The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Do Attractive Politicians Get a ‘Break’ When They are Involved in Scandals?

  • Daniel StockemerEmail author
  • Rodrigo Praino
Original Paper


In general, politicians involved in scandals of various natures are punished by voters. Good-looking politicians, on the contrary, are rewarded by voters. Almost fifty years of empirical research has shown that ill-informed voters will use the physical attractiveness of candidates, as well as readily-available information on scandal allegations involving candidates running for office, as a heuristic shortcut to determine their voting behaviour. This article represents the first attempt to link the existing literature on the electoral effects of scandals with the existing literature of the electoral impact of candidate attractiveness. Using data on U.S. House of Representatives elections between 1972 and 2012, we find that candidate attractiveness mitigates the negative electoral effects of involvement in scandal; this implies that attractive politicians do get a “break” when involved in scandals. Of all type of scandals, we also find that candidate attractiveness has the largest moderating role if the incumbent is embroiled in a sex scandal.


Physical attractiveness Scandals Elections US House of Representatives US congress 


  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1991). Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in US House elections. The Journal of Politics, 53(1), 34–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play! Science, 323(5918), 1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banducci, S. A., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29(6), 903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barone, M., Ujifusa, G., & Matthews, D. (1975). Almanac of American politics, 1976: Dutton.Google Scholar
  5. Basinger, S. J. (2013). Scandals and congressional elections in the post-Watergate era. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basinger, S. J. (2016). Scandals and Ethics Reform in the US House of Representatives. Public Integrity, 18(4), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basinger, S. J., Brown, L., Harris, D. B., & Gulati, G. (2014). Counting and classifying congressional scandals. In A. Dagnes & M. Sachleben (Eds.), Scandal! an interdisciplinary approach to the consequences, outcomes, and significance of political scandals (pp. 3–28). New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1), 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2017). The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it. Journal of Public Economics, 146, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brusattin, L. (2011). Candidate visual appearance as a shortcut for both sophisticated and unsophisticated voters: Evidence from a Spanish online study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in US House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science. Scholar
  12. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Miller, M. G. (2011). Are financial or moral scandals worse? It depends. PS. Political Science & Politics, 44(04), 749–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Miller, M. G. (2014). Does time heal all wounds? Sex scandals, tax evasion, and the passage of time. PS. Political Science & Politics, 47(02), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Druckman, J. N. (2003). The Power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Efrain, M. G., & Patterson, E. (1974). Voters vote beautiful: The effect of physical appearance on a national election. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 6(4), 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraile, M. (2013). Do information-rich contexts reduce knowledge inequalities? The contextual determinants of political knowledge in Europe. Acta Politica, 48(2), 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Funk, C. L. (1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behavior, 18(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galvis, Á. F., Snyder, J. M., Jr., & Song, B. (2016). Newspaper market structure and behavior: Partisan coverage of political scandals in the United States from 1870 to 1910. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 368–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gershman, B. L. (1982). Abscam, the judiciary, and the ethics of entrapment. The Yale Law Journal, 91(8), 1565–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graycar, A. (2015). Corruption: classification and analysis. Policy and Society, 34(2), 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Herrick, R. (2000). Who will survive? An exploration of factors contributing to the removal of unethical house members. American Politics Quarterly, 28(1), 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobson, G. C., & Dimock, M. A. (1994). Checking out: The effects of bank overdrafts on the 1992 house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 601–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leigh, A., & Susilo, T. (2009). Is voting skin-deep? Estimating the effect of candidate ballot photographs on election outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. McAllister, I. (1998). Civic education and political knowledge in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milazzo, C., & Mattes, K. (2016). Looking good for election day: Does attractiveness predict electoral success in Britain? The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 18(1), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010a). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010b). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pattie, C., & Johnston, R. (2012). The electoral impact of the UK 2009 MPs’ expenses scandal. Political Studies, 60(4), 730–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters, J. G., & Welch, S. (1978). Political corruption in America: a search for definitions and a theory, or if political corruption is in the mainstream of American politics why is it not in the mainstream of American politics research? American Political Science Review, 72(03), 974–984. Scholar
  36. Praino, R., & Graycar, A. (2017). Does Corruption Follow Opportunity? A Study of the US Congress. Public Integrity, 1–19. Advanced Online Publication,
  37. Praino, R., & Stockemer, D. (2012a). Tempus Edax Rerum: Measuring the incumbency advantage in the US House of Representatives. The Social Science Journal, 49(3), 270–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Praino, R., & Stockemer, D. (2012b). Tempus Fugit, Incumbency Stays: Measuring the Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. Senate. Congress & the Presidency, 39(2), 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Praino, R., Stockemer, D., & Moscardelli, V. G. (2013). The lingering effect of scandals in Congressional elections: incumbents, challengers, and voters. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1045–1061. Scholar
  40. Praino, R., Stockemer, D., & Ratis, J. (2014). Looking good or looking competent? Physical appearance and electoral success in the 2008 congressional elections. American Politics Research, 42(6), 1096–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puglisi, R., & Snyder, J. M. (2011). Newspaper coverage of political scandals. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 931–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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(1), 64–79.Google Scholar
  43. Rosar, U., Klein, M., & Beckers, T. (2012). Magic Mayors: Predicting Electoral Success from Candidates’ Physical Attractiveness under the Conditions of a Presidential Electoral System. German Politics, 21(4), 372–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stern, M. (2007). The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy Duke Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  46. Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2015). Blinded by Beauty? Physical Attractiveness and Candidate Selection in the US House of Representatives. Social Science Quarterly, 96(2), 430–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2017). Physical attractiveness, voter heuristics and electoral systems: The role of candidate attractiveness under different institutional designs. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(2), 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stone, P. H. (2006). Heist: Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, his Republican allies, and the buying of Washington: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, J. B. (2013). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Todorov, A., Pakrashi, M., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vancil, D. L., & Pendell, S. D. (1987). The myth of viewer-listener disagreement in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. Central States Speech Journal, 38(1), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watkins, L. M., & Johnston, L. (2000). Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of selection and assessment, 8(2), 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. The Journal of Politics, 59(01), 226–239. Scholar
  55. Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations