ nomination strategies are suggested as potential confounds. This study is based on original data about all 268 candidates running in three local elections in 2009 in Denmark and supports a two-component structure of the relationship between candidates’ facial appearance and their electoral success. Facial competence is found to mediate a positive relationship between candidates’ attractiveness and electoral success, but simultaneously facial competence also predicts electoral success over and above what can be accounted for by attractiveness. Importantly these relationships are found when seven different non-facial factors, parties’ nomination strategies and candidates’ age and gender are controlled for. This suggests that the two-component structure of the relationship between candidates’ facial appearance and electoral success is highly robust.


Facial competence and attractiveness Visual cues Campaign photos Voting behavior 



I would like to thank Karl Kjær Bang, Martin Bisgaard Christiansen, Shanto Iyengar, Anne Plougmann Knudsen, Ole Laustsen, Tor Falkesgaard Mortensen, Nicolai Ottosen, Michael Bang Petersen, Morten Pettersson, Rune Slothuus, participants in the research section on comparative politics at Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University, the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their help, comments and advice on earlier versions of this article.

Supplementary material

11109_2013_9253_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2004). Blind retrospection: Electoral responses to drought, flu, and shark attacks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  2. Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play! Science, 323(5918), 1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, M. D., Enos, R. D., & Hill, S. J. (2009). Candidate faces and election outcomes: Is the face-vote correlation caused by candidate selection? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banducci, S., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29(6), 903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1980). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hall, C. C., Goren, A., Chaiken, S., & Todorov, A. (2009). Shallow cues with deep effects: Trait judgments from faces and voting decisions. In E. Borgida, J. L. Sullivan, & C. M. Federico (Eds.), The political psychology of democratic citizenship (pp. 73–99). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. The American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174–1194.Google Scholar
  9. Hart, W., Ottati, V. C., & Krumdick, N. D. (2011). Physical attractiveness and candidate evaluation: A model of correction. Political Psychology, 32(2), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healy, A. J., Malhotra, N., & Mo, C. H. (2010). Irrelevant events affect voters’ evaluations of government performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(29), 12804–12809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ho, D. E., & Imai, K. (2008). Estimating causal effects of ballot order from a randomized natural experiment—The California alphabet lottery, 1978–2002. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 216–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jæger, M. M. (2011). A thing of beauty is a joy forever? Returns to physical attractiveness over the life course. Social Forces, 89(3), 983–1004.Google Scholar
  13. King, A., & Leigh, A. (2009). Beautiful politicians. Kyklos, 62(4), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Lenz, G. S., & Lawson, C. (2011). Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 574–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., & Popkin, S. L. (Eds.). (2000). Elements of reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Meredith, M., & Salant, Y. (2013). On the causes and consequences of ballot order effects. Political Behavior, 35, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, A., Wattenberg, M., & Malanchuck, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olivola, C. Y., Sussman, A. B., Tsetsos, K., Kang, O. E., & Todorov, A. (2012). Republicans prefer Republican-looking leaders: Political facial stereotypes predict candidate electoral success among right-leaning voters. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poutvaara, P., Jordahl, H., & Berggren, N. (2009). Faces of politicians: Babyfacedness predicts inferred competence but not electoral success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1132–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosar, U., Klein, M., & Beckers, T. (2008). The frog pond beauty contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North Rhine-Westphalia state election of 2005. European Journal of Political Research, 47, 64–79.Google Scholar
  24. Rutchick, A. M. (2010). Deus ex machina: The influence of polling place on voting behavior. Political Psychology, 31(2), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spezio, M. L., Loesch, L., Gosselin, F., Mattes, K., & Alvarez, R. M. (2012). Thin-slice decisions do not need faces to be predictive of election outcomes. Political Psychology, 33(2), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verhulst, B., Lodge, M., & Lavine, H. (2010). The attractiveness halo: Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and GovernmentAarhus UniversityÅrhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations