Australian economists Amy King and Andrew Leigh have an interesting article showing that the perceived beauty of candidates has a major impact on eelctoral success [HT: Prawfsblawg]. By their analysis of data from Australian parliamentary elections, one standard deviation of candidate “beauty” (the difference between a candidate at the 84th percentile of attractiveness relative to other candidates and one at the 50th) increases a candidate’s percentage of the vote by 1.5 to 2 percent. This is a major effect, since about 10% of Australian legislators won their seats by less than that margin, during the period studied. Moreover, this data probably understates the true impact of physical attractiveness, because it looks only at the relative success of those politicians who get major party nominations; obviously, however, the parties themselves are aware of the importance of looks and thus will try to nominate good-looking candidates, thereby excluding some unattractive but potentially more competent alternatives.
Physical attractiveness influences electoral outcomes in the US as well as Australia. As the Prawfsblawg post linked above points out, taller candidates seem to have an edge in American presidential elections. A 2005 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that the relative physical attractiveness of rival candidates has a big impact on the vote to determine the president of the American Economics Association.
I. Physical Attractiveness and Rational Political Ignorance.
The impact of physical attractiveness on electoral success is another effect of voter ignorance and irrationality. Because individual votes have so little chance of actually affecting electoral outcomes, voters have little incentive either to acquire political knowledge (“rational ignorance”) or to do a good job of evaluating the information they have (“rational irrationality”). If voters know little about politics and public policy, they may rely on extremely limited information to make their decisions, including information about a candidate’s looks. King and Leigh predictably find that candidate looks had a bigger impact in constituencies with a higher percentage of “apathetic” voters, a trait that probably correlates with political ignorance. Irrationality, however, plays a role as well. Even if you know little about politics, voting on the basis of looks is still poor decision-making. After all, there is no reason to believe that physical attractiveness predicts better performance in office.
II. Is Candidate Attractiveness a Useful Information Shortcut for Voters?
Defenders of voter competence might argue that physical attractiveness is a good “information shortcut” that improves voter decisions. For example, people who work harder at improving their appearance may be more conscientious workers in general, and therefore better legislators. However, I doubt that this is a major factor within the set of people who are already dedicated and conscientious enough to have won a major party nomination for high political office. Moreover, much of a person’s attractiveness or lack thereof is determined by genetic causes outside of their control. Physical attractiveness might also improve job performance because attractive leaders might improve a nation’s public image. This might be an argument for electing physically attractive heads of state. But foreign public opinion almost never pays much attention to the appearance of other nations’ rank and file legislators. Indeed, most such legislators are little-known outside their districts even in their own countries.
Finally, one could cite data showing that physical appearance improves job prospects even in the private sector, where decision-making is likely to be more rational because consumers and employers don’t suffer from rational ignorance and rational irrationality. There is, however, a difference between private sector hiring for beauty and voting. In the private sector case, employee beauty is a valuable consumption good for employers and co-workers who have to look at the person in question every day. Many people would prefer to look at more attractive people than less attractive ones, just as we prefer to look at attractive rather than ugly office furniture. Thus, employers who discriminate against the ugly and in favor of the beautiful are rationally promoting their self-interest in two ways: they derive personal aesthetic pleasure and also make the office more appealing to other workers. By contrast, few voters spend much time looking at their legislative representatives, with the exception of a few especially avid C-Span watchers.
Ultimately, it may be rational for voters to give a very slight preference to physically attractive candidates – but not one as large as that found by King and Leigh. Overvaluing of candidates’ physical attractiveness is far from the worst harm caused by political ignorance. But it is another addition to a long and growing list.
UPDATE: Leigh is the author of another important recent study of voter ignorance and irrationality, where he shows that voters tend to reward and punish governments for world economic conditions they have no control over, while often ignoring economic outcomes over which they have more leverage.
UPDATE #2: I should point out that the impact of attractiveness may be greater in Australian legislative elections than in American House races because, as King and Leigh note, Australian voters each receive a “How to Vote” card with pictures of the rival candidates when they go to the polls. By contrast, many American voters probably don’t know what candidates look like, and therefore can’t be influenced by their appearance. The effects are probably greater with respect to Senate, gubernatorial, and presidential elections, where candidates tend to be better known.
Gruest says:
People generally get the faces they deserve. Evil people often have evil faces. Kind people often have kind faces. Voting for kind people over evil people is not irrational, even though professional politicians might be better able to hide evil than the general public.
December 12, 2009, 12:19 amDaniel Charlies says:
Go Sarah!
I kid.
December 12, 2009, 12:28 amA bit.
BC says:
Just as voters may prefer attractive candidates when it comes time to vote, the same phenomenon may cause other legislators to prefer attractive sponsors of bills. While I would hardly expect it to have the same power, it’s possible an attractive legislator would be better able to bring others together to support a bill.
December 12, 2009, 12:53 amCornellian says:
I remember Fred Thompson once saying that politics was show business for ugly people.
December 12, 2009, 1:12 amDuffy Pratt says:
If there actually was some sort of rational way to choose our leaders, then shouldn’t it follow that elections are unnecessary? Is there some other field where one could rationally arrive at some decision, but instead people just put it up to a vote?
December 12, 2009, 1:24 amrpt says:
Paging Rich Lowry.
December 12, 2009, 2:20 amGuy says:
I think it could be argued that even a poorly chosen leader who knows the public can hold him accountable if he abuses his authority is preferable to a nearly ideal leader who is completely unaccountable in any way, shape, or form. I’ve never been even remotely convinced that democratic elections are a good way of choosing competent people for office, but I do understand that they are necessary to preserve the principle that government exists by the consent of the governed, and to provide for a way for a popular “revolution” to occur without resort to violence.
December 12, 2009, 3:15 amArkaday says:
Hmmm, didn’t Plato cover all this re Alcibiades?
December 12, 2009, 7:12 amjcm says:
Do you know Hugo Chavez won the 1999 over a Miss Universe pageant winner?
December 12, 2009, 7:44 amWhy Hillary lost?
For sure Palin would beat Biden
Why are no more women elected?
Plato was jealous of Alcibiades for Socrates
Dick King says:
Isn’t it possible that attractive adults were attractive when they were growing up, and were more popular among their peers as children, and were more likely to succeed at activity choices that required popularity?
That which gets reinforced during childhood can have lasting effects, even if the reinforcement occurs for capricious reasons but the selection process as adults is more rational.
-dk
December 12, 2009, 9:45 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Beauty and the Political Beasts -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Beauty and the Political Beasts: Australian economists Amy King and Andrew Leigh have an interesting article sh.. http://bit.ly/89ekZL [...]
December 12, 2009, 10:03 amSkibum3157 says:
This is kind of an interesting statistic to check. Empirically it doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly makes you think about the issue. Since 1944, there have only been 4 U.S. presidential elections where the shorter candidate won (counting GWB twice).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_United_States_Presidents_and_presidential_candidates#The_taller_man_wins.3F
December 12, 2009, 10:10 amXanthippas says:
Snark, but it would be funnier if this isn’t actually what people intuitively believe.
December 12, 2009, 10:24 amphilip snyder says:
It’s been said previously but deserves repeating:
“If Sara Palin looked like Golda Meir, no one would pay attention to her”
December 12, 2009, 10:40 amtroll_dc2 says:
I have read that the attractiveness factor did not become important until women got the vote and that the first beneficiary was Warren Harding.
December 12, 2009, 11:43 amLarryA says:
Given that in the last several elections:
1. I didn’t like either party’s platform,
2. Neither candidate impressed me,
3. Both candidates were running on campaign promises they obviously weren’t going to keep,
4. Whoever got elected was going to be on TV a lot,
how is physical attractiveness not a rational choice?
Okay, actually I voted the way I usually do: against the candidate most likely to impose gun control. Given recent choices, what more do I need to know?
December 12, 2009, 12:14 pmElmer says:
Ilya has this all wrong. Consider the T-shirt ad to the right of this post. Someone was willing to hire that woman to appear in the ad despite her lack of conservative credentials. Clothing buyers are impressed by this tolerance, and reward the company by buying shirts. The same thing happens in elections. Very few people have the skills, knowledge, and temperament to make a great public servant. Some voters are broad-minded enough to give other types a chance as well, such as those who aren’t sure whether the previous sentence should use “servant” or “servants”, or the attractive. Though one should expect this practice to reduce government efficiency, there is a benefit in the public’s closer identification with their leaders.
December 12, 2009, 12:16 pmASlyJD says:
troll_dc2,
It’s probably worth noting that frequent use of photos in newspapers wasn’t terribly common before women got the vote, either.
December 12, 2009, 12:17 pmSueSimp says:
But troll_dc2, I thought the party line was that men are the visually motivated gender, not women?
Although to be serious, is Harding really considered attractive, or just authoritative-looking? Because to me he looks like an angry Grandpa Munster.
Also, I wish the study had found a better way to rate the attractiveness of the candidates. The “whose better looking” stats were acquired from a group of Australian raters, plus one U.S. woman who didn’t know any of the candidates.
So to me, it sounds as if there may be some sort of popular-policies-make-you-hotter effect going on. The politicians who were more likely to be elected were the ones who looked more attractive because people had more favorable opinions of them.
I mean, if you ask who is more attractive, George Bush or Barack Obama, you are obviously going to get a little of a party split in the results.
December 12, 2009, 12:17 pmAllan Walstad says:
Seriously, this is just one more reason for strictly limiting political interference in the marketplace. Why should our choices be overridden by people selected for their good looks? As, for example, in the health care so-called “reform” being conjured up in DC right now? Or pols robbing us blind to prop up failed automakers?
December 12, 2009, 12:20 pmcorneille1640 says:
Allan Walstad,
Point duly noted. Still, Mr. Baucus is not quite the looker he could be.
December 12, 2009, 12:51 pmyankee says:
Or one could cite the extensive psychological research on the halo effect of attractiveness. People are more likely to assign positive traits like moral character or intelligence to attractive people purely on the basis of looks; people asked to rate the quality of musical performances give higher ratings to more attractive performers. These and a host of other effects exist (and are quite strong) in experimental settings where it makes no sense to apply rational choice models. More attractive criminal defendants get lighter sentences and are more likely to be acquitted, and more attractive plaintiffs are more likely to win and get bigger awards, even though the jurors and judges have nothing to gain by favoring the more attractive in these contexts.
I’m sure that if you really try you can shoehorn all this stuff into a rational choice model, but it’s far more plausible to say that people have a systematic irrational bias in favor of the attractive.
December 12, 2009, 1:18 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Right, because men aren’t visually oriented and are never swayed by the appearance of the person they are looking at.
December 12, 2009, 1:41 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
By “no one” do you mean “no man” perchance?
December 12, 2009, 1:43 pmRoscoe says:
Regarding the second update:
Attractiveness as a factor may also be overstated in Australia because voting is compulsory there. In the U.S., people who know and care nothing about politics are not likely to show up to vote (But Cf Barbara Boxer). In Oz, on the other hand, people who know nothing are compelled to show up to cast a vote, and are more likely to just pick the better looking candidates.
December 12, 2009, 1:44 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
This is possibly the funniest thing I’ve seen all week.
If only it were true. Then the bikini-clad women selling cars and what not would have to find other work, though, so maybe we’ll leave that alone.
December 12, 2009, 1:46 pmnrwo says:
Attractive people are smarter than less attractive people. The link between attractiveness and a candidate’s desirability is probably mediated by intelligence (not attractiveness per se).
Intelligence probably (directly) mediates political effectiveness. Highly intelligent people are better able to think quickly on their feet (faster processing speed), to hold more idea units in working memory at once (higher working memory capacity), and to learn information more quickly. Such abilities should enhance a politician’s effectiveness in a variety of ways, e.g., thinking quickly during debates; formulating policies that consider multiple perspectives; spinning phrases like, “Nattering nabobs of negativism…”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i (NLSAH data showing that intelligence increases with attractiveness)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200904/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-ii (Theories re: link between intelligence and attractiveness)
December 12, 2009, 2:03 pmToral says:
People are more willing to follow physically attractive people as leaders. Voting for more effective leaders over less effective ones is not irrational. Therefore preferring more physically attractive people in voting is not irrational.
December 12, 2009, 2:25 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I too think you overstate the value here.
December 12, 2009, 2:37 pmtheobromophile says:
Let’s tweak that and make it more accurate: if Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, the liberals would have had to make actual arguments to undermine her, instead of relying on the “pretty women are all idiots” meme.
In fact, I recently read that attractive women are often judged to be less intelligent and less competent than their peers. Perhaps the Australian study included enough men to swamp out those effects for women, or perhaps that effect happens only with extremely attractive women (like Gov. Palin). No doubt, though, that pretty women are frequently thought to be idiots, whether or not it is warranted.
December 12, 2009, 3:03 pmtheobromophile says:
And, according to Prof. Volokh, are more easily sexually aroused! Education for all!
December 12, 2009, 3:05 pmChrisTS says:
Without reading the Psychology Today articles linked by NRWO, I would offer some counterexamples:
Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Napoleon, Albert Einstein… and, as some have pointed to Alcibiades as a looker, let’s not forget that Socrates definitely was not a looker.
December 12, 2009, 3:09 pmDave N. says:
I am sure Paris Hilton’s Mensa membership card got lost in the mail.
December 12, 2009, 3:09 pmgeokstr says:
It’s probably more likely that attractive children get much more encouragement because of their looks, thus leading to more confidence, etc, than that intelligence is somehow genetically attached to physical attractiveness. Remember, even what is considered “attractive” changes over relatively short periods of time, far too short for evolution to effect the necessary changes.
And all one has to do is listen to the inanity and outright stupidity of all those beautiful actors and actresses every time they open their mouths to understand how that can’t be true.
December 12, 2009, 3:15 pmgeokstr says:
Laura, much as I agree with nearly everything you write here, I’ll have to take some exception to this statement. I would venture to say that (at least hetero) men are much more interested in the physical appearance of the opposite sex than other men.
I would also venture that, while women are not as swayed by the attractiveness of men, that still factors sufficiently into their choices when they have to decide between a handsome man and one not so handsome.
Then throw in that until the last few decades, there were very few women running for political office. Therefore, all there was to choose from was two men. In choosing between two men, the female vote would have been more overall influenced by which was more attractive than the male vote, and may have swung some elections for the prettier one.
Fear not though. Now that more women are running, note that the female candidates and politicians of both parties are getting prettier. Pretty much gone are the days of Bella Abzug and Barbara Mikulski (who is still hanging in there), and in comes the era of Palin and Sebelius.
December 12, 2009, 3:35 pmPerseus says:
Francis Bacon took the argument one step further:
“Whosoever hath anything fixed in his person that doth induce contempt, hath also a perpetual spur in himself to rescue and deliver himself from scorn. …they will, if they be of spirit, seek to free themselves from scorn, which must be either by virtue or malice.”–’Of Deformity’
As a modern, Bacon suggests malice on the part of ugly Socrates.
December 12, 2009, 4:43 pmASlyJD says:
Dave N, this assumes Paris Hilton is attractive.
December 12, 2009, 4:50 pmChrisTS says:
Good lord, I’m going to agree with geokstr:
Furthermore, poeple appear attractive or unattractive to us as much because of how we feel about them as because of their facial structure. Hence, Sly’s comment about Paris Hilton.
December 12, 2009, 5:05 pmgeokstr says:
Shhhh…not so loud. I’ll be drummed out of the conservative corps if that gets around.
:-)
December 12, 2009, 5:30 pmChrisTS says:
GEO:
It’s ok, I hit you on the Bush/Gore thread. Phew.
December 12, 2009, 5:32 pmASlyJD says:
Eh, while I don’t care for her personality, it’s fair to say she’s been badly served by her plastic surgeons as well. She has a hook nose and a lazy eye, not to mention the most obviously fake breasts this side of Toys ‘R Us. The blow up doll aesthetic is not one I admire or find attractive, and that would be true if she was intelligent or admirable in any other way.
December 12, 2009, 5:50 pmChrisTS says:
Sly:
Clearly, you are not watching enough trash TV (Real Housewives of…)
December 12, 2009, 6:04 pmASlyJD says:
ChrisTS,
That’s a fair point. I don’t watch any TV at all anymore, and the only time I have actually missed not upgrading to digital was Thanksgiving when I wanted to watch the Macy’s parade. Luckily, NYC is full of webcams, so I got to watch without commercials. :)
Re: fake breasts. I have naturally what those women pay good money for, and I can’t figure out why they do it. Most lingerie lines just don’t make sexy bras in 36F (or any bras at all, for that matter.) As for button up shirts? Forget it. Then you get the sagging, and the stretch marks, and the eventual lift surgery . . .
December 12, 2009, 6:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
But the choices, as you point out, would not have been between a man and a woman, or between two women.
I just think it’s kind of snarky to put this phenomenon on women, like we’re the primary ones who value appearance over substance.
December 12, 2009, 8:14 pmGuy says:
I agree attractiveness is a bigger factor for women, but I wouldn’t completely discount the theory that straight men are influenced by the attractiveness of other men. I’ve noticed that men tend to be friends with other men who are approximately as attractive as they are.
December 12, 2009, 9:28 pmgeokstr says:
Laura, please reread my comment, or perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.
It’s been proven pretty clearly that men in general are much more impressed by the looks of a woman than her substance, while women are the opposite. However, when the only choice is men to look at, men are less influenced by their looks than women are, so if there is any influence in those elections based on looks it will be from women. It’s all relative to the choices involved.
I also stated that it’s changing now that more women are going into politics and if men have two women to choose from, or a pretty woman vs any man, I think that we’ll start seeing a lot more men voting with their little brain, and so we’ll be getting lots more Palin’s and Sebelius’s.
What I said was actually complimentary to women and their choices over men’s choices. It’s not my fault that no women ran in the past so that men’s baser instincts could prevail.
December 12, 2009, 10:47 pmHutz says:
BC nailed it in one of the earlier comments, but I would put it slightly differently. Physical attractiveness is a decent, rough proxy for charisma. All other things being equal, a legislator with more charisma will have more success persuading colleagues to support his initiatives.
Favoring attractive candidates seems like it fits the definition of rational ignorance, but perhaps not rational irrationality. If one operates from the assumption that elected representatives will endeavor to serve the interests of their constituents, it seems perfectly rational to see candidates’ relative physical attractiveness as an efficient predictor of their relative ability to achieve their goals.
Of course, I may have Ilya’s concepts wrong. But this still seems like an answer to his point that there is no reason to believe physical attractiveness will predict better performance in office.
December 12, 2009, 10:55 pmEli Rabett says:
You might want to talk to Richard Nixon on this one. Also the tall candidate usually wins.
December 12, 2009, 11:03 pmChrisTS says:
Sly:
Let’s face it: after a certain age, even 36C ain’t that great. :-)
December 12, 2009, 11:25 pmASlyJD says:
Chris,
Yes. But I’m 26. :)
December 12, 2009, 11:38 pmChrisTS says:
AHHHH!
December 13, 2009, 12:08 amPerseus says:
RN: “I’m not a crook or a looker, which is why I lost to Kennedy but beat Humphrey and McGovern.”
December 13, 2009, 1:24 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I find this problematic, to say the least. The legislator’s charisma does not speak to whether his initiatives are a good idea or not. I’d rather his colleagues were persuaded by looking at his arguments and determining that his initiative would benefit the country, rather than go along with him because he has a charming way about him.
December 13, 2009, 10:42 amCornellian says:
I’m looking forward to Charlize Theron’s landslide, 49 state sweep to victory in 2016.
December 13, 2009, 11:10 amtheobromophile says:
Sexy lingerie is the consolation prize for the rest of us. :)
December 13, 2009, 12:17 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: Beauty and the Political Beasts: Australian economists Amy King and Andrew Leigh have an interesting article sh.. http://bit.ly/89ekZL...
December 13, 2009, 2:55 pmSammy Finkelman says:
I think Abraham Lincoln said that. It’s either “After 40 every man gets the face he deserves” or “Every man over forty is responsible for his face” and I think he said that.
I read it somewhere in an old book. I think this was in a letter that replied to somebody else. I can’t readily find the source. One web site quotes a 1988 book that says this was when somebody proposed the appointment of a person to a certain position and Lincoln said he didn’t like that man’s face, and the person proposing it said something to the effect that he was not responsible for his face – how could he be blamed – and Lincoln said that every man over 40 is responsible for his own face.
And you think about Leonid Brezhnev. Perhaps doing bad things does affect people.
But this is not the same thought over here. As that web site, http://www.cdsfunds.com/what_does_your_face_look_like.html says,
“Lincoln, of course, was referring to the man’s expression and disposition rather than his features.”
Lincoln himself was a rather homely looking person, but he didn’t have a hard face.
You also have to consider that Lincoln had some inside information about that person and didn’t want to say or wanted to let the proponent off easy (perhaps he would reject almost anybody this person would propose because he didn’t really trust him, but he still needed to work with him)
Here the idea is attractiveness, although I don’t know how they measured it. Maybe it was really likeability. I read the same idea about the United states in a New York Times op-ed article maybe last year. This factor is more important the less a person is known.
I think they did a study in the United States where they showed people pictures of candidates in races n other states where presumably they did not know about and they asked people which one looked better. And it turned out that something like 70% of the better looking candidates won. I would think better looking here is something of a proxy for healthy and the correlation is not 100%
December 13, 2009, 4:35 pmChris says:
Science published an article about this in American politics. UCLA grad students got funding to test this hypothesis while controlling for endorsements. Once endorsements are controlled for, the effects are statistically insignificant. Of course, party leaders may prefer good looking candidates as well.
December 16, 2009, 3:24 am