Does politics cause people to be perceived as more or less attractive? As a type of social identity, party identifiers often exhibit in-group bias, positively evaluating members of their own party and, especially under conditions of competition, negatively evaluating out-party members. The current experiment tests whether political in-party and out-party status affects perceptions of the physical attractiveness of target persons. In a nationally representative internet sample of U.S. adults during the 2012 presidential election, we presented participants with photos of individuals and varied information about their presidential candidate preference. Results indicate that partisans, regardless of gender, rate target individuals as less attractive if they hold a dissimilar candidate preference. Female partisans, however, were more likely to rate target persons as more physically attractive when they held a similar candidate preference whereas no such effect was found for male partisans.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Data and code for replication of our analysis can be accessed at the Political Behavior dataverse: http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XIPZQT.
Party Registration and Party Identification are highly correlated (α = 0.91).
The pictures are stock photos obtained from shutterstock.com.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(02), 542–555.
Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. Journal of Politics, 73(02), 362–379.
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 19–31.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Chen, F. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 111.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.
Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Kittilson, M. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 805–820.
Groenendyk, E. W. (2013). Competing motives in the partisan mind: How loyalty and responsiveness shape party identification and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hamermesh, D. S. (2011). Beauty pays: Why attractive people are more successful. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heit, E., & Nicholson, S. P. (2010). The opposite of Republican: Polarization and political categorization. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1503–1516.
Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.
Hetherington, M. J. (2015). Why polarized trust matters. The Forum, 13(3), 445–458.
Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Dimensions of political homophily: Isolating choice homophily along political characteristics. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.
Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.
Jacoby, W. G. (1988). The impact of party identification on issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 643–661.
Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., & Westlye, M. C. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Kernell, S., Jacobson, G. C., & Kousser, T. (2012). The logic of American politics (5th edn.). Los Angeles: CQ Press.
Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics: how American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(2), 100–108.
Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2004). The effect of nonphysical traits on the perception of physical attractiveness: Three naturalistic studies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 88–101.
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(3), 390.
Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Jacoby, W. G., Norpoth, H., & Weisberg, H. F. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Mason, L. (2015). “I Disrespectfully Agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.
Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1315–1344.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Miller, P. R., & Conover, P. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225–239.
Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.
Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.
Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (2012). Who’s the party of the people? Economic populism and the U.S. public’s beliefs about political parties. Political Behavior, 34(2), 369–389.
Rahn, W. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–497.
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution & Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.
Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2010). Democrats and Republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PLoS One, 5(1), 1–7.
Samochoweic, J., Wänke, M., & Fiedler, K. (2010). Political ideology at face value. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(3), 206–213.
Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645.
Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(2), 149–164.
Vavreck, L., & Rivers, D. (2008). The 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(4), 355–366.
Zhong, C. B., Phillips, K. W., Leonardelli, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Negational categorization and intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 793–806.
We would like to thank Matt DeBell, Diane Felmlee, and Alex Theodoridis for helpful comments and suggestions.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Nicholson, S.P., Coe, C.M., Emory, J. et al. The Politics of Beauty: The Effects of Partisan Bias on Physical Attractiveness. Polit Behav 38, 883–898 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7
- Physical attractiveness
- Party identification
- Party cues
- Social judgment
- Partisan polarization
- Social distance
- Mate selection